Latest / The Philosophy Insights Collection / 34 - My Intercourse - part 11 - The Ego and His Own - Max Stirner
Transcript
- My Intercourse, Part eleven. That society which communism wants to fund seems to stand nearest to coalition, For it is to aim at the welfare of all. Oh, yes, of all, cries rightling innumerable times of all that does really look as if in it no one needed to take a bad seat. But what then will this welfare be have all one and the same welfare. All are equally well off with one and the same thing. If that be so, the question is of the true welfare? Do we not, with this come right to the point where religion begins its dominion of violence. Christianity says, look not on earthly toys, but seek your true welfare. Become highest Christians. Being Christian is the true welfare. It is the true welfare of all, because it is the welfare of man. As such, this spook, now, the welfare of all is surely to be your and my welfare too. But if you and I do not look upon that welfare as our welfare, will care then be taken for that in which we feel well? On the contrary, society has decreed a welfare as the true welfare. If this welfare were called with eg enjoyment, honestly worked for. But if you preferred enjoyable laziness enjoyment without work, then society which cares for the welfare of all would wisely avoid caring for that in which you are well off. Communism in proclaiming the welfare of all, and that's outright the well being of those who hitherto lived on their income from investments, and apparently felt better in that than in the prospect of white wings stripped out of labor. Hence, the latter asserts that with the welfare of thousands, the welfare of millions cannot exist, and the former must give up their special welfare for the sake of the general welfare. No, let people not be summoned to sacrifice their special welfare for the general. For this Christian abomission will not carry you through. They will better understand the opposite admonition, not to let their own welfare be snatched from them by anybody, but to put it on a parliament foundation. Then they are of themselves led to the point that they care best for their welfare if they might with others for this purpose e g. Sacrifice a part of their liberty. Let not to the welfare of others, but to their own and appeal to men's self sacrificing this position and self renouncing love ort at least to have lost its seductive possibly when after an activity of thousands of years, it has left nothing behind but the miseraur of today. Why then, still fruitlessly expect self sacrifice to bring us better time? Why not rather hope for them from us apation. Salvation comes no longer from the giver, the bestower, a loving one, but from the taker, the appropriate usuper the owner. Communism and consciously egoism revealing humanism, still care on love. If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws, to the laws of society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and as such lawgiver. Communism gives this principle a strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society. For as Feuerbach rightly says, although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man e g The essence of society or of society communistic man. All religion is a cult of society principle by which society cultivated man is dominated. Neither is any god and egos exclusive God, but always a society's or communities, be it of a society, family, lapan arts, or of a people national God, or of all men. He is a father of all men. Consequently, one has a prospect of exasperating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates society and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become common for the establishment of equality. If this equality is one, liberty too is not lacking. But who's liberty? Societies? Society is then all in all, and men are only for each other. It would be the glory of their love state. But I would rather be referred to men's selfishness than to their kindnesses, their mercy, pity, etc. The former demand's lepicity, as thou to me, so I to be does nothing gratis, and may be one and broad. But with what shall I obtain the kindness? It is a matter of chance, whether I am at the time having to do with a loving person, the affectionate one's service can be had only by begging, be it by my lamentable appearance, by my need of help, my misery, my suffering. What can I offer him for his assistance? Nothing? I must accept it as a present. Love is unpayable, or rather, love can assuredly be paid for, but only by counter love. One good turn deserves another. What paltriness and beggarliness does it not take to accept gifts year in and year out without service in return, as they are regularly collected e g. From the poor day laborer? What can the receiver do for him and his donated pennies in which his wealth consists. The day laborer would really have more enjoyment if the receiver, with his laws, his institutions, etc. All of which the day laborer has to pay for, did not exist at all. And yet with it all the poor wright loves his master. No community, as the goal of his hitherto is impossible. Let us rather renounce every hypocrisy of community and recognize that if we are equal as men, we are not equal. For the very reason that we are not men, We are equal only in thoughts, only when we are thought, not as we really and bodily are. I am ego and you are ego, but I am not. This thought of ego, this ego in which we are all equal, is only my thought. I am man, and you are man. But man is only a thought, a generality. Neither I nor you are speakable. We are unutterable, because only in thoughts are speakable and consist in speaking. Let us therefore not aspire to community but to work sidedness. Let us not seek the most comprehensive, commune human society, but let us seek in others only means and organs which we may use as our property. As we do not see our equals in the tree the beast. So the preposition that others are our equals springs from a hypocrisy. No one is my equal, but I regard him equally with all other beings as my property. In opposition to this, I am told that I should be a man among fellow men. I should respect the fellow man in them. For me, no one is a person to be respected, not even the fellow man, but solely like other beings, an object in which I take an interest, or else do not an interesting or uninteresting subject, a usable or unmusable person. And if I can use him, I doubtless come to an understanding and make myself at one with him, in order by the agreement to strengthen my power, and by combined force, to accomplish more than individual force could effect. In this combination, I see nothing whatever but a multiplication of my force, and I retain it only so long as it is my multiplied force. But thus it is a union. Either a natural ligature or a spiritual one holds the union together, and it is not a natural not a spiritual league. It is not brought about by one blood, not by one faith spirit. In a natural league, like a family, a tribe, a nation, yes mankind, the individuals have only the value of specimens of the same species or genius. In a spiritual league, like a commune a church, the individual signifies only a member of the same spirit. What you are in both cases as a unique person must be suppressed. Only in the Union can you assert yourself as unique, Because the Union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you. Property is recognized in the union, and only in the union, because one no longer holds what is his as a thief from any being. The communists are only constantly carrying further what had already been long present during religious evolution, and especially in the state, to wit propertylessness, the feud or system. The state exerts itself to take the desiro's man. In other words, it seeks to direct his desire to it alone and to contend that desire with what it offers. To state, the desire for the desirous man's sake does not come into the mind. On the contrary, it stigmatizes as an egoistic man the man who brings out unbridled desire, and the egoistic man is its enemy. He is this for it because the capacity to agree with him is wanting to state the egoist is precisely what it cannot comprehend. Since the state, as nothing else is possible, has to do only for itself. It does not take care for my needs, but takes care only of how it makes away with me I e. Make out of me another ego a good citizen. It takes measures for the improvement of morals, and with what does it win individuals for itself with itself are ye with what is the states with state property, it will be unregimentally active in making all partnerships in its goods, providing all with the good things of culture. It presents them is education opens to them, the access to its institutions of culture capacitates them to come to property r ye to a thief in the way of industry, et cetera. For all these fiefs it demands only the just vents of continual fans, but the ununfankful forget to pay these fans. Now either can society do essentially otherwise than the state. Being into a union your whole power, your competence, and make yourself count. In a society you are employed with your working power. In the former, you live egoistically. In the latter humanly are you religiously as a member in the body of this lord. To a society, you owe what you have and are in duty band to wit are possessed by social duties. A union you utilize and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it. Further, if society is more than you, then it is more to you than yourself. A union is only your instrument or a sword with which you sharpen and increase your natural force. The union exists for you and through you, a society conversing they claim to you for itself, and exists even without you. In short, the society is sacred for the union. Your own consumes you, you consume the union. Nevertheless, people will not be backward with the objection that the agreement which has been concluded may again become buddhisome to us and limit our freedom. They will say, we too, would at last hunt to this, that everyone must sacrifice a part of his freedom for the sake of the generality. But the sacrifice would not be made for the generality's sake a bit as little as I concluded the agreement for the generality, or even for any other man's sake, Mother, I came into it only for the sake of my own benefit, some selfishness. But as regards the sacrificing, surely I sacrifice only that which does not stand in my power? Are you I sacrifice nothing at all? To come back to the property, the lord is proprietor choose then, whether you want to be lord or whether society shall be on this depends whether you are to be an owner or a ragamuffin. The egoist is owner, a socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or propitlessness is the sense of feudalism of the feudal system, which since the last century has only changed its overlord, putting man in the place of God and accepting as a thief from man what had before been a thief from the grace of God. That the ragamufhingism of communism is carried out by the humane principle into the absolute, almost ragamuffinly ragamuffinism, has been shown above that at the same time also how ragamuffinism can only first swing around into ownness. The old feudal system was so thoroughly trampled into the ground in the Revolution that since then all the actually craft has remained fruitless and will always remain fruitless, because the dead is dead. But the resurrection too had to prove itself a truth in Christian history, and it has so proved itself, for in another world feudalism is risen again with a glorified body. The new feudalism under the suserinity of man. Christianity is not annihilated, but the faithful are right in having hitherto trustfully assumed of every conduct against it, that this could sou only for the proguration and confirmation of Christianity, for it has really only been glorified and Christianity exposed. Is the human Christianity. We are still living entirely in the Christian Age, and the very ones who feel worse about it are the most zealously contributing to complete it. The more human the deira has feudalism become to us, for we the less believe that it still is feudalism, we take it the more confidently for ownness, and think we have found what is most absolutely our own. When we discover the human liberalism wants to give me what is mine, but it seems to procure it for me, not under the title of man, but under that of human, as if it were attainable under this mask. The right of man, the precious work of the revolution have the meaning that the man in me entitles me to this, and that I, as individual i e. As this man, am not entitled, but man has the right and entitled me. Hence, as man, I may well be entitled, but as I am more than man to wit a special man. It may be refused to this very me a special one. If, on the other hand, you insist on the value of your gifts, peep up their price. Do not let yourselves be forced to sell out below price. Do not let yourself be talked into the idea that you'll wear is not worth its price. Do not make yourself ridiculous by a ridiculous price, but imitate the brave man who says, I will sell my life property the animation, not have it at a cheap bargain. Then you have recognized the reverse of communism as the correct thing. And the word then is not give up your property, but get the value out of your property. Over the portal of our time stands. Not let know thyself of Apollo, butter get the value out of thyself pad on cause property robbery, but alien property. And he is talking of this alone is not less existent for unitiescation, session and humanity. It is a pleasent quite to sentimentally call for compassion as a poor victim of robbery when one is just a foolish, cowardly giver of presents. Why here again put the faults on others as if they were robbing us While we are selves do bear the fault in leaving the others unrobbed. The poor are to blame for their being rich men. Universally, no one grows indignant at his but at alien property. They do not, in truth attack property, but the alienation of property. They want to be able to call more, not less, bears. They want to call everything bears. They are fighting therefore, against alieners, or to form a word similar to property, against alienity, and how do they help themselves Therein? Instead of transforming the alien into own, they play impartial and ask only that all property be left to a third party e g. Human society. They invictorate the alien, not in their own ning, but in a third party's. Now the egoistic coloring is wiped off, and everything is so clean and human propertylessness or ragamuffinism. This, then, is the essence of Christianity, as it is essence of all religiousness i e. Godliness, morality, humanity, and only announced itself most clearly and as glad Tidings became a gospel capable of development in the absolute religion. We have before us the most striking development in the present flight against property, a fight which is to bring man to victory and make proppertelessness complete. Victorious humanity is the victory of Christianity, but the Christianity exposed. Thus is feudalism completed, the most all embracing feudal system i e. Perfect rather Mehianism. Once more, then, doubtless a revolution against the feudal system. Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions of the established condition or status the state or society, and is accordingly a political or social act. The latter has, indeed, for its unavoidable consequence, a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it, but from men's discontent with themselves. It is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals are getting up without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The revolution aimed at new arrangements. Insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on institutions. It is not a fight against the established, since if it prospers, the established collapses of itself, it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave be established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overflow of an established order, but by elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social, but as directed toward myself and my owness alone, have an egoistic purpose. Indeed, the revolution commands one to make arrangements, the insurrection demands that he arise or exalt himself. What constitution was to be chosen? This question busied the revolutionary heads and the whole political period films with constitutional fights and constitutional questions. As the social talent, too, were uncommonly invited in society arrangements, philanthropies, etc. The insurgent strives to become CONSTITUTIONALSS, while to get greater clearness, I am thinking up a comparison. The finding of Christianity comes unexpectedly into my mind. On the liberal side, it is noted as a bad point in the first Christians that they preached obedience to the established Heathen civil order, enjoyed recognition of the Heathen authorities, and confidentally delivered a command give to the emperor that which is the Emperor's. Yet how much disturbance arose at the same time against the Roman supremacy. How you did the Jews and even the Romans show themselves against their own temporal government. In short, how popular it was political discontent, those Christians would hear nothing of it, would not side with the liberal tendencies. The time was politically so agitated that, as is said in the Gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arranged him for political intrigue. And yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionist, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him. Why was he not a liberal? Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not an evolutionist like e. G. Caesar, but an insurgent, not a state over turner, but one who straightened himself up. This was why it was for him only a matter of be ye wise as serpents, which expresses the same says as in the special case, that give to the emperor that which is the emperor's. For he was not carrying on any nable or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about and undisturbed by these authorities. Not less indifferent to him than the government were its enemies, for neither understood what he wanted, and he had only to keep them off from him with the wisdom of the serpent. But even though not a him leader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionist, he and every one of the ancient Christians, were so much more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed sublime to the government and its opponents, and absorbed himself from everything that they remained bun to, and who at the same time cut off the sources of life of the whole heathen world, with which the established state must wither away. As a matter of course, precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator, for he walked it in confidently and recklessly, carrying up the building of his temple over it, without heeding the pains of the emerged now as it happened, to the heathen order of the world with a Christian order there likewise a revolution certainly does not bring on the end of an insurrection is not consummated first my intercourse with the world, what does it aim at? I want to have the enjoyment of it. Therefore it must be my property, and therefore I want to win it. I do not want the liberty of men nor their equality. I want only my power over them. I want to make them my property, i e. Material for enjoyment. And if I do not succeed in that, well, then I call even the power over life and death, which church and state reserve to themselves mine brand That officer's widow who, in the flight in Russia, after her leg has been shot away, takes the garter from it, strangles her child, therewith, and then believes to death alongside the corpse grand the them of the infecticide. Who knows if this child had remained alive, how much it might have been to use of the world. The mother murdered it because she wanted to die satisfied and at rest. Perhaps this case still appeals to your sentimentally, and you do not know how to read out of it anything further be it so, I, on my part use it as an example for this, But my satisfaction decides about my relation to men, and that I do not renounce from my access of humility, even the power over life and death. As regards social duties in general, Another does not give me my position toward others. Therefore, neither God nor humanity prescribes to me my relation to men. But I give myself this position. This is more said. Thus I have no duty to others, as I have a duty even to myself e g. That of self preservation, and therefore not suicide. Only so long as I distinguish myself from myself, my immortal sorrow, from my earthly existence, etc. I no longer humble myself before any power. And I recognize that all powers are only my power, which I have to subject at once. When they flatten to become a power against or above me, each of them must be only one of my means to carry my point. As a hound is our power against gain, but is killed by us if it should fall upon us ourselves. All powers that dominate me I then reduce to serving me. The idols exist through me. I need only frame from creating them anew then they exist no longer. Higher powers exist only through my exalting them and abasing myself. Consequently, my relation to the world is this, I no longer do anything for it for God's sake, I do nothing for Man's sake. But what I do I do for my sake. Thus alone does the world satisfy me. While it is characteristic of the religious standpoint in which I include the moral and humane, also that from it everything remains a pious wish him deciderum i e. Another world, matter, something unattained. Thus the general salvation of men, the moral world of a general love, eternal peace, and the cessation of egoism, et cetera. Nothing in this world is perfect. With this miserable phrase, get good part from it and take flight into their closet to God or into their cloud self consciousness. But we remain in this imperfect world because even so we can use it for our self enjoyment. My intercourse with the world consists in my enjoying it and so consuming it for my self enjoyment. Intercourse is the enjoyment of the world, and belongs to my self enjoyment. End of Seption thirty four.