non serviam, issues 1-17

8/8/2019 Non Serviam, Issues 1-17

1/113

NON SERVIAM, ISSUES 1-17


2/113


3/113

AN INTRODUCTION TO /NON SERVIAMIn modern times, the philosophy of theindividual's assertion of himself againstgods, ideals and human oppressors has

been most eloquently expressed by MaxStirner in his book "Der Einzige und SeinEigentum".1

Stirner, whose real name was JohannKaspar Schmidt [1806-56], lived in a timedominated by German Idealism, withHegel as its prominent figure. It is againstthis background of fixation of ideas thatStirner makes his rebellion. Stirner takesdown these ideas from their fixed points inthe starry sky of Spirit, and declares allideas to be the ideas of an Ego,2 and therealm of spirits and ideas to be the mind ofthe thinker himself. His heaven-storming istotal. Even the idealist tool - dialectic, andthe supreme ghost of Idealism, [Absolute]Spirit - are stripped of their status ofintrinsic existence, and are taken back intothe Ego himself. This is most clearly seenin Stirner's main triad: Materialist - Idealist- Egoist. And the triad stops at its last link. Any further progress cannot negateEgoism, for - progress has been taken back

into the individual, as his - property.For Stirner, the solution to the

"alienation", or "self-alienation" ofIdealism, is in self-expression, or -ownership. What cannot be one's owncause, the cause that is not one's own, isnot worth pursuing. As Stirner says "Awaythen, with every cause that is not altogethermy cause!"

This is the philosophical starting pointof this newsletter. Formally, it will bear the

name i,

, a journal of Stirner studies and personalist philosophy. Its focus is stirnerianpersonalist philosophy, but its scopeincludes any articles on topics relevant toadherents of a personalist philosophy.

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

Articles on literature through the ages willbe very fine, stories will be welcomed if Isee them fit, and I even think I might fall

for an article on French cuisine made easy... However: If in doubt whether the articlewill be accepted, contact me by email first.A waste of time is a waste of time.

I hope to be able to make each of theissues of the newsletter thematic, that is wehave one main theme in each issue. Themain theme is not meant to be the solecontent, however, but more an inspirationfor writing.

i / Non Serviam has been distributed

through the Internet since 1993. Its focus ison ownnessself-ownershipand is, due to theinterest of the editor, mainly centeredaround a dialectical egoism inspired by MaxStirner.

The late Sidney Parker has for a longtime edited magazines with a similar scope,and when he told me he was going to stoppublishing, we agreed that I would takeover where he left off. Since then, theInternet has become ubiquitous, and alldistribution is via the Internet: visit our

web page to subscribe or downloadindividual issues:

http://i-studies.com

Svein Olav Nyberg(editor)Postscript: This not just a preface to i but

also a postscript to its first incarnation,NonServiam. The old name came from RAWilsons Illuminatus trilogy, to convey asense of metaphysical rebellion. A verysuitable name for an antithesis, but as ithas occurred to me over the yearssomewhat unsuited to convey the positiveaffirmation of the Stirnerian synthesis. Soas of 2010, the name change is official.


4/113


5/113

Index

#0: Welcome

AdvertisementIndex

#1: Editor's WordSvein Olav Nyberg: What is Selfishness?

John Beverley Robinson: "Egoism"Svein Olav Nyberg: The Union of EgoistsKen Knudson: A Critique of Communism and

The Individualist Alternative (serial)

#2: Editor's WordSvein Olav Nyberg: The SelfKen Knudson: A Critique of Communism and

The Individualist Alternative (serial: 2)

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



#6: Editor's Word [Stirner, Rand and Nietzsche]Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and


#7: S.E. Parker: "Archists, Anarchists and Egoists"Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and




6/113


#10: Editor's Word [Subject versus Object]Sidney Parker: The Egoism of Max Stirner

Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism andThe Individualist Alternative (serial: 10)


#12: Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism andThe Individualist Alternative (last: 12)

S.E. Parker: On Revisiting "Saint Max"

#13: Editor's Word [Celebration Issue]John C. Smith: Last and First WordsFrank Jordan: In Praise of MaxPaul Rowlandson: Stirner, Youth and Tradition

#14: Wm. Flygare: "To My Sweetheart"Svein Olav Nyberg: The Choice of a New Generation

#15: Editor's WordDora Marsden: Thinking and Thought

S.E. Parker: Comment to Ken Knudson

#16: Editor's WordJohn A. Marmysz: A Prolegomena

To Any Future Nihilistic Philosophy

#17: Editor's WordChris Sciabarra: Ayn Rand

The Russian Radical

Whoever is a complete person does not need - to be an authority!

-Max Stirner, The False Principle of Our Education


7/113

non serviam #1

Contents: Editor's WordSvein Olav Nyberg: What is Selfishness?John Beverley Robinson: "Egoism"

Svein Olav Nyberg: The Union of EgoistsKen Knudson: A Critique of Communism

and The Individualist Alternative (serial)

Editor's Word_____________

This is the first "real" issue ofnon serviam,and the present theme, as will also be thetheme 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, #2, I would therefore appreciate articles about"what egoism means" in general. Both

questions of the type "is hedonism the realegoism", and articles pondering the statusof egoism in ethics are appreciated.Psychological angles of attack are alsoappreciated.

Dissenting from this theme, I have a longand well-written article by Ken Knudsonwhich I intend to publish in full. Given thelength of it, it will be sent as a serial. It willalso be available on the ftp site in not too

long a time. I have, on the version here, leftthe page numberings for easier access tofootnotes.

What is Selfishness?Svein Olav Nyberg

I asked about "what egoism means". Ishould perhaps also have asked whategoism does not mean. For there are a lotof misconceptions about what egoism is.Religious literature incessantly warns us notto think about our own best interest, butthe interest of the heavenly, of Man, and ofjust about everything else. But seldom isthere found any advise to follow exactlythis own interest. Why then these warningsagainst self interest, on and on, again andagain? Surely not to counter any opposingsystem of ideas. For there have been close

to none. What then is left to counter but -the individual himself! But to counter theindividual is not a position that looks verygood, so it has to be disguised, disguised asan attack on some "Deep Evil" lurking inself interest - in egoism. So the common view of egoism is far from formed by

observation of actual egoists, but bypropaganda in its disfavour. I thereforefind it fruitful to list what I consider thetypes most typically mistaken for egoists,both by critics of egoism and by "egoists"themselves:

THE PSYCHOPATH: The psychopath ischaracterised by a tendency of always beingin the right and of manipulating others. Hetypically takes little heed of the interests ofpeople he confronts. The reasoningdisplayed by those who identify

psychopaths with egoists are usually of thetype "He does not care for others - thushemust care only for himself ...", which setsup a dichotomy without any basis in reality.Identifying an individual pursuing his owninterests with a psychopath is a powerfulmeans of keeping individuals "in line".


8/113

THE EGO-BOOSTER: Somewhat related tothe psychopath, in that he tries to makehimself "big" in the eyes of others often atthe expense of some third person. But theEgo-Booster cares a lot about thejudgement of others. In fact - he depends

on it. Getting approval from other peopledominates his way of life. His focus is noton himself, but on something else - his selfimage.

THE MATERIALIST: The glutton, thecarelessly promiscuous and the one whospends all his time gathering possessions isoften seen as the egoist by people whohave seen through the traps above. Afriend of mine wrote in his thesis on Stirnerthat these were "vulgar egoists". They sure

enough care for their own interests. Butthey only care forpartof their own interest,giving in to some urge to be dominated bythem. They either care only for the taste intheir mouths right-here-right-now, or forthe sensations in other bodily parts. Theydo not satisfy the whole chap, as Stirnerwrote.

THE IDEALIST: Not too typical, but still -important. Can range from the proponent

of Fichte's Absolute or TranscendentalEgo, to the idealist missionary who has ashis sole goal in this life to spread his ownideas. The former is not a proper egoist inthat the "I" he is talking about is not thepersonal, individual "I" but - anabstraction, the mere idea of an ego. Thelatter is just the materialist mentality letloose in the realm of ideas.

THE FORMAL EGOIST: The formal egoist

is perhaps the most elusively like to theproper egoist. For the formal egoist knowsthat an egoist looks to the satisfaction ofthe whole chap. Actually the formal egoistcan know more about egoism than theegoist himself. For the formal egoist reallywants to be an egoist - and he follows therecipe he has found to the last little detail,

and sets out to find even new nuances.There is only one thing missing, and that ishis realisation that there is no recipe.Egoism is not a religious or ideologicalsystem to be followed by duty, but simplythe being and awareness of oneself.

Now we have defined selfishness in thenegative. How now about the positive; towhat degree is egoism positively definable?First of all: What does it mean to "valueoneself", and is this what selfishnessconsists in?

This problematic is in particularmotivated by a comment from a subscriber, Jon Newton, in a discussion on whetheregoism meant following some personal"axioms of value". First of all, Joncommented that though underneath all

"axioms" of evaluation there had to rest thedeeper Valuing Subject him[/her]self, that would in no way imply that the ValuingSubject - as a consequence of that alone -had to have a higher value than even theaxiom.

Now, how is the above problematicsolved, if at all? First, I think that declaringas an axiom that the Valuing Subject isofhigher value, or to keep it in some other way as an "act of faith" would be a miss.

This would be again - to place the act ofevaluation as being mediated by the"axiom" or the "object of faith".

The Valuing Subject is the subject, and viewing something else - implicitly orexplicitly - as the subject, is an act ofalienation and untruth. This does, ofcourse, tie in with the question of the valueof truth, which I will address in anupcoming essay. But let us assume that theperson in question sees this, and can value

or non-value it as he wants. No generalityis lost by this approach.So the question is whether a person

would or should value himself higher thananything or anyone else.

It might be tempting, like so many havedone, to say some sentence to the effectthat if X is a necessary ground for valuing,


9/113

then X must necessarily be valued - or evenbe the highestof values. In the case at hand,substituting "oneself, the (Valuing) Subject"for X would thereby yield the claim thatone should value oneself the most.

But I do not think such an attempt via

"a priori" judgement would get us veryfar if we were honest about it. For suchan attempt would at best give us that Ihad a conditional value [derived,instrumental] from my values, and onlyfor a certain limited period of time, givenby these values. As an example, I couldhave valued the propagation of thespecies above all, and readily sacrificemyself when this goal did so require. Allthis without the contradiction an "apriori" argument like the above would

require.

Instead, I propose we ask "What does itmean to value oneself the highest?" or"What does it mean to be an egoist?".Indeed, what does it mean to "valuemyself" at all?

One answer might be that to "valuemyself" means to value my existence.

But "existence"? Now what is reallythat? An empty, eternal staring into

blankness is still "existence". But not whatI would call very interesting, less evenattractive. Something is missing. But what?

Now, to "value myself" would mean, Isuggest, to value that which makes life valuable to me. That means that when Ienjoy a good book - when I do what Ivalue the book for - I do not sit there (ho-hum) valuing my existence, accidentallyhaving a book in front of my eyes; rather itmeans that through the act of valuing the

book, which is what I value, I do therebyvalue myself.It is almost circular. I "value myself"

when I value that which - I value. I valuemyself when I allow my own judgements of value qua (Valuing) Subject be what is inthe end valued.

In contrast, "not valuing myself" wouldmean to negate my own value judgementsqua (Valuing) Subject. It would mean to leta Fixed Idea get the better of me and leaveits judgement as the final one instead ofmy own; it would mean to let the Fixed

Idea brand my values as "sinful", "un-human" etc. and - bow to it. That was the theory. Now what is the

practice? Lots of unresolved questions.Good. That's one reason I created NonServiam. But this gives a very differentpicture of the Egoist than what is normallybeing promoted throughout society.Society's "Egoist" is nothing more than justanother example of what I'd call a"spooked man"; a man who instead ofplainly following his own interests - i.e. his

own values - follows a Fixed Idea that isaccidentally branded "My Own Interests".

Society's "Egoist" is a charicature whodoes not pet cats since oh horror! - the catmight benefit from it too, who does notlike other people other than as means togaining material advantage - "for of coursean Egoist can see no value in other people,his gaze is all directed at one person" - andwho's got as his prime imperative "Do notgive to beggars!"

As a contrast, let us take some realEgoist, as described by Stirner: He doesnot enjoy people when they are safelytucked away in category boxes, but getscharmed by the smile of a little baby. Hepets cats for enjoyment, and loves to sit fora friendly chat with his friends - possiblyover a glass of wine he has given to thisfriend.

Think about it. If Egoism is not aboutmaking life as enjoyable as possible, i.e.

about realising one's values withoutinterference from Fixed Ideas, what is it?Society's charicature would soon findhimself in a logical mess if he thoughtabout this. Not only would he fade away ina Scrooge-like asceticism, but he wouldbegin to wonder why this bugger tomorrow who incidentally identified himself-now


10/113

with "himself-in-the-past" should ever get alittle benefit from himself-now. He couldn'teven get a glass of water for himself-one-minute-in-the-future.

As for ever being able to "axiomatise" my

own value judgements. Is it possible?Stirner certainly did not think so. "I createmyself each day anew" and "I am thecreative nothing" are sentences that expressthis existentialist sentiment.

I lean towards the same judgement, anddo in particular not see present-dayreductionism as a solution to the problem.First of all, I do not think reductionism isuniversally valid, and secondly, even if itwere, our mere biology would probably beof such a nature as to make our values

incapturable through fixed axioms at the

level on which we normally live andbreathe.

The above paragraph is of course merelymy opinions. I think that most argumentscount in their favour, and hence adoptthese opinions as "mine" at the present

time. I used to be of the opposite opinion,i.e. that reductionism was the truth, butafter a discussion with a friend who foundreductionism to be untenable, we switchedopinions - both of us!Anyhow, even given that for some periodof my life my values were of the characterthat they could be axiomatised: Why shouldthey? Would they ever express anythingnew in regards to my values? If they did, would not that mean they - contradictedthem, and thus had become Fixed Ideas

and - false?

Egoismby John Beverley Robinson

There is no word more generallymisinterpreted than the word egoism, in its

modern sense. In the first place, it issupposed to mean devotion to self interest,without regard to the interest of others. Itis thus opposed to altruism - devotion toothers and sacrifice of self. Thisinterpretation is due to the use of the wordthus antithetically by Herbert Spencer.

Again, it is identified with hedonism oreudaimonism, or epicureanism,philosophies that teach that the attainment

of pleasure or happiness or advantage,whichever you may choose to phrase it, isthe rule of life.

Modern egoism, as propounded by Stirnerand Nietzsche, and expounded by Ibsen,Shaw and others, is all these; but it is more.It is the realization by the individual that he

is an individual; that, as far as he isconcerned, he is the only individual.

For each one of us stands alone in themidst of a universe. He is surrounded bysights and sounds which he interprets asexterior to himself, although all he knowsof them are the impressions on his retinaand ear drums and other organs of sense.The universe for him is measured by thesesensations; they are, for him, the universe.Some of them he interprets as denotingother individuals, whom he conceives as

more or less like himself. But none of theseis himself. He stands apart. Hisconsciousness, and the desires andgratifications that enter into it, is a thingunique; no other can enter into it.

However near and dear to you may be your wife, children, friends, they are not you;


11/113

they are outside of you. You are foreveralone. Your thoughts and emotions areyours alone. There is no other whoexperiences your thoughts or your feelings.

No doubt it gives you pleasure when others

think as you do, and Inform you of itthrough language; or when others enjoy thesame things that you do. Moreover, quiteapart from their enjoying the same thingsthat you enjoy, it gives you pleasure to seethem enjoy themselves in any way. Suchgratification to the individual is the pleasureof sympathy, one of the most acutepleasures possible for most people.

According to your sympathy, you will takepleasure in your own happiness or in the

happiness of other people; but it is alwaysyour own happiness you seek. The mostprofound egoist may be the most completealtruist; but he knows that his altruism is, atthe bottom, nothing but self-indulgence.

But egoism is more than this. It is therealization by the individual that he isabove all institutions and all formulas; thatthey exist only so far as he chooses to makethem his own by accepting them.

When you see clearly that you are themeasure of the universe, that everythingthat exists exists for you only so far as it isreflected in your own consciousness, youbecome a new man; you see everything by anew light: you stand on a height and feelthe fresh air blowing on your face; and findnew strength and glory in it.

Whatever gods you worship, you realize

that they are your gods, the product of yourown mind, terrible or amiable, as you maychoose to depict them. You hold them inyour hand, and play with them, as a child with its paper dolls; for you have learnednot to fear them, that they are but the"imaginations of your heart."

All the ideals which men generally think arerealities, you have learned to see through;you have learned that they are your ideals. Whether you have originated them, whichis unlikely, or have accepted somebodyelse's ideals, makes no difference. They are

your ideals just so far as you accept them. The priest is reverend only so far as youreverence him. If you cease to reverencehim, he is no longer reverend for you. Youhave power to make and unmake priests aseasily as you can make and unmake gods. You are the one of whom the poet tells,who stands unmoved, though the universefall in fragments about you.

And all the other ideals by which men aremoved, to which men are enslaved, for

which men afflict themselves, have nopower over you; you are no longer afraid ofthem, for you know them to be your ownideals, made in your own mind, for yourown pleasure, to be changed or ignored,just as you choose to change or ignorethem. They are your own little pets, to beplayed with, not to be feared.

"The State" or "The Government" isidealized by the many as a thing above

them, to be reverenced and feared. Theycall it "My Country," and if you utter themagic words, they will rush to kill theirfriends, whom they would not injure by somuch as a pin scratch, if they were notintoxicated and blinded by their ideal. Mostmen are deprived of their reason under theinfluence of their ideals. Moved by the idealof "religion" or "patriotism" or "morality,"they fly at each others' throats - they, whoare otherwise often the gentlest of men!

But their ideals are for them like the "fixedideas" of lunatics. They become irrationaland irresponsible under the influence oftheir ideals. They will not only destroyothers, but they will quite sink their owninterests, and rush madly to destroythemselves as a sacrifice to the all-


12/113

devouring ideal. Curious, is it not, to onewho looks on with a philosophical mind?

But the egoist has no ideals, for theknowledge that his ideals are only hisideals, frees him from their domination. He

acts for his own interest, not for theinterest of ideals. He will neither hang aman nor whip a child in the interest of"morality," if it is disagreeable to him to doso.

He has no reverence for "The State." Heknows that "The Government" is but a setof men, mostly as big fools as he is himself,many of them bigger. If the State doesthings that benefit him, he will support it; ifit attacks him and encroaches on his liberty,

he will evade it by any means in his power,if he is not strong enough to withstand it.He is a man without a country.

"The Flag," that most men adore, as menalways adore symbols, worshipping thesymbol more than the principle it issupposed to set forth, is for the egoist but arather inharmonious piece of patch-work;and anybody may walk on it or spit on it ifthey will, without exciting his emotion any

more than if it were a tarpaulin that theywalked upon or .spat upon. The principlesthat it symbolizes, he will maintain as far asit seems to his advantage to maintain them;but if the principles require him to killpeople or be killed himself, you will have todemonstrate to him just what benefit he will gain by killing or being killed, beforeyou can persuade him to uphold them.

When the judge enters court in his toggery,

(judges and ministers and professors knowthe value of toggery in impressing thepopulace) the egoist is unterrified. He hasnot even any respect for "The Law." If thelaw happens to be to his advantage, he willavail himself of it; if it invades his liberty hewill transgress it as far as he thinks it wiseto do so. But he has no regard for it as a

thing supernal. It is to him the clumsycreation of them who still "sit in darkness."

Nor does he bow the knee to Morality -Sacred Morality! Some of its precepts hemay accept, if he chooses to do so; but you

cannot scare him off by telling him it is not"right." He usually prefers not to kill orsteal; but if he must kill or steal to savehimself, he will do it with a good heart, and without any qualms of "conscience." And"morality" will never persuade him toinjure others when it is of no advantage tohimself. He will not be found among aband of "white caps," flogging and burningpoor devils, because their actions do notconform to the dictates of "morality,"though they have injured none by such

actions; nor will he have any hand inpersecuting helpless girls, and throwingthem out into the street, when he hasreceived no ill at their hands.

To his friends - to those who deserve thetruth from him, - he will tell the truth; butyou cannot force the truth from himbecause he is "afraid to tell a lie." He hasno fear, not even of perjury, for he knowsthat 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 have fettered our minds andto which we have shrunk our petty lives;they are for the egoist as though they werenot.

"Filial love and respect" he will give to hisparents if they have earned it by deservingit. If they have beaten him in infancy, and

scorned him in childhood, and domineeredover him in maturity, he may possibly lovethem in spite of maltreatment; but if theyhave alienated his affection, they will notreawaken it by an appeal to "duty."

In brief, egoism in its moderninterpretation, is the antithesis, not of


13/113

altruism, but of idealism. The ordinary man- the idealist - subordinates his interests tothe interests of his ideals, and usuallysuffers for it. The egoist is fooled by noideals: he discards them or uses them, asmay suit his own interest. If he likes to be

altruistic, he will sacrifice himself forothers; but only because he likes to do so;he demands no gratitude nor glory inreturn.

The union of egoistsSvein Olav Nyberg

A common misconception about egoism,and about the egoism of Stirner inparticular, is that it is a reclusive, anti-socialkind of behaviour. As far as Stirner isconcerned, such commentators must have

been asleep through that half of his bookwhich is devoted to describing exactly thesocial interactions of an egoist, or moreprecisely - what social interactions are like when they are not mediated by ideals or"natural bonds".

Egoism is not anti-sociality, like somebelieve, but is better seen as a more maturekind of sociality.

Stirner is a dialectical philosopher, and as

such his focus is on relations. As is withrelations, it often comprises three elements,the two relata, and the relation itself, andhence the famous triad is a commonoccurrence in dialectical philosophy. Soalso with Stirner. Stirner's main triadicdevelopment is that of (1) The "natural" ormaterial bond of the ancients, (2) The bondby ideas, our "equality before reason", into(3) the willed or owned relation.

In his book, Stirner starts the descriptionof owned relations with relations tomaterial objects and ideas. A willedrelation to these are said to be that theyare yourproperty ("eigentum").

The opposite of the willed relation is, asindicated, the bond, the "ought" and the

"shall". These are simply relations thatare not mine to dispose of, but which aregiven me from outside - outside also inthe sense of coming from "my essence",something I must conform to and cannot

dispose of.

A particular case of such a bond is whenyou are not to let go of an idea. InHegelian terms: When that thought isseen as exempt from and sacred to "thepower of the negative". Such an idea iscalled a fixed idea. It is, in Stirner's words"An idea that has subjected the man toitself" - an idea that you are not tocriticise. [Recall that Der Einzige is "the

power of the negative" to himself.]

Ideas are often expressed in the materialworld, as we call it. One such idea is thatof "property". It should be noted that thecommon use of this word is that ofconformation to an idea a Fixed Ideaabout what you can ["morally"] lay yourhands on. By Stirner, however, propertyin this sense, "sacred property" or as heeven calls it "state property", is notexempt from criticism and from - his

laying hands on it. It is in the sense ofidea already his property in his thinking itas such - in the intentional, willing act.However, factual possession, layinghands on it, depends also on "my might",as Stirner expresses it.


14/113

Now, once the relation of "Eigentum" -of "property" in the Stirnerian sense hasbeen understood - and not before, can we proceed to the meeting of twoEinzige, two Subjects. There are severalways in which two people can meet:

1. The Bond. This is a meeting of twopeople according to how they "ought to"behave towards one another. As such it isnot a meeting which is willed, but rather ameeting according to the "ought".Examples of such are when the fatherand the son meet in the rolesof father andson. "Father" and "son" they will alwaysremain in a descriptive sense. But whenthey meet according to such roles, theymeet by an "ought" and not by a "will".

Roles are ascribed when the relation isseen as a static object.

2. The property. The relation can be aone-sidedly willed one. In this, the one isan Einzige whereas the Other hasbecome Eigentum (for the one who isEinzige). Perhaps this is the state ofthings where we can say "Hell is theOther" (i.e. when that Other guy isEinzige and I am reduced to a role as

Eigentum).Moses Hess criticised "Der Verein derEgoisten" ["The Union of Egoists"] alongthe lines that in such a meeting, there would have to be one who dominatedand one who submitted to domination. That is, Hess imagined that "The Unionof Egoist" would be a relation of the kind(2) described above.

Now, (2) might describe a Hobbesianegoist. But can it describe la dernieremaillon de la chaine Hegelienne(as Stirner hasbeen called)? No, that is a bit too crude.Stirner did himself reply to this criticismby pointing to examples: Two friendsplaying with their toys, two men goingtogether to the wine shop. These do of

course not comprise an exhaustive list ofunions, and our man Stirner does indeedspeak of unions consisting of thousandsof people, too, unions uniting to catch athief or to get better pay for one's ownlabour.

More philosophically, Moses Hessdescribes a one-sidedness, and thinks it isa necessary one for an Stirner. What isthen more natural than to apply a littledialectical reasoning to figure out whatStirner reallydidmean. I propose it is

3. The union. The relation isunderstood as a process. It is a process inwhich the relation is continually renewedby that both [/all] parts support itthrough an act of will. The Union

requires that both/all parties are presentthrough conscious egoism - i.e. own-will.If the one part silently finds him/her-selfto be suffering, but puts up and - keepsthe appearance, the union hasdegenerated into something else.

Only after development has come tothe understanding of the union of egoistsdoes Stirner come to the ultimatelyimportant relation - the relation of me tomyself. In the section entitled "My self-

enjoyment", Stirner sets up mere valuingof life against enjoyment of life. In theformer view, I am an object to bepreserved. In the latter I see myself as thesubject of all my valuing relations.

In this sense, Stirner can rebuke thequestion "what am I?" and replace it with"who am I?", a question which has itsanswer in this bodily person who asks thequestion. This is the "nothingness" whichStirner speaks of as I. "Not nothing in the

sense of emptiness, but a creativenothing."My relation to myself is thus a meeting

of myself as willer, a union with myselfand a consumption appropriation of

myself as my own.


15/113

A Critique of Communismand

The Individualist AlternativeKen Knudson

A NOTE TO READERS

I address myself in these pages primarily tothose readers of "Anarchy" who callthemselves "communist-anarchists." It ismy purpose in this article to show that thislabel is a contradiction in terms and thatanyone accepting it must do so by a lack ofclear understanding of what the words"anarchist" and "communist" really mean.

It is my hope that in driving a wedgebetween these two words, the communistside will suffer at the expense of theanarchist.

I make no claims to originality in thesepages. Most of what I have to say has beensaid 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 a lesser extent, JamesL. Walker.

I hope you won't be put off by myclumsy prose. I'm a scientist by trade, not aprofessional writer. I implore you,therefore, not to mistake style for content.If you want both the content and goodstyle may I suggest Tucker's "Instead of aBook". Unfortunately, this volume hasbeen out of print since 1897, but the betterlibraries especially those in the UnitedStates should have it. If you can read

French, I recommend the economicwritings of Proudhon. "General Idea of theRevolution in the Nineteenth Century" isparticularly good and has been translatedinto English by the American individualist, John Beverley Robinson. (Freedom Press,1923). Also in English is Tucker's

translation of one of Proudhon's earliest works, the well-known "What isProperty?". This book is not as good as the"General Idea" book, but it has theadvantage of being currently available inpaperback in both languages. A word ofwarning: unless you are thoroughly familiar with Proudhon, I would not recommendthe popular Macmillan "Papermac" editionof "Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph

Proudhon"; they seem to have beenselected with irrelevance as their onlycriterion. Like so many other great writers,Proudhon suffers tremendously whenquoted out of context and this particularedition gives, on average, less than a pageper selection. Better to read his worst bookcompletely than to be misled bydisconnected excerpts like these. Finally theindividualist philosophy, egoism, is bestfound in Max Stirner's "The Ego and HisOwn". This book suffers somewhat from a very difficult style (which wasn't aided byStirner's wariness of the Prussian censor),but if you can get through his obscurereferences and biblical quotes, I think youwill find the task worth the effort.

H. L. Mencken once observed that justbecause a rose smells better than a cabbagedoesn't mean to say it makes a better soup.I feel the same way about individualistanarchism. At first whiff, the altruist rosemay smell better than the individualist

cabbage, but the former sure makes a lousysoup. In the following pages I hope toshow that the latter makes a better one.

Ken KnudsonGeneva, SwitzerlandMarch, 1971


16/113

COMMUNISM:FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Communism is a 9 letter word used byinferior magicians with the wrong alchemicalformula for transforming earth into gold.

Allen Ginsberg,Wichita Vortex Sutra

By way of prelude to the individualistcritique of communism, I should like tolook briefly at the communist-anarchists'critique of their Marxist brothers. Anarchists and Marxists have traditionallybeen at odds with one another: Bakuninand Marx split the First International overtheir differences a century ago; Emma

Goldman virtually made her living in the1920's from writing books and magazinearticles about her "disillusionment inRussia"; in May, 1937, the communists andanarchists took time off from their waragainst Franco to butcher each other in thestreets of Barcelona; and the May days of'68 saw French anarchists directing moreabuse against the communist CGT thanagainst the Gaullist government.

What is the nature of these differences?Perhaps the most concise answer to thisquestion came in 1906 from a veritableexpert on the subject: Joseph Stalin. He wrote in "Anarchism or Socialism?" thatthere were essentially three mainaccusations which (communist) anarchistsleveled against Marxism:

1. that the Marxists aren't reallycommunists because they would

"preserve the two institutionswhich constitute the foundation of

[the capitalist] system:representative government andwage labour"; [1]

2. that the Marxists "are notrevolutionaries", "repudiate violentrevolution", and "want to establish

Socialism only by means of ballotpapers"; [2]3. that the Marxists "actually want to

establish not the dictatorship of theproletariat, but their owndictatorship over the proletariat."[3]

Stalin goes on to quote Marx and Engels to"prove" that "everything the anarchists sayon this subject is either the result ofstupidity, or despicable slander." [4] Today

the anarchists have the advantage of historyon their side to show just who wasslandering whom. I won't insult the reader'sintelligence by pointing out how all threeobjections to Marxism were sustained byUncle Joe himself a few decades later.

But let us look at these three accusationsfrom another point of view. Aren't thecommunist-anarchists simply saying in theirholier-than-thou attitude, "I'm more

communist than you, I'm morerevolutionary than you, I'm moreconsistent than you?" What's wrong withMarxism, they say, is NOT that it is forcommunism, violent revolution anddictatorship, but that it goes about attainingits goals by half-measures, compromises,and pussyfooting around. Individualist-anarchists have a different criticism. Wereject communism per se, violentrevolution per se, and dictatorship per se.

My purpose here is to try to explain why.


17/113

non serviam #2

Contents: Editor's WordSvein Olav Nyberg: The SelfKen Knudson: A Critique of Communism

and The Individualist Alternative (serial: 2)

Editor's Word_____________

A friend of mine was half a year agoconfronted with the claim that the Self"really did not exist", and that this wasscientifically proven. At the time, I onlylaughed, and considered the proponent of

the idea to be a little weird. I still considerit weird, but having heard the claim overagain, I do not laugh.

In the last issue, I went over the basic typesof [mistaken] selfishness, and promised tofollow up with a discussion of what was the

true Self/ego. In conjunction with theabove concern, this is the starting point formy article The Self.

Ken Knudson's eminent article continues.The chapter one makes up almost half thearticle, so I have chosen to issue the rest ofthe chapter as separate issues, so thatdiscussion may begin. I hope the somewhatarbitrary sectioning of the article into thedifferent issues is forgiven.

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

The SelfSvein Olav Nyberg

As seen in the last issue, what "selfish"means depends strongly upon what you

mean by "self". I will not here try to correctall the wrong ideas of what the Self is, butrather give an indication of what I think theright view is. There are, as you well areaware, many different conceptions of what"self" means. A general line of divisionbetween these conceptions I have found very well illustrated in Wilber, Engler andBrown's book on the psychology ofmeditation [1]: To different stages ofcognitive development belongs different

self -structures and, not the least, -images.The highest stage, called the Ultimate stage,is described as "the reality, condition, orsuchness of all levels." If you draw thestage diagram on a paper, the Ultimate Selfis in relation to the other "selves" as thepaper in relation to the elements of the

diagram drawn on it. Improper selfishness,then, might be viewed as the mistaking of

the image for the real thing.

So, there is a very important divisionbetween the underlying Self, and the various self-images. This division is foundmore or less explicitly in a variety ofsources. Pirsig, in his famous best-seller,denounces the ego, but embraces the Selfin his praise of arete as "duty towards Self."[2] The philosopher Nietzsche writes that"The Self is always listening and seeking: it

compares, subdues, conquers, destroys. Itrules and is also the Ego's ruler. Behindyour thoughts and feelings, my brother,stands a mighty commander, an unknownsage - he is called Self.", and also, a littleabove this, "[the Self] does not say 'I' butperforms 'I'." [3].


18/113

In [1] it is concluded that though all whoexperience the Ultimate stage do essentiallythe same, the experience and understandingof it depends on the prior interpretation. The Buddhist experience an egoless state,

while the theistic meditators experience[being one with] their god. Who is havingthis unifying experience? The same guy,essentially, who has everyday experience.Fichte [4] asks of his audience,"Gentlemen, think of the wall," andproceeds "Gentlemen, think of him whothought the wall." In this way he gets aninfinite chain, as "whenever we try toobjectify ourselves, make ourselves intoobjects of consciousness, there alwaysremains an I or ego which transcends

objectification and is itself the condition ofthe unity of consciousness," as Coplestondescribes.

Now, whether we shall side with themeditators who claim to experience this I,or with Fichte who says we cannot, is oflittle importance here. What is important, isthat the I, this ground and conditionindeed exists, and that it is the ground ofthe empirical ego or egos.

I want to take a closer look at this I - theSelf.

So far, the Self may be seen on assomething just lying in the background, akind of ultimate observer. But Fichte'squestion can also be asked of action, "Whois lifting your arm when you lift your arm?"Like it was clear in the first case that it wasnot the image of the Self the ego that

was aware, but the Self itself, it is equallyobvious that it is not the image of the Willthat lifts the arm - but the Will itself. Tounderstand this better, try to will the cokebottle in front of you to lift. Won't do.Now, "will" your arm up in the same waythat you willed the coke bottle. Won't do

either. Still, lifting the arm is easy. (See also[3])

Proceeding like above, we can find a wellof parts of the underlying Self. But they areall one. The Self that sees the stick is the

same Self that throws a rock at it. How elsewould it hit? I have found it useful to singleout three of them, which I will call theExperiencing Self, the Creative Self and theTeleological Self.

Stirner [5] speaks of "the vanishing point ofthe ego", and of the "creative nothing". Hehas "built his case on nothing". This latteris the one that reveals what he intends. Forsurely, he has built his cause 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 object for somesubject and, as Fichte showed, the subjectcannot properly be an object. So, Stirner's"creative nothing" is him Self.

In contrast to Fichte, however, Stirneremphasizes the finite here-and-nowindividual Self, not the abstract Ego:"Fichte's ego too is the same essenceoutside me, for every one is ego; and, if

only this ego has rights, then it is "the ego",it is not I. But I am not an ego along withother egos, but the sole ego: I am unique.Hence my wants too are unique, and mydeeds; in short everthing about me isunique."

So we see Stirner rejects the positivisticidea of viewing himself from a 3rd person vantage point. He is not "ego", the imageof himself. For one can have an image of

anyone. But ones own Self is experiencedfrom the 1st person point of view, and oneis oneself the only one who can experienceoneself from there. Again quoting Stirner:"They say of God: 'Names name thee not.' That holds good of me: No conceptexpresses me; they are only names."


19/113

The history of philosophy can be simplifiedas follows: We have gone from a focus onexperienced reality, to experienced self, andfrom that on to that which contains both -the Experiencing Self. Stirner, as a studentof Hegel, must have seen this, and, as he

states, this history is also my history. Thedialectic process is taken back into itsowner. I am not any longer viewing myselfas a moment in the dialectical self-unfolding of the Absolute, but as he wholearns and thinks these thoughts, and - takethe advantage of them.

The philosophical process did not stop atthe Experiencing Self, with which anempiricist would be content. A reactioncame, asking what elements of experience

were constituted by the subject himself. The observer was no longer seen as apassive observer, but as an activeparticipant contributing his own elementsinto experience. Thus we can say that theawareness of the creative role of theintellect was properly emerging. We hadthe Creative Self. This was idea was takenvery far by Stirners teachers - into Germanidealism.

Stirners main thesis is that of theindividual as the ground not only ofobservation and creation, but of evaluation.This thesis is given a short presentation asa 0th chapter in The Ego and His Own:"All things are Nothing to Me." No outerforce is to determine ones cause, onesevaluation. With a convincing rhetoric,Stirner makes room for the case that hehimself is the evaluator, the one whosecause is to be acted for.

Stirners main dialectical triad is then this,that we go from mere experience to action[thought], and as a solution to the strainbetween these go to valuation and interest,self-interest. This is a recurring theme inhis book, and the structure of the argument

is presented in the first chapter, veryappropriately named "A human Life".

The triad, as I have understood andinterpreted it, is this:

The Experiencing Self: This is, so to say,the beacon that enlightens the empirical world, which makes it possible quaempirical world. With knowledge of oneselfonly as experiencing, one is stuck withthings, and all ones activity is centeredaround things, as Stirner says. One is aMaterialist. In history, both the personaland the philosophical one, the EmpiricalSelf is seen as a passive observer on whomthe world is imprinted, all until we come tothe antithesis of this view:

The Creative Self: We discover our ownmore active role in experience, our owncontribution of elements/form to ourexperience, as shown by the [Kantianinspired] experiments of the early Gestaltpsychologists. With this knowledge,attention goes to thought itself, and, webecome intellectual and spiritual youngmen. Our quest goes for that in which wecan pry Spirit, and we become - Idealists.

The Teleological Self: There is a[dialectical] strain between the two viewsand aspects of the Self above, a conflictthat can only, as Stirner says, be resolvedby a third party, which is the synthesis. Webegin to ask: Why do I focus on this, andnot on that, in experience? Why do I createthis and not that? For whom am I doingmy creation, my thinking? I find the answerto the above questions in what I will call

the Teleological Self. The Teleological Selfis he [or rather - I ] for whom all thingsdone by me are done, the commander whois the measure of all activity. Any value, anyselection, and thereby any focus and anycreation, owes its existence to the Teleological Self. In the Teleological Selfwe find the grounding of our "why?".


20/113

The dilemma between Materialism andIdealism is resolved in Selfishness. Not doI go for the material for its sake, nor do Ilet the cause of any ideal invade me andmake its cause mine. I take both, but astools and things to be disposed of at - my

pleasure. In this fashion the dialectics isburied. For it is only alive in the world ofideas, which I have taken back into myself.

This was an attempt to convey somethoughts on the Self. If anyone feelstempted to pick up this thread, expand on

it or negate it, you are welcome. It will be apleasure.

REFERENCES

[1] Wilber, Engler, Brown:

"Transformations of Consciousness"[2] Robert Pirsig: "Zen and the Art ofMotorcycle Maintenance"[3] Friedrich Nietzsche: "Zarathustra", onthe Despisers of the Body.[4] Copleston, Vol VII, p. 40[5] Max Stirner: "The Ego & His Own"

A Critique of Communismand

The Individualist AlternativeKen Knudson

(serial: 2)

Before one can get into an intelligentcriticism of anything, one must begin bydefining one's terms. "Anarchism",according to the Encyclopaedia Britannicadictionary, is "the theory that all forms ofgovernment are incompatible withindividual and social liberty and should beabolished." It further says that it comesfrom the Greek roots "an" (without) and"archos" (leader).1 As for "communism", itis "any social theory that calls for theabolition of private property and control bythe community over economic affairs." Toelaborate on that definition, communists ofall varieties hold that all wealth should beproduced and distributed according to the

1Historically, it was Proudhon who firstused the word to mean something otherthan disorder and chaos: "Although a firmfriend of order, I am (in the full force ofthe term) an anarchist." [5]

formula "from each according to his2ability, to each according to his needs" andthat the administrative mechanism tocontrol such production and distributionshould be democratically organised by the workers themselves (i.e. "workers'control"). They further insist that thereshould be no private ownership of themeans of production and no trading ofgoods except through the official channelsagreed upon by the majority. With rareexceptions, communists of all varietiespropose to realise this ideal through violentrevolution and the expropriation of allprivate property.

2Here Marx uses the masculine pronoun todenote the generic "one". In deference toeasy flowing English grammar, I'll stick tohis precedent and hope that Women's Libpeople will forgive me when I, too, write"his" instead of "one's".


21/113

That no one should accuse me of buildingup straw men in order to knock themdown, allow me to quote Kropotkin3 toshow that communist-anarchism fits in wellwith the above definition of communism:

"We have to put an end to theiniquities, the vices, the crimes whichresult from the idle existence of someand the economic, intellectual, andmoral servitude of others.... We areno longer obliged to grope in the darkfor the solution.... It isExpropriation.... If all accumulatedtreasure...does not immediately goback to the collectivity - since ALLhave contributed to produce it; if theinsurgent people do not take

possession of all the goods andprovisions amassed in the great citiesand do not organise to put them within the reach of all who needthem...the insurrection will not be arevolution, and everything will haveto be begun overagain....Expropriation, - that then, isthe watchword which is imposedupon the next revolution, underpenalty of failing in its historic

mission. The complete expropriationof all who have the means ofexploiting human beings. The returnto common ownership by the nationof all that can serve in the hands of

3I have chosen Kropotkin as a "typical"communist- anarchist here and elsewherein this article for a number of reasons.First, he was a particularly prolific writer,

doing much of his original work in English.Secondly, he is generally regarded as"probably the greatest anarchist thinker andwriter" by many communist- anarchists,including at least one editor of "Freedom".[6] Finally, he was the founder of FreedomPress, the publisher of the magazine youare now reading.

any one for the exploitation ofothers." [7]

Now let us take our definitions ofcommunism and anarchism and see wherethey lead us. The first part of the definition

of communism calls for the abolition ofprivate property. "Abolition" is itself arather authoritarian concept - unless, ofcourse, you're talking about abolishingsomething which is inherently authoritarianand invasive itself (like slavery orgovernment, for example). So the questionboils down to "Is private propertyauthoritarian and invasive?" Thecommunists answer "yes"; the individualistsdisagree. Who is right? Which is the more"anarchistic" answer? The communists

argue that "private property has become ahindrance to the evolution of mankindtowards happiness" [8], that "privateproperty offends against justice" [9] andthat it "has developed parasitically amidstthe free institutions of our earliestancestors." [10] The individualists, far fromdenying these assertions, reaffirm them. After all wasn't it Proudhon who firstdeclared property "theft"?4 But when thecommunist says, "Be done, then, with this

vile institution; abolish private propertyonce and for all; expropriate andcollectivise all property for the commongood," the individualist must part company with him. What's wrong with privateproperty today is that it rests primarily inthe hands of a legally privileged elite. Theresolution of this injustice is not toperpetrate an even greater one, but ratherto devise a social and economic system which will distribute property in such a

manner that everyone is guaranteed the

4By property Proudhon means property asit exists under government privilege, i.e.property gained not through labour or theexchange of the products of labour (whichhe favours), but through the legal privilegesbestowed by government on idle capital.


22/113

product of his labour by natural economiclaws. I propose to demonstrate just such asystem at the end of this article. If this canbe done, it will have been shown thatprivate property is not intrinsically invasiveafter all, and that the communists in

expropriating it would be committing amost UNanarchistic act. It is, therefore,incumbent upon all communists who callthemselves anarchists to read carefully thatsection and either find a flaw in itsreasoning or admit that they are notanarchists after all.

The second part of the definition ofcommunism says that economic affairsshould be controlled by the community.Individualists say they should be controlled

by the market place and that the only lawshould be the natural law of supply anddemand. Which of these two propositionsis the more consistent with anarchism?Herbert Spencer wrote in 1884, "The greatpolitical superstition of the past was thedivine right of kings. The great politicalsuperstition of the present is the divineright of parliaments." [11] The communistsseem to have carried Spencer's observationone step further: the great political

superstition of the future shall be the divineright of workers' majorities. "Workers'control" is their ideology; "Power to thePeople" their battle cry. What communist-anarchists apparently forget is that workers'control means CONTROL. Marxists, let itbe said to their credit, at least are honestabout this point. They openly andunashamedly demand the dictatorship ofthe proletariat. Communist-anarchists seemto be afraid of that phrase, perhaps

subconsciously realising the inherentcontradiction in their position. Butcommunism, by its very nature, ISdictatorial. The communist-anarchists maychristen their governing bodies "workers'councils" or "soviets", but they remainGOVERNMENTS just the same.

Abraham Lincoln was supposed to haveasked, "If you call a tail a leg, how manylegs has a dog? Five? No! Calling a tail a legdon't MAKE it a leg." The same is trueabout governments and laws. Calling a lawa "social habit" [12] or an "unwritten

custom" [13] as Kropotkin does, doesn'tchange its nature. To paraphraseShakespeare, that which we call a law byany other name would smell as foul.

REFERENCES

[1] Joseph Stalin, "Anarchism or Socialism"(Moscow; Foreign Languages PublishingHouse, 1950), p. 85. Written in 1906 butnever finished.

[2] Ibid., pp. 90-1.[3] Ibid., p.95.[4] Ibid., p. 87.[5] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "What isProperty: An Inquiry into the Principle ofRight and of Government," trans.Benjamin R. Tucker (London: WilliamReeves), p. 260. Originally published inFrench in 1840.[6] Bill Dwyer, "This World", "Freedom,"March 27, 1971.

[7] Pierre Kropotkine, "Paroles d'unRevolte" (Paris: Ernest Flammarion, 1885),pp. 318-9.[8] Paul Eltzbacher, "Anarchism:Exponents of the Anarchist Philosophy,"trans. Steven T. Byington, ed. James J.Martin (London: Freedom Press, 1960), p.108. "Der Anarchismus" was originallypublished in Berlin in 1900.[9] Ibid., p. 109.[10] Ibid., p. 110.

[11] Herbert Spencer, "The Man VersusThe State," ed. Donald MacRae(London: Penguin Books, 1969), p. 151.Originally published in 1884.[12] Prince Peter Kropotkin, "TheConquest of Bread" (London: Chapman &Hall, Ltd., 1906), p. 41.[13] Eltzbacher, op. cit., p. 101.


23/113

non serviam #3

A Critique of Communism

andThe Individualist AlternativeKen Knudson

(serial: 3)

Let us take a closer look at the type ofsociety the communists would have us liveunder and see if we can get at the essenceof these laws. Kropotkin says that "nine-tenths of those called lazy...are people goneastray." [14] He then suggests that given ajob which "answers" their "temperament"and "capacities" (today we would hear words like "relate", "alienation" and"relevancy"), these people would beproductive workers for the community. What about that other ten percent whichcouldn't adjust? Kropotkin doesn'telaborate, but he does say, "if not one, ofthe thousands of groups of our federation,will receive you, whatever be their motive;if you are absolutely incapable of producing

anything useful, or if you refuse to do it,then live like an isolated man....That is whatcould be done in a communal society inorder to turn away sluggards if theybecome too numerous." [15] This is apretty harsh sentence considering that ALLthe means of production have beenconfiscated in the name of the revolution.So we see that communism's law, putbluntly, becomes "work or starve."1 This

1

Article 12 of the 1936 constitution of theUSSR reads: "In the USSR work is the dutyof every able-bodied citizen according tothe principle: `He who does not work,neither shall he eat.' In the USSR theprinciple of socialism is realised: `Fromeach according to his ability, to eachaccording to his work.'"

happens to be an individualist law too. Butthere is a difference between the two: thecommunist law is a man-made law, subjectto man's emotions, rationalisations, andinconsistencies; the individualist law isnature's law - the law of gastric juices, ifyou will - a law which, like it or not, isbeyond repeal. Although both laws use thesame language, the difference in meaning isthe difference between a commandmentand a scientific observation. Individualist-anarchists don't care when, where, or howa man earns a living, as long as he is notinvasive about it. He may work 18 hours aday and buy a mansion to live in the othersix hours if he so chooses. Or he may feellike Thoreau did that "that man is richest

whose pleasures are the cheapest" [16] andwork but a few hours a week to ensure hislivelihood. I wonder what would happen to Thoreau under communism? Kropotkin would undoubtedly look upon him as "aghost of bourgeois society." [17] And what would Thoreau say to Kropotkin'sproposed "contract"?: "We undertake togive you the use of our houses, stores,streets, means of transport, schools,museums, etc., on condition that, from

twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age,you consecrate four or five hours a day tosome work recognised [by whom?] asnecessary to existence....Twelve or fifteenhundred hours of work a year...is all we askof you." [18] I don't think it would bepulling the nose of reason to argue thatThoreau would object to these terms.


24/113

But some communist-anarchists wouldreject Kropotkin's idea of not giving to theunproductive worker according to hisneeds, even if he doesn't contributeaccording to his abilities. They mightsimply say that Kropotkin wasn't being a

good communist when he wrote those lines(just as he wasn't being a good anarchistwhen he supported the Allies during WorldWar I). But this idea, it seems to me wouldbe patently unjust to the poor workers whowould have to support such parasites. Howdo these communists reconcile such aninjustice? As best I can gather from the writings of the classical communist-anarchists, they meet this problem in oneof two ways: (1) they ignore it, or (2) theydeny it. Malatesta takes the first approach.

When asked, "How will production anddistribution be organised?" he replies thatanarchists are not prophets and that theyhave no blueprints for the future. Indeed,he likens this important question to asking when a man "should go to bed and on what days he should cut his nails." [19] Alexander Berkman takes the otherapproach (a notion apparently borrowedfrom the Marxists):2 he denies thatunproductive men will exist after the

revolution. "In an anarchist society it willbe the most useful and difficult toil thatone will seek rather than the lighter job."[20] Berkman's view of labour makes theprotestant work ethic sound positively mildby comparison. For example: "Can youdoubt that even the hardest toil wouldbecome a pleasure...in an atmosphere ofbrotherhood and respect for labour?" [21] Yes, I can doubt it. Or again: "We can visualise the time when labour will have

become a pleasant exercise, a joyous

2At least Berkman is consistent in thismatter. Marx, paradoxically, wanted to both"abolish labour itself" ("The GermanIdeology"), AND make it "life's primewant" ("Critique of the GothaProgramme").

application of physical effort to the needsof the world." [22] And again, in apparentanticipation of Goebbels' famous dictumabout the powers of repetition, "Work willbecome a pleasure... laziness will beunknown." [23] It is hard to argue with

such "reasoning". It would be like a debatebetween Bertrand Russell and Billy Grahamabout the existence of heaven. How canyou argue with faith? I won't even try. I'lljust ask the reader, next time he is at work,to look around at himself and at hismates and ask himself this question:"After the revolution will we really preferthis place to staying at home in bed orgoing off to the seashore?" If there areenough people who can answer "yes" tothis question perhaps communism will

work after all. But in the meantime, beforebuilding the barricades and shooting peoplefor a cause of dubious certainty, I wouldsuggest pondering these two items fromthe bourgeois and communist pressrespectively:

"In Detroit's auto plants, weekendabsenteeism has reached suchproportions that a current bit of folk wisdom advises car buyers to steer

clear of vehicles made on a Monday orFriday. Inexperienced substitute workers, so the caution goes, have away of building bugs into a car. But inItaly lately the warning might wellinclude Tuesday, Wednesday, andThursday. At Fiat, the country's largestmaker, absenteeism has jumped thisyear from the normal 4 or 5 percent to12.5 percent, with as many as 18,000 workers failing to clock in for daily

shifts at the company's Turin works.Alfa Romeo's rate has hit 15 percent ashundreds of workers call in each day with `malattia di comodo' - aconvenient illness.... Italian auto workers seem to be doing no morethan taking advantage of a very gooddeal. A new labour contract guarantees


25/113

workers in state-controlled industries180 days of sick leave a year, at full pay,while workers in private firms (such asFiat) get the same number of days at 75percent of full pay." [24]

When doctors, employed by the state,made an inspection visit in Turin we aretold that they found "that only 20 percentof the `indisposed' workers they had visited were even mildly sick." For those whothink that this is just a bourgeoisaberration, let us see what revolutionaryCuba, after 12 years of communism, has tosay about such "parasites". I translate fromthe official organ of the Central Committeeof the Cuban Communist Party:

"Worker's discussion groups are beingset up in all work centres to discuss theproposed law against laziness. Thesegroups have already proven to be a valuable forum for the working class.During these assemblies, which for themoment are limited to pilot projects inthe Havana area, workers have madeoriginal suggestions and posed timelyquestions which lead one to believethat massive discussion of this type

would make a notable contribution tothe solution of this serious problem.An assembly of boiler repairmen in theLuyano district was representative ofthe general feeling of the workers. They demanded that action be takenagainst those parasitic students whohave stopped going to classes regularlyor who, although attending classes, dojust enough to get by. The workerswere equally adamant about co-workers

who, after a sickness or accident, refuseto go back to their jobs but go onreceiving their salaries for monthswithout working. Questions were oftenaccompanied by concrete proposals.For example, should criminals receivethe same salaries on coming back to work from prison as when they left

their jobs? The workers thought not,but they did think it all right that therevolutionary state accord a pension tothe prisoner's family during his stay inthe re-education [sic] centre. At thePapelera Cubana factory the workers

made a suggestion which proved theircontempt of these loafers; habitualoffenders should be punished ingeometric proportion to the number oftheir crimes. They also proposed that workers who quit their jobs or wereabsent too often be condemned to aminimum, not of 6 months, but of oneyear's imprisonment and that the worker who refuses three times workproposed by the Ministry of Labour beconsidered automatically as a criminal

and subject to punishment as such. The workers also expressed doubts aboutthe scholastic `deserters', ages 15 and16, who aren't yet considered physicallyand mentally able to work but whodon't study either. They also cited thecase of the self employed man whoworks only for his own selfish interests.The dockworkers of Havana port, zone1, also had their meeting. Theyenvisioned the possibility of making

this law retroactive for those who havea bad work attitude, stating forcefullythat it wasn't a question of precedents,because otherwise the law could onlybe applied in those cases whichoccurred after its enactment. Theharbour workers also proposedimprisonment for the `sanctioned'workers and that, in their opinion, thepunishment of these parasites shouldn'tbe lifted until they could demonstrate a

change of attitude. The steadfastness ofthe workers was clearly demonstratedwhen they demanded that punishmentsnot be decided by the workersthemselves in order to avoid possibleleniency due to reasons of sympathy,sentimentality, etc. The workers alsoindicated that these parasites should


26/113

not have the right to the social benefitsaccorded to other workers. Someworkers considered imprisonment as ameasure much too kind. As you cansee, the workers have made many goodproposals, which leads us to believe

that with massive discussion, this newlaw will be considerably enriched. Thisis perhaps the path to social legislationby the masses."3 [25]

These two extracts clearly demonstrate thathuman nature remains pretty constant,independent of the social system theindividual workman is subjected to. So itseems to me that unless human nature cansomehow be miraculously transformed bythe revolution and that WOULD be a

revolution some form of compulsion would be necessary in order to obtain"from each according to his abilities."

3The Associated Press has since reportedthe passage of this law: "Cuba'sCommunist regime announced yesterday atough new labour law that Premier FidelCastro said is aimed at 400,000 loafers,bums and `parasites' who have upset thecountry's new social order. The law, which

goes into effect April 1, provides forpenalties ranging from six months to twoyears of forced labour in `rehabilitationcentres' for those convicted of vagrancy,malingering or habitual absenteeism fromwork or school. The law decrees that allmales between 17 and 60 have a `socialduty' to work on a daily systematic basisunless they are attending an approvedschool. Those who do not are considered`parasites of the revolution' and subject to

prosecution by the courts or speciallabourers' councils. The anti-loafing law -seen as a tough new weapon to be usedmainly against dissatisfied young people -was prompted by Mr. Castro's disclosurelast September that as many as 400,000workers were creating serious economicproblems by shirking their duties." [26]

While on this point, I would like to ask mycommunist-anarchist comrades just who issupposed to determine another person'sabilities? We've seen from the above articlethat in Cuba the Ministry of Labour makesthis decision. How would it differ in an

anarchist commune? If these anarchists areat all consistent with their professed desirefor individual freedom, the only answer tothis question is that the individual himselfwould be the sole judge of his abilities and,hence, his profession. But this is ridiculous. Who, I wonder, is going to decide of hisown free will that his real ability lies incollecting other people's garbage? Andwhat about the man who thinks that he isthe greatest artist since Leonardo da Vinciand decides to devote his life to painting

mediocre landscapes while the communityliterally feeds his delusions with food fromthe communal warehouse? Few people, Idare say, would opt to do the necessary"dirty work" if they could choose withimpunity ANY job, knowing that whateverthey did good or bad, hard or easy they would still receive according to theirneeds.4 The individualist's answer to thisperennial question of "who will do the dirtywork" is very simple: "I will if I'm paid well

enough." I suspect even Mr. Heath wouldgo down into the London sewers if he werepaid 5 million pounds per hour for doing it.Somewhere between this sum and what asewer worker now gets is a just wage,

4Anyone who has ever gone to ananarchist summer camp knows what Imean. Here we have "la creme de lacreme", so to speak, just dying to get on

with the revolution; yet who cleans out thelatrines? More often than not, no one. Or,when it really gets bad, some poor sap willsacrifice himself for the cause. You don'thave solidarity; you have martyrdom. Andno one feels good about it: you haveresentment on the part of the guy whodoes it and guilt from those who don't.


27/113

which, given a truly free society, would bereadily determined by competition.

This brings us to the second half of thecommunist ideal: the distribution of goodsaccording to need. The obvious question

again arises, "Who is to decide whatanother man needs?" Anarchists once moremust leave that decision up to theindividual involved. To do otherwise wouldbe to invite tyranny, for who can betterdetermine a person's needs than the personhimself?5 But if the individual is to decidefor himself what he needs, what is toprevent him from "needing" a yacht andhis own private airplane? If you think we'vegot a consumer society now, what would itbe like if everything was free for the

needing? You may object that luxuriesaren't needs. But that is just begging thequestion: what is a luxury, after all? Tomillions of people in the world today foodis a luxury. To the English central heating isa luxury, while to the Americans it's anecessity. The Nazi concentration campspainfully demonstrated just how little manactually NEEDS. But is that the criterioncommunists would use for determiningneed? I should hope (and think) not. So it

seems to me that this posses a definitedilemma for the communist-anarchist: whatdo you do about unreasonable, irrational,or extravagant "needs"? What about theman who "needs" a new pair of shoes everymonth? "Nonsense," you may say, "no oneneeds new shoes that often." Well, howoften then? Once a year? Every five yearsperhaps? And who will decide? Then whatabout me? I live in Switzerland and I'm

5

I'm reminded here of the tale of the manwho decided his mule didn't NEED anyfood. He set out to demonstrate his theoryand almost proved his point when,unfortunately, the beast died. Authoritariancommunism runs a similar risk when itattempts to determine the needs of others.

crazy about grape jam - but unfortunatelythe Swiss aren't. I feel that a jam sandwichisn't a jam sandwich unless it's made withGRAPE jam. But tell that to the Swiss! IfSwitzerland were a communist federation,there wouldn't be a single communal

warehouse which would stock grape jam. IfI were to go up to the commissar-in-charge-of-jams and ask him to put in arequisition for a few cases, he would thinkI was nuts. "Grapes are for wine," he'd tellme with infallible logic, "and more peopledrink wine than eat grape jam." "But I'm a vegetarian," I plead, "and just think of allthe money (?) I'm saving the commune bynot eating any of that expensive meat." After which he would lecture me on theeconomics of jam making, tell me that a

grape is more valuable in its liquid form,and chastise me for being a throwback tobourgeois decadence.

And what about you, dear reader? Haveyou no individual idiosyncrasies? Perhapsyou've got a thing about marshmallows. What if the workers in the marshmallowfactories decide (under workers' control, ofcourse) that marshmallows are bad for yourhealth, too difficult to make, or just simply

a capitalist plot? Are you to be denied theculinary delights that only marshmallowscan offer, simply because some distant workers get it into their heads that amarshmallowless world would be a betterworld?

But, not only would distribution accordingto need hurt the consumer, it would begrossly unfair to the productive workerwho actually makes the goods or performs

the necessary services. Suppose, forexample, that hardworking farmer Browngoes to the communal warehouse with aload of freshly dug potatoes. While thereBrown decides he needs a new pair ofboots. Unfortunately there are only a fewpairs in stock since Jones the shoemakerquit his job - preferring to spend his days


28/113

living off Brown's potatoes and writingsonnets about the good life. So boots arerationed. The boot commissar agrees thatBrown's boots are pretty shabby but, hepoints out, Smith the astrologer is in evengreater need. Could Brown come back in a

month or so when BOTH soles have wornthrough? Brown walks away in disgust,resolved never again to sweat over hispotato patch.

Even today people are beginning tocomplain about the injustices of the(relatively mild) welfare state. TheodoreRoszak writes that in British schools therehas been a "strong trend away from thesciences over the past four years" and thatpeople are showing "annoyed concern" and

"loudly observing that the country is not

spending its money to produce poets andEgyptologists - and then demanding asharp cut in university grants andstipends."[27] If people are upset NOW atthe number of poets and Egyptologists thatthey are supporting, what would it be like if

EVERYONE could simply take up hisfavourite hobby as his chosen profession? Isuspect it wouldn't be long before ourprofessional chess players and mountainclimbers found the warehouse stocksdwindling to nothing. Social unrest wouldsurely increase in direct proportion to theheight of the trash piling up on thedoorsteps and the subsequent yearning forthe "good old days" would bring about theinevitable counter-revolution. Such wouldbe the fate of the anarchist-communist

utopia.


29/113

non serviam #4

A Critique of Communism

andThe Individualist AlternativeKen Knudson

(serial: 4)

Peter Kropotkin opens his chapter on"Consumption and Production" in "TheConquest of Bread" with the followingwords:

"If you open the works of any

economist you will find that he begins with PRODUCTION, the analysis ofmeans employed nowadays for thecreation of wealth; division of labour,manufacture, machinery, accumulationof capital. From Adam Smith to Marx,all have proceeded along these lines.Only in the latter parts of their booksdo they treat of CONSUMPTION,that is to say, of the means necessary tosatisfy the needs of

individuals....Perhaps you will say this islogical. Before satisfying needs youmust create the wherewithal to satisfythem. But before producing anything,must you not feel the need of it? Is itnot necessity that first drove man tohunt, to raise cattle, to cultivate land, tomake implements, and later on toinvent machinery? Is it not the study ofneeds that should governproduction?"[28] When I first cameupon these words, I must admit I wasrather surprised. "What have we here,"I thought, "is the prince of anarchist-communism actually going to come outin favour of the consumer?" It didn'ttake long to find out that he wasn't.Most communists try very hard toignore the fact that the sole purpose of

production is consumption. But notKropotkin; he first recognises the fact -and THEN he ignores it. It's only amatter of three pages before he gets hishead back into the sand and talks of"how to reorganise PRODUCTION so

as to really satisfy all needs." [Myemphasis]

Under communism it is not the consumerthat counts; it is the producer. Theconsumer is looked upon with scorn - aloathsome, if necessary, evil. The worker,on the other hand, is depicted as all that isgood and heroic. It is not by accident thatthe hammer and sickle find themselves asthe symbols of the Russian "workers'

paradise." Can you honestly imagine acommunist society raising the banner ofbread and butter and declaring the adventof the "consumers' paradise"? If you can,your imagination is much more vivid thanmine.

But that's exactly what individualist-anarchists would do. Instead of thecommunist's "workers' control" (i.e. aproducers' democracy), we advocate aconsumers' democracy. Both democracies like all democracies would in fact bedictatorships. The question for anarchists is which dictatorship is the least oppressive? The answer should be obvious. But,judging from the ratio of communists toindividualists in the anarchist movement,


30/113

apparently it's not. So perhaps I'd betterexplain.

The workers in some given industry decidethat item A should no longer be producedand decide instead to manufacture item B.

Now consumer X, who never liked item Aanyway, couldn't care less; but poor Y feelshis life will never be the same without A.What can Y do? He's just a lone consumerand consumers have no rights in thissociety. But maybe other Y's agree withhim. A survey is taken and it is shown thatonly 3% of all consumers regret the passingof A. But can't some compromise bearrived at? How about letting just one tinyfactory make A's? Perhaps the workersagree to this accommodation. Perhaps not.

In any case the workers' decision is final. There is no appeal. The Y's are totally atthe mercy of the workers and if thedecision is adverse, they'll just have toswallow hard and hope that next week itemC isn't taken away as well. So much for theproducers' dictatorship.

Let's now take a look at the consumers'dictatorship. Consumers are finicky people- they want the best possible product at the

lowest possible price. To achieve this endthey will use ruthless means. The fact thatproducer X asks more for his product thanY asks for his similar product is all that theconsumer needs to know. He willmercilessly buy Y's over X's. Theextenuating circumstances matter little tohim. X may have ten children and amother-in-law to feed. The consumer stillbuys from Y. Such is the nature of theconsumers' dictatorship over the producer.

Now there is a fundamental differencebetween these two dictatorships. In the onethe worker says to the consumer, "I willproduce what I want and if you don't like ityou can lump it." In the other theconsumer says to the worker, "You willproduce what I want and if you don't I will

take my business elsewhere." It doesn't takethe sensitive antennae of an anarchist tosee which of these two statements is themore authoritarian. The first leaves noroom for argument; there are noexceptions, no loopholes for the dissident

consumer to crawl through. The second,on the other hand, leaves a loophole so bigthat it is limited only by the worker'simagination and abilities. If a producer isnot doing as well as his competitor, there'sa reason for it. He may not be suited forthat particular work, in which case he willchange jobs. He may be charging too muchfor his goods or services, in which case hewill have to lower his costs, profits, and/oroverhead to meet the competition. But onething should be made clear: each worker is

also a consumer and what the individuallooses in his role as producer by having tocut his costs down to the competitivemarket level, he makes up in his role asconsumer by being able to buy at thelowest possible prices.1

* * * * *

Let us turn our attention now to the various philosophies used by communists

to justify their social system. Theexponents of any social change invariablyclaim that people will be "happier" undertheir system than they now are under thestatus quo. The big metaphysical questionthen becomes, "What is happiness?" Up

1The usual objection raised to a"consumers' democracy" is that capitalistshave used similar catch phrases in order tojustify capitalism and keep the workers in a

subjugated position. Individualists sustainthis objection but point out that capitalistsare being inconsistent by not practicingwhat they preach. If they did, they wouldno longer be in a position of privilege,living off the labour of others. This point ismade clear in the section on capitalism laterin this article.


31/113

until recently the communists materialistspar excellence used to say it was materialwell-being. The main gripe they had againstcapitalism was that the workers wereNECESSARILY in a state of increasingpoverty. Bakunin, echoing Marx, said that

"the situation of the proletariat...by virtueof inevitable economic law, must and willbecome worse every year." [29] But since World War II this pillar of communistthought has become increasingly shaky -particularly in the United States where"hard hats" are now pulling in salariesupwards of four quid an hour. This fact hascreated such acute embarrassment amongthe faithful that many communists are nowseeking a new definition of happiness which has nothing to do with material

comfort.

Very often what they do in discarding theMarxist happiness albatross is to saddlethemselves with a Freudian one.2 The newdefinition of happiness our neo-Freudiancommunists arrive at is usually derivedfrom what Otto Fenichel called the"Nirvana principle." The essence of thistheory is that both life-enhancingbehaviour (e.g. sexual intercourse, eating)

and life-inhibiting behaviour (e.g. war,suicide) are alternative ways of escapingfrom tension. Thus Freud's life instinct anddeath instinct find their common ground inNirvana where happiness means a secureand carefree existence. This sounds to mevery much like the Christian conception ofheaven. But with communism, unlikeheaven, you don't have to give up your lifeto get in - just your humanity.

2Wilhelm Reich and R. D. Laing areamong the latest gurus of the libertarianleft. And it's not uncommon in anarchistcircles to hear a few sympathetic wordsabout Herbert Marcuse's "Eros andCivilisation," despite the author'stotalitarian tendencies.

Homer Lane used to have a little anecdote which illustrates the point I'm trying tomake about the communist idea ofhappiness:

"A dog and a rabbit are running down

a field. Both apparently are doing thesame thing, running and using theircapacity to the full. Really there is agreat difference between them. Theirmotives are different. One is happy,the other unhappy. The dog is happybecause he is trying to do something with the hope of achieving it. Therabbit is unhappy because he is afraid. A few minutes later the position isreversed; the rabbit has reached hisburrow and is inside panting, whilst the

dog is sitting outside panting. Therabbit is now happy because it is safe,and therefore no longer afraid. The dogis unhappy because his hope has notbeen realised. Here we have the twokinds of happiness of which each oneof us is capable - happiness based onthe escape from danger, and happinessbased on the fulfillment of a hope,which is the only true happiness." [30]

I leave it to the reader as an exercise intriviality to decide which of these two typesof happiness is emphasised bycommunism. While on the subject ofanalogies, I'd like to indulge in one of myown. Generally speaking there are twokinds of cats: the "lap cat" and the"mouser." The former leads a peacefulexistence, leaving granny's lap only longenough to make a discreet trip to itssandbox and to lap up a saucer of milk.

The latter lives by catching mice in thefarmer's barn and never goes near theinside of the farm house. The former isnormally fat and lazy; the latter skinny andalert. Despite the lap cat's easier life, themouser wouldn't exchange places with himif he could, while the lap cat COULDN'Texchange places if he would. Here we have


32/113

two cats perhaps even from the samelitter with two completely differentattitudes toward life. The one expects aclean sandbox and food twice a day - andhe is rarely disappointed. The other has to work for a living, but generally finds the

reward worth while. "Now what has thisgot to do with the subject at hand?" I hearyou cry. Just this: the communists wouldmake "lap cats" of us all. "But what's sobad about that?" you may ask. To which I would have to reply (passing over thestinky problem of WHO will change thesandbox), "Have you ever tried to`domesticate' a mouser?"

Communism, in its quest for a tranquil,tensionless world, inevitably harks back to

the Middle Ages. Scratch a communist andchances are pretty good you'll find amediaevalist underneath. Paul Goodman,for example, derives his ideal "communityof scholars" from Bologna and Parismodels based in the eleventh and twelfthcenturies. [31] Erich Fromm writeslongingly of "the sense of security which was characteristic of man in the Middle Ages....In having a distinct, unchangeable,and unquestionable place in the social

world from the moment of birth, man wasrooted in a structuralised whole, and thuslife had a meaning which left no place, andno need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant,an artisan, a knight, and not ANINDIVIDUAL who HAPPENED to havethis or that occupation. The social orderwas conceived as a natural order, and beinga definite part of it gave man a feeling ofsecurity and of belonging. There was

comparatively little competition. One wasborn into a certain economic position which guaranteed a livelihood determinedby tradition. [32] Kropotkin

non serviam, issues 1-17

Documents