The Unique Übermensch and the Last Man of History
There is the following metamorphosis that will occur throughout history — Let us start from Feudalism. With the decay of the Aristocracy, the Industrial Bourgeoisie took their place as the new masters over the Industrial Proletariat. The Sans-culottes or the idling masses under feudalism found themselves transformed into the Lumpen Proletariat during the Industrial Revolution. During the Socialist phase, we have even observed this in 20th century Socialism such as seen in the USSR and China, the peasantry and the Industrial Proletariat united together and overthrew their bourgeois masters, thus the bourgeoisie have been disempowered, and because there was a socialist construction of the worker’s state, the issues of capitalist unemployment became extinct, likewise, the Lumpen Proletariat also became extinct, however, when the so-called socialist state withers away; communism is achieved, a productive society without social classes, that is moneyless and stateless. A society that is abundant and that has probably introduced automation technology will be able to provide for all the needs of the members of society with minimal labor involved. However, since there is no state, and therefore no enforcement of any kind, since there is total freedom, the proletariat or the laborer will find himself being transformed into an ‘‘Idler’’ — thus when communist society produces too much surplus, there will be less need of labor and laborers, thus the masses will cease their labor. The Labors will be transformed into the idlers — the idlers will accommodate themselves by taking the surplus that society has produced without inputting labor in return. Therefore, a problematic arrangement occurs within communist society, a minority of laborers will input minimal labor, relying mostly on automated technology to produce the needs for the masses, but in return most of the masses have become idlers who refuse to labor at all. Therefore, classes are born again, class struggle reborn, between the classless idlers who take the surplus value of the production from the hands of the minority of the proletarian people. These idlers are parasitic, because they do not input labor, yet they expect to benefit from society, in a manner of speaking they are the ‘‘Last Man’’ which Nietzsche talks about, which is the antithesis of the ‘‘Ubermensch’’.
The Last Man is born as a result of the material conditions of Communism, and The Last Man will struggle against the last Proletariat. The unity of opposites between, the Last Man and the Last Proletariat, between the conflict amongst the parasitic idlers (Destruction, the Nothingness) and the Last Productive Proletariat (Creator, Creation) will finally create a synthesis, (The Owner, The Egoist, The Ubermensch) — The Creative Nothing. The mistake Nietzsche makes is by assuming that the Ubermensch has a ‘‘Mission of his own’’ or an ‘‘Ethos’’ of his own. This is incorrect, the laborer has a mission of his own, the parasitic idler has no mission, the synthesis of the two is a paradox, a creative nothing, the egoist has no mission, no ethos like the idler, but at the same time, he is a creator, he has an internal mission, where he acts as proprietor over his desire but this mission is not an external mission, but inside of him, it is he himself who desires things and owns those desires and owns his reason. The Egoist has no goal, the true ubermensch has no goal ascribed to himself, but then the Nietzscians might critique me in turn by saying, ‘‘If the Egoist has no mission in life; then he’s no better than that Last Man which Nietzsche mentions as a passive Nihilist with no goal in life’’ — This is an incorrect critique, because the Egoist, or the Ubermensch is a synthesis of the Idler (Last Man) and Last Proletariat (Creator) — The Last Proletariat, is not the proletariat of capitalist society, but the proletariat of communist society who has claimed ownership over the means of production, — yet this ownership does not belong to a sole proletariat himself, but belongs to the whole class of proletarians. Therefore, a synthesis of the idler and a proletarian, means that the egoist has no mission in life, is also an idler like the ‘‘Last man’’ — but unlike the Last man he is not ‘‘Propertyless’’ — he has become master of his property through physical might.
The Communist Proletarian — Owns Property or the ‘‘means of production’’ as a class, has a mission or a goal. Active Creator in society. United to society and productive.
Idler — Propertyless, owns nothing, passive, isolated, Destructive, Parasitic.
The Synthesis of the two, is the Egoist — Owner over property as a sole master, does not commit oneself to an external goal. Sometimes isolated, sometimes united to a union of egoists. Sometimes destructive, sometimes creative, sometimes parasitic, sometimes productive.
When the synthesis occurs, The ‘‘Will to Power’’ becomes a principle of society which was in opposition with the ‘‘Communist way of life’’. Yet unlike the Nietzschians who make the principle of ‘‘Will to Power’’ something they should ardently follow, the egoists simply don’t care, they have shattered away all principles, however with this freedom, they are able to build unions of egoists in whichever shape or form they like, for instance a union of egoists in the east can build communistic relations and live a communist way of life temporarily, while the union of egoists in the west can decide to live through the principle of ‘‘Will To Power’’ with Master and Slave relations also temporarily.
Some Egoists might object to this ‘‘Process’’ — they will claim rightly so, ‘‘That I can be an Egoist now If I want too! I don’t have to wait for some time in the far-off future in order to be an Egoist’’ — and they are perfectly correct, one can be an egoist right at this very moment in our decaying capitalist world of the 21st century, it was also possible to be an egoist in Stirner’s time, and perhaps even before Stirner’s time. The Egoist unlike the industrial proletariat is not binded by time, but nonetheless ‘‘Time’’ affects the egoist, yet the egoist’s existence does not depend on time but on himself. You can be an egoist in Ancient Greece, but material conditions and the time of Ancient Greece will mean, that if we compare and contrast an egoist from Ancient Greece to an Egoist from Modern Day Europe, one would find striking differences, yet they are both unique and egoists. The Proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the serf, the slave, the aristocratic lords owe their very existence to time and the material conditions of that time, and when those material conditions pass through time, their very existence might be in jeopardy as was clear with the abolishment of the aristocratic class through countless revolutions and changes in material conditions. However, the egoist although also affected by the material conditions of the time, is not dependant upon them completely.
The egoist society (Union of egoists) is born from the den of idlers. The origins of the egoists are found in the idlers, not in the working people. The origins of the idlers however is found within within working people. The working people give rise to the idlers and in turn the idlers give rise to the egoist unique ones. The pleibans of Rome were mostly idlers. The egoist hero is not an idler; but rather the idler that has overcome his own ragamuffiningness.
But without a doubt the development of the egoist historically is found mainly in the idler class as it has been transformed throughout the centuries, from plebeian, monastic monks and ascetics, and finally lumped proletariat and then the idlers of communism.
This does not mean that an egoist cannot be found among the working class or the bourgeois class. One can still be an egoist if he is a proletarian or a bourgeoisie, but to reach his full potential, they have to shed away their proletarianism and their bourgeoism by not sacrificing themselves for the ‘‘bourgeois class cause’’ or the proletarian class cause.
If they are not capable of doing this themselves than history will do it for them. History will force them to become transformed as idlers on the eve of communism and finally they will achieve egoism. I say this not to ‘‘glorify’’ history — history does nothing by itself, but the actions of each individuals build up our world, and the world’s conditions in turn influence the individual. In such a manner that the proletarian will become an idler, and then finally into an egoist. The egoist is a stage where finally the individual does not allow ‘‘history’’ to take action against him, nor the actions of other men, but it is a state of ‘‘every man for himself’’ — the war of all against all.
Egoism is the step we take after communism (That plural we) is intentional. I believe you and I can be egoists today, however I also believe that if such a thing as communism is achieved, then through it’s own complications it will shift into it’s opposite as the ‘’union of egoists’’ — egoism will find it’s ‘’maximium potential’’ after communism; not before. This doesn’t mean that today we can’t be egoists, it just means, that today’s egoists in a capitalist world are less powerful, or less inclined to achieving their full potential. After all, ‘’Socialists’’ achieve their full potential with communism, not before — but it doesn’t mean that socialists prior to communism do not exist. The same applies for egoists.
The Egoists are a forbidden apple, that although may change it’s appearance with time, it will decay, become nothing and become created again. The Egoist will merely assume new revitalized forms and survive the next generation. When transformations occurs to the feudal classes, they were destroyed through their own decay, when the immortal apple of egoism transforms itself, it will have the opposite effect, it will ripen, flower, bloom, endure the currents of time and reinforce itself into the social structures even more than before. It is in fact possible to be ‘’Unique’’ right now if you want too, you don’t have to actually wait, to be transformed into an ‘’Idler’’ and then transformed finally into the ‘’Unique’’ — this process of transformation from Proletarian-Idler-Unique takes place in the heart of the masses. However, individuals as a minority throughout history won’t even need this process, since they are already unique — You and I, Max Stirner and many other egoists are proof of that (Proof that egoists can exist anywhere at any time). A minority of people are able to ‘’stand up and say, I am already Unique! I can already stand’’ — meanwhile the majority of people need this dialectical process of transformation as a helping hand, that will lead them all to becoming Unique. The reader might have gotten the impression that ‘’Idleship’’ is an immoral position, but truly, in other texts I’ve written Idleship is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply the antithesis of labour. When we are ‘’Idle’’ we are still able to ‘’Play’’ — (The essay by Bob Black ‘’Aboliton of work’’ talks about this, that even while ‘’Idle’’ people are able to be very creative, yet not in the form of labour, but in the form of play. People left with no obligation to work will be able to be productive, there will certainly be Artists, writers, poets, musicians and enthusiastic Gourmet Cooks, but idlers will generally do this in isolation, they probably won’t go to the factories, to the mass assembly production line, neither to the industrial farms and Fishing centers.
Marx in his Capital writes that ‘’Over-Abudance and Over-Production creates a surplus of unemployed workers’’ in capitalist society, the same is true in communist society, the more over-abundant it is, the less labour it will need. Socialism on the other hand doesn’t have this problem at all, because the state manages the industry, and if we study the Soviet Model, we would find that unemployment went extinct, this is because the government made sure, that everyone is employed some way or another. In Communism, that state that makes sure everyone is employed no longer exists, therefore, either the ‘’masses’’ will coerce other masses to join the workforce but this would breed another state and therefore it wouldn’t be ‘’Real Communism’’ — on the other hand, if the masses do nothing to recruit back the idling forces back to the work force, everytime communist society becomes extra-abudant, it will be met with a crisis of Idler Surplus. In this manner, you would have a situation where the majority of the people are idlers, while a minority are still acting out their role as workers and providing for the idlers. The Idlers ironically are extracting ‘’Surplus Value of Labour’’ from the hands of the working minority, because while the working minority is working for everyone, the idlers are extracting from them while inputting nothing in return. The Minority creates ‘’ Surplus Value’’ — While the Majority extracts ‘’Surplus Value’’ — Notice how under communism, the roles are inverted. While In capitalism, it was the majority proletarians who created surplus value and the minority bourgeois class extracted surplus value. In communism it is the other way round, The surplus value is created by a minority but extracted by the majority. Dialectically, using Marxist logic itself, it adds up. Since ‘’Surplus Value extraction’’ has been recreated under Communism; — This means that Communism has not been able to reconcile all contradictions. Often The Marxists claim that communism is the last ‘’Phase of History’’ — I happen to disagree, and I claim that the last phases of history are all egoist Phases or rather as stirner remarks, ‘‘The individual becomes a history all by himself’
Communism has created it’s own contradictions, and egoism aids in reconciling the contradicitons between idlers and workers. Class struggle starts all over again, until egoism is victorious. Now, even in this egoist society, one might try to form unions of egoists, and from these unions, they can rebuild communist relations if they want, but these arrangements are ‘’temporary’’ — unlike the ‘’Permanacy’’ which we find in communist society. In a communist society, you are expected to always live a communist life. In an egoist world, you can forge communistic relations, or can even forge other relations of mutualist exchange, or perhaps relations of master over owner through literal force. The egoists are not binded by these arrangements, since they are temporary, the arrangements can be destroyed and propped up again ad infinitium.
The Communists destroy themselves through their own productivity, the fact that they have created an abundant society, where each can get the fruits of production as much as they need also implies that they have transformed their workers into idlers, into ‘‘Ragamuffins’’ — yet from these Ragamuffins rises the unique ones that will put an end to the Ragamuffinism (The Problem which emerges from Communism) — As Stirner claims, ‘‘If it is said socialistically, society gives me what I require — then the egoist says, I take what I require. If the Communists conduct themselves as ragamuffins, the egoist behaves as proprietor.’’ From the Peasantry there arose the Industrial Proletariat who solved the issues of feudalism and abolished the peasantry, in fact we owe the abolishment of feudalism to the socialist revolution of the 20th century. Nowadays, the peasantry class has almost been abolished in totality world-wide thanks to socialist revolutions. From the Idlers, there shall arise the unique ones that will solve the issues of ragamuffinism created by communism and put an end to it. For Stirner, the Ragamuffin society is a return to a kind of ‘‘Feudal-like Society’’ — According to Stirner, the socialists have a nostalgia for the feudal style of living, that they wish to recreate these conditions for the future under a different set of material conditions.
To be a ragamuffin, means to be propertyless, like the serf and slaves of feudalism who owned no property whatsoever, not even their own house, because they quite simply lived in their lord’s castle. If we apply the dialectical reasoning of the law of ‘‘The Negation of the Negation’’ — then the communist society is merely the negation of capitalist society, but it is also the negation of the negation, in other words, it looks almost like another version of feudalism, where the individual has no property. Rather than property being owned solely by the lords as given authority by the divine right of Kings that comes from God, which we find in feudalism, Communism has a new kind of feudalism which resembles the old feudalism, although still albeit different from the old feudalism. Communism has given property in the hands of man in the collective sense, rather than through the divine right of Kings that comes from God, now it is through the divine right of society that comes from Man. As Stirner well remarks in the following quotation, ‘‘To come back to property, the lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether society shall be! On this depends whether you are to be an owner or a ragamuffin! The egoist is owner, the Socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or propertylessness is the sense of feudalism, of the feudal system which since the last century has only changed its overlord, putting “Man” in the place of God, and accepting as a fief from Man what had before been a fief from the grace of God. That the ragamuffinism of Communism is carried out by the humane principle into the absolute or most ragamuffinly ragamuffinism has been shown above; but at the same time also, how ragamuffinism can only thus swing around into ownness. The old feudal system was so thoroughly trampled into the ground in the Revolution that since then all reactionary craft has remained fruitless, and will always remain fruitless, because the dead is — dead; but the resurrection too had to prove itself a truth in Christian history, and has so proved itself: for in another world feudalism is risen again with a glorified body, the new feudalism under the suzerainty of “Man.” — Here Stirner remarks that the Old Feudalism of the middle ages is dead, what is dead after all remains dead, however resurrection has proven to be a truth in the Christian history, therefore feudalism in communism is revived, and resurrected under a new skin, under the Suzerainty of Man.
We come back to the ‘’Negation of the Negation’’ — Communism negates Capitalism, therefore it shows a similiarity to Feudalism, on the other hand Egoism which will combat Communism, will be the negation of communism. The Negation of Egoism is therefore Communism, while the ‘’Negation of the negation of Egoism’’ is precisely Capitalism — Egoism therefore shows a similiarity to Capitalism, because Egoists also desire to be ‘’proprietors’’ — but unlike the philistine capitalist who rely on Capital to purchase their property protected by a spooky right of property, the egoist becomes proprietor through ‘’Might’’ over external objects. Communism negates capitalism, and the negation of the negation of communism is feudalism; meanwhile egoism negates communism, and the negation of the negation of egoism is capitalism.
Communism creates these conditions, where ‘‘We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore to become egoists too! Heaven forbid! We want rather to make egoists impossible! We want to make them all “ragamuffins [Lumpen]”; all of us must have nothing, that “all may have.” So, say the Socialists.’’ For Stirner, therefore the motto of communism, is that all of us must have ‘‘Nothing’’ — so that ‘‘All may have’’.
Stirner makes this dialectical process quite clear, in fact Stirner claims, that first we must become ragamuffins ourselves, before we can become ‘‘Egoists’’ — before we achieve ownness. This is why I claim, that from the put of the idlers, there shall arise the unique ones that will put an end to ragamuffinhood. Stirner says the following regarding this process, ‘‘In humane liberalism ragamuffinhood is completed. We must first come down to the most ragamuffin-like, most poverty-stricken condition if we want to arrive at ownness [Eigenheit], for we must strip off everything alien. But nothing seems more ragamuffin-like than naked — Man.’’ — From this quotation alone, it is clear that Max Stirner foresaw that communism will create this ‘‘Idle class’’ which will come into conflict with the working class, he also foresaw that from the idle class, there shall emerge the egoists. Let us continue the quotation, ‘‘It is more than ragamuffinhood, however, when I throw away Man too because I feel that he too is alien to me and that T can make no pretensions on that basis. This is no longer mere ragamuffinhood: because even the last rag has fallen off, here stands real nakedness, denudation of everything alien. The ragamuffin has stripped off ragamuffinhood itself, and therewith has ceased to be what he was, a ragamuffin. I am no longer a ragamuffin, but have been one.’’ — Therefore, the idler will become a thing of the past, when the idler sheds off his ragamuffinhood or his dependance on the workers of communism to provide him with his needs at their own expense. When the idler can no longer maintain this life of ‘‘security and comfort’’ — when the secure and comfort society of the communist collapses, the idler will be forced to transform himself into a predator, into an owner, who risks everything to provide himself with power over others who might try to oppose him.
Among the Idlers, there will emerge the Unique ones from their struggle against the Communist Proletarians. The Idlers will find themselves transformed into their opposite, from a petty existence, they will become Unique, Owners and Masters.
 Max Stirner,’’ The Ego and Its own’’
 Max Stirner, ‘‘The Ego and Its own’’
 Max Stirner, ‘‘The Ego and Its own’’
 Max Stirner, ‘‘The Ego and Its own’’
 Max Stirner, ‘‘The Ego and Its own’’