💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › laurence-labadie-stirner.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:07:51. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Stirner! Author: Laurence Labadie Date: 1966 Language: en Topics: egoism, individualism, Max Stirner Source: Retrieved 10/23/2021 from https://archive.org/details/AnarchoPessimismTheCollectedWritingsOfLaurenceLabadie Notes: Originally published in December 1966. Reprinted in Anarcho-Pessimism: The Collected Writings of Laurance Labadie (Ardent Press, 2014).
There are not very many people who can intelligently understand Stirner.
The reason is the “Judeo-Christian ethic” which dominates the viewpoints
of people in the western hemisphere. They are nothing if not moralists.
Whereas Stirner is primarily an amoralist. The basic thesis of his
viewpoint on the motivation of humans is self-interest. And
self-interest is for the most part an amoral impulse. It is
intrinsically a philosophy of expedience—one does what the circumstances
call for in the enhancement of one’s will-to-live. This may or may not
conform to some moral abjurgation. And no amount of moral indoctrination
is going to deter the individual from taking advantage of the
circumstances which confront him. Let others do likewise.
It is only on the idealistic plane that “Society’s” interest coincides
with the respective interests of the individuals who compose it.
Elemental use of one’s intelligence suggests that on no other grounds
can the course of history be understood. Nor can any of the common
crimes be explained by any other criterion. Deception, bluff, coercion,
robbery, and murder—either on a small or large scale—are always
motivated by the impulse to better one’s self. And the physical, mental,
and “spiritual” incompetent is the first one to look for some
transcendent power to take care of him (the God ideal). And while common
sense should suggest to anyone that if power be given to some
“authority” to take care of one’s self, it is a foregone conclusion that
such power will be used in the first instance to aggrandize the
well-being of the power-holder.
We believe that man is evil, and yet elect some to rule over others. Who
other than an indoctrinated boob will subscribe to such a scheme? And
yet we find the practice a virtual world-wide phenomenon!
In the face of this almost universal superstition, the voice of Stirner
comes like a breath of fresh air. It is because this admonition to take
care of one’s self infuriates the superstitious hopes of such herd
viewpoints as communism, socialism, and collectivism in general,
including the pious frauds who claim to believe in “free
enterprise”—moralists all. How could these pathetic creatures stomach or
even understand Stirner? The rationale for the herd or collective
impulse must be searched for on other grounds than individual
self-interest. For there is a rationale.
Notwithstanding that Stirner stressed the fact that the “ego” was not an
abstract generality, that there were as many “egos” as there were
individuals, and that each ego was different—socialists even of the
Marxian variety had to insist otherwise in order to dismiss Stirner as a
metaphysician. Marx, who was a theologian if ever there was one, had the
disreputable knack of pretending to hold the ideas of his opponents, and
then to use these ideas to confute them—thereby imputing to his
opponents the exact opposite of what they believed. This is the role of
the ideological trickster, often unbeknownst to himself.
What goes into one man’s stomach does not nourish another man, and in a
circumstance of absolute scarcity morality goes by the board. Men’s
interests conflict and a scramble results. It is inherent in the
situation, and Christians and communists, moralists both, are confronted
with a situation wherein their nicely-spun “commandments” go fluttering
in the breeze. And they are just as much victims of a situation as
anyone else. As a matter of fact the greatest amount of wholesale
slaughter has been committed by Christians and communists. What
communist didn’t believe his idealistic utopia didn’t have to come about
after a revolutionary holocaust in which the bad guys had to be
eliminated by the good guys? It is in this context that the present
violent confrontations and impending mutual slaughter find their
rationale. Man is a victim of habit and institutionalism.