Class Idleness — The History of all hitherto existing society is the history of class Idleness

‘’A Very Angry Marx’’

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class idleness.

Yet as Marx also stated correctly, the History of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle but it is also a fact, that it is by one class’s idleness when compared to another class’s hard-working struggle, that the other class that struggles more in depth is able to win its class war. Therefore, if the nobility lost to the bourgeoisie, it was because the nobility where idlers in their struggles, they were not well-prepared for the confrontation, neither the attack. One class’s idleness implies the victory of the class that struggles.

For Lenin, idealism is characterized as followed, ‘‘Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness — voilà the epistemological roots of idealism.’’[1] — Lenin critiques both himself and Marx as these epistemological sterile flowers and roots of idealism are seen most prominently in Marx and Lenin’s insistence for one-sided subjective historical analysis that is based only on class struggle and not an objective historical analysis based on both class struggle and class idleness as they operate on a dialectical tension between each other.

Therefore, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of both class struggle and class idleness — unlike Marx’s one-sided, narrow metaphysical view of history and struggle, the egoists entertain a dialectical struggle of history of existing societies. The nobility nonetheless ‘‘struggled’’ to push back the bourgeoisie’s revolutions, however it did not ‘‘struggle enough’’ and therefore it’s struggle compared to the bourgeoisie’s class struggle was lesser and therefore characterized as ‘‘class idleness’’ — unwillingness to act or to match the other class’s struggle. Class Idleness therefore is as much responsible for the new status quo as class struggle. They are in a manner of speaking, both ‘‘dialectical opposition’’ — class struggle is the thesis, and class idleness is the antithesis, while the synthesis is the victory of the resolution that is achieved by the dissolution of certain class antagonisms that were previously present.

The conclusion therefore on this historic statement is the following: ‘‘The History of all hitherto existing society is the history of the tensions between Class struggle and Class Idleness’’ — At this moment in time, however, history favors ‘‘class struggle’’ over ‘‘class idleness’’ — but if communism is achieved (Stateless, classless, moneyless) society, then history shall favor the antithesis of class struggle, namely ‘‘class idleness’’ — this is because we have reached the epitome of idleness, — the idler by his own class character does not want to participate in labor, neither does he want to ‘‘struggle’’ against the laborer. The laborer however who feels threatened by the idler struggles against him, and therefore this is a moment in history where the social class take on the character of idleness and struggle, — the laborers take on the entire character of struggle and the idlers take on the character of idleness, when these two forces meet in the communist phase, the idler shall confront the laborer and vice versa, class idleness shall confront class struggle.

These two forces shall fight for dominance, however, unlike previous historical struggle when usually it was in fact the ‘‘class’’ that struggled the hardest that won the victory, in communism the ‘‘opposite’’ characteristic shall win, it shall be the class that idles the most that shall win the struggle, not the class that struggles the most. This doesn’t mean that class struggle will not exist, it will just mean, that history will prize class idleness over class struggle during the communist phase, unlike in the feudal and capitalist phase, when class struggle was prized by history. Why does this happen? — because the idler is the antithetical enemy of the laborer and thus emerges from the laborer, the more the laborer ‘‘struggles’’ against idleness, the more the laborer spells his downfall, because the more the idlers ‘‘idle’’ around, the less laborers there shall be. The less laborers there are, the less the laborers will be able to struggle against idleness itself. But this is impossible one might say, it is not possible that the laborers shall find themselves in a class struggle with idlers who wish not to work in a communist society? Because communism by definition is a ‘‘classless’’ society. It is said by many a Marxists that there are no classes in communism. That communism is a time when all class antagonisms are resolved.

The Egoists wholeheartedly disagree, because for us communism is not the last phase of history but the beginning of a new class struggle. The reconciler of class antagonism is not communism, but egoism.

Egoism will do away with communist society because of the contradictions and class antagonism communism itself creates. Since Egoism has abolished the permanency of society — therefore egoism shall put an end once and for all, to the history of all existing societies in such a manner that only the individual’s history shall remain. The second and most dull question that might pop up is: ‘‘But why will people want to idle? Can’t they just labor forever day-in, day-out, according to their ability?’’ To answer this question, simply examine another question, if given a ‘‘state-pension’’ will you receive this state-pension and idle around your house or will you nonetheless go to labor? — There are of course those mad elderly people who still labor despite getting their pension, and these are in the minority, however the majority of the elderly opt to idle at home or go on holiday to relax. Now imagine a communist society, where you are allowed the freedom to work according to what you deem is your ability and receive in return that which you deem is your need, — the logical conclusion would be to ‘‘labor little and receive the utmost that is possible’’ — however the Marxists don’t see this as a problem, after all with technological innovation, even a ‘‘little labor’’ can supply humanity for a long time.

However, there will be those idlers that will decide not to ‘‘labor at all’’ — and extract as much as possible from the wealth that is produced by the laborers. This by itself is the recreation of the ‘‘division of labor’’ — because people are being divided into sections, those workers that produce a ‘‘lot’’ those workers that produce a ‘‘little’’ and the idlers that produce ‘‘nothing’’ — therefore the division of labor is a quantitative change, and this shall cause a qualitative change in the structure of communist society, because it shall furthermore recreate social classes: ‘‘The Idlers and the Laborers and those in between’’. It shall be noted that the reason for ‘‘an increase’’ in idlers, is not based only on an individual’s desire to be ‘‘idle’’ — but it is also based on communism’s own overproduction crisis — When communist society has many dedicated laborers tirelessly working — there shall be an ‘‘overproduction crisis’’ — in simple words, the more abundant society becomes, the less need the workers will feel to go to work the next day, therefore many workers will opt to be idle for a few months. I have felt a similar experience once in my university during the covid-years.

When the Covid pandemic struck, our university decided for a year and a half to shift all lectures ‘‘online’’ — however when it was time for a shift back into attending for lectures ‘‘physically’’ — most students, including myself protested, we brought up ‘‘excuses’’ that it wasn’t safe, but the reality of the matter was, that the students didn’t want to wake up early in the morning, catch a 2-hour long bus and attend lectures physically, and arrive home late at night time, through another bus. They would have preferred to stay idle at home, following lectures online. They protested for months, until the University institution had to opt for rigorous action, in order to put down this insurrection of idleness. The same argument, follows in a communist society, if a small university had problems with correcting the idleness, how will a communist society with no ‘‘enforcing institution’’ be able to bring back workers into the workplace after long months of idleness as a result of overproduction? We have already understood that ‘‘little labor’’ is able to sustain a communist community for a long time, therefore, after an overproduction crisis, if only a few workers return to the workplace, the idlers can simply remain at home and take advantage over those few loyal workers that decided in their loyalty to communist society to return to the workplace. Since Communism is ‘‘stateless’’ — there is no institution that is able to force back the idlers into the workplace.

A problem arises, — the majority have become the idlers and the minority have become the workers. The minority has to work long hours to produce for the entirety of society, but the idlers who produce nothing in turn parasitically ‘‘extract’’ the surplus value that is produced which isn’t their own ‘‘labor’’ — it is the labor of the other respective class. The Surplus theory of Value is recreated once again, the idler similar to the bourgeoisie extract the surplus wealth that is produced by the communist proletariat — because of this inequality, class struggle is once again reborn.

The proletariat however are not a ‘‘radical force’’ as we know them today, but rather they become reactionary, they try to enforce the idlers into the working place, and through this enforcement, they will directly create institutions and slowly they will try to devolve slowly from communism, into socialism, they will attempt to create the socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to solve the issues of the idlers. The idler however, is in opposition to being forced by a state of laborers to be forced to work once again, they will in turn struggle, but the only means in which the idler can struggle is not through class struggle, but resilience and class idleness, which shall disempower the proletariat by making them extinct.

[1] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, On the Question of Dialectics




I am a platformist anarcho-communist, a writer and student of political philosophy, specifically on anarchism.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

NOSTRADAMUS Only God knows the unseen, but according to Nostradamus, after 10 May 2022 the sun will…

Old Photos Of Some Pretty Cool People — 65


A Conversation on Napoleon on the Bicentenary of His Death

10 beautiful words in Basque, the oldest living language in Europe

Pittsburgh Feelings

James Middlemass & Co. — Boys’ Outfitters — found under the floorboards

What’s the Most Important Thing to a Seventeen-Year-Old Princess? Chocolate, Of Course.

READ/DOWNLOAD#> Astute Class Nuclear Submarine Owners’ Workshop Manual: 2010 to date — Insights…

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Alexander Hope

Alexander Hope

I am a platformist anarcho-communist, a writer and student of political philosophy, specifically on anarchism.

More from Medium

Welcome to Sick Capitalism

Guy Debord The Society of the Spectacle – Irfan Ajvazi

International Law, the Human Significance

Is Incest an Intrinsically Immoral Act?