Reading Recommendations for a Fellow Anarchist

LBird,

First of all, critiquing the very existence of individuals is not an answer to a criticism of the concept of society. If the individual doesn't exist, society certainly can't exist either (just as the concept of water cannot exist without hydrogen and oxygen atoms).

Second, it is somewhat useful to note that I exist as an individual - there is no other way for me to exist. If I'm not an individual I'm not 'me' and therefore I do not exist... which seems like a bit of a paradox since I happen to be writing this text.

As for the mysterious 'essence' of 'the individual' which you seem to be seeking, I'm sad to say you are once again just asking for an abstraction. There is no Platonic world, where the definite, perfect 'individual' himself/herself exists. The best attempt I could make at a quick definition would be to say that an individual is the one who feels himself/herself separate from the group - an autonomous entity which recognizes its own selfhood and separation from others. And the individualist is the one who values that separation!

If you do not value it, all power to you - live as part of the mob. I prefer, in the spirit of Max Stirner, to be the individual nothing rather than a subservient part of something. The only relations I will yield to are voluntary relations which I consent to fully and which I feel are beneficial to me. Against all other impositions and involuntary relations I will struggle.

I think gravity is more of a law of physics than a personal wilful force... I think it's an overstatement to say that you have a 'relationship' with gravity. In any case, I was speaking of the relationships between people. All physical and organic analogies are misplaced because there are no such phenomena as choice or will in nature. That is the individual element only each of us possesses.

But I think my sceptical heart will not be able to convince your dogmatic minds about the very nature of our existence. Perhaps Georges Palante was right and individualism is really more of a sentiment than a philosophy. If you 'experience' your life and your existence as merely a inseparable part of society, then that is just what you are, but for me that is impossible. The people who uphold the idea of society will always be my adversaries.

LBird,

I agree that we shouldn't talk about biology because biology obviously shows (as you say) that every being is separate. But I do not accept your view that 'society' has any claim on me, or that 'other people' have any claim on me. Apparently your reasoning is that since we all grow up around other people we are now suddenly compelled to interact with these people and we have to forfeit our own self-hood for the sake of some 'social existence' (once again, this is simply sophistry on your part because 'society' does not exist). I do not accept that I owe anyone any debt or that I now have to work for anyone else just because they helped me in the past, or whatever. The only commitments I recognize are those I entered into voluntarily, not ones I was born into. A man who is born into slavery does not have to recognize the validity of his slave-masters, and a man born into 'society' does not have to work for it forever until the end of his days, slaving away and forfeiting the product of his labour for the good of other people (who he might not know or care about). If I like someone and find it useful to help them out - that's up to me. If I don't find you or anyone else at all useful, there is no way I am going to help you out of my own free will. I will not be anyone's pawn.

You are vainly attacking a straw man - even Bakunin said that if someone does not contribute to the collective, he/she is not entitled to the benefits of being in that collective. Similarly I say that if you do not provide me with any benefit, you are not entitled to any benefits I may provide you. I am not a murderer, but I am not your slave. Or the slave of any 'group', whether it be the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the elderly, the sick, the children, the disabled, blacks, whites, englishmen, women, heterosexuals, or any other group you can name. Your whining is all equally meaningless to me.

My sense is the exact opposite. All I keep getting is the same reply, which is completely invalid - the whole theory of me being part of society (which is not true because there is no such thing as society, and even if there was such a thing it has no right to exist and should be abolished). So it is mostly other people here who are being repetitive, not me. Perhaps it is true that I do not fully understand your position, but have you ever thought that this is not my fault? Maybe you should explain yourself better. I just hear the same mantra over and over. I do not accept this mantra (that society exists). Do you have any proof that society exists? Such proof doesn't exist of course, just as proof that god exists does not exist... Imaginary beings don't exist.

I think I understand the practical and psychological conclusions of communism and I never opposed them - all I oppose is that it is silly to say that universal communism is beneficial to all (because it clearly is not). So the simple answer is: make communism voluntary, and let the non-communists live in their own non-communist communes (or in isolation). But alas, this does not seem possible! Apparently even conceiving this thought of not wanting universal communism is bourgeois!
After this the slander begins... I don't understand exactly what problem everyone here has with non-communist organizations. True anarchists endorse any form of organization that is voluntary and benefits all members. Calling me bourgeois or capitalist is not an argument, it is slander.

The only reply I ever get to this is, once again, the same dogma: "you will not escape society, you are a product of society" and other such nonsense which, even if it was true, does not at all invalidate my position of not wanting to be part of this group called 'society'. If you want to organize society, feel free, just leave me out of your plans and don't consider me as part of your group!

As for me sounding like I'm living in the 19th century - if I do it is only because the criticisms levelled against communism in the 19th century are still valid and remain unrefuted. The individualist position stands. This is not to say that communism cannot be endorsed by individualists (some individuals may want to practice communism and be perfectly happy to do so). It just means that communists should recognize the ability and free choice of every independent person to determine for himself or herself what he/she wants in life and what is the best way of getting that personal fulfilment. For me communism just doesn't fit the bill.

I have to tell you that your physical analogies don't work. People can never combine in the way atoms combine - through physical networks of electrons (i.e. physical forces). All relations between people are completely contingent upon the will of the people involved, they can therefore sever and break relations at any given moment for any reason. There is no 'natural force' holding or forcing them together so that they cannot at any time split apart. It's true for example that two people can often perform a task that one person can't perform. But this does not mean that they are anything more than two people working together. They have no magically become 'a couple' or 'a unit'. And adding more people to the group does not make the abstraction any more real. As I said before, 'society' is just shorthand for a large group of people. It has no properties that the individuals themselves do not already have. This is because society can't actually 'do' anything. Only individuals can act and whether they act in unison or in opposition is up to their own choices. There is no natural law forcing them to behave in any particular way. All these Spencerian analogies of 'society as organism' where people who are left free combine perfectly together to form a coherent whole are completely unrealistic.
Furthermore, I can use your theory of 'society' to also justify the existence of such illusory concepts as a 'nation' or a 'tribe' or a 'state'. All these are, as much as society is, just abstractions which have been put into people's heads when they were children in order to make them behave a certain way toward a certain group of individuals. These concepts are all mechanisms of control. They are all designed to limit the individual's free will and his ability to choose his/her own path.

Of course this is also true. But individualists have never thought of people in biological terms. After all, if I look at pure physics, in 3-4 years my body may not share any of the atoms and molecules with the body I have today. So physical reality is not, as you well know, the point of focus of individualist thinkers. The point of focus is the self, who Max Stirner called Der Einzige. You should understand that I am not a reductionist and I'm not reducing 'the human existence' to biology or physics. I am only attempting to, in my own small way, to continue to job of Stirner, Proudhon, and Armand - the men who liberated the individual from the tyranny of other people's ideas.

It is your opinion that is flawed, sadly. But this is because you are still an 'idea man' and you don't think of yourself as an individual. You think of yourself as a unit, or a pawn being rolled around by historical socio-economic forces. You are in an eternal struggle which will never end because it is not a struggle against other people, but instead a mythical 'class struggle' of ideas and abstractions. You live in a sad world which is determined by unstoppable mighty forces, a determinist world in which your choice does not matter and you are only a single particle - a proletarian.

You will never find peace this way, when all you do is look outside of yourself and let the world determine who you are. Just like a man who is religious suffers being determined by god, you will forever suffer being determined by society or history. Only a truly a-theist, a-social, and a-historical person can really be free. Don't you know that in all other cases you are just an instrument of ideology? And the ideologue is never happy until his ideal is achieved - which is impossible in the real world.

Why are you even worrying about 7 billion other people when you haven't even freed yourself? What possible credibility could you have with those 7 billion unfree individuals?

PS. Once again, throwing out labels like 'liberal' or 'bourgeois' is the hallmark of the ‘idea man’, one who lets himself be determined by ideals. You labels are absolutely meaningless.

You are clearly entering into a fallacy by saying that the fact of not having an ideology is an ideology in itself. That's like saying that atheism is type of religion. The negation of ideology is not an ideology anymore than not believing in god means believing in a god. Not wearing a hat is not the same as wearing a hat. I think I am making myself quite clear on that point.

Your other point just sounds like some kind of strange whining: "we communists are the minority and challenge the evil current paradigm, therefore we are correct". The second does not follow from the first. You could be a minority or a majority and still be completely deluded. I think individualists are a much smaller minority and I am just as critical of the current paradigm as you are - so how exactly is that proof of either one of us being right or wrong? Your baseless assertion that you examine history, sociology, or whatever else it is you examine is just that, an assertion. It doesn't mean anything. I could examine a sick person for days and it still wouldn't do me any good because I'm not a doctor. It is similar in the case of any person and 'society'. You cannot examine 'it' and solve 'its' problems because all you are doing is going over abstractions in your head.

In case you haven't noticed, any 'programming' that goes on in society is exactly the opposite of what you claim. The world is filled with propaganda of solidarity, sharing, being nice to others, and all other useless neo-christian collectivist nonsense. You are taught by the machine that you have a duty to upkeep the machine. Good luck with that. As Stirner observed, where have you ever seen propaganda of the ego, of the self? It does not exist. We are told, on a daily basis, to serve the cause of god, the fatherland, the nation, the people, the family, society, the 'good', 'justice', 'freedom', but where is this 'programming of our bourgeois society' you speak of?

When you keep claiming that I do not want to understand your answers, you are clearly wrong. I have been trying to understand, but the answers you provide are so convoluted and unrealistic that I cannot accept them as serious attempts at answering me.
I don't understand how I can answer someone whose ideas are blatantly false, but who justifies them by saying that they are the result of 'historical' or 'social' analysis.

This statement is the height of ignorance because it means you clearly don't know that I am an individual and that you yourself are also an individual. You do not understand who an individual is. You do not accept the basic fact of life, that the only way anything can be explained is from the point of view of the individual. A liberated individual does not care about social forces or historical forces or all these strange processes you keep naming; the ego has no master.
Also, why are you speaking in the plural 'we'?

Your view of life is really dark and depressing. Once again you repeat what you wrote previously, that:

I cannot believe any sane individual would want to live such an empty life devoid of all choice and action. What does it matter whether you are a tool of a slave-master or an ideologue? Both place the same demands on you. You are just a tool in their hands. In a war of ideologies no one can be victorious or satisfied until all others are dead. And then what? Even then it is ideology that wins, not you! You never existed, all you did was slave away for the idea, trying to embody it with all your being.

As for your rather silly thesis that 'non-ideology is ideology' all I can say is that it is laughable. No god is a god, non-red is red, intelligent is stupid, a dog is a cat, existence is non-existence, are all these statements true? Are you so convinced of your own righteousness that you will stop at nothing, even blatant self-contradiction? Do you have no sceptical instinct at all?

It may very well be that you have no individualist instinct in you either. You are a busy-body who looks only to other people, never to himself. Don't be so quick to judge, lest you be judged!

Well, I guess you have your road. Follow the other sheep. You already speak of yourself in the plural - very appropriate in your case. Keep shouting, but no one will listen. The world doesn't need more ideologues or their fanatical followers.
I will forever remain the Rebel.

Excellent! So we finally admit the society is just a group of people! Nothing mystical about it after all! And no, I do not have to be part of society any more than you have to be part of the citizenry of the state or the people of the nation. Any group which can be entered can also be gotten rid of. I wonder why communists scoff at states and nations, but remain so attached to their own Moloch, 'society'.
Do other people's actions have an effect on me? Sure. Does that mean I am now in some mystical union with them, from which I cannot escape? No. The sun also has an effect on me, but I am not part of the sun. I have no obligations towards the sun and the sun has no claims on me. So too with other people - they may affect me but I am not theirs too demand anything from. If they do try to demand anything I will laugh at them, as I would laugh at the sun if it told me to slave away for its sake.
So let's just define society as a group of people and not get into any determinist and absolutist analysis which I expect would be your next step. I do not care about abstractions. People I can talk to, individually. Society is a god for the humanists. And I am certainly not a humanist. I can only echo Stirner when he says that the fall of peoples and of humanity will be the signal of my elevation.

Once again a step forward. So any idea I may have becomes part of my ideology? I can happily subscribe so such a definition. My love of animals is part of my ideology and so is the fact I would love to eat some pancakes for lunch tomorrow. My ideology changes from moment to moment as my beliefs, wants, needs, and whims change. Maybe I'll have sandwiches instead of pancakes. In other words - this is not an ideology at all in the classic sense of the word, it is simply my personality - my self. As such it is unique and indefinable. It can never be shared and can never encompass more than one person at a time. To say that I 'share' ideology with someone would be a meaningless statement. Yes, I can accept this definition of ideology, which is really what I have been speaking of when I talked about non-ideology. Nihilism in its purest form, the anti-ideology.

Now that we are on the same page we could discuss communism on its merits as a practice, not as an abstraction or some 'great future' or a goal for all. I happily endorse communism in some relations! But saying that communism is 'good' is simply a lie. It is not any better or worse than any other model of interaction.

For the individualist communism has one fatal flaw - it requires organization. A communist who is not an idealist (not a believer in the new god, communism) will leave others well enough alone. But what I've noticed from a lot of communists is the exact opposite. They are unwilling to let anyone be self-determined. Why not just say: we like communism and will live in such a way, and you all live in whatever way pleases you! That would be too individualist for you, would it not? Too liberal, too bourgeois?

Since I don't want to be writing an essay here I'm just going to answer your main points without putting much emphasis on details.

If you think the people who vote for Ron Paul and read Atlas Shrugged are real individualists you really must not understand individualism at all. Most of these people are idealists of the worst kind, not to mention the huge numbers of righteous Christian crusaders among them. They bow before god, they bow before 'law' (and their magical piece of paper, the constitution), and they bow before absolutist notions of life and property. The Randians pray to Rand as if she was their god. I can clearly tell you have never talked to these people - they are mindless and completely possessed by their ideas. One good thing I could say about them is that a lot of them (this is not true for the Randians) would leave me alone and not interfere in my life is I didn't interfere with them. Other than that, there is a chasm between individualist anarchists and Christian conservatives. By the way, here in England there are a lot more communists than there are Randians, so it's only America that your argument is applicable for

Where did you ever see any pro-egoist propaganda? I haven't seen any really. On the other hand the whole idea of 'public good' is everywhere. Other than crude materialism, which has absolutely nothing to do with individualism and does appear in a lot of advertising, I do not know what you could be talking about. Meanwhile the whole point of public school and university has been to produce little robots to work for the machine - never for themselves. Just say the word egoism and see what a reception you will get from the average person! Individualism and self-interest are rejected everywhere in favour of phony ideals like 'solidarity', 'charity', or 'responsibility for others'. Society dominates the dialogue, the individual is hardly ever mentioned.

I am aware that people with ideologies and people who have been indoctrinated to never trust their own self exist everywhere. I am surrounded with these morons. The fact is, however, that I do not care for them in the slightest. The job of the individualist is to question and critique all customs, dogmas, and fixed ideas. With each criticism there is hope that some inner scepticism will be awakened within other people which might lead them to discard their silly abstractions. That is what happened to me, so it might also happen to others.

As for calling me deterministic and absolutist - you can't be serious when you say such things. I am anything but that. I am not at all concerned with historical progress or absolute limits and barriers.

Since you clearly don't understand the individualist position (which is, in reality, no position at all, just continued critique) I recommend you read some articles on the subject. Perhaps it is my fault - I am not the most eloquent of people. There is some good stuff, although in limited supply, on the http://theanarchistlibrary.org/.