INDIVIDUALISM VS. INDIVIDUALISM
by Laure Akai ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The notion of individualism has varying connotations in Russian and in
American perceptions. An individualist can be understood as someone who
does not understand the need to submit to the collective will, or an
unabashed hedonist, or simply a non-conformist. The most common notion if
individualism seems to be that of a philosophy of unrestricted personal
freedom, regardless of consequence. This philosophy, although a reality,
should not be confused with anarchistic individualism; any understanding as
such is really a perversion of its philosophy which holds as sacrisanct the
fundamental notion of the worth of each individual.
This misunderstanding of both the terms anarchist and individualist runs
rampant and is evident for example in the categorization of Max Stirner,
perhaps the greatest individualist anarchist thinker, as a spiritual father
of the far right; his classic book "The Ego and Its Own" has been published
in America and abroad as a part in series on the far right, including
fascism. However far from expounding a philosophy of individualism at all
costs, Stirner pointed out that an individual's actions should not infringe
upon others; such acts would infringe upon the individual rights of others.
It is an important concept in individualist philosophy that the rights of
the individual are universal.
With the aforementioned as our philosophical premise we can start an
inquiry as to the nature of individualist behaviour and what is not.
First and foremost, a system of economic priveledge is anti- individualist.
Economic priveledge rests on different relations of power. This can mean a
disparagement in access to capital or it can be monopolization and
protectionism. In nearly every case, economic priveledge relies on the
exploitation of others. Strong centralized power structures can function to
ensure the priveledge of an elite. Economic priveledge is
anti-individualist, not only in the sense that priveledge must be, by its
very meaning, exclusive, non-universal but also due to the fact that it
denies others through mechanisms of protectionism (most commonly the law)
and that it most always rests on the nonwilling exploitation of others.
Thus in far right capitalist ideology, the relation between owner and
worker is rationalized. Every owner believes they have created a job for
their worker and that, if that worker feels exploited, they are free to get
another job or to create their own business. The capitalist is working from
a point of advantage as the system of wage labour is in place and few even
question their relation to the creation of wealth. The system does not
freely allow for people to work outside it, or to even freely work
independently inside it as it uses control of the means of exchange (money)
and protectionism of capital to prevent people from creating an economy
that would cut into its profit margins. The worker if not free - not free
to take her or his share of the profits (as Americans say, property is 9/10
of the law), nor are they free to withold their labour as they would be
denied access to the means of exchange. Most assertions of individual
rights would result in reprisals. Fair relations cannot exist in such a
rigged framework; in individualist philosophy, the individual must be able
to demand an end to infringement without fear of reprisal.
The same goes for any situation where ownership is controlled centrally,
bureaucratically and is protected by a political system with the power of
conducting reprisal, most often through law and imprisonment, but also
through other means of denial. (a structure of priveledge thus becomes very
convenient to keep people in order.)
It can also be argued that a system of representative government, and
subsequently, a system of representative law is also anti- individualist.
While one could argue that not everybody wants to participate in decision
making processes and that that therefore, representation is necessary, one
can also see clear examples of the "representatives" of the people making
decisions that do not represent their desires and in fact encroach on their
civil liberties. There is no system existing where the individual can
legally refuse a decision not representing their wishes once it has been
encoded into law. Thus a young Russian man may be lucky enough to find ways
out of military service - but maybe not. The ethical considerations of the
individual are inconsequential. Representatives have also been known to
make laws which simply are extensions of their moral fetishes; such are
America's anti-sodomy and anti-adultery laws, which, though rarely
enforced, exist on the books. Putting such abuses aside, representative
government can be a vehicle for the extreme repression of the individual.
Laws that protect the individual (i.e. against murder) are relatively few.
Most laws protect a non-individual entity: government, party, structure,
church, property.
Representative government cannot be changed by an individuals absorption
into it; the structures remain the same. Decision making must be open to
those whose life the decisions effect if they so choose.
In social life too individualist philosophy cannot be seen as mere hedonism
at anybody s expense. The idea (unfortunately too often people's
misconception of anarchy) that one can indiscriminately go around killing,
raping and doing as they please does not stem from an anarcho-individualist
philosophy. "Your right to swing the frying pan stops where my face
starts," is a little understanding we have. If you expect others to respect
your rights, you must naturally, logically extend this respect to others.
Doing what you want, when it hurts others, is not a celebration of
individual rights, but of your own unlimited rights, which, if they
infringe seriously on others, must rest in some power relation.
Social systems of reprisal act to repress the individual. Most often these
systems are based in a moralism of intolerance (for example like that
currently preached by many churches) rather than an ethic of respect for
diversity. The social rights of homosexuals, for example, are often
infringed upon because of some elusive structure of moral repression
whereas their relations, being consensual, have no element of coercion and
therefore infringement in them. An individualist ethic must be tolerant of
difference, both natural and chosen. If somebody wants to tattoo their
face, walk around naked, etc., this must be respected as it has no bearing
on your decisions, for example, to walk around clothed. Prejudice of all
sorts, be it racism, sexism, homophobia, national chauvinism, has no place
in an anarcho-individualist philosophy as it sees people as members of
groups, not as individuals.
Individualist philosophy, therefore, is one of the highest respect for the
individual, not an infantile disorder of the ego, not a lofty
rationalization for carrying out actions which, more likely than not, are
not product of true desires but of forces outside the individual. It does
not preclude forms of human community and cooperation. On the contrary, an
individualist ethic can include the highest forms of (voluntary) community
and cooperation (the anarchist idea of free association). It is an idea of
respect, not disrespect - of the respect of each individual's desire for
self-realisation, unimpeded, sans power structures and factors of social
interference, and of natural desire, whatever that might encompass.
Written for the magazine "Osvobohkdyeneyi Leechonostee" ("The Liberation of
the Individual") (1992)
http://www.infoshop.org/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=71
