💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000963.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:45:09.

View Raw

More Information

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                        non serviam #13
                        ***************


Contents:    Editor's Word
             S.E. Parker: Preface
             John C. Smith: Last and First Words
             Frank Jordan: In Praise of Max
             Paul Rowlandson: Stirner, Youth and Tradition


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


Editor's Word
_____________

    This issue of Non Serviam is an end and a beginning. This issue
(#13), and issue 14, do together contain the last issue of Sid Parker's
"Ego", whose place in the world is now taken over by Non Serviam, and
it is also a proper demarcation of the establishing of Stirner in
Cyberspace. As you will see from Sid's preface below, this is the 150th
year that Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum has existed. It is also one of
the first years that the English version of the book is available
electronically [FTP etext.archive.umich.edu, and change directory to
/Pub/Politics/Non.Serviam].
    The texts below are invited "appreciations" of Stirner's book,
written for the commemorative issue of "Ego". If it appeals to you,
you might be interested in knowing that Sid Parker will not lay off
totally, but continue with some 1-2 A4 page "viewsletters", and will
send these to interested persons writing to him at  19 St. Stephen's
Gardens, London W2 5QU.


    Svein Olav

____________________________________________________________________

PREFACE

S.E. Parker


    Although the first edition of the Ego and His Own (Der Einzige und
Sein Eigenthum) bore the date 1845, it in fact appeared towards the end
of October 1844. This year is therefore the 150th anniversary of its
publication.

    Otto Wigand, its Leipzig Publisher, was well aware that such a work
might feel the weight of the disapproval of the Saxon Censorship Board
and resorted to a ruse which he hoped would enable the book to be
distributed even if the censors condemned it. As soon as the copy he
was legally obliged to deposit at the Government Office was receipted
Wigand set about delivering the remaining copies to booksellers so that
any confiscators would find his warehouse empty. To a large degree he
succeeded. Nonetheless, the censors still managed to seize 250 copies
of the 1000 printed. After a few days, however, the confiscation order
was withdrawn on the grounds that Stirner's book was "too absurd" to
warrant censorship. In other words, the censors could not understand
it! The Ego and His Own was also banned in Prussia, Kurkessen and
Mecklenburg Schwerin, but although these bans were never lifted, this
did not stop copies being obtained and read by anyone interested.

    Since then The Ego and His Own has been reprinted many times and
has been translated into many languages. Throughout its existence it
has provoked outrage and won admiration. All too often, however, both
the outraged and the admiring have tried to fit Stirner's views into
the conceptual imperatives of this or that ideology. He has been
labelled many things, ranging from anarchist to fascist. No doubt
passages can be found in his book that appear to lend support to each
of these extremes, but the more one understands what it is that Stirner
is _actually_ saying, the less these labels can be fixed. The contributors
to this commemoration fortunately do not indulge in such a futile game.
They are content to record their own reactions to The Ego and His Own
and its value for them.

Contributors ...

WM. FLYGARE: "This 1/5.6 billionth: Swedish-American. Boston '17-'46.
Chicago '46-'51. Kyoto '51-the end. BA & MA (philosophy and buddhism)
plus attempts at music and theatre to learn my inabilities. Drafted into
English teaching '51-'90. Some minor publications along the way. Highly
independent ... and dependent, enjoy being alone without loneliness, my
being remarried ('65), with two daughters (25 and 28), two cats, a
love-bird, and a plum-tree. Eclectic: atheist in fact, animist in
fancy, affinity for persons, allergic to people. Own house ('69 at
last) with a window overlooking 'rooves' onto green hills and a variety
of skies. Retired to studying, versing, digesting my haps, and being
glad for my failures-n-good fortune."

FRANK JORDAN: "A life-loving, aesthetically minded outsider, passing
from a 'Nietzschean' into a fully conscious 'Stirnerite'."

SVEIN OLAV NYBERG: "Born 1966; PhD student in mathematics; editor of
Non Serviam; almost as selfish as the two cats that own him; has been
interested in Stirner for the ten years he has known about him."

S.E. PARKER: "Born 1929, Birmingham, England. Now retired after thirty
three years with British Rail. Has worked his way through the Young
Communist League (1944-1946), the British Federation of Young
Co-operators (1946-1947), and virtually all the different varieties of
anarchism (1947-1982), to emerge as his own man, the penny of conscious
egoism having finally dropped. Editor and publisher of Minus One/Ego/
The Egoist/Ego 1963-1994."

PAUL ROWLANDSON: "Currently earns a living as a lecturer in a pseudo-
academic subject at a University College on the North West Frontier of
the United Kingdom."

JOHN C. SMITH: "Needs no introduction."


____________________________________________________________________


LAST AND FIRST WORDS

John C. Smith


    The Ego and His Own didn't exactly take the world by storm when it
first appeared in 1844 and hasn't since. But its publication certainly
caused a stir among the Young Hegelian circle in which the author
moved. Karl Marx, for one, was so provoked by Stirner's book that he,
together with Engels, devoted some two thirds of their book, The German
Ideology, to vilifying Stirner, seeing him as a dangerous challenge to
their creed of social salvation.

    In this country it is hardly ever mentioned in polite society. Any
new edition is largely ignored by literary editors. Yet it is reprinted
regularly and never lacks readers. Some, like the anarchist Herbert
Read, for example, have to admit "One book in my youth I have never
wholly forgotten. To say that it had great influence on me would not be
correct, for influences are absorbed and become part of one's mind.
This book refused to be digested - to use our vivid English metaphor:
it stuck in the gizzard, and has been in that uncomfortable position
ever since. I refer to Max Stirner's Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum, The
Ego and His Own as it was called in the English translation, published
in 1913." (The Contrary Experience)

    The main religio-political ideologies, Christianity and Marxism,
have failed to provide an answer to the world's ills. The human self-
ishness they were meant to triumph over has triumphed over them.

    Christianity, which promised individual salvation (freedom from the
sin of selfishness) and brotherhood, has lost out to commerce. Shopping
has replaced going to church. New temples, indoor shopping malls which
are _usually_ ugly and unnecessary, have sprung up all over Britain.
The early Christian churches at least served a useful communal purpose
and were beautiful to look at.

    In the Soviet Union the very understandable desire for personal
reward undermined and eventually overthrew the state socialist system.
There have been the inevitable attempts to explain this away by Marxist
purists asserting, as did G.K. Chesterton about Christianity, that
Marxism has not failed because it has never been tried. But, of course,
it _was_ tried, the theories that were espoused in Russia before the
1917 Revolution being more or less the same as what these apologists
would call "real socialism."

    It need hardly be said that the lesser religions of anarchism and
national socialism have also failed to deliver the goods. Anarchism,
offering individual autonomy and group solidarity, is also concerned
with a perfect society free from the sin of selfishness. It is,
ostensibly, a morally purer religion than either Marxism or national
socialism since anarchists reject, in theory, involvement in existing
political and social structures. They also complicate matters by
insisting on self rule for the individual. This has ensured that
anarchism has never enjoyed a mass following.

    Except for the fact that national socialism originated as a scheme
for the salvation of white Europeans it is, as Roger Scruton has
pointed out, very similar to Marxist socialism. Its famous promoter,
Adolph Hitler, was more than a bit bonkers. This, along with a similar
obsession with a selfishness-free society, ensured that it has suffered
the same fate as that of Marxism.

    If the _collectivist_ panaceas have been tried and seriously found
wanting, what about the 'individualist' answers? Of these,
existentialism of the kind propounded by Jean-Paul Sartre in his
earlier, non-political phase appears to have the most in common with
Stirner's ideas. Sartre rejected the Christian God and the Hegelian
Absolute, his central doctrine being that man is what he makes of
himself and "an insistence on the actual _existence_ of the individual
as the basic and important fact instead of a reliance on theories and
abstractions." (Readers' Companion To World Literature)

    As Stirner himself was more concerned with the projectionist rather
than what was projected he would not have found too much to disagree
with in this, but a closer examination of Sartre's position reveals
that he and Stirner are worlds apart. For instance, Stirner confidently
abandoned God whereas Sartre found it "extremely embarrassing that God
does not exist ... man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find
anything to depend on either within or outside himself."
(Existentialism and Humanism)

    Sartre later sought to overcome this "embarrassing" forlornness by
committing himself to the collectivism of Marxism while still clinging
to the shell of his individualist existentialism. He hovered
uncertainly between the two for the rest of his life. Stirner never
made this mistake. He stubbornly, famously and usefully refused to be
anything other than himself.

    The fact is, as Stirner himself could have pointed out, all of the
foregoing answers are based on a flawed analysis - the lack of
understanding of the difference between "egoistic" and "egotistic".
Recently, Brian Walden observed that the utopian mentality reveals a
faulty perception of individuality. And more recently Matt Ridley
commented that most utopians are hopelessly naive about human nature:
"I believe that ... human beings are and always have been driven by
three cardinal ambitions - for wealth, for reputation and for status -
and that you ignore such facts at your peril. Look no further than
Russia for proof. Marxism fails precisely because it indulges a fantasy
that human beings will abandon these three and replace them with the
greatest good of the greatest number."

    Nevertheless, Ridley has left out something important. It is the
perennial appetite for self-delusion - to be other than what you are -
that mostly fuel these power drives. Most people, as Nigella Lawson
observes, "need to escape the resented meagreness of their own
existence ... They want magic and mysticism. They want to have others -
other worlds, other beings - dictate what is, what they are and not to
have any responsibility for themselves." Given these facts it is not
therefore surprising that Max Stirner's impassioned defence and
celebration of _his_ individuality is unique. Based as it is on the
revolutionary stance that self interest is the basis of _all_ human
endeavour The Ego and His Own may not be that last word on the subject
of human selfishness, but it contains some essential first words
without which we would be even more in the dark than we are.


____________________________________________________________________


IN PRAISE OF MAX

Frank Jordan


    What is arguably the most iconoclastic work of philosophy ever
written was published in the year 1844. This work was entitled The Ego
and His Own (In original German: Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum). The
author of this seminal work called himself Max Stirner, which was a
pseudonym of Johann Caspar Schmidt. Stirner was a member of the Young
Hegelians, but the ideas he put forward in Der Einzige, his one major
work, easily outstripped and went far beyond anything that his friends
and contemporaries had to say in their criticisms of the various
idealistic trends in society, as they understood it.

    Whether the subject be God, Spirit, Family, Morality, The People,
The State, and so on, all of these Stirner ruthlessly and logically
breaks down and shows they are nothing more than idealistic 'spooks,'
falsely created in substitution for the true needs of the ego, and
usually interpreted in altruistic fashion. Only Nietzsche, in his many
writings, approaches anywhere near the same 'dizzying' extremes and
idol-smashing that is a constant theme in Stirner's book. The main
difference between the two thinkers, I believe, is that Stirner's book
is a complete statement, consistent within itself, whereas Nietzsche's
insights have to be dug out from beneath his overall works, and they
are usually aphoristic in style and content.

    The impact of Stirner's book provoked a most virulent attack
against it by no less a thinker than Karl Marx, along with Engels. In
their massive work, The German Ideology, they devoted two thirds of it
to attacking line by line, and blow by blow, Stirner's book. They
constantly refer to him as 'Saint Max', 'Don Quixote', and other rather
absurd appellations, all to try to exorcise him and his book. But, in
the end, they fail miserably, after having tried every intellectual
trick they had in their mental store, hoping to promote Marxist
socialism and discredit Stirner's pure egoism.

    Various theorists have proven, quite consistently, that Marxism as
it eventually developed would not have been possible without Marx and
Engels psychologically reacting against the egoistic philosophy of
Stirner in the way that they did. As recent history shows, Marxism can
now be seen as a failed attempt at trying to mould the individual
psyche into a social-procrustrean bed of ideology.

    Beside the effect Stirner had on Marxism, various other thinkers
and theorists have tried to adapt the views expressed in Der Einzige to
bolster their own causes. For examples: anarchists, fascists
(especially the case of Mussolini), the situationists of the swinging
Sixties, surrealistic and dadaistic artists like Max Ernst,
psychologists like Erich Fromm. Even the very popular science fiction
trilogy of Wilson and Shea called Illuminatus acknowledges a great debt
to Stirner throughout the plot. And we must not forget the
existentialist tag Stirner has been given!

    Ultimately, of course, despite the diverse thinkers who are
attracted to, and 'turned on', by Stirner, the uniqueness of The Ego
and His Own stands like a lone mountain which cannot be levelled down
to fulfil some else's rather shallow and hollow-sounding ideals.

    As long as men can, and will, think and act for themselves there
will always be a place for Max Stirner's uplifting and stirring book.
His work speaks from the position of a _unique one_ to all other
receptive _unique ones_.

    I thank you, Max Stirner.


____________________________________________________________________


STIRNER, YOUTH AND TRADITION

Paul Rowlandson


    Young people are subject to the psychological malady of 'militant
enthusiasm'. It strikes between the ages of 16 and 25, the time of life
when we are most keen to sacrifice our all for a Cause, the particular
cause being determined by the fashionable enthusiasms of the day. That
is why young men are useful in armies - they are easily fired up to go
over the top. They are useful too, in religious organizations, because
they will go out and proselytize in the rain, or sign away their lives
to religious orders.

    Stirner described this period, when the boy has become a youth:
"One must obey God rather than man ... from this high stand-point
everything 'earthly' recedes into contemptible remoteness; for the
stand-point is the heavenly."

    As a youth in the late 60s and early 70s I was influenced by the
passions of the time.

    As a child I was packed off to the fire and brimstone "washed in
the blood of the Lamb" Congregational church in Oak Vale, Liverpool, by
my parents, who themselves never went to a church except for weddings
and funerals.

    I remember a visiting preacher throttling a live chicken in the
pulpit to make a point I had long forgotten. It was a church parade day
and I was a member of the church scout troop, which I hated. Some of
the Church elders must have thought that the preacher had overdone it
because I remember we were asked by some of them what we thought of the
chicken-throttling. I can't remember being upset by it, which is
surprising. It was shortly after this incident that I was sent off to
the local Anglican church for some civilized religion.

    I wasted a lot of time during my school years by my involvement
with CND, the Young Communist League, the Syndicalist Workers
Federation, and other radical organisations. I took part in various
silly demonstrations, including the then obligatory Aldermaston marches
and some sort of anti-Vietnam war demo from Hyde Park to Trafalgar
Square.

    Most of my reading was of the radical sort - Marx, Alexander
Berkman, Proudhon, Anarchy magazine, Direct Action, Solidarity, and
such. I left school with two 'O' levels as a result.

    The young mind is bombarded by other people's thoughts. From
childhood to adolescence we absorb ideas and viewpoints from other
people, whether in person, through print, or through radio and
television. The selection of what goes in is more or less random,
within certain limits, varying according to time, culture and
geography.

    Christianity was perhaps the major ingredient in my case, as it was
(and still is, though less so) with most English youths.

    It is an easy thing for an uninformed mind to contrast the
"idealism" of Christianity with the "injustices" of the world. I
remember thinking how like Christianity Marxism was, and how
hypocritical of Christian society to deny us the benefits of communism.

    However, there was a growing realisation of a divergence of
interests, an awareness that I had reservations and doubts about the
activities and enthusiasms with which I was then engaged. For example,
as a teenager I was a pirate radio enthusiast, which I found hard to
reconcile with my anarcho-communist beliefs. There were several other
discrepancies. I was a strange sort of anarchist for I always had a
high regard for the Police, and frequently found myself uncomfortable
with my comrades' description of them as 'pigs'.

    I have always been an enthusiast for quirky or idiosyncratic
publications. As a youth I favoured the iconoclastic. As an older man I
now seek the reactionary, the traditional, the ultra conservative
publications. Revolutions pleased me then, Tradition pleases me now.

    The most unusual journal I ever came across was Minus One (the
precursor of Ego - Ed). I subscribed immediately. Here was something
different.

    I very soon thereafter acquired from Minus One a copy of the
Libertarian Book Club 1963 edition of The Ego and His Own. Even the
physical attributes of the book are extraordinary. It is a substantial
book, printed on high quality paper, bound in signatures, with a plain
thick green cover, and a plain typeface. It looks and feels a _serious_
book.

    My reading of The Ego and His Own had a powerful and continuing
influence. Here was a mind I connected with straight away. Its effect
was that of a mental spring cleaning. The "wheels in the head", the
ideas and opinions which I had accumulated, lost their power, although,
as Stirner says, "Daily experience confirms the truth that the
understanding may have renounced a thing many years before the heart
has ceased to beat for it." Nevertheless, the effect was that I now
possessed the wheels in the head rather than them possessing me.

    Stirner takes no hostages. The demolition is thorough: "the Good
cause, God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of
humanity, of justice, my people, my prince, my fatherland, even the
cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes."

    For a time I was cause-less, but eventually started restocking. I
acquired some causes of my own, but this time they belonged to me. I
could run with them or discard them as I wished.

    It is probably as difficult to go without causes as it is to do
without interests. A cause is, after all, simply a compelling interest
grown large. But one of the benefits derived from reading Stirner is
the ability to prevent their possession of their owner. My final
authority is myself.

    There are occasions in life we think of as watersheds. Nothing is
ever quite the same again. My discovery of The Ego and His Own was such
an event. It became impossible to think again in the way I thought
before I read the book. There is no other book like it.

    Pope John Paul II once commented that the faithful have a right not
to be disturbed by the speculations of the so-called radical
theologians. Should the man or woman in the street be exposed to Max
Stirner? I think not. People will go to almost any lengths to avoid
thinking for themselves. The Ego and His Own would no doubt unhinge
many of them, which might make life more difficult for the rest of us.

    Fortunately there appears to be a small elite which can absorb and
benefit from Stirner without going off the rails - those who can see
through not just the Emperor's new clothes but the old ones as well.