Max Stirner’s Creative Nothing as Science

For the dialectical materialist, nothing is ‘‘eternal’’ except for the dialectical materialist method itself, except for the transitionary nature of things, excepts for ‘‘the becoming and passing away of things’’.

This is where the egoist disagrees — The egoist is also a dialectical materialist (Dialectical Egoist), however we have advanced our dialectical method beyond what Marx and Engels prescribed to the method. First and foremost, we believe that the Marxist’s argument that ‘‘the dialectical method’’ and the ‘‘becoming and passing away of things’’ is eternal and a fixed law of nature is a mistake. The Dialectical Egoist not only understands that all existing material objects experience dialectical change, but we also believe that since the dialectical method depends on the change of ‘‘material objects’’ — therefore the dialectical method itself is also ‘‘subject to change’’ and eventually the dialectical method will transform itself from ‘‘dialectical materialism’’ into ‘‘Paradoxical Materialism’’ — the paradoxical materialist believes that the assumption of the dialectical materialist that assumes that ‘‘the method’’ is eternal is ‘‘metaphysical’’ in itself for a variety of reason. First and foremost, dialectics owes it’s existence to material objects, ‘‘for if the universe’’ didn’t exist in the first place, dialectics either couldn’t exist, vice versa, without ‘‘dialectical motion’’ — likewise the universe couldn’t exist, therefore the universe is indebted also to the existence of dialectics. Therefore, we conclude that the dialectical method is an inert physical existence within the existing object in itself. For us, the dialectical method is not just a ‘‘method’’ that is applied to material objects, but rather that the material object within itself has a dialectical quality. For instance, an apple exists in material reality, and besides that the apple has the quality of ‘‘redness’’ has the quality of being a particular shape etc, it also has the quality in that it is ‘‘dialectical’’ in nature, in that it will eventually ‘‘grow’’ in time and eventually it will ‘‘pass away’’ — hence the process of ‘‘becoming and passing away’’ is an inert quality of actual physical things. Therefore, we assume, that when ‘‘objects’’ experience an alteration because dialectics, therefore the dialectical nature within the object will in itself also change. Henceforth, if the nature of the universe is ‘‘dialectical’’ — then it may evolve to such a state, where the dialectic itself will also experience ‘‘change’’ — where the very physical laws and constants of the universe will no longer remain ‘‘eternal’’ will no longer remain ‘‘fixed’’, will no longer remain ‘‘immutable’’ but will become instead mutable, subject to change and evolution. Hence, even the laws of motion themselves will eventually change alongside the object, we therefore arrive at the conclusion that just like everything else the dialectical method is ‘‘mutable’’ and subject to change.

The first difference therefore between the Dialectical Materialist and Dialectical Egoist is the following:

1. Dialectical Materialist believes that everything is mutable, everything is subject to dialectical change. Only the dialectical method itself doesn’t change, only the laws of the dialectics are immutable, constant, fixed and eternal.

2. The Dialectical Egoist also believes that everything in the universe is mutable, everything is subject to dialectical change, but we go the extra mile and we also determined that even the very laws of dialectics and even the laws of physics are subject to change. Since the Dialectical method depends on the existence of existing objects and vice versa existing objects depend on the existence of dialectics, therefore a change in dialectics provides a change in existing objects and vice versa a change in existing objects through dialectics itself also provides a change to the dialectical method itself, up to a point where the dialectical method ceases to be itself but becomes something else. What that something else is? We will explain throughout the book.

The Error of Dialectical Materialism:

In the same-like manner in which Capitalism still retains the remnants of feudal social structure, dialectical materialism still retains the remnants of metaphysics within itself, I.E ‘‘the idea that things in nature are immutable, cannot change’’ — there are traces of metaphysics within the dialectical materialist method. In the simple assertion that ‘‘All things change except the Method of change’’ — the dialectical materialist has deflected metaphysics but at the same time sustained it and extended the metaphysical domain. Imagine for a while if I told you, ‘‘This Apple is subject to change; yet the only thing which remains the same, is the fact that the apple changes’’ — therefore the basis of dialectical materialism is standing upon the foundations of ‘‘metaphysics’’ — therefore dialectical materialism primarily depends on metaphysics and the secondary result is ‘‘dialectical’’. If I maintain that the only thing that remains the same is the fact that things ‘‘change’’ — then I have condemned myself to a ‘‘fixed position’’ in where I maintain that all the laws of physics that govern the universe are the ‘‘same, immutable’’ — what the Marxist dialectical materialist doesn’t understand is that the dialectical method isn’t simply an ‘‘application of the method’’ — it is inert in the reality itself of material objects. Therefore, in claiming that the feature of material objects to ‘‘change’’ remains a ‘‘fixed immutable’’ constant, I am also claiming that the objects itself is also ‘‘fixed, immutable, constant’’ — therefore dialectics although it preaches ‘‘change’’ — does a full circle back to the fixed nature of metaphysics in ascertaining that thing in themselves change, but their essential nature of ‘‘changing’’ can never change. Marxist dialectical materialism has not vanquished the enemy, has not vanquished ‘‘metaphysics’’ completely, it takes a dialectical egoist to vanquish metaphysics completely.

Instead of claiming that the dialectical method isn’t prone to change like the Marxists, we claim that our dialectical method is indeed prone to change as well. The Marxists and the scientist will jump in the wagon and critique this position and they will ascertain, ‘‘that in order for the dialectical egoist position to be true’’ we would have to prove that indeed the laws of physics are not ‘‘constant and immutable’’ — that motion itself is not an ‘‘immutable fact of material reality’’ — we can answer this question through modern physics of the 21st century. Motion itself is not an immutable reality, but also a mutable reality in itself, motion certainly ‘‘exists’’ — yet it appears and functions differently, sometimes even paradoxically, one can take the example of ‘‘Carroll’s paradox’’ in physics, when observing the motion of a falling rod that is constrained, the angular momentum stays constant on one observation, but observed differently, the result changes, implying that motion is not always a fixed law, but a mutable one subject to change. Therefore ‘‘Motion itself’’ is subject to change through ‘‘Itself’’ — the very laws of physics which we thought as ‘‘constant’’ are really mutable themselves, and they change themselves through themselves. The Dialectical Materialist will call this ‘‘absurd’’ and ‘‘paradoxical’’ — how can the thing responsible for the change in things also change itself? — the answer is simple: ‘‘Because Motion exists within the object, and if the object changes, so does motion change itself through itself’’ — again some might call this an ‘‘absurd materialism’’ — yet the answer is mostly found in the ‘‘absurd’’ and not in ‘‘common sense’’ — even Engels agrees with this notion, when he described the ‘‘common sense’’ view as inherently metaphysical, ‘‘To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. His communication is ‘yea, yea; nay, nay’; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” For him, a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis, one to the other.

At first sight, this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound commonsense. Only sound commonsense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions.’’[1]

Therefore, it is not fair to critique, an ‘‘absurd’’ view point simply for the sake of it being ‘‘absurd’’ — often than not, it is the absurd which explains reality far better than the commonsense view. What is the absurd nature of dialectical egoism? It is the fact that we claim that the dialectical laws themselves which are responsible for change, also change in themselves. We have to prove therefore, that the universe’s laws are also mutable. Einstein’s special relativity theory proved that ‘‘Motion’’ is not a constant everywhere, yet was mutable due to the curvatures and distortion in space-time that occur as a result of gravity operating around massive objects like the sun, that determined how ‘‘Motion’’ moved. Space-time itself is not a ‘‘constant’’ — to the contrary, it is continuously bending, changing as a response to the motion of matter and energy. In quantum physics, the science of the 21st century, we find even less constants of physics than the previous decades of physics and the previous century. The more science evolves, the more we realize that these so-called ‘‘laws of physics’’ which were once regarded as immutable in the Newtonian Age are actually mutable. There will come an age, where ‘‘absurdity’’ shall become the method of science. It is a metaphysical attitude and to an extension the theological attitude of ‘‘Reductio ad absurdum’’ to deny an argument based on its absurdity. In the quantum age we have been acquainted with the paradoxes of reality including the ‘‘Quantum Zeno effect’’ and many other paradoxes.

Paradoxes not only present themselves in all the sciences whether physics, biology etc but also in ‘‘logic, philosophy and language’’ — paradoxes have shown themselves to have a variety of applicability, even extending to other subjects. The old traditional question ‘‘Which came first, the chicken or the egg?’’ could be considered a paradox, not merely a philosophical one, but also a biological paradox, even a document or a book with a page that says, ‘‘This Page has been left intentionally blank’’ is a type of ironical paradox. Peto’s paradox is a biological paradox, where it was observed that mice have a much higher rate for cancer than humans do, even though humans have the multiplication of a thousand of cells more than mice, to answer this paradox, some have declared ‘‘Evolution’’ to be the answer for this paradox, yet it remains to this day an uncertain paradox. Another Paradox would be the Black hole information paradox in quantum mechanics which states that physical information is destroyed inside a black hole which is problematic for quantum theory because it could mean that the structure of particles we thought never could be destroyed could be destroyed by black holes. Another Paradox is ‘‘Fermi’s Paradox’’ which maintains that alien life is most likely to exist in such a vast universe, yet it somehow doesn’t. These are some examples of paradoxes from the most ‘‘superficial’’ to the most ‘‘complicated’’ — it shows us that paradoxes have a variety of application, which means the paradoxical method is not just a method for a few individual things but can be applied universally to all things.

The second aspects of dialectical egoism is rather than claim that the outcome of dialectics is ‘‘becoming’’ — it claims that the outcome of dialectics is ‘‘dissolving into nothing’’ — as Stirner remarks in the Ego and Its own, “No sheep, no dog, exerts itself to become a “proper sheep, a proper dog”; no beast has its essence appear to it as a task, i. e. as a concept that it has to realize. It realizes itself in living itself out, i. e. dissolving itself, passing away. It does not ask to be or to become anything other than it is.

Do I mean to advise you to be like the beasts? That you ought to become beasts is an exhortation which I certainly cannot give you, as that would again be a task, an ideal (“How doth the little busy bee improve each shining hour…. In works of labor or of skill I would be busy too, for Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do”). It would be the same, too, as if one wished for the beasts that they should become human beings. Your nature is, once for all, a human one; you are human natures, i. e. human beings. But, just because you already are so, you do not still need to become so. Beasts too are “trained,” and a trained beast executes many unnatural things. But a trained dog is no better for itself than a natural one, and has no profit from it, even if it is more companionable for us.

Exertions to “form” all men into moral, rational, pious, human, etc., “beings” (i. e. training) were in vogue from of yore. They are wrecked against the indomitable quality of I, against own nature, against egoism. Those who are trained never attain their ideal, and only profess with their mouth the sublime principles, or make a profession, a profession of faith. In face of this profession they must in life “acknowledge themselves sinners altogether,” and they fall short of their ideal, are “weak men,” and bear with them the consciousness of “human weakness.”

It is different if you do not chase after an ideal as your “destiny,” but dissolve yourself as time dissolves everything. The dissolution is not your “destiny,” because it is present time.

Yet the culture, the religiousness, of men has assuredly made them free, but only free from one lord, to lead them to another.”[2] -It is remarkable how Max Stirner dialectically negates both ‘’Hegel’’ and ‘’Marx’’ — this is the source of Egoist critique. Rather than the dialectical ‘’Becoming’’ of Hegel, Marx and Engels, we get the dialectical ‘’Dissolving’’ — dissolving into nothing as time dissolves everything. The Dialectical method of Hegel because it is always ‘’Becoming’’ — will exist eternally, the dialectical method of Stirner dissolves alongside the object, therefore the method as well is in a state of dissolvement. The dialectical materialist maintains ‘‘Becoming and passing away’’ — in contrast, dialectical egoism maintains ‘‘Dissolvement into nothing, and passing away’’ — with each historical stage we are moving towards our own dissolvement into nothing. The Sheep does not seek to become the ‘‘Ideal sheep’’ — neither does egoist want to become the ‘‘ideal human, communist, Christian or Muslim etc’’ — we don’t want to dialectically ‘‘become’’ into something alien, we simply want to dissolve ourselves into nothing, to live out our life like a candle on fire, — the candle experiences ‘‘growth’’ — but it doesn’t desire to become the ‘‘ideal candle’’ — rather it burns itself out and dissolves itself, the same shall happen to the human and communist, eventually they will dissolve into nothing. We human beings are not made to ‘‘last’’ very long, we are like candles. The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long, and I plan to burn ever so very brightly. We do not chase after a destiny, we merely dissolve ourselves in ‘‘time’’ as time dissolves everything, even time dissolves itself, for the past is merely a time ‘‘which has died; which has dissolved’’. I shall not become a Christian, neither communism, I shall be nothing and, in that proclamation, invariably am I unique. I shall no longer perceive the world as a spectacle of angelic spirits. Fiery the Angels will fall and as they fall, deep thunder rolls around their shores: indignant burning with the fires of Orc.

In the dissolvement of spirit. I seek neither man nor woman, neither priest nor comrade. I seek nothing.

Earlier I remarked how dialectics shall eventually transform itself into another method, that method I termed, ‘‘paradoxical materialism’’? — Let us explain this paradox once and for all — Since the egoists believes that dialectical materialism will lead to ‘‘dissolvement’’ rather than ‘‘becomingness’’ — therefore the dialectic will dissolve itself upon the dissolvement of the material object. If we maintain that ‘‘objects’’ will always become something else, then we have preserved the eternal existence of material objects and in so doing grunted the continued existence of dialectical materialism, if however, we claim that objects dissolve into ‘‘nothing’’ — since we realize that dialectics depends on ‘‘objects’’ — since objects will dissolve into nothing and become non-objects, therefore dialectics itself will dissolve alongside the object. Dialectics will become a ‘‘paradox’’ — the ‘‘creative nothing’’ of Stirner.

The statement that we dialectically ‘‘Become Nothing’’ is paradoxical, because we assume that ‘‘Becoming’’ involves ‘‘something’’ and not ‘‘Nothing’’ — but in this sense we have successfully synthesized ‘‘Nothing and Becomingness’’ — and although they are contradictory to one another, they are also non-contradictory. Henceforth ‘‘Becoming Nothing’’ is a paradoxical reality, because the definition of ‘‘paradox’’ — is that which is ‘‘both contradictory and non-contradictory’’ simultaneously. Therefore, it is possible that creation takes place from ‘‘Nothing’’ — even though this is a paradox.

‘‘I am owner of my power, and I am so when I know myself as Unique. In the unique the owner returns into his creative nothing, from which he is born. Every higher essence over me, be it God, be it the human being, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and only pales in the sun of this awareness.’’[3]

This quotation by Max Stirner sums up Egoism. When I am not unique, because I see some higher essence over me, such as ‘‘God, Humanity, the communist party I make part off, or the church I make part off’’ — this higher essence over me weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and therefore as my uniqueness is weakened, therefore I am not the owner of my power, rather I am the subject of the ‘‘idea’’ — whether the party’s ‘‘idea’’, God’s ‘‘Idea’’ or even the idea of my comrades for ‘‘Freedom’’. Henceforth, I can only become the owner of my power when I acknowledge myself as the unique, when I do this to myself, ‘‘the unique’’ returns to owner to the creative nothing, as if I have eradicated every spook from my mind, every idea. From this state of ‘‘tabula rasa’’ from this state of ‘‘emptiness and nothingness’’ I can recreate myself, and if I shall find myself conjuring spooks of my own, I can simply recognize myself as unique again and discard those ideas. This is a dialectical process of ‘‘going back to nothing, creating and going back to nothing’’ — a process of ‘‘Nothing — Creation — Nothing’’. (The Creative Nothing) this dialectical process unlike thar of the Marxists is ‘‘paradoxical’’ — because the method of the ‘‘creative nothing’’ in itself dialectically admonishes and dissolves itself every time, henceforth the ‘‘creative nothing’’ is superior to dialectical materialism, because the creative nothing as a ‘‘method’’ is constantly ‘‘dissolving and recreating itself’’ — meanwhile dialectical materialism is ‘‘constantly becoming’’ and remaining fixed as a ‘‘constant of reality’’. Creation and Nothing are ‘‘contradictions’’ — yet as we observe they are also non-contradictory, otherwise they wouldn’t be capable of creation and dissolvement.

Stirner isn’t making the argument that we need to convince all people ‘‘to become unique’’ and then suddenly no one will be oppressed. Oppression is based both on the spirit of the ‘‘idea’’ but it also based on the material conditions. There needs to be a change in the way people think and also a change in the social conditions through ‘‘struggle’’ — yet I don’t view my class struggle as an ‘‘essence’’ higher than me, but only a means to an end, a means to my power, nothing more. Eventually the ‘‘creation of communist society’’ will end up in a state of ‘‘Nothing’’ through the process of ‘‘Nothing — Creation — Nothing’’ — According to Marx and Engels, one does not think the same in a palace or a hut, therefore ‘‘consciousness is determined’’ by social conditions, if we change the social conditions, then we change the consciousness, — therefore according to Marx and Engels, if I am thinking right now as a unique one, then this result of thinking is produced through social conditions. If then the social conditions have determined me to think as a ‘‘unique one’’ — then Marx and Engels themselves have affirmed the existence of the ‘‘unique’’ — otherwise I wouldn’t be here today talking about egoism. If, however the Marxists call me ‘‘delusional’’ — then they indirectly attack their own idea that social conditions determine ‘‘thinking and consciousness’’ and instead categorize me as ‘‘delusional’’, this would be a mistake on their part.

Conclusion:

Dialectical Materialist Method: Primitive communist society dialectically transformed itself into tribal society, then feudal society, finally capitalist society, then socialist society and lastly communist society. For the dialectical materialist method, the process of transformation is basically ‘‘Becoming’’ and ‘‘passing away’’ — through the process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, one society ‘‘passes away into non-being’’ and a new society ‘‘Becomes’’ and manifests itself. The Communist phase is the last phase of ‘‘becoming’’ according to the Marxists, since all contradictions are reconciled and society cannot ‘‘transform’’ or become something else. Ironically in claiming this, the assertion that the ‘‘dialectical method’’ is eternal and immutable is falsified, because in claiming that communist society cannot ‘‘become’’ anything else, nor can it ‘‘pass away into non-being’’ — it has also indirectly proved that the dialectical materialist method itself ceases to function once it hits the communist phase. Which proves once and for all, that the ‘‘diamat’’ method isn’t some eternally fixed law, but it also ‘‘transitionary’’ and ‘‘changes’’ through itself.

Dialectical Materialist Egoist Method: We agree with dialectical materialist from primitive communism up to Communism, we call this, ‘‘Dialectical Egoism’’ — we agree that primitive communism, tribal society, feudalism, capitalism and socialism come into ‘‘Being’’ and ‘‘pass away’’ due to a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The main difference is that we go a step further, we argue that even ‘‘communism’’ is subject to change, since it develops its own contradictions and develops it’s own class struggle. Communism according to also is also something that comes into ‘‘being and passes away’’ — like the rest of the other social systems.

The Logic of the dialectical egoists is as follows:

Communism is the ‘‘Last phase of Becoming’’ — yet it is the ‘‘first stage of dialectical dissolving’’ — henceforth, all the other transformations of society, from feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism are transformations of ‘‘becoming and passing away’’ — so far so good! However, Communism can no longer ‘‘transform or become’’ something else, it cannot ‘‘become’’ another society. The egoist claims, that at this point, the dialectical method negates itself, in such a manner where it is no longer the positive dialectics of ‘‘becoming’’ but a ‘‘negative dialectic of dissolving’’ — henceforth we claim, that communist society will not become ‘‘egoist’’ but rather it will ‘‘dissolve’’ into an egoist society. When the dissolvement is complete, the dialectics from negative dialectics will transform itself into ‘‘paradox’’ — the paradox is merely the synthesis of the ‘‘Thesis’’ — dialectical phase of becoming, and the negating antithesis of ‘‘Dialectical phase of dissolving’’ — henceforth the synthesis of thesis and antithesis transform the dialectical method through itself in order to become a paradox of both ‘‘creation and destruction’’ — namely what we call ‘‘The Creative Nothing’’ — this happens when we apply the dialectic to the dialectic itself in such a way that it changes itself. The paradox is a conglomeration of ‘‘all of history’s phases of becoming’’ and it’s anithtesis of ‘‘all of history’s phases of dissolvement’’ — henceforth creating a synthesis of both ‘‘becomingness and dissolvement’’ — in which case, such a science would be highly paradoxical, because on the one hand dissolvement and becomingness contradict each other, on the other hand they are non-contradictory and fulfill one another.

Primitive Communism, Tribal Society, Feudalism, Socialism, Communism = thesis, antithesis and synthesis in a state of ‘‘becoming and passing away’’, the antithesis of ‘‘positive dialectic’’ introduces itself in the communist phase, whereby dialectics becomes a dissolving agent. Henceforth, communism dissolves into ‘‘nothing’’ — into ‘‘egoism’’ — once we achieve egoism or the ‘‘creative nothing’’ — we would realize that the dialectical method itself has been transformed into ‘‘paradoxical method’’ — material reality ceases to solely ‘‘become’’ and vice versa ceases to solely ‘‘dissolve’’ — it will instead ‘‘become dissolvement’’ itself and become ‘‘Nothing’’ itself. Dialectical motion itself ceases to exist in the paradox, because ‘‘Motion’’ cannot motion in ‘‘Nothing’’ — motion can only motion in ‘‘something, an object’’ — yet, ironically enough, the paradox is able to ‘‘create’’ out of nothing, which means that ‘‘motion’’ is re-introduced into the equation, the moment a thing is created from nothing, when that happens, the dialectical method is ‘‘temporarily’’ introduced, until it is destroyed again and dissolves into nothing. Dialectical Motion is progressing towards nothing and towards it’s own annihilation, thus becoming a ‘‘paradox’’ and vice versa, the paradox creates ‘‘something out of nothing’’ and henceforth, dialectical motion is re-introduced. This is a fundamental law of paradoxical materialism, ‘‘The Law of the Transformation of Dialectic into Paradox, and vice versa.’’ — which will be outlined more in detail in the rest of the book but in summary it is the notion that the paradoxical method is not ‘‘eternally and metaphysically fixed’’ but rather moves in and out of ‘‘being’’, — ‘‘becomes’’ and then ‘‘dissolves into nothing’’ — the paradox when it creates things from nothing is able to bring about the re-birth of dialectics, but as we have explained before the dialectics will eventually pass into a phase of dissolvement and it will return back to it’s ‘‘nothing’’.

How Dialectical Materialism meets its antithesis Dialectical Egoism and becomes Paradox:

1. First phase: From Primitive Communism up to Late-Stage Communism, ‘‘stages of dialectical becoming’’

2. Second Phase: From Late-Stage Communism to Egoism, ‘‘Stage of dialectical dissolvement’’

3. Third Phase: The climax of dialectics, Societies can no longer ‘‘become’’ something else, neither can they ‘‘dissolve’’ — instead they do both at the same time, both becoming and dissolving, both creating and going back to nothing. The dialectical method transforms itself through itself, namely through thesis — antithesis — synthesis processes, from the thesis of becoming, clashing with the thesis of ‘‘dissolving’’ — the synthesis is created, dialectical egoism is transformed into ‘‘paradoxical materialism’’ — into the creative nothing.

The returning of dialectic into nothing and nothing into dialectic is an ‘‘eternal type of return’’ almost in the Nietzschean sense of the ‘‘eternal return’’ — this view of the world has already been hinted at by the egoist Renzo Novatore in his, ‘‘The Revolt of The Unique: and Toward the Creative Nothing’’ — in the following quotation, ‘‘Christ was a paradoxical misunderstanding from the gospels. He was a sad and sorrowful phenomenon of decadence, born of pagan fatigue. The Antichrist is the healthy son of all the bold hatred that Life has bred in the secrecy of its own fecund breast, during the twenty and more centuries of christian order. Because history returns. Because eternal return is the law that rules the universe. It is the destiny of the world! It is the axis around which life itself turns! To perpetuate itself. To run itself back. To contradict itself. To pursue itself. To not die.’’[1] — not only does this show us that Novatore is among the first of the 20th century egoists to reveal to light Max Stirner’s ‘‘paradoxical philosophy’’ — Novatore shows us that he understands Christ as a misunderstood paradox, he was a result of the decadence or ‘‘dissolvement’’ of pagan fatigue. Novatore claims that history will return, he is specifically referring to the paradoxical method which now I have put into clearer words, that will return back and forth from ‘‘dialectic’’ and dissolve back into nothing, only to re-create itself once again. Novatore was amongst the first to continue developing the egoist philosophy, I will yet again grab that mantle and explain what Novatore and Stirner meant, this time in more scientific, materialist and concrete terminology. Novatore’s book starts with the following sentences, ‘‘Our epoch is an epoch of decadence. Bourgeois-christian-plebeian civilization arrived at the dead end of its evolution a long time ago.’’[2] — Novatore is correct in depicting the dialectical nature of ‘‘dissolvement’’ — yet he incorrectly jumped on the wagon before the wagon had arrived. We are currently living in the ‘‘epoch of dialectical becoming’’ — it is only after the communist phase manifests itself that the ‘‘epoch of dialectical dissolving’’ will also come into existence. That being said, Novatore immediately fixed his mistake in the next sentence, when he says ‘‘Democracy has come!’’ — Novatore was living in the early 20th century during a time when the Bolsheviks had become acquainted with political power, therefore Novatore acknowledges the ‘‘epoch of becoming’’ of this ‘‘new democracy’’ , which was merely an extension of Christianity, and that ‘‘Thus democracy — the mother of socialism — is the daughter of Christianity.’’[3] — since this democracy based itself upon the traditions of Christianity and therefore doomed itself to ‘‘dissolve itself’’ in the future.

The paradoxical method is not good news for the Marxist Doctrine, because the antithesis of ‘‘dissolving’’ shall struggle against the Marxist dialectical materialist thesis of ‘‘Becoming’’. While Marxist Doctrine tells us that the ‘‘Socialist state’’ is a necessary factor, anarchists do not, why is this? — The Marxists believe in society progressing and gradually becoming a ‘‘communist society’’ — henceforth, it is necessary that there should be a transitionary period called ‘‘socialism’’ — on the other hand the anarcho-communists have always maintained that there is no need for ‘‘socialism’’ — once we abolish the capitalist state and seize the means of production, we can gradually eliminate the remnants of bourgeois elements in society through mutual aid, coordination and organization of social and political economy, there is no need for a ‘‘socialist state’’, — the Marxists have longed belittled this anarchist notion as ‘‘undialectical’’ — because the anarchists for the longest period of time have been without ‘‘dialectics’’ — the closest thing to a dialectical analysis was Kropotkin’s mutual aid. Yet, I have now provided the anarchists with their own weapon, with their own ‘‘dialectics’’ — the ‘‘dissolving dialectics’’ — we too, even anarcho-communists can become ‘‘dialectical egoist materialists’’ — rather than claim that society will ‘‘become communist’’ — we can claim that the capitalist elements of society, once the anarcho-communists abolish the bourgeois state and seize the means of production will eventually ‘‘dissolve’’ — henceforth we practice a dialectics of ‘‘dissolvement’’ — rather than a dialectics of ‘‘becoming’’ — the focus of the anarcho-communist is no longer to strive to become a ‘‘communist’’ — but rather to dissolve the ‘‘capitalist elements’’ within society through mutual aid, struggle, organization of anarchists and of political economy, collectivization and organization of production and distribution. Through these actions, the ‘‘capitalist elements’’ that remain in society after an anarcho-communist revolution will dissolve into nothing and naturally this process would result in society becoming ‘‘anarcho-communist’’. We don’t need to become ‘‘communists’’ gradually through a transitionary state, rather to the contrary, we can dissolve the capitalist elements gradually in such a way, that we would become ‘‘communists’’ anyways dialectically without the intervention of the socialist state. The Secret of an ‘‘Anarchist Dialectic science’’ was hidden in Stirner, and no one bothered to uncover it, till now. The dialectics of mutual aid and egoist dialectic are compatible with one another, once and for all, ‘‘Mutual aid is not a spook’’.

The future of dialectics is to transform itself into paradox and the future of Paradox is to temporarily re-introduce the dialectic and vice versa. One might argue that this has ‘‘nothing to do’’ with material reality, it is merely ‘‘philosophical and logical hogwash’’ — yet at the mere mention of the ‘‘big bang’’ event, we would find that indeed the universe was created paradoxically, — the universe was created ‘‘from nothing’’ — ‘‘Creatio ex nihilo’’ — Max Stirner predicted that cosmological reality was a creation from nothing, unlike many philosophers of his time, who thought that the universe was always there or that the universe was created from ‘‘something else’’ such as God or a mysterious force. Max Stirner even goes further than the ‘‘christianized’’ ‘‘Creatio ex nihilo’’ — because while ‘‘creation from Nothing’’ seems to give more importance to ‘‘Nothing’’ or claim that creation comes from Nothing. Stirner on the other hand makes the phrase even more ‘‘equal’’ — that creation emerges from nothing, yet paradoxically at the same time, nothing emerges from creation. ‘‘Creatio Nihil’’

[1] Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

[2] Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own

[3] The Ego and It’s Own

[4] The Revolt of The Unique: and Toward the Creative Nothing

[5] The Revolt of The Unique: and Toward the Creative Nothing

[6] The Revolt of The Unique: and Toward the Creative Nothing