💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › tadano-what-is-egoism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:26:06. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: What is Egoism?
Author: Tadano
Date: March 2020
Language: en
Topics: egoism, egoist, ego-anarchism, Philippines, Bandilang Itim
Source: http://libcom.org/blog/what-egoism-01032020

Tadano

What is Egoism?

Egoism is named after the word “ego,” which is latin for “I.” Everyone

around us has an ego for which, Max Stirner understood that we all have

a drive to serve ourselves and the I, the self. This philosophical

observation is also often seen in the sciences, as any serious scientist

studying in the field of psychology or zoology can tell you that humans

act for their own self-interest. It is then asked, is altruism a case

against egoism? The answer is no, for which even Stirner argues that

even altruism is a form of egoism on its own. Stirner said that altruism

and cooperation—and even community—is made because it serves our ego in

a way. Why do we work with other people? For our own interests. This is

the meat and flesh of egoism, it’s not at all complicated.

“Egoism means it’s fine to murder and rape people!” is one of the many

strawmans that unfortunately many leftists can easily fall into, as

frustrating it is as just how plain false it is. For which Stirner said

in a classic quote,

I love men too—not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them

with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me

happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I

know no ‘commandment of love.’ I have a fellow-feeling with every

feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes

me too; I can kill them, not torture them.[1]

Egoism is not a rejection of altruism, or collectivism. To call egoism

an opposite to collectivism would just be plain false. It simply means

to embrace an ego that is in all of us, and live for ourselves and to

respect each other’s ego, uniqueness, and personality.

The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the

divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely

what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is—unique, as I am

unique.

Nothing is more to me than myself![2]

The roots of egoist thinking at its core is found in Max Stirner in his

books Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, translated as Ego and its Own, and

Stirner’s Critics, which are both incredible books to read and you

should read—it’s not too long either.

Another belief of egoism—and Stirner in particular—is the opposition of

property. There seems to be a lot of confusion of leftists on his ideas

of property, by which we have to make one thing very, very clear,

stirner does not advocate for private property—just the opposite—he

quotes,

The laborers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they

once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would

withstand them; they would only have to stop labor, regard the product

of labor as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labor

disturbances which show themselves here and there. The State rests on

the slavery of labor. If labor becomes free. the State is lost.[3]

Stirner is not a capitalist, he was an anarchist in nature, even if he

hasn’t outright said it, and a socialist especially. He especially does

not believe in “private property” nor even normal “property,” at all. He

puts in his book, that property has to be fought for, harshly to be

owned, you cannot own a property (personal or private), without

violence. One cannot own a property by simply saying, “this is mine!”—by

which stirner then observes, that property is fought for in violence,

the violence of the state, and the bourgeoisie. The violence of the

state and the bourgeoisie are spooked, handling themselves in the false

idea of “property,” in which they then use to exploit and extract! To

put this in a quote, “[p]roperty exists by grace of the law. It is not a

fact, but a legal fiction.” Stirner extensively goes on about this in

the section of Ego and Its Own known as “Political Liberalism,” in which

he regularly critiques liberals and the state, and exposing their

spookiness and hatred towards the proletariat in a false sense of

“freedom” and “choice.” In a quote,

So runs the speech of commonality. The commonality is nothing else than

the thought that the State is all in all, the true man, and that the

individual’s human value consists in being a citizen of the State. In

being a good citizen he seeks his highest honor; beyond that he knows

nothing higher than at most the antiquated—being a “good Christian.”[4]

Another idea that egoists believe in, is the Union of Egoists. This idea

of organization by Stirner is not literal, but rather, a metaphorical

one. It simply means that a union of egoists is a group of voluntary

people and/or egoists that are in association with each other out of

pure will, not due to some spook, or “inheritance.” In Stirner’s

Critics, Stirner brilliantly explains this concept further by writing:

It would be another thing indeed, if Hess wanted to see egoistic unions

not on paper, but in life. Faust finds himself in the midst of such a

union when he cries: “Here I am human, here I can be human”—Goethe says

it in black and white. If Hess attentively observed real life, to which

he holds so much, he will see hundreds of such egoistic unions, some

passing quickly, others lasting. Perhaps at this very moment, some

children have come together just outside his window in a friendly game.

If he looks at them, he will see a playful egoistic union. Perhaps Hess

has a friend or a beloved; then he knows how one heart finds another, as

their two hearts unite egotistically to delight (enjoy) each other, and

how no one “comes up short” in this. Perhaps he meets a few good friends

on the street and they ask him to accompany them to a tavern for wine;

does he go along as a favor to them, or does he “unite” with them

because it promises pleasure? Should they thank him heartily for the

“sacrifice,” or do they know that all together they form an “egoistic

union” for a little while?[5]

And in another quote, he says,

We two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart

the welfare of this ‘human society,’ I sacrifice nothing to it, I only

utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it

rather into my property and my creature; i. e., I annihilate it, and

form in its place the Union of Egoists.[6]

To make things simple to understand, egoists believe that we have all an

innate ego that we can activate at any time, an ego that works for a

self-interest that does not bow down to any spook or false idea that

statists and/or liberals will throw down on you. An ego that loves all

egos, while obliterating all that stands away or harm egos, i.e. Spooks,

in which we will talk about in a second.

What is a Spook?

A spook is a social construct, an abstract concept made up by society

with no material basis—an immaterial spirit, a figment of the

imagination. The motherland, fatherland, nationalism, God, religion,

morality, and the obligation to work under capitalist society are all

spooks. “But it is not only man that ‘haunts’; so does everything. The

higher essence, the spirit, that walks in everything, is at the same

time bound to nothing, and only—appears’ in it. Ghosts in every

corner!”[7] Spooks are around us all, under the fake liberalism of the

US, or the fake ethno-nationalism of the DPRK. All spooks are created by

humanity, usually for political power and purposes, to keep down ego,

and to keep down the freedom of the individual, to disallow the free

association of individuals, to prevent the exploration of our ego!

I hate capitalism ‘cause it’s spooked, right? But I don’t like the

spooked way socialism is promoted and enforced. This can be seen in the

ultranationalism of the USSR or DPRK, the obligation, the duty, to build

socialism, not because of an inner egoist desire, but because, “it’s for

the motherland! ‘Cause I said so!” Now continue working under state

owned property. No, I want socialism not ‘cause it’s for “a greater

cause;” I want socialism so I can really do whatever I want! Like, play

League of Legends all day! Or having intense gay sex with no risk of

economic collapse due to medical bills! Or to make whatever weird wood

statues I can make, just because!

Stirner actually spent a section of the book criticizing socialism and

socialists at the time, the section was called “Social Liberalism” in

Ego and its Own and how socialists can often be as spooked as normal

liberals. In which in a memorable quote, he says,

By the principle of labor that of fortune or competition is certainly

outdone. But at the same time the laborer, in his consciousness that the

essential thing in him is “the laborer,” holds himself aloof from egoism

and subjects himself to the supremacy of a society of laborers, as the

commoner clung with self-abandonment to the competition-State. The

beautiful dream of a “social duty” still continues to be dreamed. People

think again that society gives what we need, and we are under

obligations to it on that account, owe it everything. They are still at

the point of wanting to serve a “supreme giver of all good.” That

society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an

instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit; that we have no

social duties, but solely interests for the pursuance of which society

must serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but, if we sacrifice

anything, sacrifice it to ourselves—of this the Socialists do not think,

because they—as liberals—are imprisoned in the religious principle, and

zealously aspire after—a sacred society, e.g. the State was hitherto.[8]

Two classic examples of spooks that invade us all, is nationalism and

the state. The state is a spook because it institutes and enforces laws

that aren’t real. Laws are not material in reality, thus must be

violently enforced via state violence. Whether something as simple as a

law to put logos on tax bills, or more extreme laws, ones that actively

harm people and the proletariat, i.e cops.

Nationalism is a spook. The entire idea of countries is a spook—borders

are made up, thus, has to be violently enforced via borders, guards, and

the law. Nationalism is then—through another spook—culture, and is a

deadly combination to not only enforce capitalism, but also put down the

ego. In which it goes hand in hand with the idea of “cultural hegemony,”

as brought forth by a Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, in many ways, the

observations of the use of culture by Stirner and Gramsci are very

similar. As Grasci put in his books, that cultural hegemony is what

happens when the bourgeoisie uses culture to put down socialism and

class consciousness and enforce capitalism,[9] for any kind of reasons,

as can be observed in US liberal society, Philippines, Japan, and many

others.

Culture in itself is a spook, if not the ultimate spook as culture

shapes entire societies. The study of culture is the study of a spook.

Traditional customs, requirement to pray, requirement to cite a pledge

of allegiance, where do these ideas come from? All but figments of the

imagination, a spirit, a spook.

We can see this dynamic, the dynamic between the bourgeoisie and the

proletariat under capitalist societies play out in many cultures, and

how it intentionally or unintentionally, enforces capitalism. I’ll give

you a classic example in Filipino society: the obligation to work and do

well because “responsibilidad mo to! para to kay Jesus!” In the USSR,

many workers have to keep doing labor “for the motherland!” In Imperial

Japan: “work or you will throw away your family honor! If you throw away

your honor, you must execute yourself!” The worst example of this is

Fascist Germany. Fascism is dangerous because it abuses spooks in the

worst way possible. Fascist ideology is riddled with spooks: the belief

that one race is superior, that Jews bad cause something something,

using christianity to justify genocide, and the use of religion in

general to be an ass. Fascism, anti-semitism, race, inherent

superiority, unfortunately has not material and/or scientific basis, but

the fascist does not care, why? It’s not meant to be logical, pure

reactionary, to gain and use state violence under a fake coat of

“populism.”

Egoist Analysis

Egoist analysis explains a lot of things, especially useful for

understanding class conflicts and how the bourgeoisie abuses spooks to

hinder the egos of the working class and force them to conform. If you

think about it, Marx uses egoism unconsciously in his works to

philosophically and scientifically explain bourgeoisie activity and what

they do under capitalist society. While it is true that the bourgeoisie

do things for their own ego, they do so in complete disrespect of the

ego of others, in this case, the proletariat. As explained earlier,

egoist analysis simultaneously explains why we are both not only

egoistic, but also altruistic. The whole debacle about individualism vs

collectivism is a false dichotomy, they’re both great and useful to

serve our egos!

Egoist analysis is a nice philosophical reflection that confirms a lot

of things that I thought about my experience as a Filipino and Filipino

society. Like, why are we really altruistic, but at the same time, we’re

also individualistic? Why is the state always so rude and mean towards

the poor people, why does it feel like there’s a massive disconnect

between the poor and the rich? While these can be answered through

Marxism, I’ve found that egoism is a more useful tool in figuring this

out.

The Liberating Potential of Egoism

Egoism is a liberating philosophy that explains a lot of my angers

towards modern Filipino society. This is first seen and acknowledged by

me when in very early on in school, I continue to keep asking myself,

every year, “why do we keep having to go school? Why can’t we just be

free and do whatever we want, even if education is so important, why are

these teachers so strict about our lives, freedoms, uniqueness?” The

answer to this is always been, “well, it’s for your grades! You have to

keep working when you’re older, it’s your responsibility, as a human

being!” Then after that, they start to threaten you with terrible things

that happened towards workers, “If you don’t want to work! You’ll be

living on the streets like those poor hobos! Do you want that? Do you

want to live like a hobo?” And I’m especially not alone here in these

thoughts.

Once I noticed and fully understood just how spooked society is, that’s

when I’ve truly become so much more free and happy. I can recall many

days in grade school where I was left crying in my bed ‘cause, “I’m not

good enough,” for society, and once I’ve fully taken in that these

spooks don’t matter, it made me so much better, happier, and free. I

believe that is the value in egoism as a philosophy, and together with

other nihilistic, postmodernist literature in philosophy, and that is

why we must start reading Stirner and be free. It is especially valuable

in the Philippines, as many, many of the proletarians and people here

are spooked into religion, into “responsibility,” into human society as

a whole.

[1] Max Stirner, Ego and its Own, Second Part: I, II. The Owner, ii. My

Intercourse.

[2] Ibid., All Things are Nothing to Me.

[3] Ibid., II. Men of the Old Time and the New, iii. The Free, 1.

Political Liberalism.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Max Stirner, Stirner’s Critics, Hess.

[6] Max Stirner, Ego and its Own, Second Part: I, II. The Owner

[7] Ibid. II. The Moderns, 2. The possessed, The spook

[8] Ibid. 2. Social Liberalism

[9] Gramsci, Antonio (1992). Buttigieg, Joseph A (ed.). Prison

Notebooks. New York City: Columbia University Press. pp. 233–38