The Ego and his Own by Max Stirner (most read books txt) 📕

have value. In this way

the circle of liberalism, which has its good principle in man and human

liberty, its bad in the, egoist and everything private, its God in the former,

its devil in the latter, rounds itself off completely; and, if the special or

private person lost his value in the State (no personal prerogative), if in

the "laborers' or ragamuffins' society" special (private) property is no

longer recognized, so in "human society" everything special or private will be

left out of account; and, when "pure criticism" shall have accomplished its

arduous task, then it will be known just what we must look upon as private,

and what, "penetrated with a sense of our nothingness," we must -- let stand.

Because State and Society do not suffice for humane liberalism, it negates

both, and at the same time retains them. So at one time the cry is that the

task of the day is "not a political, but a social, one," and then again the

"free State" is promised for the future. In truth, "human society" is both --

the most general State and the most general society. Only against the limited

State is it asserted that it makes too much stir about spiritual private

interests (e. g. people's religious belief), and against limited society

that it makes too much of material private interests. Both are to leave

private interests to private people, and, as human society, concern themselves

solely about general human interests.

The politicians, thinking to abolish personal will, self-will or

arbitrariness, did not observe that through property(79) our self-will(80)

gained a secure place of refuge.

The Socialists, taking away property too, do not notice that this secures

itself a continued existence in self-ownership. Is it only money and goods,

then, that are a property. or is every opinion something of mine, something of

my own?

So every opinion must be abolished or made impersonal. The person is

entitled to no opinion, but, as self-will was transferred to the State,

property to society, so opinion too must be transferred to something

general, "Man," and thereby become a general human opinion.

If opinion persists, then I have my God (why, God exists only as "my God," he

is an opinion or my "faith"), and consequently my faith, my religion, my

thoughts, my ideals. Therefore a general human faith must come into existence,

the "fanaticism of liberty." For this would be a faith that agreed with the

"essence of man," and, because only "man" is reasonable (you and I might be

very unreasonable!), a reasonable faith.

As self-will and property become powerless, so must self-ownership or egoism

in general.

In this supreme development of "free man" egoism, self-ownership, is combated

on principle, and such subordinate ends as the social "welfare" of the

Socialists, etc., vanish before the lofty "idea of humanity." Everything that

is not a "general human" entity is something separate, satisfies only some or

one; or, if it satisfies all, it does this to them only as individuals, not as

men, and is therefore called "egoistic."

To the Socialists welfare is still the supreme aim, as free rivalry was

the approved thing to the political liberals; now welfare is free too, and we

are free to achieve welfare, just as he who wanted to enter into rivalry

(competition) was free to do so.

But to take part in the rivalry you need only to be commoners; to take part

in the welfare, only to be laborers. Neither reaches the point of being

synonymous with "man." It is "truly well" with man only when he is also

"intellectually free!" For man is mind: therefore all powers that are alien to

him, the mind -- all superhuman, heavenly, unhuman powers -- must be

overthrown and the name "man" must be above every name.

So in this end of the modern age (age of the moderns) there returns again, as

the main point, what had been the main point at its beginning: "intellectual

liberty."

To the Communist in particular the humane liberal says: If society prescribes

to you your activity, then this is indeed free from the influence of the

individual, i.e. the egoist, but it still does not on that account need to

be a purely human activity, nor you to be a complete organ of humanity. What

kind of activity society demands of you remains accidental, you know; it

might give you a place in building a temple or something of that sort, or,

even if not that, you might yet on your own impulse be active for something

foolish, therefore unhuman; yes, more yet, you really labor only to nourish

yourself, in general to live, for dear life's sake, not for the glorification

of humanity. Consequently free activity is not attained till you make yourself

free from all stupidities, from everything non-human, i.e., egoistic

(pertaining only to the individual, not to the Man in the individual),

dissipate all untrue thoughts that obscure man or the idea of humanity: in

short, when you are not merely unhampered in your activity, but the substance

too of your activity is only what is human, and you live and work only for

humanity. But this is not the case so long as the aim of your effort is only

your welfare and that of all; what you do for the society of ragamuffins is

not yet anything done for "human society."

Laboring does not alone make you a man, because it is something formal and its

object accidental; the question is who you that labor are. As far as laboring

goes, you might do it from an egoistic (material) impulse, merely to procure

nourishment and the like; it must be a labor furthering humanity, calculated

for the good of humanity, serving historical (i.e. human) evolution -- in

short, a human labor. This implies two things: one, that it be useful to

humanity; next, that it be the work of a "man." The first alone may be the

case with every labor, as even the labors of nature, e. g. of animals, are

utilized by humanity for the furthering of science, etc.; the second requires

that he who labors should know the human object of his labor; and, as he can

have this consciousness only when he knows himself as man, the crucial

condition is -- self-consciousness.

Unquestionably much is already attained when you cease to be a

"fragment-laborer,"(81) yet therewith you only get a view of the whole of your

labor, and acquire a consciousness about it, which is still far removed from a

self-consciousness, a consciousness about your true "self" or "essence," Man.

The laborer has still remaining the desire for a "higher consciousness,"

which, because the activity of labor is unable to quiet it, he satisfies in a

leisure hour. Hence leisure stands by the side of his labor, and he sees

himself compelled to proclaim labor and idling human in one breath, yes, to

attribute the true elevation to the idler, the leisure-enjoyer. He labors only

to get rid of labor; he wants to make labor free, only that he may be free

from labor.

In fine, his work has no satisfying substance, because it is only imposed by

society, only a stint, a task, a calling; and, conversely, his society does

not satisfy, because it gives only work.

His labor ought to satisfy him as a man; instead of that, it satisfies

society; society ought to treat him as a man, and it treats him as -- a

rag-tag laborer, or a laboring ragamuffin.

Labor and society are of use to him not as he needs them as a man, but only as

he needs them as an "egoist."

Such is the attitude of criticism toward labor. It points to "mind," wages the

war "of mind with the masses,"(82) and pronounces communistic labor

unintellectual mass-labor. Averse to labor as they are, the masses love to

make labor easy for themselves. In literature, which is today furnished in

mass, this aversion to labor begets the universally-known superficiality,

which puts from it "the toil of research."(83)

Therefore humane liberalism says: You want labor; all right, we want it

likewise, but we want it in the fullest measure. We want it, not that we may

gain spare time, but that we may find all satisfaction in it itself. We want

labor because it is our self-development.

But then the labor too must be adapted to that end! Man is honored only by

human, self-conscious labor, only by the labor that has for its end no

"egoistic" purpose, but Man, and is Man's self-revelation; so that the saying

should be laboro, ergo sum, I labor, therefore I am a man. The humane

liberal wants that labor of the mind which works up all material; he wants

the mind, that leaves no thing quiet or in its existing condition, that

acquiesces in nothing, analyzes everything, criticises anew every result that

has been gained. This restless mind is the true laborer, it obliterates

prejudices, shatters limits and narrownesses, and raises man above everything

that would like to dominate over him, while the Communist labors only for

himself, and not even freely, but from necessity, -- in short, represents a

man condemned to hard labor.

The laborer of such a type is not "egoistic," because he does not labor for

individuals, neither for himself nor for other individuals, not for private

men therefore, but for humanity and its progress: he does not ease individual

pains, does not care for individual wants, but removes limits within which

humanity is pressed, dispels prejudices which dominate an entire time,

vanquishes hindrances that obstruct the path of all, clears away errors in

which men entangle themselves, discovers truths which are found through him

for all and for all time; in short -- he lives and labors for humanity.

Now, in the first place, the discoverer of a great truth doubtless knows that

it can be useful to the rest of men, and, as a jealous withholding furnishes

him no enjoyment, he communicates it; but, even though he has the

consciousness that his communication is highly valuable to the rest, yet he

has in no wise sought and found his truth for the sake of the rest, but for

his own sake, because he himself desired it, because darkness and fancies left

him no rest till he had procured for himself light and enlightenment to the

best of his powers.

He labors, therefore, for his own sake and for the satisfaction of his want.

That along with this he was also useful to others, yes, to posterity, does not

take from his labor the egoistic character.

In the next place, if he did labor only on his own account, like the rest, why

should his act be human, those of the rest unhuman, i. e., egoistic? Perhaps

because this book, painting, symphony, etc., is the labor of his whole being,

because he has done his best in it, has spread himself out wholly and is

wholly to