That doesn’t answer why you think that is the correct interpretation of Christianity.
And you’re defending female genital mutilation. Bold stance. (If I said that wrong, I’m pretty sure Lorena Bobbitt approves.)
Now you are being stupid again. I just state how it is, I am not “defending” anything.
Christianity has had the habit of undermining the rolen of women in indigenous societies, which was my original statement before you burrowed this rabbit hole.
I’m all about undermining roles if they’re stupid ones.
There is no tension. This is a false dilemma. That’s because there is no such thing as unchosen obligations. The only duty one has is to oneself, and that is chosen.
You owe as much to them (other evaluators) as you owe to your competing values—right order that recognizes value is sourced in the evaluator, so every evaluator must be treated as Value in itself. Pivot that and you will sharpen all the right edges, and smooth away all the wrong ones.
People have wildly different opinions.
For most people the truth would lie in between. A question of nature, type, character - both collective and individual. There is a tribe of pure egoists, but this relies on the existence of a greater, more collectivist collective, in which it is embedded and which allows it its LARPing.
The statement “The only duty one has is to oneself” is itself an imposition on the collective, an attempt at legislating other people, so it is self-contradicting. The not self-contradicting version of this statement would be “The only duty I have is to myself”.
I totally agree on the last statement. But the tension is there, it’s part of the fun in being alive!
Food for thought:
“What were we really talking about before, hein, about the state of the world, about the state of society?”
“Why, we were talking about the horrible, dehumanizing state in which most people live.”
“So, we were basically discussing how poorly people live in the society we live in, or rather, how dehumanizing this society is?”
“Yes, that’s right.”
“So, you criticize society based on how people in general live in it; that’s the central point of your critique, right? Since people are unhappy, society can be considered a failure, isn’t that what you think?”
“Yes, I think you summed it up well.”
“Is it a point beyond debate, then, that you feel deeply dissatisfied with this inhumane society you live in?”
“Yes, without a doubt.”
“And would you like to live in another society, if possible?”
“Of course I’d like to live in a just society, or at least one as just as possible.”
“But you can’t do that right now, right? Why? Are you unable to find a society that fits your concept of good-ness, or are you unable to leave the society you belong to for any reason?”
“Both, actually. I understand that all known human societies present essentially the same problems. And I also can’t simply abandon the country where I live, for various reasons, including economic ones.”
“I’m not reading you very well. Where does your indignation with society’s injustices stem from? Isn’t it a desire for change? So you don’t believe that the concept of justice that guides you when you point out injustice can be applied to the world you live in, anywhere, any place in it?”
“I’m an idealist. I believe in radical change of the situation, of the status quo, but not under the conditions in which society is currently configured.”
“You believe in magic, then?”
“No, I don’t believe in magic, I believe that only a radical change, like a bloody revolution, could lead to the establishment of a more just society.”
“We could discuss the moral effects of a bloody revolution in public morality later, but for now, let me see if I understand the central point of your worldview, your ideal: the world needs to change radically, right?”
“Yes, as it currently stands, everyone, or almost everyone, is unhappy.”
“What about the leaders of your society, your country? Do none of them possess any moral qualities that lead them to seek the improvements you so desire?”
“Political leaders, without exception, are puppets of large corporations or those with a lot of money. They have no morality or social vision.”
“But how could they be different in your ideal society?”
“By strict control over the behavior of every member of government, and every member of society in general.”
“So, in your ideal society, the politician, the leader, will not have high moral standards; he will simply be kept on a leash?”
“You put it very bluntly, but yes, there would have to be real control over the actions of every person involved in government, and every citizen, for everyone to have their freedom assured.”
“And are you somehow convinced that such a thing, such control, wouldn’t be possible in the society you live in today?”
“No, it’s impossible. Nowadays, everything depends on how much money you have; the more money someone has, the less control you can exert over such person.”*
*
“Control—that’s the key term I need to understand in your speech, control? Those who have money have control over their lives, while those who are poor don’t. Is that what you think?”
“Yes, that’s basically it. The point is that most people are unhappy because they have no control over their lives; they’re basically slaves to capital.”
“But in your ideal society, everyone will have to be kept under control too, right?”
“Yes, but there’s a crucial difference: wealth will be more equally distributed.”
“So, as long as wealth is fairly distributed, people can relinquish control over their lives, their actions, their opinions— the central issue in human life is access to money, right? As long as the money is equally distributed among all, everything else is tangential, secondary?”
“Money needs to be properly distributed, that’s a fact.”
“But if it’s a fact that man can’t live on bread alone, he can’t live on money alone either, right? Man needs other things in life, he needs a life purpose, right?”
“Of course he does.”
“So do you agree with me that this purpose is something that naturally comes before money and is way more important than money? And that, therefore, even without money, such a goal would still be important to man, to any man?”
“I agree, but in my ideal society, there would be values other than money, because money would no longer be a concern. Only when a person stops worrying about whether they’ll be able to support themselves next month can they freely pursue life goals. Before that, there’s no way, because we need to survive first and foremost.”
“But such noble ideals must be sanctioned by society, right? Someone can’t simply want to be selfish, right? You yourself stipulated that society must exercise strict control over everyone to prevent disruption and arbitrariness?”
“Yes, but you seem to want to frame my point of view negatively. I don’t believe in a government that interferes 100 percent in its citizens’ lives. I believe in a certain degree of freedom. But it’s clear that individuals who only see themselves and want to benefit from others must be eradicated from this society.”
“It’s not true that I want to analyze your point of view negatively. But I want you to realize how redundant it is. I want to understand what you’re saying. Consider the nature of your circular thinking: your complaint about today’s society is that most people don’t have a dignified life because they are subject to the will of those in power, that is, those with money. You admit that this is the way the current society is configured. In other words, people live this way, unsatisfactorily, following the dictates of the society in which they live. Since you say you don’t have the power to change this society, I can deduce that for you, others, the majority, don’t have that power either. Power is a privilege. But in the ideal society, things won’t change; power will continue to be a privilege, but it won’t be exercised in the name of capital, but of society, of the collective. People will remain enslaved, and in the name of the society in which they live, only, the central value of that society will shift, from capital to collective well-being. It turns out that in your current society, collective well-being is already presented as the central value of everything, but, according to you, it’s just not put into practice. Are you able to read me and understand where I’m coming from?”
“Once again, you present my point of view negatively. The society I envision will not be enslaved. Because rulers will also be held accountable for their actions, not the same as today’s facade rulers.”
“Well, actually, you strike me as one of those perpetually dissatisfied types. The very concept of an ideal society seems contradictory to your nature. You question, you don’t conform—an ideal society fully fulfills its purpose, so there’s nothing to question about it; conformity is the rule for all people. See North Korea. But when such a state of social perfection is achieved, the society itself, that is, its members, because society is an abstraction, the members are real— everything disappears, and in its place there’s something else, something resembling a human society, yes, but in reality much closer to a… hive. That’s why, you see, I call your thinking a product of the hive mind.”
“What would you suggest in exchange for this? That I simply become a conformist like you?”
“Really, man, what I’d really like is for you to think deeply about the ideas you defend. Because it’s obvious that you’re carried away by emotion and don’t analyze your own ideas deeply. The worst thing a man can do is not blindly follow another—become a sheep—but fail to deeply analyze his own ideas. Let me conclude. You complain about the deplorable state of our current society. You see no possibility of change—everything is rotten, in every stratum, in every tiny corner of it. The only solution is to erase it and start all over again, ex nihilo, based on moral values higher than the simple accumulation of money. Here, your case is already dead, but you don’t realize it. You assume that the entire society is rotten; this, by logical deduction, includes all members of society, including those who aspire to social change!Or no, wait, of course you’ll tell me that some members of society certainly aren’t rotten. Among them, of course, is you. The problem is their powerlessness, and yours, right? They, and you, have no power to change anything. But if they don’t have power, then what are they? There isn’t a single individual without power, let alone a multitude! So they don’t change things, perhaps because they don’t want to? Because they’re cowards? Because they’re conformists? Doesn’t it follow that the world is divided between the unscrupulous and the cowardly? What exactly do you want to improve here, then? Do you want to improve a world of rotten and/or cowardly people? Why? Won’t they simply express their rottenness and cowardice in another way? Or will they magically cease to be corrupt when society is rebuilt ex nihilo? Let me continue. I’m sorry, but you didn’t interrupt me, and when I start, I go on and on. You could argue that the problem is capital, always that blessed capital. I heard there’s a beautiful book with that title. The problem isn’t people’s corruption, it’s the world that revolves around those who have the most. Put an end to this scenario, and there won’t be so much rot and cowardice in the world anymore. But I don’t accept simplistic answers to anything, so I’ll continue to object to you right there. I would respond that when you present moral complaints—and saying that people live dissatisfied under capitalism is a moral complaint, a moral condemnation of that system—you need to respond to the problem you present with a morally higher solution. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in morality. But you clearly do. So when you present a solution to the problems you identify in the society you live in, you should, by logical deduction, try to improve things. People are oppressed - what is the solution to this, to oppress them more, to oppress them to the point where all their autonomy disappears, to the point where they become drones? People need to live under control—well, aren’t they controlled enough in the current situation? Wait, the problem is that they’re not controlled enough, that everyone does whatever they want? They need to be controlled so that the collective well-being is assured? But isn’t that an argument similar to the one the guys who run things these days use? Do you realize that what you’re really looking for is a change of masters? Would you agree with me on that at least ? If I manage to realize that you’ve at least followed me this far, we can begin— I said BEGIN— to talk in depth about man and society!”
I don’t equate duty to oneself as not loving other people. Again, this is a false dichotomy.
With all the selfish individual egos we have these days it’s a wonder how we maintain society or civilization at all. There is an end to this zero sum game for as long as it continues where at the end of it everybody becomes the losers, where noone are the winners. 
As promised, let me deal now with the notions of anarchy (“no government”, “no authority” or “no hierarchy”) and power (potestas). If I get a bit long-winded, that’s because, contrary to what simple minds think, the topics are complex.
1 Like
Yet another false dichotomy. If you put the power back into the hands of the people who originally have it—that is to say, if you recognize and acknowledge personhood— then anarchism is self-rule without need of a state except to facilitate in such matters. That only sustainably works if everyone is self-governed by mutual recognition… to the point they understand AND appreciate when the hammer (of the people) smacks down on them when they violate (knock out of balance) mutual recognition. In other words, when they stop playing fair and start cheating, they get kicked out out of the game until they’re ready to play like winners instead of losers. In a community of mutual recognition, the only way you can win is if nobody cheats, because the game comes to a screeching halt until all the players are playing according to the rules of mutual recognition. So it isn’t good for the community if a person stops playing by the rules. It is in the community‘s best interest to recognize the personhood of the individual— by smacking the hammer down until they are back in the game.
“Now let us talk about anarchism. I think it’s safe to assume you know the meaning of polysemy?”
“Of course. Multiple meanings for a single word.”
“Exactly. And anarchism is a good example of a polysemic word. Anarchism ultimately comes from the Greek ἀναρχία, that is, ἀ (no, without, -less) + αρχία (which has many different meanings: leadership, sovereignty, government, authority, hegemony, and is present in the term hierarchy). Anarchy can then be translated as “no government”, “no leaders”, “absence of authority” or even “no hierarchy”. The natural polysemy of the term implies that it can be used to describe many different things, from a hypothetical society where the notions of authority and hierarchy are absent to the situation of a subject who is not submitted to the will or power of others in his private life.”
“I get your point, but when people criticize anarchy, they’re generally referring to a society without rulers, and such thing doesn’t seem possible!”
“Nope, you didn’t “get my point”, not at all. I’m stating people are not aware, when they employ the term anarchism, that it can have different meanings according to the person who employs it. And, also, that it can apply to different circumstances and situations, and to specific stages of certain situations. One can be an anarchist in many different ways. One can be an anarchist in relation to something and a hierarchist [that’s the best term we can find to oppose anarchism: a believer in rank, in the sacredness of social division] in relation to others.”
“I fail to see how the idea is defensible in any possible way. We’re social animals who need others for pretty much everything. And society needs rules, auth…”
“Sorry to interrupt, it’s not like me, but this must be the thousandth time you’ve said that. I’m not a monk and certainly don’t have an endless amount of time to waste on others’ circumlocutions. The notion that humans are social animals do not escape anarchists of any brand or color. In fact, if anything, they believe in this a bit too much. Also, ἀναρχία is not the same as ἀνομία (lawlessness), complete absence of laws. No human is exempt from following some rules, the main one being self-preservation, which translates at the species level into the desire to keep humanity alive coûte que coûte. But I believe you know this. So let me make you a provocative question. What is your relation to authority?”
“Well, I believe some authority is necessary, even if it’s rarely exercised by really decent people.”
“Emphasis on the “rarely” and the “decent”. See, your judgmental tone implies a rejection, if not of all, at least of most authority, right? You reject authority not exercised by the truly decent.”
“Nope, I don’t reject it like a rebellious teenager. I think any authority is preferable to chaos, to anarchy.”
“Here you endorse the false equivalence between anarchy and chaos. I don’t remember any anarchist theorist who ever advocated chaos. You must be misspelling nihilism. Anyway, your argument is that authority is preferable even when it’s corrupt, right? The most hypocritical and mischievous rulers are preferable to no rulers at all, huh?”
“Unfortunately, yes, because without any kind of rule, society can’t subsist.”
“Again, ruler is different from rule. A ruler is an enforcer of rules. Rule is a term which may apply to many different contexts and no human being subscribes to absolutely no rule. The ruler as such is there to impose rules, or to represent hierarchy, the notion that “some guys are bigger than others.” A ruler is there to be followed, to be obeyed, to be worshipped, to be feared. His rules are not so much followed than they are feared. Disobeying them implies a visit to the local precinct. Now, a rule you impose yourself is not something you fear, on the contrary, it’s something whose necessity you’ve come to realize.”
“Wait, you make it sound like all imposed norms are bad. It’s not like that, at all. Some may be arbitrary, yes, but some are necessary. People need to respect others’ houses or personal belongings, for instance, and how are they supposed to do it in anarchy?”
“In anarchy? What does it mean “in anarchy”? I remember you saying anarchy was never, ever, instantiated in real life? So you’ve no instance to back up your notion of what happens “in anarchy”, right? Your only examples are of what happens when the police is absent. You need and respect the police, isn’t that right? That’s what we need most?”
“What we need most are people who respect rules and understand that society is a gathering of individuals, not an “each man for himself” jungle.”
“Who thinks that way? Or rather, I should better ask, who does not think like that? Remember what you just said: most rulers are corrupted. If most of them are corrupted, it means most of them do not actually follow rules, they only pretend to. And if they only pretend to follow rules, the guys who are hierarchically lesser than them have no desire to follow rules they deem as fake, as make believe, right? So it’s always a game of who pretends the most and the better in society. Everyone feigns to obey the rules, but most, like you, think the enforcers of rules themselves do not live by them. So everyone doesn’t live by the rules either, because they are just words on paper anyway. In the end we are always back at the starting point: the rules we really follow or would like to follow are those of our own making. The ones we freely choose to adopt.”
“I’m a decent person, I surely follow certain social rules I deem necessary, it’s only…”
“I’m pretty sure you’re a decent person. Otherwise you wouldn’t display any kind of social concern. Anarchists of the classical ilk were also decent people who only wanted society to be fair to all. Their naiveté rested on their inability to perceive what most people want, and that’s not a better society or a paradise on earth, but to live as comfortably as possible. If they, if most, manage to attain such a comfortable life, they couldn’t care less if half the global population dies of hunger. The suffering of others become a fact of life, and is then internalized as an abstraction. In such a way that “oh, what a sad world we live in!” is generally followed by “what is there for dinner?” The mere and brief mental reminding of injustice more than compensates for doing anything about it. The person feels justified. She does nothing against injustice, but she is against it!! Her conscience asks nothing else.”
“I agree with you on that, doing nothing against social problems and only complaining while one goes on helping to perpetuate them is not what I would call decent human behavior.”
“Again, the concept of decency shows up. But what is decent and indecent, anyway? You repeat a thousand times that rulers, ie, the spokesmen of decency, are corrupted. So, maybe, it would be necessary to revise or update your notion of decency? If such thing can’t be enforced, and it can’t, for it involves human desire and will, the notion of voluntas, of doing things voluntarily, then the idea of an enforcer of virtue is self-contradictory and that’s why it’s an impossibility. And that’s why you won’t, ever, find a ruler who lives by the book 100%, in fact, if you could observe him 24/7, you’d end up asking yourself: “Which rule he doesn’t break?” Because, when he’s not interpreting rules according to his own voluntas, he’s ignoring them altogether, he’s redefining them, he’s resignifying them. That’s what men do all the time, not only rulers. That’s why we tend to forgive them. They are our representatives, after all. Their failings are our failings.”
“I envisioned rulers as models of exemplary behavior, and that all their acts as rulers be submitted to strict social control…”
“Yes, I’ve read that chapter. But as such, you’re not talking about decency, anyway, but, again, of men who are perpetually kept on a leash. They are not decent, your ideal rulers. They fear the idea of being caught. You cannot enforce decent behavior, that’s a logical impossibility. You can enforce socially acceptable behavior, but then you make a society of hypocrites, of people who want something but do the exact opposite of that. That’s the society you already live in!”
“Yes, but the money…”
“Sorry, am I being too impolite in interrupting you? I’ve heard that song a million times before. Let me go back to the difference between an anarchist and a hierarchist. You do not fit in any possible definition of anarchist, according to you. But you’re surely a hierarchist, aren’t you? You are an adept of “follow the leader”, even if it’s to the nearest collective grave, aren’t you?”
“Leaders there must be, yes, unfortunately, but not any kind of leaders. And those who lead humankind to extinction are the current plutocrats.”
“The most important thing is the notion of hierarchy itself. I want you to perceive how you do not subscribe to it presently, only feign to adhere to it, and prefer to believe that, one day, one sunny day, you’ll be following a decent leader. But since your ideal is not possible actually, your current reaction to authority is not one of respect, reverence or sacrality, but of feigned obedience. You couldn’t care less about those hypocrites and you would do away with them tomorrow if you could. But you can’t, so, for all purposes, you’re a conformist sheep. You don’t have the capacity, the potestas, to completely undermine the current status quo, but to undermine it is your innermost desire. You hate it to the core, and by hating it you become its denier. So you end up becoming much closer to an anarchist than to a hierarchist, because the latter is a sheep of the “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” brand, ie, he submits to authority willingly knowing it serves a higher purpose. Your hierarchism doesn’t apply to real life’s present circumstances, you have your conditions to fully embrace it. You’re a denier of authority as it is, because it’s exercised by indecent men and you crave for decency. You know such men exercise no real authority over you, they exercise fear, fear instantiated through the police. Yet you only feign obedience while you wait for this whole world to collapse. You shake hands with the anarchist after spending whole days trying to refute him.”
“Ha, I see what you’re doing, you’re trying to equate my idealism with yours. I’m not a naive opportunist who feigns to challenge the status quo while still adhering to it. I’m not a hypocrite, I follow rules not as a sheep, but as a conscious individual who knows your ideal leads to total annihilation of society. Don’t try to put your gloves in my hands, they don’t fit me.”
“Well, if we are going to be frank here, man, I couldn’t care less whether you agree with me or not. Our agreement or disagreement doesn’t change reality, the only thing that changes reality is power, not words or opinions, I second you on that. We part ways, though, in how we define or exercise power. You’re pretty much a conformist, that is a logical deduction out of your own arguments. You only believe in social change that happens after a cataclysm, in something forced on people by circumstances, not as something born out of their desire for change. As such, you don’t believe in change, at all, you believe in forcing people to act in different ways than they act presently. That is, their current enforcers are not wrong in enforcing rules on them, but only in relation to the rules they are willing to enforce. You crave for rulers capable of enforcing an equitable division of wealth and labor. Such a division, however, is another example of a self-denying notion, because the division itself is not made voluntary by people, but by the rulers, who, themselves, do not submit to the rules they enforce on others. They never do, either in reality or in fantasy. They separate for them a bigger hunk of the bount, even if under the pretense of needing to account for future needs. By simply being rulers they are an exception, the rules don’t apply to them. That’s why an anarchist, a denier of hierarchy, would say that the notion of a ruler commanding self-conscious adult men is ludicrous. It’s a notion unavoidably connected to the idea of sacredness (hieros or ἱερός means sacred) and that’s why religious men are prime examples of hierarchists. What an anarchist sees in a ruler is a man who, by convention, is placed above others, but only out of convention. He doesn’t respect the ruler as such, he may respect him as a man if he finds him deserving of that. If the ruler is a piece of crap, that’s how the anarchist sees him: as a piece of crap. Nothing more, nothing less. In his feigned obedience, what he respects is not the ruler himself, but the police, or, more specifically, the gun on the police officer’s waist. He fears both the policeman’s potestas, ie, his power to finish his life, and the prospect of imprisonment, which will kill his enjoyment of life for good. He does not believe in authority any more than he believes in tooth fairy or in Satan. Those are words in his head, or, if you prefer, spooks. He establishes a relationship with other men on a one on one basis: by not believing in natural hierarchy, he sees others as essentially equal to him, not equal as in having the same talents, desires, goals, etc, but equal inasmuch as their human condition is concerned: “All men want basically the same thing as me, to live fruitfully, comfortably, enjoyably and sine die!” Since we’re equal on this regard, I have learned to look AT other men, not UP to other men, I have learned to see them as what they are, not as their fantasy [or mine] portrays them as being. Do they offer me something? I take it and thank them for it. Do they offer me nothing? I say nothing, and can do nothing about it because I will not go and force them to do my bidding, that’s not my character. I accept what they give me voluntarily…”
“Now it’s my turn to do a blunt interruption. You talk as if it was easy to simply wait for people to act honorably towards you. You are a deluded man if you can’t see that society doesn’t work like that, your line of reasoning leads to the perpetuation of arbitrariness, where each does what he seems fit.”
“Why, I would like you to show me a single instance where people don’t do as they seem fit. I really would. That’s the core of human action: do as you seem fit according to your circumstances. And deal with the consequences. That’s crucial to my thinking, you know, not only voluntas and potestas, but also consequences. Every act has consequences. Call it karma, if you want or cause and effect. You can’t escape from consequences, either you or someone else will deal with the consequences of your every act. This slight nod of mine to consequentialism, where I reject the moral undertones of the system, yet retain its core belief, implies that I live in the cause and effect world and am therefore an enemy of arbitrariness. I do not do anything without pondering on the consequences of my acts. Applying this to my relation with authority and hierarchy, I realize that disobedience may inflict upon me consequences that would affect things I deem infinitely more important than authority: my freedom, my enjoyment of life. So I do not succumb to my unbridled nihilistic tendencies to say a “fuck it all” to everything. Yet, it’s not fear that guides my behavior, at least not only fear, the fact is, I fail to see why I should enter into a collision course with a guy who, just like me, is performing a task in order to survive and to keep himself financially. So, you see, I go further than you, I abandon the slogans and the clichés, I look through and beyond them, I overcome them. As I overcome authority by looking at it as something beneath me, a notion I have already rejected, rationally and logically. The same applies to money, wealth, your other favorite obsessions, or social convention. As you can perceive, I resignify the notion of anarchist from a simple-minded adolescent rebel to an individual consciously aware that natural hierarchy among men is a myth. I bow to no-one, I revere no-one, and if I may feign obedience or submission, that’s a game I’m willing to play, egoistically. I know you will object this with your moral arguments, you’re an opportunist, etc, yet you have absolutely no higher morality to offer anyone, so your moral judgment is flawed anyway. You want a change of masters. Anarchists want to do away with the notion of a master, if not in practice, in reality, at least in their minds, the most important place of all. Go ahead and laugh in sardonic cynicism. You were waiting for childish “Let’s change the world” slogans, I have none such to offer, I offer the cold light of logic and reason, the cold light of sanity. When one rejects the notion of absolutes, one rejects everything that follows from that notion, including the sacredness of anything on this world. Higher concepts become ghosts, fixed ideas, spooks. Yet the reality of men remains, the reality of all too imperfect flesh and blood human beings. This is the reality I turn my attention to, not to unattainable ideals working as little more than a coping mechanism in one’s mind.”
1 Like
Next I will talk about power, potestas, as Jakob asked me to do, from a Stirnerian perspective. I could choose to leave the table and my food untouched, since he approached the topic in the most clumsy way, resorting to AI instead of the man himself, but that’s not me. It will logically follow from what I have written above.
“Returning to the conversation here, it seemed like you didn’t quite understand my notion of power, or rather, what meaning I attribute to this term, right? Did you at least understand why we could replace our notion of power with potestas? For this Latin term is much richer in nuances than our term poder, since it encompasses everything: power, strength, might, force, capacity, faculty, potential, authority, etc. Do you see that?”
“I realize that, yes, but the fact is that you didn’t address an issue that had been brought to the table before you began talking about power. I don’t recall your refuting the notion that the individual emerges within society, as a product of it, given that the very notion of individual freedom is tied to the perception that the subject finds himself living among many, within a group, and the freedom of one is intrinsically linked to that of all others.”
“I didn’t ignore what you told me about this. In fact, what you brought to the table was the Marxist conception of the individual, the subject as a product of society, being nothing without it. To this I could object that it is not the individual who is a product of society, but the automaton in each of us. A society where each member is merely a product of their environment, mechanically driven to do what everyone else does, is not really a society, but a hive. There is an immeasurable difference between a society and a hive, although at first glance the terms seem to be synonymous. In a society there is conflict; in a hive there is not, and cannot be. In a society, questions are raised, problems are perceived that need to be resolved. In a hive, mathematical perfection reigns, where each little drone is merely a replica of all the others, so there, in fact, the notion that “all are one” applies, because, literally, they are. In a society, everyone is not and cannot be one; societas automatically implies more than one person, more than one identity. Social conflict, which gave rise to the Marxist notion that the subject is nothing without society, arises from this, from discord, separation, and discrepancy. But, again, our individuality arises from the perception of this difference. Of course, from birth we are already definitively, immutably separated from others, but then we are conscious of [almost] nothing and are little more than automatons. It is time that makes us look around us and realize that the others are one thing, and we are another. It is from the moment this perception begins to crystallize within us, in our minds, that the path to individuation opens. So, I would say that this idea that the subject must always subsume himself to the notion of the collective is not necessarily naive; it has some truth, but only to the point where the autonomy granted to the subject is minimal. The more one insists on this point, the further one moves away from the notion of independence and freedom. Therefore, Marxism’s natural and inevitable outcome is a dictatorship where the will of the subject, of individuality, is reduced to almost zero.”
“I think I understand more or less what you mean. But even if you differentiate a society from a simple hive, automatic behavior from autonomous behavior, the point remains: the individual needs society and cannot live without it. Wherever they are, they will need things from society; they cannot simply produce all the things they need for themselves. So recognizing that others, and their needs, are more important than the needs or whims of one individual seems natural and obvious to me, doesn’t it?”
“You should delve a little deeper into your own definitions. In a moment, we’ll get into the power of high-sounding terms. When you say that someone cannot live, or even recognize himself as an individual, without society, you’re simply reproducing a commonplace phrase you memorized long ago but never truly assimilated as something concrete, as a thought that actually translates a de facto experience. In other words, you’re reproducing a cliché, and also anchoring yourself in a traditionalist definition of society and the subject, as if we could never conceive of another model, another type of society where people participate not because they are forced and obliged to do so, out of fear of being alone and the terror of starvation, but because that is their will, their voluntas. Because they, alone, have come to the conclusion that that is the society they want, the group they want to be part of, but not as automatons, not as drones, but as individuals endowed with personality. In this conception, you make a 180-degree turn, and with a little effort, you arrive at the exact inversion of your original idea. Instead of “the individual is nothing without society,” you conclude: “society is nothing without the individual.” In other words, without the individual, it’s not a society, but a hive.”
“But you assume that people have a power that they don’t have…”
"Sorry to interrupt again, I was just about to get to the high-sounding terms, remember? What are high-sounding terms? Terms that are grand in scope, but rarely reflect an organic truth, felt in the subject’s skin. Terms like country, love, freedom, equality, justice, dignity. Terms like power. What the hell does power mean, anyway? Let me list the dictionary definitions here. Power is:
a) the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality;
b) the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.
The key terms, then, are ability and capacity. These are the typical notions one associates with the word power: being able to do something, having the skill or ability to do so. From this definition, we could conclude that power is reflected in any and all relationships involving two or more individuals, and it can be reflected on a large or micro scale. There is great power and small power, there is individual power and collective power, and everything depends, of course, on the circumstances and capabilities of each individual and each group. Returning to the high-sounding terms, we see a very interesting phenomenon occurring around them during the period both Marx and Stirner were part of. Grandiose terms like freedom and equality descended from the heavens, where they had been placed by Plato’s delicate hands, and abruptly fell into human reality. Plato, and a whole line of thinkers after him, treated equality, love, etc., as things in themselves. The Platonic concept is Form: something that exists in itself, independent of any relationship to materiality. Well, in the century of Stirner et al., a clear perception began to emerge that no word used by man to refer to the society in which he lives, of whatever nature, exists or can be interpreted in and of itself, but only exists to explain whatever happens when man interacts with man, physically, not abstractly. There is no sense in speaking of freedom until any concreteness is attributed to this term. “Men are free by nature” means something as meaningless as “Men are corrupt by nature.” A generic phrase that implies that the one who utters it lives in the realm of abstraction, not in reality. No term, no matter how cute it may seem, has any meaning unless it is used to refer to the real interactions between men. In other words, reality gives meaning to terms; it is not terms that give meaning to reality. At this point, Stirner and Marx unite; both reject the notion of sacred concepts, but Stirner goes to the limit; Marx stops halfway and chooses other sacred terms to replace those he abandoned. In place of God comes society, the collective. In place of destiny comes historical necessity. In place of sin comes the greed of the terrible capitalists. It is at this point that the two great iconoclasts diverge to the point of becoming irreconcilable. But there is a way to know who is the one who takes his iconoclasm to its ultimate logical consequences, and that is Stirner."
“From what I understand, you associate power with something concrete, isn’t it so? It is not something that exists in itself, like love, freedom, etc., but rather happens, is expressed, through interactions between people, is that what you mean?”
“I meant that power is a high-sounding term that simultaneously expresses something and nothing, like love, freedom, etc. Power as a thing in itself does not exist, and from this derives the notion that there is no natural hierarchy among people, because this notion rises from the idea that some men have the natural right to exercise power over others. What exists is the process, the interaction, the clash of wills. In this process, in this conflict, the subject’s will makes itself felt, either actively or passively. Either he asserts his will or he quiets down and submits to the will of the majority. Out of fear or convenience, or to wait for a better opportunity to exercise his power. In other words, to seize power for himself. But potestas appears in him precisely at this moment, but this moment replicates itself indefinitely throughout his life—it is not as if the subject can simply choose to be indifferent to power relations. The standard understanding is that the subject must submit to the will, to the needs, of the majority. He often does so consciously. He knows that his inner will may be in complete disagreement with the will of his group, but for whatever reason he chooses to acquiesce.”
“Are you saying that for Stirner, power does not manifest itself in a formulaic way, right? I mean, in a predictable way, in the old way, some command, others obey?”
“I’m saying, first of all, that Stirner redefines the ancient sacred notions of man and places them on the plane of materiality and physicality. You have to forget the notion of things existing in themselves. Such things don’t exist. Instead, penetrate physicality, corporeality, and understand that human relations are established between man and man, not between men and deities, as was traditionally thought. If you cling to the ancient notions of autonomy, freedom, power, etc., of course, you will never understand how such things could be instantiated. Now understand this Stirnerian starting point: the reality of the world and corporeality. When you descend from the realm of abstraction and penetrate the realm of corporeality, things begin to become incredibly clear. It’s not that ideas and concepts don’t exist, and that they aren’t immaterial things—it’s that you now have a concrete starting point for understanding the human phenomenon, not an abstraction. I used to have the same reservations about Stirner that everyone else does—he’s an egomaniac, a defender of chaos, debauchery, anything goes, etc. It was only when I read his biography and discovered all the known details about his private life that I was able to penetrate the core of his thought and understand exactly what he meant. Obviously, it’s easy to pigeonhole, and when a thinker died 180 years ago, naturally, much of what he wrote seems incomprehensible to many. In Stirner’s case, the comparison between his life and his ideas was essential for me to understand that he was never a prophet of arbitrariness and chaos, as many still believe, influenced by Marx. Instead, Stirner wrote a book that needed to be written; he brought to the table a topic that needed to be addressed. Like Marx. But unlike Marx, Stirner’s message remains valid, because we have had a long time to see Marxism denied by reality, but Stirner did not propose any system, any dogmatic thought, on the contrary, he tried, in his own way, to free the human being from any and all dogma.”
“So, in short, the Stirnerian notion of power, the Stirnerian individual, what is it all about, after all?”
“Okay, let’s go, and I apologize in advance if I go on too long. With the concept of sacredness destroyed, and with it the notion of hierarchy, since without something sacred, by definition, hierarchy cannot exist, we are thrown into the world of materiality where there are no longer any concepts hovering above humanity. On the contrary, now all concepts, no matter how grandiose, are thrown at the feet of humans, who make use of them as they please. The individual can become completely alienated, can continue to insist that nothing has changed, that they still believe in the sacred, etc., but, whatever they do, they can no longer escape the debate and the realization that, for others, their sacred notions mean nothing. Or the individual can adopt a more proactive perspective, forgetting absolutes and focusing on their precariousness, their limitations, and their potential, which translates into their actions, not mere ideas, mere concepts: this is the individual who understands that thought and action are interdependent; thought without action is mere intellectual masturbation. So, for a long time, it was thought: I don’t need to love anyone in practice, as long as I only need to believe that I love others. The famous phrase, or rather, the command, “Love thy neighbor” translates this well: it doesn’t tell you who your neighbor is or if there’s a way to love him. Love is a necessity; you have to love him whether you want to or not, and, unsurprisingly, it’s difficult to do so, because abstraction is one thing, reality is another. Now, more humbly, the subject recognizes that loving one’s neighbor is a possibility, depending on the neighbor. But one will have to actually live with one’s neighbor, establish a relationship with them, a practical, very physical relationship, to finally be able to say, “I love this person!” Simply saying you love someone, without any action on your part, implies absolutely nothing. The very same thing applies to all other lofty concepts: “Men are free by nature!”—but you see them enslaved, at the power of whoever shouts the loudest, whoever has the most money, whoever has the most weapons, etc. What’s the point, what’s the implication of this so-called freedom? Do they have a theoretical freedom that they never use for anything? So it’s the same as saying they have no freedom at all, right? With the concept of physicality well established, we move on to analyzing the power that manifests itself through each individual in their many relationships within society. But, once again, we must set aside the old and outdated notion of “some command, others obey,” which is merely a lazy formula adopted by conformists of all stripes. The notion of potestas is tied to the concepts of ability and capacity, and these terms are not restricted to a certain type of person or situation. Anyone can have ability and capacity; you just need to assess: ability and capacity to do what? Furthermore, the notion of tying the “Stirnerian man” to a given period in history is not only naive, it betrays a radical misunderstanding. Great ideals, great ideas, and great words have descended from heaven, losing their aura of sacredness. All men are now on equal footing! The idea that many, millions, billions, refuse to accept this and even expend all their efforts denying it doesn’t alter its logical force. So, if we are all on equal terms, what determines the greater power of some over others, or the greater social freedom to do what one wants, is not anything that is above man, special and transcendental qualities that need to be revered, but the more pronounced or less pronounced way in which they exercise power! Things that are at the level of men and are perfectly understandable! How a man exercises his power, his greater or lesser adherence to his own selfishness, how he decides to satisfy himself, whether with much or with little, all this varies according to the individuality of each person. The prejudiced notion that Stirner advocated crime and arbitrariness clashes with the calm, tranquil way in which he led his own life: he wanted to stay in his corner, not to dominate or destroy anyone. What was most important to him was, above all, the notion that he was doing in life what he chose to do, and also that he had nothing to explain or justify to others, since he had no duties to them. On the contrary, he abolished the notion of duty, replacing it with personal will. Thus, seeking a historical period to situate Stirnerian man is an almost ridiculous idea, for Stirnerian man is one who realizes, anywhere, at any time, that he is alone in the world and owes nothing to others. How he will translate this into his practical life, how he will relate to others, how he will bear the perception of his loneliness—all of this is something each individual will have to interpret alone. There is no formula, there is no system, there are no Stirnerian rules of conduct: Stirner leaves the individual to himself, each one chooses what to do with himself and each one is responsible for himself and ONLY for himself, he has no responsibilities towards society, the world, etc., only those he chooses for himself, which can range from a bum who does nothing in life to a multimillionaire who chooses, literally, to live on an island. In any case, the subject has no excuse; he knows perfectly well what he is doing and chooses to do it. Of course, I’m referring to men who are fully aware of what they’re doing; in fact, the Stirnerian notion of man could not be applied to any other type of man. In short, we can accept the dictionary notion of power or understand the term as a process of what occurs in the relationship between man and man. We just can’t apply an abstract and arbitrary notion of power to the realm of individuality, where the question of singularity prevails— that is, the fact that each subject is absolutely unique and reacts absolutely uniquely to the world around him. There’s no such thing as me doing whatever I want, without any concern for others or the collective. What exists is the perception that if I choose to do this, I will have to deal with the consequences, which could even be my death. And I also have no way of condemning anyone who chooses to follow such a course of action. The action isn’t mine, and neither are the consequences. I can only react when this subject interferes with my sphere of action. We are all here in the material world; there is no other world for us to live in. Whatever we do here will not be exempt from the law of causality. But our actions now appear in a new light; we now accept the notion of having and being a body and that our lives are entirely our responsibility. Whether we make something of it or absolutely nothing, it’s all our business.”
Anarchism doesn’t work because there will always be cheaters and those who don’t play by the rules, there will always be someone coveting their neighbor’s possessions or property. There will always be people wanting or desiring what others have who will do any ruthless action to have it for themselves by theft.
Endless amount of reasons as to why anarchism can’t exist and why anarchists are left to doomed forms of thinking.
You insist in a single monolithic definition for a polysemic word, which can mean a lot of different things. This form of anarchism which you attack is militant ‘let’s get rid of the state’ anarchism which you would have great difficulty in finding a single man who supports it today.
To quote what I wrote above:
“Exactly. And anarchism is a good example of a polysemic word. Anarchism ultimately comes from the Greek ἀναρχία, that is, ἀ (no, without, -less) + αρχία (which has many different meanings: leadership, sovereignty, government, authority, hegemony, and is present in the term hierarchy). Anarchy can then be translated as “no government”, “no leaders”, “absence of authority” or even “no hierarchy”. The natural polysemy of the term implies that it can be used to describe many different things, from a hypothetical society where the notions of authority and hierarchy are absent to the situation of a subject who is not submitted to the will or power of others in his private life.”
You don’t need the state to stone you. Citizens of the self-governed anarchy (kingdom of ends) can do that for you. Out of love, of course. See also:
It’s called mercy killing. 
Unless, of course… you turn it around.
There are vanishingly few selfish egos today. That is the problem. We need to redefine selfishness as rational self-interest, as the current definition of selfishness is actually self-destructive behavior. It can not be in anyone’s rational self-interest to act irrationally, I.e., seeking or giving the unearned.