.

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of the bourgeoisie, even that of which all human beings are capable, or could become capable, was tied to a few and withdrawn from the rest : it was a privilege.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

Ο ΛΑΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΕΙΜΜΑΤΙΚΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΟΧΗΣ

MAX STIRNER (II)