493 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
493 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
non serviam #10
|
|
***************
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contents: Editor's Word
|
|
Sidney Parker: The Egoism of Max Stirner
|
|
Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative (serial: 10)
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
Editor's Word:
|
|
_____________
|
|
|
|
Stirner is a philosopher who is easy to misunderstand, as Sidney
|
|
Parker shows in his article "The Egoism of Max Stirner" below. Ones
|
|
first attention to Stirner very often comes from political or
|
|
ideological motivations. And so, with the expectation of finding
|
|
an author whose idea is a flaming insurrective rhetoric, one finds
|
|
- just that. And if one is a critic, like Camus mentioned by Parker,
|
|
or even a contemporary like Moses Hess [1], one is easily led to
|
|
believe that Stirner is just advocating a new _idea_ for which to
|
|
live and breathe, a new Object which is supposed to be the new centre
|
|
of ones attention, a new idea which is to be universalized and put in
|
|
the service of a political ideology - the Ego.
|
|
But if we read what he has written, we find, like in "The False
|
|
Principle of Our Education" that his main focus is the discovery of
|
|
the self as truly Subject, and not just an Object. In the False
|
|
Principle Stirner makes the distinction between learning as an Object
|
|
into whom knowledge is stuffed from without, and learning as
|
|
a Subject acquiring knowledge for itself. In "Art and Religion" we
|
|
find him speaking of the conception of [future] self set up as an
|
|
Ideal: "Here lie all the sufferings and struggles of the centuries,
|
|
for it is fearful to be _outside_of_oneself_, having yourself as an
|
|
Object set over and against oneself able to annihilate itself and so
|
|
oneself."
|
|
Further clues can be given in that Stirner speaks of himself as
|
|
No-thing [2], "In the Unique One the owner himself returns to his
|
|
creative nothing, of which he is born." No thing, neither as some
|
|
kind of thought, nor as a percept, am I. [3] So, we conclude that
|
|
Stirner's unnameable Unique One is the Subject.
|
|
|
|
Looking at the consequences of this, one sees that indeed we all
|
|
are Subjects, actors who pursue this and that by our own creation. In
|
|
this, we are egoists already. However, unless this is a condition of
|
|
which we are conscious, it will do us little good, and we might as
|
|
well follow this Ideal as that, in that we do not know ourselves from
|
|
within, but only as "intimate objects".
|
|
The famous formula from Gal. 2.29, "Not I live, but Christ lives in
|
|
me" is quoted and paraphrased by Stirner as the basic teaching of the
|
|
possessed: "Not I live, but X lives in me." This is where Stirner's
|
|
philosophy is of interest. For while Luther may say "Here I stand, I
|
|
can do naught else!", Stirner teaches the liberation from fixed ideas
|
|
in creating oneself each day anew.
|
|
As the quote at the end of this edition of the newsletter shows,
|
|
this is also the way to finding a well of love that can be consumed
|
|
with all ones selfish desire without ever going dry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Svein Olav
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Hess criticism of Stirner boils down to "Ego[ism] is empty." But
|
|
as is evident, Hess' criticism is of Ego as object, and he has
|
|
not grasped the subtlety in Stirner's description of the Subject
|
|
as no-thing. Thus Hess simply shows his lack of understanding.
|
|
|
|
[2] I am taking the liberty of utilizing the English language here.
|
|
|
|
[3] Notice the affinity with some of Buddhism's teachings. In the
|
|
teaching of Buddha you are told to seek through the phenomena to
|
|
see if you find the Self there, a search that will ultimately
|
|
end in failure. Stirner provides the positive side of this coin
|
|
by providing the I as he who fails in this search.
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Sidney Parker:
|
|
|
|
The Egoism of Max Stirner
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The following extracts are taken from my booklet entitled THE
|
|
EGOISM OF MAX STIRNER: SOME CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES to be
|
|
published by the Mackay Society of New York)
|
|
|
|
Albert Camus
|
|
|
|
Camus devotes a section of THE REBEL to Stirner. Despite a fairly
|
|
accurate summarization of some of Stirner's ideas he nonetheless
|
|
consigns him to dwelling in a desert of isolation and negation
|
|
"drunk with destruction". Camus accuses Stirner of going "as far as
|
|
he can in blasphemy" as if in some strange way an atheist like
|
|
Stirner can "blaspheme" against something he does not believe in. He
|
|
proclaims that Stirner is "intoxicated" with the "perspective" of
|
|
"justifying" crime without mentioning that Stirner carefully
|
|
distinguishes between the ordinary criminal and the "criminal" as
|
|
violator of the "sacred". He brands Stirner as the direct ancestor
|
|
of "terrorist anarchy" when in fact Stirner regards political
|
|
terrorists as acting under the possession of a "spook". He
|
|
furthermore misquotes Stirner by asserting that he "specifies" in
|
|
relation to other human beings "kill them, do not martyr them" when
|
|
in fact he writes "I can kill them, not torture them" - and this in
|
|
relation to the moralist who both kills and tortures to serve the
|
|
"concept of the 'good'".
|
|
|
|
Although throughout his book Camus is concerned to present "the
|
|
rebel" as a preferred alternative to "the revolutionary" he nowhere
|
|
acknowledges that this distinction is taken from the one that
|
|
Stirner makes between "the revolutionary" and "the insurrectionist".
|
|
That this should occur in a work whose purpose is a somewhat frantic
|
|
attempt at rehabilitating "ethics" well illustrates Stirner's ironic
|
|
statement that "the hard fist of morality treats the noble nature of
|
|
egoism altogether without compassion."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eugene Fleischmann
|
|
|
|
Academic treatment of Stirner is often obfuscating even when it is
|
|
not downright hostile. A marked contrast is Fleischmann's essay
|
|
STIRNER, MARX AND HEGEL which is included in the symposium HEGEL'S
|
|
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. Clearly preferring Stirner to Marx,
|
|
Fleischmann presents a straightforward account of his ideas
|
|
unencumbered by "psychiatric" interpretations and _ad_hominem_
|
|
arguments. He correctly points out that the "human self" signifies
|
|
for Stirner "the individual in all his indefinable, empirical
|
|
concreteness. The word 'unique' [einzig] means for Stirner man as he
|
|
is in his irreducible individuality, always different from his
|
|
fellows, and always thrown back on himself in his dealings with
|
|
them. Thus, when he talks of 'egoism' as the ultimate definition os
|
|
the human 'essence' it is not at all a question of a moral category
|
|
. . . . but of a simple existential fact."
|
|
|
|
Fleischmann contends that "Marx and Engels' critique of Stirner is
|
|
notoriously misleading. It is not just that ridicule of a man's
|
|
person is not equivalent to refutation of his ideas, for the reader
|
|
is also aware that the authors are not reacting at all to the
|
|
problems raised by their adversary." Stirner is not simply "just
|
|
another doctrinaire ideologue". His "reality is the world of his
|
|
immediate experience" and he wants "to come into his own power now,
|
|
not after some remote and hypothetical 'proletarian revolution'.
|
|
Marx and Engels had nothing to offer the individual in the present:
|
|
Stirner has."
|
|
|
|
In his conclusion Fleischmann states that Stirner's view that the
|
|
individual "must find his entire satisfaction in his own life" is a
|
|
reversion "to the resigned attitude of a simple mortal". This is not
|
|
a serious criticism. If I cannot find satisfaction in my own life,
|
|
where can I find it? Even if it is _my_ satisfaction that I
|
|
experience, any satisfaction that the other may have being something
|
|
that he or she experiences - not _me_. If this constitutes being a
|
|
"simple mortal" then so be it, but that it is a "resigned attitude"
|
|
is another matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benedict Lachmann and Herbert Stourzh
|
|
|
|
Lachmann's and Stourzh's TWO ESSAYS ON EGOISM provide a
|
|
stimulating and instructive introduction to Stirner's ideas.
|
|
Although both authors give a good summary of his egoism they differ
|
|
sufficiently in their approach to allow the reader to enjoy
|
|
adjudicating between them.
|
|
|
|
Lachmann's essay PROTAGORAS - NIETZSCHE - STIRNER traces the
|
|
development of relativist thinking as exemplified in the three
|
|
philosophers of its title. Protagoras is the originator of
|
|
relativism with his dictum "Man (the individual) is the measure of
|
|
all things". This in turn is taken up by Stirner and Nietzsche. Of
|
|
the two, however, Stirner is by far the most consistent and for this
|
|
reason Lachmann places him after Nietzsche in his account. For him
|
|
Stirner surpasses Nietzsche by bringing Protagorean relativism to
|
|
its logical conclusion in conscious egoism - the fulfilment of one's
|
|
own will.
|
|
|
|
In fact, he views Nietzsche as markedly inferior to Stirner both
|
|
in respect to his style and the clarity of his thinking. "In
|
|
contrast to Nietzsche's work," he writes, THE EGO AND ITS OWN "is
|
|
written in a clear, precise form and language, though it avoids the
|
|
pitfalls of a dry academic style. Its sharpness, clarity and passion
|
|
make the book truly shattering and overwhelming." Unlike
|
|
Nietzsche's, Stirner's philosophy does not lead to the replacement
|
|
of one religious "spook" by another, the substitution of the
|
|
"Superman" for the Christian "God". On the contrary, it makes "the
|
|
individual's interests the centre of the world."
|
|
|
|
Intelligent, lucid and well-conceived, Lachmann's essay throws new
|
|
light on Stirner's ideas.
|
|
|
|
Its companion essay, Stourzh's MAX STIRNER'S PHILOSOPHY OF THE EGO
|
|
is evidently the work of a theist, but it is nonetheless sympathetic
|
|
to Stirnerian egoism. Stourzh states that one of his aims in writing
|
|
it "is beyond the categories of master and slave to foster an
|
|
intellectual and spiritual stand-point different from the
|
|
stand-point prescribed by the prophets of mass thinking, the
|
|
dogmatists of socialism, who conceive of the individual only as an
|
|
insignificant part of the whole, as a number or mere addenda of the
|
|
group."
|
|
|
|
Stourzh draws a valuable distinction between the "imperative"
|
|
approach of the moralist and the "indicative" approach of Stirner
|
|
towards human behaviour. He also gives an informative outline of the
|
|
critical reaction to Stirner of such philosophers as Ludwig
|
|
Feuerbach, Kuno Fischer and Eduard von Hartman. Stourzh mars his
|
|
interpretation, however, by making the nonsensical claim that
|
|
Stirner's egoism "need in no sense mean the destruction of the
|
|
divine mystery itself." And in line with his desire to preserve the
|
|
"sacredness" of this "divine mystery" he at times patently seeks to
|
|
"sweeten" Stirner by avoiding certain of his most challenging
|
|
remarks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
References:
|
|
|
|
Camus, Albert: THE REBEL: AN ESSAY ON MAN IN REVOLT. Knopf, New
|
|
York. 1961
|
|
|
|
Fleischmann, Eugene: THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY
|
|
SOCIETY: STIRNER, MARX AND HEGEL in HEGEL'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
|
|
Cambridge University Press, London. 1971
|
|
|
|
Lachmann, Benedict and Stourzh, Herbert: TWO ESSAYS ON EGOISM. To be
|
|
published by The Mackay Society, New York.
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Ken Knudson:
|
|
|
|
A Critique of Communism
|
|
and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative
|
|
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MUTUALISM: THE ECONOMICS OF FREEDOM
|
|
|
|
"There is perhaps no business which yields a profit so
|
|
certain and liberal as the business of banking and
|
|
exchange, and it is proper that it should be open
|
|
as far as practicable to the most free competition
|
|
and its advantages shared by all classes of people."
|
|
|
|
- Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1837
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to economics, most anarchists reveal an
|
|
ignorance verging on the indecent. For example, in the first
|
|
piece of the first issue of the new "Anarchy" the California
|
|
Libertarian Alliance talks in all seriousness of "Marx's
|
|
`labour theory of value,' which causes communist governments
|
|
to repress homosexuals." [98] Now, passing over the fact
|
|
that Adam Smith developed the principles of this theory long
|
|
before Marx was even born, I can't for the life of me see
|
|
what the labour theory of value has to do with the
|
|
repression of homosexuals - be they communist, capitalist,
|
|
or mercantilist. Kropotkin was no better; in his "Conquest
|
|
of Bread" he shows a total lack of any economic sense, as he
|
|
amply demonstrates by his rejection of the very foundation
|
|
of any rational economic system: the division of labour. "A
|
|
society that will satisfy the needs of all, and which will
|
|
know how to organise production, will also have to make a
|
|
clean sweep of several prejudices concerning industry, and
|
|
first of all of the theory often preached by economists -
|
|
The Division of Labour Theory - which we are going to
|
|
discuss in the next chapter....It is this horrible
|
|
principle, so noxious to society, so brutalising to the
|
|
individual, source of so much harm, that we propose to
|
|
discuss in its divers manifestations." [99] He then fills
|
|
the next two pages of perhaps the shortest chapter in
|
|
history with a discussion of this theory "in its divers
|
|
manifestations." In these few paragraphs he fancies himself
|
|
as having overturned the economic thought of centuries and
|
|
to have struck "a crushing blow at the theory of the
|
|
division of labour which was supposed to be so sound." [100]
|
|
Let's see just how sound it is.
|
|
|
|
Primitive man discovered two great advantages to social
|
|
life. The first was man's ability to gain knowledge, not
|
|
only through personal experience, but also through the
|
|
experience of others. By learning from others, man was able
|
|
to acquire knowledge which he could never have gained alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 47 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This knowledge was handed down from generation to generation
|
|
- growing with each passing year, until today every
|
|
individual has at his fingertips a wealth of information
|
|
which took thousands of years to acquire. The second great
|
|
advantage of social life was man's discovery of trade. By
|
|
being able to exchange goods, man discovered that he was
|
|
able to concentrate his efforts on a particular task at
|
|
which he was especially good and/or which he especially
|
|
liked. He could then trade the products of his labour for
|
|
the products of the labour of others who specialised in
|
|
other fields. This was found to be mutually beneficial to
|
|
all concerned.
|
|
|
|
That the division of labour is beneficial when A
|
|
produces one thing better than B and when B produces another
|
|
thing better than A was obvious even to the caveman. Each
|
|
produces that which he does best and trades with the other
|
|
to their mutual advantage. But what happens when A produces
|
|
BOTH things better than B? David Ricardo answered this
|
|
question when he expounded his law of association over 150
|
|
years ago. This law is best illustrated by a concrete
|
|
example. Let us say that Jones can produce one pair of shoes
|
|
in 3 hours compared to Smith's 5 hours. Also let us say
|
|
that Jones can produce one bushel of wheat in 2 hours
|
|
compared to Smith's 4 hours (cf. Table I). If each man is to
|
|
work 120 hours, what is the most advantageous way of
|
|
dividing up the work? Table II shows three cases: the two
|
|
extremes where one man does only one job while the other man
|
|
does the other, and the middle road where each man divides
|
|
his time equally between jobs. It is clear from Table III
|
|
that it is to the advantage of BOTH men that the most
|
|
productive man should devote ALL of his energies to the job
|
|
which he does best (relative to the other) while the least
|
|
productive man concentrates his energies on the other job
|
|
(case 3). It is interesting to note that in the reverse
|
|
situation (case 1) - which is also the least productive case
|
|
- the drop in productivity is only 6% for Jones (the best
|
|
worker), while for Smith it's a whopping 11%. So the
|
|
division of labour, while helping both men, tends to help
|
|
the least productive worker more than his more efficient
|
|
workmate - a fact which opponents of this idea should note
|
|
well.
|
|
|
|
These figures show something which is pretty obvious
|
|
intuitively. A skilled surgeon, after many years invested
|
|
in schooling, internship, practice, etc., may find his time
|
|
more productively spent in actually performing operations
|
|
than in washing his surgical instruments in preparation for
|
|
these operations. It would seem natural, then, for him to
|
|
hire a medical student (say for 1 pound per hour) to do the
|
|
washing up job while he does the operating (for say 3 pounds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 48 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRODUCTIVITY RATES
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
Time Necessary to Produce Time Necessary to Produce
|
|
One Pair of Shoes (Hours) One Bushel of Wheat (Hours)
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Jones: 3 2
|
|
Smith: 5 4
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
TABLE I
|
|
|
|
* * * * * *
|
|
|
|
PRODUCTIVITY UNDER DIVISION OF LABOUR
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Hours of Hours of Shoes Bushels
|
|
Shoemaking Farming Produced of Wheat
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Jones 120 0 40 0
|
|
Case 1 Smith 0 120 0 30
|
|
Total 120 120 40 30
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Jones 60 60 20 30
|
|
Case 2 Smith 60 60 12 15
|
|
Total 120 120 32 45
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Jones 0 120 0 60
|
|
Case 3 Smith 120 0 24 0
|
|
Total 120 120 24 60
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
TABLE II
|
|
|
|
* * * * * *
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIME NECESSARY TO PRODUCE THE SAME AMOUNT
|
|
OF GOODS WHILE WORKING ALONE (HOURS)
|
|
-----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Jones Smith
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Case 1: 120 + 60 = 180 200 + 120 = 320
|
|
Case 2: 96 + 90 = 186 160 + 180 = 340
|
|
Case 3: 72 + 120 = 192 120 + 240 = 360
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
TABLE III
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 49 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
per hour). Even if the surgeon could wash his own
|
|
instruments twice as fast as the student, this division of
|
|
labour would be profitable for all concerned.
|
|
|
|
If the earth were a homogeneous sphere, equally endowed
|
|
with natural resources at each and every point of its
|
|
surface, and if each man were equally capable of performing
|
|
every task as well as his neighbour, then the division of
|
|
labour would have no ECONOMIC meaning. There would be no
|
|
material advantage to letting someone else do for you what
|
|
you could do equally well yourself. But the division of
|
|
labour would have arisen just the same because of the
|
|
variety of human tastes. It is a fact of human nature that
|
|
not all people like doing the same things. Kropotkin may
|
|
think this unfortunate, but I'm afraid that's the way human
|
|
beings are built. And as long as this is the case, people
|
|
are going to WANT to specialise their labour and trade their
|
|
products with one another.
|
|
|
|
* * * * * *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98. "Libertarian Message to Gay Liberation," "Anarchy,"
|
|
February, 1971, p. 2.
|
|
|
|
99. Kropotkin, "Conquest of Bread," pp. 245 & 248.
|
|
|
|
100. Ibid., p. 250.
|
|
p. 184.
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
*********************************************************************
|
|
* *
|
|
* "A marriage is only assured of a steady love *
|
|
* when the couple discover themselves anew each *
|
|
* day, and when each recognizes in the other an *
|
|
* inexhaustible spring of life, that is, a mystery, *
|
|
* unfathomed and incomprehensible. If they find *
|
|
* nothing new in one another, so love dissolves *
|
|
* inexorably into boredom and indifference." *
|
|
* *
|
|
* -- Max Stirner, "Art and Religion" *
|
|
* *
|
|
*********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|