💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › document › laure-akai-individualism-vs-individualism captured on 2024-08-18 at 20:16:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-03-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Individualism vs. Individualism Date: 1992 Source: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/indvsind.txt Notes: Written for the magazine “Osvobohkdyeneyi Leechonostee” (“The Liberation of the Individual”) (1992) Author email: <cube@glas.apc.org> Authors: Laure Akai Topics: Individualist anarchism, Individualist, Egoist Published: 2013-12-24 11:16:48Z
The notion of individualism has varying connotations in Russian and
in American perceptions. An individualist can be understood as someone
who does not understand the need to submit to the collective will, or an
unabashed hedonist, or simply a non-conformist. The most common notion
if individualism seems to be that of a philosophy of unrestricted
personal freedom, regardless of consequence. This philosophy, although a
reality, should not be confused with anarchistic individualism; any
understanding as such is really a perversion of its philosophy which
holds as sacrisanct the fundamental notion of the worth of each
individual.
This misunderstanding of both the terms anarchist and individualist
runs rampant and is evident for example in the categorization of Max
Stirner, perhaps the greatest individualist anarchist thinker, as a
spiritual father of the far right; his classic book “The Ego and Its
Own” has been published in America and abroad as a part in series on
the far right, including fascism. However far from expounding a
philosophy of individualism at all costs, Stirner pointed out that an
individual’s actions should not infringe upon others; such acts would
infringe upon the individual rights of others. It is an important
concept in individualist philosophy that the rights of the individual
are universal.
With the aforementioned as our philosophical premise we can start
an inquiry as to the nature of individualist behaviour and what is not.
First and foremost, a system of economic priveledge is anti-
individualist. Economic priveledge rests on different relations of
power. This can mean a disparagement in access to capital or it can be
monopolization and protectionism. In nearly every case, economic
priveledge relies on the exploitation of others. Strong centralized
power structures can function to ensure the priveledge of an elite.
Economic priveledge is anti-individualist, not only in the sense that
priveledge must be, by its very meaning, exclusive, non-universal but
also due to the fact that it denies others through mechanisms of
protectionism (most commonly the law) and that it most always rests on
the nonwilling exploitation of others.
Thus in far right capitalist ideology, the relation between owner
and worker is rationalized. Every owner believes they have created a job
for their worker and that, if that worker feels exploited, they are free
to get another job or to create their own business. The capitalist is
working from a point of advantage as the system of wage labour is in
place and few even question their relation to the creation of wealth.
The system does not freely allow for people to work outside it, or to
even freely work independently inside it as it uses control of the means
of exchange (money) and protectionism of capital to prevent people from
creating an economy that would cut into its profit margins. The worker
if not free — not free to take her or his share of the profits (as
Americans say, property is 9/10 of the law), nor are they free to
withold their labour as they would be denied access to the means of
exchange. Most assertions of individual rights would result in
reprisals. Fair relations cannot exist in such a rigged framework; in
individualist philosophy, the individual must be able to demand an end
to infringement without fear of reprisal.
The same goes for any situation where ownership is controlled
centrally, bureaucratically and is protected by a political system with
the power of conducting reprisal, most often through law and
imprisonment, but also through other means of denial. (a structure of
priveledge thus becomes very convenient to keep people in order.)
It can also be argued that a system of representative government,
and subsequently, a system of representative law is also anti-
individualist. While one could argue that not everybody wants to
participate in decision making processes and that that therefore,
representation is necessary, one can also see clear examples of the
“representatives” of the people making decisions that do not represent
their desires and in fact encroach on their civil liberties. There is no
system existing where the individual can legally refuse a decision not
representing their wishes once it has been encoded into law. Thus a
young Russian man may be lucky enough to find ways out of military
service — but maybe not. The ethical considerations of the individual
are inconsequential. Representatives have also been known to make laws
which simply are extensions of their moral fetishes; such are America’s
anti-sodomy and anti-adultery laws, which, though rarely enforced, exist
on the books. Putting such abuses aside, representative government can
be a vehicle for the extreme repression of the individual. Laws that
protect the individual (i.e. against murder) are relatively few. Most
laws protect a non-individual entity: government, party, structure,
church, property.
Representative government cannot be changed by an individuals
absorption into it; the structures remain the same. Decision making must
be open to those whose life the decisions effect if they so choose.
In social life too individualist philosophy cannot be seen as mere
hedonism at anybody s expense. The idea (unfortunately too often
people’s misconception of anarchy) that one can indiscriminately go
around killing, raping and doing as they please does not stem from an
anarcho-individualist philosophy. “Your right to swing the frying pan
stops where my face starts,” is a little understanding we have. If you
expect others to respect your rights, you must naturally, logically
extend this respect to others. Doing what you want, when it hurts
others, is not a celebration of individual rights, but of your own
unlimited rights, which, if they infringe seriously on others, must rest
in some power relation.
Social systems of reprisal act to repress the individual. Most
often these systems are based in a moralism of intolerance (for example
like that currently preached by many churches) rather than an ethic of
respect for diversity. The social rights of homosexuals, for example,
are often infringed upon because of some elusive structure of moral
repression whereas their relations, being consensual, have no element of
coercion and therefore infringement in them. An individualist ethic must
be tolerant of difference, both natural and chosen. If somebody wants to
tattoo their face, walk around naked, etc., this must be respected as it
has no bearing on your decisions, for example, to walk around clothed.
Prejudice of all sorts, be it racism, sexism, homophobia, national
chauvinism, has no place in an anarcho-individualist philosophy as it
sees people as members of groups, not as individuals.
Individualist philosophy, therefore, is one of the highest respect
for the individual, not an infantile disorder of the ego, not a lofty
rationalization for carrying out actions which, more likely than not,
are not product of true desires but of forces outside the individual. It
does not preclude forms of human community and cooperation. On the
contrary, an individualist ethic can include the highest forms of
(voluntary) community and cooperation (the anarchist idea of free
association). It is an idea of respect, not disrespect — of the respect
of each individual’s desire for self-realisation, unimpeded, sans power
structures and factors of social interference, and of natural desire,
whatever that might encompass.
Written for the magazine “Osvobohkdyeneyi Leechonostee” (“The Liberation
of the Individual”) (1992)