Subject: Non Serviam, Issue #1
From: [email-masked] (Paul Southworth)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:00:15 GMT

At last, the first issue of "non serviam".  For issue #0, and for
a copy of Max Stirner's book "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (an
English translation available in Macintosh MS-Word format, compressed
and BinHexed) visit the ftp site "red.css.itd.umich.edu" (141.211.182.91)
and look in /poli/Non.Serviam.

I am not associated with the Non Serviam project.  Please direct your
queries to [email-masked].

Paul Southworth
Archivist
red.css.itd.umich.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        non serviam #1
                        **************

Contents:    Editor's Word
             John Beverley Robinson: "Egoism"
             Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and
               The Individualist Alternative (serial)

***********************************************************************

Editor's Word
_____________

This is the first "real" issue of  non serviam, and the present theme,
as will also be the theme of the next issue, #2, is as presented in #0:

       By asserting oneself - by insurrection - one is an egoist,
    one who puts himself first. For the next issue of "non serviam",
    #1, I would therefore appreciate articles about "what egoism
    means" in general. Both questions of the type "is hedonism the
    real egoism", and articles pondering the status of egoism in
    ethics are appreciated. Psychological angles of attack are also
    appreciated.

Dissenting from this theme, I have a long and well-written article from
Ken Knudson which I intend to publish in full. Given the length of it,
it will be sent as a serial. It will also be available on the ftp site
in not too long a time. I have, on the version here, left the page
numberings for easier access to footnotes.

I asked about "what egoism means". I should perhaps also have asked what
egoism does  not  mean. For there are a lot of misconceptions about what
egoism is. Religious literature incessantly warns us not to think about
our own best interest, but the interest of the heavenly, of Man, and of
just about everything else. But seldom is there found any advise to
follow exactly this own interest. Why then these warnings against self
interest, on and on, again and again? Surely not to counter any opposing
system of ideas. For there have been close to none. What then is left
to counter but - the individual himself!
But to counter the individual is not a position that looks very good, so
it has to be disguised, disguised as an attack on some "Deep Evil"
lurking in self interest - in egoism. So the common view of egoism is
far from formed by observation of actual egoists, but by propaganda in
its disfavor. I will now list what I consider the types most typically
mistaken for egoists, both by critics of egoism and by "egoists":

THE PSYCHOPATH: The psychopath is characterized by a tendency of always
being in the right and of manipulating others. He typically takes little
heed of the interests of people he confronts. The reasoning displayed by
those who identify psychopaths with egoists are usually of the type
"He does not care for others - THUS he must care only for himself ...",
which sets up a dichotomy without any basis in reality. Identifying an
individual pursuing his own interests with a psychopath is a powerful
means of keeping individuals "in line".

THE EGO-BOOSTER: Somewhat related to the psychopath, in that he tries to
make himself "big" in the eyes of others often at the expense of some
third person. But the Ego-Booster cares a lot about the judgement of
others. In fact - he depends on it. Getting approval from other people
dominates his way of life. His focus is not on himself, but on something
else - his self IMAGE.

THE MATERIALIST: The glutton, the carelessly promiscuous and the one who
spends all his time gathering possessions is often seen as the egoist
by people who have seen through the traps above. A friend of mine wrote
in his thesis on Stirner that these were "vulgar egoists". They sure
enough care for their own interests. But they only care for PART of
their own interest, giving in to some urge to dominate them. They either
care only for the taste in their mouths right-here-right-now, or for
the feelings in other parts. They do not satisfy the whole chap, as
Stirner wrote.

THE IDEALIST: Not too typical, but still - important. Can range from
the proponent of Fichte+s Absolute or Transcendental Ego, to the person
who has as his sole goal in this life to spread his own ideas. The first
of these is not a proper egoist in that the "I" he is talking about is
not the personal, individual "I" but - an abstraction, the mere IDEA of
an ego. The latter is just the materialist mentality let loose in the
realm of ideas.

THE FORMAL EGOIST: The formal egoist is perhaps the most elusively like
to the proper egoist. For the formal egoist knows that an egoist looks
to the satisfaction of the whole chap. Actually the formal egoist can
know more about egoism than the egoist himself. For the formal egoist
really wants to be an egoist - and he follows the recipe he has found
to the last little detail, and sets out to find even new nuances. There
is only one thing missing, and that is his realization that there is no
recipe. So though a behaviorist would just the Formal Egoist to be equal
to a proper egoist, he is truly far off, in that his real drive is Duty.
Egoism is not a religious or ideological system to be followed by duty,
but simply the being and awareness of oneself.

It is important to see that the different conceptions of egoism depend
strongly on what is put into the concept of an "ego". Which ego is then
"the true one"? Is it the Bodily Ego, the Empirical Ego, the Self Image,
the Creative Ego, the Teleological Ego, the Will ... ? I will return to
this in the next issue of non serviam, #2.

Svein Olav

____________________________________________________________________

Egoism
by John Beverley Robinson
_________________________

There is no word more generally misinterpreted than the word 
egoism, in its modern sense. In the first place, it is supposed 
to mean devotion to self interest, without regard to the 
interest of others. It is thus opposed to altruism - devotion 
to others and sacrifice of self. This interpretation is due to 
the use of the word thus antithetically by Herbert Spencer.

Again, it is identified with hedonism or eudaimonism, or 
epicureanism, philosophies that teach that the attainment of 
pleasure or happiness or advantage, whichever you may choose to 
phrase it, is the rule of life.

Modern egoism, as propounded by Stirner and Nietzsche, and 
expounded by Ibsen, Shaw and others, is all these; but it is 
more. It is the realization by the individual that he is an 
individual; that, as far as he is concerned, he is the only 
individual.

For each one of us stands alone in the midst of a universe. He 
is surrounded by sights and sounds which he interprets as 
exterior to himself, although all he knows of them are the 
impressions on his retina and ear drums and other organs of 
sense. The universe for him is measured by these sensations; 
they are, for him, the universe. Some of them he interprets as 
denoting other individuals, whom he conceives as more or less 
like himself. But none of these is himself. He stands apart. 
His consciousness, and the desires and gratifications that 
enter into it, is a thing unique; no other can enter into it.

However near and dear to you may be your wife, children, 
friends, they are not you; they are outside of you. You are 
forever alone. Your thoughts and emotions are yours alone. 
There is no other who experiences your thoughts or your 
feelings.

No doubt it gives you pleasure when others think as you do, and 
Inform you of it through language; or when others enjoy the 
same things that you do. Moreover, quite apart from their 
enjoying the same things that you enjoy, it gives you pleasure 
to see them enjoy themselves in any way. Such gratification to 
the individual is the pleasure of sympathy, one of the most 
acute pleasures possible for most people.

According to your sympathy, you will take pleasure in your own 
happiness or in the happiness of other people; but it is always 
your own happiness you seek. The most profound egoist may be 
the most complete altruist; but he knows that his altruism is, 
at the bottom, nothing but self-indulgence.

But egoism is more than this. It is the realization by the 
individual that he is above all institutions and all formulas; 
that they exist only so far as he chooses to make them his own 
by accepting them.

When you see clearly that you are the measure of the universe, 
that everything that exists exists for you only so far as it is 
reflected in your own consciousness, you become a new man; you 
see everything by a new light: you stand on a height and feel 
the fresh air blowing on your face; and find new strength and 
glory in it.

Whatever gods you worship, you realize that they are your gods, 
the product of your own mind, terrible or amiable, as you may 
choose to depict them. You hold them in your hand, and play 
with them, as a child with its paper dolls; for you have 
learned not to fear them, that they are but the "imaginations 
of your heart."

All the ideals which men generally think are realities, you 
have learned to see through; you have learned that they are 
your ideals. Whether you have originated them, which is 
unlikely, or have accepted somebody else's ideals, makes no 
difference. They are your ideals just so far as you accept 
them. The priest is reverend only so far as you reverence him. 
If you cease to reverence him, he is no longer reverend for 
you. You have power to make and unmake priests as easily as you 
can make and unmake gods. You are the one of whom the poet 
tells, who stands unmoved, though the universe fall in 
fragments about you.

And all the other ideals by which men are moved, to which men 
are enslaved, for which men afflict themselves, have no power 
over you; you are no longer afraid of them, for you know them 
to be your own ideals, made in your own mind, for your own 
pleasure, to be changed or ignored, just as you choose to 
change or ignore them. They are your own little pets, to be 
played with, not to be feared.

"The State" or "The Government" is idealized by the many as a 
thing above them, to be reverenced and feared. They call it "My 
Country," and if you utter the magic words, they will rush to 
kill their friends, whom they would not injure by so much as a 
pin scratch, if they were not intoxicated and blinded by their 
ideal. Most men are deprived of their reason under the 
influence of their ideals. Moved by the ideal of "religion" or 
"patriotism" or "morality," they fly at each others' throats - 
they, who are otherwise often the gentlest of men! But their 
ideals are for them like the "fixed ideas" of lunatics. They 
become irrational and irresponsible under the influence of 
their ideals. They will not only destroy others, but they will 
quite sink their own interests, and rush madly to destroy 
themselves as a sacrifice to the all-devouring ideal. Curious, 
is it not, to one who looks on with a philosophical mind?

But the egoist has no ideals, for the knowledge that his ideals 
are only his ideals, frees him from their domination. He acts 
for his own interest, not for the interest of ideals. He will 
neither hang a man nor whip a child in the interest of 
"morality," if it is disagreeable to him to do so.

He has no reverence for "The State." He knows that "The 
Government" is but a set of men, mostly as big fools as he is 
himself, many of them bigger. If the State does things that 
benefit him, he will support it; if it attacks him and 
encroaches on his liberty, he will evade it by any means in his 
power, if he is not strong enough to withstand it. He is a man 
without a country.

"The Flag," that most men adore, as men always adore symbols, 
worshipping the symbol more than the principle it is supposed 
to set forth, is for the egoist but a rather inharmonious piece 
of patch-work; and anybody may walk on it or spit on it if they 
will, without exciting his emotion any more than if it were a 
tarpaulin that they walked upon or .spat upon. The principles 
that it symbolizes, he will maintain as far as it seems to his 
advantage to maintain them; but if the principles require him 
to kill people or be killed himself, you will have to 
demonstrate to him just what benefit he will gain by killing or 
being killed, before you can persuade him to uphold them.

When the judge enters court in his toggery, (judges and 
ministers and professors know the value of toggery in 
impressing the populace) the egoist is unterrified. He has not 
even any respect for "The Law." If the law happens to be to his 
advantage, he will avail himself of it; if it invades his 
liberty he will transgress it as far as he thinks it wise to do 
so. But he has no regard for it as a thing supernal. It is to 
him the clumsy creation of them who still "sit in darkness."

Nor does he bow the knee to Morality - Sacred Morality! Some of 
its precepts he may accept, if he chooses to do so; but you 
cannot scare him off by telling him it is not "right." He 
usually prefers not to kill or steal; but if he must kill or 
steal to save himself, he will do it with a good heart, and 
without any qualms of "conscience." And "morality" will never 
persuade him to injure others when it is of no advantage to 
himself. He will not be found among a band of "white caps," 
flogging and burning poor devils, because their actions do not 
conform to the dictates of "morality," though they have injured 
none by such actions; nor will he have any hand in persecuting 
helpless girls, and throwing them out into the street, when he 
has received no ill at their hands.

To his friends - to those who deserve the truth from him, - he 
will tell the truth; but you cannot force the truth from him 
because he is "afraid to tell a lie." He has no fear, not even 
of perjury, for he knows that oaths are but devices to enslave 
the mind by an appeal to supernatural fears.

And for all the other small, tenuous ideals, with which we have 
fettered our minds and to which we have shrunk our petty lives; 
they are for the egoist as though they were not.

"Filial love and respect" he will give to his parents if they 
have earned it by deserving it. If they have beaten him in 
infancy, and scorned him in childhood, and domineered over him 
in maturity, he may possibly love them in spite of 
maltreatment; but if they have alienated his affection, they 
will not reawaken it by an appeal to "duty."

In brief, egoism in its modern interpretation, is the 
antithesis, not of altruism, but of idealism. The ordinary man 
- the idealist - subordinates his interests to the interests of 
his ideals, and usually suffers for it. The egoist is fooled by 
no ideals: he discards them or uses them, as may suit his own 
interest. If he likes to be altruistic, he will sacrifice 
himself for others; but only because he likes to do so; he 
demands no gratitude nor glory in return.

____________________________________________________________________

Ken Knudson:

                          A Critique of Communism
                                    and
                       The Individualist Alternative

                                  - 1 -

                           A NOTE TO READERS

            I address myself in  these  pages  primarily  to  those
       readers   of   "Anarchy"  who  call  themselves  "communist-
       anarchists." It is my purpose in this article to  show  that
       this  label  is  a  contradiction  in  terms and that anyone
       accepting it must do so by a lack of clear understanding  of
       what  the  words "anarchist" and "communist" really mean. It
       is my hope that in driving a wedge between these two  words,
       the  communist  side  will  suffer  at  the  expense  of the
       anarchist.

            I make no claims to originality in these pages. Most of
       what I have to say has been said before and much better. The
       economics is taken primarily from the  writings  of  Pierre-
       Joseph  Proudhon, William B. Greene, and Benjamin R. Tucker.
       The philosophy from Max Stirner, Tucker  again,  and,  to  a
       lesser extent, James L.  Walker.

            I hope you won't be put off by my clumsy prose.  I'm  a
       scientist  by  trade,  not  a professional writer. I implore
       you, therefore, not to mistake style  for  content.  If  you
       want  both the content and good style may I suggest Tucker's
       "Instead of a Book". Unfortunately, this volume has been out
       of  print  since 1897, but the better libraries - especially
       those in the United States - should have  it.   If  you  can
       read  French, I recommend the economic writings of Proudhon.
       "General Idea of the Revolution in the  Nineteenth  Century"
       is particularly good and has been translated into English by
       the American individualist, John Beverley Robinson. (Freedom
       Press, 1923). Also in English is Tucker's translation of one
       of  Proudhon's  earliest  works,  the  well-known  "What  is
       Property?".   This book is not as good as the "General Idea"
       book, but it has the advantage of being currently  available
       in  paperback  in  both languages. A word of warning: unless
       you are thoroughly  familiar  with  Proudhon,  I  would  not
       recommend   the  popular  Macmillan  "Papermac"  edition  of
       "Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon"; they seem  to
       have been selected with irrelevance as their only criterion.
       Like  so  many  other  great   writers,   Proudhon   suffers
       tremendously  when quoted out of context and this particular
       edition gives, on average, less than a page  per  selection.
       Better  to  read his worst book completely than to be misled
       by  disconnected   excerpts   like   these.    Finally   the
       individualist  philosophy,  egoism,  is  best  found  in Max
       Stirner's "The Ego and His Own". This book suffers  somewhat
       from a very difficult style (which wasn't aided by Stirner's
       wariness of the Prussian censor), but if you can get through
       his obscure references and biblical quotes, I think you will
       find the task worth the effort.

                                  - 2 -

            H. L. Mencken once observed that just  because  a  rose
       smells  better than a cabbage doesn't mean to say it makes a
       better soup.   I  feel  the  same  way  about  individualist
       anarchism.  At  first  whiff,  the  altruist  rose may smell
       better than the individualist cabbage, but the  former  sure
       makes  a  lousy  soup. In the following pages I hope to show
       that the latter makes a better one.

       Ken Knudson
       Geneva, Switzerland
       March, 1971

                                  - 3 -

                       COMMUNISM: FOR THE COMMON GOOD

         "Communism is a 9 letter word used by inferior magicians
         with the wrong alchemical formula for transforming earth
         into gold."
                              - Allen Ginsberg
                                "Wichita Vortex Sutra"

            By way of prelude  to  the  individualist  critique  of
       communism,  I  should like to look briefly at the communist-
       anarchists' critique of their Marxist  brothers.  Anarchists
       and  Marxists  have  traditionally  been  at  odds  with one
       another: Bakunin and Marx split the First International over
       their differences a century ago; Emma Goldman virtually made
       her living in the 1920's from  writing  books  and  magazine
       articles  about  her  "disillusionment  in  Russia"; in May,
       1937, the communists and anarchists took time off from their
       war  against  Franco to butcher each other in the streets of
       Barcelona; and the May days of  '68  saw  French  anarchists
       directing  more abuse against the communist CGT than against
       the Gaullist government.

            What is the nature of these  differences?  Perhaps  the
       most  concise  answer  to  this question came in 1906 from a
       veritable expert on the subject: Joseph Stalin. He wrote  in
       "Anarchism  or Socialism?" that there were essentially three
       main  accusations  which  (communist)   anarchists   leveled
       against Marxism:
            1) that the Marxists aren't really  communists  because
       they  would  "preserve the two institutions which constitute
       the foundation of [the  capitalist]  system:  representative
       government and wage labour"; [1]
            2)  that  the  Marxists  "are   not   revolutionaries",
       "repudiate  violent  revolution",  and  "want  to  establish
       Socialism only by means of ballot papers"; [2]
            3) that the Marxists "actually want  to  establish  not
       the   dictatorship   of   the  proletariat,  but  their  own
       dictatorship over the proletariat." [3]
            Stalin goes on to quote Marx and Engels to "prove" that
       "everything the anarchists say on this subject is either the
       result of stupidity, or despicable slander." [4]  Today  the
       anarchists  have  the  advantage of history on their side to
       show just who  was  slandering  whom.  I  won't  insult  the
       reader's   intelligence   by  pointing  out  how  all  three
       objections to Marxism were sustained by Uncle Joe himself  a
       few decades later.

            But let us look at these three accusations from another
       point of view. Aren't the communist-anarchists simply saying
       in their holier-than-thou attitude, "I'm more communist than
       you,  I'm  more  revolutionary than you, I'm more consistent

                                  - 4 -

       than you?" What's wrong with Marxism, they say, is NOT  that
       it  is  for  communism, violent revolution and dictatorship,
       but that it goes about attaining its goals by half-measures,
       compromises,   and   pussyfooting   around.   Individualist-
       anarchists have a different criticism. We  reject  communism
       per  se, violent revolution per se, and dictatorship per se.
       My purpose here is to try to explain why.

                             *  *  *  *  *

____________________________________________________________________

***********************************************************************
* "Whoever is a complete person does not need - to be an authority!"  *
*                        From +The False Principle of Our Education+  *
***********************************************************************

Svein Olav