Wednesday, May 18, 2011

2012 Republican Presidential Candidates Positive Intensity Chart, February through October 2011


Positive intensity = % highly favorable - % highly unfavorable



For more entries on election studies, please visit:


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Scott Walker vs. the Unions

Republican Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker



      From mid-February to late March of 2011, the State of Wisconsin was embroiled in a series of protests that occurred amid a legal battle which developed in the state legislature.
    In order to address a projected budget deficit, newly-elected Republican Governor Scott Walker proposed legislation which would have required state employees to contribute more of their salaries to cover the costs of their own health care premiums and pensions; taken away public employee unions’ ability to negotiate on wages, health benefits, and vacations; stopped requiring the State to collect union dues on the behalf of public-sector workers; and required more frequent negotiations between public employee unions and the State.
      The bill would have weakened collective bargaining rights for many public employees, and it would have abolished such rights for certain classes of employees such as health workers and University of Wisconsin faculty. Governor Walker threatened to fire six thousand state employees in the event of failure to pass the legislation.
      Left-wingers of all varieties – from Democrats to real, live self-described socialists, communists, Marxists, anarchists, and radicals – immediately rallied in solidarity against Governor Walker. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio even appeared on the Fox Business Network, arguing that the freedom of speech (which is to be interpreted as the freedom of expression) and the right of the people to peaceably assemble – which are protected from legislation by the First Amendment – make collective bargaining a constitutionally-protected right which shall not be infringed by the law.
      Being that the law does not and cannot give us rights, but rather that the law can only protect existing rights from infringement, if the right to bargain collectively is protected by law, then that right must have existed before any law was written in order to protect and preserve that right. But where did that right come from?
      Is the right to collectively bargain inherent in our right to self-ownership, or is it inherent in natural law, given to us by our creator? In whichever of these ways you may respond that such a right has always existed within nature and within man, how can you claim that the right to collective bargaining has always existed when it was only first conceived of less than a hundred and fifty years ago?
      It would seem logical that the right to collectively bargain could not have preceded the conception of the idea of collective bargaining in the first place. So, naturally, the right to collectively bargain can only be as old as the ability to collectively bargain. But the right is not derived from the ability; rather, the legal right to collectively bargain in the United States is derived from judicial interpretation of the Constitution, and the right to collective bargaining is protected by the ability to collectively bargain.
      For – just as with any other supposed “right” – the only way to find out whether something is really a right or merely a privilege is to attempt to assert the ability to exercise that supposed right. A union of workers can only ensure that it retains the right to collectively bargain by proving that it retains the ability to collectively bargain without the protection of privilege guaranteed by the State. Might makes right.
      A union must prove that it remains capable of retaining enough members whom are willing to agree to demand a certain minimum standard of monetary compensation and benefits from their employers so that those employers have no choice but to give in to the workers’ demands or else face their own bankruptcy and dismantlement of their companies or resort to hiring those with insufficient skills. If unions can do this, they need neither the State nor its laws to uphold their right or privilege to collectively bargain.
      When people wish to be granted privileges, they turn to law and to the State. When people wish to prove their abilities through action, they turn to themselves and to one another. When people wish to assert their right to engage in an action, they have to be willing to find out whether the State will grant them the privilege of refraining from curtailing their ability to perform that action. They would have to use the laws to codify their privileges, and continually ensure that such laws remain unaltered.
      Whether you’re seeking privileges or rights, you must acknowledge publicly that you intend to afford the State an opportunity either to consent or to dissent. But if all you wish to prove is your ability, you need neither to seek the involvement of, nor acknowledge the legitimacy of, nor submit to, the State. However, it is not only the privileges and the rights to collectively bargain which exist at the mercy of the State; the State may also infringe on the ability to collectively bargain whenever and however it pleases.
      Submission to State decision-making is the key to both the legitimacy and the efficacy of the modern labor movement. Today, the vast majority of collective bargaining and negotiation is done through labor unions. This is because the State affords the unions the privilege to act within the framework of the law. Since 1935, it has been federal law that companies may not refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union that represents their employees.
      Notice that, in that last sentence, I said “the union”, and neither “the unions”, nor “any unions”. It is a rare and controversial practice in the labor movement for there to be more than one union representing the employees of a single company. This means that, usually, the goal of a labor union is to – dare I say it – monopolize… the representation of the workers to their employers.
      Part of Governor Walker’s proposed legislation would have required public employees to participate in an annual secret ballot regarding whether they should stay unionized. The legislation also would have permitted state and local public employees to refuse to join unions.
      These two reforms obviously would have risked weakening the ability of public-sector unions to remain in existence and to maintain and / or increase the number of members whom they represent, and if the exclusive right to represent the people within a given territory which is wielded by governments has taught us anything, it’s that if you can’t compel people to accept your exclusive, monopolistic authority, there’s no fun in representing them at all.
      Many claimed that to oppose Governor Walker’s legislation was to support individual rights. But how are individual rights protected when a majority of the representatives of the people can vote to prohibit individual workers from choosing whether to become or remain a member of a union?
      From the other side of the issue, how are individual rights protected when a majority of the representatives of the people can vote to require individual workers to participate in a vote on whether to remain unionized? And – given that Governor Walker did not propose that Wisconsin become a Right-to-Work state – how could the legislation which he proposed have served to uphold the right of individual workers to choose to leave a union?
      The labor unions in America haven’t wholly supported individual rights for just over a century. In 1908, the leaders of the Industrial Workers of the World began to split on the issue of whether to pursue either legalistic, political tactics or direct-action tactics such as strikes and boycotts. Those who favored political tactics split off of the I.W.W. in 1924, and subsequently formed their own organization and political party.
      The resistance to Governor Walker’s proposed legislation had little – if anything – to do with individual rights, and everything to do with the power and privilege of the public employee unions. Individual workers simply let the unions manipulate them by framing the issue in the manner in which the unions saw appropriate. How some of the anti-Walker protesters could find it logical to describe themselves as socialists, communists, Marxists, anarchists, and / or radicals is beyond me.
      Karl Marx wanted the workers of the world to unite. If Marx had his way, the workers of the world would not be divided along the lines of gender or sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin, race or color, religion or creed, family background or class, experience or ability. Marx wanted what the I.W.W. originally wanted: the abolition of the wage system, workplace democracy and self-management, and grassroots democratic governance.
      What have the politically-oriented labor unions given us? The minimum wage, for one. But the passage of minimum wage laws doesn’t constitute the abolition of the wage system; for the minimum wage is a wage.
      How does the minimum wage protect the individual rights of laborers? Does it not interfere with an individual’s ability to voluntarily choose to labor for a more modest compensation if and when he deems such compensation reasonable and sufficient for himself, especially if his skills are low and his education is poor, thus making it more difficult for him to be able to justify earning the minimum wage?
      How is a worker to be expected to continue to adequately feed, clothe, and house his family if he is compelled to pay dues to a monopolistic labor union which mandates that he participate in a strike – at the risk of being fired – in order to demand better benefits and increased wages, a portion of which that union has the exclusive right to collude with the worker’s employer to extract from him, thus helping to increase the relative wealth and leverage of both the union and the employer over the worker?
      How is the minimum wage law anything but a protective privilege of well-established native workers against minorities and recent immigrants whom are often of a lower level of skill and education, and therefore may find it beneficial and appropriate to work for a lower compensation, illegal though that level of compensation may be? Do not minimum wage laws therefore effectually discriminate on certain bases?
      Is making the solidarity of workers immune from attempts to divide based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, race, color, religion, creed, family background, and class really worth sacrificing some degree of worker solidarity at the altar of an even-handed and fair discrimination on the basis of experience and ability for the sake of efficiency, efficacy, responsibility, and just deserts based on merit and proven competence?
      Minimum wage laws do little other than help condemn the most destitute, the poorest-educated, the least-skilled, and the least societally well-adapted among us to lives of further-entrenched poverty, continued lack of education, lack of opportunity to learn and accumulate skills, and further social ostracism.
            Minimum wage laws divide the labor movement by nationalizing, ethnicizing, and racializing strikes, causing workers to fear replacement by minority and immigrant laborers whom are willing to work for decreased and often illegal levels of compensation, thereby exacerbating public resentment and animosity towards those peoples in general.
      As laws which exist within the framework of the State, minimum wage laws do nothing to help along the Marxist strategy of violently overthrowing the oppressive bourgeois capitalist State, but rather merely make such a State appear less oppressive, and make submission to it and compromise with it seem more palatable and acceptable to the average laborer.
      Minimum wage laws do little – if anything – to ensure either the ability or the effectiveness of the people to carry out the objectives of Marx and of the I.W.W. to organize strikes or boycotts, come to self-manage workplaces, or form grassroots democratic governantial agencies.
      However, amid the resistance to Governor Walker’s proposed legislation, there were, in fact, boycotts. Not the types of boycotts in which large numbers of people came together to decry the practices of certain businesses and to educate people about how and why those practices are insufferable, though; just the types of boycotts in which a few people here and there tacitly declined to frequent places of business which neglected to post easily-visible signs indicating their support of the unions and / or their disapproval of Governor Walker and / or his proposed legislation.
      And, amid the resistance to Governor Walker’s proposed legislation, there was, in fact, a general strike. Just not the type of general strike in which massive numbers of people whose workplaces would not be directly affected by the legislation actually risked their own continued employment, though; just the type of general strike in which a few employees here and there decided to use to their advantage the terms of their employment contracts and the rules of their workplaces which would permit them to work less while remaining within the boundaries of what constitutes just enough work not to risk getting fired. That ought to show ‘em.
      During the course of the controversy and the protests, one opponent of Governor Walker who worked at a local restaurant in Madison complained to a reporter that his employer behaved as would a fascist dictator.
      But it seems to me – as it would to any reasonable person – that a fascist dictator of an employer would be more likely to dictate compensatory pay and benefits, conditions of employment, and work hours to his employee, and command him to work against his will than he would to give his employee the opportunity to negotiate compensatory pay and benefits, conditions of employment, and work hours; once when that employee interviews for the job, and then again – repeatedly and continuously throughout the course of his employment – as he proves that he deserves the compensation and conditions which he desires.
      You can argue as long as you would like that people are enslaved by tyrannical, corrupt, despotic leaders in government; greedy, uncaring, exploitative, profit-extracting employers; or by the fact that hundreds of years ago, royals and aristocrats enclosed their private lands, causing the commoners to be kicked off of their agricultural plots the crops they grew on which sustained their lives and their livelihoods, leading them to flee to the rapidly-industrializing city centers, which enabled a rent- and mortgage-controlled system to come into being in which landlords have come to wield ultimate direct economic power over the lives of their low-income tenants.
      But eventually, you’re going to have to face the fact that you are not enslaved by any single one of these entities – nor even, truly, by all of them combined – anywhere near as much as you are enslaved by your own needs, wants, and desires; your decision to assume the responsibility to provide for yourself and for those who depend on you; your decision to give yourself and your loved ones the lives and livelihoods which you have chosen to attempt to make manifest; and by your own willingness to continue to survive.
      Does labor enslave you, or does labor make you free? Perhaps labor only enslaves you if you resign yourself to feel like a slave; begrudging your labor, and cursing your employer for how little he gives you. Remember, you don’t have to give your employer that which you consider to be the full product of your labor if you do not wish to do so. You can even define what constitutes the full product of your labor however you may wish.
      But all enduring and productive relationships exist for some mutual benefit, because value itself is subjective. Your employer values your labor more than he values his own money, and you value your employer’s money more than you value your own labor. When employer and laborer freely and voluntarily choose to enter into a labor contract with one another, each is effectively giving the other a gift in the subjective judgment of each party.
      Isn’t it fulfilling to give charitably? Each party should be grateful, and rejoice in the opportunity to serve the other. Each should rejoice in his ability and opportunity to freely choose to do a good deed for another human being.
      So… back to you, Happy Noodle Boy. Fascist dictatorship, eh? Where’s your machete and your red-and-black diagonal flag? You really think you’re a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, an anarchist, a radical? I don’t see you doing anything to bring about a workplace democracy in your restaurant. I don’t see you violently overthrowing your boss, who probably worked his way up from entry-level like yourself. I don’t see you starting your own commune or grassroots-democratic governantial organization. I don’t see you leading or participating in strikes or boycotts.
    You want to know what I see? I see someone who’s glad the minimum wage law exists, because he thinks that a living wage is a right and not a privilege. I see someone who considers himself fortunate to qualify for such an inflated wage to begin with. Never mind that that wage recently increased forty percent over two years, settling high above the average going market rate for entry-level labor. Never mind that the dollar is continuously losing value, making the minimum wage law no guarantee of an increase in compensation or of your standard of living year-to-year. All of your suffering is the fault of your fascist boss, and not of your duly-elected progressive representatives in the United States Congress.
      You want to know what I see? I don’t see an anarcho-socialist, or a radical, or anything like that. I see a Gradualistic-Reformist State-Syndicalist who’s always more than ready-and-willing to compromise with and submit to a Federalist Representative-Democratic Republican State in the context of a capitalistic socioeconomic system. I see a State Syndicalist, not an anarcho-syndicalist; a statist, not an anarchist. I see a reformist, not a radical.
      I see someone whom is willing to beg the bourgeois capitalist State to enact labor-union reforms which could easily be achieved de-facto if only individual workers had not acquiesced to be manipulated by equal levels of monopolistic wielding of economic power; by labor unions through dues, by companies through profit, by government through taxes.
      Someone whom is willing to overlook the fact that labor, management, and law are colluding to con him and mug him on a daily basis, as long as he gets his $7.25 an hour and can still prance about, shouting that his own boss and the governor of his State are the next Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Someone whom is willing to complain about bailouts, corporate welfare, and monopolies while neglecting to notice that big labor and big business have adopted and helped entrench and normalize within one another those worst two aspects of government behavior: bailouts and monopolization.
      But how to solve the problem of monopolization? Might it be competition? I know, I know; competition inevitably leads to monopolization, I’ve heard it all before. Have you ever stopped to think about how monopolization is antithetical to competition? Successful monopolization does away with all competitors, and successful competition undermines monopolies. A monopoly may only be sustained through political choice by the public and / or through economic choice by consumers.
      Perhaps if the public would take a little interest in learning about the people whom they elect to represent them and to amend the laws which govern them, and in the products which they buy, and whether and how well those products bring about the outcome which they intended to affect through the act of purchase, public and consumer choice could have the opportunity to work in concert with one another in order to act as a check on the development of the most effective and widely-known competitors into monopolies.
      Maybe freer and more competitive choice in elections could help to undercut the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties, which so often seem indistinguishable from one another. Maybe a labor policy which permits an individual to become a member of more than one union at once – and which permits more than one union to represent the employees of any given company – would help to undercut the monopolies which the big labor unions so often wield.
      Perhaps public-sector unions – i.e., government employee unions – have more leverage than private-sector unions because government has the power to pass the legislation which is necessary to ensure its own exclusive, monopolistic right to provide certain services to the public. But to undermine these monopolies, one would have to go into competition with the State itself.     
      To do that, private individual actors and non-governmental group actors such as communes, collectives, and public-interest groups would have to attempt to provide those services which are typically or exclusively provided by governmental entities. But which types of services? Any service the provision of which by government takes up a significant share of that service-market.
      Does your government unsatisfactorily protect and defend you, usually doing more harm than good, leading you to question whether it truly is legally obligated to protect and defend you in the first place? If so, then why not protect and defend yourself? Why not protect and defend those whom would ask you to protect and defend them? Why not get together with the people in your community – especially those whom currently work or may have previously been employed as security guards, bodyguards, bouncers, or in military – to brainstorm tactics to better defend and protect one another?
      Does your government unsatisfactorily sort your recycling, causing a significant amount of that which could be salvaged and put to good use to go back into the earth? If so, why not sort your recycling yourself? Why not sort the recycling of those whom would ask you to sort their own recycling? Why not get together with the people in your community – especially those whom currently work or may have previously been employed as sanitation workers and engineers – to brainstorm tactics to more efficiently put recycled materials to good use and re-use?
      Does your government unsatisfactorily maintain the roads in your neighborhood, doing little to prevent the proliferation of damaged vehicle tires? If so, why not maintain those roads yourself? Why not maintain the roads which exist on the property of those whom would ask you to help maintain their own roads? Why not get together with the people in your community – especially those whom currently work or may have previously been employed as road workers, construction workers, or contractors – to brainstorm tactics to improve your community’s roads?
      Why not start a local charity which would allocate funds to purchase the asphalt and rent the equipment which would be necessary to patch-up the roads? Why not discreetly fix the public roads in the middle of the night when you can be sure that nobody will drive on them and that none of the representatives or employees of your ineffective, absentee local government might ever suspect a thing?
      So your governor has threatened to take away formal, institutionalized, legalistic collective bargaining privileges for teachers. Why not gather all the intelligent and highly-educated people in your community to tutor your children? God forbid they teach them some valuable life skills, trades, and critical thinking skills, rather than indoctrinate them with nationalist dogma and test their ability to memorize and repeat data.
      So your governor has threatened to take away formal, institutionalized, legalistic collective bargaining privileges for health workers. Why not call all everyone you know whom currently works or has ever been employed as either a doctor, a surgeon, a physician, a dentist, an E.M.T., a nurse, a physical therapist, a homeopathic medical practitioner, or a medical student, plus anybody who knows C.P.R., and ask them to convene at a pre-determined location in your community in order to teach one another and the people of the town whatever useful information and skills they may have to pass on?
      Why not start a local charity which allocates funds to purchase health insurance for your neighbors and / or to pay the most qualified among the experts who might need some extra cash to make ends meet or would like some form of modest compensation for their contribution?
      In short, why not use competition and the tools of the free market to “starve the beast” and affect socialistic ends and the public good? At the very least, it could only serve to be conducive towards thrift, creativity, the hands-on passing-down and learning of knowledge and skills, and communal cohesion.
      But I suppose that coming up with realistic, practical ways to use the free market, competition, entrepreneurship, and direct action to affect the public good and starve the State of legitimacy makes me a supporter of the oppressive, bourgeois, capitalist State. And I suppose that all capitalists favor the nationalization of corporations, bailout funds for big banks who rob the American populace, and everything Wall Street. Okay, you got me, all capitalists – even libertarians – support corporate welfare and statism.
      You know who really loves corporate nationalization and giving bailout funds to big banks who rob the American populace? Tammy Baldwin, Democratic Congresswoman of Wisconsin’s 2nd district. A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. A representative to the United States federal government who voted for T.A.R.P., the Troubled Asset Relief Program which cost this country around twelve trillion dollars by some moderate estimates.
      So there you have it, all your progressivists are belong to nationalists. What do you do when you can no longer trust progressives to oppose corporate protectionism, which is what progressives were meant to oppose in the first place? Have the American people forgotten that many of the first progressives – such as Senator Robert LaFollette of Tammy Baldwin’s own home state of Wisconsin, and President Teddy Roosevelt – started out as Republicans?
      Opposition to corporate nationalization and corporate protectionism is truly what progressivistic Democracy and libertarian Republicanism have in common. That’s why any serious, moral political strategy would unite Progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans… In opposition to American militarism, big government, and executive power. In  opposition to big labor and union privilege. In opposition to corporate welfare and business nationalization. In support of communal cohesion and the entrepreneurial American spirit. In support of the strength of unions and businesses against weakening and coddling by the State. In opposition to submission to legalistic, institutional tactics which can be achieved through hard work, responsibility, competition, innovation, creativity, and direct action.
      If I had my way, there would be no government bailouts for big labor at the expense of big business and the taxpayers; there would be no government bailouts for big business at the expense of big labor and the taxpayers. There would be no government bailouts for big business and big labor at the expense of the taxpayers and government services; there would be no bailouts by government for itself and its own bureaucracies at the expense of labor, business, and the taxpayers.
      There would be no simultaneous bailout of the top few auto-makers and the United Auto Workers’ union. There would be no bailouts whatsoever. Dependence on a guaranteed reward for behavior – whether good or bad – only serves to weaken and corrupt a man, as it does an organization.
      What there would be is locally-managed aid and welfare for the poorest, the least-skilled, the least-educated, the least-privileged, the sick, the elderly, and the abandoned. What there would be is locally-managed aid and welfare for the small and local entrepreneurs and businesses which create and innovate, which are productive and industrious, and which make our cities and towns special, exceptional, and unique.
      What there would be are competitive currencies helping to ensure a sound dollar manufactured by a responsible federal government without conspicuous attachment to aggressive, interventionist militarism, which could afford to help out those states, counties, cities, towns, and municipalities which struggle to solve deficits in their budgets.
      Together we can achieve industrious and free enterprise, strong and effective labor, and humble and limited government, all competitive and independent. May the voice of this generation resound clearly throughout the annals of time and history: Corruption is Anarchy. Liberty is Order. Neither We the People of the United States of America; nor our liberty; nor our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall perish from this Earth.



For more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-monopoly-and-scott-walker-recall.html

For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 22, 2011

Materialism: Stirner, Marx, and Arendt

    

Max Stirner, Karl Marx, and Hannah Arendt

Max Stirner was born Johann Kaspar Schmidt in Germany in 1806. He was a student of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the German philosopher who developed systems of thought which came to be known as Hegelian Idealism and the Hegelian dialectic.
      In his thirties, Stirner had contact with the philosophers Bruno Bauer, Friedrich Engels, and possibly also Karl Marx. Stirner, Bauer, Engels, Marx, David Strauss, and Ludwig Feuerbach were among many philosophers whom were influenced by Hegel. Marx once wrote a work which criticized Stirner’s writing.
      Marx and Engels articulate materialist conceptions of history, which Engels refers to as “historical materialism”. Historical materialism is a methodological approach to the study of what causes the development of human society. It views political and societal structures as outgrowths of economic structures and activity.
      According to Josef Stalin, “historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles… to the phenomena of the life of society; to the study of society and of its history.”
      While Marx and Stirner have each been described as both admirers as well as detractors of Hegel, Stirner is typically characterized as more un-Hegelian or anti-Hegelian than Marx.

      Each Marx and Stirner has his own conception of radical materialist philosophy. While Marx gravitates towards a collectivist model which focuses on labor and its product, Stirner articulates an individualist model which focuses on man, his mind, and his humanity.
      In order to properly differentiate the two philosophers’ ideas, it shall be necessary to first explain the concepts of commodification, fetishism, and abstraction.
      In Marx’s view, the actions which men perform in order to sustain their lives and their livelihoods have been turned into mere commodities, just like any other life-sustaining product such as food. So too has the relationship between laborer and employer been turned into a mere commodity, as well as having been objectified and mystified.
      Thus, the social relationship between laborer and employer – and labor itself as well as its product – have ceased to be things which are material and concrete, and have instead become things which are immaterial and abstract.
      The result of this abstraction and this fetishism of the commodity is that labor, its product, and the relationship have become things which are held over and against the laborer, causing him to become a slave, doomed to pursue the rarely-achievable goals of ever-increasing wages, benefits, standards of living, property values, and the payment of accumulating debt.

      Curiously, socialist philosopher Hannah Arendt criticizes Marx for doing the very same thing which he alleges he is trying to combat. According to Arendt, Marx has elevated the labor of man such that it has become the primary end of human existence. Arendt asserts that this has resulted in the subordination of the political realm to the needs of mere animal necessity, which she calls “the rise of the social”.
      Thus, Arendt effectively argues that it is neither the commodification of labor nor the fetishism thereof which enslaves men, but rather, men are enslaved by necessity, by their own need to survive; men are unfree because they have obligations to themselves which are extraordinarily difficult to provide for permanently.
      Stirner would likely be inclined to agree with Arendt in her criticism of Marx. While Marx is focused on labor as a commodity, Stirner appears to be focused on men themselves – as well as on their minds and their humanity – as the things which have been commodified, objectified, and mystified.

      Stirner defends solipsism, which holds that one’s mind is the only thing which one can be certain exists. Stirner writes, “I am not abstraction alone… I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world.” Thus, Stirner defends men and the minds of men as the only things which are certainly concrete and material.
      Often, publicly-traded companies are referred to as “corporations”, governmental entities are referred to as “parliamentary bodies”, and groups of people belonging to churches or governmental entities are referred to as the “body politic” or as the “corpus mysticum” – meaning “mystical body” of the group. All of these terms connote the idea that groups of people may perceive themselves to possess a singular physicality. This is perhaps best illustrated by the manner in which Catholics partake in the sacrament.
      But Stirner contests the claimed corporeity of “God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc.”, and asserts that the only way to reclaim what is one’s own and what is one’s property is to destroy the corporeity of these “ghosts”, to resume perceiving of oneself as his own creator – dislocating the traditional role assigned to the gods – and to proclaim, “I alone am corporeal”.
      Thus, Stirner asserts that only the singular man may possess a body – which is concrete, material, physical, and tangible – as opposed to an abstract, immaterial, intangible concept which multiple men have agreed to construct in their own minds through voluntary cooperation which is – more often than not – merely temporary.
      Being that Stirner asserts that men themselves are corporeal, it would be reasonable to assume that he disagrees with Marx that the labor relationship, labor, or its product were ever either concrete or material to begin with, and so, they cannot be abstracted, because they were already abstract concepts which only existed in the minds of those who perceived them.

      It may be concluded that Stirner believes that men have had their own minds and their own humanity abstracted from them and held over and against them, and that men’s humanity and the need for mankind to pursue a more perfect humanity in addition to the goal of civilization have turned men themselves into slaves.
      Now, due to the commodification of the minds and of the humanity of men themselves – and the fetishism thereof – rather than chasing unachievable economic goals through endless labor, men instead chase the deity-like perfection which is held over and against them by the abstract, immaterial, intangible, and truly incorporeal body politics of the church and of governmental entities, in addition to chasing examples of pinnacles of civilization which often draw back hundreds of generations into the past.
      Thus, humanity and civilization have become mere abstract concepts which are no longer grounded in reality. Furthermore, considering the principles of solipsism subscribed to by Stirner, one can no longer even be certain that humanity and civilization exist in the first place.
      As a result, rather than adopting a societal model which places focus on the importance of the individual, his uniqueness, and his specialty, we have allowed the perfect – which is, for all intents and purposes, unachievable – to take precedence as the primary end of human existence.
      This may be what is truly signified when the abstract is “held over and against us”. Not only is perfection above us, but it has – in a way – become an enemy; an enemy which taunts us from behind the safety of the whip and the chains which it uses to hold and keep us in thrall, terrifying us into resigning not to even consider whether we are free to reach out and achieve it.

      Ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras said, “Man is the measure of all things”. It is a well-known and widely-accepted premise in capitalist and Smithian economics that efficiency, prosperity, and liberty increase with the division of labor and the specialization of profession and task.
      But this specialization has been forfeited, along with the specialty of men – i.e., that which makes men special – and men have consented that their minds, their freedom – especially the freedom to choose their own profession – and their humanity – their essence – become mere chattel, unachievable perfection always just beyond arms’ reach.
      Stirner writes, “…liberalism is a religion because it separates my essence from me and sets it above me, because it exalts [capital-‘M’] ‘Man’ to the same extent as any other religion does its God or idol, because it makes what is mine into something otherworldly, because in general it makes out of what is mine, out of my qualities and my property, something alien – namely, an ‘essence’; in short, because it sets me beneath [capital-‘M’] Man, and thereby creates for me a ‘vocation’.”
      While “vocation” typically denotes one’s occupation, profession, or task, Stirner is using the word in a way which suggests that what he means is that an individual feels that liberalism has summoned him into living a religious life; that he has begun to feel that he has a calling which causes him to feel obligated to act within a framework of moral principles that resembles the structure of religion.

      Stirner appears to be defending men’s ability to choose their own callings, occupations, professions, and tasks, and to create themselves in the manner which they believe to be most conducive to their own uniqueness and specialty. But what does it truly mean to be special?
      A species is a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities. An individual is deemed “special” when it is recognized as having some unusual characteristic or quality which distinguishes it from the others. Thus, as one out of many – e pluribus unum – it becomes an example of the commonality to which it belongs.
      In a representative democracy, the common people choose one individual person from among them to become their representative. Once he is chosen – or elected – he joins the collective governmental body politic, and, in so doing, he runs the risk of becoming drowned out in a sea of voices, and compelled to negotiate his own principles away in the name of accomplishment, getting things done, and doing what the people pay him to do. Thus, he can lose his uniqueness, his specialty.
      However, as he has distinguished himself from among his people, and as he has been elected as an example of the people, he also becomes an example to the people and for the people. The representative’s achievements become a symbol of the achievements of his district’s constituency, and the representative’s moral character becomes an example to and for the moral standards of the people whom he represents.
      Hmmm… one individual coming from among the people, and rising up to be held over and against them as an example of, to, and for their achievement and their moral character, and then participating in their judgment… where have I heard that before?
      Stirner writes that Jesus was “not a ringleader of popular mutiny”, nor was he “carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities”, nor was he a revolutionary who desired to overturn the state. Nor, writes Stirner, was Jesus someone who expected any “salvation from a change of conditions”.
      Instead, Stirner characterizes Jesus as an insurgent who “wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about – and undisturbed by – these authorities”, and so, he “straightened himself up” and “lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to...” Stirner continues, “…precisely because [Jesus] put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator…”.

      What is the desire of humanity? Is the desire of humanity whatever the collective wants and needs? Or is the desire of humanity the desire for humanity, whether felt by the collective or by the individual; the feeling of want and need to obtain that abstract, intangible, immaterial, incorporeal, unachievable commodity known as humanity itself, which is always held – just beyond reach – over and against us in the forms of civilization and moral perfection?
      Is there something that makes the desire of humanity which is felt by the collective inherently superior to the desire of humanity which is felt by the individual, or are the desire for humanity and the desire of the individual one and the same?
      Stirner would likely argue that it is the fetishism of the commodification of humanity which has caused this “two-heads-are-better-than-one”, “strength-in-numbers”, “what-is-popular-is-always-right-and-what-is-right-is-always-popular” mindset.
      Lower-case-“m” men and lower-case-“h” humans have allowed capital-“M” Man and capital-“H” Humanity to get away from them and become abstracted from them. Thus, our humanity has disappeared; it has gone from the only thing which we were certain materially and concretely existed to an intangible, immaterial concept.
      Humanity has become held over and against us; used not only as a standard and as an example, but also as something which ironically and humorlessly can be legitimately used as an excuse to punish and torture us for failing to achieve it.
      Humanity has become institutionalized into the falsely corporeal realms of the state, the church, and the corporate business. These entities have stolen our unique claim to the concrete, the material, the corporeal, the physical, the tangible, the achievable. They have stolen our ownership; literally, that which has the quality of being our own. Stirner contends that these things are property which have been stolen from us, and that they are property which we can and must reclaim.

      Some say we should glorify that which we hold in common. It may be argued that we, in fact, do this quite often, through voting and through the election of our representatives. But what is it about using voting results to make decisions that necessarily causes the outcome to be wiser, fairer, and more appropriate?
      If individual freedom to pursue one’s own selfish desires does not bring about the public good, then why are individuals given the freedom to vote democratically in accordance with the pursuit of their own selfish desires?
      Furthermore, if all legitimate government power is derived from the authority of the governed, then precisely why and how is the government able to do things which those governed individuals are not themselves permitted to do, such as wield a monopoly over the legitimate use and exercise of coercive, violent force?
      How can one delegate a right which one does not have?
      Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Benjamin Franklin agree that private property rights are to be upheld through social contract. Stirner appears to agree as well, although the manner in which he articulates that agreement reveals a unique approach to the concept of the social contract.
    Stirner writes, “According to the Communists’ opinion, the commune should be proprietor. On the contrary, I am proprietor, and I only come to an understanding with others about my property. If the commune does not do what suits me, I rise against it and defend my property… society gives me what I require – then… I take what I require.”
      He also writes, “Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property…” and “What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing.”
      Stirner is correct when he contends that the commune should not be proprietor. The truth is that the commune cannot be proprietor. To be proprietor is to possess property; to have ownership. Inherent in the concepts of property, propriety, ownership, and ownness is individuality.
      Only one man can have what is his own; only one man can have what is proper to himself. The only types of so-called “propriety” which the commune may wield are possession, utility, and access.

      Those who assert that that which is common to all individuals should be held up, exalted, and glorified as the ultimate goal of the existence of men and as an example to and for them are often the same people who seem content to allow just the opposite to occur; that the collective ought to choose one unique, special, distinguished individual from among them to be held up, exalted, and glorified as one who represents the masses, in exemplification of them.
      Perhaps they allow this to happen because they know that their representative’s uniqueness and specialty nearly inevitably become overshadowed by the other representatives with whom he becomes obligated to compromise his ideals in the name of getting things done.
      That which all people have in common does not need to be held up, glorified, nor exalted; it merely needs to be recognized.
      Lower-case-“m” men have no need to become capital-“M” Man; what they need is to take satisfaction in – and feel fulfillment from – the mere fact that they are men, whom are uniquely material, corporeal, physical, tangible, and concrete, unlike the abstract, falsely corporeal body politics which beat them for failing to achieve perfect capital-“M” Manhood.
      Likewise, lower-case-“h” humans have no need to attain capital-“H” Humanity; what they need is to take solace in the fact that they are able to conceive of such an idea in the first place – which gives them certainty about the materiality of their own minds, their own freedom of thought, and their ability to achieve a sort of theoretical perfection – and in the fact that they are free and liberated enough within their own minds to arrive at their own conclusions about how best to make decisions that may be conducive to guiding them towards their own personal, subjective conceptualization of what humanity really is.

      But can we truly attain perfection? Is capital-“H” Humanity within our grasp? No, it is certainly not within our grasp. However, it may be within the reach of individuals whom have truly freed themselves; individuals whom have become free through reclaiming their ownership and propriety.
      Once an individual has acceded to the commonly accepted system of rules, he has consented to be governed by the institutionalization of mediocrity. Once an individual has acceded to the commonly accepted set of constraints, he has consented to become chained to the wall of Plato’s Cave, only able to see – although not even necessarily comprehend – the shadows of the true Forms.
      It is only when a man decides he will play by neither the Rule of Law nor the rules of revolt… that he reaches out and grasps true freedom, perfection, capital-“M” Manhood, and capital-“H” Humanity.
      It is only when a man realizes his own capacity as creator, commits unequivocally to creating himself, reclaims his corporeity from his captors – the body politics of the church and the State – and absolves himself from everything to which the body politics remain bound.
      It is only when a man rises above the external material world within his own mind that he distinguishes himself as unique, as exceptional. As exception to the Rules.
      Out of many, one. E pluribus unum.
Post-Script (2014):
     The adoption of terms like "head of State" into our political lexicon - as well as "the invisible hand of the market", "the three arms of government", "body politic", "parliamentary body", "the publicly-traded corporate (bodily) business", its "corporate head-hunters" - and also the perception that the "oneness" of the supposedly collectivist "union", the "corpus mysticum" of the Church, the notion of "corporate personhood", and ideas like Strawman Theory and Capitis Diminutio, affirm the propriety of Stirner's desire to destroy and reclaim the corporeity of these "ghosts".
     That the national bank, corporations, and unconstitutional government bureaus and programs have the potential to be extended (i.e., to live) past the expiration of their charters (and indefinitely); that an American president has joked that government bureaus seem to possess eternal life; that the government still claims "legitimate violence" in asserting its right to indefinitely detain and murder us, and that the legal fiction of "corporate personhood" (which is possessed by governments, businesses, cooperatives, unions, churches, trusts, etc.) fails to obligate corporate entities to behave with the same responsibility and responsiveness which are expected of individuals, re-affirm Stirner's desire.
     Perhaps we should describe what we desire as "corporate humanity".







The following was written in July 2011,
as "Liberalism as a Religion".

     Decades before Ann Coulter was railing against liberalism as a secular religion, Max Stirner decried liberalism as a religion. Religion and liberalism alike become vocations (callings), compelling men to subject their actual bodies to the authority of falsely-corporeal body-politics (corpus mysticum / mystical body) of the church and the governmental association.
     Welfare liberalism is like asceticism in that it teaches the poor to endure their own suffering (in the case of Catholicism, with the hope that the poor will come to identify their suffering with the suffering of Christ). But liberalism largely ignores the other important role of religion, which is to encourage private charity.
     When laborer and employer contract with one another, each may become aware that the values of each person is subjective; the laborer values his employer’s money more than he values his own labor, while the employer values the laborer’s money more than he values his own money.
     Once one of the parties becomes aware that the other party believes himself to be in a position of benefit (or advantage), he may conclude that he himself must be in a position of detriment (being taken advantage of). But he may fail to take account of his own subjective desires, i.e., that he would take advantage of the other party were the opportunity presented to him (and indeed it is presented to him whenever an employment interview takes place).
     It is the duty of each party to exchange to simply choose for his own purposes whether mutual aid, mutual harm, unilateral benefit, or unilateral detriment is occurring. To assume the other person is trying to harm him is an act of apprehension, neglecting the possibility of mutual aid based on subjective values.
     But to ignore this apprehension and proceed with the contract is an act of good faith; it is an act of charity in which at least one party concerns himself with profiting off of the agreement, but resigns himself to rejoicing in the opportunity to help and serve another human being.
     Coerced charitable giving earned through the extraction of taxes – on the other hand - is a perversion of consequentialist morality; it relieves the taxpayers’ burden of having to bother to contemplate how to act morally of their own volition, and delegates the duty of determining morality to government and to the institutionalized mediocrity resulting from the decision-making of the majoritarian will.
     As in the Alex character in “A Clockwork Orange”, not being able to do evil does not make us good, so long as we still wish to do evil. I see economic systems which place emphasis on the private sphere as inherently more moral than those which do not. I say, give evil a fair shot at competing, and let the good win out by identifying evil as such.



Originally Written in April 2011
Post-Script Written and Added in July 2011
For more entries on philosophy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/max-stirner-images.html

For more entries on religious freedom, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/anarchist-kindergarten-open-letter-to.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-general-welfare-clause.html

For more entries on world religions and mysticism, please visit:
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...