446 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
446 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
non serviam #7
|
|
**************
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contents: Editor's Word
|
|
Sidney Parker: "Archists, Anarchists and Egoists"
|
|
Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative (serial: 7)
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
Editor's Word
|
|
_____________
|
|
|
|
Sidney Parker is the editor of the Stirnerite magazine "Ego", and is
|
|
the author of the below article on "Archists, Anarchists and Egoists".
|
|
This article will be the first in a series of articles sent to me by
|
|
Sidney Parker that I will reprint here. They have previously appeared
|
|
in the (out of print) magazine "Ego"/"The Egoist".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Svein Olav
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Sidney Parker:
|
|
|
|
Archists, Anarchists and Egoists
|
|
--------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I am an anarchist! Wherefore I will not rule
|
|
And also ruled I will not be."
|
|
-- John Henry Mackay
|
|
|
|
"What I get by force I get by force, and what
|
|
I do not get by force I have no right to."
|
|
|
|
-- Max Stirner
|
|
|
|
|
|
In his book MAX STIRNER'S EGOISM John P. Clark claims that Stirner
|
|
is an anarchist, but that his anarchism is "greatly inadequate". This
|
|
is because "he opposes domination of the ego by the State, but he
|
|
advises people to seek to dominate others in any other way they can
|
|
manage...Stirner, for all his opposition to the State...still exalts
|
|
the will to dominate."
|
|
|
|
Clark's criticism springs from his definition of anarchism as
|
|
opposition to "domination" in all its forms "not only domination of
|
|
subjects by political rulers, but domination of races by other races,
|
|
of females by males, of the young by the old, of the weak by the
|
|
strong, and not least of all, the domination of nature by humans."
|
|
|
|
In view of the comprehensiveness of his definition it is odd that
|
|
Clark still sees Stirner's philosophy as a type of anarchism - albeit
|
|
a "greatly inadequate" one. He is quite correct in stating that the
|
|
_leitmotif_ of _theoretical_ anarchism is opposition to domination
|
|
and that, despite his anti-Statist sentiments, Stirner has no
|
|
_principled_ objection to domination. Indeed, he writes "I know that
|
|
my freedom is diminished even by my not being able to carry out my
|
|
will on another object, be this something without will, like a
|
|
government, an individual etc."
|
|
|
|
Is conscious egoism, therefore, compatible with anarchism? There is
|
|
no doubt that it is possible to formulate a concept of anarchism that
|
|
is ostensibly egoistic. For many years I tried to do this and I know
|
|
of several individuals who still claim to be anarchists because they
|
|
are egoists. The problem, however, is that anarchism as a _theory_ of
|
|
non-domination demands that individuals refrain from dominating
|
|
others _even_if_they_could_gain_greater_satisfaction_from_dominating_
|
|
_than_from_not_dominating_. To allow domination would be to deny
|
|
anarchism. In other words, the "freedom" of the anarchist is yet
|
|
another yoke placed around the neck of the individual in the name of
|
|
yet another conceptual imperative.
|
|
|
|
The question was answered at some length by Dora Marsden in two
|
|
essays that appeared in her review for THE EGOIST September 12, 1914
|
|
and February 1, 1915. The first was entitled THE ILLUSION OF
|
|
ANARCHISM; the second SOME CRITICS ANSWERED.
|
|
|
|
Some months before the appearance of her first essay on anarchism
|
|
Marsden had been engaged in a controversy with the redoubtable
|
|
Benjamin Tucker in which she had defended what she called "egoist
|
|
anarchism" against what she saw as the "clerico-libertarianism" of
|
|
Tucker. At the premature end of the controversy Tucker denounced her
|
|
as an "egoist and archist," to which she rep+lied that she was quite
|
|
willing to "not - according to Mr Tucker - be called 'Anarchist'" but
|
|
responded readily to "Egoist".
|
|
|
|
In the interval between the end of the controversy and the
|
|
publication of her first essay she had evidently given considerable
|
|
thought to the relation of egoism to anarchism and had decided that
|
|
the latter was something in which she could no longer believe. The
|
|
gist of her new position was as follows:
|
|
|
|
Every form of life is archistic. "An archist is one who seeks to
|
|
establish, maintain, and protect by the strongest weapons at his
|
|
disposal, the law of his own interest." All growing life-forms are
|
|
aggressive: "aggressive is what growing means. Each fights for its
|
|
own place, and to enlarge it, and enlarging it is a growth. And
|
|
because life-forms are gregarious there are myriads of claims to lay
|
|
exclusive hold on any place. The claimants are myriad: bird, beast,
|
|
plant, insect, vermin - each will assert its sole claim to any place
|
|
as long as it is permitted: as witness the pugnacity of gnat, weed,
|
|
and flea, the scant ceremony of the housewife's broom, the axe which
|
|
makes a clearing, the scythe, the fisherman's net, the slaughter-
|
|
house bludgeon: all assertions of aggressive interest promptly
|
|
countered by more powerful interests! The world falls to him who can
|
|
take it, if instinctive action can tell us anything."
|
|
|
|
It is this aggressive 'territoriality' that motivates domination.
|
|
"The living unit is an organism of embodied wants; and a want is a
|
|
term which indicates an apprehension of the existence of barriers -
|
|
conditions easy or hard - which lie between the 'setting onwards' and
|
|
the 'arrival', i.e. the satisfaction. Thus every want has two sides,
|
|
obverse and reverse, of which the one would read the 'not yet
|
|
dominated', and the other 'progressive domination'. The two sides
|
|
grow at the expense of each other. The co-existence of the
|
|
consciousness of a lacking satisfaction, with the corresponding and
|
|
inevitable 'instinct to dominate', that which prolongs the lack, are
|
|
features which characterize 'life'. Bridging the interval between the
|
|
want and its satisfaction is the exercising of the 'instinct to
|
|
dominate' - obstructing conditions. The distinction between the
|
|
lifeless and the living is comprised under an inability to be other
|
|
than a victim to conditions. That of which the latter can be said,
|
|
possesses life; that of which the former, is inanimate. It is to this
|
|
doministic instinct to which we have applied the label archistic."
|
|
|
|
Of course, this exercising of the doministic instinct does not
|
|
result in every life-form becoming dominant. Power being naturally
|
|
unequal the struggle for predominance usually settles down into a
|
|
condition in which the less powerful end up being dominated by the
|
|
more powerful. Indeed, many of the less powerful satisfy the instinct
|
|
to dominate by identifying themselves with those who actually do
|
|
dominate: "the great lord can always count on having doorkeepers in
|
|
abundance."
|
|
|
|
Marsden argues that anarchists are among those who, like
|
|
Christians, seek to muzzle the doministic tendency by urging us to
|
|
renounce our desires to dominate. Their purpose "is to make men
|
|
willing to assert that though they are born and inclined archists
|
|
they _ought_ to be anarchists." Faced with "this colossal encounter
|
|
of interest, i.e. of lives...the anarchist breaks in with his 'Thus
|
|
far and no further'" and "introduces his 'law' of 'the inviolability
|
|
of individual liberty'." The anarchist is thus a _principled_
|
|
_embargoist_ who sees in domination the evil of evils. "'It is the
|
|
first article of my faith that archistic encroachments upon the
|
|
'free' activity of Men are not compatible with the respect due to the
|
|
dignity of Man as Man. The ideal of Humanity forbids the domination
|
|
of one man by his fellows'....This humanitarian embargo is an
|
|
Absolute: a procedure of which the observance is Good-in-itself. The
|
|
government of Man by Man is wrong: the respect of an embargo
|
|
constitutes Right."
|
|
|
|
The irony is, that in the process of seeking to establish this
|
|
condition of non-domination called anarchy, the anarchist would be
|
|
compelled to turn to a sanction that is but another form of
|
|
domination. In the _theoretical_ society of the anarchist they would
|
|
have to resort to the intra-individual domination of _conscience_ in
|
|
order to prevent the inter-individual domination that characterizes
|
|
political government. In the end, therefore, anarchism boils down to
|
|
a species of "clerico-libertarianism" and is the gloss covering the
|
|
wishes of "a unit possessed of the instinct to dominate - even his
|
|
fellow-men."
|
|
|
|
Not only this, but faced with the _practical_ problems of achieving
|
|
the "Free Society", the anarchist fantasy would melt away before the
|
|
realities of power. "'The State is fallen, long live the State' - the
|
|
furthest going revolutionary anarchist cannot get away from this. On
|
|
the morrow of his successful revolution he would need to set about
|
|
finding means to protect his 'anarchistic' notions: and would find
|
|
himself protecting his own interests with all the powers he could
|
|
command, like an archist: formulating his laws and maintaining his
|
|
State, until some franker archist arrived to displace and supersede
|
|
him."
|
|
|
|
Nonetheless, having abandoned anarchism Marsden has no intention of
|
|
returning to an acceptance of the _authority_ of the State and its
|
|
laws for this would be to confuse "an attitude which refused to hold
|
|
laws and interests sacred (i.e. whole unquestioned, untouched) and
|
|
that which refuses to respect the existence of forces, of which Laws
|
|
are merely the outward visible index. It is a very general error, but
|
|
the anarchist is especially the victim of it: the greater
|
|
intelligence of the archist will understand that though laws
|
|
considered as sacred are foolishness, respect for any and every law
|
|
is due for just the amount of retaliatory force there may be involved
|
|
in it, if it be flouted. Respect for 'sanctity' and respect for
|
|
'power' stand at opposite poles, the respecter of the one is the
|
|
verbalist, of the other - the archist: the egoist."
|
|
|
|
I agree with Dora Marsden. Anarchism is a redemptionist secular
|
|
religion concerned to purge the world of the sin of political govern-
|
|
ment. Its adherents envisage a "free society" in which all archistic
|
|
acts are forbidden. Cleansed of the evil of domination "mankind" will
|
|
live, so they say, in freedom and harmony and our present
|
|
"oppressions" will be confined to the pages of history books. When,
|
|
therefore, Marsden writes that "anarchists are not separated in any
|
|
way from kinship with the devout. They belong to the Christian Church
|
|
and should be recognized as Christianity's picked children" she is
|
|
not being merely frivolous. Anarchism is a _theory_ of an ideal
|
|
society - whether communist, mutualist, or individualist, matters
|
|
little in this respect - of necessity must demand _renunciation_ of
|
|
domination both in means and ends. That in _practice_ it would
|
|
necessitate another form of domination for its operation is a
|
|
contradiction not unknown in other religions - which in no way alter
|
|
their essence.
|
|
|
|
The conscious egoist, in contrast, is not bound by any demand for
|
|
renunciation of domination and if it is within his competence he will
|
|
dominate others _if_this_is_in_his_interest_. That anarchism and
|
|
egoism are not equivalent is admitted, albeit unwillingly, by the
|
|
well-known American anarchist John Beverley Robinson - who depicted
|
|
an anarchist society in the most lachrymous terms in his REBUILDING
|
|
THE WORLD - in his succinct essay EGOISM. Throwing anarchist
|
|
principles overboard he writes of the egoist that "if the State does
|
|
things that benefit him, he will support it; if it attacks him and
|
|
encroaches on his liberty, he will evade it by any means in his
|
|
power, if he is not strong enough to withstand it." Again, "if the
|
|
law happens to be to his advantage, he will avail himself of it; if
|
|
it invades his liberty he will transgress it as far as he thinks it
|
|
wise to do so. But he has no regard for it as a thing supernal."
|
|
|
|
Robinson thus denies the validity of the anarchist principle of
|
|
non-domination, since the existence of the State and its laws
|
|
necessitates the existence of a permanent apparatus of repression.
|
|
If I make use of them for my advantage, then I invoke their
|
|
repressive power against anyone who stands opposed to what I want. In
|
|
other words, I make use of an _archistic_ action to gain my end.
|
|
|
|
Egoism, _conscious_ egoism, seen for what it is instead of being
|
|
pressed into the service of a utopian ideology, has nothing to do
|
|
with what Marsden well-called "clerico-libertarianism". It means, as
|
|
she put it in her controversy with Tucker, "....a tub for Diogenes; a
|
|
continent for Napoleon; control of a Trust for Rockefeller; all that
|
|
I desire for me: _if_we_can_get_them_." It is not based upon any
|
|
fantasy for its champions are well aware of the vital difference
|
|
between "if I want something I ought to get it" and "being competent
|
|
to achieve what I want". The egoist lives among the realities of
|
|
power in the world of archists, not among the myths of the renouncers
|
|
in the dream world of anarchists.
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Ken Knudson:
|
|
|
|
A Critique of Communism
|
|
and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative
|
|
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that Utopian dreams have a habit of turning
|
|
into nightmares in practice? Very simply because people
|
|
don't act the way the would-be architects of society would
|
|
have them act. The mythical man never measures up to the
|
|
real man. This point was brought home forcefully in a recent
|
|
letter to "Freedom" by S. E. Parker who observed that our
|
|
modern visionaries are bound for disappointment because they
|
|
are "trying to deduce an `is' from an `ought'." [70] Paper
|
|
constitutions might work all right in a society of paper
|
|
dolls, but they can only bring smiles to those who have
|
|
observed their results in the real world. The same is true
|
|
of paper revolutions which invariably have to go back to the
|
|
drawing board once the reign of terror sets in. And if
|
|
communist-anarchists think that their paper social systems
|
|
are exempt from this, how do they explain the presence of
|
|
anarchist "leaders" in high government positions during the
|
|
Spanish Civil War?
|
|
|
|
Hasn't everyone been surprised at sometime or other
|
|
with the behaviour of people they thought they knew well?
|
|
Perhaps a relative or a good friend does something "totally
|
|
out of character." We can never completely know even those
|
|
people closest to us, let alone total strangers. How are we,
|
|
then, to comprehend and predict the behaviour of complex
|
|
groups of people? To make assumptions about how people must
|
|
and will act under a hypothetical social system is idle
|
|
conjecture. We know from daily experience that men don't act
|
|
as they "ought" to act or think as they "ought" to think.
|
|
Why should things be any different after the revolution? Yet
|
|
we still find an abundance of revolutionaries willing to
|
|
kill and be killed for a cause which more likely than not,
|
|
if realised, would bear no recognizable resemblance to what
|
|
they were fighting for. This reason alone should be
|
|
sufficient to give these people second thoughts about their
|
|
methods. But apparently they are too carried away by the
|
|
violence of their own rhetoric to be bothered with where it
|
|
will lead them.*
|
|
|
|
There is but one effective way to rid ourselves of the
|
|
oppressive power of the state. It is not to shoot it to
|
|
death; it is not to vote it to death; it is not even to
|
|
persuade it to death. It is rather to starve it to death.
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
* I am reminded here of a Herblock cartoon which came
|
|
out during the Johnson-Goldwater presidential campaign of
|
|
1964. It pictures Goldwater standing in the rubble of a
|
|
nuclear war and proclaiming, "But that's not what I meant!"
|
|
I wonder if the Utopia which our idealists intend to usher
|
|
in by violent revolution will be what they really "meant"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 30 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power feeds on its spoils, and dies when its victims refuse
|
|
to be despoiled. There is much truth in the well- known
|
|
pacifist slogan, "Wars will cease when people refuse to
|
|
fight." This slogan can be generalised to say that
|
|
"government will cease when people refuse to be governed."
|
|
As Tucker put it, "There is not a tyrant in the civilised
|
|
world today who would not do anything in his power to
|
|
precipitate a bloody revolution rather than see himself
|
|
confronted by any large fraction of his subjects determined
|
|
not to obey. An insurrection is easily quelled; but no army
|
|
is willing or able to train its guns on inoffensive people
|
|
who do not even gather in the streets but stay at home and
|
|
stand back on their rights." [71]
|
|
|
|
A particularly effective weapon could be massive tax
|
|
refusal. If (say) one-fifth of the population of the United
|
|
States refused to pay their taxes, the government would be
|
|
impaled on the horns of a dilemma. Should they ignore the
|
|
problem, it would only get worse - for who is going to
|
|
willingly contribute to the government's coffers when his
|
|
neighbours are getting away scotfree? Or should they opt to
|
|
prosecute, the burden just to feed and guard so many
|
|
"parasites" - not to mention the lose of revenue - would be
|
|
so great that the other four-fifths of the population would
|
|
soon rebel. But in order to succeed, this type of action
|
|
would require massive numbers. Isolated tax refusal - like
|
|
isolated draft refusal - is a useless waste of resources. It
|
|
is like trying to purify the salty ocean by dumping a cup of
|
|
distilled water into it. The individualist-anarchist would
|
|
no more advocate such sacrificial offerings than the violent
|
|
revolutionary would advocate walking into his neighbourhood
|
|
police station and "offing the pig." As he would tell you,
|
|
"It is not wise warfare to throw your ammunition to the
|
|
enemy unless you throw it from the cannon's mouth." Tucker
|
|
agrees. Replying to a critic who felt otherwise he said,
|
|
"Placed in a situation where, from the choice of one or the
|
|
other horn of a dilemma, it must follow either that fools
|
|
will think a man a coward or that wise men will think him a
|
|
fool, I can conceive of no possible ground for hesitancy in
|
|
the selection." [72]
|
|
|
|
There is a tendency among anarchists these days -
|
|
particularly in the United States - to talk about
|
|
"alternatives" and "parallel institutions". This is a
|
|
healthy sign which individualists very much encourage. The
|
|
best argument one can possibly present against "the system"
|
|
is to DEMONSTRATE a better one. Some communist-anarchists
|
|
(let it be said to their credit) are now trying to do just
|
|
that. Communal farms, schools, etc. have been sprouting up
|
|
all over the States. Individualists, of course, welcome
|
|
these experiments - especially where they fulfill the needs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 31 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
of those involved and contribute to their happiness. But we
|
|
can't help questioning the over-all futility of such social
|
|
landscape gardening. The vast majority of these experiments
|
|
collapse in dismal failure within the first year or two,
|
|
proving nothing but the difficulty of communal living. And
|
|
should an isolated community manage to survive, their
|
|
success could not be judged as conclusive since it would be
|
|
said that their principles were applicable only to people
|
|
well-nigh perfect. They might well be considered as the
|
|
exceptions which proved the rule. If anarchy is to succeed
|
|
to any appreciable extent, it has to be brought within the
|
|
reach of everyone. I'm afraid that tepees in New Mexico
|
|
don't satisfy that criterion.
|
|
|
|
The parallel institution I would like to see tried
|
|
would be something called a "mutual bank."* The beauty of
|
|
this proposal is that it can be carried out under the very
|
|
nose of the man-in-the-street. I would hope that in this
|
|
way people could see for themselves the practical advantages
|
|
it has to offer them, and ultimately accept the plan as
|
|
their own. I'm well aware that this scheme, like any other,
|
|
is subject to the law of metamorphosis referred to earlier.
|
|
But should this plan fail, unlike those plans which require
|
|
bloody revolutions for their implementation, the only thing
|
|
hurt would be the pride of a few hair-brained
|
|
individualists.
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
* The reader can judge for himself the merits of this
|
|
plan when I examine it in some detail later on in this
|
|
article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70. S. E. Parker, "Letters", "Freedom," February 27, 1971.
|
|
|
|
71. Tucker, "Instead of a Book," p. 413. Reprinted from
|
|
"Liberty," October 4, 1884.
|
|
|
|
72. Tucker, "Instead of a Book," p. 422. Reprinted from
|
|
"Liberty," June 23, 1888.
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
*************************************************************************
|
|
* *
|
|
* "Human rights and wrongs are not determined by Justice, but by Might" *
|
|
* -- Ragnar Redbeard *
|
|
* *
|
|
* "Everyone who would be free must show his power" -- Ibid *
|
|
* *
|
|
*************************************************************************
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|