Idler’s Manifesto and Other Egoist Writings (Draft in progress)
Part II — The Individual or Society at large? The Dialectics of Egoism
The collective is not a living organism like us individuals. The collective doesn’t gain any thing in particular. At the end of the day, it is still individual ‘’s’’ — with an ‘’S’’ in inverted commas, that receive that good. The collective is merely a system of ‘‘relations’’ — but relations are not concrete bodily organism in themselves, relations are merely the action of those organism laid upon another organism, a force enacted on another object. For centuries, thinkers have confused these relations as being concrete, like a human body is. We treat the relations of the state or the economy as being merely the action of ‘‘one unified body’’ — but in reality, these are relations between individuals, and the idea of a ‘‘one unified body’’ is actually an illusion, a spook, — a spook which is utilized by those in power, those who have ‘‘stronger’’ relations than you and I.
To be powerful, means to have force over objects, and each individual bourgeoisie have enough force applied to their property, that surrounding that property, they are able to hire guards, the police, armies, to protect their property. For an individual to gain self-mastery over himself, he must first recognize that the idea of a unified state, society, grouplings etc is a spook that is systematically related to us, by those individuals in power. To realize the noose around your neck is the first step to freedom, to use your physical arms to hack away at the nose is the last step of freedom.
We can say that the ‘’state’’ benefits, but these ‘’universalistic words’’ put a distance between individuals and abstract concepts and actual reality. We know that it’s not the entity called the state that is benefitting, it is not the structure that has drives and desires, it is individuals who have built that structure that benefit. If I build a boat, surely its not the boat that is benefitting from sailing, but the sailor that enjoys the boat. Likewise if I make use of society and its structures and to an extension the collective, it is not the collective that is gaining but ‘‘I’’ — every bourgeoisie uses the structrues of society and structures, uses the illusion, in order to ‘‘benefit’’ — it was the same of the Marxist-leninists of the 20th century that subverted power, and became the new ruling class, it was not the idea of class that was benefitting, but rather individuals that were benefitting. It is not the ‘‘relation’’ that benefits, when I ‘‘relate’’ to my labor, it is not the relation that benefits, but I that benefit. The same applies to all other things, whether the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
A lot of people think in terms of abstraction, which doesn’t aid in individual liberation. What good is the liberation of the social structure, if the individual has not been liberated. It’s like the boat is sailing by itself (The social structure sails by itself) — and the sailor is hands tied to the wheel for eternity, controlled by the structure he is meant to control himself like a cursed Sisyphus of the sea. The Society that has been liberated but has paid no attention to individual liberation is cursed like Sisyphus — because like Sisyphus it is controlled by the action of carrying the boulder, hence carrying ‘‘Society’’ on the back of the individual. The boulder might be free — that is ‘‘to free fall’’ on Sisyphus and kill him, but the individual himself is not free, but tied to a fixed social position. This is what the communists hopes to accomplish, to tie the hands of the individual to the boulder of society. The egoist wants to shatter that boulder, to go up the mountain and down again, over the rivers, under the hills and then to wherever his freedom takes him.
Can we blame Sisyphus for cheating death twice? The Gods wanted Sisyphus to die, and the Gods could not stand those that tried to cheat death, because they have invented death for ‘‘all people’’ — and death was something that ‘‘belonged to all’’ — likewise society is something that belongs to all people, and anyone who wants to escape from such a society by non-conformism, will be held accountable to that society. The egoist who cheats society like Sisyphus is punished. Individualism has cheated death many times, but it was punished by society.
Yet if we are clever enough, we are able to break from the chains of the abstraction of society.
Some might use certain biological arguments in order to validate the existence of society — they might argue something along the lines of, ‘‘Dismissing the society as a unit and claiming it is only a collection of individuals is like dismissing the organism as a unit and claiming it is only a collection of cells.’’ — There are two things that are wrong with this argument against egoism — first and foremost the egoist never dismissed society as a whole, we are not against ‘‘society’’ — we are only against society’s manner in which it forces me to engage in society — we are in favor of a society, where the egoist forces ‘‘society’’ how it must engage in regards to me — not the other way round!
If there is an egoist insurrection to overthrow late stage communism — the egoists will abolish the permanence of society, not ‘‘society itself’’. Communism doesn’t abolish property by force alone, it only transforms private property into public property owned and ruled by society and therefore we say private property has been abolished — in the same like manner, the egoists does not want to abolish society, they want to transform it into a voluntary society, where we only engage in society whenever we need it in the form of the union of egoists and as such communal society with the communist mode of production and communal ownership of the means of production is likewise abolished. The Union of egoists maintains this voluntary temporary society but for the most part we keep to our small circle, we keep to ourselves as individuals. The second thing that is wrong with this statement of biology, is trying hard to illustrate how society is somehow a physical reality by comparing it to a body or a unit. The two are not even comparable, while my body is certainly a unit because it is bonded by my own collection of cells which I own, society on the other hand is only an abstraction, only a collection of individuals exists — individuals are not bonded together through cells — each human is like a monad unto himself, it is impossible to physically share bodies, I am quite certain that my body cannot be part of your body as my leg or my arm are part of my own body. If we put all humans beings in a pot of stew and boiled them — then perhaps we might argue that they have become the stew — but up to that point, their bodies would have melted, and they would be dead — meaning that they are no longer individuals, but they are rather just blood vessels in a stew. This is what the abstraction of society tries to create, it tries to force us individuals to submit to society like a motley crew in a stew. Society is a spook — but the communists even more than the capitalist hail ‘‘society’’ and base their communism in society. What is society? — It is that spook which fools people into thinking that there is a body outside of them — that there is something that is beyond every individual.
Is the union of egoists therefore also an ‘‘abstract society’’? — The Answer is ‘‘No’’ — earlier I remarked how society is that thing which fools people into thinking there is something beyond the individual — meanwhile the union of egoists does the opposite, because in it’s social construction, it claims that each individual views himself as the highest object. Whenever egoists mention the ‘‘bad effects’’ of society we are referencing the permanence of society, the abstraction of society as something that the individual should strive for, as something that is higher than himself. If all egoists have dispelled the abstraction of society — all that remains is ‘‘Individuals and their relationship with each other’’ — you can call this a ‘‘Society of individuals’’ where society does not impose itself on individuals, but vice versa, the individual exerts himself on society aka through ‘‘The union of egoists’’ and its machinations. As I remarked, we don’t seek to destroy all of society, we just want to destroy the abstraction and permanence of society as a ‘‘generality’’ and as a fetter, a tie tight around the individual’s neck. The union of egoists is a type of society that is temporary and not permanent and rather than a tight tie, it is a very loose tie, to which the individual can have control over with his will.
The egoist seeks to unlosen the last ‘‘Tie’’ — the last fetter.
‘‘Greek law, on which the Greek states rested, had to be perverted and undermined by the egoists within these states, and the states went down that the individuals might become free, the Greek people fell because the individuals cared less for this people than for themselves. In general, all states, constitutions, churches, have sunk by the secession of individuals; for the individual is the irreconcilable enemy of every generality, every tie, every fetter. Yet people fancy to this day that man needs “sacred ties”: he, the deadly enemy of every “tie.” The history of the world shows that no tie has yet remained unrent, shows that man tirelessly defends himself against ties of every sort; and yet, blinded, people think up new ties again and again, and think that they have arrived at the right one if one puts upon them the tie of a so-called free constitution, a beautiful, constitutional tie; decoration ribbons, the ties of confidence between “ — — — ,” do seem gradually to have become somewhat infirm, but people have made no further progress than from apron-strings to garters and collars.
Everything sacred is a tie, a fetter.’’ — Max Stirner, The Ego and its Own
Stirner clearly shows his dialectical egoism here exercising itself throughout history. He shows how every ‘‘Generality’’ — every form of collectivism, society, churches, state and the like fall susceptible to the irreconcilable enemy of every generality which is the ‘‘egoist’’ — While the Marxists in a eureka moment claims that ‘‘communism has reconciled all contradictions’’ — Stirner and the egoists disagree, and Stirner shows us clearly that even after communism — which we define as ‘‘The highest point of ‘‘Generality’’ — there will be an equal contradictory opposition, equal in strenght in order to challenge generality and that is called egoism which is precisely the opposite of generality, henceforth rugged individualism. The egoist challenges the convenient abstractions of these ‘‘Beautiful societies and Utopias’’ while also critiquing the convenient abstractions of capitalism that seek to remain in power.
The capitalists in particular use these convenient abstractions in order to override our critical faculties. That’s why it’s important for individuals who are oppressed to develop in their egoism, because it will allow them to override this convenient abstraction. Abstractions override our critical faculties — All the more the reason to adopt egoism, because it allows you to constantly in your daily life to fight against these abstractions and abolish them from your mind. Have I abolished all the abstractions in my mind? — Of course not, but I am much less effected by the abstractions of society then say a normal individual who partakes in a philistine mentality.
It’s like a magic trick or an illusion, ‘‘Before you learn the trick’’ — you are spooked by its illusion, but after you learn the trick, you are no longer impressed by it, and no longer spooked by it.
‘‘The individual does not dictate in a society of capital and wage labour!’’ — Says the Marxist! Then I ask you, ‘’Who dictates?’’ — This thing which you call ‘‘Society’’ — which cannot even think, breathe, which isn’t even a living organism? — If the individual does not dictate, then society cannot either. The individual can move and society can remain still, the individual can move and move society alongside with him but when the individual is at rest, then society is also at rest. Every action you and I take matters, a world where I or you do not exist, is a totally different reality. A world where I did not exist, is an absolutely different world with a different society. Every movement you take, changes society. Society cannot move unless the individual moves in the first place.
Class itself does not have ‘‘Class interests’’ — the so-called scientific Marxists don’t know a thing when it comes to science, sometimes they use terms like ‘‘class interests’’ — implying that classes have interests like human beings do. If a ‘‘Class’’ has a physical brain and a heart that pumps blood, I would like to be directed towards that living organism. There’s no such thing as ‘‘Classess’’ having interests, there’s only individuals that have interests. There are no ‘‘Nations’’ — only Walls that pretend that the other side of the wall is a funny country with a funny name.
An individual finds himself in a class, — in a fixed social position. The egoist rebels against everything that is fixed. The communists hopes to resolve the issue of class, by replacing one fixed position with another, by destroying class and implementing a socialist rule by the collective which in itself becomes fixed. Even when the state withers away in late stage communism and advances into full stage communism, the collective still determines the individual’s role in society and as such the collective becomes the new fixed position, rather than that of ‘‘class’’ — that of collective society. Rather than oppressed by the bourgeoisie, I am now oppressed by every other person that isn’t ‘‘Me’’ in the name of equality. For the communist, we are only equal, in so far as we are all equally oppressed to each other, equally accountable to each other according to the communist society’s standards for how I as a unique individual shall live my life in relation to others. As long as equality exists, there can be no freedom. If I am equal to another, then that implies that I cannot be free from the other’s presence. Being equal to each other as Christ has remarked in the washing of the feet of the apostles, is precisely being a slave to each other. Society, Collecticism, equality and Law precide above individuals as spirits and dominate over every unique individual. These principles become a new authority, through which everything in it’s eyes becomes equal, just like God long ago was viewed as the authority over mankind and every man was equal in so far as they were baptized under the name of Christ and the spirit. They became Brothers and Sisters in Jesus’s name and pledged to his spiritual authority. The marxist does the same — because they want the proletariat to become Brothers and Sisters, only equal in so far as they are pledged to science, historical and dialcetical materialism. Brothers and Sisters’s in collective society’s name pledging under its authority. They pledge themselves to the fixed ideas of political liberty, but when they do so, religion becomes free and makes me its slave, and communism becomes free, but I become it’s slave or capital becomes free and likewise living in a capitalist society I am the slave of capital.
Communism wants equality, but equality for the Egoist is yet another shackle to overcome, another spook. Equality and concepts of brotherhoods, sisterhoods, collectives, generalities are all spooks. We are not equal, we are unique. There is no inequality, there is only the strong and the weak. The strong bourgeoisie triumph over the weak proletariat. However, the weak proletarian once conscious of the power they hold together become a tremendous force that they are able to overthrow the strong minority. This is show explicitly when Stirner says, ‘‘The laborers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labor, regard the product of labor as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labor disturbances which show themselves here and there. The State rests on the — slavery of labor. If labor becomes free. the State is lost.’’ Some theorists interpret this quote as Stirner being a ‘‘Communist’’ — but one must pay attention that Stirner here means that if labourers become conscious of the product of their labour and regard it as their property, they would regard it as their ‘‘Property’’ — the property of the unique one and not the property of communist society at large. Therefore, there is no society, equality or inequality, there is only the unique and his property. Life is unfair, we are born in different proportions, in a manner of speaking, life has no equality to it. Nothing in the world is equal, not people, not animals, not the moon, not the universe. The only thing all human are equal in is death. Death does not discriminate, it is dealt to in the same manner in all circumstance. Lest society conquers death itself, death will be dealt to in the same equal manner to every living creature.
“Political liberty,” what are we to understand by that? Perhaps the individual’s independence of the State and its laws? No; on the contrary, the individual’s subjection in the State and to the State’s laws… Political liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom of conscience signifies that conscience is free; not, therefore, that I am free from the State, from religion, from conscience, or that I am rid of them. It does not mean my liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots, like State, religion, conscience, is free. State, religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave, and their liberty is my slavery.” — The Ego and Its Own, Max Stirner
These ideas make me their slave, and the liberty of society at large is my slavery as the unique individual.
Part III — Communist analysis of Class and Egoist implications
On what analysis do communists base themselves?
The communists base themselves on class, because they organize their political organization through the proletariat class, but even the communist must realize the folly of maintaining this ‘‘class analysis’’ after communism has been achieved. Communism seeks to end class, and in so doing ending the proletariat as a class. So, why should we restrict ourselves to being just proletariat? When we can be much more?
The communist then restricts himself by a new restriction, that of ‘‘society’’ — they replace the oppression of class, with the oppression of society at large, and all it’s altruistic implications. Only the Egoist insurrects constantly against the state of things. Only the egoist does not replace one oppression with the other, the egoist’s saying is ‘‘Restrict not yourself, and liberate yourself as much as you can’’.
“Liberate yourself as far as you can, and you have done your part; for it is not given to every one to break through all limits,or,more expressively, not to every one is that a limit which is a limit for the rest. Consequently,do not tire yourself with toiling at the limits of others…He who overturns one of his limits may have shown others the way and the means; the overturning of their limits remains their affair.” ― Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
Once we liberate ourselves as much as we possibly can, we can attain the ego, but this ego is not an absolute ego but only a transitionary ego. According to Stirner, When Fichte says, “The ego is all,” this seems to harmonize perfectly with my thesis. But it is not that the ego is all, but the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the — finite ego is really I. Fichte speaks of the “absolute” ego, but I speak of me, the transitory ego.How natural is the supposition that man and ego mean the same! And yet one sees, as by Feuerbach, that the expression “man” is to designate the absolute ego, the species, not the transitory, individual ego’’ — Fichte speaks of the absolute ego, the absolute I, the all in me, while Stirner speaks of the opposite, the ego that destroys all, that nullifies everything, that is always moving towards nullification towards an ego that self-dissolves, an ego that has no beingness, a finite ego which is I, that is always in motion and transitionary. In one moment, I have one mode of finite ego, and the next day I have appropriated things which make me own another mode of my finite ego. This is the dialectics of Stirner — in that, Stirner’s dialectics do not affirm the absolute nature of things, but nullifies the absolute nature of things. The Egoism of Stirner dissolves everything and all there is into nothingness, henceforth there will come a time when even the communist society of the Marxists and the Anarchists will dissolve into nothingness. The Dialectics of Hegel and Marx deal with the absolute, even when Fichte speaks of the ego, he’s referring to the absolute. In dialectical egoism, everything becomes an unfixed flux, transitionary, nothing ever lives forever — not even the communist society of Marx or Bakunin and not even the absolute spirit of Hegel.
The communists love their dialectical materialism… but then they fail to use it. The Marxist-Leninists are idealists because although they intiailly make use of dialectical materialism, they cease to use it after having achieved communism. Dialects argues that society is in constant motion — the marxist agrees with this notion, but then the marxist argues that ‘‘Once communism is achieved, there are no classes, and therefore no major contradictions will form afterwards that will change society on a massive scale ever again’’ — This is the unscientific and idealistic conclusion of the marxists. The marxist argues that once ‘‘Communism is achieved, the dialectical process halts itself’’ Communism becomes ‘‘Fixed’’ — because the society of collectivism and communism is ‘‘Fixed’’ in itself. While the Marxists argue that dialectics is still on-going in natural processes in a communist society — Somehow the communist society is ‘‘special’’ — somehow the communist society can escape the grasps of dialectics.
The Marxist position on late stage communism as a fixed society is incorrect and idealist, because it denies dialectical materialism itself. Max Stirner is a much better dialectician than Karl Marx, because Stirner insurrects against every other ‘‘Fixed idea’’ — even if that fixed idea is society and collectivism itself, it must be challenge and overthrown. The dialectical egoist affirms, that we must always insurrect against that which is ‘‘Fixed’’ — the unique is always changing and all of the uniques in the collection of the union of egoists will always dialectically insurrect against that which is fixed. Even after late-stage communism is achieved, there is yet another upheaveal in society. Marx argued that communism is the end of historical class struggle, but for the egoist, it is the beginning of the unique’s struggle against society at large.
After communism, there is the egoist insurrection that will overturn and change the world completely and destroy the very foundations and constructs of society. Does this mean that there will be choas, hunger, laziness, that everyone will cease to labour and produce goods for society? — No, it simply means that people will only labour as much as they have too in order to satisfy the individual and they will idle as long as it satisfies them, until they should find themselves hungry again, propelling them towards labour. There will not be choas, but exchanges between individuals to satisfy each and every desire without putting up social constructs that demand labour from the individuals themselves.
Some Anarchists fall into the same trap as the Marxists — There have been a few anarchists like Chomsky that have represented Stirner as a mere bourgeois individualist. We can admire his skills in lingustics and as a master of langauge, but when he touches politics, he falters like a revisionist left communist. Anarchists such as these that deny Stirner, also fall in the same Marxist Trap of replacing the fixed position of class rule with the fixed position of society rule. The defintion of anarchy is ‘‘no rulers’’ and I am pretty sure that having society as my ruler falls into the non-anarchist category.
After the anarcho-communist achieves communism, they will transfer themselves from class rule, to society rule. No longer is it the fixed class structure that rules over society, but rather society itself that rules as a fixed structure.
The Anarcho-communists still have to demand labour from their followers, and even though I respect the anarcho-communists, it is my belief that one cannot be a true platformist anarcho-communist oneless one realizes that egoism must be practiced within the platform itself, in order to destroy this ‘‘Commandism’’ or societal demands imposed on the population. The platform, or organization cannot demand things from individuals , but rather listen to the people’s needs and act according to their needs.
This is one mode of practice of how a platformist anarchist organization can practice egoism within itself. As an anarcho-communist platformist and an egoist myself, I view the anarcho-communist revolution as a step towards true communism, but also as a step towards egoism. After anarcho-communism is achieved, I believe the next step becomes egoism. Is there a reason why we can’t be egoists now? — This is a good question one can ask, of course I believe that everyone can be an egoist, and build a union of egoist, even in this day and age, but I also believe that after communism is achieved, egoism will truly shine as something that is contradiction with the fixed notion of societal sacred communism. These ‘‘Fixed ideas’’ must be destroyed, within and outside the individual.
To understand this notion of fixed ideas, let us quote two quotes from Stirner,
“Is not all the stupid chatter of most of our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed idea of morality, legality, christianity and so forth, and only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space?” — Ego and Its own, Max Stirner
‘‘Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea!’’ — Ego and Its own, Max Stirner.
The insurrectionist egoist is against the fixed idea, and the dialectics of egoism quote simply acknowledges that there is a constant motion within the individual, and that the individual tries to find balance within himself by affirming that there is a ‘‘fixed idea’’ in his head that somehow denies this constant motion — This is know as a ‘‘Spook’’.
Max Stirner in order to solve this problem, introduces the non-concept of the ‘‘unique one’’ — if we affirm ourselves through the unique ones, we are affirming ourselves, rather than something outside us. Therefore by affirming ourselves we have avoided the tyranny of concepts outside us like ‘‘God, humanity or society’’, secondly the non-concept of the unique is paradoxical, because it functions very much like a ‘‘fixed idea’’ — that helps us cope with the dialectics of motion, but at the same time, the unique itself functions as something that is always unfixed, not fixed, never fixed, always in turbelance and in constant dialectical motion. Max Stirner has done two great things:
He has used the dialectics to destroy the dialectics themselves. The end of dialectics is through paradox. The paradox of contradictions means that they are both ‘‘true’’ and ‘‘false’’. The Unique is paradoxical, therefore we are no longer troubled with the contradictions of the dialectics but we have abolished contradictions because of a paradox. The age of Hegel and Marx was that of contradictions, the age of Stirner, that of the paradox.
He has abolished the ‘‘Fixed idea’’ — meaning that all things outside us are no longer used as a mechanism to cope for our internal contradictions. The thing that is used to cope with our internal contradictions as individuals is the ‘‘Unique’’ because the Unique acts like a fixed idea, because it helps us cope with internal contradictions, but at the same time, even though it acts like a fixed idea, it is not a fixed idea, because the uniqueness of something is never fixed, but always changing through time and motion. (For instance God as fixed idea helps us to cope throughout our lives by resolving the problems of death for us, but science has overthrown this fixed idea of God, in a similiar way the communists use ‘‘society’’ as a means to help them cope, to resolve their material problems for them, but society changes all the time, and cannot possibly resolve their problems. Society is in contradiction with other ideas for societies, and every society has to stand for the ‘‘Test of time’’ — where the foundations of society are challenged by another. The egoist relies on the ‘‘unique’’ — because your own uniqueness although it passes into the ‘‘Test of time’’ and is challenged by internal contradictions, the unique never stops being unique and survives the test of the time at every dialectical cycle that presents a challenge against it.
(Note: ‘‘To make it clear, when I say that the unique acts like a fixed idea, do not misunderstand me. The unique is not ‘‘Fixed’’ but it acts like a fixed idea. Just because something acts like something else, does not mean that that something is the thing which it is acting like. For instance, a parrot can imitate the bark of a dog and act like a dog, but the parrot itself is not a dog. In the same manner, the unique merely acts like a fixed idea, but it itself is not a fixed idea but completely the opposite of that which is fixed. There is a huge different from saying ‘‘A is B’’ and ‘‘A acts like B’’ )
The dialects according to Hegel is leading us towards the absolute, for Marx, the dialects is leading us towards communism. Stirner argues that Hegel and therefore we can speculate that even Marx are ‘‘False dialecticians’’ — because although they praise the constant motion against all that which is ‘‘Fixed’’ — they also affirm that this motion is leading them towards something that is ‘‘Fixed’’, for Hegel it is the ‘‘Fixed absolute’’ and for Marx, it is the ‘‘Fixed communist society’’. Stirner, then argues, that dialectical egoism leads to precisely ‘‘Nothing’’ — because the dialectics isn’t telelogical, it doesn’t have a goal, it merely moves from fixed position to unfixed positions. Stirner asks of us, that in order to become completely free, we must imitate this dialectical feature, of constantly insurrecting against that which is fixed. Hegel and Marx prop up new arrangements after their revolution, the Egoist does not, as Stirner himself affirms when he says,
“Revolution is aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and set no glittering hope on “institutions” — The Ego and Its Own, Max Stirner
Freedom is when I eat Communism and Marxism for breakfast.
We can only be free, when we have done away with brothers and sisters, comradeship, equality and the like. We can only be free when each individual is free to express their own uniqueness irregardless of the concepts of brotherhoods, sisterhoods, alliances and comradeship.
Dialectical Egoism and the New age of Freedom
Dialectics as an ongoing process means that even ‘’communism’’ as a system of society is not free from the effect of dialectics. Even communism can change in the long run. What’s the contradiction? — There needs to be a contradiction. The contradiction is ‘‘ Society’’ against the ‘‘Individual’’ — Communism hails an organized society, while egoism hails the unique individual. — These are contradictions — they will clash against each other. That is why ‘‘ Communism is not the end game of history’’ — Stirner argues that there is no ‘’End game’’ — he says that the ending is ‘’the unique one’’ — this might seem contradictory at first, but the ‘’unique one’’ is always liberating himself, and always changing himself every second, therefore it’s a paradox, it’s both an ‘‘ending’’ and a ‘‘Non-ending’’ — Stirner manages to do away with contradictions by introducing a paradox, in a way, he is a paradoxician. What is a paradox? — It is a contradiction but also a true statement at the same time. The motto of egoism is ‘‘Liberate yourself as much as you can’’ — Why this motto? — Because egoists believe that the dialectics are on-going and freedom is achieved always through constantly liberating yourself from all shackles. If you stop liberating yourself half-way, then you are not free, if you liberate yourself everyday — that action means that you are free.
Hegel’s end goal of dialectics was the ‘’Prussian state’’ or the absolute spirit, For Marx, The end goal was communism — Even though the dialectics continued, he never claimed that ‘’Communism can be replaced’’. — Stirner says that the dialectics is always a process, there’s no specific end goal. If you don’t believe that dialectics is always a process, and you halt the dialectical process half-way, then you are a reactionary, because you want to conserve this ‘‘beautiful communist utopia’’ and not let the unique progress.
Can communism be achieved via egoism ? — The answer is ‘‘No’’ — Egoism is born from communism, just like socialism is born from capitalism. Can you still be an egoist in a pre-communist society? — Yes, but you will not achieve much with just egoism at this point in time, because the main contradictions of society are between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, — It’s the reason why my praxis hinges towards Anarcho-communist platformism. Within the anarcho-communist platform itself, the seeds of egoism must be planted, after communism is achieved via an anarcho-communist revolution, and after many years of communist construction, there will yet be another dialectical jump of progress. The ‘‘Individual’’ will dislike the way society organizes his life and labour, and in a bid to free himself from the chains of society, the individual will contradict the ‘‘Communist society’’
Stirner was reacting against the Utopian socialists/communists of his time. Although the Scientific Socialists and Utopians differ, they both want to achieve the same result. Therefore, Stirner reacts against this ‘‘Result’’ which both Scientific socialists and Utopians hope to achieve.
To conclude I would like to say that, I am using the same ‘‘Scientific dialectical logic’’ that Marxists use, so if you think that I am wrong, for saying that the contradiction of ‘‘the unique individual’’ will clash with a communist society, then you should seriously revaluate the ‘‘validity of the scientific dialectical method you preach’’. If the dialectical method can ‘‘prove’’ pretty much anything, then it’s not a very good scientific tool. So either you say, the dialectical method can prove anything correct when it is put into practice, or otherwise you can say that dialectics is an on-going process and even the communist society is not free from it’s attack.
What about the unique? Is the unique individual free from the dialectical attack? — The answer is ‘‘No’’ — the individual is also not free from a dialectical attack, but every time the dialects attacks the unique individiual, it will simply add unto the individual’s uniqueness, making him more free and unique than before. While the capitalist, socialist and communist society are attacked and metamorphesed into something ‘‘other’’ than themselves through dialectics, the unique one remains the unique one throughout the rest of his life, and will always add unto his uniquess. Is there some ‘‘ultimate or absolute unique’’ that needs to be reached? — The answer is ‘‘No’’ because as we have affirmed before, egoists believe that the dialectics is leading towards no goal, towards nothing.
The Marxists will quickly jump in opposition to dialectical egoism and say something along the lines of, ‘‘classless, moneyless, stateless society CLASS is gone. MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS, DIFFERENTIATIONS, are gone. Exploitation is therefore eliminated, all forces of coercions are no where to be seen. — This is incorrect, (Yes class may be gone) but you merely replace the oppression of class, by an even wider scope of oppression, that of ‘’Society’’ — Society will view itself as the leader of the individual. You are bonded by the rules of society, expected always to follow the line of society and never to stray from it’s path. Materially society will rule production, It is not ‘‘I’’ that rules, but society at large.Imagine I want to farm potatoes and society at large says ‘’No we’re farming for pumpkins’’ — It’s a silly example, but it shows how society will come into contradiction with what individuals want. Society owns the means of production and therefore it gets to decide what to do with them, but I don’t own anything as an individual, I can only own the means of production as part of the proletarian working force and as part of society, and therefore I have no say in the matter. I am still exploited by that society that owns the means of production — but suppose there is a union of egoists, — that voluntarily will come together in their own united groups and decide what best serves each individual’s interest and relate to the means of production — Then we have achieved egoism, because in this scenerio, society doesn’t own the means of production, nor does anyone own the means of production for that matter — but the means of production are utilized upon the egoist’s needs. We need only labour only when the egoist wishes it, and when the egoist wants to idle around all day, they are free to idle, till they should find themselves hungry again, unite temporarily together in a union of egoists and labour according to each of their particular needs. The communist society on the other hand does not allow individuals to idle around, and to labour only when it fits each individual, but rather it enforces that every individual should labour for the betterment of society at large and humanity. The communist society does not allow ‘‘temporary arrangements’’ but ‘‘Permanent arrangements’’ — because rather than the bourgeoisie that owns the means of production, now it is society that owns the means of production and ironically oppresses itself by boding all the members of society together permanently.
I only want to labour and engage with others in so far as it best serves my interest, and not in so far as it best benefits society. If the communism the marxists speak off, allows me to lazy around for a month without society beating me on the back and telling me to work alongside the other members of society, unless they decide to ‘‘exile’’ me for idling around and accumulate their resources without putting in the same kind of work as compensation — then congratulations, communism itself has achieved egoism (I refer back to my earlier statement when I said that egoism is born out of communism and leaves communism in the ashes) but if society beats me on the back or threatens me with exile, then it shows how ‘‘I’’ as an individual have come into contradiction with society at large, and I have begun a war with them. Any society in history, even primitive communist societies exiled their idlers, it goes to show how the individual comes into contradiction with society itself and a ‘‘conflict’’ ensues.
In a communist society my neighbours or family will wake me up in 6 am and they will compelled me to go to work for the sake of society, “labour for society” — and although at first glance I might have the freedom to idle around and do no labour at all, 50 neighbours will come at my door the next day I decide not to go to work and they will sneer at me, judge me, break my door down for being an idler and compelled me go work just like everbody else. If I further more reject to go to work, every place of distribution where goods are distributed at stalls according to their need closes their shutter the moment I approach their stall and they will not allow me to get my daily resources unless I work just like everybody else. The principle ‘‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’’ — seems to have suddenly devolved into, ‘‘To Each according to his need as long as one labours’’ — The idler becomes a contradiction in communist society, because society does not take kindly to idlers that take food, clothes and other resources for free, without giving back at least some recomensation in labour.
Just like under capitalism where you are starved if you do not sell your labour, society will also starve me if I do not commit myself to labour. Therefore communism has not achieved a society free from all forms of exploitation. While the communists have freed themselves from many things, they have yet to liberate themselves from generalities and societies. I as an individual will come at odds with society and as such the individual clashes with society as a contradiction.
The individual wants to get the benefits of society without putting in the labour necessary.
Society wants the individual to put in the work in order to benefit him in the firstplace and will close every means to benefit the individual in order to coerce him back into labour.
These two are in contradiction with each other, however there are those who see no contradiction, there are those who seek to maintain the communist society because it benefits them. However, even these people — Which means ‘‘Everyone’’ in communist society will soon realize that with the abundance of communist society, there’s plenty enough for ‘‘everyone’’ without putting in extra labour. Gradually society will idle around more the more as abundance grows and will inherently abolish labour.
Part IV — Dialectical Egoism
Before we apply this thing called ‘‘Dialectics’’ to Egoism, I would like to first point out that I do not seek to ‘‘Hegelianize’’ Egoism, nor do I seek to transform Egoism into a dialectical philosophy. It is interesting to point out that both Stirner and Kierkegaard rejected the dialectics of Hegel, because they saw the sole individual as something that cannot fit inside a comprehensible system, they saw the foundation of society as being based on the singular individual and not on generalities and the collective at large. They therefore pointed out, that the individual is incomprehensible and therefore unique. Stirner’s dialectical egoism is not used for the purpose to fit the individual inside a comprehensible dialectical philosophy through which the unique one can be explained — ‘‘In fact the unique one can never be explained’’ as Stirner well remarked in ‘‘Stirner’s Critics’’ when he says,
‘‘The unique is a word, and everyone should always be able to think something when he uses a word; a word should have thought content. But the unique is a thoughtless word; it has no thought content. So then what is its content, if it is not thought? It is content that cannot exist a second time and so also cannot be expressed, because if it could be expressed, actually and wholly expressed, it would exist for a second time; it would exist in the “expression.” Since the content of the unique is not thought content, the unique cannot be thought or said; but since it cannot be said, it, this perfect phrase, is not even a phrase. Only when nothing is said about you and you are merely named, are you recognized as you. As soon as something is said about you, you are only recognized as that thing (human, spirit, christian, etc.). But the unique doesn’t say anything because it is merely a name: it says only that you are you and nothing but you, that you are a unique you, or rather your self. Therefore, you have no attribute, but with this you are at the same time without determination, vocation, laws, etc.’’ In this quotation we observe how Stirner clearly marks out how the unique one cannot be expressed into word, because it has no content and therefore by definition it is ‘‘Nothing’’ and when nothing is said about you, therefore nothing can be expressed about you. Only when something is said about you, is there something comprehensible that can be expressed — like Christian, Socialist or Liberal, Muslim and the like — yet these things which are comprehensible are often than not idealist illusions or spooks. The Illusion is a deceiver — an acute liar, the illusion can be expressed as that which is comprehensible, while the reality of one’s own uniqueness is treated as that which cannot be expressed. We live in a world where idealism, where the tarot cards, where Gods, Spirits and haunted houses are more believable than the truth of our own material corporeal body. That which is false is comprehensible, that which is true is incomprehensible as the unique one. The Unique one cannot be expressed, yet Stirner still needed to find a particular word in order to express this reality and that’s how he came up with the term, the ‘‘Unique one’’ — that which cannot be expressed in words, nor can be explained systematically.
Therefore, this becomes slightly confusing — Why would we use a dialectical system on the incomprehensible? Why would we a dialectics that’s sole purpose is to make sense of things on that which is senseless or (incomprehensible)? The only reason we are using dialectics is as a means to illustrate the dialectic’s own weakness to deal with the incomprehensible, to show the dialectic’s imperfections. In the following essay which I wrote called, ‘‘The Principles of Egoism’’ — I present the reader with a Genealogy of the idlers and egoists throughout the different stages of history, through tribal society, the ancient world, feudalism and the middle ages, throughout the industrial revolution and beyond. Engels in his principles of communism highlights how the industrial proletariat is a direct result of the industrial revolution which implies that the industrial proletariat has not always existed — the reason for this answer is because Engels believes in the dialectics and therefore he’s using a systematic system to understand the comprehensible — the proletariat is a comprehensible figure and can be explained to the dialectic, but a human being is much more than a simple laborer, he is unique. The main feature of a human being is his uniqueness, the fact that he is a proletarian is merely an ‘‘attribute’’ of the human being — for instance we say a person is ‘‘Unique’’ this is his main feature, or his ‘‘Incomprehensible unique essence’’, but the fact that this unique one has ‘‘blue eyes, likes to eat cereal, is a proletariat or is a bourgeoisie is totally an ‘‘attribute’’ — some of these attributes can be added unto the unique essence in order to create a newer uniqueness of the person, but generally the attributes are illusions, those attributes on the other hand that are owned by the egoist as property are made a part of his reality. Therefore Hegel, Marx and Engels utilize the dialectics on the attributes of humanity, on society at large, on state, on religion, on the fact that a human being is a laborer. All these things are comprehensible and are therefore spooks, the dialectic can be applied to these attributes without a problem. Engels in principle of communism therefore could outline the history of the attributes of the laborer throughout the different stages of society, and Engels notes that there are differences in the ‘‘attribute’’ of laborer throughout the different stages of history, just as genetically blue eyes as attributes of human beings developed through evolution in different stages of history. However, what would happen if we apply the dialectical process to the main unique essence of the unique one? Would we notice that egoists are wholly changed from one stage of history to another? Is the egoist in feudalism any different from the egoist in capitalism and communism?
The answer to this question is quite simply ‘‘No’’ — the egoist or rather the unique one never changes throughout the different stages of history. Whether you are unique in feudalism or unique in capitalism, the result will always be the same — the fact that you are unique will always remain the same, the simple fact that ‘‘My power is my property. My power gives me property. My power am I myself, and through it am I my property.’’ Remains constant and rings true whether it’s in tribal society, feudalism, capitalism or socialism. The conditions of society matter not — the unique will remain unique, meanwhile the proletariat will change according to the conditions of society. Therefore, in conclusion, the proletariat changes in accordance with society, while the unique one always remains unique regardless to the changes in societies. Therefore, one can immediately note how at first glance the dialectics immediately fails when confronted with the unique one — because unlike the attributes of humanity which experience dialectical motion, which ‘‘change’’ in accordance to history, the essence of the unique one remains the same and is likewise not effected by the motion of dialectical processes. Even if we apply the dialectics to the unique one, even if there are ‘‘Alterations’’ to the unique one, this will merely add unto the unique’s one’s uniqueness and therefore the result will still remain the same — that one is unique. It is true — the dialectics can be applied to the unique — the unique one is also in flux and motion like every other thing in the world, like the whole universe that is constantly motioning and changing, however the only difference is, that the unique essence of things does not change, what changes are its attributes. The child can change in his physical attributes and grow up to become an adult, but the fact that he is unique from childhood until his death, — perhaps even beyond death remains constant, remains unchanged.
Do Stirner and the Egoists therefore see ‘‘Progression’’ in society like Hegel and Marx. The answer is ‘‘No’’ — While Marx and Engels saw modern society as those who have progressed and saw ancient societies as a bit ‘‘Backwards’’ — Stirner sees no progression at all from one society to another, because the unique one remains unchanged throughout the rest of world history. In fact, Stirner affirms this clearly when he says, ‘‘we are perfect altogether! For we are, every moment, all that we can be; and we never need be more.’’ — It seems to the average reader that this quotation is addressing the fact that we aren’t born with original sin and that therefore we are perfect. I believe that this quotation is a lot more, I believe that what Stirner also means in this passage is that the unique one is perfect — not in the sense that he has attained an ideal perfection, but in the sense that we are all we can possibly be in the present, and we need never be more, that being said in the future, which will become the ‘‘present’’ — we will yet become all we can possibly become in this ‘‘new present’’ but we cannot speak of perfect self-mastery of the self in the past — because the past is dead and the future is yet to form. We can only speak of being all that we can possibly be in our ‘‘Now-time’’ or the present. This means a roman living in the Roman Empire was all he could possibly be in his present time, while a Christian living in the middle ages is all he could possibly be in his time and likewise in our present time, the same applies. According to egoists therefore, there is no progression insofar as we are unique in essence, the only thing that seems to progress is our ‘‘attributes’’ — like the productive forces of society that change with time — of course these productive forces do not change of their own volition and freedom, but change always in retrospect to the unique one’s essence. We may do a little inversion of Marx’s statement in ‘‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte’’ in his remarkable phrase that ‘‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.’’ — Marx here is dealing with the history of the attribute of the proletariat, because Marx like all communists views the human being as a laborer and not as a unique one. If we decide to invert Marx’s communist statement on history and turn his message into an egoist one, we could write something like, ‘‘The productive forces, society, capitalism, state, religion and the like develop throughout history, but they do not develop as they place; they do not develop under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the essence of unique ones.’’ — this is because the productive forces as an attribute require the secondary attribute of the laborer — because if the laborer does not exist neither can the productive forces, likewise the attribute of being a laborer leads back to our essence as unique ones, — if the unique ones did not exist, if therefore individuals did not exist, neither can the laborer and to an extension neither can the productive forces and society at large exists — everything depends on the unique individual to which without, everything would have been impossible to exist. Whether we like it or not therefore, the individual is of himself a world’s history, like Stirner proclaims nearing the ending of his book, ‘‘That the individual is of himself a world’s history, and possesses his property in the rest of the world’s history’’ Therefore world history is not society or collectives or the development of the productive forces — these are merely attributes that develop only insofar as the individual exists. The theologian like Saint Aquinas would have said, ‘‘That God is the prime mover’’ — everything depends on God for existence — meanwhile for Spinoza God is the prime essence, everything else that appears different is merely an attribute. For Stirner who has done away with God, the prime mover is the individual. This does not mean to say that egoists worship the ‘‘individual’’, because for us the individual is ‘‘empty’’ — how can we possibly worship that which is empty? — Therefore, nothingness is a prime mover of that which we call ‘‘something’’ and the individual is the prime mover of that which we call society. According to Marx, individuals are not free to choose their circumstances in which they live in — but I believe that he is incorrect, — If Marx wants to prove himself correct, then he must direct me to the sentient being that selects these conditions for me, I cannot possibly believe that society itself as something separate from the individual can create conditions for the individual because in reality the individual creates the conditions of society and vice versa, the conditions of society become the conscious ego of the masses and become representative of the masses. It is only then, that the mass collective consciousness of society starts to create conditions for the individual which oppress him. First the individual create society, then individuals get together in the form of collectives, and they therefore become the masses. The masses create their own system and impose it on the individualists. This is because the masses have become involuntary egoists through their own actions, while those that resist against the consciousness of the masses, are conscious and voluntary egoists.
The Unique one whether conscious or unconscious remains unique throughout all stages of history. As we remarked before, the unique one remains unchanged. In my next essay in this book called ‘‘principles of Egoism’’, I also highlight the dialectical movement of the idlers in society in juxtaposition to the workers. The Bourgeoisie, Kings, Emperors, Dictators, Proletariat, Egoists — everyone is ‘‘Unique’’ — however everyone has different roles at different stages of society. There are roles that are better suited to expressing one’s uniqueness in the world and for me, the most perfect role in society to become a truly free unique one is precisely being an ‘‘idler’’ or what today we call a ‘‘Lumpen Proletariat’’. The Unique one is our incomprehensible essence, while our qualities or attributes are malleable. The proletariat as an attribute in history changes in each stage of history, because the laborer has to relate to the mode of production. The mode of production under feudalism differs from the mode of production found in industrial capitalism — therefore the laborer in feudalism familiarize himself with the fields and the productive forces of the feudal age, while the industrial proletariat in capitalism had to relate to a whole different mode of production, with new industrial productive forces and machinery. We have characterized the proletariat as an ‘‘attribute of the human being’’ — therefore the question must be asked, ‘‘Is the Idler in society an attribute like the proletariat or an unchangeable essence like the unique one?’’ — I have gambled with this question myself and I have come to the conclusion that the answer is ‘‘Both’’ — Unlike the proletariat who has to relate to different modes of production per each stage in history, the idler simply idles in the same mode of leisure in all stages of history. Idleness remains idleness throughout and the way people relax their physical body will always be the same, that being said, in modern capitalism we have modern comforts which where didn’t exist in feudalism and tribal society etc. We must also point out that people have unique bodies and that therefore the degree in which people leisure will differ from one individual to another. Secondly the idler is also part of our essence because all human beings leisure, if you gave a human the ability to leisure for the rest of his life, he would do so without a problem, if you gave a human the ability to labor all his life without rest, the human would end up dead. Henceforth, leisure is part of our biological and natural psyche, while labor is not necessarily part of our psyche but rather a necessity for survival. Labor is something we do ‘‘Outside ourselves’’ — we produce things outside of our internal body, we produce things outside in the world externally, therefore ‘‘labor’’ cannot possibly make part of our essence, nor can it make part of our corporeal body. The experience of labor is certainly internal, but the experience and the actual act of labor do not mix together, they are wholly different things. Meanwhile being idle, at rest and in leisure is an internal activity, and therefore it makes part of our essence as unique ones. We leisure ‘‘Inside ourselves’’ — it is not possible to ‘‘Leisure outside ourselves’’ — on the other hand, we labor and produce ‘‘Outside ourselves’’ — it is not possible to produce and labor ‘‘inside ourselves’’. The experience of labor and the act of labor are two separate things, but in direct opposing contradictions — and this is again when we can see the ‘‘Dialectics at play’’ — the experience of leisure and the act of leisure are both experienced internally simultaneously.
We all have unique means of ‘‘Idleness’’ and that is why I say that idleness makes a part of our essence as unique ones, meanwhile ‘‘labor’’ is all the same everywhere, if you put Worker A on a factory machine and you put Worker B on the same factory machine later on, they will both carry on the same labor in the same fashion and manner, therefore we cannot possibly imply that their labor is the ‘‘same’’ — This issue can be resolved by communism, that wants to abolish the division of labor, that gives freedom to individuals to pursue labor in their own fashion. Therefore, under communism, labor starts to take a more ‘‘idle form’’ — labor starts to slowly transform itself into idleness and take on the features of idleness unto itself. This is because communist society will be overtaken by the egoist idlers, and therefore dialectically labor will start to shift gradually into idleness, and that is the reason why labor starts to take more ‘‘idle qualities’’ until eventually it will no longer be labor, but it will become idleness in its fullness. Work in communism starts to become more pleasurable and as a result more diverse, the more leisurely labor becomes, the less labor it will actually be, and the more idle it will become, until we have achieved peak idleness and labor itself becomes abolished. Therefore, this proves that ‘‘Labor’’ itself in communism doesn’t become ‘‘unique essence’’ like idleness, but rather labor under communism starts to appropriate the idle features to become itself idleness. Labor therefore is an ‘‘attribute’’, while Idleness is both an ‘‘attribute and part of the unique one’s essence’’ — as labor in communism appropriates the features of idleness, it will cease to remain an attribute and it will add unto the essence of the unique one. Once all individuals become idle in an egoist world, idleness itself also ceases to be an attribute, because idleness at this stage will presumably remain the same. Idleness is only an attribute in so far as it changes in different stages of society, for instance idleness in tribal society, feudalism and capitalism are all different, but in a world that is fully egoist and fully unique, idleness ceases to be an attribute and becomes part and parcel of the unique one’s identity.
The opponents of dialectical egoism such as the communists, will ask, ‘‘How can you possibly know that communism will be replaced by egoism, since we are still in a stage of capitalism?’’ — Wouldn’t you need to analyze socialist and communist society to at least be able to determine whether communism will be replaced by egoism? — This question can be answered by questioning the Marxists themselves — How did Marx know that socialism will replace capitalism and communism will replace socialism? — The Marxists quickly says, that Marx analyzed the proletariat throughout history and that this transformative process has already taken place, therefore it will take place also in the future when the bourgeoisie are defeated. In likewise manner, cannot I also claim that by analyzing the idler’s transformative process throughout history, I can also claim that egoism will replace communist society. The communists has a motto, which Stirner called, ‘‘laboro, ergo sum’’ I labour, therefore I am man, is the motto of the communist. For the communist, we are only man when we labour, when we do not labour we are ‘‘unhuman’’ — for the egoist however, we have a different motto, ‘‘I idle, therefore I am unique’’. The communist often think that ‘‘Labour’’ is an immortal aspect of humanity, that labour can never become extinct, because it’s a human characteristic to labour for survival. The egoist thinks this is incorrect, because first and foremost, capitalism itself already makes labour extinct through capital by destroying the proletariat and transforming him into a lumpen proletariat. Secondly, even in such a case there was a communist society, either the abundance of such society would abolish labour itself or the automaton’s revolution that will construct automations as new productive forces would replace mankind as labourers and by definition, man will lose his labour to the machine. Hence forth, labour is not what defines human beings, rather it is our idleness that marks us out as unique. Labour is temporary, but idleness is forever. Motion — even the motion of dialectics is temporary, but the idleness of the universe, the unmovable, the things that are at rest are forever. Dialectics is temporary — and the transience and temporariness of dialectics leads to the conclusion of an unmovable eternal idleness and nothingness (Creative Nothing) as a paradox. Egoists help us to break away from the chains of the dialectical forces that are transient into the eternity of paradoxical logic. As I have often remarked, Stirner is the Anti-Hegel and therefore he uses dialectics in order to end the age of ‘‘Dialectical thought’’ in order to introduce us to the age of ‘‘Paradoxical thought’’. As Stirner remarked, labour tries to abolish labour, the proletariat goes to work, so that he earns a wage, so that he can spend that wage in idleness for the rest of the day. We labour and increase our wealth in order to decrease our labour and increase our leisure. In the same manner, society is trying to increase the productive forces, not only for profit’s sake, but also in order to create machines of artificial intelligence, machines strong enough that they will be able to labour instead of the human race. How can the human race be characterized by something that will no longer exist the moment the first automaton walks the earth? — The communists are wrong in defining the human beings by their labour, we should instead talk of the unique persons as unique in so far as they idle in leisure. There will never be a moment in history where idleness will be abolished by some transformation in society, because idleness is a factor of all life on earth and labour is only a means to achieve that idleness. We motion, in order to cease our motion, we live life in order that we might die, we practice dialectics, in order to put a stop to the dialectics, we may engage in society as human beings in order to become the unique one — That is what it means to be an egoist.
‘‘The unique one although we say is unchangeable is always ‘‘Transient’’, and also changeable, this may be paradoxical, but the unique one also undergoes changes like everything else, but these changes do not change the quality of the unique one, because whatever change the unique one undergoes, the unique one will always remain unique, meanwhile the laborer as a peasant in feudalism undergoes a qualitative change in capitalism by becoming the industrial proletariat’’
The Science of the Paradox:
The Marxists will jump in protest and claim that this is an ‘‘idealist analysis’’ because it is based on concepts and not necessarily applied to the real world. Now I will attempt to apply Stirner’s paradox to nature itself, to the real world in materialist fashion. We shall first present to the reader the dichotomy between ‘‘Creature and Creator’’ — According to Stirner, we as individuals are both our own creator but in so creating ourselves, we are also therefore a ‘‘created creatures’’ of ourselves, we are both master and slave to ourselves. — surely we are ‘‘material beings’’ and therefore we have taken the first step to applying the paradox in nature. Let us now apply the paradox to a cosmological scale — to the Universe itself. The Universe as modern science proclaims is ever-expanding, ever-more creating itself, it is therefore a creator of itself, but in so creating itself, the universe is also its own creature. This process is in ever dialectical motion, however unlike the dialectics of Hegel, Marx and Engels where ‘‘contradictions are meant to be reconciled’’ — the paradox of Stirner presents to us materialist situations where contradictions are also non-contradictions and therefore contradictions are both reconciled and not reconciled at the same time. Let us take the universe as an example, the universe creates itself through it’s expansion, therefore we may say the universe is a living organism — after all, we as human beings and the animals that surround us are proof that the universe is indeed ‘‘alive’’ — as we make part of the universe. Yet, in the same manner, the universe is dying and withering away, upon millions of old stars are dying out gradually, while on the other end, new stars are being created, therefore the universe is both a ‘‘living-dying’’ creature and creator, it is ‘‘zombified’’ — it is in a manner of speaking, ‘‘undead’’ — not in the sense that it is a zombie, or an immortal being, but the universe is both living and non-living at the same time — hence we have the paradox of the existence of nature itself. The egoist however is not satisfied with this ‘‘answer’’ because here we are analyzing a ‘‘generality’’ — the universe at large in an almost Marxist fashion, the egoist would argue on the other hand, that every single object in the universe develops on its own, rather than the universe at large commanding the process by which each thing in the universe develops.
Therefore the egoist sticks to the analysis of ‘‘things in particular’’ — even Marxists such as Georges Politzer make distinctions between the particular and non-particular, who claims that, ‘‘The veterinarian who says, “I treat the horse in general, but not the horse in particular,” would be laughed at; so would the doctor who says the same thing about men. Being in general, therefore, does not exist; but what does exist is particular beings, which have particular qualities. The same thing is true for thought. We can say then that being in general is something abstract, whereas being in particular is something concrete; the same for thought in general and thought in particular.’’ — therefore than analyze the universe in ‘‘general’’ — the egoist is always analyzing the universe from himself as a being that is part of the universe and therefore is ‘‘the universe itself’’ — The egoist because he analyzes things from ‘‘particulars’’ — also claims the following, ‘‘that since, I am part of the universe, therefore I am the universe and therefore the universe and everything in it is my property.’’ — This is the difference between communism and egoism. Communism is based on the analysis of things in ‘‘general’’ as the Marxist Politzer himself claims ironically to be an ‘‘idealist approach’’, while the egoist treats things in particular, and therefore treats things scientifically and materially. The Communist analyzes the universe’s development as an ‘‘abstract generality’’ — the development of the universe throughout history, and therefore ‘‘all that encompasses’’ the universe belongs to itself, and therefore everything that is of the universe must be split equally by the universe — hence forth the communist achieves the conclusion that communist society must own the means of production equally as a society, as a ‘‘thing in general’’ — the communist therefore contradicts himself, on one hand, he claims that the analysis of things in ‘‘general’’ is idealist, and on the other hand he analyzes always the things in general such as ‘‘social classes, masses, collectives, societies, and owning the means of production communally’’ — Here is what Politzer claims on the idealism of generality, ‘‘ When we say, “being produces thought,” we are expressing an abstract formula, because the words “being” and “thought” are abstract words. “Being” refers to being in general, “thought” to thought in general. Being, as well as thought in general, is a subjective reality (see in Part One, chapter 4, the explanation of “subjective reality” and “objective reality”). It does not exist: it is what is called an abstraction. To say “being produces thought” is thus an abstract formula because it is composed of abstractions. Hence, for example: we all know very well what horses are, but if we speak of the horse, we mean the horse in general; well then, the horse in general is an abstraction.’’ — on one hand Marxists like Politzer deny the analysis of idealist abstractions, but on the other hand they engage directly in these abstraction in their political theory. They are after all, including Marx and Engels themselves the fan base of Ludwig Feuerbach, the idealist wolf in materialist sheep’s clothing, disguised perfectly behind the essence of Christianity. It is Max Stirner who is the real founder of materialist philosophy par excellence and it is he who first developed dialectics materially in proper non-idealist fashion and we can prove it by simply quoting Stirner on his materialism.
‘‘Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said “the truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory,” and the like. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my means to the victory, like the sword (“the sword of truth”). The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive, — to wit, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me. Objects are to me only material that I use up. Wherever I put my hand I grasp a truth, which I trim for myself. The truth is certain to me, and I do not need to long after it. To do the truth a service is in no case my intent; it is to me only a nourishment for my thinking head, as potatoes are for my digesting stomach, or as a friend is for my social heart. As long as I have the humor and force for thinking, every truth serves me only for me to work it up according to my powers. As reality or worldliness is “vain and a thing of naught” for Christians, so is the truth for me. It exists, exactly as much as the things of this world go on existing although the Christian has proved their nothingness; but it is vain, because it has its value not in itself but in me. Of itself it is valueless. The truth is a — creature.’’ Truths are made into my property according to Stirner, therefore Truths in themselves as concepts are dead and useless, but if I use truth as a weapon, then it becomes useful as my property. The truth does not assert itself, rather it is I who assert and create this thing called ‘‘Truth’’, — Truth does not assert itself out of its own free will, rather it is the sole individual who creates the truth as a creature, it is not something with divine essence, it is something that emerges from the individual. Hegelians on the other hand would assume that the ‘‘truth’’ on its own as a concept asserts itself in history, the Marxists do the same idealistic mistake, they assume that truth asserts itself in history through societies, that history moves through itself. History has won a major victory and truth has won a victory, according to egoists, this is idealistic, — rather it is I as an individual that use history and truth as my tool to achieve ‘‘My victory’’ and only my victory as an individual is a materialist reality, even the communist revolution although it be a masses struggle, is still the victory of each and every individual, and not a victory of the generality we call ‘‘masses’’. Perhaps the most strikingly materialist moment in Stirner is when he completely rejects the idealism of ‘‘truth’’ and materializes concepts in their fullest, he claims that truth is ‘‘material’’ just as my lungs or a piece of weed is made of material components, therefore truth is something material, that can be used up like a consumable. The truth for Stirner is the physical and material world, and therefore the foolish Marxists who calls Stirner an idealist is a ‘‘fool’’ — they should review their principle again — ‘‘No Investigation, No Right to speak!’’
But I have investigated, therefore I can speak the truth that Stirner is the most authentic materialist of the 19th century. The likes of Politzer who have not investigated the egoist individualist claim that the individualist is an idealist, for instance when Politzer remarks, ‘‘What do we call someone who lives as though he were alone in the world? An individualist. He lives within his shell; the outside world exists only for him. For him, the important thing is himself, his thought. He is a pure idealist, or what is called a solipsist. (See the explanation of this word in Part One, ch. 2.) The individualist is selfish, and being selfish is not a materialist attitude. A selfish person restricts the universe to his own person. The person who learns for the pleasure of learning, as a dilettante, who assimilates well, has no difficulties, but keeps it all for himself. He assigns primary importance to himself, to his thought. The idealist is closed to the outside world, to reality. The materialist is always open to reality; this is why those who take courses in Marxism and who learn easily ought to try to transmit what they have learned.’’ — but he is incorrect and let us explain why? A solipsist is an individual who holds the position that he only has knowledge of his own mind and cannot guarantee the existence that the world in general exists, neither can he guarantee that ‘‘other minds’’ like his own exists, this is of course an idealist position — many idealists throughout history have thought along the lines, that ‘‘thought creates being’’ or that ‘‘consciousness of something’’ implies the existence of object A and without consciousness, there is no existence, henceforth for the idealist, things exist only in so far as we as individuals also exist to observe that object, without our ‘‘observation’’ — the world does not exist — this is the idealist subjectivist position. According to traditional idealists, the world exists in so far as there are ‘‘observers’’ — therefore it attributes the existence of things to ‘‘observation’’ — and therefore makes observation a higher remark than existence itself, but there can be ‘‘no observation’’ without there first being existence, therefore the observer has to exist before he engages in his observation, therefore even this simple logic debunks the logic of idealism itself as contradictory. Politzer conflates the solipsist with the individualist subjectivist whom believes that the world only exists in so far as he can observe it, but the egoist although a subjectivist does not hold an idealist position of the world, but rather a materialist position of the world. For the egoist, there is only one material world, but every unique individual view the world in a unique and subjective matter, but once the individual dies and ceases his ‘‘observation’’ — the egoist maintains that the world still remains in it’s original material existence, since ‘‘material reality’’ exists independently from our ‘‘subjective reality’’ in our mind. The Egoist maintains that because we are part of the world, therefore we are the ‘‘material world’’ and since I am the world, rather than ‘‘belonging to the world’’ — the world belongs to me as if it were my physical body, as if it were my essence, as if it were my ‘‘property’’. This is another difference between capitalists, communists and egoists. The Capitalist maintains that he owns property on the basis of the fiction called ‘‘Rights’’, on the basis of value, profit, capital, employment, on a number of economic tools, the communists maintains that he owns the means of production communally split equally among all members of society, while the egoist sees the world as something that belongs to him.
For the Egoist, we follow this logic:
1. I am part of the world.
2. Therefore, I am the world
3. Since I am the world, therefore the world is my essence, and therefore it belongs to me, therefore everything pertaining to the universe is my property.
In a way, through egoism we have achieved what is called in Hinduism, the ‘‘Brahman’’ or we have stopped seeing the world as absolute and recognized that it is illusion and we have been transformed from ‘‘Atman’’ into being one in Brahman. The Hinduist also recognize to become one with Brahman is to be one with the universe, to become the ‘‘universe’’ itself, but Hinduism is still ‘‘idealist’’ and doesn’t free itself from ‘‘Spirit’’ — therefore Egoism is the recognition that I am the world in my essence, the world belongs to me not as ‘‘spirit’’ but as ‘‘matter’’, Egoism goes beyond the liberation of the Hindu — although Hinduism is one of the first religions of the world, and also the primitive theoretical and practical egoism to form, because it recognized the world as the property of the individual, it’s mistake however was to attribute that to ‘‘God’’ and spirit and to see the world as ‘‘illusion’’- for the egoist, the world is not an illusion even though it may be transitionary. The World is himself and the self is the egoist’s reality made manifest through his physical exercise and manipulation of that matter.
Again, highly reminiscent of the quotation by Stirner,
‘‘If in the so-called feudal times we held everything as a fief from God, in the liberal period the same feudal relation exists with Man. God was the Lord, now Man is the Lord; God was the Mediator, now Man is; God was the Spirit, now Man is. In this three fold regard the feudal relation has experienced a transformation. For now, firstly, we hold.as a fief from all-powerful Man our power, which, because it comes from a higher, is not called power or might, but “right” — the “rights of man”; we further hold as a fief from him our position in the world, for he, the mediator, mediates our intercourse with others, which therefore may not be otherwise than “human”; finally, we hold as a fief from him ourselves — namely, our own value, or all that we are worth — inasmuch as we are worth nothing when he does not dwell in us, and when or where we are not “human.” The power is Man’s, the world is Man’s, I am Man’s.’’ — Therefore in feudal times, the power was God, the world was of ‘‘God’’ and we were God’s children. In modern times, even according to communists, the power belongs to Mankind in general, the world belongs to mankind, and I myself belong to Man, but Stirner argues that there is no reason why we should restrain ourselves from declaring ourselves as individuals, the entitles, the mediator and the owner of ourselves, then it follows says Stirner, that My power is my property. My power gives me property. My power am I myself, and through it am I my property.
Therefore, my power is my own, the world belongs to me, and I belong to myself. We have removed the myth that Stirner is an idealist, and we have shown his materialism throughout.
Let us now apply this paradox to human beings, if there is such a thing as the paradox of ‘‘creature and creator’’ — the question follows, when is an individual a creator and when is he a creature? — The answer is simple through the psychology of the human. We are ‘‘two people’’ in one, one of them a creator, the other a creature of the creator. We human beings ‘‘talk to ourselves’’ in what is often termed in psychology, ‘‘Inner speech or self-talk’’– meaning that there is a ‘‘talker’’ and there is a ‘‘receiver’’ — that’s what we mean by two minds at once — of course we have ‘‘one brain’’ — but this one brain is so complex that it can divide itself as if there were two minds, yet this is no mistake, but proof, that there is a creature and a creator. Who is the listener and who is the receiver? In history, it has always been the slave that has ‘‘talked’’ — and talked to the ruling classes and their master, while the listener who listened or ignored the talk of the masses has always ‘‘listened’’ — there’s no need for the master to talk, but there is every need for the master to listen to the creature or to the slave because it is of absolute importance for the master to make sure to protect himself from the slave’s revolt. Our brain is the same, the listener is the Master, the Creator — he listens to the creature’s transitional thoughts and these transitional ‘‘talk thoughts’’ are transmitted to the brain as ‘‘permanent memory’’ — this memory is then used to add unto the Master creator’s uniqueness, to continue to develop him. The creature is therefore transitionary ‘‘talking to oneself’’ — while the creator listens patiently and adds the creature’s input into his long-term memory, thus continuously developing himself. Sometimes the creature extracts and self-asses himself and his own memory and knowledge by repeating the rhetoric of his creator, he repeats things he already knows in order to reaffirm himself and concretize his knowledge, and therefore concretizes himself rather than ‘‘abstract himself’’ through misinformation. The more concretely you know yourself, the more egoist you are, the less concretely you know yourself, the more spooked by abstractions you are.
Is it possible for the situation to be vice versa, for the talker to be the creator and the listener to be the creature? — From my stand point, in some cases, this can be the ‘‘case’’ — because after all, it is out of the creature’s input that the creator can develop, and therefore in a way, the creature is also a creator and vice versa the creator is also a creature, hence why it’s a ‘‘Stirnerite Paradox’’, as I like to call it. We have now studied the brain in egoist and paradoxical fashion and modern scientific psychology seems to agree. We have therefore analyzed things universally, cosmologically, naturally, materialistically and also psychologically. Therefore, Dialectical Egoism is as much a scientific theory as that Dialectical materialism of the Marxists.
Summary: ‘‘Before jumping into the dialectics of egoism, we have clarified that, the unique one is a paradox, it changes but the result remains unchangeable, no matter how much change the unique undergoes, it still remains unique. Secondly, we remarked how often the spooks of society are often attributes that change with time, while our essence as unique individuals generally does not. Attributes experience change throughout history, but our essence doesn’t. While the communists see progression in attributes of human beings, the egoist sees no progression whatsoever, because the individual will always be at his highest peak during the course of his life no matter in which historical period the individual lived. The Ego is not absolute but rather a transient ego, an ego that is in flux, but also unchanging in it’s unique factor. The Idler is both an attribute and part of our essence, the idler is an attribute because we relate to different societies across history and we have different technologies that enable us to idle in different ways. Meanwhile being idle is part of our essence as human beings because it is an internal act taking place inside our corporeal body, meanwhile the act of labor takes place outside our corporeal body. The act of leisure is therefore part of our unique essence, while labor is merely an attribute. Idleness will cease to become an attribute in the egoist age after communism, when finally all people can idle in freedom, and when the mode of idleness or the way we relate to idleness will not change anymore. In my egoist hypothesis, I hypothesize that communist society will meet it’s end and become transformed into an egoist union and when this happens, idleness will cease being transformed and will become directly part of our corporeal essence as unique ones. Finally, the dialectics can be applied to egoism, but the result will always be the same, the unique one, his property and the creative nothing. The dialectics cannot lock egoism in a box or a system, but can be used to help us do away with the dialectical system itself and introduce a system of paradox, the transformation of the dialectician into a ‘‘paradoxician’’ — For me, that is what Max Stirner has accomplished.
Applying Dialectical Egoism:
In Elementary Principles of Philosophy, Georges Politzer claims that, ‘‘This materialist philosophy, which seeks to provide a scientific explanation for the problems of the world, progresses, in the course of history, at the same time as the sciences. Consequently, Marxism has resulted from the sciences, is based on them and evolves with them.’’ — I can also claim that Marxism itself which results from science and is based on them and evolves with them, will evolve into egoism itself. Engels once claimed, ‘‘But what is true in his principle, we, too, must accept. And what is true is that before we can be active in any cause we must make it our own, egoistic cause — and that in this sense, quite aside from any material expectations, we are communists in virtue of our egoism, that out of egoism we want to be human beings and not merely individuals’’. — I say the opposite of Engels, ‘‘That we are egoists in virtue of our communism’’ — it is the other way round. If Marxism according to politzer develops with science, then it will find itself at the crossroads of the automaton’s revolution when the labourer and labour are abolished, when it is replaced by the idler and the egoist. Then it is the destiny for Marxism to develop into it’s antithesis, it’s ‘‘egoism’’ — does this mean that we are ‘‘Marxist Egoist’’ or that we are ‘‘Stirnerite Marxist’’ — the answer is ‘‘No’’ — because we do not base ourselves on what came before us, just like Marx’s analysis of capitalism was not a liberal analysis but a communist analysis, in similar manner, the egoist’s analysis of communism is not a communist analysis, but rather an egoist analysis of communist society. Are we Marxist egoist? — If the answer is ‘‘Yes’’ — then even Marx is a ‘‘Liberal bourgeois Marxist’’ — if the answer is ‘‘No’’ — then we must treat each political thought as separate from the other. If the egoist uses dialectics, does that mean that the egoist is Hegelian? The answer is ‘‘No’’ because Egoists are materialists, not idealists like Hegelians. If the egoists are dialectical materialists, are they therefore Marxists? — The answer is ‘‘No’’ — because egoism is in direct antithesis with Marxism, and therefore we are not dialectical Marxist Materialist, but we are ‘‘Dialectical Egoist Materialists’’ and we only use the dialectics in order to put an end to dialectics itself through paradox.
Our analysis may be comprehensive — our analysis may look at things historically and scientific, but that does not imply that we are Marxists. We live in a world of Marxist analysis, but Marxist analysis itself will meet with it’s antithesis of Egoist analysis and eventually be replaced by Egoist analysis in the future. Already, Marxism has met with egoist analysis and already it has faltered. In the post-modernist era, utopians have rejected Marxism on Utopian grounds, I on the other hand as an egoist, reject Marxism upon the scientific grounds which even Marxism itself bases itself. Why do I say post-modernist reject Marxism on Utopian grounds? — Because although these post-modernists are scientific in their approach, they don’t use dialectics as a tool in order to reject Marxism itself. Therefore, Marxism has never faltered before these bourgeois sciences of these post-modernists. Only the internal contradiction within Marxism itself, only the analysis of the labourer in contradiction to the idler, and the contradiction of communism with egoism can destroy Marxism.
In this segment of the essay I shall attempt to apply dialects through egoism. The same dialectical logic is found in both Hegelian dialectics and Scientific Marxist dialectical logic. While Marx’s dialectics are materialist, they lead towards communism, Hegel’s dialectics are idealist, meanwhile Stirner’s dialects claims that both Hegel and Marx are idealist, and even though Marx claims to be a materialist, he still ‘‘spooked’’ by spiritual abstractions and the spiritual implications of society remain as a form of sacradness in communism. Stirner’s dialectics is very materialist, rejects idealism at the core, even that very ‘‘subtle sublime idealism of Marx’’ is rejected. Furthermore, Stirner’s dialects lead to nothing. Do we ‘‘dialectical egoists’’ claim to know the future of society ? — The answer is ‘‘No’’ — only the scientific Marxists tries to prophesize like some prophet of the outcome of society through dialectics. The Ego and its own was written as a parody of the thinkers of the time, and therefore Stirner in his own way was making fun of the assertions of thinkers of the time, even to the assertion of dialectics itself. Therefore, Stirner only used the dialects to prove that the dialects could literally apply to anything, even to egoism! Therefore he uses a strategy of ‘‘Check Mate’’ in his philosophy, if ‘‘Dialectics is true’’ — then it can prove how it will lead to egoism, and lead to nothing, at the same time if the other dialecticians such as Hegelians and Marxist deny Stirner’s argument, they would be denying dialectics themselves. Stirner uses the weapon of his enemy against them,
‘‘The main focus of his mockery is the Hegelian method, as this had become the dominant philosophical method in Germany at the time Stirner lived. And his joke is woven throughout this book. First of all, he carefully constructed the outline of The Unique to parallel that of Hegel’s The Phenomenology of the Spirit and Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity, while undermining the foundations of both works. Some scholars have called him the ultimate Hegelian, because he makes use of Hegel’s dialectical method in his book. However, in “The Philosophical Reactionaries,” Stirner explains that this too was part of the joke: “Do you philosophers actually have an inkling that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Nothing but an inkling. What retort can you hearty fellows make against it, when I again dialectically demolish what you have just dialectically put up? You have shown me with what ‘eloquence’ one can make all into nothing and nothing into all, black into white and white into black. What do you have against it, when I turn your neat trick back on you? But with the dialectical trick of a philosophy of nature, neither you nor I will cancel the great facts of modern natural research, no more than Schelling and Hegel did.” Stirner chose to use the methods of those he was mocking to undermine what they claimed those methods showed, not because he believed in those methods, but because he wanted to show that, at best, they were mere intellectual tools, ones that could be turned to damn near any use in the realm of ideas.
In fact, what Stirner has to say leaves no room for any sort of universal or historical progress, dialectical or otherwise. It is no accident that Stirner begins and ends his book with the same words, taken from Goethe’s poem “Vanitas! Vanitatum Vanitas!” I have translated these words (fairly literally) as: “I have based my affair on nothing.”- Wolfi Landstreicher, Stirner, The Wise Guy, Introduction to The Unique and Its property, 2017
Wolfi Landstreicher, clearly lays out how Stirner uses the dialectics only in so far as to destroy the dialectics. Stirner knows that other dialecticians are stubborn, therefore he entertains the idea that the dialectical process might be true, and he builds upon this philosophy of the unique. Whether the dialectical process exists or not, — it makes no difference. If the dialectics are true and they exist, then it leads to the unique one, it leads to ‘‘Nothing’’ — This is a fact that communists will deny, but in so doing they would be denying the dialectics itself — the very core of their philosopy. If they throw away their ‘‘Dialectical basis of their philosophy’’ — then their political philosophy, for example Marxism becomes bankrupt and irrelevant. They would have to necessarily change their world view from Marxism to Egoism. If the dialectics does not exists, then the unique still exists. Whether it exists or does not exists, Stirner’s unique one will always exist one way or another.
Stirner’s method is indeed a parody, but it was mainly a parody against Utopian socialists, — While Stirner himself might have had a discussion or two with scientific marxists such as Engels in his life, this does not imply that Stirner was particularly acquainted with scientific Marxism. When Stirner died, Scientific marxism was just emerging into existence. Therefore, Egoists of our age are called — not by ‘‘duty’’ — but by their own will to carry on Stirner’s parody and this time reflect on Scientific Marxism and parody that instead.
Let us continue on this ‘‘massive joke’’ and continue to troll a little bit longer. Let us assume that dialectics are a fact:
There are three main components to Marxist dialectics:
The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa)
The unity of Opposites
The Negation of the Negation
Let us apply the same logic of Marxism to Egoism — if Egoism still makes sense afterwards, then this proves Stirner’s statement, that the dialectics can be used as an intellectual tool to prove just about anything, even that which is absurd.
Let us start with the law of quantity into quality — first and foremost quality refers to the natural characteristics for a thing for example ‘‘pages from a book’’ but quantity on the other hand refers to how much of that thing there is, for example there are 50 pages in the book. There are times when the amount does not change the nature of the book, for example a 100 page book as opposed to a 50 page book, — both of them are books, there nature has not changed — in this case the only change that occurs is a quantitative change, because one book has more pages than the other. However, in some cases, if the book is reduced to just ‘‘one page’’ — this quantitative change also results in a qualitative change, because it changes the nature of the book, — because in this scenerio, reducing a book to one change, means that the book is no longer a book by nature.
According to Engels,
‘‘All qualitative differences in nature rest on differences of chemical composition or on different quantities or forms of motion (energy) or, as is almost always the case, on both. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned. In this form, therefore, Hegel’s mysterious principle appears not only quite rational but even rather obvious.’’ Engels’ Dialectics of Nature, II. Dialectics (The general nature of dialectics to be developed as the science of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics.)
In this manner the quality of a thing only changes by the addition or subtraction of quantity, that will inherently alter the quality. In another sceneario he presents to us the transformation of quantity into quality by recounting Hegel’s example,
‘‘In physics, bodies are treated as chemically unalterable or indifferent; we have to do with changes of their molecular states and with the change of form of the motion which in all cases, at least on one of the two sides, brings the molecule into play. Here every change is a transformation of quantity into quality, a consequence of the quantitative change of the quantity of motion of one form or another that is inherent in the body or communicated to it. “Thus, for instance, the temperature of water is first of all indifferent in relation to its state as a liquid; but by increasing or decreasing the temperature of liquid water a point is reached at which this state of cohesion alters and the water becomes transformed on the one side into steam and on the other into ice.” (Hegel, Encyclopedia, Collected Works, VI, p. 217.) in Engels’ Dialectics of Nature, II. Dialectics (The general nature of dialectics to be developed as the science of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics.)
When we observe this using conventional physics, it quite makes sense, that the alteration of quantity would result in the transformation of quantity into quality, however if we observe modern science, today with Quantum theory and mechanics. If using Quantum observation we realize that light can be measured both as a wave and a particle — Then how come light can be two things at once — this quantum observation seems to contradict Engels’s and Hegel’s analysis that change can only occur through an alteration of quantity or vice versa. Niels Bohr made a hypothesis that through our action of attempting to measure a particle, we inherently change its behavior. According to Engels ‘‘Change’’ occurs when there’s a quantitative change and vice versa, but for Bohr and modern physics, Change occurs in our simple attempt to measure the object, and our interaction to the object outside the object in-itself. Modern physics for the most part has established that in Quantum one thing can change it’s ‘‘quality’’ it’s nature without quantity alteration — Quantum denies Engels’s law of The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa). While Engels argues that a change in quality implies a change in quantity and a change in quantity implies a change in quality — Quantum has argued that a nature of a thing can change without any alteration to it’s quantity. The Light that is measured can be measured as both as particle and a wave, and therefore the change from ‘‘particle’’ and ‘‘wave’’ implies a change in the nature of the object, but it changes not on the principle of alteration of quantity, but on the principle of the mere act of measuring the object.
Many modern marxists who supposdely claim to be ‘‘scientific’’ don’t like the quantum theory and some of them have even denounced it as ‘‘Petit-bourgeois idealism’’ — a capitalist weapon disguised as a science in order to nullify marxist science — If this isn’t a conspiracy theory, I don’t know what is?
I can also verify this accusation by simply quoting Marxists themselves,
‘‘Why should Marxists concern themselves with this part of science? Best leave it to the scientists, perhaps, those experts who know best. But bourgeois ideology permeates every aspect of life under capitalism. Scientists claim to be objective, simply dealing with the facts. There are countless examples that prove the opposite, from the cover-up for decades of the health-effects of smoking to the Nazi experiments in eugenics. Anyway, how can a scientist be objective when under capitalism science and technique are the key to vast profits?’’ — Against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics — in defence of Marxism, Harry Nielsen, 2005
This is a mind-blowing argument because of its stupidity. If one argues that science cannot be objective under capitalist science, then the same science which Marx and Engels developed under the capitalist science of the 19th century also cannot be objective. The same so-called Marxists Scientists are the first ones to denounce science whole-hearthedly and becoming unscientific and idealists at the first moment of ‘‘Change’’ — All dialecticians preach change, but surprisingly enough the communists who preach change, seem to be afraid of ‘‘change’’ — and any development that replaces late stage communism is something that they want to halt and react against, as the biggest reactionary conservatives. If someone proved to me, that egoism can be replaced by some higher system that can replace it dialectically, then I would whole hearthedly accept it as a higher mode of liberation. As an egoists I do not fear change, but seek it always.
Let us suppose however that Quantum mechanics is wrong and that the Marxists are right? — What does this imply for egoism?
According to Engels this law of The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa) is not only present in the sciences as part of the natural world, but also in history and society,
‘‘In biology, as in the history of human society, the same law holds good at every step, but we prefer to dwell here on examples from the exact sciences, since here the quantities are accurately measurable and traceable.’’ — Engels’ Dialectics of Nature, II. Dialectics (The general nature of dialectics to be developed as the science of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics.)
and the following quote:
‘‘But to have formulated for the first time in its universally valid form a general law of development of nature, society, and thought, will always remain an act of historic importance.’’ — Engels’ Dialectics of Nature, II. Dialectics (The general nature of dialectics to be developed as the science of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics.)
In both quotation, Engels affirms how this law of dialectics functions also in society, this means that this law of nature is applicable even after late-stage communism has been achieved. For instance, let us take the example of capitalism — Under capitalism the development of productive forces through the industrial revolution was a change in quantity, however — the more the machinery developed in quantity, and the more there where quantitivate alterations to early mercantile capitalism, the more the political economy was changes in it’s quality. The nature of capitalism as a ‘‘quality’’ fully changed because of a quantity in the development of the productive forces. It implied that capitalists would concetrate themselves on owning the means of production and therefore the industrial revolution’s alteration in the quantity of the means of production, implied that the feudal and mercantile characteristics were metamorphosed into fully developed capitalism. Therefore the change from ‘‘Feudal mercantilism’’ to ‘‘Capitalism’’ occured also because of the quantity of productive forces, which in turn altered the political economy, from mercantilism into capitalism.
What about the changes in Late-Stage Communism — If we assume that communism means the communal ownership of public property and the means of production, and the communal ownership of the surplus value of all labour, to each according to his need. Then we have created a society of extreme abundance, this is also a quantitative change, which implies the more abundance there is — The less ‘‘Labour’’ we would recquire to do — As such if Labour is no longer recquired, either because there are ‘‘automations’’ that can do the job instead of the proletariat or otherwise because society is abundant, this would imply the abolition of labour itself and to an extension the abolition of ‘‘workers’’ — Therefore the quantitative changes in late-stage communism, results in the qualitative change of individuals — From workers, they no longer remain ‘‘Proletariat’’ but they become ‘‘Unique Individuals’’ —
The manner in which Labour is abolished is through both a physical struggle between the ‘‘society of workers’’ and ‘‘Society of Idlers’’ — but labour also withers away the more abundant society becomes. According to Marxist theory, when class is abolished, the state withers away because it no longer acts as a organ of class rule — since class no longer exists, it cannot act as an organ of class rule — therefore the state withers away. Labour in a communist society is attacked on two-fronts, the struggle between workers and idlers and the withering away of labour itself because a society that becomes more abundant recquires less and less labour, especially if that society has automatons.
If Labour is abolished, the worker is abolished, and with the abolishment of the worker, no one needs to ‘‘own’’ the means of production any longer. Either the means of production are controlled by automatons in a self-sustaining community, or otherwise communist society has created such abundance that it no longer recquires the proletariat’s relation and ownership over the means of production. The Quantity of abundance, transform the communist political economy, into a new kind of economy — ‘‘An Egoist Economy’’ which becomes the new ‘‘Quality’’ — This egoist economy transforms workers into ‘‘unique individuals’’ — and it abolishes workers, labour itself and ownership over the means of production. As such, workers, labour and ownership over the means of production are no longer recquired — While these tools are necessary under late-stage communism, they are no longer recquired in the egoist economy. Communism paves the way towards Egoism using the The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa) which the Marxists believe in.
This might seem like something straight out of ‘‘Bob’s Black’s abolishment of Work’’ — but the truth of the matter is Bob Black has some good points when he says that Work is tyrannical, and that we should replace ‘‘Work with play’’ — Just because we stop Working, does not mean that we would idle around all day, but we would engage in playful activities voluntarily which would act as a mode of creation and production.
He says in his book that,
‘‘ Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it’s forced. This is axiomatic. Bernie de Koven has defined play as the “suspension of consequences.” This is unacceptable if it implies that play is inconsequential. The point is not that play is without consequences. This is to demean play. The point is that the consequences, if any, are gratuitous. Playing and giving are closely related, they are the behavioral and transactional facets of the same impulse, the play-instinct. They share an aristocratic disdain for results. The player gets something out of playing; that’s why he plays. But the core reward is the experience of the activity itself (whatever it is). Some otherwise attentive students of play, like Johan Huizinga (Homo Ludens), define it as game-playing or following rules. I respect Huizinga’s erudition but emphatically reject his constraints. There are many good games (chess, baseball, Monopoly, bridge) which are rule-governed but there is much more to play than game-playing. Conversation, sex, dancing, travel — these practices aren’t rule-governed but they are surely play if anything is. And rules can be played with at least as readily as anything else.’’ — Bob Black, The Abolition of Work
I do agree with Bob Black that Labour should be turned into ‘’Play’’ — this is the transformative quantity of communism, that translates into labour transforming itself into ‘’Play’’ as a quality. When the quantity of labour is increased in communist society, the quality of labour becomes more oppressive, but since more labour creates more abundance, society in turn will lead towards a decrease in the quantity of work in communism — therefore labour is transformed into idleness and play as a quality.
Communism will be the source of destroying labour itself. There will come a time under communism when labour itself is abolished, henceforth, egoism truimphs, and ‘‘work’’ is transformed into ‘‘Play’’ as a quality. The quantity of abundance in communism as a consequence abolishes labour by transforming ‘‘labour’’ into ‘‘play’’
The second principle of Marxist Dialectics is the unity of opposites:
The unity of opposites quite simply means that contradiction in their clash together, will unite as opposites and merge into each other over time, creating through themselves a new synthesis. A cute way to understand this is through the statement, ‘‘opposites attract’’ — In Egoism there is the thesis of ‘‘communist society’’ which finds itself in opposition with ‘‘egoist individualism’’ — if we apply the unity of opposites, the unity of these two quite simply creates the ‘‘Union of Egoists’’ — So far Egoism makes sense, even when we apply marxist logic to it. Let us apply the unity of opposites to ‘‘Labour’’ under communism.
We assume that communism will be an abundant society and therefore ‘‘Labour’’ will come into contradiction with ‘‘idleness’’ — we are not implying that humans beings are naturally ‘‘lazy’’ — we are arguing instead that in an abundant society, people will find less and less reason to work. This has been proven even in capitalist society — if the bourgeois state gives a pension to our elders, the majority of elders will cease their labour all together. Many Marxists claim that with the abolishment of the alientation of labour, workers will have fun working — This is true, with the abolishment of alienation, people will dislike their work less — however if you give people the opportunity to get what they want without labouring, they will prefer this option, — this is proven by our elders today, they cease their labour not because they are incapable of labour because of their ‘‘old age’’ but because they can benefit from society without putting in labour in return. Elderly people already utilize the concept of ‘‘play’’ — because rather than labour, they merely engage in fun activities where they can create things that amuse them.
The thesis of labour will meet it’s antithesis which is ‘‘idleness’’ — Communism will gradually create a society of idlers where some people are still believers of labour, while the others simply idle around and take what they need from the backs of those who labour. Communism will create a society divided between two — ‘‘The Society of workers’’ and ‘‘The Society of Idlers’’
Those who still ‘‘labour’’ will either feel a sense of entitlement and therefore take control of the surplus value of labour and cut the supply of resources towards the idlers (Not allowing idlers to benefit from their labour) — indirectly starving the idlers unless they decide to labour just like everybody else or otherwise they might feel angry and cease their labour all together. This clash between the unity of opposites will create a synthesis, when the thesis of hard labour conflicts with the antithesis of idleness, it will create a synthesis that will transform labour into ‘‘Play’’ — therefore as such ‘‘work is abolished’’ — people no longer produce things for the sake of enriching society, but only ‘‘play’’ with the tools they have in order to benefit themselves, to create because it is of interest to them, not because it is of the interest of material accumulation of society at large.
Let us now apply the unity of opposites to the union of egoists:
The union of egoists is basically a synthesis of both communist society and individualism — therefore this proves that communism is not the last stage of history, but egoism on the other hand is. (Then again, egoist dialectics are leading towards nothing) but this process is the last stage of history. Marx argued a three-step process of change — from capitalism, to socialism, into communism — but instead, here we see the change from communism, to individualist insurrection, into the Union of egoists. Just like communism is the result of the clash between capitalism and socialism, the union of egoists is the result of the clashing unity of opposites of insurrectionist individualism and communist society. The union of egoists — being totally free of any fetter is the last ‘‘Major struggle’’ — all that remains is ‘‘Minor daily’’ struggles in nature and life, where by the unique one constantly liberates himself from other sacred ties.
Some Anarcho-communists might think that this contradiction nonsense, that the individual will find themselves at odds with ‘‘communist society’’ is pure nonsense — but don’t take my word for it, but I think you may take the word of the father of Anarchism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon when he says the following about communism,
‘‘The members of a community, it is true, have no private property; but the community is proprietor, and proprietor not only of the goods, but of the persons and wills. In consequence of this principle of absolute property, labor, which should be only a condition imposed upon man by Nature, becomes in all communities a human commandment, and therefore odious. Passive obedience, irreconcilable with a reflecting will, is strictly enforced.’’ — Pierre- Joseph Proudhon, What is Property? p. 213–124
Proudhon here proves how even under communism not all contradictions are reconciled, man no longer obeys the state because he fears the state, rather he ‘‘passively obeys’’ communal society that has become the proprietor not only of the goods, but of the person’s will in so far as they are labourers in that society. Proudhon speaks in the same tune I spoke in the beginning regarding this issue, — that society itself becomes exploitative because of its permanence. Proudhon is one of the first critics of late-stage communism from leftist circles, followed later on by Stirner in 1844.
In another quote, Proudhon claims that,
‘‘Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is the exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak. In property, inequality of conditions is the result of force, under whatever name it be disguised: physical and mental force; force of events, chance, fortune; force of accumulated property, &c. In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence. This damaging equation is repellent to the conscience, and causes merit to complain; for, although it may be the duty of the strong to aid the weak, they prefer to do it out of generosity, — they never will endure a comparison. Give them equal opportunities of labor, and equal wages, but never allow their jealousy to be awakened by mutual suspicion of unfaithfulness in the performance of the common task.’’ — Pierre- Joseph Proudhon, What is Property? p. 213–124
And the most important of Proudhon’s characteristics of communism is when he foresaw that there will be a contradiction between the society of idlers and the society of labourers under communism,
‘‘Communism is oppression and slavery. Man is very willing to obey the law of duty, serve his country, and oblige his friends; but he wishes to labor when he pleases, where he pleases, and as much as he pleases. He wishes to dispose of his own time, to be governed only by necessity, to choose his friendships, his recreation, and his discipline; to act from judgment, not by command; to sacrifice himself through selfishness, not through servile obligation. Communism is essentially opposed to the free exercise of our faculties, to our noblest desires, to our deepest feelings. Any plan which could be devised for reconciling it with the demands of the individual reason and will would end only in changing the thing while preserving the name. Now, if we are honest truth-seekers, we shall avoid disputes about words.
Thus, communism violates the sovereignty of the conscience, and equality: the first, by restricting spontaneity of mind and heart, and freedom of thought and action; the second, by placing labor and laziness, skill and stupidity, and even vice and virtue on an equality in point of comfort. For the rest, if property is impossible on account of the desire to accumulate, communism would soon become so through the desire to shirk.’’ — Pierre- Joseph Proudhon, What is Property? p. 213–124
According to Proudhon therefore, late stage communism will firstly restrict the spontaneity of man and heart, our freedom of thought and action as sole individuals, and secondly by placing these contradictory elements of labour, laziness, skill and stupidity and vice and virtue on equal points, communist society will experience a lot of contradictions between these opposites and therefore as property is impossible on account of the desire to accumulate, therefore communism too is not ‘‘eternal’’ but temporary, and therefore communism will slowly shrink, it will be relaced by egoism out of it’s desire to shrink and communism just like property will become impossible to exist. The features of commonality or social relationship of man with man may remain in the union of egoists but communism itself will become impossible.
Therefore the role of the egoists in contradiction with egoist society should be to reinstate the spontaneity of man and heart, our freedom of thought and actions as sole individualis, and by placing idleness, stupidity, vice on higher points than labour, skill or virtue. By this we mean, not that we want people to be stupid, but that they can relax and not worry about the world, in a state of ‘‘hakuna matata’’ — No longer do the egoists worry about virtue, but should their be a ‘‘vice’’ that is more of interest to them — then they should pursue that vice more than they pursue the virtue that chains them to a system of morality. No longer do we worry about labour, idleness becomes a characteristics of the unabstracted society of egoists, any form of labour is no longer a form of labour but as Bob Black says, a form of idle ‘‘play’’.
For the longest time, anarchist theory has been very incoherent, not because it doesn’t have any basis in reality, but because it has had many ideas throughout history, some anarchists are divided between individualism, egoism, mutualism, syndicalism, collectivism, communism and the list goes on. Every anarchist theorists has given us something of value, it is an anarchist quality that there should be such variance between anarchist theories. We do not base our ideology on one ‘‘sole thinker’’ for their basis like the marxists do, but we spread ourselves out across the board of a variety of thinkers — This is Anarchism’s strongest quality but also it’s weakest. The failure of anarchists has been to compile all of these ideas into one book, imagine if the bible that has numerous books had not been compiled together, numerous religions would have been formed from it, instead the church benefited from compiling all the religious books into one canonical bible. Throughout my life, this is what I have tried to do, to compile all the anarchist thinkers into one book that has no contradictions whenever the different variants of anarchism are combined.
For Marx, the development of dialectics is like this: ‘‘Capitalism, Socialism and communism’’
For Proudhon the dialectics is as follows: ‘‘Capitalism, intermediary stage of dual power and mutualism’’
For me, the development of dialectics is like this: ‘‘Capitalism, Anarchism, Anarcho-communism, individualist insurrection/mutualism and finally union of egoists.’’
Egoist Mutualism is only an intermediary stage which the egoists use to survive in communist society, without depending on the communist society. Once the idlers take the means of production from the hands of the workers, there is no longer any need for mutualism, every property becomes the property of the individual — production becomes an individual act, and when the time comes that a number of egoists feel the need that production becomes a ‘‘social act’’ — they will simply unite in the form of a union of egoists.
By Egoist mutualism in contradiction with communist society we mean that the form of exchange of the egoists will be different from that of the communists. While the communists rely on society and to the principle to each according to their need. Egoist mutualism would have a form of exchange that basically exchanges resources with other egoists that are of equal value. For example, if I give you 10 bread, you give me 4 bottles of milk.
The egoists mutualist will simply exchange that which they think is of equal value, for example one egoist may value bread more than milk — up to which point he would make an exchange of 4 bread for 10 bottles of milk. Why do the egoist have to use a mutualist form of exchange? — Because this is compatible with egoism, since it does not depend on society’s authority over the means of production, but rather on each and everyone’s authority to do exchange. Proudhon came up with the concept of ‘‘Dual power’’ — the idea that one can build new forms of non-hierarchical institutions as opposed to the hierarchical institutions that already exist. The new alternate form of institution will come into contradiction with the current state of things and the conditions of the time. Dual power it also used in order to sustain a community, to enhance it, so that when the time comes, it will be able to attack the old institutions that are still in place. In the same manner, the egoists idlers who have been exiled from participating in communist society by entitled workers will need to survive, and therefore they need to temporary build a form of mutualist exchange between each other. Of course, the only thing from Proudhonite mutualism that they will construct is the ‘‘Form of mutualist exchange and dual power’’ — and pretty much nothing else. The egoists will make use of dual power and mutualist form of exchange, but everything else that Proudhon preached would no longer apply at this point. For instance, the federalism of Proudhon, and the idea that people should own mutual credit bank collectively no longer applies to the egoists who are struggling against a future communist society, however some of Proudhon’s ideas for example that of ‘‘Free assosciation’’ is the backbone of anarchism for every variant of anarchism, whether collectivist or individualist. The relevancy of Proudhon is still as important as ever — Some people think of Proudhon as a relic of the past, but he really was a visionary of the future and he predicted how communism dialectically will come into contradictions with individuals — how the idlers will be opposed to the entitled workers. The egoists can take some ideas that suit their interest from Proudhon, but they should becareful to adopt only that which they recquire, lest they cease to be egoist and become proudhonists instead (Which is something that I would’t foresee to be an issue) — Mutualism is only used in the egoist’s time of need and as such the mutualist form of exchange does not contradict egoism at all! Once the egoists are strong enough, they can launch an offensive against the the entitled labourers, and once the means of production no longer belongs to society and to labourers, it becomes the property of the individual — By this we mean, not in the sense that every individual can steal machinery and to hell with the world! But rather we mean that every individual can relate to the means of production without the compulsion of society and the necessity of labour pressured on him. When the egoists arrive to this point, the need to adopt mutualist tactics is at an end.
Even mutualism is temporary, because once the society of idlers take the means of production from the workers, they will have strong productive forces that even through ‘‘the individual act of production alone’’ creates enough abundance. The labour of one egoist will be enough for that egoist to build his own house, to have his own car, to have his own water and eletrical supply, to grow his own food, cater to his animals etc. There will come a time where the ‘‘communal life’’ of communism will no longer be necessary in order to create enough abundance for every individual, this is because if we follow dialectical logic, communism’s communal life style will come into contradiction with the desire to live a life apart from others. Again, Stirner makes this clear, when he says,
‘‘We do not aspire to communal life but to a life apart.’’
This quotation does not imply that every individual is like a sole island in the middle of an ocean, rather it means that every individual has an innate desire to become self-sufficient and self-reliant, and achieves that which Stirner calls ‘‘Owness or self-mastery’’ — this can only be achieved if the individual aspires to a life apart, where he can depend on himself and not depend on communal society where he cannot possibly achieve this heightened level of owness. Self-mastery is in direct contradiction to the mastery of society, first mankind masters society, then the individual must master himself by abolishing communal society. In such a system of abundance, one could live a life apart rather than subject himself to communal life.
The productive forces would create such a society of abundance, that even if the egoist labours alone he would be able to construct communism in his own house. He would be able to work alone, to construct everything which he needs abundantly without ever the need to engage with the rest of society — This is especially true if the productive forces are ‘‘automations’’ — up to which point the individual can live in peace without being forced by society to labour by compulsion. The mutualist form of exchange will also become obsoelte because the egoists will no longer need to exchange goods of equal value in order to survive, since they will encounter a society of enough abundance where it will make the mutualist form of exchange obsolete.
I believe first there has to be a platformist anarcho-communist ideology endowed with syndicalist characteristics that abolishes the state, in the peroid of Anarchism, the platformists will intiate anarchist construction and construct anarcho-communism. When Communism is achieved it will be met with individualist insurrection as it’s contradiction, the individuals that insurrect against the communist state. Furthermore, the Society of idlers who now has no resources because the entitled workers have cut their ‘‘resource supply’’ as punishment for idling will develop a mutualist form of economy in order to sustain themselves but when communism is defeated, the individualist will no longer recquire this mutualist form of economy and this mutualist form of economy will wither away and transform itself into egoist economy. When the society of Idlers take the means of production from the labourers, they abolish the need to use an ulterior form of mutualism in order to sustain themselves. Perhaps some people might ask us the question, ‘‘But if the egoists take the means of production from the workers by force?’’ — doesn’t that make the egoists the same as the communist labourers who own and rule the means of production through society at large?’’ — The answer is ‘‘No’’ — because unlike the busy communist worker in late-stage communism that is compelled by society to labour for society at large, in a post-communist egoist world, the egoists only labour when they have too, usually out of ‘‘play’’ or simply out of necessity. The factories will be empty — they will develop cob webs before the first egoist enters in a month, the egoist will approach the machine that makes bread, he will make bread for himself and he will leave. This is also a proudhonite idea — that man’s relation towards an object of labour, make that object the property of the labourer and not of society at large. Therefore under egoism, the egoist will cook bread, catch fish with a fishing road, using high-functioning machinery in over to produce hundreds of cookies, and once that labour is done, the egoist simply takes back what he had produced at home — he doesn’t have to rely on society’s distribution center to distribuite resources on the basis of ‘‘To each according to his need’’ — rather he can simply produce and take back his produce back home.
Let us take again the example of ‘‘cookies’’ — everyone knows that cookies have numerous components, and they can only be possibly be produced if there are other developments of ingredients. For less complex things like furniture or cooking 50 cookies, a sole individual is enough, but mass producing cookies recquires more hands, this where the ‘‘social act of production’’ through a union of egoists becomes a temporary arrangement to mass produce cookies or mass produce a soft drink etc.
If production in a communist society is not ‘’abundant enough’’ — it will create a division in society, the idlers will struggle against the workers by force, if as you say society is ‘’abundant enough’’ and therefore the workers could care less whether one individualist puts less labour then them — than that means that the ‘’labourer’’ is also becoming an idler as a consequence of communist society being abudant. So whether society is not ‘’abundant’’ or society is very ‘’abudant’’ — the forces of labour will still encounter the contradiction of idleness and it will create idleness as a whole. Revolutionaries go through a lot of trouble to abolish capitalism — some end up ‘’worse’’ than they were as a consequence, this is because people are always fighting for something better, and to free yourself totally is one such desire. It is true, the egoist develop their own form of labour in the insurrectionist stage, but only ‘‘temporarily’’ — until they latch themselves on the means of production, it’s a sacrifice, they would have to go to, but this form of labour which they engage in, is more playful. There are cycles of production under communism — When society is abundant, there are many idlers in communism, as a consequence production will be lower, and this will create a chain reaction, between low and high production, between abundance and lower abundance. When production lowers, the other workers will start banging on the door of the idler, so that you would go to work, to increase abudance — they do this, because the few workers that remain in this stage will develop a jealousy of the idlers and they will observe how they have been working for the sake of the idlers. Communism experiences similiar ‘‘Highs and Lows’’ just as capitalist economy — of course the extent of ‘’High and Lows’’ will differ. Under Capitalism there are market meltdowns and financial crisises, under communism there are cycles of high production and high abudance, and as a result that will transform many workers into idlers, which in turn lower abundance, and forces the few remaining entitled workers to use force if necessary in order to get the rest of the population back to work — this ‘‘societal demand’’ becomes enforced and as such becomes a hierarchical force — however the roles are reverses, — communism is the opposite of capitalism par excellence, therefore communism’s mode of oppression is entirerly the opposite of capitalist oppression. Whilst in capitalism those in hierarchical positions are usually the ones that exploit those in non-hierarchical positions — Under communism it’s the direct opposite, — those entitled workers who represent the communal ownership over the means of production, those few remaning workers that remain working after the lower production cycle of communism, are in a ‘‘hierarchial position’’ — but actually they are being the ones exploited of their surplus value. The idlers who do not relate to the means of production are benefiting from the surplus value of the work done by the workers in the lower production stage of the cycle, — Therefore they are exploiting the workers of their surplus value, by extracting the value of a few workers to account for society at large.
Under capitalism: ‘‘The exploiter is the hierarchical capitalist boss who rules over the means of production and the exploited is the working class’’
Under communism: ‘‘The hierarchical busy workers are oppressed by the non-hierarchical idlers who extract the surplus value produced by the few remaining workers’’
This proves how communism and capitalism are diametrically opposite — even in their way of oppressing others — perhaps Proudhon was correct when he said, ‘‘Property is the exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak.’’
When the workers however find themselves hating the idlers, they will struggle with them, and the idlers who want to protect their freedom will resist. This will force the workers to use the tactic of forcefully taking control of the surplus value that was produced and hand out valuable resources only to the labourers and cut off the access to the surplus value when it comes to the idlers. This will force the idlers to either steal from the workers, or develop their own mutualist form of labour and exchange. Some idlers will even give up on their idleness and rejoin the labour force — but this cycle cannot be resolves, because in another cycle of production, there will yet be another crisis of production under communism, which will repeat this process. Only the union of egoists can reconcile the contradictions of the cycle of production under communism.
In the cycle of lower production under communism, the few workers that keep communist society afloat will develop a hate towards the idlers — they will in fact develop certain hierarchical characteristics in the way the labourers themselves run society. The workers will start to develop a means to track ‘‘Those who go to work, and those who are idlers’’ — and in order to do this, they will start to perform ‘‘attendances’’ — similiar to those found in school, to check whether someone has ‘‘abstained’’ from work, and those who are present for work. The capitalist employers also keep track of who labours or not by some right of a silly contract of employment, in the same manner, entitled workers in the lower production stage will keep track of labourers. The capitalist is no longer the employer, rather it is the workforce at large that is the employer of itself. As long as the ‘‘employer’’ exists, even if it is society at large — then there will be oppression. The workers will start to cut the benefits of the idlers who fail to show up for work, in order to reintegrate them back to the labour force. To keep ‘‘track’’ of workers is not something that a communist society should do — in fact this is a peroid where communism starts to show the colors of the past, — some colors of the socialist past will be exposed in full view. It is only governments and capitalist employers that keep track of the populace through the means of ‘‘identifcation cards, passports, attendance, CCTV and the like’’ — A society of supervision is necessarily a society of oppression — Who is doing the supervising and to what end? — If the supervision is being done by some authority — in this case the ‘‘workers’’ — while the idlers do not have the authority of supervision, then necessarily even under communism, tools of societial oppression have developed. The workers will supervise because it is in their interest, the idlers have no reason to supervise the workers. This ‘‘supervision’’ implies a divide between the idlers and the entitlement of workers. While the workers have more power in society, the idlers do not — Communism is the rule of the workers (Not necessarily anarchism as in ‘‘No rulers), and if you are not a worker, then you will be oppressed by the workers. Communist society in the lower production stage will experience a ‘‘socialist’’ backlash from the past, and therefore it will develop socialist energies within communism, and communist society will slowy revert back to socialism — if the communist don’t be careful, they will revert back to socialism. Just like Socialism in the USSR experienced social imperialism and the restoration of capitalism in the Kruschev era, the communist society might also experience socialist restoration through the development of the tools of supervision over the idlers, — the workers might find themselves quickly developing a socialist state in order to oversee production that was not previously done by the idlers. The Marxists are very wrong when they say ‘‘Communism’’ is the last stage — and no state will ever form under communism. This is wrong, because as I have just shown — Communism can revert to socialism simply because the workers want to oversee the process of production and that everyone is doing their fair share. It is egoism rather that has reconciled all contradictions, and therefore the end of ‘‘history’’ is egoism, not communism. Throughout this essay I have explained carefully how contradictions still remain under communism, but when I start to think about the possible contradictions under ‘‘post-communist egoist’’ union, I find none — implying that all reconcilation of contradictions happens under egoism, and not communism. That being said — we must not forget that dialectics is always a process, and it has no end under egoism, For Stirner, all of history is the individual,
‘‘That the individual is of himself a world’s history, and possesses his property in the rest of the world’s history, goes beyond what is Christian. To the Christian the world’s history is the higher thing, because it is the history of Christ or “man”; to the egoist only his history has value, because he wants to develop only himself not the mankind-idea, not God’s plan, not the purposes of Providence, not liberty, and the like.’’ — Max Stirner, The Ego and its own
This is what we can term, ‘‘Historical Egoism’’ — that I as an individual possess all of history, and that the only think that matters is the history of the individual — The individualist’s history and progress has no end, because the unique one has no end to which extent he can develop.
Who is Exploited and Who is the Exploiter?
Under communism, the worker is exploited by the idler, however the worker is an authoritarian over the idler. — In a manner of speaking both oppress each other, this is why it is necessary that the thesis of labour on meeting the antithesis of idleness should create a synthesis of ‘‘play’’ and why the thesis of communist society, when meeting it’s antithesis of individualism, will construct the synthesis of the union of egoists. The union of egoists will reconcile the contradictions of both the problems of the individual and communist society, alongside reconcile the contradiction between idleness and busy labour.
This type of labour is no longer forced by the principle ‘‘from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need’’ — rather, every egoist can have fun while playing on how he makes bread, how he makes chocolate, how he acts like a tailor and builds dresses, and he will take his labour back home. Everyday, the egoist will learn a new ability — How to cook, hunt, use factory machinery, how to craft furniture — how to craft a chessboard, so that later the egoist can play — every day becomes a day where the egoist is fulfilled by his playing.
The dialectical process is therefore like this:
Thesis of Late-Stage Communism — Insurrectionist individualist in contradiction (Use egoist mutualism in order to survive) — Union of egoists as synthesis of communist society and individualist insurrection.
We have combined all of anarchist theory into one: We have included the platformists, the anarcho-communists with the science of Kropotkin, the syndicalists and collectivists, the mutualists and the egoists together.
According to the third criteria of dialectical materialism, ‘‘The Negation of the Negation’’ — It shows how the trajectory of historical development is not a smooth line, but more of complex spiral of contradictions, according to this principle, when society achieves a new age, it might temporarily regress to the past. So for instance, a socialist economy might temporarily regress to the past and become slightly capitalist, because there is a constant struggle between that which ‘‘was’’- and that which is taking shape. If we apply the Negation of the Negation to Egoism, we would find that after egoism is established, people might temporarily degress back to the structures of a communist society. Communism is not fully wiped out under egoism, some features still remain. In one of my other articles I remarked how using the anarcho-communist platformist system, even after the anarchist revolution, and after the state has been abolished, it does not imply that we have achieved communism in 24 hours — since if we apply the negation of the negation principle to anarcho-communism, this means that even after the state has been abolished, some elements of capitalism will remain and will try to resurface, it is up the the anarchists to implement anarchist construction, in order to totally destroy the possbility of capitalism ever resurfacing. The union of egoists merely needs to ‘‘liberate themselves as much as possible’’ and the more they liberate themselves from the chains of society, the less the communist society of the past will attempt to resurface.
According to Marx, …
‘‘capitalist private property,” he wrote, “is the first negation of individual private property, based on individual labor. But capitalist production, with the inevitability of a natural process, gives rise to its own negation. This is the negation of the negation. It does not recreates private property, but individual property on the basis of the achievement of the capitalist era: cooperation and common possession of the earth and the means of production produced through labor itself.” — K. Marx, Kapital, Marx Engels Werke (MEW), Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1956 — , vol. 23, p. 791, or Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works (MECW), New York: International Publishers, 1976 — , vol. 35, p. 751.
We can simply recreate Marx’s argument for the purposes of egoism and say somehint along the lines off —
‘‘Public communist property owned by society is the first negation of public communist property, based on social labour. But communist production, with the ineviatability of a natural process, gives rise to its own negation. This is the negation of the negation. It does not recreate public communist property, but egoist property to each according to the egoist’s needs in accordance with the achievements of the communist era: The Metamorphosis of private property into public communal property, The destruction of division of labour, the destruction of alienation, the construction of communal possession of the means of production. The ability to labour at one’s own capacity and the ability to receive the surplus goods produced by society according to your need.’’ — Yours Truly, Alexander Hope, 2021
If we make such an argument, that even a communist society has a contradiction within itself, — then what is this contradiction? — What are the seeds of egoism within communism? — The communist principle of ‘‘from each according to his ability’’ — already implies a sort of freedom — someone that is free from labour. Communism is based on the masses labouring — based on ‘‘hard work and effort’’ — Egoism is based on the abolishment of labour. If communism already has a hint of freeing oneself from labour, then we might argue that within communism itself, there is already an egoist desire to abolish labour and society. If communism attempts to react against egoism to halt progress, then the communist society will experience a breakdown in it’s societies structure, just as Marx and Engels noted market meltdowns under capitalism. Capitalism being a frail system experienced a lot of breakdowns — and through the analysis of that melt down, Engels proposes that there must be a more stable system, and they called it ‘‘Communism’’ — but when Communism clashes with egoism, it also will experience a shake down and if this society attempts to halt egoists from doing what they want, it will necessarily develop more institutions of societal oppression — the more communist society tries to stop the egoist transformation, the more communist society will collapse unto itself and breed way for egoism to flourish, just like — the more capitalists oppressed their workers and attempted to halt their progress — the more it paved the way for a proletarian revolution.
The principle ‘‘to each according to his need’’ — already implies hints of egoism within communism, because every egoist wants to make the world his ‘‘property’’ and the principle, ‘‘to each according to his need’’ is telling him to do just that, — to make the world his property. My need is pretty large, if you offered me all of the world, I wouldn’t hesistate to take it. If the communists are comfortable with the principle, to each according to his need, then they wouldn’t mind the egoists who want to make the whole world their own and all that it offers as their own property. This only proves that communism allows egoism free reign to develop out of communism itself, just like socialism developed out of the womb of capitalism.
The communist practice of to each according to his needs, implies that not only am I allowed to get what I need through labour, but logic dictates that I can even latch unto property itself, latch unto the means of production and make them my own through force. ‘‘Wouldn’t this mean a form of capitalism?’’ — The answer is ‘‘No’’ — because I do not own things based on how much capital I have, but based on how well I manage to keep it and protect it from falling into other hands. Should the other egoists detest the manner in which I latch myself to machinery, they can simply force me to share it amongs them. That which ‘‘ Late Stage Communism’’ has accomplished cannot be removed, — therefore capitalism at this stage cannot develop, because it is a thing of the past, and it belongs to the musuem of antiquities. One cannot argue that egoists are trying to build capitalism in their backyard, because quite simply at this point in time, capitalism is not even possible to begin with. That which capitalism has abolished cannot return back — All the monarchies of Europe cannot magically return tomorrow, likewise capitalism in a post-communist egoist world is a fading memory. If Marxists are going to argue that egoism after communism will lead to capitalist reconstruction — Then why would they follow a dialectical system which does a full-round Dantean circle back to capitalism? — If the Marxists use this argument, they are also debunking all of their dialectical philosophy.
The bottom line is: ‘‘Just as Marx argues that capitalism constructs the cooperation and common possession of the earth and the means of production produced through labor itself. I can argue that Communism constructs the Metamorphosis of private property into public communal property and communal ownership of the means of production. Just like Marx argued that this common possession of the earth achieved through capitalism was going to help socialism form, I can also argue that communism which allows me to abolish labour when it says ‘‘To each according to his ability’’ and also allows me to relate to the means of production in the egoist sense, because communism says, ‘‘to each according to his need’’
I can simply say that my ‘‘ability’’ is doing no labour at all, and therefore I have abolished societal institutionalised labour. I no longer labour as a means to sustain society, but to sustain myself — I only labour when it benefits me. I can simply say that my ‘‘need’’ is the greatest need and therefore I can relate to the means of production as being my own.
Communism already has hints of egoism, and dialectically, the hints of egoism trapped in communism will attempt to break from the bubble of communism, until egoism is strong enough to overthrow communism and replace it.
We have applied the third principle of dialectics of egoism and so far egoism still stands. Shall we tend call our egoism ‘‘Scientific’’ — Absolutely! We can now call egoism, ‘‘Scientific Egoism’’ — This leads us to a question, which system do we utilize ‘‘Scientific Marxism’’ or ‘‘Scientific Egoism’’ — The Marxists halts his dialectical progress once he achieves communism, the egoist goes beyond that which is communist and therefore the science that has more ‘‘paradigms’’ of science to offer is the better and superior science, in this case, ‘‘Scientific Egoism’’ — The Marxist has a choice to make — Either realize the folly of his dialectics and embrace another form of proletarian struggle such as anarcho-communism or quite simply convert to Scientific egoism.
If I use this term ‘‘Scientific Egoism’’ — does that mean that Max Stirner was a ‘‘Idealist Egoist’’? — The answer is ‘‘No’’ — Stirner in his analysis was very scientific and materialist, perhaps even more than Engels and Marx, because unlike them, he saw the ‘‘superstructure’’ of society as something that needs to be dismantled because it is an abstraction. His Method is quite simply ‘‘abandon everything’’, convert others to egoism, and the more egoists there are that abandon the constructs of society, the more capitalism fails. This meet seem a bit difficult to abandon society when capitalism demands that in order to survive one must engage with society. On the other hand, communism allows us to live in a society of abundance, where I can pretty easily become an ‘‘idler’’ — there will be a contradiction against me being an idler and the labourers, which will transform communist society, into the next phase of egoism. That being said, Stirner’s method is not ‘‘Unrealistic or Utopian’’ — because the idlers under communism have much power in their hand. Stirner’s method for egoism was simply abandon society, and convert others to become idlers as well — This functions well as a method which the idlers can use to overtake society from the hands of the busy working-bee worker drones enchanted by society’s spell under late-stage communism.
 Stirner’s Critics
 Ego and Its Own
 The Ego and Its own
 Ego and Its own
 Elementary Principles of Philosophy
by Georges Politzer
 Elementary Principles of Philosophy
by Georges Politzer
 Ego and Its Own
 Elementary Principles of Philosophy
by Georges Politzer
 Ego and Its own
Part IV — The Mode of Production and relation to production under Egoism
How will the mode of Production under egoism differ from that of communism?
First let us define the mode of production and relation to production in accordance to the Marxists,
“The instruments of production by means of which material goods are produced, the people who set these instruments in motion, and accomplish the production of material goods thanks to a certain experience of production and skill in labor, constitute the productive forces of society. The toiling masses are the main productive force of human society at all stages of its development.” — Politische Ökonomie Lehrbuch, Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1955, S.8
The Definition of the Relations of Production
“The productive forces express the relation of men to the objects and forces of nature used for the production of material goods. But in production, people do not act on nature alone, but also on each other. They produce only by interacting in a certain way and exchanging their activities with each other. In order to produce, they enter into certain relations and relationships with one another,and it is only within these social relations and relationships that their impact on nature, that production takes place. The certain relations and relationships of people in the process of producing material goods constitute the relations of production.” — Politische Ökonomie Lehrbuch, Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1955, S.8f
The fact that the communist claims that the ‘‘Masses must toil’’ at all stages of development immediately implies that even after communism is achieved, the masses will still toil — ‘‘This seems to contradict the idea that communism has abolished all exploitation and that we are fully free as individuals under communism’’ but according to the quotation, the masses must toil — If we are so free, then why are we determined by this toiling which society imposes on us — Perhaps I as an individual do not want to toil, or perhaps the masses do not want to toil all together every day, but would prefer to idle by for weeks, as other union of egoists temporarily labour, and when the times comes for another union of egoist conference of labour, the individuals will toil. Under Communism the masses toil because society is a tyrant that imposes itself on the individual physchologically and also by will and force. This dialectically will come into contradiction with the individual who desires to labour in smaller groups or by himself. Under communism, the masses must toil, under egoism, the individuals unite together temporarily to toil whenever they wish.
Some Marxists will probably quote Engels in his book, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific where he describes the different modes of production. The marxist will no doubt use a certain quotation in order to wrongly accuse egoism as a rightist deviation that seeks to rebuild Anarcho-Capitalism in the backyard of a communist society. This assertion couldn’t be anymore wrong — That which communism has built cannot be destroyed, only transformed. Many communists aspects will remain well into the egoist peroid, just like that which capitalism has created, is utilized in communism, for instance the ‘‘Productive forces’’ that are developed under capitalism. The quote I speak off is namely this,
‘‘Let us briefly sum up our sketch of historical evolution.
I. Mediaeval Society — Individual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large.’’ — Engels, Socialism:Utopian and Scientific.
Some Marxists will no doubt use this argument, in order to denounce egoism as some feudalist reactionaries, that want individualist production on a small scale. However, if we re-analyze Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, we find out that Engels is tracing the historical progression of how humans relate to production in every stage. Egoism after communism doesn’t need to repeat capitalism, socialism and communism’s process — Why should we repeat these things over again when they have already been done before? We relate to production as workers ? — Why cannot I relate to my labour as something that is my own, as my creation — If I draw a piece of art, it is not mine? My creation ? — Just about anything else that is my creation is mine. The egoist doesn’t want to get ‘’more’’ than the other, we don’t base our value about ‘’what others have’’ — the egoist wants to get that which satisfies him to his heart’s content.
That which was created under capitalism, socialism and communism will be enjoyed and utilized by the egoists in the egoist stage. Therefore one cannot claim that egoism is trying to return to ‘‘how things were’’
According to Engels, Medieval production was an individualist small scale act, but the capitalist revolution resulted the transformation of the industry, the means of production are concreated, production has become a ‘‘Social act’’ he says. In the section of the Proletarian revolution he remarks,
‘‘III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out.’’
He immediately affirms that once the proletariat seize public power they will transform the socialized means of production from the bourgeoisie and transform it into public property. HOORAH! — We have freed ourselves from the character of capital but instead we have subordinated ourselves under the character of public property — The property no longer belongs to class but to society at large.
The communists argues that communism has reconciled all contradictions — but again this is incorrect. What do we mean by contradictions in society? — Who is benefitting of off someone else? If the capitalist benefits out of the back of the proletariat, then there is a contradiction. In this manner the communist society beautifies itself on the back of the proletariat. The miseries of society implies that I will experience misery, the well-being of society, implies that I will experience well-being. The troubles of society become my troubles, and the success of society becomes my success. We can therefore argue that society is the dictator of my fixed material position in society, it is society at large that decides whether I will receive well-being or experience misery. If society is lacking food, I will lack food but I am not allowed to steal food because that is not allowed in society. People under communism have fixed social material positions because society is the one who decides their material position. If society is doing well, then the individual does well also, if society is doing horribly, then the individual suffers as consequence. Society’s well being or troubles become the way in which society dictates what material position I am placed in. Under Egoism, it is I as an individual that decides my material position, but not in the capitalist sense, because I do not secure my position through capital. I secure my position through my effort, my actions and my union with others should I desire it. Society may be ‘‘Free’’ — but I am not free from society. The egoist argues that just as the bourgeois class is ‘‘Free’’ and the proletariat are ‘‘oppressed’’, communist society is ‘‘free’’ and the individual is ‘‘oppressed’’ — society as a result is better off, while I as an individual am left in the gutter. There is a contradiction that ensues, a material contradiction — the individual who no longer wishes to allow society to dictate his material position will idle around and steal from the work of others, in turn, the communist society will attempt to crush these individuals. These egoist individuals will develop an egoist consciousness which they will use to unite together in a union of egoists and overturn the communist society that has dictated their material positions. Once the egoists insurrect against such a society, a slightly altered mode of production would usher a new age.
The mode of production under egoism therefore becomes a society where sometimes production is an ‘‘individual act’’ — but other times, production is a ‘‘social act’’ — in other times when the uniques recquire it, production becomes an act of the masses ( and by masses I mean, a very large union of egoists that have temporarily merged together for this specific act) — So the Marxists that accuses the egoist of having a ‘‘medeival character’’ in the way the egoist relates to production is incorrect. If Medievalism has established the individual act of production, if the capitalist revolution has established the social act of production, If the proletarian revolution has transformed private property into public property, then the egoist insurrection will transform public property into the property of the sole unique one. The egoists do not own the means of production together as society but in so far as they are uniques and individuals. They relate to production not as workers in society but as unique individuals with their own personal drives for their labour.
The Egoist assumes everything as being his ‘‘property’’ — the individual act of production, the social and mass act of production are all part of his uniquesness. Therefore the manner in which the egoist relates to production encapsulated both individual acts, social acts and mass acts through the union of egoists.
The union of egoists is a temporary arrangement with pre-set conditions that establishes that the needs of each individual will be supplied through their labour. These pre-set conditions can be maintained or challenged by the same union. After that is done, the union of egoists is disbanded, till they find a need to convene again. This is how the egoist relates to production and the other uniques the egoist enages with. There are othertimes when the individual seeks to labour solely by himself, but most likely he would engage with others as a means to hurry up the process of production.
The Fluidity of Classes under Communism?
Has Communism abolished all classes or does it lead to yet another class?
Under capitalism, the working-class is characterized by two factors: The fact that they are wage-earners and the fact that they have to sell their labour in order to make wealth, in contradiction, the bourgeois class is characterized as those who make wealth through the employment of wage-earners and by the right of their property and the ownership of all their capital. In medieval society, you had to be born under the class of nobility in order to be a noble, otherwise you were a peasant, it was impossible to climb the social ladder of class in medieval society. Under capitalism it is almost impossible to climb the social ladder but with enough wealth, good luck and good connections one might ascent from the level of industrial proletariat into a petit-bourgeoisie — then that petit-bourgeoisie if their business is successfull and they make much profit, they will ascent to industrial bourgeoisie status. Under capitalism the ascension from one class to another is complicated but not totally impossible. Under Communism the ascension and descension from the social ladder of class is a necessity of communist society. In fact, under communism we have what is know as the ‘’fluid class’’ — there is a certain fluidity about the classes under communism.
I hesistate to call these ‘’classes’’ per say, we can refer to them, to ‘’social positions’’ — but in a manner of speaking they are classes, perhaps not in the ‘’traditional sense’’. According to Marxists, when class is abolished, the state withers away, so to claim that under communism, there will be a system of classes, would be to indirectly imply that the state still exists or is about to form itself anew. So either the marxists are wrong about the ‘’withering away of the state’’ or otherwise if we assume that the Marxists are correct in their theory, then we need only change the meaning of class under communism — Rather than meaning a ‘’class’’ that is protected by the organ of rule of class aka the state, — the class under communism in the non-traditional sense is protected by the organ of rule of that class, but instead it is ‘’society’’ — not the state. As I affirmed before, the more society rules, the more communism will revert back to the socialist state system, and a state might eventually get restored.
What are the non-traditional classes under communism? — The society of Idlers who are characterized by their non-labour and benefiting from the surplus value produced by the workers, on the other hand in contradiction we have the society of entitled workers, who control the means of production, have hierarchical status in society and labour busily.
The Idlers — Don’t control the means of production, Don’t labour, extract the surplus value of the work done by the workers.
The workers — Control the means of production, may cut off access to resources that are produced to the idlers, since the workers have control and power over the means of production, while the idlers don’t. The workers are characterized by their labour in society, and they are exploited unfairly by the idlers. In turn, the workers have enough authority to oppress the idlers through cutting off the access to the supply of goods produced.
The Idlers don’t labour, The workers labour, The idlers don’t have control over the means of production, the workers have control on the MOP, the idlers exploit the workers by extracting from their surplus value, the workers do not. The workers cut off access from the supply of goods because they have authority to do so, the idlers cannot since they have no control over the means of production. In communist society classes are very fluid, which means that all individuals will at one point continously ascent and descent from idler status to proletariat status. It is a necessity of communist society, that in the lower cycle of production, many workers will be transformed into idlers, and vice versa in the high cycle of production, many idlers will be transformed into workers. Classes are fluid — and their fluidity is necessary and contingent because communist society demands that there are high and low cycles of production and therefore implies that those that today were workers might find themselves as idlers tomorrow and vice versa those that today that find themselves as workers, might find themselves transformed into idlers tomorrow. Only the union of egoists can dismantle these two classes of idlers and labourers — because with the abolishment of labour and transformation of labour into ‘’play’’ and the transformation of proletarians into ‘’uniques’’ — the society of idlers and labourers will cease to exist, instead a new synthesis is born, where one is unique in his relation to labour and the mode of production is also unique.
Who owns that public property in Communism? — Society owns it, the masses own it. How does egoism differ? — This public property is turned into egoist property — meaning, that egoist will only relate to the means of production when they desire as individuals. The contradiction being as I said before, ‘’Society’’ as a whole being the owner of the means of production dictates the operations of the mop. Under egoism, it is the labourer on the mop that dictates, if he creates something, then it belong to him, (In the individual act of production) — What about the social act of production in a union of egoists — They conference together and decide how to split the surplus amongst each other because it’s a social act of production. This means that since their arrangements is only ‘‘temporary’’ — they are not under the tyranny of permanence of society. A permanent arrangement of production leaves you shackled. If Communism manages to reconcile all material contradictions, then it has ironically achieved egoism.
Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific has argued that society will own public property — but perhaps marxists don’t understand what the word ‘‘Ownership’’ implies. Ownership is characterized through physical protection, you need an army, you need institutions of oppression of some type of another in order to protect what you own on a larger scale. If communism means that ‘‘society owns things’’ — then society will construct institutions of oppression, which means that ‘’communism’’ — wouldn’t be communism at all, if it has to construct institutions of oppression. The Marxists will of course argue that, a communist utopia does not have constructs of oppression, because imperialism is defeated and as such tools of oppression are no longer recquired. Then why did Engels use the word ‘‘ownership’’ which he clearly knows is a word that implies physical protection? — Either Engels was slightly incorrect, or otherwise even a communist society has constructs of oppression.
For instance, if I under a communist society steal some machinery, will this society try to stop me? — If it tries to stop me, because the ‘‘machinery’’ ‘‘belongs to all’’ and belongs to society at large rather than belonging to me,then it has inherently affirmed it’s own institution of oppression against me. It would prove my argument, that society acts like an exploiter towards the individual and as such is a material contradiction. Since there is a material contradiction against ‘‘exploiter and exploited’’ — therefore there will be a struggle, not ‘‘Class struggle’’ in the form of a revolution, but a struggle of insurrection by the individual towards society.
What we refer to class, is a fixed social position, a proletariat will most likely pertain to this class for the rest of their life. Doesn’t communist society do the same thing when it tells me how to live my life according to society’s terms? If Communist society imprisons me in such a society for the rest of my life, then doesn’t it function almost like a class, a fixed material position? — The answer is ‘‘Yes’’ — I have talked to various Marxists and they all disagreed that egoism should replace communism after communism has been achieved — Indirectly that has proven my point — that the society that they preach is ‘‘Fixed’’ and it fixes me in a certain fixed material position in the same society for the rest of my life. I am not allowed to become an egoist and seek to liberate myself from ‘‘fixed positions’’ — the egoists seek to liberate themselves all the time, because it will allow them to overthrow the fixed positions that class and society enforce me in.
The communists halt their progress till ‘‘Communism’’ — they argue that after communism is achieved, there is no more exploitation since they might argue something along the lines of, ‘‘ If in Communism there is no exploitation or division of labour, no alienation of labour, where you can labour one thing tommorow and another the day after, choose to live in places you wish without coercion, do a profession and the other, have a family without chains within this same family and be part of community A and B, i would say Communism realises the full potential of the individual, which completley anihiliates the need for this so-called individualism.’’ — We can simply answer this in a manner of two ways:
Through the course of this essay, we have therefore established two things — that dialectics is an on-going process and that egoism is born out of a contradiction against sacred communism. According to Stirner the dialectical process is on-going, therefore we as dialectical egoists can never claim that communism has abolished all of exploitation, but let us entertain the idea that the communists are correct, — that communism has destroyed all of exploitation, then the result is still egoism, because we are presented in a situation where I can constantly liberate myself.
Whether egoism is born from the fulfillment of communism or whether egoism is born out of a dialectical process of contradiction where the individual idler finds himself in conflict with communist society workers, — the result will always be that of egoist individualism. Therefore whether egoism is born through conflict or through the direct conditions of communism, the result will always be the same — Egoism will tower as a victor over communism and society itself.
The Principles of Egoism
— 1 —
What is Egoism?
Egoism is that which cannot be defined by doctrine and therefore implies the liberation from norms, dogma, society and presents the individual with the conditions necessary for the liberation of the unique one from all that which is ‘‘Fixed’’
— 2 —
What is the Egoist?
The Egoist is that unfixed individual in society which lives entirely day by day through freeing himself from all constraints. The Egoist is that which has become ‘‘Conscious’’ of his egoism, and has also become conscious that society benefits from him through it’s abstractions. The egoist’s sole existence depends on his freeing himself from every chain and fetter that bind him and therefore this unstrained freedom allows him to proclaim himself as unique and to make the entire world his property.
— 3 —
Have Egoists always existed?
Indeed yes, Egoists have always existed from the beginnings of the human race. There have always been egoists that are suppressed by society and executed for their idleness and their disobedience. However, the modern egoists which are developing today are so doing under new material conditions. In the age of feudalism there was much talk of ‘‘capitalism’’ — and there were also small hints of ‘‘Communist talk’’ — meanwhile in the age of capitalism, there is much talk of ‘‘Communism’’ — but there are also small hints of ‘‘egoist talk’’ in the shadows. If we analyze this through historical and dialectical materialism, we would not how under feudalism, the spirit of capitalism was very strong, but there were also those few individual men that were already thinking about ‘‘Communism’’ — such as ‘‘The Diggers’’ for instance in the 17th century that could be defined as more or less ‘‘Agrarian Socialism’’ — While in the 17th century, most of the world was still dominated by feudalism, in England we could already see the birth of republicanism, the rise of the mercantile class and petit-bourgeoisie, we could see in detail the rise of the spirit of capitalism. Capitalism in the 17th century was the topic of ‘‘Discussion’’ in every household, yet with the emergence of radical capitalist thought — there also came those who hinted at ‘‘Communism’’ — In the capitalist age of the 19th and 20th century, there is much talk of ‘‘Communism’’ as it is discussed in every household, but we also know that there are also hints of ‘‘Egoist talk’’ — one of the first men to clearly highlight this was Max Stirner himself, who in an age of capitalism where communist talk was popular, he got himself familiar with Egoism. In the same manner, once the masses grapple with socialism and then communism, the more egoism will become a topic of discussion and the more egoism will rise in order to replace communism.
Engels claims, that the poor and working classes have always existed, even in the Roman empire, he claims in his principles of communism, that ‘‘There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today;’’ — but he also claims that working men under industrial revolutionary conditions are referred to as ‘‘Proletarians’’ — In the same manner, using the same argument by Engels, — There have always been ‘‘Egoists’’ — but the true unique ones will develop in the age of communism when the means of production have been collectivized by society. Communist revolutionaries develop best under capitalism, not under any other age such as feudalism. The Diggers for instance today would be regarded as ‘‘Utopian socialists’’ — this is because they were not yet living under the conditions of capitalism. The Egoists living under capitalism can still be egoists, but the true unique ones will develop in an age of communism. That being said, in the 20th there has been a major socialist victory, both by Marxists and Anarchists, — Socialism had been put into practice and therefore since the 20th century neared itself closer to the realization of communism, therefore the horizon of egoism could be seen even more clearly. In the 21st century however, most of these 20th century experiments have been expired by revisionism, clearly a result of capitalist restoration under the Marxist-Leninist system, — in places which practiced anarchism such as Zapastias there has been no revisionism whatsoever, and no capitalist restoration of any kind. Some people try to revert progress and go back to capitalism after a socialist proletarian revolution, such people are called ‘‘Revisionists’’ — but these revisionists can only exist in so far as there is a state apparatus one can abuse, without a state apparatus, there can be no revisionists whatsoever and therefore anarchism is much more secure from the reality of capitalist restoration.
When it comes to Rojava, we know that it’s misguided in the sense that it’s not anarchist, but rather democratic confederalist. It takes a lot of theory and practice from Anarchism, but it is not anarchism per excellence, and therefore Rojava is more in danger. The more it ‘‘bolshevizes itself’’ or ‘‘liberalizes itself’’ in the liberal sense, the more chance of capitalist restoration in Rojava. There has been much criticism on ‘‘Platformism’’ in Anarchist circles, some even went as far to call the Platformists, ‘‘Anarcho-Bolsheviks’’ — Yet I find this criticism hypocritical, most modern anarchist together flock together at the ideas of democratic confederalism, not realizing that the democratic confederalists are more authoritarian than the platformists. Therefore, in some social experiment or another whether it had success or whether it failed, socialism as an idea was implemented and therefore brought me and others to think more about the ideas of egoism — Me and other uniques can observe egoism from a horizon that is waving at us and crystallizing in the sky. Therefore, any egoist theory that develops in the 21st century is directly the result of being molded as a human race by the experience of scientific socialism in the 20th century, whether of a Marxist or Anarchist kind.
— 4 —
How did the Modern Egoist originate?
The Egoists like Max Stirner and others before him never ‘‘Originated’’ — Human beings are naturally unique. Yet the unique ones under different economic conditions will experience different types of ‘‘uniqueness’’ — an egoist under feudalism will differ than an egoist in capitalism or communism. Stirner makes it historically clear that Egoists have always existed for example in the ancient world, Stirner refers to ‘‘Greek law, on which the Greek states rested, had to be perverted and undermined by the egoists within these states, and the states went down that the individuals might become free, the Greek people fell because the individuals cared less for this people than for themselves.’’ When we say Modern Egoist however, we are refering specifically to either egoists who have experienced scientific socialism in the 20th century or the future communists when communism is actually achieved. The 21st century egoists are the first sparks of the modern egoists and much of what the egoists will proclaim in this era will be relevant in the future.
Max Stirner’s egoism developed as a direct criticism of Utopian socialism at its climax, but it also addressed slightly the scientific socialism that was just about forming in Stirner’s time with Proudhon’s scientific socialism and to an extension, the early works of Marx and Engels. As socialist theory develops, so does egoism in retrospect. Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are only temporary stages of history, meanwhile Egoism has been since the dawn of mankind, since the primitive era of tribal societies, and egoism develops in each and every stage, — the unique is in constant motion throughout every stage of society. Society is transformed from one mode to another and then it ceases to exist — the unique one however transforms into a more unique version of himself and as such never ceases to exist. Feudalism transformed into capitalism, then socialism, finally it is transformed into communism — The highest peak of society’s liberation. Society is free, but the individual is not — the individual develops as direct antithesis to society and the synthesis of the unity of opposites creates the unique ones. The unique ones have always existed, but the unique one finds his largest climax and fulfillment when he frees himself from the fetters of communist society. Societies are not eternal, civilizations develop and die, likewise the communist society will also develop and eventually die, — communism being the highest climax of society will find itself in a ‘‘fixed position’’ — unable to develop any further and therefore the unfixed egoist finding himself in contradiction to the fixedness of communist society will emancipate himself from that society. Society is temporary, the unique is in an eternal motion of self-liberation. The egoists have been liberating themselves with each stage in societies, throughout tribal society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism — eventually they will find themselves in such a society where the only fetter to the unique one from fulfilling himself is precisely that communist society. The liberal emancipates himself from the nobility, the socialist emancipates himself from the bourgeoisie, the communist emancipates himself from state, class and money. The egoist emancipates himself from the fixed nature of communist society and from the individual’s role as a laborer. The laborers have also emancipated themselves throughout the different historical stages of societies — but the laborer is merely the mask of the ‘‘egoist’’ — class struggle is only a mask for the inner individualist desires of one egoists, — without self-interest, there can be no class-interest just as without the individual, there can be no societies. Eventually in the egoist insurrection against communism, the mask of ‘‘proletarian or laborer’’ will be shed away and the individual will instead embrace his true self as a unique one.
— 5 —
How did the Idler originate?
Perhaps this is a more appropriate question we should be asking of ourselves. The Idler has always existed in relation and contradiction to the hard-working and dutiful laborer who views his labor as something sacred. Throughout history, ‘‘Idlers’’ have all been known by different terms.
— 6 —
What does Max Stirner say about the Idler?
In order to prove that I am not adding unto egoist theory haphazardly, I will use quotations from the Ego and Its Own in order to prove that Stirner had already talked about the egoist idler in contradiction with the labourer. Therefore, what I am writing in these books is not something ‘‘new’’ which I have just decided to write about. I thought about this personally, came up with the idea myself, when I re-checked the Ego and its Own, I had already found that Stirner makes brief mentions of it scattered throughout the Ego and Its Own. I am not inventing things, but merely adding unto what Stirner had already said about the idler from a 21st century perspective and as parody of Marxist doctrine in retrospect to Stirner’s parody to early communists, Utopian Socialists, Proudhonists, Hegelians and liberals.
— 7 —
Different levels of Idleness and Labour? (Productive Labour Vs Wasting time, unproductive idleness and productive idleness)
We want to get rid of labour, does that mean that I and the other egoists hate labour? ‘‘No’’ — ‘‘I love Labour, I could sit and watch it all day’’ when it’s being performed by others. I only love labour when I am idle, when I am playing a video game of my choice, developing my character and levelling it up, when I am reading my favorite book, when I am writing my favorite book, when I am watching and engaging with my favorite television show. Idleness can be ‘‘unproductive’’ but it also can be ‘‘productive’’
As Jerome says, ‘‘Idling always has been my strong point. I take no credit to myself in the matter — it is a gift. Few possess it. There are plenty of lazy people and plenty of slow-coaches, but a genuine idler is a rarity. He is not a man who slouches about with his hands in his pockets. On the contrary, his most startling characteristic is that he is always intensely busy. It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. There is no fun in doing nothing when you have nothing to do. Wasting time is merely an occupation then, and a most exhausting one. Idleness, like kisses, to be sweet must be stolen.’’ Jerome is correct, because ‘‘wasting time’’ is often than not boring, for instance, waiting in a line to buy food from a food truck, or waiting for your ‘‘date’’ or ‘‘girlfriend/boyfriend’’ because they are late, or waiting for the bus to arrive. Wasting time is as much as boring as labour. Labour and wasting time does not grant us happiness, but idleness that engages us with a source of enjoyment does. There are different tiers of unproductive idleness, the most unproductive form of idleness is wasting time, the next up the list, is ‘‘unproductive idleness’’ with an ‘‘intention in mind’’ , for instance having an ‘‘intention’’ before hand to engage in sun bathing, perhaps you can sun bathe for 20 minutes or more, but anymore than that, and the longer you engage in this idleness, the more it becomes boring, this is because you have set up an ‘‘intention’’ and have transformed idleness into a ‘‘duty’’ and when idleness is transformed into duty, it ceases to be idleness and transforms itself into labour. Henceforth, in order for one to completely fulfill himself in idleness, one needs to be wary of setting up ‘‘targets or goals’’ of idleness. This can be seen clearly in writers who like to write books, at first they are excited by an idea for a book, they start writing in a hurry, but the more time passes, and the more they prescribe ‘‘targets or goals’’ to the writing task, the more the task ceases to be idle, and transforms itself into a duty of labour, therefore writing the book is no longer an act of self-enjoyment, but a necessity the individual has propped up himself as a duty. This duty is then transformed into labour and the action of writing the book, no longer fulfills the individual with happiness.
We can idle unproductively like sun bathing or sleeping, but this type of idling becomes exhausting, because according to the idler Jerome, the idler with hands in his pockets is not fulfilled by his idleness. Unproductive idleness fulfills us temporary, but that which fulfills us constantly is a form of productive idleness, like attending the theatre — (Engaging oneself with a tragedy such as that of Macbeth or Hamlet) — attending the theatre although not in itself productive, is a form of idleness that engages the idler with the external material world as the source of enjoyment, meanwhile the most unproductive forms of idleness, is engaging with oneself, such as ‘‘thinking, sleeping, meditation, doing nothing’’, the second tier of idleness which is still unproductive engages the idler with the external material world around him, like playing a video game, reading, attending the theatre, watching a movie etc. The productive forms of idleness are the most fulfilling for the idler, because ‘‘productive idleness’’ is the dialectical synthesis of the thesis of ‘‘productive labour’’ and it’s contradictory opposite antithesis of ‘‘unproductive idleness’’. The productive forms of idleness are for example ‘‘producing poetry, painting’’ etc.
I can idle in my thoughts like a philosopher, I can idle in my prayer as a religious fellow, I can idle in debate or discussion, by going to great lengths in order to disprove the propositions of my opponents. I can idle by being productive, for instance producing a poem, a novel, or engage in other art forms whether it be painting or music. What therefore is the difference between work and idling, since both can be productive? — Labour is always productive, it is never unproductive, idleness on the other hand is both productive and unproductive. Labour is a necessity, a duty, a norm and dogma of society enforced by humanity at large and the source of humanity’s ‘‘ennui’’ just as Bob Black proclaims in his book The Abolition of Work, ‘‘That labour is the source of all misery’’, while idleness is solely my free choice which is not a necessity for human survival, yet necessary for my sole enjoyment. When I say that idleness can be productive, I do not mean that idleness has the same type of ‘‘productivity’’ labour has, for instance, the idler can create a poem because the object of creation becomes the source of his enjoyment and idleness. In contrast, one cannot produce a poem because he wants to ‘‘labour’’ — a ‘‘labourer poet’’ by definition does not exist. One cannot produce a poem because he feels that it is his duty prescribed by society to produce that poem — if the poet or the artist produces his art because of ‘‘duty and norms of society’’ that enforce him to produce that art form as ‘‘necessity’’ — then that poet or artist, is not a ‘‘real poet’’ but rather a sad type-writer, writing that which society prescribes to him, and who has made his ‘‘writing’’ — the source of his alienation and boredom. A poet or artist can only be truly an artist, by being an ‘‘idler’’ and in this manner, they can ‘‘play and have fun’’ with words of poetry and colors of art, and in so doing, the art form becomes their source of enjoyment. Labour has the productivity of misery and idleness has the productivity of happiness and fulfillment. Furthermore, the arts are not a necessity for human survival. While labour produces things necessary for survival, idleness produces things necessary for human happiness. When you have to wake up at 6:00 am in the morning, to grab the bus or travel by car towards your labour which is a necessity for your wage, this becomes a source of misery — even under communism, where wage-slavery is abolished, the fact, that you have to wake up pretty early in the morning, because society at large expects you to enhance communist society at large, also is a source of misery — because it is enforced through ‘‘necessity’’ — meanwhile ‘‘idleness’’ is not enforced by ‘‘necessity’’ — idleness frees us from the ‘‘necessity’’ of labour. Since idleness is not a necessity, it is therefore freedom because we have agency to choose when to idle and when not to idle and in what way we idle. No one can command us in which way to idle, not our boss, not our church, not society. Only labour is enforced through the command of someone else. As I have remarked, some forms of idleness are productive, but not in the same way labour is productive, on the other hand, for the most part, idleness is unproductive. For instance, Sun bathing in front of a cool house pool with an icy soda in your hand is an unproductive form of leisure and idleness, in that nothing is being ‘‘produced’’ in this action. Labour does not allow me to be ‘‘idle’’ but idleness allows me to labour freely or to be unproductive i.e (Sun bathing or sleeping).
Labour is oppression of the highest form and idleness freedom of the highest form. I want to idle when I am at work, everyone wishes he were back at home — The communists thinks that in a communist society, all alienation of work is abolished because that is associated with capitalism, that because ‘‘wage-slavery’’ does not exist, because the division of labour is abolished, I can therefore enjoy ‘‘labour’’ — but even in such a society, even while I am ‘‘working’’, I would be wishing instead that I where ‘‘idling’’ — as long as labour is a ‘‘social necessity’’ for survival, it will always be ennui; it will always demand of its people to labour as much as possible, and if one individual labours less than the rest, than the rest will ostracize that which labours less than the others. Hence forth, the egoist or the idler find himself ashamed in a communist society, where he is pressured by the masses to labour as much as the others. Even under communist society, ‘‘When I’m at work, I’m wishing instead that I was idling’’ — as one of the first idlers, Jerome K. Jerome, proclaimed in ‘‘Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow’’ in 1886, that ‘‘I like idling when I ought not to be idling; not when it is the only thing I have to do. That is my pig-headed nature. The time when I like best to stand with my back to the fire, calculating how much I owe, is when my desk is heaped highest with letters that must be answered by the next post. When I like to dawdle longest over my dinner is when I have a heavy evening’s work before me. And if, for some urgent reason, I ought to be up particularly early in the morning, it is then, more than at any other time, that I love to lie an extra half-hour in bed.’’
The Levels of Idleness:
1. Unproductive Idleness (Wasting Time) — Least fulfilling, usually because we don’t have free choice to choose this form of idleness, such as waiting for the bus to arrive, we have no control on what time the bus will come.
2. Unproductive idleness with Intention — The intention to idle around doing nothing or to plan out a sunbathing session or a meditation session. This only fulfills the individual for a short period of time, because the act of ‘‘planning out’’ idleness makes idleness a duty and a routine, and ‘‘duty and routine’’ are factors of labor, meanwhile idleness is not hindered by duty or routine. The factors of labour are duty and routine, therefore if we prescribe these factors to idleness, gradually over time, the form of idleness will be transformed into labour, such as being bored of writing a book, because it has become a routine and a duty. Idleness can be enjoyed mostly when it is not ‘‘planned’’ — we need always remember that idleness is the contradiction of labour, therefore is labour is characterized by ‘‘routine and duty’’, therefore idleness is characterized by the opposite factors, namely ‘‘sporadic and slow’’. Labour occurs in routines and occurs out of a sense to finish an object (as duty), meanwhile sporadic implies that true idleness Is not characterized by routine, but occurs at different moments of intervals, while idleness does not care whether the object is finished tomorrow or the day after, but concerned solely with the enjoyment of engaging with the object. Idleness with ‘‘intention’’ unlike ‘‘wasting time’’ waiting for the bus, we are free to choose our form of idleness, in other words, we are not ‘‘determined’’ by circumstances. However, the ‘‘intention’’ of idleness is a free action that chains us and determines our future, even if it’s coming from our free choice. For instance, if I want to practice Buddhist meditation and I declare that I must meditate an hour a day, this quickly becomes a deterministic factor in my life, and becomes a duty, however if my Buddhist meditation practice is sporadic during the week, I am free from determining myself into a duty and a routine.
3. Unproductive Idleness (In connection to the external world) — This form of idleness is unproductive in itself, but it is a type of idleness that enjoys watching the productivity of others, for example ‘‘me watching a movie that others have produced’’ or me ‘‘watching actors on a stage at a dramatic play in the theatre’’ or perhaps attending the Gymnasium — even such an effortful task such as ‘‘physical exercise’’ in the Gymnasium is a form of unproductive idleness in connection to machines such as the treadmill or the weights, when one exercises by himself without the help of tools and machines, such as jogging or running or performing jumping jacks, one is not idling in connection to the world, but idleness becomes an internal act, even the effortful task of attending the gym although it requires a generation of sweat is still a form of idleness, if one uses exercise as a means to relax their mind, if one uses the gym to attain a goal, such as achieve a ‘‘six pack’’ — one might quickly find himself bored by the routine of attending the gym, but if the effort of attending the gym is sporadic, then it’s enjoyable — I once again repeat, that I do not hate work, I could sit and watch it for hours. The external word is determined by labour and I take pleasure as the idler to freely choose which object from the external world, whether a book or a movie to partake pleasure in.
4. Productive Idleness — This form of idleness is the synthesis of the thesis of productive labour and the antithesis of unproductive idleness. It is being idle, while being productive, such as idling in writing this book. This form of productive idleness includes our free agency, for it is our free will that decides our form of productive idleness. The labourer has a ‘‘deterministic role’’ in society as the Marxists say, but the idler has a ‘‘free will’’ role in society. But isn’t the idler also determined by productive forces? — This is true, because the lumpen proletariat as an idler is determined as such by capitalist economy, however the mode of idleness is up to the individual to choose, meanwhile the mode of production of the labourers is determined by society. The labourer is dominated by ‘‘routine, determinism, work ethics and Christian selflessness’’, while the antithesis of labourers which are the idlers has opposing qualities, that of ‘‘sporadic, selfishness, free will and no ethos of idleness whatsoever)
— 8 —
The Idler in Tribal society (Or Primitive communism)?
In Chinua Achebe’s novel, ‘‘Things Fall Apart’’ analyzing Igbo society, the idler is represented by Okonkwo’s father, ‘‘Unoka’’ whom African communal society at large detested due to his laziness. In Igbo culture the term ‘‘Agbala’’ is used to describe a woman, but it is also an insult to a man that is probably an idler and a debtor. It is clear that many tribal primitive communist society viewed the idler as separate from themselves and therefore ostracized from society — the same thing shall happen to the idler in late-stage communism. As long as there are workers, there will always be those who idle, while those who work do so because work is a necessity for survival, the idler indulges in leisure becomes he has attained other means of survival. The modern-day land lord under capitalism is an idler because he has other means of sustenance in contradiction with the worker who has to sell his labor in exchange for a wage. The Idler like the worker has always existed but under different conditions in each society. In tribal primitive communist society, the idler benefited from the labor of the workers and as such the worker felt entitled and superior to the idler in such a manner that the idler was ostracized. In the earliest stage of tribal society, one could not afford to be an idler, the homo Sapien had to combat against the forces of nature and in order to survive, he had to work hard, — however we must first define what we mean by the word labor, if labor means work that produces things, then the homo Sapien that merely hunts for food is not a worker but merely a person that survives off the labor of nature herself but if we characterize the laborer as someone who has to use manual force in order to achieve something, like hunting a deer or building a house, then even the tribal hunter-gatherer is a laborer. The Idler in the earliest stages of tribal society was neither respected nor hated — he was merely left behind as he slowed down the rest, or he merely died due to his idleness. Idleness increases in the age of abundance, during tribal society the world and its ecology was plenty abundant but mankind did not have the necessary tools to exploit the earth and its resources. During the agricultural revolution, mankind developed new productive forces, innovated new tools and new means of production that could exploit the earth’s resources, and therefore during the latest stages of tribal society, we experience a stage of abundance, a new method of farming and maintain cattle. The agricultural revolution brought about an abundance never seen before, and therefore idleness increased. At this stage in communal agricultural society, the idler was hated and often ostracized from his family.
— 9 —
The Idler in the Ancient World?
After Tribal society, comes into full view, the ancient world. The idlers in the Ancient world were philosophers and thinkers, — the pre-Socratic philosophers such as Democritus, the father of atomism also known as the laughing philosopher in contrast with another Pre-Socratic Philosopher known as Heraclitus who is the father of dialectics and also known as the weeping philosopher. These Pre-Socratics had something in common — all of them were philosophers but at the same time they indulged in idleness, they were not part of the ‘‘ruling elite’’ in the ancient world, rather they were an often than not ostracized group, for instance, Democritus was largely hated by Plato and also upon arriving to Athens, no one knew his name and nobody even cared. Democritus was born in a noble family, but he was not interested in the fixed social position of noble family, rather he used his father’s inheritance to sustain his thirst for knowledge, and therefore Democritus didn’t labor, but rather idled and thus became a philosophers. With the coming of Socrates and Plato however, philosophy would not just be an activity of thought in ‘‘Idleness’’ — Socrates marked a change in philosophy and Plato transitioned Socratic oral philosophy into the written form. Plato specifically was the largest turning point in philosophy, because it was no longer just an activity of the idle person but rather became a laborious and very fixed social task — Plato no longer wanted philosophers to be idlers, but rather he wanted them to become ‘‘Rulers’’ and ‘‘Philosopher Kings’’ — the idea that only the wise should lead the polis. In the opposite side of the world in Asia, we have Confucius, who developed more or less a similar sociological theory of society, the idea of philosopher kings. Confucius and Plato are like the Pre-Marx of the Ancient world, however, everyone has the irreconcilable enemy that is the ‘‘individual’’ — with the rise of Plato and Confucius as ‘‘hard-working philosophers’’ — there was also at a rise the antithesis that opposed Platonic and Confucian philosophy. The idler that mocked Plato was precisely Diogenes and the idler that mocked Confucius was precisely Lao Tzu. We can say that every Marx must have a Stirner figure that opposes him. The Idlers in the ancient world were deep thinkers, — some of them were hedonists, others were epicurean or even Taoists. The idler philosopher was respected by the ancient world’s elite, such as Alexander the Great who deeply admired Diogenes, in contrast Diogenes completely disrespected the elite, because it was precisely the elite Diogenes wanted to stay away from. In contrast, in Feudalism, the idler respects the elite catholic church and in return the catholic church respects the monastic idler in return. The ascetic form of life is already seen in development in the ancient world, such as in Zeno of Citium whom although was wealthy rejected the life of wealth in pursuit of a life of peace and idleness. From the Ancient world into feudalism, there is a transformation of the idler, no longer is the idler a ‘‘philosopher’’ but rather the idler is a religious and spiritual person. The idlers were more free in the ancient world, because virtually everyone could pursue a life of idleness without being pursued by the state or the elite. Everyone could become a philosopher and to an extension an idler — however when this idleness was weakening the polis, it meant that the polis would lose economic and militaristic strength and therefore over time, the states developed a machinery of oppression against the idlers. In Feudalism, you could only become an idler under the guidance of the elite, under the guidance of the catholic church. In many ways, under feudalism you have a mark or a passport or permission granted by the authorities to act as an idler or as a monastic. This marks that moment in history when the elite is starting to restrict idlers more and more, but up to feudalism, idlers were very large in number, in capitalism, the story would change, an idler becomes an expense and is no longer respected, and thus he degenerates to a role we today call a ‘‘Lumpen proletariat’’.
— 10 —
The Idler in the Middle Ages?
It is often hypothesized that one of the criteria of why the Roman Empire fell was due to the idleness that had developed throughout the Roman Empire. Notwithstanding that the Roman Empire fell because of many factors, but during the course of this question we are mainly interested in the ‘‘idleness question’’ Historically it is a fact that the Roman people no longer fought their own wars, instead they relied on Barbarian mercenaries to fight their wars, men whose only loyalty was to Gold, the Roman people lost their will to defend their homes. Patriotism no longer haunted the Roman’s head, instead his only loyalty was to himself and to his gold. The Roman became an egoist and an idler and as consequence the Roman Empire fell. The abundance of the Roman Empire meant that the Romans no longer needed to fight their own wars, but meant that they could hire people to fight wars for them. As Niccolò Machiavelli highlights in his book, ‘‘The Prince’’ and Sun Tzu in his book, ‘‘The Art of War’’ — hired mercenaries could never replace the efficiency of a militarized standing army. The Mercenaries’s only loyalty is to Gold and the loyalty of the one who hired him is also loyal to Gold, henceforth, both the mercenaries and the Roman Empire itself became egoist in character and no longer cared for society at large or for the political and economic structure and standing of the Empire. The Roman empire lost itself, it went from a project to rid the world of Barbarism, to something much weaker, a state led by a military leader without an army to call his own. The barbarians Rome swore to destroy, became Rome’s main fighting force. People which would have once fought for the Empire, no longer did so due to the Empire’s conversion to a “foreign” faith. Furthermore, since the Army was just a bunch of Mercenaries, Taxes skyrocketed, further turning the Romans against the Roman government. The Crisis of the Third century has significantly weakened the Central government leading to Diocletian splitting the empire into 4 regions, led by 2 western leaders and 2 eastern leaders and one of these 4 men was the Senior Augustus, basically the emperor. These Men almost never agreed, which eventually led to the splitting of the Empire. There was a gradual decline of Roman birthrates, One of the Reasons why the Empire relied on Mercenaries. Latin was no longer spoken throughout the empire, In the east, Latin was practically dead even among the Roman officials. You had the Christian morality constantly combatting with the Pagan Morality embedded within the Roman culture. It was impossible for Rome not to fall. The Crisis of the Third century doomed the Empire. At least in the west. This was the victory of the idlers and the loss of the proletarians.
This shows us how Idleness is always egoist in its character and it’s the enemy of the proletariat, the hard worker, the enemy of generalities and societies, it cares only about itself, maintains only itself and through its attention solely to itself, it causes the fall and destruction of society. We must point out however, that egoists don’t condemn egoism itself, we could care less whether the Roman Empire falls.
The Roman Empire was conquered through the means of hard labor and war, while what brought about its fall was the idleness of the Roman Empire itself and its inhabitants. In contrast the hard-working Nordic forces were quickly conquering parts of the empire. The idle Romans were at risk as being conquered by the busy barbarian forces, but before this could happen, there was the diaspora of Christianity and therefore the idleness of the Christian way of life converted the North from their pagan way of life. Idleness had won a major victory against the busy proletarians (Both from the North and even throughout the Roman Empire) — The idlers would carry out this victory throughout the rest of the Middle Ages, till finally the proletarians would strike back during the protestant reformation.
Under feudalism, the idler was the ‘‘Christian’’ — that monk or the monastic and aesthetic that avoided labor all together in order to pursue a perfect life in Christ. Throughout many religious practices in all the world, whether Hinduism, Christianity or Buddhism, monasticism meant that one would pursue a life of non-labor and therefore an idler by definition. However, unlike the idler in primitive communism that was ostracized, the Christian idler in feudalism was a highly respected member of society, on the other hand, the busy worker, or the hard-working craftsman, merchant etc were viewed with disrespect as unchristian, because they were trying always to increase their capital and maximizing their profit. The Monastic asks for charity as a means of survival and under feudal society he is immediately attended with the most extreme hospitality, one such hospitality was given to Sir Gawainn in the poem, ‘‘Sir Gawainn and the Green Knight’’ and of course charity towards the monastic was a very common practice in the middle ages. The idler in social democratic society that asks for hospitality today is most likely ignored, charity is no longer a virtue, the only thing that can sustain the idler under capitalism is sometimes state welfare or some sort of state unemployed benefit. The masses in capitalism see the virtue in paying taxes in order to aid the idler, but they no longer see the feudal virtue of charity as an important proponent of society. The Idler in highly liberal places like America are ignored and left for dead. This unbridled capitalism means that capitalists are attempting to make the idler suffer in order so that the idler rejoins the working force. The capitalists leaves the individual only two choices, ‘‘Starvation or wage-slavery’’
We have noted how in the Ancient world, the idler was respected or hated depending on different time period of the ancient world, while in the middle ages and under classical feudalism, almost everyone had stability, and almost everyone was enslaved by the same system. Feudalism as a result has more stability than capitalism, and therefore laborers always had work and therefore for the major part had secure material security. That being said, idlers still existed in religious institutions and to be an idler on earth meant to be a laborer in heaven and serving God. Beggars, Monastics, Monks in seclusion and Ascetic were highly respected people. Monasticism is usually characterized by living in poverty, seclusion and isolation from the rest of the world — The monastic person is a highly involuntary egoist as Stirner would say. This is because the egoist aspires for a life apart from the other and not for communal life — therefore the monastic person is the proto-egoist, an involuntary egoist who lives apart from communal society, all he required is himself and God, if only the monastic had done away with God, he would have probably achieved the status of a voluntary egoist. The monastic was the egoist of the middle ages, and the idler philosopher was the egoist of the ancient world. There were many fake philosophers who tried to construct morality, construct spooks in order to fit their ‘‘proletarian role’’ and thus they subverted idle philosophy and made philosophy a laborious task. In similar manner, there were those who sought to subvert the idle religion of the monastics and made religion into a laborious task — the transformation of Catholicism into Protestantism and to an extension Puritanism. After all it was Martin Luther himself who from 1505–1511 lived as a monk himself and lived in similar egoist idler fashion — but he himself subverted this role and made religion into a laborious task and resigned the previous idleship of monastic Catholicism. The same place where Luther was a monk was St. Augustine’s monastery in Germany, founded in 1277, carrying a long tradition of idle monasticism, but ironically because of the dialectical features of society in motion, St. Augustine’s monastery was also the cradle of the reformation.
Monastics started their idle role in the early middle ages guided by Desert Theology or the way of the Desert Monastics. These lived a life of total seclusion from the world as hermits, this was the earliest stage of monasticism known predominantly as Eremitic Monasticism. Throughout the Middle Ages, this developed into Cenobitic monasticism, were although these monastics lived in isolation from the world, the monastics came together in little communities, like the earliest Desert Fathers. We can exponentially observe a subversion from the idle ship of the earlier Eremitic Monastics into the Cenobitic Monastics, but the worst subversion is found when monasticism during the latest stage of Cenobitic monasticism when religious rules were introduced on how people should carry out their monasticism. No longer where monastics free to pursue their own individual freedom to walk their own hermetic path, no longer where they allowed to be idlers. This was during the book of precepts called ‘‘The Rule of Saint Benedict’’ in 515 A.D written by Benedict of Nursia. These were a set of rules presented in order to control the idle monastic communities that had formed. These rules were not in effect in 515 A.D, in fact Benedict of Nursia never intended for his rules to be enforced and he never intended to construct a religious order that enforces these rules. Monastics from the late middle ages would actually construct this the order of Saint Benedict in order to enforce these rules. One of the fundamental classical rules of Benedict was ‘‘Ora et labora’’ — Which in English signifies, ‘‘Pray and Work’’ — already we can see a deep contrast between the earlier monastics that didn’t labor at all, and spend most of their time in prayer and idleness when compared to Benedict’s rules of monastic community, where the members are expected to work and pray. This is the ‘‘Proletarianisation’’ of the idle monastics and therefore historically we can affirm that the worker (Proletarian) has always been the enemy of the idler (the individualist egoist). Benedict himself hated the idlers with the passion, in fact St. Benedict begins Chapter 48 with an aphorism, ‘‘Otiositas inimica est animae — “Idleness is the enemy of the soul.”, and it becomes crystal clear that Benedict sought the subvert the idle monk and transform him into a proletarian monk. That being said, Benedict didn’t deny the time for leisure, in fact he believed that the day should be split between laborious task and leisure tasks, divided into times of idleness and times of labor, this is because dialectically Benedict was still affected by the echoes of the idle past, but also effected by the laborious future. The dialectical law of the negation of the negation states that at certain moments in history, when a new age is being born and the old age withers away, there is a precise moment in the new age, where old customs resurface again, and therefore Benedict’s balance between ‘‘Labor and idleness’’ seem to represent this precise moment in history. After Benedict, society would start to reject idleness and leisure totally and move towards a society that values labor above all else. There is a dialectical tension in Benedict’s balance between idleness and labor, but he maintains his insistence, that there should be sanctum otium — a “holy leisure” but at the same time we must do the work of God (Opus Dei) — This dialectical tension between thesis and antithesis, between labor and idleness would meet its climax during the reformation, when finally monasticism is abandoned almost totally by the protestants and instead the direct opposite is worshipped — namely what in modernist times people called, ‘‘The Protestant Work-Ethic’’ — The idler lost a major victory against the proletarian during the protestant reformation and this defeat was carried throughout the Renaissance, throughout Victorian England, until finally during the industrial revolution, the idler would resurface as the ‘‘Lumpen Proletariat’’ in contradiction with the Industrial Proletariat.
— 11 —
The Idler in the Renaissance up to the Protestant Reformation?
The protestant reformation allowed a split in the church and therefore allowed the freedom to construct one’s own protestant church voluntarily and in so doing, property was divided and more divided, with the Protestant Reformation we observe the division of church and state property but we also observe a division of labor allocated per division of property, of course the division of labor would fully formulate itself much later when capitalism was developing. During the initial stages of the Renaissance, we already observe a change from the old catholic order, during the time of Marsilio Ficino and Cosimo De Medici. The Renaissance is said to have been born in Italy, Florence circa 1340 A.D until at least the 16th century. Even during the reign of Catholicism we still observe that a social change is about to occur. The Renaissance pretty early on, already formulated the concept of the ‘‘Renaissance man’’ which was in contradiction to the ‘‘Idle Man’’, — the Renaissance man whom like Cosimo De Medici was an innovator, a banker, a politician and patron of the arts — the Renaissance man was like the Proto-Capitalist or mercantilist. It was also in this period that the word ‘‘Lazy’’ had be constructed in contradiction with the busy Renaissance man. The etymological meaning of the word lazy has its origins in 1540 A.D, as (laysy), of persons, “averse to labor, action, or effort,” a word of unknown origin. In 19c. thought to be from lay (v.) as tipsy from tip. Skeat is responsible for the prevailing modern view that it probably comes from Low German, from a source such as Middle Low German laisch “weak, feeble, tired” According to an Online Etymology Dictionary. All these definitions point out to a feeble and possibly sick person, perhaps a better word to use is the word ‘‘Idle’’ — because for me the word ‘‘Idle’’ has a direct connection with the ‘‘Ego’’ Of Stirner. The Ego of Stirner destroys all towards nothing and emptiness. In the same like manner, the word idle also implies ‘‘emptiness’’ According to the same online dictionary, Idle comes from Old English meaning, ‘‘idel “empty, void; vain; worthless, useless,” from Proto-West Germanic *idla- (source also of Old Saxon idal, Old Frisian idel “empty, worthless,” Old Dutch idil, Old High German ital, German eitel “vain, useless, mere, pure”), a word of unknown origin.’’
— 12 —
The Idler in the English Civil War, American Revolution, French Revolution, and the American Civil War?
First, we shall analyze the idler under the influence of the industrial revolution — What happened to the feudal idler in the industrial revolution and how was the idler transformed?
The idler in feudalism made part of the elite, he was the aristocrat, the lazy son of the baron. He was the religious man who begged for scraps, he was also the monk at the temple. The majority of people were serfs, and therefore the unemployed existed as a minority — either as the discarded few in the streets that begged for charity and were respected for it or otherwise the nuns at the catholic church and the monks — they made part of a religious and feudal class. In my egoist analysis — I do not merely analyze roles such as ‘‘idlers’’ and ‘‘labourers’’ — to analyze this merely from the perspective of idler and labourer is to present to the reader a Utopian analysis, meanwhile a scientific analysis has to include a ‘‘class analysis’’ — but here I do not reproduce the class analysis of Marx, but an egoist class analysis, — the analysis of idlers and unemployed throughout the history of class struggle. Marx’s ideas of ‘‘class analysis’’ does not exhaust all the possibilities of analysis of class, and therefore I am at liberty to present a class analysis from the idler’s point of view and not from the labourer’s point of view. This is because, even the idler is constrained by the limitations of their class. Marx in the communist Manifesto resorts to an anti-class analysis of the Lumpen Proletariat, and he flirts with utopian analysis of the unemployed. Marx claims the following in the Communist Manifesto, ‘‘ The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.’’ — According to Marx, therefore, the unemployed don’t develop in historical stages, but are merely the remnants of the old society, for instance, the lumpen proletariat of capitalism are merely the remnants of a rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old feudal society. He also claims that the lumpen proletariat are ‘‘reactionaries’’ countless of times — but he’s mistaken, the lumpen proletariat are insurrectionists as opposed to revolutionaries. Does this mean that the lumpen proletariat cannot be revolutionaries? — The answer is ‘‘No’’ — throughout history the lumpen proletariat are capable in engaging in both revolutionary activity and insurrectionist activity. One of the many instances where the idler unemployed ( Lumpen proletariat) engaged in revolutionary activity was precisely during the French Revolutionary Wars — specifically those who are termed in French as the ‘‘sans-culottes’’ — that where common people, commoners of the most lower classes, whom although they were ill-equipped and received no support from the middle classes in their revolution, they nonetheless made a huge bulk of the revolutionary army and were thus responsible and engaged as the ‘‘sons of the French revolution’’ as they believed in much of its ideals such as, social equality, economic equality, and popular democracy. The Sans-Culottes also had future factions such as the ‘‘Enragés and the Hébertists’’ which where proto-socialist anti-bourgeois factions which made a part of the Paris Commune event of 1789–1795 A.D. Implying that the history of proletarian class struggle and socialist struggle began not from the proletariat of the Paris Commune of 1871 but from the Paris Commune of 1789, when the first unemployed idlers in history struggled against the monarchy. It was from the first ragged unemployed idlers that socialist struggle first began. Therefore, Marx is incorrect when he claims that the lumpen proletariat do not have ‘‘revolutionary potential’’ — the so-called historical materialist analyses the lumpen proletariat from an ahistorical point of view, like most of the petit-bourgeois idealists today. The Lumpen Proletariat is free to choose the mode of struggle — they can be both revolutionary and insurrectionists. In the age of communism, the idler has no choice but to be an insurrectionist, but in the age of feudalism and capitalism, the idler has a choice, to either unite with other for a revolution or engage in insurrection. The reason why I say under communism, the egoist idlers can only be an insurrectionists, is because we assume that communism is a ‘‘stateless society’’ and revolution specifically implies the ‘‘replacing of one power with another’’ in violent struggle, and since in communism there is no such ‘‘state power’’ — therefore there can no revolution that destroys communism, but rather an egoist insurrection. Karl Marx also does another disservice to the analysis of the lumpen proletariat — first and foremost he treats the lumpen proletariat as the remnant of the old age, and not something that has developed throughout history. For Marx, the unemployed in the Roman Empire, in the middle ages and in the age of capitalism are all the same, they are all ‘‘lumpen proletariat’’ — they do not progress in history, on the other hand, for me, the lumpen proletariat didn’t always exist, it only started to exist recently alongside the industrial proletariat — Just as the industrial proletariat is the by product of the industrial revolution, so is therefore the lumpen proletariat a product of the industrial revolution. Even I sometimes gloss over this ‘‘fact’’ that the lumpen proletariat only started to exist relatively recently — but it is an important fact to remember, that the idler in tribal society engaged with society but was abandoned, that the idler in the ancient world although abandoned was well-respected, that the idler in feudalism was in ‘‘power’’ — The catholic idlers in ‘‘power’’ were removed circa the Protestant Reformation. Catholicism provided the idler with ‘‘shelter’’ — the church provided shelter for the poor and the oppressed in the Middle Ages, it namely provided shelter for the ‘‘non-workers’’ of society, the fact that most women opted to become ‘‘nuns’’ is a fact of this. The Protestant Reformation however abandoned the poor and rather than protect them, it colonized them in other countries under the name of a new religion, under the Church of England. The labourers became oppressors over the idlers (For they considered the tribal societies in South America and Africa as idlers or as backwards people) — the labourers took their revenge against the idler by the power of the protestant work ethic, and they forced this ethic upon tribal people. Frantz Fanon himself as a modern Marxist would go against the idea of Marx and Engels, that the Lumpen Proletariat are not revolutionary and claim instead that in third world countries it is precisely the urban lumpen proletariat that are spearheading the socialist revolutions in these countries against the colonialists. One needs only read a few bodies of colonialist-oriented literature such as that of ‘‘Heart of Darkness’’ By Joseph Conrad, to realize the manner in which the British Empire treated its subjects as ‘‘idlers and inferiors’’ as people that needed to be ‘‘re-educated’’ with a Protestant Work Ethic from the Sepulcher city of London.
A few decades later, the unemployed idler in the French Revolutionary wars united with the workers/peasants and the workers in turn united with the bourgeoisie in order to attack the nobility. The Idler therefore had as much ‘‘revolutionary character’’ as any other social class during this period, whether proletariat or bourgeoisie. Even in the 20th century, we observe the revolutionary character of the lumpen proletariat as they either join Marxists or Anarchist movements or vanguards. The Marxists depict the lumpen proletariat as reactionary, but history shows otherwise, that indeed the lumpen proletariat have a revolutionary character, and furthermore they will play a large role in the future to come in the form of egoist insurrection. The Marxist claims, that the labourer will be victorious over the lumpen proletariat, The lumpen proletariat disappears with the abolition of the capitalist system. They forget however, that on the eve of communism, the labourer himself will be transformed into an idler — I remind the reader that the lumpen proletariat is constructed by the conditions of the ‘‘industrial revolution’’ — on the other hand the egoist idler that develops from communism is constructed by the conditions of ‘‘post-scarcity and the automaton’s revolution’’ — Eventually the idler (The one who we termed lumpen proletariat in the capitalist age) shall bite back at his communist oppressors and retake the world from them.
— 13 —
The Idler in the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism
First, we shall analyze the idler under the influence of the industrial revolution — What happened to the feudal idler in the industrial revolution and how was the idler transformed?
Secondly, we shall analyze the idler under modern post-scarcity capitalism as opposed to the earliest stages of capitalism.
Are bourgeoisie and Land Lords also idlers?
The bourgeoisie at first glance are ‘‘idlers’’ because they do not produce like the labourer does, but on the other hand, the bourgeoisie also labour always in relation with the proletariat. It is the relationship between bourgeoisie and proletariat that creates wealth in capitalism. Therefore, whenever we speak of idlers, we are always speaking about those ‘‘idlers’’ that engage with themselves, not with the product of their labour, not with capital and not with private property. The capitalist although he may be lazy and he may not labour in the same manner a proletarian does, still has to ‘‘compete’’ with other capitalists, and this competition requires a certain amount of labour, even if petty in nature, such as ‘‘ordering people around’’ — the unemployed idler on the other hand, doesn’t even do this labour of ordering people around, he engages in no form of labour whatsoever. Land Lords take their wealth through property, The bourgeoisie exploit others to make wealth because of capital, the proletariat has to sell his labour capacity to the bourgeoisie to earn money, meanwhile the idler relies on ‘‘nothing’’ — not on labour, not on capital, not on private property. What about the idler monastic monk in feudalism? — The monk or the nun do not own the ‘‘church’’ as property — therefore his relation to the church is of a ‘‘superficial nature’’ — the feudal idler monk relies not on labour, relies not on property and relies not on capital, instead the idler monk relies solely on Prayer and Divine Providence, henceforth he’s as much a lumpen proletariat as the modern lumpen proletariat, the only difference being, that the modern lumpen proletariat has forsaken his religious Tradition. The bourgeoisie have to labour in order to maintain their power, and maintain their property and capital, and the labourer has to labour in order to earn a wage — therefore we conclude that although the land lord, the aristocratic and the bourgeoisie are ‘‘lazy’’ because they are the minority ruling class — they do not necessarily make part of the social class of ‘‘idlers’’ which I have historically analyzed, therefore the ‘‘idlers’’ which I speak off do not have a ‘‘philistine’’ mode of character, and are devoid of the ‘‘bourgeois character’’ — on the other hand, they are also devoid of the ‘‘proletarian character’’ — because they are a social class that is independent of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but still affected by these classes by the conditions which capitalism has created. They have a ‘‘unique character’’ or an egoist character, the ‘‘Christian monastic monk’’ in his altruism only seeks to gratify his egoism — because it is out of a selfish wish to become ‘‘one’’ of heaven that he acts so altruistically. The idler engaged in struggle against proletarians that sought to control him in tribal society, throughout history there has been moments when the idlers controlled the workers, and moments when there was a shift in power, where the workers struggled against the idlers and took control over the idler once again. Capitalism is the only moment in history when both worker and idler are oppressed by another class — namely the bourgeoisie. The history of class struggle before capitalism was always the struggle between the idler class and the proletarian class — in feudalism for instance, the idler class was the ‘‘religious body’’ of feudalism. In the French Revolution, the idlers were banned from the power of the church, and therefore the idlers sought their revenge against the clergy, and they united with the bourgeoisie and the proletarians to destroy the same church that they once made part off in the middle Ages. In capitalism, the bourgeoisie rules over both idlers (Lumpen Proletariat) and the proletariat. Only through a union of industrial proletariat, peasant and lumpen proletariat can we hope to destroy the bourgeoisie. The Idlers and the Industrial proletariat shall unite once more, this time, not to help the bourgeoisie destroy the monarchy but to destroy the bourgeoisie themselves. In the age of communism, the idler is once again in contradiction with the proletariat, and because of the conditions of communism, it creates also the conditions for the egoist idler’s insurrection where the idler will once and for all become free from the labourer.
— 14 —
The Idler in 20th century Socialism in the Modernist Period?
During the capitalist stage, the Proletariat is the main driving force of the world, but we are already seeing how the lumpen proletariat rises up and increases with every capitalist crisis there is — the implementation of socialism is merely the proletariat’s way to assert his dominance again over the Lumpen Proletariat. Capitalism favors the industrial proletariat over the Lumpen Proletariat, however due to Capitalism’s instabilities, the lumpen proletariat rises and starts to take over the industrial proletariat, in order for the industrial proletariat to maintain his dominance on the idler, he must battle against the instabilities of capitalism and thus constructs socialism. The Lumpen proletariat and Industrial proletariat are in constant struggle under capitalism — at certain moments the Lumpen Proletariat seem to be victorious, at other moments, the industrial proletariat take over power again. The Bolshevik Revolution proved to be a victory of the Proletariat in the east, meanwhile in the east, the capitalist crisis of the Great Depression of the 30’s proved to be a Lumpen Proletariat Victory in the Western world. A few years later, the Chinese Communist Revolution was a victory of the industrial proletariat and the peasantry. Socialism is a means to secure the dominance of the proletariat from the instabilities of capitalism, and also to secure the proletarian role of society, to omit the transformation of proletarian into Lumpen proletarian and vice versa. Under most socialist states like China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam and the like, almost all citizens were employed, therefore almost no lumpen proletariat or unemployed individuals were to be found — therefore socialism can also be defined as a means to secure proletarian dominance, in order to secure a fixed material status of the proletarian. While under capitalism, the proletariat is unsure whether he will have the same job he had yesterday, or whether he will end up on the streets on the next day, under socialism, one’s job is always secured. Under Capitalism, the lumpen proletariat can become an industrial proletariat and vice versa an industrial proletariat can become a lumpen proletariat, in other cases, labor aristocrats can be transformed into the industrial proletariat or seek to join the bourgeoisie by becoming themselves petit bourgeoisie, and finally the petit bourgeoisie can either end up becoming a proletarian himself or become part of the national bourgeoisie, in extension the national bourgeoisie and compradors can make their way to becoming imperialists. In 20th century socialism, in its initial stages we observe that socialists abolished these ‘‘instable transformations’’ we see in capitalism, instead in socialist state, the proletarian was sure that he was stable and financially secure. As the years passed however, all the socialist states hereby enacted suffered a surge of revisionism and therefore capitalist restoration was inevitable, no longer was the proletariat secure in his material position, instead he found himself once more in an unstable position of the lumpen proletariat. Of course, we cannot blame the idlers for this instability, it is capitalism itself that is unstable not the lumpen proletariat themselves. The Lumpen Proletariat are merely the idlers under the conditions of capitalism — the conditions of the lumpen proletariat under the conditions of socialism would be different. Under Socialism, The Lumpen Proletariat are almost inexistant, because the socialist state makes sure that almost every citizen has a job. On the other hand, the stateless and classless communism cannot make sure that everyone has a job, because there is no state and no institution by which it can make sure that everyone labors, therefore communism is the climax of proletarian victory but also the turning point which will allow the egoist idlers to completely destroy the proletariat forever and transform themselves into idlers.
During the Modernist period, the Idler and proletarian struggle was at a stalemate, similar to how in the mid — Middle Ages, the monastics like the Benedictine monks were at a stalemate or at a dilemma whether they should be ‘‘Idlers or whether they should be proletarians’’ — eventually the proletarians won, and likewise in 20th century socialism, the proletarians won — however with the death of most socialist experiments into the post-modernist era, we observe the Lumpen proletariat were on the rise again and winning back their world of idleness from the hands of the busy workers.
— 15 —
The Idler in Post-Modernism?
— 16 —
The Idler in Post-Post-Modernism (Our time)?
— 17 —
The Idler in the Automaton’s Revolution?
— 18 —
The Idler in Communism?
Lenin in his The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism remarked how, ‘‘Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital.’’ — he justifies this, through class struggle and dialectics in history. Of course, we as egoists can use the same method Lenin uses in order to justify our egoism, and I can likewise say, ‘‘Communism shall triumph all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of idleness over labour’’ — it is true that Lenin’s statement is correct regarding the triumph of labour over capital — socialism and communism are indeed that thing. According to Lenin, ‘‘Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed’’ — this army of the unemployed are the lumpen proletariat or as I prefer to characterize them, the ‘‘Idlers’’ under the conditions of capital and the industrial revolution. Now I ask the question, ‘‘What shall happen to the idlers under the conditions of labour in communism and the automaton’s revolution?’’ — the answer for me is simple, just as it was simple for Marx and Lenin. Just like socialism and communism do away with ‘‘capital’’ and to an extension capitalism itself, egoism will do away with ‘‘labour’’ and to an extension communist society itself. The communists shall triumph over capital through their labour and using the same argument the egoists shall triumph over labour through their idleness. The Labourer in capitalist society creates capital itself, this ‘‘capital’’ is indeed a form of abundance, but this form of abundance is owned by the bourgeoisie and they control this abundance as they see fit — as a consequence, capital destroys the proletariat and gives life to the idlers and lumpen proletariat, as the reserve army of laborers or else, the army of the unemployed. If ‘‘capital’’ through abundance creation is able to create such idlers, then how much will communist society free from the shackles of capital, and free to produce and equalize this abundance, how much more will it create idlers in it’s wake. Lenin is incorrect when he says, capital destroys the proletariat, because a more correct explanation would be, that capital transforms the industrial proletariat into a lumpen proletariat and vice versa. Capitalist society transforms the labourer through capital, but in so transforming labourers into lumpen proletariat, it also destroys capitalism itself, it allows the workers to consciously unite together to overthrow capitalism. Capitalism can never destroy the laborer fully — because at it stands today under industrial conditions, capitalism can only transform the proletariat into a lumpen proletariat and when it needs more labourers, it will simply employ the abandoned lumpen proletariat and transform them back to industrial proletariat. The only social system that can destroy the proletariat is ironically communism itself. Communist society destroys the labourer through the labour act and in so doing, communists society also destroys itself, by allowing the idlers to take over the communist mode of production and living. Only capitalist society can construct the conditions by which capital is abolished, and likewise only communist society can construct the conditions by which labourers and labour are abolished either through automation, struggle between egoist idlers and busy proletarian communists, or because communist society is able to produce such abundance through little labour, that labour will slowly become extinct. I personally believe in a combination of these three factors that will lead to the transformation of communist society, into an egoist world, namely — the productive forces will develop and jump from the industrial revolution into another sort of revolution, i.e (The Automaton’s revolution), secondly the struggle between idler and proletariat, and finally the cycles of abundance in communist society. Marx himself indirectly proves this to be true when in one of his Manuscripts in 1847 called ‘‘Wages’’ he claims that, ‘‘Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction. The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it, i.e., when the overpopulation is the greatest.’’ The most important phrase in this quotation is the first one for our egoist purposes. The fact that big industry requires an army of unemployed in times of overproduction. Isn’t this fact also true under a communist society? When Communist society experiences a stage of overabundance/overproduction, then it will require labour less, and as consequence most labourers will be instantly transformed into idlers. Marx proves indirectly that a society such as ‘‘communism’’ which is supposed to be abundant will also transformed the labourer into an idler through a process of ‘‘Lumpen Proletarianization’’. The less workers there are, the less abundant communist society shall be, then society will experience a stage of non-abundance, where it will require workers again. The Idlers will attempt to find a solution for that contradiction and the ultimate solution is to be found in the ‘‘automaton’s revolution’’ — with the rise of automatons, so fall the proletarians, and so rise the idlers and since workers no longer control the means of production and to an extension no longer own them collectively as one society, therefore the world will be transformed into an egoist one, where every egoists latched unto things and calls them, his or her ‘‘property’’ — the property of the unique one.
— 19 —
The Idler in a world of Egoism?
— 20 —
Summary of the Idler Origins
In primitive communism — Workers are respected, Idlers are ostracized, under feudalism, the other way round — Idler respected, worker was observed suspiciously. In Capitalism both workers and idlers become financial components, the worker becomes a commodity, and the idler becomes an expense. In communism, the idler benefits from the labor of the workers and as such both of them develop in opposing poles in relationship to each other.
In capitalism we are presented with the opposites of feudalism — Capitalist society views the maximization of profit as a virtue and the idlers as an irresponsible debtor, and as an expense of society. Under capitalism, no one is given respect, everything becomes a ‘‘commodity’’- everything becomes unhuman. For the capitalist, the worker is a commodity that can help me produce more profit, while the idler is an expense that is quickly written off.
The industrial revolution meant that craftmanship was slowly decaying and most craftsmen petit-bourgeoisie, either became bourgeoisie themselves, or mostly they found themselves as proletarians as a result of the development of towns in the industrial revolution. In communism, the division of labor is abolished as Kropotkin in the Conquest of Bread remarked, and therefore the need for craftmanship and the expression of the individualist act of production is born yet again but this time under communist conditions and a communist mode of production. Capitalism paves the way towards communism, the social act of production is indeed born under capitalism, but these are the seeds of socialism that are used to destroy capitalism itself. In the same manner, communism utilizes the social act of production, but since communism is wholly opposite to the unbridled competition and isolation of capitalism, communism will also abolish the division of labor. The abolition of the division of labor, implies that products are no longer produced through a division of labor, but rather every individual gets to produce one product as a whole in itself. For example, a whole wooden table or a wooden chair. The abolition of the division of labor implies a return to craftmanship under communist conditions, this implies that each laborer in communism will mass produce products, but not in a way that is divisive, — if there is a factory that makes bread, each individual produce his own bread under his own fashion. Under capitalism, labor is divided, rather than having workers produce bread altogether, some workers produce yeast, others prepare the dough, some collect water, some mix the mixture, some workers are responsible for baking. In communism, every worker will prepare bread under his own design and will — that being said, while under communism the worker designs his labor according to his own fashion, the fact that he labors is not the first thing on his mind — The first thing on his mind is ‘‘Leisure and idleness’’ — but society through the compulsion of the masses forces him to labor first, and leisure later, otherwise he risks being ostracized. One does not need a state or capitalism to enforce labor, the necessity of labor and the societal psychological compulsion is strong enough by itself to enforce people to labor even though they might not want too labor themselves.
— 21 —
The Science of Egoism and The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Egoism.
Can Egoism be a science? — The answer is yes, we can be scientific egoists, but we must also remember, that the egoists seeks to liberate himself from the chains of all, even from the chains of science. We only engage in science, only in so far as we can get liberated from the tools of science themselves, such as the ‘‘dialectics’’ — Stirner himself remarks on this in “The Philosophical Reactionaries”, when he says, ‘‘But with the dialectical trick of a philosophy of nature, neither you nor I will cancel the great facts of modern natural research, no more than Schelling and Hegel did’’ — Therefore using this dialectical skill, we can analyze the role of the idler in himself throughout history as juxtaposed to the worker but eventually when the unique one is fulfilled, he will have no further need of science and of the dialectics. Science becomes secondary and the unique one becomes ‘‘everything’’ — science itself becomes my property.
The Marxist at this proposition will rise in opposition and proclaim that ‘‘This is an IDEALIST Analysis, because being a ‘‘christian, an idler, and a worker’’ and presenting an analysis of this is not scientific, since this is the analysis of ‘‘roles in society’’ and not the analysis of ‘‘social classes.
‘‘You’re merely analyzing the daily life of the individual idler and worker in themselves and not the social class that they make part of?!’’ — they screech.
They will claim that Marxism analyzes class struggle in class society and therefore Marxism is scientific. I simply reply to them, that I am doing the same thing — rather than analyze the social class of labourers across history, I am analyzing the social class of idlers across history and their class struggle with other classes. One must not forget that the Christian ‘‘Monk’’ also made part of a social class in feudalism. The Christian Monk was part of the elite feudal classes, just under the Monarch and the nobility themselves. The Christian Monk idler had authority over the peasants — in feudalism therefore, the idlers had control over the labourers, in the antithesis of feudalism — meaning ‘‘capitalism’’ — the roles are reversed. The labourers and the bourgeoisie have insurrected against the idler aristocrats and idler monastic monks. The French revolution had destroyed the old religious way of life, had destroyed the Christian monk and the aristocrats. The labourers and the bourgeoisie united together in the French revolution destroyed the idler monk and aristocrat, and therefore the aristocrat was abolished, and the Christian monk became a minority that is bullied by modernism and its trends. The idler is no longer in power, but has become an outcast, a ‘‘Lumpen proletariat’’, the bourgeoisie are in control of the means of production and the labourers are in control of their labour, the idler is in control of nothing but is controlled by the circumstances which the labourers and the bourgeoisie create. Therefore, the Marxists cannot possibly claim that I am presenting the reader with an anti-class analysis or an anti-class struggle vision, rather, I am presenting the idler as being part of social classes, i.e — the philosopher in the ancient world as part of the middle class, nobility or degenerate, in feudalism, as part of the elite feudal religious class in the form of monastic monks under church rule, in capitalism, the idler as a ‘‘lumpen proletariat’’ which is also a class. Therefore, my arguments regarding the idler’s development throughout history is not merely the development of lazy people, but also the development of idlers in connection with the social class that they inhabit. If my analysis supports both class struggle, class analysis, political economy, philosophical materialism, dialectical materialism and historical materialism, which Lenin called the ‘‘The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism’’ — then I can rightly proclaim, that my analysis of egoism and the idler is as scientific as the Marxist analysis of the proletariat of Marx. The only difference is this: ‘‘While Marx’s dialectics lead us to communism and the proletariat’s fulfillment’’ — my analysis on the other hand leads us beyond that which is communist and beyond the labourer, — in a world where the labourer is transformed into an idler, and labour is abolished, the proletarian is transformed into an egoist, and communist society becomes an egoist world. Which is the stronger science therefore, that of Marx or that of Stirner? This can be answered simply by making comparison to Newton and Einstein. Newton’s theory ‘‘took us so far’’ but Einstein’s scientific theory took us farther and progressed us further. Therefore, we say, ‘‘Einstein’s science is superior’’ — in the same manner, the egoist analysis takes us further than the communist analysis of Marx, therefore we say, ‘‘The Egoist’s Science is superior’’ — When it comes to the dialectics or the analysis of contradictions, we have utilized the same kind of dialectics Marxists use. For Instance, Stalin in his book, The Foundations of Leninism claims that the contradiction to capital is in fact labour, when he claims that, ‘‘The first contradiction is the contradiction between labour and capital. Imperialism is the omnipotence of the monopolist trusts and syndicates, of the banks and the financial oligarchy, in the industrial countries. In the fight against this omnipotence, the customary methods of the working class-trade unions and cooperatives, parliamentary parties and the parliamentary struggle-have proved to be totally inadequate. Either place yourself at the mercy of capital, eke out a wretched existence as of old and sink lower and lower, or adopt a new weapon-this is the alternative imperialism puts before the vast masses of the proletariat. Imperialism brings the working class to revolution.’’ And this is true, Stalin is correct, there is a contradiction between labour and capital. Imperialism is the dominance of monopolist trusts and financial oligarchy in industrial countries and this same imperialism brings the working class closer towards a proletarian revolution. Meanwhile, if I can parody this logic to the ends of egoism, I can proclaim that while it is true that labour is in contradiction with capital, in the same manner, labour is in contradiction to idleness in a communist society. In a communist society, the first contradiction is between labour and idleness. The omnipotence of the spread of labour and the imperialism of the ‘‘Proletarianization’’ of unique individuals develops in post-industrial societies such as communism. Yet industrial society also meets its contradiction, — While industrial society and the industrial revolution transformed the peasants into proletariat, and transformed rural feudal society into capitalist ‘‘Big industrial towns’’ — while the industrial revolution demanded heavy labour, heavy working hours and dedication, the automaton’s revolution which stands as contradiction to the industrial revolution does the opposite — there is no need of ‘‘Great towns’’ where the means of industrial production are concentrated, therefore Great towns are abandoned or transformed once more into rural areas where the environment can once more breathe in the countryside. The automaton’s revolution requires no heavy labour, no long working hours and dedication and it certainly requires no industrial towns. The heavy Proletarianization of the masses under communism leads mankind closer to the egoist’s insurrection against communism. While the imperialism of capitalism leads the proletariat towards socialist revolution, the fact that communism engages in heavy Proletarianization also implies that society will be able to produce much more, utilizing less and less workers, especially since productive forces would have furthermore developed. The spread of communism therefore also leads the egoists towards their insurrection against communism itself, and against their fixed role in society as ‘‘proletarians’’.
— 22 —
The Major Point of this book
If Dialectics exists, the idler wins, and the proletarian loses, if the dialectics does not exist, then the Marxists loses and the proletariat must either convert himself to anarchism or egoism. Marxism depends heavily on dialectics, without such dialectics, Marxism is bankrupt and utopian. The point of this book is to illustrate that if dialectics exists as the ‘‘Marxists say’’ — then they must also acknowledge the fact, that eventually egoism will take over and win over communism because of the same dialectics that they preach, therefore the Marxist would have too necessarily shift himself to an egoist point of view and renounce Marxism itself. On the other hand, if the dialectics doesn’t exist, then the Marxists must renounce his Marxism and convert himself to either an anarchist point of view or an egoist point of view. Whether dialectics exists or not, this book serves as proof, that the Marxists in the 21st century must go extinct. Egoism on the other hand doesn’t have ‘‘dialectics’’ as its pediment, and therefore whether dialectics exists or not, it will always thrive.
 Online Etymology Dictionary
 Online Etymology Dictionary
 The communist manifesto
 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
 Karl Marx, Wages, 1847
 “The Philosophical Reactionaries”
 Joseph Stalin
The Foundations of Leninism
 Engels, Principles of communism p.77
 The Ego and Its own