A Defense of Egoism

I do not care for your morals, for your spooked ethics, for your hogwash of moral this, immoral that. I only care about what pleases my ego, there is no such thing as morality. Morality itself is a spook. To define a “spook,” well, a spook essentially is any idea or social construct that you beholden yourself to, such as morals, the economy, or the nation.

Stirner tells us to take command of spooks for our own benefit, to use or dispel them as we see fit. The universe does not operate on human sensibilities, and to be quite frank, what even are “human sensibilities” anyways? Human nature, in other words. What is “human nature?”

If you were to tell me it’s the “human condition,” you’ll have yourself a tautology, you’ve just provided me a synonym for “human nature,” not an actual definition. “Communism/anarchism/insert boogeyman ideology here is antithetical to human nature,” says the idiot liberal. Ask them what human nature is, and suddenly they go silent.

Human nature, just like morality, is, in other words, a spook. Now, I’ve been told that egoism is selfishness, or that you have to have morals to be a good person, to which I respond, what do morals have to do with being a good person? Be a good person because or if it pleases your ego, not because you are obliged to a social construct, an unreal entity, a spook.

Capitalism, communism, morality, the state, the nation, patriotism, family, all of these things are spooks, it’s up to you to decide whether you want to beholden yourself to them or not. As for me, I will not slave away to some higher ideal that is not my own. I will either make it my own, or banish it, for it is of no use to me.

Maddening Misanthropy

You wanna know how long it takes for one to become a billionaire through actual work alone? 4.51 million years. That’s how long it takes for one to make a billion dollars through hard work alone. There is no way for one to make a billion dollars ethically, you have to have been either born into privilege or you had to steal the value of the labor of the work your laborers put out.

I’d say eat the rich, but that’s honestly an understatement. Slowly roast them alive over an open fire more like. This right here is why I`m a socialist. This reminds me of the line Benny made in the opening intro scene to Fallout: New Vegas:

“Sorry you got twisted up in this scene. From where you’re kneeling, it must seem like an 18-carat run of bad luck. Truth is… the game was rigged from the start.”

This system is inherently unequal, it’s a rigged game, where a minority own the means of production and everyone else has to submit to them in order to survive. These elites, this ruling class, the bourgeoisie, are protected by the power of the state and its goons, and god forbid you resist, try to make things fair, because you get labeled a socialist, a dissident, a radical, an extremist, a terrorist….

This whole thing’s a joke, it really is. One you understand that nothing of what you were taught in childhood is true, it will make a lot more sense. Take the breadpill, comrades, educate yourselves.

Rejecting the Political Compass

Attempting to map something as unendingly complex as human ideology unto such a reductionist plane as the political compass is folly, for it leaves out and misrepresents ideologies such as post-leftism, anarcho-primitivism, and egoism. The political compass just isn’t suited for the job of mapping and describing human ideology.

Tell me, dear reader, what is the definition of “leftist” and “rightist?” Of the left and right wings? Of libertarianism and authoritarianism? You wouldn’t get these answers from a reading of the polcomp, nor even from browsing shit such as Wikipedia, at least not well enough.

The answers to these questions are a lot more complex than they may at first seem, and to the post-leftist and anarcho-nihilist such as myself they are even the wrong questions to be asking. What is leftism and what is rightism?

Leftists claim to be in favor of labor, and rightists are at least nominally in favor of capital, but does that mean that groups such as Marxists-Leninists, or Dengists, who claim to favor labor over capital but end up becoming just as bad as or even transferring over to capital, are the leftists in the same vein as libertarian socialists and anarchists? I believe that the terms “left” and “right” wing are so vague that they ought to be rendered obsolete, they’re holdovers of the era of the French Revolution. Well, guess what, Sherlock, this ain’t the French Revolution.

The revolutionaries of the Russian Revolution were, at least nominally, leftist, but the stark differences between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists should show you just how meaningless the term “leftist” becomes in this context. Lenin and Makhno could not be further apart from each other, and yet they both get lumped in together as “leftists.”

This is why I reject the political compass: it’s obsolete, reductionist, and quite frankly a hindrance to an accurate understanding of the human political spectrum.

Ultimate Authority

I was told by my neurologist if I “had thoughts or feelings of hurting oneself or others to go to the emergency room immediately,” that was during a period of time I was considering ending my life. Life just wasn’t worth living. Only now do I realize the meaning of his words. I don’t think even he understood the full implication of what he said.

The state has the power to effectively imprison you for wanting out, it is the ultimate coercive power, the state decides when you die, you don’t even have control over your own life or death, the state does. It can decide when, and if, to put you down, but Christ forbid that someone try to appropriate that power from the state, to achieve the ultimate bodily autonomy.

Throwing you inside a psychiatric ward just for wanting out, it is the ultimate coercive power, the ultimate example of the unjust authority the state wields. It can decide when you die, how you die, but you can’t. It is illegal for you to take your own life, but not for the state, for whom nothing is illegal, since it makes and enforces the law.

Call it authoritarian, call it justified, whatever, don’t try to convince me of your moralistic hogwash, with your fallacious appeals to emotion. I am not swayed, I am only swayed by cold, hard fact, and the fact of the matter is is that the state’s ability to decide whether you live or die is the ultimate example of authoritarianism there is to be found.

I can be involuntarily committed to a psych ward for wanting out, the difference between being “lawfully” held captive and being “unlawfully” held captive is arbitrary, “unlawfully” holding someone captive deprives the state of the ability to “lawfully” hold someone captive. What is the difference? I am still in chains, it doesn’t matter to me whether my captors are acting within the purview of the law or not, they are my oppressors.

Tell me something, muse, why does the state get an exemption from criminality, but the people do not? Is the state above the law? “Nobody is above the law,” the liberal says. I say bollocks, someone has to enforce the law, and in order to enforce the law you have to be above it.

Liberalism is intellectually dishonest, inconsistent. Statist libertarianism is intellectually dishonest, inconsistent. Fascism of all things is more honest than liberalism, for at least the fascist will be plain with you what he wants, he doesn’t hold any pretenses to the contrary.

The liberal does, however, for they believe it to be “for your own good,” but does my “own good” entail being held captive, imprisoned, for wanting to take control over my own life? Foucault was right.

Statism and Ableism

As an autistic transwoman, I believe that the best bet for both queer and disabled liberation is by abolishing the state and overthrowing hierarchy whereever sees fit. Disabled people under a statist society will always be at a disadvantage, since statist societies prioritize able-bodied people over disabled people.

The only reason people like me are seen as disabled and not merely “eccentric” is because we cannot produce, we cannot contribute to capital’s stranglehold on production. This is literally the only reason I am disabled. Under a non-statist society, one based off of true libertarian principles such as mutual aid and free association, disabled people would not be valued or devalued solely based off of their ability to contribute to capital, off of their ability to produce.

I propose a synthesis of disabled and anarchist tendencies called divergent anarchism, to encompass both physiodivergent and neurodivergent people. It will serve the same function as queer anarchism, or anarcha-feminism, or black anarchism etc does, providing a means of analysis that will provide a true path to liberation for disabled people.

Disabled people can produce items of value comparable to that produced by able-bodied people, but society as it currently stands does not, and can not, value the products made by us in the same way it values the products made by able-bodied people. Nor will it value us as it values able-bodied people.

Statism is inherently ableist, the systemic issues that come with statism cannot be solved by mere reforms. All reforms merely serve as stopgap solutions, to kick the can further down the road for future generations to deal with, to placate the masses as to not seriously disrupt the flow of capital. Disability is stigmatized just as race/ethnicity is, or gender is, or lack thereof, or biological sex is, etc etc etc.

The Fabians and their social democrat/democratic socialist descendants are stool pigeons for the state and hierarchy by virtue of being reformist in the first place. “We’re not like those radicals, see? We want to reform the system, not abolish it,” cries the socdem/demsoc, but in the end when hierarchy deems it appropriate they too will be sent to the camps as we are/will. The Quisling always gets his comeuppance at the end.

Appeasement does not work, reformism does not work. To truly liberate disabled and other marginalized people, we must abolish the very system that oppresses us, not make peace with and submit to it as vassals. Assimilation politics serve the benefit of the oppressor, not the oppressed. Barack Obama is a keen example of this, being a biracial man, the son of a Luo Kenyan man and an Irish-American woman, as well as being the first African-American president of the United States.

Throughout his presidency he was jeered and subjected to hostile opposition solely based off of the color of his skin, derided as being a “communist, Muslim, atheist, gay man” etc, having his native born citizenship questioned, as well as having all of his actions opposed at every single turn, even when his policies were not too different from his white, Republican predecessor. Why, you ask? Because he was deemed black, and therefore “not a True American” by American society, despite being the personification of assimilation politics.

Take Obama’s example as a lesson for all people insistent on assimilating into mainstream society, if you are a marginalized person, you will continue to be stigmatized no matter what actions you take. Now I am not black, so I will not comment on what is best for African-Americans, I will only comment on what I see is best for disabled folk.

Having outlined why statism is inherently ableist, and why reformism doesn’t work, let’s now take a look at authoritarian socialist takes on disabled liberation. The same thing applies here, in all of the so-called “socialist countries” of the world, people have been valued solely by their ability to produce, even in so-called “worker’s states.”

If you could not work, or you wanted meaningful control over the products of your own labor etc, you were deemed an outcast, a criminal, and marginalized as such. From 1928 onward, striking was a capital offense in the USSR (Cliff, 1954), and if striking, the most basic of methods of labor resistance, was outlawed, and labor was oppressed despite supposedly having control of the means of production, what does that mean for disabled people, who arguably got/get it even worse than laborers under such so-called “worker’s states?” All statism is ableist, end of story.

On natural hierarchies and material conditions

I was disputing whether or not right wing “anarchism” is legitimately anarchism or not. The devil’s advocate in the discussion told me that right wing “anarchists” reject “constructed hierarchy,” while still believing in so-called “natural hierarchies,” I rejected that therefore right wing individualism is true anarchism, because anarchists reject all hierarchies.

The discussion eventually lead to one about solipsism, natural law, the great man theory of history, so on and so forth, and it lead me to write this little entry about that conversation and where it lead me. So, here we are.

Right wingers believe in natural hierarchy, it’s an essentialist viewpoint, but as we shall see there all natural hierarchies are spooks, there’s no such thing as a “natural order of things,” as per Hume’s guillotine, “an ought cannot be derived from an is.” The world isn’t static and immutable, it is constantly changing. My opponent brought up the right wing belief of the “cycle of history,” summed up like this: “Strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men ad nauseam.

This is way too much of an overgeneralizing statement, and ignores material conditions. I pointed out the exact conditions of the Cold War couldn’t have occurred without the invention of nukes, even if there are rough analogues to Cold War esque situations in the past (which there are, but that’s a discussion for another time). My point being that the invention of nukes is what lead to the Cold War, and the Cold War wouldn’t have occurred without them.

Material conditions are important, natural orders don’t exist, the world is not static, and tomorrow will be different from today, as the actors of history are always changing, as is the setting itself.

On Anarchy

You can only get so much done writing a 900 page thesis on the nature of revolution inside your ivory towers. All talk and no action these ideologues are, such folly! Turn away your old dogmas and realize how they have failed, the revolutions of the 20th century have failed to bring about communism, as they have always fallen prey to capitalist subversion of the revolution, of the reintroduction of class struggle and capitalist hegemony.

Under the state, capitalism always wins. Attempting to overthrow the unjust system by co-opting the state, or replacing it with a so-called “worker’s state,” a term that is itself inherently oxymoronic, will only lead to the corruption of the revolutionary force trying to force change via the state.

If you want true change, genuine change, that changes the very fabric of society itself, abolish the state. Only when you abolish the state do you abolish capitalism, for they go hand in hand. Marxism has failed; it’s time to try a new tactic.

Capitalism requires the state to enforce its hegemony, its inherently unequal distribution of control over resources. Police and armies protect capital, not you. Reject the state, and reject the police, for they are not your friends.

For the Leninists in my audience realize this, why has almost every so-called “socialist state” failed to implement communism, and have always fallen prey to capitalist forces? Let’s examine the “mass line” tenet of Maoism for an example, even with the Cultural Revolution and popular struggle against corrupt bureaucrats to hold the party accountable, China still fell to revisionist capitalists.

They didn’t accomplish shit in the end, it was merely meaningless chaos that ultimately failed to accomplish its goals. Deng Xiaoping reintroduced capitalism into China, and today China is even more stratified socially than even the US is.

Let’s look at another example, the Soviet Union itself. The USSR ended up becoming another imperialist force, crushing genuine worker’s revolutions in Hungary, the Prague, and elsewhere, and functioned as just another colonialist power in Siberia, oppressing its indigenous peoples so Russian settlers could move in. The Soviet Union ultimately fell itself, and Tsarism has come back to haunt modern day Russia once again.

It should be noted that many Russians today are nostalgic for the “good old days” of the Soviet Union, and I will acknowledge that the economic policies of the USSR were far more worker-friendly than they are today, you weren’t liable to become poor for instance because the Soviet Union provided for everyone, being strapped for cash wasn’t a thing back then as it is now in modern Russia.

But even with that prosperity came the price of liberty, the USSR was hella authoritarian, and still was subject to market forces. It was state capitalist, not socialist. Socialism cannot be meaningfully achieved under a state, no matter the intentions of the state’s founders. States are inherently corrupting forces, in order for the revolution to enact meaningful, long lasting change, ditch the state as a vector for revolution, it doesn’t work.