The Ego and his Own - Max Stirner (ebook reader screen .TXT) 📗

the supreme proprietor we all become equal -- ragamuffins. For the

present, one is still in another's estimation a "ragamuffin," a

"have-nothing"; but then this estimation ceases. We are all ragamuffins

together, and as the aggregate of Communistic society we might call ourselves

a "ragamuffin crew."

When the proletarian shall really have founded his purposed "society" in which

the interval between rich and poor is to be removed, then he will be a

ragamuffin, for then he will feel that it amounts to something to be a

ragamuffin, and might lift "Ragamuffin" to be an honourable form of address,

just as the Revolution did with the word "Citizen." Ragamuffin is his ideal;

we are all to become ragamuffins.

This is the second robbery of the "personal" in the interest of "humanity."

Neither command nor property is left to the individual; the State took the

former, society the latter.

Because in society the most oppressive evils make themselves felt, therefore

the oppressed especially, and consequently the members of the lower regions of

society, think they found the fault in society, and make it their task to

discover the right society. This is only the old phenomenon -- that one

looks for the fault first in everything but himself, and consequently in the

State, in the self-seeking of the rich, etc., which yet have precisely our

fault to thank for their existence.

The reflections and conclusions of Communism look very simple. As matters lie

at this time -- in the present situation with regard to the State, therefore

-- some, and they the majority, are at a disadvantage compared to others, the

minority. In this state of things the former are in a state of prosperity,

the latter in state of need. Hence the present state of things, i.e. the

State itself, must be done away with. And what in its place? Instead of the

isolated state of prosperity -- a general state of prosperity, a *prosperity

of all*.

Through the Revolution the bourgeoisie became omnipotent, and all inequality

was abolished by every one's being raised or degraded to the dignity of a

citizen : the common man -- raised, the aristocrat -- degraded; the third

estate became sole estate, viz., namely, the estate of -- *citizens of the

State*. Now Communism responds: Our dignity and our essence consist not in our

being all -- the equal children of our mother, the State, all born with

equal claim to her love and her protection, but in our all existing *for each

other. This is our equality, or herein we are equal*, in that we, I as well

as you and you and all of you, are active or "labor" each one for the rest; in

that each of us is a laborer, then. The point for us is not what we are *for

the State (citizens), not our citizenship therefore, but what we are for

each other*, that each of us exists only through the other, who, caring for my

wants, at the same time sees his own satisfied by me. He labors e. g. for my

clothing (tailor), I for his need of amusement (comedy-writer, rope-dancer),

he for my food (farmer), I for his instruction (scientist). It is labor that

constitutes our dignity and our -- equality.

What advantage does citizenship bring us? Burdens! And how high is our labor

appraised? As low as possible! But labor is our sole value all the same: that

we are laborers is the best thing about us, this is our significance in the

world, and therefore it must be our consideration too and must come to receive

consideration. What can you meet us with? Surely nothing but -- labor too.

Only for labor or services do we owe you a recompense, not for your bare

existence; not for what you are for yourselves either, but only for what you

are for us. By what have you claims on us? Perhaps by your high birth? No,

only by what you do for us that is desirable or useful. Be it thus then: we

are willing to be worth to you only so much as we do for you; but you are to

be held likewise by us. Services determine value, -- i.e. those services

that are worth something to us, and consequently *labors for each other,

labors for the common good. Let each one be in the other's eyes a laborer*.

He who accomplishes something useful is inferior to none, or -- all laborers

(laborers, of course, in the sense of laborers "for the common good," i. e.,

communistic laborers) are equal. But, as the laborer is worth his wages,(74)

let the wages too be equal.

As long as faith sufficed for man's honor and dignity, no labor, however

harassing, could be objected to if it only did not hinder a man in his faith.

Now, on the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself into man,

condemning a man to machine-like labor amounts to the same thing as slavery.

If a factory worker must tire himself to death twelve hours and more, he is

cut off from becoming man. Every labor is to have the intent that the man be

satisfied. Therefore he must become a master in it too, i.e. be able to

perform it as a totality. He who in a pin factory only puts on the heads, only

draws the wire, works, as it were, mechanically, like a machine; he remains

half-trained, does not become a master: his labor cannot satisfy him, it can

only fatigue him. His labor is nothing by itself, has no object in

itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into another's hands,

and is used (exploited) by this other. For this laborer in another's service

there is no enjoyment of a cultivated mind, at most, crude amusements:

culture, you see, is barred against him. To be a good Christian one needs

only to believe, and that can be done under the most oppressive

circumstances. Hence the Christian-minded take care only of the oppressed

laborers' piety, their patience, submission, etc. Only so long as the

downtrodden classes were Christians could they bear all their misery: for

Christianity does not let their murmurings and exasperation rise. Now the

hushing of desires is no longer enough, but their sating is demanded. The

bourgeoisie has proclaimed the gospel of the enjoyment of the world, of

material enjoyment, and now wonders that this doctrine finds adherents among

us poor: it has shown that not faith and poverty, but culture and possessions,

make a man blessed; we proletarians understand that too.

The commonalty freed us from the orders and arbitrariness of individuals. But

that arbitrariness was left which springs from the conjuncture of situations,

and may be called the fortuity of circumstances; favoring fortune. and those

"favored by fortune," still remain.

When, e. g., a branch of industry is ruined and thousands of laborers become

breadless, people think reasonably enough to acknowledge that it is not the

individual who must bear the blame, but that "the evil lies in the situation."

Let us change the situation then, but let us change it thoroughly, and so that

its fortuity becomes powerless. and a law! Let us no longer be slaves of

chance! Let us create a new order that makes an end of fluctuations. Let

this order then be sacred!

Formerly one had to suit the lords to come to anything; after the Revolution

the word was "Grasp fortune!" Luck-hunting or hazard-playing, civil life was

absorbed in this. Then, alongside this, the demand that he who has obtained

something shall not frivolously stake it again.

Strange and yet supremely natural contradiction. Competition, in which alone

civil or political life unrolls itself, is a game of luck through and through,

from the speculations of the exchange down to the solicitation of offices, the

hunt for customers, looking for work, aspiring to promotion and decorations,

the second-hand dealer's petty haggling, etc. If one succeeds in supplanting

and outbidding his rivals, then the "lucky throw" is made; for it must be

taken as a piece of luck to begin with that the victor sees himself equipped

with an ability (even though it has been developed by the most careful

industry) against which the others do not know how to rise, consequently that

-- no abler ones are found. And now those who ply their daily lives in the

midst of these changes of fortune without seeing any harm in it are seized

with the most virtuous indignation when their own principle appears in naked

form and "breeds misfortune" as -- hazard-playing. Hazard-playing, you see,

is too clear, too barefaced a competition, and, like every decided nakedness,

offends honourable modesty.

The Socialists want to put a stop to this activity of chance, and to form a

society in which men are no longer dependent on fortune, but free.

In the most natural way in the world this endeavor first utters itself as

hatred of the "unfortunate" against the "fortunate," i.e., of those for whom

fortune has done little or nothing, against those for whom it has done

everything. But properly the ill- feeling is not directed against the

fortunate, but against fortune, this rotten spot of the commonalty.

As the Communists first declare free activity to be man's essence, they, like

all work-day dispositions, need a Sunday; like all material endeavors, they

need a God, an uplifting and edification alongside their witless "labor."

That the Communist sees in you the man, the brother, is only the Sunday side

of Communism. According to the work-day side he does not by any means take you

as man simply, but as human laborer or laboring man. The first view has in it

the liberal principle; in the second, illiberality is concealed. If you were a

"lazy-bones," he would not indeed fail to recognize the man in you, but would

endeavor to cleanse him as a "lazy man" from laziness and to convert you to

the faith that labor is man's "destiny and calling."

Therefore he shows a double face: with the one he takes heed that the

spiritual man be satisfied, with the other he looks about him for means for

the material or corporeal man. He gives man a twofold post -- an office of

material acquisition and one of spiritual.

The commonalty had thrown open spiritual and material goods, and left it

with each one to reach out for them if he liked.

Communism really procures them for each one, presses them upon him, and

compels him to acquire them. It takes seriously the idea that, because only

spiritual and material goods make us men, we must unquestionably acquire these

goods in order to be man. The commonalty made acquisition free; Communism

compels to acquisition, and recognizes only the acquirer, him who practices

a trade. It is not