Union of Egoists Egoists
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This file archived at UnionOfEgoists.com. This file archived at UnionOfEgoists.com. Union of Egoists ThisThe item information was scanned that by followsUoE from was Libertarian downloaded Microfiche from the Pub - UnionlishingEgoists OfPeace Egoists. Plans films. The sourceJohn Zube’smaterial LMP mightproject havepreserved been The information that follows was downloaded from the gatheredthousands from of documents an existing that archive would orotherwise produced be lost.by an Unioneditor Of Egoists. or a direct The contributorsource material to the might project. have been Moregathered information from can an be existing found at archiveour website or underproduced “contributors.” by an -Kevin I. Slaughter What is aeditor UnionOfEgoists.com? or a direct contributor to the project. This is an informational resource provided by Kevin I. Slaughter of Underworld Amuse- Whatments andis a Trevor UnionOfEgoists.com? Blake of OVO, initiated in February and publicly launched April 1st of This2016. is The an informationalwebsite initially resource focuses onprovided providing by Kevinhistorical, I. Slaughter biographical of Underworldand bibliographical Amuse- mentsdetails andof a fewTrevor their Blake favorite of OVO, Egoist initiated philosophers. in February It is also and integrating publicly launched the archives April of egoist1st of 2016.website The i-studies.com, website initially the formerfocuses projecton providing of Svein historical, Olav Nyberg, biographical and the and EgoistArchives. bibliographical detailscom project of a few of theirDan Davies.favorite Further,Egoist philosophers. it will be home It is toalso Der integrating Geist, a Journal the archives of Egoism of egoist in websiteprint 1845 i-studies.com, – 1945. UnionOfEgoists.com the former project will of beSvein the bestOlav resource Nyberg, for and Egoism the EgoistArchives. online. com project of Dan Davies. Further, it will be home to Der Geist, a Journal of Egoism in printWhat 1845 is a – Union 1945. UnionOfEgoists.com of Egoists? will be the best resource for Egoism online. “We two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this What“human is society,” a Union I sacrifice of Egoists? nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it com- “pletelyWe two, I transform the State andit rather I, are intoenemies. my property I, the egoist, and my have creature; not at hearti. e., Ithe annihilate welfare it,of thisand “humanform in itssociety,” place the I sacrifice Union of nothing Egoists.” to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it com- pletely I transform it rather into my property and my– creature; Max Stirner, i. e., The I annihilate Ego and Itsit, andOwn form in its place the Union of Egoists.” What is Egoism? – Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own “Egoism is the claim that the Individual is the measure of all things. In ethics, in episte- Whatmology, is in Egoism? aesthetics, in society, the Individual is the best and only arbitrator. Egoism “Egoismclaims social is the convention, claim that laws,the Individual other people, is the religion, measure language, of all things. time andIn ethics, all other in episte forces- mology,outside of in the aesthetics, Individual in aresociety, an impediment the Individual to the is libertythe best and and existence only arbitrator. of the Individual. Egoism claimsSuch impediments social convention, may be laws, tolerated other butpeople, they religion, have no language,special standing time and to allthe other Individual, forces outsidewho may of elect the Individualto ignore or are subvert an impediment or destroy to them the liberty as He can.and existence In egoism of the the State Individual. has no Suchmonopoly impediments to take tax may or beto toleratedwage war.” but they have no special standing to the Individual, who may elect to ignore or subvert or destroy them-Trevor as HeBlake, can. Confessions In egoism ofthe a StateFailed has Egoist no monopoly to take tax or to wage war.” -Trevor Blake, Confessions of a Failed Egoist IN U S ONE MINUS ONE IN US .0 N E I NUS ON E I U S ONE M IN US ONE Number Twenty EiBht• A 1971 • Pri\;d Five Pence( Sp). ANARCHISM VERSUS STATE SOCW..ISM by George Bemard Sht!W (This brief eesay was fir st published 1n Henry Seymour's paper the "Anarchist" and was rGprintad by him as a separate publication in 1889. Shaw, I believe, used to claim that it did not re resent his point of view, but was meant to present that of en anarchist. In view of the enerchistic etre:in in much of Shmr• a writing, it is possible that ie cleim expressed embarassment rather than accuracy. Be that as it may, I was once told by an old Irish revolutionar,y, the late Mat K~, that Shaw used to get very annoyed when "the boys" used to sell it outside his meetings~ ~icularly when he was lecturing on "The Impossibilities· of Anarch1er:1"! - S.E.P.) Give a dog a bad neme znd hang him. Give a man e bad DP.IilO - anarchist, ~or example - Mld hang him by all means. Anarchist is a very bed name indeed. The comtorlable lmdlord or capi tal.ist cries to the collecti vist ~Vh~t you propose would land you not in Utopia, as you expect, but 1n ~". The collectivist retorts, "Whet have we at present ~ anarchy everywhero?". But the cepitetl.ist knows better than that. He points to the omnipresent "iron laws", vtdch on other occP.Sione the collectivist hin3elf' has often pointed out, Nld presses for instances of anarchy. The collectivist, thus ard put tv it, retracts his generalizati ont but meintaina thftt tho r- there is system an socielizetion 1n prodUct- ion, there is anar 4:/ in ex ange. By which, it presently appears, he means that exchange is controllQd by e few privRte persona; that it is a monopoly; that, in short, what he is complaining of i not anarchy at ell, but despotism. But he does no'l cease to· .wse the word anarchy, nor wUl he edm t that he hss miaap ied it; for the collectivists believe in the in:tallibility o~ thair pope, Kerl Merxt. and he said some- hard things once o-r anarch1 es indeed he al.d, in the exuberance of hie talent for h hit , about every "ism" thet was ot unque ioning Merxi And so :f'rom both camps 11lWJ is thro on the nmne ot anarch. st. Ttum, it will be asked, whj' o:tfend people • e aeneibilities w1 th it? Why not drop 1 t? Simply bQc our enemies know better than to J.et us drop it. They will take cere to keep it fastene<l tightly upon us; and if' we disown it, and yet, when challenged, cannot del\Y t, will it not appear tnet we are aahaJned of it· and will not our sh ju tly conderm us unheard? !lo: we m.st livQ down cal.\lllllV as men, fro primi t i V4 christiana to ~.ker , and from quakers to social.iate1 have lived it down before us upon less occasion. Wha c aJ.ists ha\te done in EnglMd, anftl'Chists 118\Y do; "for England is tbl. fatherland ~ laisaez-fairc; end laleaez-faire, in apite of all the stuDblinee 1t has brought upon 1 tealf by pere.isten~ holding 1 ta e to the devil instead ~ to ita own ~ootatepe, is the torchbearer of 8DtlrChis~ It 1e easy tor tbo coUectiviat to declare that A~Smitht with a inveterate Matruat r4 all govemment, . d a oonvi tion hat people oen Jal888 their own buaineee oetter than tJilJ:3 eutbor:l~, as half a ~~-~ baU e creat ot the mercantUe cl-ea: but the ~ on political econoqy ot the ei&h th century ia not 2 e. proof of the author's folly; nor is there much e"Z.- ldence of servility either in hie comparison of a merchant with a co~n soldier1 greatly to the advantage of the latter, or in the contemptuous allusions to "furious and disappointed monopolists", and like terms1 with which his economics are interspersed. Adam Smith could hardly have anticipated that his lessons would be held up to odium by professed champions of liberty because the oppressors o'f mankind were clever enough to be the first to prof'it by them. But the ti~e has coree for English socialists to consider whether the great Scotchman was really suCh a fool as some collect -ivists seem to take him for. The compromise of liberals and conservatives on the Franchis-e was really a coalition brought about by the pressure of the growing democracy on two parties, whose differences had long ceased to exist except as factious habits. The monopolist is at last face to face with the socialist; and must presently appear to all Englishmen that instead of' two sorts ()"(' monopolists - whig and tory - opposing one sort of sociel.ist; there are really two sorts of socialists - archist and collectivitt - confronting one solid body of monopolists. The collectivists would drive the money-changers from Westllinster only to replace them with a central administr«tion, committee of public safety, or what not. InsteAd of "Victoria, by the grace of God" they would give us "the Superintendent of such and such en Industry by the suthori ty of' the Democratic Federation", or whe.tever body we are to make our master under the new dispensation. "Master" is certainly an ugly word for e "popular government" the members of hich are but trustees for the people. "Trustee" !s good; but. is not a father better than a body of trustees? Shall the English nation be orphaned? The Russians have a father in the Tzar: vlny should we not have a Tzar? Whet objection would he be open to that does not apply to a popular gove~~nt just as strongly? - n~, more so; for should ei thar IT.isbehave it is easier to remove one mn than six hundred and seventy.