non serviam editorial by svein olav nyberg (1993) fifteen numbers #00—#15

8/4/2019 Non Serviam Editorial by Svein Olav Nyberg (1993) fifteen numbers #00#15

1/108

NON SERVIAM EDITORIAL BY SVEIN OLAV NYBERG (1993)*************************************************

CONTENT:Non Serviam #00: Introduction from the EditorNon Serviam #01: Egoism (January 22, 1993)Non Serviam #02: The SelfNon Serviam #03: A Critique of Communism and the Individualist AlternativeNon Serviam #04: A Critique of Communism and the Individualist Alternative (Continued)Non Serviam #05: A Critique of Communism and the Individualist Alternative (Continued)Non Serviam #06: A Critique of Communism and The Individualist Alternative (Continued)

Non Serviam #07: Archists, Anarchists and EgoistsNon Serviam #08: Egoism: The Alternative of FreedomNon Serviam #09: Capitalism: Freedom pervertedNon Serviam #10: The Egoism of Max StirnerNon Serviam #11: A Critique of Communism and the Individualist Alternative (Continued)Non Serviam #12: On Revisiting Saint MaxNon Serviam #13: S.E. Parker: PrefaceNon Serviam #14: William Flygare: To My SweetheartNon Serviam #15: Dora Marsden: Thinking and Thought


2/108

The only synergistic effect we can hope for, is that of inspirationthrough an environment of people discussing the same ideas.

Because this newsletter tries to address both professional andamateur alike, I would appreciate it if submitted entries took thisinto consideration. In practice, this means that claims should besupported by reasoned arguments, so that the opposite part hassomething to hold on to. References are fine, as long as they do

not substitute argument.The newsletter is not primarily aimed at confrontation, though

this surely is not barred, but at exchange of information. Thatmeans that if anyone finds something [s]he thinks will be of interestto the readers of the newsletter, [s]he should feel free to post it.Examples of what is relevant are articles on how Nietzsche, Rand, Hegeland Feuerbach relate to the primary subject matter of this newsletter.Likewise articles on the relation to the basis of anarchism, and onthe relation to sciences - in particular psychology. As examples ofwhat is non-relevant, we have: Election issues, flames, issues inphilosophy not even touching the main subject, academic small-talk,and nuisance mail. I would also appreciate minimization of quoting

from other posters.Current and back issues of Non Serviam, together with some materialrelevant to Stirner, are available via anonymous ftp from

red.css.itd.umich.edu and ftp.css.itd.umich.edu.The files are stored in /poli/Non.Serviam on both sites. If youhave problems retrieving the files, send email to [email protected].

Sincerely,Svein Olav Nyberg (editor)([email protected])

____________________________________________________________________

Advertisement:

"Non serviam!" - "I will not serve", is known from literature asSatan's declaration of his rebellion against God. We wish to followup on this tradition of insurrection.

In modern times, the philosophy of the individual's assertion ofhimself against gods, ideals and human oppressors has been mosteloquently expressed by Max Stirner in his book "Der Einzige undSein Eigentum"[1].

Stirner, whose real name was Johann Kaspar Schmidt [1806-56],lived in a time dominated by German Idealism, with Hegel as itsprominent figure. It is against this background of fixation of ideasthat Stirner makes his rebellion. Stirner takes down these ideasfrom their fixed points in the starry sky of Spirit, and declaresall ideas to be the ideas of an Ego[2], and the realm of spirits andideas to be the mind of the thinker himself. His heaven-storming istotal. Even the idealist tool - dialectic, and the supreme ghost ofIdealism, [Absolute] Spirit - are stripped of their status ofintrinsic existence, and are taken back into the Ego himself. Thisis most clearly seen in Stirner's main triad: Materialist -Idealist - Egoist. And the triad stops at its last link. Any furtherprogress cannot negate Egoism, for - progress has been taken backinto the individual, as his - property.

For Stirner, the solution to the "alienation", or"self-alienation" of Idealism, is in self-expression, or -

ownership. What cannot be one's own cause, the cause that is notone's own, is not worth pursuing. As Stirner says "Away then, withevery cause that is not altogether my cause!"


3/108

Now, this is the philosophical starting point of this newsletter.For the more formal part, though the letter is centered onphilosophy and ideas, articles on topics relevant to true egoistswill also be admitted. The prime requirement is that the articlesare not on-line ranting, but serious attempts to convey something ofinterest and relevance. Articles on literature through the ages will

be very fine, stories will be welcomed if I see them fit, and I eventhink I might fall for an article on french cuisine made easy ...However: If in doubt whether the article will be accepted, contactme by personal mail first. A waste of time is a waste of time.

I hope to be able to make each of the issues of the newsletterthematic, that is we have one main theme in each issue. The maintheme is not meant to be the sole content, however, but more aninspiration for writing.

Editor & List owner: [email protected]

[1] English title: "The Ego and Its Own".[2] Einziger - single individual.

____________________________________________________________________

Next issue:

By asserting oneself - by insurrection - one is an egoist, onewho puts himself first. For the next issue of "non serviam", #1, Iwould therefore appreciate articles about "what egoism means" ingeneral. Both questions of the type "is hedonism the real egoism",and articles pondering the status of egoism in ethics are appreciated.Psychological angles of attack are also appreciated.

____________________________________________________________________

************************************************************************ "Whoever is a complete person does not need - to be an authority!" ** From +The False Principle of Our Education+ ************************************************************************

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From: [email protected] (Paul Southworth)Subject: Non Serviam, Issue #1Message-ID: Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:00:15 GMTOrganization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support ServicesLines: 499

At last, the first issue of "non serviam". For issue #0, and fora copy of Max Stirner's book "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (anEnglish translation available in Macintosh MS-Word format, compressedand BinHexed) visit the ftp site "red.css.itd.umich.edu" (141.211.182.91)and look in /poli/Non.Serviam.

I am not associated with the Non Serviam project. Please direct yourqueries to [email protected].


4/108

Paul SouthworthArchivistred.css.itd.umich.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

non serviam #1

**************Egoism (January 22, 1993)

Contents: Editor's WordJohn Beverley Robinson: "Egoism"Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism andThe Individualist Alternative (serial)

***********************************************************************

Editor's Word_____________

This is the first "real" issue of non serviam, and the present theme,as will also be the theme of the next issue, #2, is as presented in #0:

By asserting oneself - by insurrection - one is an egoist,one who puts himself first. For the next issue of "non serviam",#1, I would therefore appreciate articles about "what egoismmeans" in general. Both questions of the type "is hedonism thereal egoism", and articles pondering the status of egoism inethics are appreciated. Psychological angles of attack are alsoappreciated.

Dissenting from this theme, I have a long and well-written article from

Ken Knudson which I intend to publish in full. Given the length of it,it will be sent as a serial. It will also be available on the ftp sitein not too long a time. I have, on the version here, left the pagenumberings for easier access to footnotes.

I asked about "what egoism means". I should perhaps also have asked whategoism does not mean. For there are a lot of misconceptions about whategoism is. Religious literature incessantly warns us not to think aboutour own best interest, but the interest of the heavenly, of Man, and ofjust about everything else. But seldom is there found any advise tofollow exactly this own interest. Why then these warnings against selfinterest, on and on, again and again? Surely not to counter any opposingsystem of ideas. For there have been close to none. What then is leftto counter but - the individual himself!But to counter the individual is not a position that looks very good, soit has to be disguised, disguised as an attack on some "Deep Evil"lurking in self interest - in egoism. So the common view of egoism isfar from formed by observation of actual egoists, but by propaganda inits disfavor. I will now list what I consider the types most typicallymistaken for egoists, both by critics of egoism and by "egoists":

THE PSYCHOPATH: The psychopath is characterized by a tendency of alwaysbeing in the right and of manipulating others. He typically takes littleheed of the interests of people he confronts. The reasoning displayed bythose who identify psychopaths with egoists are usually of the type

"He does not care for others - THUS he must care only for himself ...",which sets up a dichotomy without any basis in reality. Identifying anindividual pursuing his own interests with a psychopath is a powerful


5/108

means of keeping individuals "in line".

THE EGO-BOOSTER: Somewhat related to the psychopath, in that he tries tomake himself "big" in the eyes of others often at the expense of somethird person. But the Ego-Booster cares a lot about the judgement ofothers. In fact - he depends on it. Getting approval from other peopledominates his way of life. His focus is not on himself, but on something

else - his self IMAGE.

THE MATERIALIST: The glutton, the carelessly promiscuous and the one whospends all his time gathering possessions is often seen as the egoistby people who have seen through the traps above. A friend of mine wrotein his thesis on Stirner that these were "vulgar egoists". They sureenough care for their own interests. But they only care for PART oftheir own interest, giving in to some urge to dominate them. They eithercare only for the taste in their mouths right-here-right-now, or forthe feelings in other parts. They do not satisfy the whole chap, asStirner wrote.

THE IDEALIST: Not too typical, but still - important. Can range fromthe proponent of Fichte+s Absolute or Transcendental Ego, to the personwho has as his sole goal in this life to spread his own ideas. The firstof these is not a proper egoist in that the "I" he is talking about isnot the personal, individual "I" but - an abstraction, the mere IDEA ofan ego. The latter is just the materialist mentality let loose in therealm of ideas.

THE FORMAL EGOIST: The formal egoist is perhaps the most elusively liketo the proper egoist. For the formal egoist knows that an egoist looksto the satisfaction of the whole chap. Actually the formal egoist canknow more about egoism than the egoist himself. For the formal egoistreally wants to be an egoist - and he follows the recipe he has found

to the last little detail, and sets out to find even new nuances. Thereis only one thing missing, and that is his realization that there is norecipe. So though a behaviorist would just the Formal Egoist to be equalto a proper egoist, he is truly far off, in that his real drive is Duty.Egoism is not a religious or ideological system to be followed by duty,but simply the being and awareness of oneself.

It is important to see that the different conceptions of egoism dependstrongly on what is put into the concept of an "ego". Which ego is then"the true one"? Is it the Bodily Ego, the Empirical Ego, the Self Image,the Creative Ego, the Teleological Ego, the Will ... ? I will return tothis in the next issue of non serviam, #2.

Svein Olav

____________________________________________________________________

Egoismby John Beverley Robinson_________________________

There is no word more generally misinterpreted than the wordegoism, in its modern sense. In the first place, it is supposed

to mean devotion to self interest, without regard to theinterest of others. It is thus opposed to altruism - devotionto others and sacrifice of self. This interpretation is due to


6/108

the use of the word thus antithetically by Herbert Spencer.

Again, it is identified with hedonism or eudaimonism, orepicureanism, philosophies that teach that the attainment ofpleasure or happiness or advantage, whichever you may choose tophrase it, is the rule of life.

Modern egoism, as propounded by Stirner and Nietzsche, andexpounded by Ibsen, Shaw and others, is all these; but it ismore. It is the realization by the individual that he is anindividual; that, as far as he is concerned, he is the onlyindividual.

For each one of us stands alone in the midst of a universe. Heis surrounded by sights and sounds which he interprets asexterior to himself, although all he knows of them are theimpressions on his retina and ear drums and other organs ofsense. The universe for him is measured by these sensations;they are, for him, the universe. Some of them he interprets as

denoting other individuals, whom he conceives as more or lesslike himself. But none of these is himself. He stands apart.His consciousness, and the desires and gratifications thatenter into it, is a thing unique; no other can enter into it.

However near and dear to you may be your wife, children,friends, they are not you; they are outside of you. You areforever alone. Your thoughts and emotions are yours alone.There is no other who experiences your thoughts or yourfeelings.

No doubt it gives you pleasure when others think as you do, andInform you of it through language; or when others enjoy the

same things that you do. Moreover, quite apart from theirenjoying the same things that you enjoy, it gives you pleasureto see them enjoy themselves in any way. Such gratification tothe individual is the pleasure of sympathy, one of the mostacute pleasures possible for most people.

According to your sympathy, you will take pleasure in your ownhappiness or in the happiness of other people; but it is alwaysyour own happiness you seek. The most profound egoist may bethe most complete altruist; but he knows that his altruism is,at the bottom, nothing but self-indulgence.

But egoism is more than this. It is the realization by theindividual that he is above all institutions and all formulas;that they exist only so far as he chooses to make them his ownby accepting them.

When you see clearly that you are the measure of the universe,that everything that exists exists for you only so far as it isreflected in your own consciousness, you become a new man; yousee everything by a new light: you stand on a height and feelthe fresh air blowing on your face; and find new strength andglory in it.

Whatever gods you worship, you realize that they are your gods,

the product of your own mind, terrible or amiable, as you maychoose to depict them. You hold them in your hand, and playwith them, as a child with its paper dolls; for you have


7/108

learned not to fear them, that they are but the "imaginationsof your heart."

All the ideals which men generally think are realities, youhave learned to see through; you have learned that they areyour ideals. Whether you have originated them, which isunlikely, or have accepted somebody else's ideals, makes no

difference. They are your ideals just so far as you acceptthem. The priest is reverend only so far as you reverence him.If you cease to reverence him, he is no longer reverend foryou. You have power to make and unmake priests as easily as youcan make and unmake gods. You are the one of whom the poettells, who stands unmoved, though the universe fall infragments about you.

And all the other ideals by which men are moved, to which menare enslaved, for which men afflict themselves, have no powerover you; you are no longer afraid of them, for you know themto be your own ideals, made in your own mind, for your own

pleasure, to be changed or ignored, just as you choose tochange or ignore them. They are your own little pets, to beplayed with, not to be feared.

"The State" or "The Government" is idealized by the many as athing above them, to be reverenced and feared. They call it "MyCountry," and if you utter the magic words, they will rush tokill their friends, whom they would not injure by so much as apin scratch, if they were not intoxicated and blinded by theirideal. Most men are deprived of their reason under theinfluence of their ideals. Moved by the ideal of "religion" or"patriotism" or "morality," they fly at each others' throats -they, who are otherwise often the gentlest of men! But their

ideals are for them like the "fixed ideas" of lunatics. Theybecome irrational and irresponsible under the influence oftheir ideals. They will not only destroy others, but they willquite sink their own interests, and rush madly to destroythemselves as a sacrifice to the all-devouring ideal. Curious,is it not, to one who looks on with a philosophical mind?

But the egoist has no ideals, for the knowledge that his idealsare only his ideals, frees him from their domination. He actsfor his own interest, not for the interest of ideals. He willneither hang a man nor whip a child in the interest of"morality," if it is disagreeable to him to do so.

He has no reverence for "The State." He knows that "TheGovernment" is but a set of men, mostly as big fools as he ishimself, many of them bigger. If the State does things thatbenefit him, he will support it; if it attacks him andencroaches on his liberty, he will evade it by any means in hispower, if he is not strong enough to withstand it. He is a manwithout a country.

"The Flag," that most men adore, as men always adore symbols,worshipping the symbol more than the principle it is supposedto set forth, is for the egoist but a rather inharmonious pieceof patch-work; and anybody may walk on it or spit on it if they

will, without exciting his emotion any more than if it were atarpaulin that they walked upon or .spat upon. The principlesthat it symbolizes, he will maintain as far as it seems to his


8/108

advantage to maintain them; but if the principles require himto kill people or be killed himself, you will have todemonstrate to him just what benefit he will gain by killing orbeing killed, before you can persuade him to uphold them.

When the judge enters court in his toggery, (judges andministers and professors know the value of toggery in

impressing the populace) the egoist is unterrified. He has noteven any respect for "The Law." If the law happens to be to hisadvantage, he will avail himself of it; if it invades hisliberty he will transgress it as far as he thinks it wise to doso. But he has no regard for it as a thing supernal. It is tohim the clumsy creation of them who still "sit in darkness."

Nor does he bow the knee to Morality - Sacred Morality! Some ofits precepts he may accept, if he chooses to do so; but youcannot scare him off by telling him it is not "right." Heusually prefers not to kill or steal; but if he must kill orsteal to save himself, he will do it with a good heart, and

without any qualms of "conscience." And "morality" will neverpersuade him to injure others when it is of no advantage tohimself. He will not be found among a band of "white caps,"flogging and burning poor devils, because their actions do notconform to the dictates of "morality," though they have injurednone by such actions; nor will he have any hand in persecutinghelpless girls, and throwing them out into the street, when hehas received no ill at their hands.

To his friends - to those who deserve the truth from him, - hewill tell the truth; but you cannot force the truth from himbecause he is "afraid to tell a lie." He has no fear, not evenof perjury, for he knows that oaths are but devices to enslave

the mind by an appeal to supernatural fears.

And for all the other small, tenuous ideals, with which we havefettered our minds and to which we have shrunk our petty lives;they are for the egoist as though they were not.

"Filial love and respect" he will give to his parents if theyhave earned it by deserving it. If they have beaten him ininfancy, and scorned him in childhood, and domineered over himin maturity, he may possibly love them in spite ofmaltreatment; but if they have alienated his affection, theywill not reawaken it by an appeal to "duty."

In brief, egoism in its modern interpretation, is theantithesis, not of altruism, but of idealism. The ordinary man- the idealist - subordinates his interests to the interests ofhis ideals, and usually suffers for it. The egoist is fooled byno ideals: he discards them or uses them, as may suit his owninterest. If he likes to be altruistic, he will sacrificehimself for others; but only because he likes to do so; hedemands no gratitude nor glory in return.

____________________________________________________________________

Ken Knudson:

A Critique of Communismand


9/108

The Individualist Alternative

- 1 -

A NOTE TO READERS

I address myself in these pages primarily to thosereaders of "Anarchy" who call themselves "communist-anarchists." It is my purpose in this article to show thatthis label is a contradiction in terms and that anyoneaccepting it must do so by a lack of clear understanding ofwhat the words "anarchist" and "communist" really mean. Itis my hope that in driving a wedge between these two words,the communist side will suffer at the expense of theanarchist.

I make no claims to originality in these pages. Most ofwhat I have to say has been said before and much better. Theeconomics is taken primarily from the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, William B. Greene, and Benjamin R. Tucker.The philosophy from Max Stirner, Tucker again, and, to alesser extent, James L. Walker.

I hope you won't be put off by my clumsy prose. I'm ascientist by trade, not a professional writer. I imploreyou, therefore, not to mistake style for content. If youwant both the content and good style may I suggest Tucker's"Instead of a Book". Unfortunately, this volume has been out

of print since 1897, but the better libraries - especiallythose in the United States - should have it. If you canread French, I recommend the economic writings of Proudhon."General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century"is particularly good and has been translated into English bythe American individualist, John Beverley Robinson. (FreedomPress, 1923). Also in English is Tucker's translation of oneof Proudhon's earliest works, the well-known "What isProperty?". This book is not as good as the "General Idea"book, but it has the advantage of being currently availablein paperback in both languages. A word of warning: unlessyou are thoroughly familiar with Proudhon, I would notrecommend the popular Macmillan "Papermac" edition of"Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon"; they seem tohave been selected with irrelevance as their only criterion.Like so many other great writers, Proudhon sufferstremendously when quoted out of context and this particularedition gives, on average, less than a page per selection.Better to read his worst book completely than to be misledby disconnected excerpts like these. Finally theindividualist philosophy, egoism, is best found in MaxStirner's "The Ego and His Own". This book suffers somewhatfrom a very difficult style (which wasn't aided by Stirner'swariness of the Prussian censor), but if you can get throughhis obscure references and biblical quotes, I think you will

find the task worth the effort.


10/108

- 2 -

H. L. Mencken once observed that just because a rosesmells better than a cabbage doesn't mean to say it makes abetter soup. I feel the same way about individualistanarchism. At first whiff, the altruist rose may smellbetter than the individualist cabbage, but the former sure

makes a lousy soup. In the following pages I hope to showthat the latter makes a better one.

Ken KnudsonGeneva, SwitzerlandMarch, 1971

- 3 -

COMMUNISM: FOR THE COMMON GOOD

"Communism is a 9 letter word used by inferior magicianswith the wrong alchemical formula for transforming earthinto gold."

- Allen Ginsberg"Wichita Vortex Sutra"

By way of prelude to the individualist critique ofcommunism, I should like to look briefly at the communist-anarchists' critique of their Marxist brothers. Anarchistsand Marxists have traditionally been at odds with oneanother: Bakunin and Marx split the First International overtheir differences a century ago; Emma Goldman virtually madeher living in the 1920's from writing books and magazinearticles about her "disillusionment in Russia"; in May,

1937, the communists and anarchists took time off from theirwar against Franco to butcher each other in the streets ofBarcelona; and the May days of '68 saw French anarchists


11/108

directing more abuse against the communist CGT than againstthe Gaullist government.

What is the nature of these differences? Perhaps themost concise answer to this question came in 1906 from averitable expert on the subject: Joseph Stalin. He wrote in"Anarchism or Socialism?" that there were essentially three

main accusations which (communist) anarchists leveledagainst Marxism:

1) that the Marxists aren't really communists becausethey would "preserve the two institutions which constitutethe foundation of [the capitalist] system: representativegovernment and wage labour"; [1]

2) that the Marxists "are not revolutionaries","repudiate violent revolution", and "want to establishSocialism only by means of ballot papers"; [2]

3) that the Marxists "actually want to establish notthe dictatorship of the proletariat, but their owndictatorship over the proletariat." [3]

Stalin goes on to quote Marx and Engels to "prove" that"everything the anarchists say on this subject is either theresult of stupidity, or despicable slander." [4] Today theanarchists have the advantage of history on their side toshow just who was slandering whom. I won't insult thereader's intelligence by pointing out how all threeobjections to Marxism were sustained by Uncle Joe himself afew decades later.

But let us look at these three accusations from anotherpoint of view. Aren't the communist-anarchists simply sayingin their holier-than-thou attitude, "I'm more communist thanyou, I'm more revolutionary than you, I'm more consistent

- 4 -

than you?" What's wrong with Marxism, they say, is NOT thatit is for communism, violent revolution and dictatorship,but that it goes about attaining its goals by half-measures,compromises, and pussyfooting around. Individualist-anarchists have a different criticism. We reject communismper se, violent revolution per se, and dictatorship per se.My purpose here is to try to explain why.

* * * * *

____________________________________________________________________

***********************************************************************

* "Whoever is a complete person does not need - to be an authority!" ** From +The False Principle of Our Education+ ************************************************************************


12/108

Svein Olav

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

non serviam #2

**************(The self)

Contents: Editor's WordSvein Olav Nyberg: The SelfKen Knudson: A Critique of Communism andThe Individualist Alternative (serial: 2)

***********************************************************************

Editor's Word_____________

A friend of mine was half a year ago confronted with the claim that theSelf "really did not exist", and that this was scientifically proven.At the time, I only laughed, and considered the proponent of the ideato be a little weird. I still consider it weird, but having heard theclaim over again, I do not laugh.

In the last issue, I went over the basic types of [mistaken] selfish-ness, and promised to follow up with a discussion of what was the trueSelf/ego. In conjunction with the above concern, this is the startingpoint for my article The Self.

Ken Knudson's eminent article continues. The chapter one makes up

almost half the article, so I have chosen to issue the rest of thechapter as separate issues, so that discussion may begin. I hope thesomewhat arbitrary sectioning of the article into the different issuesis forgiven.

The next chapter will be "REVOLUTION: THE ROAD TO FREEDOM?".

Svein Olav____________________________________________________________________

Svein Olav Nyberg:The Self

As seen in the last issue, what "selfish" means depends strongly uponwhat you mean by "self". I will not here try to correct all the wrongideas of what the Self is, but rather give an indication of what I thinkthe right view is. There are, as you well are aware, many differentconceptions of what "self" means. A general line of division betweenthese conceptions I have found very well illustrated in Wilber, Englerand Brown's book on the psychology of meditation [1]: To differentstages of cognitive development belongs different self -structures and,not the least, -images. The highest stage, called the Ultimate stage, is

described as "the reality, condition, or suchness of all levels." If youdraw the stage diagram on a paper, the Ultimate Self is in relation tothe other "selves" as the paper in relation to the elements of the


13/108

diagram drawn on it. Improper selfishness, then, might be viewed as themistaking of the image for the real thing.

So, there is a very important division between the underlying Self, andthe various self-images. This division is found more or less explicitlyin a variety of sources. Pirsig, in his famous best-seller, denouncesthe ego, but embraces the Self in his praise of arete as "duty towards

Self." [2] The philosopher Nietzsche writes that "The Self is alwayslistening and seeking: it compares, subdues, conquers, destroys. Itrules and is also the Ego's ruler. Behind your thoughts and feelings,my brother, stands a mighty commander, an unknown sage - he is calledSelf.", and also, a little above this, "[the Self] does not say 'I' butperforms 'I'." [3].

In [1] it is concluded that though all who experience the Ultimatestage do essentially the same, the experience and understanding of itdepends on the prior interpretation. The Buddhist experience an egolessstate, while the theistic meditators experience [being one with] theirgod. Who is having this unifying experience? The same guy, essentially,

who has everyday experience. Fichte [4] asks of his audience, "Gentle-men, think of the wall," and proceeds "Gentlemen, think of him whothought the wall." In this way he gets an infinite chain, as "wheneverwe try to objectify ourselves, make ourselves into objects ofconsciousness, there always remains an _I_ or ego which transcendsobjectification and is itself the condition of the unity of conscious-ness," as Copleston describes.

Now, whether we shall side with the meditators who claim to experiencethis _I_, or with Fichte who says we cannot, is of little importancehere. What is important, is that the _I_, this ground and conditionindeed exists, and that it is the ground of the empirical ego or egos.

I want to take a closer look at this _I_ - the Self.

So far, the Self may be seen on as something just lying in the back-ground, a kind of ultimate observer. But Fichte's question can also beasked of action, "Who is lifting your arm when you lift your arm?"Like it was clear in the first case that it was not the image of theSelf - the ego - that was aware, but the Self itself, it is equallyobvious that it is not the image of the Will that lifts the arm - butthe Will itself. To understand this better, try to will the coke bottlein front of you to lift. Won't do. Now, "will" your arm up in the sameway that you willed the coke bottle. Won't do either. Still, liftingthe arm is easy. (See also [3])

Proceeding like above, we can find a well of parts of the underlyingSelf. But they are all one. The Self that sees the stick is the sameSelf that throws a rock at it. How else would it hit? I have found ituseful to single out three of them, which I will call the ExperiencingSelf, the Creative Self and the Teleological Self.

Stirner [5] speaks of "the vanishing point of the ego", and of the"creative nothing". He has "built his case on nothing". This latter isthe one that reveals what he intends. For surely, he has built hiscause on - himself. But in the way of Fichte, the Self is not a thing,but the basis for speaking of things. To be a thing is to be an objectfor some subject and, as Fichte showed, the subject cannot properly be

an object. So, Stirner's "creative nothing" is him Self.

In contrast to Fichte, however, Stirner emphasizes the finite here-and-


14/108

now individual Self, not the abstract Ego: "Fichte's ego too is thesame essence outside me, for every one is ego; and, if only this egohas rights, then it is "the ego", it is not I. But I am not an ego alongwith other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too areunique, and my deeds; in short everthing about me is unique."

So we see Stirner rejects the positivistic idea of viewing himself from

a 3rd person vantage point. He is not "ego", the image of himself. Forone can have an image of anyone. But ones own Self is experienced fromthe 1st person point of view, and one is oneself the only one who canexperience oneself from there. Again quoting Stirner: "They say of God:'Names name thee not.' That holds good of me: No -concept- expressesme; they are only names."

The history of philosophy can be simplified as follows: We have gonefrom a focus on experienced reality, to experienced self, and from thaton to that which contains both - the Experiencing Self. Stirner, as astudent of Hegel, must have seen this, and, as he states, this historyis also _my_ history. The dialectic process is taken back into its

owner. I am not any longer viewing myself as a moment in the dialecticalself-unfolding of the Absolute, but as he who learns and thinks thesethoughts, and - take the advantage of them.

The philosophical process did not stop at the Experiencing Self, withwhich an empiricist would be content. A reaction came, asking whatelements of experience were constituted by the subject himself. Theobserver was no longer seen as a passive observer, but as an activeparticipant contributing his own elements into experience. Thus wecan say that the awareness of the creative role of the intellect wasproperly emerging. We had the Creative Self. This was idea was takenvery far by Stirners teachers - into German idealism.

Stirners main thesis is that of the individual as the ground not onlyof observation and creation, but of evaluation. This thesis is givena short presentation as a 0th chapter in The Ego and His Own: "Allthings are Nothing to Me." No outer force is to determine ones cause,ones evaluation. With a convincing rhetoric, Stirner makes room forthe case that he himself is the evaluator, the one whose cause is tobe acted for.

Stirners main dialectical triad is then this, that we go from mereexperience to action [thought], and as a solution to the strain betweenthese go to valuation and interest, self-interest. This is a recurringtheme in his book, and the structure of the argument is presented inthe first chapter, very appropriately named "A human Life".

The triad, as I have understood and interpreted it, is this:

The Experiencing Self: This is, so to say, the beacon that enlightensthe empirical world, which makes it possible qua empirical world. Withknowledge of oneself only as experiencing, one is stuck with things,and all ones activity is centered around things, as Stirner says. Oneis a Materialist. In history, both the personal and the philosophicalone, the Empirical Self is seen as a passive observer on whom the worldis imprinted, all until we come to the antithesis of this view:

The Creative Self: We discover our own more active role in experience,

our own contribution of elements/form to our experience, as shown bythe [Kantian inspired] experiments of the early Gestalt psychologists.With this knowledge, attention goes to thought itself, and, we become


15/108

intellectual and spiritual young men. Our quest goes for that in whichwe can pry Spirit, and we become - Idealists.

The Teleological Self: There is a [dialectical] strain between the twoviews and aspects of the Self above, a conflict that can only, as Stirnersays, be resolved by a third party, which is the synthesis. We begin toask: Why do I focus on this, and not on that, in experience? Why do I

create this and not that? For whom am I doing my creation, my thinking?I find the answer to the above questions in what I will call theTeleological Self. The Teleological Self is he [or rather - I] for whomall things done by me are done, the commander who is the measure of allactivity. Any value, any selection, and thereby any focus and anycreation, owes its existence to the Teleological Self. In the TeleologicalSelf we find the grounding of our "why?".

The dilemma between Materialism and Idealism is resolved in Selfishness.Not do I go for the material for its sake, nor do I let the cause of anyideal invade me and make its cause mine. I take both, but as tools andthings to be disposed of at - my pleasure. In this fashion the dialectics

is buried. For it is only alive in the world of ideas, which I have takenback into myself.

---

This was an attempt to convey some thoughts on the Self. If anyone feelstempted to pick up this thread, expand on it or negate it, you arewelcome. It will be a pleasure.

[1] Wilber, Engler, Brown: "Transformations of Consciousness"[2] Robert Pirsig: "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"[3] Friedrich Nietzsche: "Zarathustra", on the Despisers of the Body.

[4] Copleston, Vol VII, p. 40[5] Max Stirner: "The Ego & His Own"

____________________________________________________________________

Ken Knudson:


The Individualist Alternative(continued)

Before one can get into an intelligent criticism ofanything, one must begin by defining one's terms."Anarchism", according to the Encyclopaedia Britannicadictionary, is "the theory that all forms of government areincompatible with individual and social liberty and shouldbe abolished." It further says that it comes from the Greekroots "an" (without) and "archos" (leader).* As for"communism", it is "any social theory that calls for theabolition of private property and control by the communityover economic affairs." To elaborate on that definition,communists of all varieties hold that all wealth should beproduced and distributed according to the formula "from each

according to his** ability, to each according to his needs"and that the administrative mechanism to control suchproduction and distribution should be democratically


16/108

organised by the workers themselves (i.e. "workers'control"). They further insist that there should be noprivate ownership of the means of production and no tradingof goods except through the official channels agreed upon bythe majority. With rare exceptions, communists of allvarieties propose to realise this ideal through violentrevolution and the expropriation of all private property.

That no one should accuse me of building up straw menin order to knock them down, allow me to quote Kropotkin***

--------------------

* Historically, it was Proudhon who first used the wordto mean something other than disorder and chaos: "Although afirm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term)an anarchist." [5]

** Here Marx uses the masculine pronoun to denote thegeneric "one". In deference to easy flowing English grammar,

I'll stick to his precedent and hope that Women's Lib peoplewill forgive me when I, too, write "his" instead of "one's".*** I have chosen Kropotkin as a "typical" communist-

anarchist here and elsewhere in this article for a number ofreasons. First, he was a particularly prolific writer, doingmuch of his original work in English. Secondly, he isgenerally regarded as "probably the greatest anarchistthinker and writer" by many communist- anarchists, includingat least one editor of "Freedom". [6] Finally, he was thefounder of Freedom Press, the publisher of the magazine youare now reading.

- 5 -

to show that communist-anarchism fits in well with the abovedefinition of communism:

"We have to put an end to the iniquities, the vices, thecrimes which result from the idle existence of some and theeconomic, intellectual, and moral servitude of others.... Weare no longer obliged to grope in the dark for thesolution.... It is Expropriation.... If all accumulatedtreasure...does not immediately go back to the collectivity- since ALL have contributed to produce it; if the insurgentpeople do not take possession of all the goods andprovisions amassed in the great cities and do not organiseto put them within the reach of all who need them...theinsurrection will not be a revolution, and everything willhave to be begun over again....Expropriation, - that then,is the watchword which is imposed upon the next revolution,under penalty of failing in its historic mission. Thecomplete expropriation of all who have the means of

exploiting human beings. The return to common ownership bythe nation of all that can serve in the hands of any one forthe exploitation of others." [7]


17/108

Now let us take our definitions of communism andanarchism and see where they lead us. The first part of thedefinition of communism calls for the abolition of privateproperty. "Abolition" is itself a rather authoritarianconcept - unless, of course, you're talking about abolishingsomething which is inherently authoritarian and invasive

itself (like slavery or government, for example). So thequestion boils down to "Is private property authoritarianand invasive?" The communists answer "yes"; theindividualists disagree. Who is right? Which is the more"anarchistic" answer? The communists argue that "privateproperty has become a hindrance to the evolution of mankindtowards happiness" [8], that "private property offendsagainst justice" [9] and that it "has developedparasitically amidst the free institutions of our earliestancestors." [10] The individualists, far from denying theseassertions, reaffirm them. After all wasn't it Proudhon whofirst declared property "theft"?* But when the communist

--------------------*By property Proudhon means property as it exists under

government privilege, i.e. property gained not throughlabour or the exchange of the products of labour (which hefavours), but through the legal privileges bestowed bygovernment on idle capital.

- 6 -

says, "Be done, then, with this vile institution; abolishprivate property once and for all; expropriate andcollectivise all property for the common good," theindividualist must part company with him. What's wrong withprivate property today is that it rests primarily in thehands of a legally privileged elite. The resolution of thisinjustice is not to perpetrate an even greater one, butrather to devise a social and economic system which willdistribute property in such a manner that everyone isguaranteed the product of his labour by natural economiclaws. I propose to demonstrate just such a system at the endof this article. If this can be done, it will have beenshown that private property is not intrinsically invasiveafter all, and that the communists in expropriating it wouldbe committing a most UNanarchistic act. It is, therefore,incumbent upon all communists who call themselves anarchiststo read carefully that section and either find a flaw in itsreasoning or admit that they are not anarchists after all.

The second part of the definition of communism saysthat economic affairs should be controlled by the community.Individualists say they should be controlled by the market

place and that the only law should be the natural law ofsupply and demand. Which of these two propositions is themore consistent with anarchism? Herbert Spencer wrote in


18/108

1884, "The great political superstition of the past was thedivine right of kings. The great political superstition ofthe present is the divine right of parliaments." [11] Thecommunists seem to have carried Spencer's observation onestep further: the great political superstition of the futureshall be the divine right of workers' majorities. "Workers'control" is their ideology; "Power to the People" their

battle cry. What communist-anarchists apparently forget isthat workers' control means CONTROL. Marxists, let it besaid to their credit, at least are honest about this point.They openly and unashamedly demand the dictatorship of theproletariat. Communist-anarchists seem to be afraid of thatphrase, perhaps subconsciously realising the inherentcontradiction in their position. But communism, by its verynature, IS dictatorial. The communist-anarchists maychristen their governing bodies "workers' councils" or"soviets", but they remain GOVERNMENTS just the same.

Abraham Lincoln was supposed to have asked, "If you

call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No!Calling a tail a leg don't MAKE it a leg." The same is trueabout governments and laws. Calling a law a "social habit"[12] or an "unwritten custom" [13] as Kropotkin does,doesn't change its nature. To paraphrase Shakespeare, thatwhich we call a law by any other name would smell as foul.

----

REFERENCES

1. Joseph Stalin, "Anarchism or Socialism" (Moscow; ForeignLanguages Publishing House, 1950), p. 85. Written in 1906

but never finished.

2. Ibid., pp. 90-1.

3. Ibid., p.95.

4. Ibid., p. 87.

5. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "What is Property: An Inquiryinto the Principle of Right and of Government," trans.Benjamin R. Tucker (London: William Reeves), p. 260.Originally published in French in 1840.

6. Bill Dwyer, "This World", "Freedom," March 27, 1971.

7. Pierre Kropotkine, "Paroles d'un Revolte" (Paris: ErnestFlammarion, 1885), pp. 318-9.

8. Paul Eltzbacher, "Anarchism: Exponents of the AnarchistPhilosophy," trans. Steven T. Byington, ed. James J. Martin(London: Freedom Press, 1960), p. 108. "Der Anarchismus" wasoriginally published in Berlin in 1900.

9. Ibid., p. 109.

10. Ibid., p. 110.

11. Herbert Spencer, "The Man Versus The State," ed. Donald


19/108

MacRae(London: Penguin Books, 1969), p. 151. Originally publishedin 1884.

12. Prince Peter Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread" (London:Chapman & Hall, Ltd., 1906), p. 41.

13. Eltzbacher, op. cit., p. 101.

____________________________________________________________________

************************************************************************ "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven" ** -- Milton, Paradise Lost ************************************************************************

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

non serviam #3**************(A Critique of Communism and the Individualist Alternative )

Contents: Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism andThe Individualist Alternative (serial: 3)

***********************************************************************

Ken Knudson:


The Individualist Alternative(continued)

Let us take a closer look at the type of society thecommunists would have us live under and see if we can get atthe essence of these laws. Kropotkin says that "nine-tenthsof those called lazy...are people gone astray." [14] He thensuggests that given a job which "answers" their"temperament" and "capacities" (today we would hear wordslike "relate", "alienation" and "relevancy"), these peoplewould be productive workers for the community. What aboutthat other ten percent which couldn't adjust? Kropotkindoesn't elaborate, but he does say, "if not one, of thethousands of groups of our federation, will receive you,whatever be their motive; if you are absolutely incapable ofproducing anything useful, or if you refuse to do it, thenlive like an isolated man....That is what could be done in acommunal society in order to turn away sluggards if theybecome too numerous." [15] This is a pretty harsh sentenceconsidering that ALL the means of production have beenconfiscated in the name of the revolution. So we see thatcommunism's law, put bluntly, becomes "work or starve."*This happens to be an individualist law too. But there is adifference between the two: the communist law is a man-made

law, subject to man's emotions, rationalisations, andinconsistencies; the individualist law is nature's law - thelaw of gastric juices, if you will - a law which, like it or


20/108

not, is beyond repeal. Although both laws use the samelanguage, the difference in meaning is the differencebetween a commandment and a scientific observation.Individualist-anarchists don't care when, where, or how aman earns a living, as long as he is not invasive about it.He may work 18 hours a day and buy a mansion to live in theother six hours if he so chooses. Or he may feel like

Thoreau did that "that man is richest whose pleasures arethe cheapest" [16] and work but a few hours a week to ensurehis livelihood. I wonder what would happen to Thoreau undercommunism? Kropotkin would undoubtedly look upon him as "aghost of bourgeois society." [17] And what would Thoreau sayto Kropotkin's proposed "contract"?: "We undertake to giveyou the use of our houses, stores, streets, means oftransport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, fromtwenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecratefour or five hours a day to some work recognised [by whom?]as necessary to existence....Twelve or fifteen hundred hours

--------------------

*Article 12 of the 1936 constitution of the USSR reads:"In the USSR work is the duty of every able-bodied citizenaccording to the principle: `He who does not work, neithershall he eat.' In the USSR the principle of socialism isrealised: `From each according to his ability, to eachaccording to his work.'"

- 8 -

of work a year...is all we ask of you." [18] I don't thinkit would be pulling the nose of reason to argue that Thoreauwould object to these terms.

But some communist-anarchists would reject Kropotkin'sidea of not giving to the unproductive worker according tohis needs, even if he doesn't contribute according to hisabilities. They might simply say that Kropotkin wasn't beinga good communist when he wrote those lines (just as hewasn't being a good anarchist when he supported the Alliesduring World War I). But this idea, it seems to me would bepatently unjust to the poor workers who would have tosupport such parasites. How do these communists reconcilesuch an injustice? As best I can gather from the writings ofthe classical communist-anarchists, they meet this problemin one of two ways: (1) they ignore it, or (2) they deny it.Malatesta takes the first approach. When asked, "How willproduction and distribution be organised?" he replies thatanarchists are not prophets and that they have no blueprintsfor the future. Indeed, he likens this important question toasking when a man "should go to bed and on what days he

should cut his nails." [19] Alexander Berkman takes theother approach (a notion apparently borrowed from theMarxists*): he denies that unproductive men will exist after


21/108

the revolution. "In an anarchist society it will be the mostuseful and difficult toil that one will seek rather than thelighter job." [20] Berkman's view of labour makes theprotestant work ethic sound positively mild by comparison.For example: "Can you doubt that even the hardest toil wouldbecome a pleasure...in an atmosphere of brotherhood andrespect for labour?" [21] Yes, I can doubt it. Or again: "We

can visualise the time when labour will have become apleasant exercise, a joyous application of physical effortto the needs of the world." [22] And again, in apparentanticipation of Goebbles' famous dictum about the powers ofrepetition, "Work will become a pleasure... laziness will beunknown." [23] It is hard to argue with such "reasoning". Itwould be like a debate between Bertrand Russell and BillyGraham about the existence of heaven. How can you argue withfaith? I won't even try. I'll just ask the reader, next timehe is at work, to look around - at himself and at his mates- and ask himself this question: "After the revolution will

--------------------

* At least Berkman is consistent in this matter. Marx,paradoxically, wanted to both "abolish labour itself" ("TheGerman Ideology"), AND make it "life's prime want"("Critique of the Gotha Programme").

- 9 -

we really prefer this place to staying at home in bed orgoing off to the seashore?" If there are enough people whocan answer "yes" to this question perhaps communism willwork after all. But in the meantime, before building thebarricades and shooting people for a cause of dubiouscertainty, I would suggest pondering these two items fromthe bourgeois and communist press respectively:

"In Detroit's auto plants, weekend absenteeism has reached

such proportions that a current bit of folk wisdom advisescar buyers to steer clear of vehicles made on a Monday orFriday. Inexperienced substitute workers, so the cautiongoes, have a way of building bugs into a car. But in Italylately the warning might well include Tuesday, Wednesday,and Thursday. At Fiat, the country's largest maker,absenteeism has jumped this year from the normal 4 or 5percent to 12.5 percent, with as many as 18,000 workersfailing to clock in for daily shifts at the company's Turinworks. Alfa Romeo's rate has hit 15 percent as hundreds ofworkers call in each day with `malattia di comodo' - aconvenient illness.... Italian auto workers seem to be doingno more than taking advantage of a very good deal. A new

labour contract guarantees workers in state-controlledindustries 180 days of sick leave a year, at full pay, whileworkers in private firms (such as Fiat) get the same number


22/108

of days at 75 percent of full pay." [24]

When doctors, employed by the state, made an inspectionvisit in Turin we are told that they found "that only 20percent of the `indisposed' workers they had visited wereeven mildly sick." For those who think that this is just abourgeois aberration, let us see what revolutionary Cuba,

after 12 years of communism, has to say about such"parasites". I translate from the official organ of theCentral Committee of the Cuban Communist Party:

"Worker's discussion groups are being set up in all workcentres to discuss the proposed law against laziness. Thesegroups have already proven to be a valuable forum for theworking class. During these assemblies, which for themoment are limited to pilot projects in the Havana area,workers have made original suggestions and posed timelyquestions which lead one to believe that massive discussionof this type would make a notable contribution to the

solution of this serious problem. An assembly of boilerrepairmen in the Luyano district was representative of thegeneral feeling of the workers. They demanded that action betaken against those parasitic students who have stoppedgoing to classes regularly or who, although attendingclasses, do just enough to get by. The workers were equallyadamant about co-workers who, after a sickness or accident,refuse to go back to their jobs but go on receiving their

- 10 -

salaries for months without working. Questions were oftenaccompanied by concrete proposals. For example, shouldcriminals receive the same salaries on coming back to workfrom prison as when they left their jobs? The workersthought not, but they did think it all right that therevolutionary state accord a pension to the prisoner'sfamily during his stay in the re-education [sic] centre. Atthe Papelera Cubana factory the workers made a suggestionwhich proved their contempt of these loafers; habitualoffenders should be punished in geometric proportion to thenumber of their crimes. They also proposed that workers whoquit their jobs or were absent too often be condemned to aminimum, not of 6 months, but of one year's imprisonment andthat the worker who refuses three times work proposed by theMinistry of Labour be considered automatically as a criminaland subject to punishment as such. The workers alsoexpressed doubts about the scholastic `deserters', ages 15and 16, who aren't yet considered physically and mentallyable to work but who don't study either. They also cited thecase of the self employed man who works only for his ownselfish interests. The dockworkers of Havana port, zone 1,

also had their meeting. They envisioned the possibility ofmaking this law retroactive for those who have a bad workattitude, stating forcefully that it wasn't a question of


23/108

precedents, because otherwise the law could only be appliedin those cases which occurred after its enactment. Theharbour workers also proposed imprisonment for the`sanctioned' workers and that, in their opinion, thepunishment of these parasites shouldn't be lifted until theycould demonstrate a change of attitude. The steadfastness ofthe workers was clearly demonstrated when they demanded that

punishments not be decided by the workers themselves inorder to avoid possible leniency due to reasons of sympathy,sentimentality, etc. The workers also indicated that theseparasites should not have the right to the social benefitsaccorded to other workers. Some workers consideredimprisonment as a measure much too kind. As you can see, theworkers have made many good proposals, which leads us tobelieve that with massive discussion, this new law will beconsiderably enriched. This is perhaps the path to sociallegislation by the masses."* [25]

These two extracts clearly demonstrate that human nature

remains pretty constant, independent of the social systemthe individual workman is subjected to. So it seems to methat unless human nature can somehow be miraculouslytransformed by the revolution - and that WOULD be arevolution - some form of compulsion would be necessary inorder to obtain "from each according to his abilities."

While on this point, I would like to ask my communist-

- 11 -

anarchist comrades just who is supposed to determine anotherperson's abilities? We've seen from the above article thatin Cuba the Ministry of Labour makes this decision. Howwould it differ in an anarchist commune? If these anarchistsare at all consistent with their professed desire forindividual freedom, the only answer to this question is thatthe individual himself would be the sole judge of hisabilities and, hence, his profession. But this isridiculous. Who, I wonder, is going to decide of his ownfree will that his real ability lies in collecting otherpeople's garbage? And what about the man who thinks that heis the greatest artist since Leonardo da Vinci and decidesto devote his life to painting mediocre landscapes while thecommunity literally feeds his delusions with food from thecommunal warehouse? Few people, I dare say, would opt to dothe necessary "dirty work" if they could choose withimpunity ANY job, knowing that whatever they did - good orbad, hard or easy - they would still receive according totheir needs.** The individualist's answer to this perennialquestion of "who will do the dirty work" is very simple: "I

--------------------

*The Associated Press has since reported the passage of


24/108

this law: "Cuba's Communist regime announced yesterday atough new labour law that Premier Fidel Castro said is aimedat 400,000 loafers, bums and `parasites' who have upset thecountry's new social order. The law, which goes into effectApril 1, provides for penalties ranging from six months totwo years of forced labour in `rehabilitation centres' forthose convicted of vagrancy, malingering or habitual

absenteeism from work or school. The law decrees that allmales between 17 and 60 have a `social duty' to work on adaily systematic basis unless they are attending an approvedschool. Those who do not are considered `parasites of therevolution' and subject to prosecution by the courts orspecial labourers' councils. The anti-loafing law - seen asa tough new weapon to be used mainly against dissatisfiedyoung people - was prompted by Mr. Castro's disclosure lastSeptember that as many as 400,000 workers were creatingserious economic problems by shirking their duties." [26]

** Anyone who has ever gone to an anarchist summer camp

knows what I mean. Here we have "la creme de la creme", soto speak, just dying to get on with the revolution; yet whocleans out the latrines? More often than not, no one. Or,when it really gets bad, some poor sap will sacrificehimself for the cause. You don't have solidarity; you havemartyrdom. And no one feels good about it: you haveresentment on the part of the guy who does it and guilt fromthose who don't.

- 12 -

will if I'm paid well enough." I suspect even Mr. Heathwould go down into the London sewers if he were paid 5million pounds per hour for doing it. Somewhere between thissum and what a sewer worker now gets is a just wage, which,given a truly free society, would be readily determined bycompetition.

This brings us to the second half of the communistideal: the distribution of goods according to need. Theobvious question again arises, "Who is to decide whatanother man needs?" Anarchists once more must leave thatdecision up to the individual involved. To do otherwisewould be to invite tyranny, for who can better determine aperson's needs than the person himself?* But if theindividual is to decide for himself what he needs, what isto prevent him from "needing" a yacht and his own privateairplane? If you think we've got a consumer society now,what would it be like if everything was free for theneeding? You may object that luxuries aren't needs. But thatis just begging the question: what is a luxury, after all?To millions of people in the world today food is a luxury.To the English central heating is a luxury, while to theAmericans it's a necessity. The Nazi concentration camps

painfully demonstrated just how little man actually NEEDS.But is that the criterion communists would use fordetermining need? I should hope (and think) not. So it seems


25/108

to me that this posses a definite dilemma for the communist-anarchist: what do you do about unreasonable, irrational, orextravagant "needs"? What about the man who "needs" a newpair of shoes every month? "Nonsense," you may say, "no oneneeds new shoes that often." Well, how often then? Once ayear? Every five years perhaps? And who will decide? Thenwhat about me? I live in Switzerland and I'm crazy about

grape jam - but unfortunately the Swiss aren't. I feel thata jam sandwich isn't a jam sandwich unless it's made withGRAPE jam. But tell that to the Swiss! If Switzerland were acommunist federation, there wouldn't be a single communalwarehouse which would stock grape jam. If I were to go up tothe commissar-in-charge-of-jams and ask him to put in a

--------------------

* I'm reminded here of the tale of the man who decidedhis mule didn't NEED any food. He set out to demonstrate histheory and almost proved his point when, unfortunately, the

beast died. Authoritarian communism runs a similar riskwhen it attempts to determine the needs of others.

- 13 -

requisition for a few cases, he would think I was nuts."Grapes are for wine," he'd tell me with infallible logic,"and more people drink wine than eat grape jam." "But I'm avegetarian," I plead, "and just think of all the money (?)

I'm saving the commune by not eating any of that expensivemeat." After which he would lecture me on the economics ofjam making, tell me that a grape is more valuable in itsliquid form, and chastise me for being a throwback tobourgeois decadence.

And what about you, dear reader? Have you noindividual idiosyncrasies? Perhaps you've got a thing aboutmarshmallows. What if the workers in the marshmallowfactories decide (under workers' control, of course) thatmarshmallows are bad for your health, too difficult to make,or just simply a capitalist plot? Are you to be denied theculinary delights that only marshmallows can offer, simplybecause some distant workers get it into their heads that amarshmallowless world would be a better world?

But, not only would distribution according to need hurtthe consumer, it would be grossly unfair to the productiveworker who actually makes the goods or performs thenecessary services. Suppose, for example, that hardworkingfarmer Brown goes to the communal warehouse with a load offreshly dug potatoes. While there Brown decides he needs anew pair of boots. Unfortunately there are only a few pairsin stock since Jones the shoemaker quit his job - preferringto spend his days living off Brown's potatoes and writing

sonnets about the good life. So boots are rationed. The bootcommissar agrees that Brown's boots are pretty shabby but,he points out, Smith the astrologer is in even greater need.


26/108

Could Brown come back in a month or so when BOTH soles haveworn through? Brown walks away in disgust, resolved neveragain to sweat over his potato patch.

Even today people are beginning to complain about theinjustices of the (relatively mild) welfare state. TheodoreRoszak writes that in British schools there has been a

"strong trend away from the sciences over the past fouryears" and that people are showing "annoyed concern" and"loudly observing that the country is not spending its moneyto produce poets and Egyptologists - and then demanding asharp cut in university grants and stipends."[27] If peopleare upset NOW at the number of poets and Egyptologists thatthey are supporting, what would it be like if EVERYONE couldsimply take up his favourite hobby as his chosen profession?I suspect it wouldn't be long before our professionalchess players and mountain climbers found the warehousestocks dwindling to nothing. Social unrest would surelyincrease in direct proportion to the height of the trash

- 14 -

piling up on the doorsteps and the subsequent yearning forthe "good old days" would bring about the inevitablecounter-revolution. Such would be the fate of theanarchist-communist utopia.

* * * * *

____________________________________________________________________

************************************************************************ If the whole is not defined as the sum of its parts, there is ** no reason to expect the whole to be just the sum of its parts. ************************************************************************

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

non serviam #4**************

(A Critique of Communism and the Individualist Alternative (Continued))

Contents: Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism andThe Individualist Alternative (serial: 4)

***********************************************************************

Ken Knudson:

A Critique of Communism

andThe Individualist Alternative

(continued)


27/108

* * * * *

Peter Kropotkin opens his chapter on "Consumption andProduction" in "The Conquest of Bread" with the followingwords:

"If you open the works of any economist you will find thathe begins with PRODUCTION, the analysis of means employednowadays for the creation of wealth; division of labour,manufacture, machinery, accumulation of capital. From AdamSmith to Marx, all have proceeded along these lines. Onlyin the latter parts of their books do they treat ofCONSUMPTION, that is to say, of the means necessary tosatisfy the needs of individuals....Perhaps you will saythis is logical. Before satisfying needs you must create thewherewithal to satisfy them. But before producing anything,must you not feel the need of it? Is it not necessity thatfirst drove man to hunt, to raise cattle, to cultivate land,

to make implements, and later on to invent machinery? Is itnot the study of needs that should govern production?"[28]When I first came upon these words, I must admit I wasrather surprised. "What have we here," I thought, "is theprince of anarchist-communism actually going to come out infavour of the consumer?" It didn't take long to find outthat he wasn't. Most communists try very hard to ignore thefact that the sole purpose of production is consumption. Butnot Kropotkin; he first recognises the fact - and THEN heignores it. It's only a matter of three pages before he getshis head back into the sand and talks of "how to reorganisePRODUCTION so as to really satisfy all needs." [My emphasis]

Under communism it is not the consumer that counts; itis the producer. The consumer is looked upon with scorn - aloathsome, if necessary, evil. The worker, on the otherhand, is depicted as all that is good and heroic. It is notby accident that the hammer and sickle find themselves asthe symbols of the Russian "workers' paradise." Can youhonestly imagine a communist society raising the banner ofbread and butter and declaring the advent of the "consumers'paradise"? If you can, your imagination is much more vividthan mine.

But that's exactly what individualist-anarchists woulddo. Instead of the communist's "workers' control" (i.e. aproducers' democracy), we advocate a consumers' democracy.Both democracies - like all democracies - would in fact be

- 15 -

dictatorships. The question for anarchists is whichdictatorship is the least oppressive? The answer should be

obvious. But, judging from the ratio of communists toindividualists in the anarchist movement, apparently it'snot. So perhaps I'd better explain.


28/108

The workers in some given industry decide that item Ashould no longer be produced and decide instead tomanufacture item B. Now consumer X, who never liked item Aanyway, couldn't care less; but poor Y feels his life willnever be the same without A. What can Y do? He's just a loneconsumer and consumers have no rights in this society. But

maybe other Y's agree with him. A survey is taken and it isshown that only 3% of all consumers regret the passing of A.But can't some compromise be arrived at? How about lettingjust one tiny factory make A's? Perhaps the workers agree tothis accommodation. Perhaps not. In any case the workers'decision is final. There is no appeal. The Y's are totallyat the mercy of the workers and if the decision is adverse,they'll just have to swallow hard and hope that next weekitem C isn't taken away as well. So much for the producers'dictatorship.

Let's now take a look at the consumers' dictatorship.

Consumers are finicky people - they want the best possibleproduct at the lowest possible price. To achieve this endthey will use ruthless means. The fact that producer X asksmore for his product than Y asks for his similar product isall that the consumer needs to know. He will mercilessly buyY's over X's. The extenuating circumstances matter little tohim. X may have ten children and a mother-in-law to feed.The consumer still buys from Y. Such is the nature of theconsumers' dictatorship over the producer.

Now there is a fundamental difference between these twodictatorships. In the one the worker says to the consumer,"I will produce what I want and if you don't like it you can

lump it." In the other the consumer says to the worker, "Youwill produce what I want and if you don't I will take mybusiness elsewhere." It doesn't take the sensitive antennaeof an anarchist to see which of these two statements is themore authoritarian. The first leaves no room for argument;there are no exceptions, no loopholes for the dissidentconsumer to crawl through. The second, on the other hand,leaves a loophole so big that it is limited only by theworker's imagination and abilities. If a producer is notdoing as well as his competitor, there's a reason for it. Hemay not be suited for that particular work, in which case hewill change jobs. He may be charging too much for his goodsor services, in which case he will have to lower his costs,profits, and/or overhead to meet the competition. But one

- 16 -

thing should be made clear: each worker is also a consumerand what the individual looses in his role as producer by

having to cut his costs down to the competitive marketlevel, he makes up in his role as consumer by being able tobuy at the lowest possible prices.*


29/108

* * * * *

Let us turn our attention now to the variousphilosophies used by communists to justify their socialsystem. The exponents of any social change invariably claimthat people will be "happier" under their system than they

now are under the status quo. The big metaphysical questionthen becomes, "What is happiness?" Up until recently thecommunists - materialists par excellence - used to say itwas material well-being. The main gripe they had againstcapitalism was that the workers were NECESSARILY in a stateof increasing poverty. Bakunin, echoing Marx, said that "thesituation of the proletariat...by virtue of inevitableeconomic law, must and will become worse every year." [29]But since World War II this pillar of communist thought hasbecome increasingly shaky - particularly in the UnitedStates where "hard hats" are now pulling in salaries upwardsof four quid an hour. This fact has created such acute

embarrassment among the faithful that many communists arenow seeking a new definition of happiness which has nothingto do with material comfort.

Very often what they do in discarding the Marxisthappiness albatross is to saddle themselves with a Freudianone.** The new definition of happiness our neo-Freudiancommunists arrive at is usually derived from what OttoFenichel called the "Nirvana

--------------------

* The usual objection raised to a "consumers'

democracy" is that capitalists have used similar catchphrases in order to justify capitalism and keep the workersin a subjugated position. Individualists sustain thisobjection but point out that capitalists are beinginconsistent by not practicing what they preach. If theydid, they would no longer be in a position of privilege,living off the labour of others. This point is made clear inthe section on capitalism later in this article.

** Wilhelm Reich and R. D. Laing are among the latestgurus of the libertarian left. And it's not uncommon inanarchist circles to hear a few sympathetic words aboutHerbert Marcuse's "Eros and Civilisation," despite theauthor's totalitarian tendencies.

- 17 -

principle." The essence of this theory is that both life-enhancing behaviour (e.g. sexual intercourse, eating) andlife-inhibiting behaviour (e.g. war, suicide) are

alternative ways of escaping from tension. Thus Freud's lifeinstinct and death instinct find their common ground inNirvana where happiness means a secure and carefree


30/108

existence. This sounds to me very much like the Christianconception of heaven. But with communism, unlike heaven, youdon't have to give up your life to get in - just yourhumanity.

Homer Lane used to have a little anecdote whichillustrates the point I'm trying to make about the communist

idea of happiness:

"A dog and a rabbit are running down a field. Bothapparently are doing the same thing, running and using theircapacity to the full. Really there is a great differencebetween them. Their motives are different. One is happy, theother unhappy. The dog is happy because he is trying to dosomething with the hope of achieving it. The rabbit isunhappy because he is afraid. A few minutes later theposition is reversed; the rabbit has reached his burrow andis inside panting, whilst the dog is sitting outsidepanting. The rabbit is now happy because it is safe, and

therefore no longer afraid. The dog is unhappy because hishope has not been realised. Here we have the two kinds ofhappiness of which each one of us is capable - happinessbased on the escape from danger, and happiness based on thefulfillment of a hope, which is the only true happiness."[30]

I leave it to the reader as an exercise in trivialityto decide which of these two types of happiness isemphasised by communism. While on the subject of analogies,I'd like to indulge in one of my own. Generally speakingthere are two kinds of cats: the "lap cat" and the "mouser."The former leads a peaceful existence, leaving granny's lap

only long enough to make a discreet trip to its sandbox andto lap up a saucer of milk. The latter lives by catchingmice in the farmer's barn and never goes near the inside ofthe farm house. The former is normally fat and lazy; thelatter skinny and alert. Despite the lap cat's easier life,the mouser wouldn't exchange places with him if he could,while the lap cat COULDN'T exchange places if he would. Herewe have two cats - perhaps even from the same litter - withtwo completely different attitudes toward life. The oneexpects a clean sandbox and food twice a day - and he israrely disappointed. The other has to work for a living, butgenerally finds the reward worth while. "Now what has thisgot to do with the subject at hand?" I hear you cry. Just

- 18 -

this: the communists would make "lap cats" of us all. "Butwhat's so bad about that?" you may ask. To which I wouldhave to reply (passing over the stinky problem of WHO will

change the sandbox), "Have you ever tried to `domesticate' amouser?"


31/108

Communism, in its quest for a tranquil, tensionlessworld, inevitably harks back to the Middle Ages. Scratch acommunist and chances are pretty good you'll find amediaevalist underneath. Paul Goodman, for example, deriveshis ideal "community of scholars" from Bologna and Parismodels based in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. [31]Erich Fromm writes longingly of "the sense of security which

was characteristic of man in the Middle Ages....In having adistinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in thesocial world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in astructuralised whole, and thus life had a meaning which leftno place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identicalwith his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, aknight, and not AN INDIVIDUAL who HAPPENED to have this orthat occupation. The social order was conceived as a naturalorder, and being a definite part of it gave man a feeling ofsecurity and of belonging. There was comparatively littlecompetition. One was born into a certain economic positionwhich guaranteed a livelihood determined by tradition. [32]

Kropotkin goes even further than Fromm. I'd like to examinehis position in some detail because I think it is veryinstructive of how the communist mentality works. In perhapshis best-known book, "Mutual Aid," Kropotkin devotes two ofits eight chapters to glorifying the Middle Ages, which heboldly claim were one of "the two greatest periods of[mankind's] history." [33] (The other one being ancientGreece. He doesn't say how he reconciles this with the factthat Greece was based firmly on a foundation of slavery)."No period of history could better illustrate theconstructive powers of the popular masses than the tenth andeleventh centuries...but, unhappily, this is a period aboutwhich historical information is especially scarce." [34] I

wonder why? Could it be that everyone was having such a goodtime that no one found time to record it? Kropotkin writesof the mediaeval cities as "centres of liberty andenlightenment." [35] The mediaeval guilds, he says, answered"a deeply inrooted want of human nature," [36] calling them"organisations for maintaining justice." [37] Let's see whatKropotkin means here by "justice":

"If a brother's house is burned, or he has lost his ship, orhas suffered on a pilgrim's voyage, all the brethren MUSTcome to his aid. If a brother falls dangerously ill, twobrethren MUST keep watch by his bed till he is out ofdanger, and if he dies, the brethren must bury him - a great

- 19 -

affair in those times of pestilences [Kropotkin must havebeen dozing to admit this in his Utopia] - and follow him tothe church and the grave. After his death they MUST provide

for his children....If a brother was involved in a quarrelwith a stranger to the guild, they agreed to support him forbad and for good; that is, whether he was unjustly accused


32/108

of aggression, OR REALLY WAS THE AGGRESSOR, they HAD tosupport him....They went to court to support by oath thetruthfulness of his statements, and if he was found guiltythey did not let him go to full ruin and become a slavethrough not paying the due compensation; they all paidit....Such were the leading ideas of those brotherhoodswhich gradually covered the whole of mediaeval life." [38]

(My emphasis)

And such is Kropotkin's conception of "justice," which couldbetter be described as a warped sense of solidarity. He goeson to say, "It is evident that an institution so well suitedto serve the need of union, without depriving the individualof his initiative, could but spread, grow, and fortify."[39] "We see not only merchants, craftsmen, hunters, andpeasants united in guilds; we also see guilds of priests,painters, teachers of primary schools and universities,guilds for performing the passion play, for building achurch, for developing the `mystery' of a given school of

art or craft, or for a special recreation - even guildsamong beggars, executioners, and lost women, all organisedon the same double principle of self-jurisdiction and mutualsupport." [40] It was such "unity of thought" whichKropotkin thinks "can but excite our admiration." [41]

-----

REFERENCES

14. Kropotkin, op. cit., p. 209.

15. Ibid., p. 206.

16. Henry David Thoreau, "Journal," March 11, 1856.

17. Kropotkin, op. cit., p. 206.

18. Ibid., p. 205.

19. Errico Malatesta, "Anarchy" (London: Freedom Press,1949), p. 33. Originally published in 1907.

20. Alexander Berkman, "A.B.C. of Anarchism" (London:Freedom Press, 1964), p. 27. This is the abbreviated versionof the Vanguard Press "ABC of Communist Anarchism" whichappeared in 1929.

21. Ibid., p. 28.

22. Ibid., p. 29.

23. Ibid., p. 25.

24. "Italy: An Illness of Convenience," "Newsweek," January4, 1971, p. 44.

25. "Un Forum Legislatif de la Classe Ouvriere?", "Granma"(French edition), January 31, 1971, p. 3.


33/108

26. "Cuba Announces Labor Penalties For Loafers," "TheInternational Herald Tribune," March 19, 1971, p. 4.

27. Theodore Roszak, "The Making of a Counter Culture"(Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1969), p. 29.

28. Kropotkin, op. cit., pp. 236-7.

29. Mikhail Bakunin, "The Political Philosophy of Bakunin:Scientific Anarchism," ed. G. P. Maximoff (New York: TheFree Press, 1953), p. 285.

30. Homer Lane, "Talks to Parents and Teachers" (London:George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1928), p. 121.

31. Paul Goodman, "Compulsory Mis-education" and "T

non serviam editorial by svein olav nyberg (1993) fifteen numbers #00—#15

Documents