💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › document › leon-dario-the-egoist-solidarity captured on 2024-08-18 at 20:18:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The egoist solidarity Date: April 2020 Source: Published in April 2020 in number 10 of the anarchist magazine “Solstice” Authors: LeĂłn DarĂo Topics: Class struggle, Egoism, Individualist, Protest, Solstice Published: 2020-12-25 08:43:20Z
She is so altruistic, solidarity, generosity, and it is that they tell us and teach us from an early age the importance of the gesture of solidarity, of being generous, of not being “egoists” and sharing, of sharing toys with the children who came home hand in hand with our father and mother, friends of ours, even though we didn’t like those children at all, even though we were so comfortably playing “our own way” we were forced to leave our precious properties to those inopportune guests who so muddied our own world ... Solidarity is a humanistic praxis because it is the engine of human relationships that is based on giving, supporting or offering something without expecting anything in return, without expecting anything in return relatively, a presumed humanistic practice in which a (at least ) involuntary or egoism selfishness; since solidarity always leads to being considered in reciprocity, a debt with the one who has shown solidarity; The one who did it expects an action-reaction with him in the future when he needs this act of generosity without “expecting anything in return”, there is a pending account either in the short, medium or long term, because said action does not imply anything “Ipso facto”, an immediacy does not originate, there is no “consideration” in the event itself but rather a moment of prudence awaits until the generous need generosity out of “pure solidarity”; that is, and we can affirm that this “gesture” is, obviously, a “today for you, tomorrow for me”; society “watches over you”, the community signs up if you were supportive when someone belonging to the community needed it and needed it, therefore it is possible that if you complied “without expecting anything in return” that solidarity or generosity will be returned to you anyway “Without expecting anything in return” ... and thus marching on, a chain of action and reaction is developed; If instead you did not give support, you were unsupportive when a person or a society (of which you are a part) needed it, it is very likely that this alleged exercise of altruism, dedication, provision of some service, product or object that you may need will not be dispatched without delving into the question of why you or I, as a subject, individual, have not loved myself or perhaps I have not been able to pay what was owed when it has been needed or rather it has been expected of me. The community will not enter to assess what circumstances have led me not to respond with a “spirit of solidarity”, either involuntarily or even voluntarily.
We can say, based on the text, that solidarity, and although we want to deny it, has a egoist sense and without criminalizing or stigmatizing the selfish concept because “egoist” comes from the principle of oneself, in the doctrine of the individual and his individuality based on self-interest, ego-interest, I myself am egoist because I make “I” my principle and purpose and all my actions and objectives are based on obtaining my own benefit, in fact if I have the capacity to do so I will launch myself to obtain a privilege regardless of whether I do it to the detriment of society if with it I can obtain a benefit for myself and by extension for my immediate inner circle; Therefore, the supportive person cannot deny that he also benefits from a egoist act, since he knows that his altruistic act is an “investment” for when he requires that the previously supported person attend.
I am also going to cite what I myself call “immediate solidarity”, this if it is “per se”, a certain reciprocity between peers with an established purpose that have certain interests and individual needs to be satisfied as soon as possible. We can cite in this regard the workers’ struggles, the strikes and active protests of workers in cases of outstanding labor conflicts, although these struggles are under the collective paradigm, they are really acting and developing in this collective tool with a egoist interest, a individual claiming what corresponds to him — only him — his labor “rights”, the improvement of his salary or the remuneration of the overtime that he is doing in the factory so that he works ... but together with hundreds or thousands as The reason why he knows and is aware that by himself everything will turn out in borage water and in a tantrum without repercussions, there are hundreds or thousands of individuals with their respective personal interests that unify forces among themselves to gather enough collective capacity to paralyze the activity their workplaces, avoid the entry of their “discordant” colleagues (scabs) to work, placing burning tires in the acc those to the polygons ... all in that in order for employers to yield or negotiate with respect to the demands set out on the table.
Synthesizing: “I” cannot by myself, I do not agglutinate the ability to act with sufficiency to make the employer give in to my demands as a worker, I need to unite with You, with your I, who, in turn, also need from me, from my I, of my uniqueness and in turn, we need others like us, other “selves” and all together then we unify our uniqueness and particularities to exercise the tenacity that our particular demands need.
Lastly, I want to relaunch the figure of individuality in a sea of ​​more “socialist” anarchists that attack the free critical and questioning capacity of assemblies or so-called horizontality forms; The character of the central axis that the subject develops as the engine of anarchy cannot be denied, and it is that no type of social, collective form is possible without the addition (see the example that I quote before with the workers’ protests) and cohesion of unities. Respectable are, go ahead in my judgment and criteria, the decisive and collective forms that I have cited, but the most “societal” anarchism must be aware that the individual is the central subject anarchic; In this field, individualist anarchism plays the maximum expression of it, which unquestionably represents and demands the maximum expression of individuality, therefore of anarchy itself, putting the anarchist as the principle and purpose of itself without external interference that may result in the impairment of his own individual integrity.