Category Archives: Emile Armand

Individualist Perspectives

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

This essay was first published in Bulletin de SIA (Toulouse), 1957; this translation by Richard DeHaan first appeared in Views and Comments, Number 25, New York.

The anarchist individualists do not present themselves as proletarians, absorbed only in the search for material amelioration, tied to a class determined to transform the world and to substitute a new society for the actual one. They place themselves in the present; they disdain to orient the coming generations towards a form of society allegedly destined to assure their happiness, for the simple reason that from the individualist point of view happiness is a conquest, an individual’s internal realization.  

Even if I believed in the efficacy of a universal social transformation, according to a well-defined system, without direction, sanction, or obligation, I do not see by what right I could persuade others that it is the best.  For example, I want to live in a society from which the last vestige of authority has disappeared, but, to speak frankly, I am not certain that the “mass,” to call it what it is, is capable of dispensing with authority.  I want to live in a society in which the members think by and for themselves, but the attraction which is exercised on the mass by publicity, the press, frivolous reading and by State-subsidized distractions is such that I ask myself whether men will ever be able to reflect and judge with an independent mind.  

I may be told in reply that the solution of the social question will transform every man into a sage.  This is a gratuitous affirmation, the more so as there have been sages under all regimes. Since I do not know the social form which is most likely to create internal harmony and equilibrium in social unity, I refrain from theorizing.  

When “voluntary association” is spoken of, voluntary adhesion to a plan, a project, a given action, this implies the possibility of refusingthe association, adhesion or action.  Let us imagine the planet submitted to a singlesocial or economic life; how would I exist if this system did not please me?  There remains to me only one expedient: to integrate or to perish.  It is held that, “the social question” having been solved, there is no longer a place for non-conformism, recalcitrance, etc; but it is precisely when a question has been resolved that it is important to pose new ones or to return to an old solution, if only to avoid stagnation.  

If there is a “Freedom” standing over and above all individuals, it is surely nothing more than the expression of their thoughts, the manifestation and diffusion of their opinions.  The existence of a social organization founded on a single ideological unity interdicts all exercise of freedom of speech and of ideologically contrary thought. How would I be able to oppose the dominant system, proposing another, supporting a return to an older system, if the means of making my viewpoint known or of publicizing my critiques were in the possession of the agents of the regime in power?  This regime must either accept reproach when compared to other social solutions superior to its own, or, despite its termination in “ist,” it is no better than any other regime.  Either it will admit opposition, secession, schism, fractionalism, competition, or nothing will distinguish it significantly from a dictatorship.  This “ist” regime would undoubtedly claim that it has been invested with its power by the masses, that it does not exercise its power or control except by the delegation of assemblies or congresses; but as long as it did not allow the intransigents and refractories to express the reasons for their attitude and for their corresponding behavior, it would be only a totalitarian system.  The material benefits on which a dictatorship prides itself are of no importance. Regardless of whether there is scarcity or abundance, a dictatorship is always a dictatorship.  

It is asked of me why I call my individualism “anarchist individualism”? Simply because the State concretizes the best organized form of resistance to individual affirmation. What is the State?  An organism which bills itself as representative of the social body, to which power is allegedly delegated, this power expressing the will of an autocrat or of popular sovereignty.  This power has no reason for existing other than the maintenance of the extant social structure.  But individual aspirations are unable to come to term with the existence of the State, personification of Society, for, as Palante says: “All society is and will be exploitative, usurpacious, dominating, and tyrannical.  This it is not by accident but by essence.”  Yet the individualist would be neither exploited, usurped, dominated, tyrannized nor dispossessed of his sovereignty.  On the other hand, Society is able to exercise its constraint on the individual only thanks to the support of the State, administrator and director of the affairs of Society.  No matter which way he turns the individual encounters the State or its agents of execution, who do not care in the least whether the regulations which they enforce concur or not with the diversity of temperaments of the subjects upon whom they are administered.  From their aspirations as from their demands, the individualists of our school have eliminated the State.  That is why they call themselves “anarchists.” 

But we deceive ourselves if we imagine that the individualists of our school are anarchists (AN-ARCHY, etymologically, means only negation of the state, and does not pertain to other matters) only in relation to the State – such as the western democracies or the totalitarian systems.  This point cannot be overemphasized.  Against all that which is power, that is, economic as well as political domination, esthetic as well as intellectual, scientific as well as ethical, the individualists rebel and form such fronts as they are able, alone or in voluntary association.  In effect, a group or federation can exercise power as absolute as any State if it accepts in a given field all the possibilities of activity and realization.  

The only social body in which it is possible for an individualist to evolve and develop is that which admits a concurrent plurality of experiences and realizations, to which is opposed all groupings founded on an ideological exclusiveness, which, well-meant though they may be, threaten the integrity of the individual from the moment that this exclusiveness aims to extend itself to the non-adherents of the grouping.  To call this anti-statist would be doing no more than providing a mask for an appetite for driving a herd of human sheep.  

I have said above that it is necessary to insist on this point.  For example, anarchist communism denies, rejects and expels the State from its ideology; but it resuscitates it the moment that it substitutes social organization for personal judgment.  If anarchist individualism thus has in common with anarchist communism the political negation of the State, of the “Arche,” it only marks a point of divergence. Anarchist communism places itself on the economic plane, on the terrain of the class struggle, united with syndicalism, etc (this is its right), but anarchist individualism situates itself on the psychological plane, and on that of resistance to social totalitarianism, which is something entirely different.  (Naturally, anarchist individualism follows the many paths of activity and education: philosophy, literature, ethics, etc; but I have wanted to make precise here only some points of our attitude to the social environment.) 

I do not deny that this is not very new, but it is taking a position to which it is good to return from time to time.  

Property

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

In present society property is only the privilege of a small minority, compared to the multitude of the working classes.  Whatever may be the nature of the object possessed—a field, a house, plant for production, cash, etc, its owner has acquired it either by exploiting others, or by inheritance, and in the latter case the origin of the wealth is the same as in the former.

Moreover, what do the owners of this wealth do with it?  Some use it to obtain, in exchange, a life of leisure, to taste all sorts of pleasures to which money gives sole access.  These are the idlers, the parasites who excuse themselves from all personal effort and merely rely on that of others.  Continue reading →

Our Demands as Individualist Anarchists

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Note by John Zube

The following is merely the translation of a translation.  It was written in French by E Armand, published 1945 in l’Unique, and reprinted in LA FEUILLE, published by the Association Max Stirner du Quebec, CP 95, Stn Place D’Armes, Montreal.  The translation into German for publication in Lernziel Anarchie, No. 4, was done by CR. 
This German version is here roughly translated into English by John Zube, 30.12.1985.
  In the comment it is mentioned that Armand’s book (L’Initiation individualiste anarchiste 1923, 344 pp, ed de L’En Dehors) is out of print.  An improved and enlarged edition came out in Italian.

The individualist anarchists in the meaning of the UNIQUE (of Stirner’s The Ego and His Own) do advocate a “society without coercion.”  This implies the following demands, which are unqualified and without reservations.  It is self-evident that these demands are to be realized, completely or partly, as far as is possible.

Individualists of our kind recognize every society as a “Society without Coercion” in which the State and any other aggressive power is eliminated, in which there is no longer any domination of man over man or over a sphere of society (and vice versa) and in which an exploitation of man by man or of man through social institutions (and vice versa ) is impossible.

Thereupon the following demands arise:

1) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to decide for oneself in all respects.
  This means that every unit in society moves according to its own discretion, develops itself, gathers experiences in accordance with its own preferences, corresponding to its talents, reasoning and personal resolutions.
  In short, the individual is responsible only to himself (or to those to whom he has obliged himself) for all his actions.
  This freedom finds its limits where the equal freedom of others begins and the danger arises that others are harmed.

2) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to chose and practise one’s profession and to utter one’s opinion orally and in writing, publicly and privately.

3) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to join any association that has definite and predetermined purposes or any other association of any kind.

4) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to decide for oneself either for or against any expression of solidarity, for and against any contractual obligation of whatever kind and in whatever sphere of human activity and without regard to its aims and its duration.  Likewise, the right to freely decide upon withdrawal from a contractual situation, within the framework of clearly predetermined contractual conditions.  One precondition is that, in case a contract offer is declined or a contract is dissolved, the dissenters are not penalized or maligned.  But when a contract is dissolved then neither disadvantages nor any harm must arise for the partner that would be contrary to the form and contents of the contract.

5) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT for producers and consumers and other partners to negotiate, whether alone or in groups.  Full and unrestricted right, regardless of the sphere of activities and their purpose, to select the persons and societies of one’s confidence and to authorize them, especially teachers, instructors, physicians, lawyers and arbitrators.

6) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to determine and change the value or price of any goods, their own products or consumer goods, of whatever kind, according to one’s own discretion.  Likewise untouchable is the right to negotiate in this respect, to use an arbitrator or to do without any determination of values.

7) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT for every individual and every association or group to use any money that applies as a means of exchange to themselves, for their goods and service exchanges, to issue it themselves or to accept that issued by others, provided that this is always done by agreement and not under any monopolistic coercion.  The same applies to the so-called labour bonds and goods warrants and similar certificates, to bills, letters of credit etc, whether they are negotiable or not.  Consequently, there is a definite right to utilize any voluntarily recognized means of payment for all economic transactions, as long as it is not subjected to any legal tender.  With this is meant the unrestricted right to utilize any other kind of means of exchange, provided that an acceptor is found who decides for it without any coercion.

8) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT for individuals and groups, to compete for any job or contract, provided that the applicants are not prevented from fully informing and improving themselves.
  Likewise untouchable are the rights to act creatively in accordance with one’s desires, to move and settle freely and to advertise one’s own cause or services.

9) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to exhibit and realize in any sphere of culture and economics one’s opinions or services. There is no other limitation upon this than the condition that nothing may be forced upon others.  They may freely decline whatever does not appeal to them.  Under this condition the unrestricted right to freedom of expression applies and the right to propagate and teach a theory and to undertake experiments and gather experiences, even when this applies to economic, philosophic, scientific, religious, educational, artistic or any other spheres of activity.

10) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to live from the returns of one’s own services or production, even alone, outside of any group or community or society itself, at one’s own risk.
  Likewise unrestricted is the right to seek to live together with a partner, in a family, in a patriarchal or matriarchal society, in free associations and communes, in close ideological association of whatever kind.

11) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to decide for oneself to join any association or league whose libertarian aims embrace any kind of human activity or search for knowledge.  This applies to associations for any economic, intellectual, ethical, emotional recreational or other purpose and, especially for all spheres of production, consumption, trade, communication, insurance against all possible risks, educational methods and systems, to the utilization of scientific discoveries and of naturally or artificially produced energies.

12) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to secede from any kind of association, but in accordance with the principles and clauses agreed upon when it was established.

13) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT for any association, league, cooperative etc. to organize itself in a way that suits its members best.  This includes the right to order internal affairs at one’s own discretion, in accordance with an internal constitution that applies only to the voluntary members.

14) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to settle upon and utilize for oneself any non-inhabited and not claimed locality or real estate, provided that thereby the equal right of others is not infringed and no one else is exploited thereby.  
Under this condition the individual has an incontestable right to possess his means of production (tradesman’s tools, instruments, machines, land, minerals, etc).
  This requires also the freedom to dispose oneself over the returns from or product of one’s own labour—to the  extent that no domination over or exploitation of others is involved.
  Moreover, the individual shall be guaranteed the unrestricted right to exchange or dispose of his products upon the market or in any other way, regardless whether he does so for payment or under any other condition.
  Any association or community has the equal right to apply within their own organization the principles here explained or similar ones.

15) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT for each individual and, likewise, for any member of an organized  society, to dispose freely over his personal property, ie, over the utilization rights and the returns that he receives in exchange for his personal labour services and which assure him his support, his accommodation  (and, especially for the individual, the means of production).

16) FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to express affection for others and preference for anything, according to one’s own discretion, provided that neither any deception or any fraud is associated with this and, most importantly, no one is harmed, restricted or in any way reduced thereby.

17) DEMANDS THAT APPLY ESPECIAL-LY TO WOMEN AND MOTHERS: 
FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT for every woman, whether alone or in partnership, to determine for herself her readiness to become a mother.
  A child shall remain only as long under supervision or custody until it has reached an age in which it can self-responsibly engage in contracts and associations.  This applies also to the guardianship for a child.  The mother possesses priority in this–which she may completely or partly transfer to another person or institution.

18) DEMANDS APPLYING ESPECIALLY TO CHILDREN:
 FULL AND UNRE-STRICTED RIGHT for the child, boy or girl, to demand an alteration or complete change in its wardship condition.  The child may ask for an early declaration that it is of full legal age or for the clarification of any other problem.  In this case the child has the right to arbitration and the right to chose the arbitrator or at least one of the arbitrators.

An excerpt from Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

To say that the anarchist movement embraces several tendencies is not to put forward anything new; it would be surprising if it were otherwise.  Non-political, outside of parties, this movement owes its existence solely to the individual personalities of which it is composed.  Since there is no a priori anarchist programme, since there are only anarchists, it follows that each one of those who call themselves anarchists has his own conception of anarchism…To ask that all anarchists should have similar views on anarchism is to ask the impossible.  Continue reading →