The following essay was published in The Match magazine, published in April-May 1976.
Individualism and Despotism
by S.E. Parker
DURING the early part of this century Giovanni Papini wrote a critique of Herbert Spencer in which he accused Spencer of being an “empty and half-hearted” individualist. Like Georges Palante, Papini pointed out that in his “The Man versus the State”, Spencer had opposed the tyranny of the State over the individual, but said “not a word against the far more powerful tyranny of society. Social dogmas, precisely because they are not fixed in laws and regulations, are more oppressive than the principles of State control. Against the latter there is some defense; they are matters of law. Against social dogmas, reinforced by public opinion, there is no resource save useless and solitary revolt.
I do not agree with Papini that “solitary revolt” is necessarily useless, but I do agree with his remarks regarding the tyranny of “social dogmas”. His criticism applies not only to Spencer, but to anyone who rebels against the vertical authority of the State, only to replace it with the horizontal authority of Society, or some other collectivity.
I part company from Papini, however, over his view of the relation between individualism and despotism. He states that: “Despotism is the only practical ideal of Anarchy. Alexander the Great… was far more free than any citizen of modern Europe, precisely because he stood alone in the power to command and to possess. True individualism, then, consists in counselling subjection, not rebellion, in making slaves, not revolutionists, instruments, not critics.”
Can individualism be identified with the despotism of “the power to command”—in other words, with the exercise of authority by rulers like Alexander?
Let me make it clear that I do not regard the rulers as “evil” and the ruled as “good”. Benjamin Tucker once pointed out that both society and the individual have the same “right” to coerce each other IF they have the might. The incompatibility of individualism and rulership is rooted in other soil than the barren wastes of morality. It is rooted in the nature of each.
Rulership is not simply a one-way relationship in which a “free” despot makes merry with his slaves. It is a reciprocal affair which binds both ruler and ruled and destroys the independence of each.
“He who, to hold his own, must count on the absence of will in others, is a thing made by these others, as the master is a thing made by the servant. If submissiveness ceased it would be all over with leadership.”
(Max Stirner)
“The moment that ‘to be master of myself’ means ‘to be master of others’, the moment my independence does not derive from my autonomy but from the dependence of others on me, it becomes obvious that I remain bound to the others and have need of them if only to reduce them to nothing.”
(Maurice Blanchot)
Individualism means SELF-determination, not OTHER-determination, whether from above or below. “Individualism,” writes Papini, is “the full exercise of personal power.” Agreed. But no matter how personally strong I am, no matter how shrewd a “Machiavellian”, I can only effectively rule over others if I take into account at least some of their needs and convince them that I can satisfy them. Once they cease to believe I can do this then I can end up in bitter exile like Napoleon, or hanging head first like Mussolini. The ruled may depend on me for their direction, but I am also dependent on them not only for my position but also my “raison d’etre” as a ruler. As Stirner said, at bottom it is the SERVANT that makes the master.
It is certainly true that rulers AS A CLASS have always enjoyed power and privilege at the expense of the ruled AS A CLASS. But although this may attract the aspirant to authority who takes a dynastic view, or who is enraptured by some belief in a historical dialectic, it is of no value to the individualist who has before his eyes his OWN life as a mortal being. To mistake the conscious egoism of the individualist for the one-sided or blind egoism of the would-be despot leads only to confusion, if not disaster. It has been said that the astute ruler finds out which way the crowd wants to go and places himself at its head. An individualist, however, is interested in HIS way, not that of the crowd, and wishes to be free to change his direction as he wills, not as others will.
I suspect that much less would be heard of the belief that individualism can equal despotism, were it not for the persistence of the social-democratic fiction that the ruled many are merely the deceived and innocent victims of the ruling few. This populist poppycock not only distorts the vision of its upholders, but also that of some of their critics who conclude that, if one does not want to be among the deceived and innocent ruled, the only alternative is to become a ruler. Hence the confusions of Papini and the muddled politicking of certain Nietzscheans. The power of the ruler certainly reflects the INDIVIDUAL powerlessness of the ruled, but just as an electric current needs both positive and negative elements in order to flow, so does the ruler depend on the ruled as they depend on him. The way of the individualist is outside of both. He is IN society, but not OF it. He is an Anarchist because he is an egoist and does not wish to submit his ego to the dictates of any collectivity, whether it is called “the State” or “society”.