Ego-Anarchism is the negation of all fixed ideas: of Homeland, State, religion, Morals, Property, Belonging.
It’s all about those who don’t belong to any group, act alone because of their character or geographical isolation, don’t recognize labels, follow their strong attitudes, recognize their individual Ego as genius. It is an unconditional, full, aware experimentation with oneself, which often encounters others’ experiences and is destined to succed or fail. The many shades of becoming, which are not aborted, are the expression of a choice, an attempt at the highest revelation of the individual, who realizes the conditions of being because he is.
The need to individuate the new dynamics of interrelation determined by the new nature of relational bonds, be them communicative or social, reflects itself in the identification of the right terms, which are themselves subjected to mutations and which fulfil at the best a peculiar representative function, hence the choice of Ego-anarchism.
Ego-anarchism has nothing to do with the historical contraposition between anarcho-individualism and socialist-anarchism, nor does it dwell on methods of organization or not organization. For the moment it does not even want to analyze the many conditions that allowed the birth of all these trends. On the contrary it wants to take advantage of all these distinctions in order to re-launch the extreme variety of possible and certainly desirable situations.
Ego-anarchism represents the overcoming of these distinctions as their assumptions themselves have been overcome. Moreover, the identification of the overcoming of these assumptions allows the elimination of any instance of ridraft of the historical dynamics at the origin of the birth of the anarchist movement, the socialist one and the individualist one.
The new nature of the relational bond has reconfigured the approach to the words Revolt and Revolution, by taking into account their dynamics in terms of Individual and Mass.
Revolt is opposed to Revolution because the latter is the ‘reform’ of an old order that leaves the condition of dependence and subjugation of the Individual intact.
The Individual is opposed to the Mass because society is intended as loss of the Individual, a characteristic magnified by Socialism. Society cannot be an alternative to the State because it is an order based on collective principles and interests, which always establishes a subordinate, functional, subsidiary position for the individual.
The attempt at absorbing the individual Ego does not occur because the group amplifies its boundaries but because of a coercive change of position imposed on the Ego, which obviously refuses the suppression of its own self in favour of a homologation requiring uniformity in order to guarantee control. This attitude, usually linked to sects, even the Bakuninan ones, but also to all other groups and organizations, be them structural or elemental, formal or informal, consitutes the core that generates the fallacies of the present situation. This core is formed by the intrinsic base of socialist cognition, which today struggles to be abandoned even if it has largely demonstrated its failure in history. The mass smoothes the differences in order to deifne itself. But if one looks at it carefully, one can see that it is basically composed by torpid and atrophied individuals, forced to perform rites and subjected to symbols of belonging, frustrated because they pursue a common dream which is not theirs, isolated in the multitude and subjected to it.
Development of the awareness of oneself, growth, change of one’s conscience, in the name of freedom, autonomy, individual self-determination; the centrality of the individual in the opposition to the old order and in the new forms of association, which are associations or unions of individuals and don’t have ‘their own life’ or ‘autonomous subsistence’.
Ego-anarchism has a heterogeneous character, the fruit of theoretical and political practices, which are centred on the individual, a man conceived not as a category but as an individual.
Therefore, the definition of a general theory of the individual appears impossible because it would offend individual originality.
Anarchy is the creative spark that originates from the depth of the individual Ego. It cannot lead to thousands of visions and interpretations of everyone’s life and reality at a certain moment. There exists no way to assess the fact of being anarchist for an individual because this depends on different choices at different times. And the individual’s action cannot be assessed either, although it is always characterized by an anarchist conception of life, that is to say an attitude of absolute and indignant impatience and of revolt against anything that oppresses and tries to limit and subject us.
To conclude, it is in the development of individualist dynamics that absolute autonomy of the individual emerges, for both himself and the relations he intends to forge every day.