The intention connected with competition is less that of doing the thing
the best, than that of doing it as profitably, as productively, as possible.
People study to get a position (study to be a good breadwinner), study
groveling and flattery, routine and "business
sense," work "for appearances and cash." So while it's
apparently about doing "good
service," in truth, a person is only looking out for a "good business"
and money-making. He supposedly does the thing only for the sake of the thing,
but in fact, because of the profit it yields. Indeed, he would prefer not to be censor, but he wants to be-promoted;
he would like to judge, administer, etc. according to his best convictions, but
he fears transfer or even dismissal; above all things, a person has to –live. So
this hustle and bustle is a fight for dear life, and, in a step-by-step progression,
for more or less "good living." And yet, all their toil and trouble
brings most of them nothing but " bitter life" and " bitter
poverty." All the bitter earnestness for this! Ceaseless self-promotion doesn't let us take a breath, to come to a
peaceful enjoyment; we don't take pleasure in our possessions. But the
organization of work affects only such work as others can do for us,
butchering, tillage, etc.; the rest remain egoistic, because no one can, for
example, produce your musical compositions, carry out your painting projects,
etc., in your place: Nobody can replace Raphael's works. The latter are the
works of a unique individual, which only he is capable of achieving, whereas
the former deserve to be called "human": because what is one's own in
them is of little importance, and just about "any human being" can be
trained for them. Since now society can take into consideration only work for
the public good or human work, so one who does something unique remains without
its care; indeed, he might find himself disturbed by its intervention. The
unique one will no doubt work his way out from society, but society brings
forth no one who is unique. It is therefore always helpful that we reach an
agreement about human works, so that they don't take up all our time and effort
as they do under competition. To this extent, communism will bear its fruits.
Before the rule of the bourgeoisie, even that of which all human beings are
capable, or could become capable, was tied to a few and withdrawn from the rest
: it was a privilege. To the bourgeoisie it seemed fair to put back into play
everything that appeared to be there for every "human being." But
because it was put back into play, it was still given to no one, but rather
left to each to grab by his human powers. By this the mind was turned toward
the acquisition of the human, which from then on beckoned to everyone, and there emerged a tendency which one hears
so loudly complained about under the name of "materialism." Communism
seeks to block its course, by spreading the faith that what's human isn't worth
so much trouble, and with a sensible arrangement, could be gained without the
great expenditure of time and energy that seemed necessary up to now. But for
whom is time to be gained? Why does a human being need more time than is
necessary to refresh his weary labor power? Here communism is silent. Why? To
take pleasure in himself as unique, after he has done his part as a human being!
In the first joy at being allowed to stretch out their hands toward everything
human, people forgot to want anything else, and competed boldly for it, as if
the possession of the human were the goal of all our desires. They've run
themselves to exhaustion, and are gradually realizing that "possession
doesn't bring happiness." So they're thinking of getting what they need by
an easier bargain, and spending only as much time and effort on it as its
indispensability requires. Wealth declines in price, and a contented poverty,
the carefree pauper, becomes the seductive ideal.
Let's look back again. The world belongs to the children of this world,
human children; it is no longer God's world, but the human world. As much as
each human being can get of it, let him call his own ; but the true human
being, the state, human society or humanity will see to it that each makes
nothing else his own except what he appropriates as a human being, i.e., in a
human way. Inhuman appropriation is that which human beings don't allow, i.e.,
it is a "criminal" appropriation, just as human appropriation is
conversely a "lawful" one, one acquired in the "legal way."
So people speak since the revolution. But my property is not a thing, as this
has an existence independent of me; only my power is my own. Not this tree, but
my power over it or my capability to dispose of it, is what is mine. Now, how
does one express this power in a wrong way? People say I have a right to this
tree, or it is my rightful property. So I've gained it through power. That the
power must persist so that the tree may also be held, or better, that the power
is not a thing existing in itself, but has existence only in the powerful I, in me, the powerful
one, is forgotten. Power, like my other characteristics, such as humanity, majesty,
etc., is elevated to something existing in itself, so that it still exists long
after it has ceased to be my power. Thus turned into a ghost, power is-right.
This immortalized power doesn't even expire with my death, but rather is
transferred or "bequeathed." Things now actually don't belong to me, but to right. On the other
hand, this is nothing more than a delusion. Because the individual's power
becomes permanent and a right only by others combining their power with his.
The delusion lies in their believing that they can't withdraw their power
again. Again, the same phenomenon, that the power is separated from me. I can't
take back the power that I have given to the possessor. One has "invested
power:' has given away his power, has renounced
thinking better of it. A property owner can give up his power and his right to a thing by giving
it away, squandering it, and the like. And couldn't we likewise let go of the
power that we lend to him? The upright person, the righteous person, desires to
call nothing his own that he does not have “by right" or have the right
to, thus only rightful property. Who is to be the judge and grant him his right? In the end, really, the
human being, who grants him human rights: then he can say, in an infinitely
broader sense than Terence, "humani nihil a me alienum puto," i.e.,
the human is my property. Do what he will, from this standpoint, he won't get
away from a judge, and in our time the various judges that had been chosen have
set themselves against each other in two persons who are mortal enemies, namely
in God and humanity. The one appeals to divine right, the other to human right or
the rights of humanity. This much is clear: that in neither case does the individual entitle himself. Seek out for me an action that today would not be a violation of right!
At every moment the one side tramples human rights underfoot, while the
opposing side can't open its mouth without bringing forth a blasphemy against
divine right. Give alms, then you mock human rights, because the relationship
between the beggar and the benefactor is an inhuman one; utter a doubt, then
you sin against divine right. Eat dry bread with satisfaction, then you violate
human rights with your equanimity; eat it with dissatisfaction, then you revile
divine right with your reluctance. There's not one among you who doesn't commit
a crime at every moment; your speeches are crimes, and every inhibition of your
freedom of speech is no less a crime. You are altogether criminals! But you are
so only because you all stand on the ground of right, i.e., because you don't
even know, and understand how to value, the fact that you are criminals. Inviolable
or sacred property has grown on this very ground: it is a legal concept.
Christianity is not destroyed, but the believers are right if they
have trustingly assumed up to now that every battle against it could only serve
for its purification and reinforcement; because it has actually only been
transfigured, and "Christianity exposed" is the-human Christianity.
We still live wholly in the Christian age, and those who get the angriest about
it are the ones who most eagerly contribute to completing it. The more human,
the better feudalism has become to us; because the less that we believe that it
is still feudalism, the more confidently we take it for ownness and think that
we have found what is "most our own" when we discover "the
human." Liberalism wants to give me what is mine, but means to obtain it for
me not under the title of mine, but under that of "the human." As if
it was to be reached under this mask! Human rights, the costly work of the
revolution, have the meaning that the human being in me entitles me to this or
that; I as an individual, as this one, am not entitled, but the human being has
the right and entitles me. So as a human being I may well be entitled; but
since I am more than a human being, namely, an odd human being, it could get
denied to just me, the odd one. If, on the other hand, you hold to the value of
your gift, keep it at price, don't let yourself be forced to get rid of it
below price, don't let yourself be convinced that your product is not worth the
price, don't make yourself ridiculous by a "ridiculous bargain price;" but
imitate the courageous one who says: "I will sell my life (property) dear,
the enemy shall not have it at a cheap bargain''; then you have recognized the
reverse of communism as the suitable thing, and then it's not: "Give up
your property!” but rather "actualize your property!” Over the gateway of our time stands not the Apollonian slogan "Know
thyself," but "Actualize yourself!" Proudhon calls property
"robbery" (le vol). But alien property- and he's talking only of
this-comes to exist as much through renunciation, surrender, and meekness; it
is a gift. Why so sentimentally call for pity as a poor victim of robbery, when
you are just a foolish, cowardly gift-giver? Why here again blame others as if
they had robbed us, when we ourselves are to blame in leaving the others unrobbed? The poor are to blame for the existence of the rich. No one at all gets worked up over his property, but over alien property.
People don't in truth attack property, but the alienation of property. They
want to be able to call more, not less, theirs; they want to call everything
theirs. So they fight against alienness, or, to form a word similar to
property, against alienty. And how do they help themselves in this ? Instead of
transforming the alien into their own, they play at being impartial and demand
only that all property be left to a third party (such as human society). They
claim the alien not in their own name but in the name of a third party. Now the
"egoistic" veneer is washed away, and everything is so clean
and-human! Propertylessness or pauperism, this then is the "essence of Christianity;"as it is the essence of all religiosity (devotion, morality, humanity), and
announced itself most clearly only in the "absolute religion," and
became, as glad tidings, a gospel capable of development. We have the most
striking development before us in the current fight against property, a
struggle that is supposed to lead "humanity" to victory and make propertylessness
complete: victorious humanity is the victory of-Christianity. But the
"Christianity exposed" in this way is feudalism perfected, the
all-embracing feudal system, i.e., perfect pauperism. So, probably, this is
once again a "revolution" against the feudal system? Revolution and
insurrection should not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in a radical change of conditions, of the
prevailing condition or status, the state or society, and is therefore a
political or social act; the latter indeed has a transformation of conditions
as its inevitable result, but doesn't start from it, but from the discontent of
human beings with themselves; it is not an armed uprising, but a rising up of
individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from
it. The revolution is aimed at new arrangements, while the insurrection leads
us to no longer let ourselves be arranged, but rather to arrange ourselves, and
sets no radiant hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against
the established, since, if it prospers, the established will collapse of
itself; it is only a working of my way out of the established. If I leave the established,
it is dead and falls into decay. Since now my aim is not the overthrow of the
established order but my rising up above it, so my intention and action are not
a political or social intention and action, but, since they are directed solely
toward me and my ownness, an egoistic intention and action. The revolution
commands one to make arrangements; the insurrection demands that one stand or
raise himself up. What constitution was to be chosen?-this question busied
revolutionary heads, and the entire political period is bubbling with
constitutional fights and constitutional questions, as the social talents too
were unusually inventive about social arrangements (phalansteries and the like).
The insurrectionist strives to become constitutionless.
Max Stirner - The Unique and Its Property
Underworld Amusements
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
