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

settlement to be? One might as well ask that I cast a child's

nativity. What a slave will do as soon as he has broken his fetters, one must

--await.

In Kaiser's pamphlet, worthless for lack of form as well as substance (*"Die

Persönlichkeit des Eigentümers in Bezug auf den Socialismus und Communismus*,"

etc.), he hopes from the State that it will bring about a leveling of

property. Always the State! Herr Papa! As the Church was proclaimed and looked

upon as the "mother" of believers, so the State has altogether the face of the

provident father.

Competition shows itself most strictly connected with the principle of

civism. Is it anything else than equality (égalité)? And is not equality a

product of that same Revolution which was brought on by the commonalty, the

middle classes? As no one is barred from competing with all in the State

(except the prince, because he represents the State itself) and working

himself up to their height, yes, overthrowing or exploiting them for his own

advantage, soaring above them and by stronger exertion depriving them of their

favorable circumstances -- this serves as a clear proof that before the

State's judgment-seat every one has only the value of a "simple individual"

and may not count on any favoritism. Outrun and outbid each other as much as

you like and can; that shall not trouble me, the State! Among yourselves you

are free in competing, you are competitors; that is your social position.

But before me, the State, you are nothing but "simple individuals"!(71)

What in the form of principle or theory was propounded as the equality of all

has found here in competition its realization and practical carrying out; for

égalité is -- free competition. All are, before the State --simple

individuals; in society, or in relation to each other -- competitors.

I need be nothing further than a simple individual to be able to compete with

all others aside from the prince and his family: a freedom which formerly was

made impossible by the fact that only by means of one's corporation, and

within it, did one enjoy any freedom of effort.

In the guild and feudality the State is in an intolerant and fastidious

attitude, granting privileges; in competition and liberalism it is in a

tolerant and indulgent attitude, granting only patents (letters assuring the

applicant that the business stands open (patent) to him) or "concessions."

Now, as the State has thus left everything to the applicants, it must come

in conflict with all, because each and all are entitled to make application.

It will be "stormed," and will go down in this storm.

Is "free competition" then really "free?" nay, is it really a "competition" --

to wit, one of persons -- as it gives itself out to be because on this title

it bases its right? It originated, you know, in persons becoming free of all

personal rule. Is a competition "free" which the State, this ruler in the

civic principle, hems in by a thousand barriers? There is a rich manufacturer

doing a brilliant business, and I should like to compete with him. "Go ahead,"

says the State, "I have no objection to make to your person as competitor."

Yes, I reply, but for that I need a space for buildings, I need money! "That's

bad; but, if you have no money, you cannot compete. You must not take anything

from anybody, for I protect property and grant it privileges." Free

competition is not "free," because I lack the THINGS for competition. Against

my person no objection can be made, but because I have not the things my

person too must step to the rear. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps

that manufacturer? Why, from him I could take them away! No, the State has

them as property, the manufacturer only as fief, as possession.

But, since it is no use trying it with the manufacturer, I will compete with

that professor of jurisprudence; the man is a booby, and I, who know a hundred

times more than he, shall make his class-room empty. "Have you studied and

graduated, friend?" No, but what of that? I understand abundantly what is

necessary for instruction in that department. "Sorry, but competition is not

'free' here. Against your person there is nothing to be said, but the thing,

the doctor's diploma, is lacking. And this diploma I, the State, demand. Ask

me for it respectfully first; then we will see what is to be done."

This, therefore, is the "freedom" of competition. The State, my lord, first

qualifies me to compete.

But do persons really compete? No, again things only! Moneys in the first

place, etc.

In the rivalry one will always be left behind another (e. g. a poetaster

behind a poet). But it makes a difference whether the means that the unlucky

competitor lacks are personal or material, and likewise whether the material

means can be won by personal energy or are to be obtained only by grace,

only as a present; as when e. g. the poorer man must leave, i. e. present,

to the rich man his riches. But, if I must all along wait for the State's

approval to obtain or to use (e. g. in the case of graduation) the means,

I have the means by the grace of the State.(72)

Free competition, therefore, has only the following meaning: To the State all

rank as its equal children, and every one can scud and run to earn the

State's goods and largesse. Therefore all do chase after havings, holdings,

possessions (be it of money or offices, titles of honor, etc.), after the

things.

In the mind of the commonalty every one is possessor or "owner." Now, whence

comes it that the most have in fact next to nothing? From this, that the most

are already joyful over being possessors at all, even though it be of some

rags, as children are joyful in their first trousers or even the first penny

that is presented to them. More precisely, however, the matter is to be taken

as follows. Liberalism came forward at once with the declaration that it

belonged to man's essence not to be property, but proprietor. As the

consideration here was about "man," not about the individual, the how-much

(which formed exactly the point of the individual's special interest) was left

to him. Hence the individual's egoism retained room for the freest play in

this how- much, and carried on an indefatigable competition.

However, the lucky egoism had to become a snag in the way of the less

fortunate, and the latter, still keeping its feet planted on the principle of

humanity, put forward the question as to how-much of possession, and answered

it to the effect that "man must have as much as he requires."

Will it be possible for my egoism to let itself be satisfied with that? What

"man" requires furnishes by no means a scale for measuring me and my needs;

for I may have use for less or more. I must rather have so much as I am

competent to appropriate.

Competition suffers from the unfavorable circumstance that the means for

competing are not at every one's command, because they are not taken from

personality, but from accident. Most are without means, and for this reason

without goods.

Hence the Socialists demand the means for all, and aim at a society that

shall offer means. Your money value, say they, we no longer recognize as your

"competence"; you must show another competence -- to wit, your *working

force*. In the possession of a property, or as "possessor," man does certainly

show himself as man; it was for this reason that we let the possessor, whom we

called "proprietor," keep his standing so long. Yet you possess the things

only so long as you are not "put out of this property."

The possessor is competent, but only so far as the others are incompetent.

Since your ware forms your competence only so long as you are competent to

defend it (i.e. as we are not competent to do anything with it), look

about you for another competence; for we now, by our might, surpass your

alleged competence.

It was an extraordinarily large gain made, when the point of being regarded as

possessors was put through. Therein bondservice was abolished, and every one

who till then had been bound to the lord's service, and more or less had been

his property, now became a "lord." But henceforth your having, and what you

have, are no longer adequate and no longer recognized; per contra, your

working and your work rise in value. We now respect your subduing things, as

we formerly did your possessing them. Your work is your competence! You are

lord or possessor only of what comes by work, not by inheritance. But as

at the time everything has come by inheritance, and every copper that you

possess bears not a labor-stamp but an inheritance-stamp, everything must be

melted over.

But is my work then really, as the Communists suppose, my sole competence? or

does not this consist rather in everything that I am competent for? And does

not the workers' society itself have to concede this, e. g., in supporting

also the sick, children, old men -- in short, those who are incapable of work?

These are still competent for a good deal, e. g. for instance, to preserve

their life instead of taking it. If they are competent to cause you to desire

their continued existence, they have a power over you. To him who exercised

utterly no power over you, you would vouchsafe nothing; he might perish.

Therefore, what you are competent for is your competence! If you are

competent to furnish pleasure to thousands, then thousands will pay you an

honorarium for it; for it would stand in your power to forbear doing it, hence

they must purchase your deed. If you are not competent to captivate any one,

you may simply starve.

Now am I, who am competent for much, perchance to have no advantage over the

less competent?

We are all in the midst of abundance; now shall I not help myself as well as I

can, but only wait and see how much is left me in an equal division?

Against competition there rises up the principle of ragamuffin society --

partition.

To be looked upon as a mere part, part of society, the individual cannot

bear -- because he is more; his uniqueness puts from it this limited

conception.

Hence he does not await his competence from the sharing of others, and even in

the workers' society there arises the misgiving that in an equal partition the

strong will be exploited by the weak; he awaits his competence rather from

himself, and says now, what I am competent to have, that is my competence.

What competence does not the child possess in its