Wendy McElroy : Individualist Anarchist and Feminist

[Dejavu]

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/enews/enews.php

http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/765/76505.png

Anarcha-Feminists, discuss.

[Dejavu]

Actually I should have named this topic Anarcha-Feminism. Other important Anarchist Feminists included Emma Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman), Voltairine de Cleyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltairine_de_Cleyre) and Lucy Parsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Parsons).

[Revy]

I hate that term. "Individualist Anarchist". In fact, I hate any capitalist use of the idea of the individual.



In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

[Bud Struggle]

Is she an "Anarchist" as one would define one here on RevLeft? I don't get that--she seems more of an uber-Libertarian to me. But there's probably a place out there in the theoretical economic universe where all that stuff meets. I do think her views on Anarchism (at least what little I've read on her site) paint a truer picture of what an Anarchist world would look like than the strictly Communist one, i.e. individual owners of production and free trade.

[Edit] On further reading--besides for all the Rand stuff--I think that total equalty of women is quite fair--it would behoove society to do away with all of the sexual "affermative action" and treat women as actual equals.

[IcarusAngel]

Good question. And the answer is "no," she is not an anarchist as would be defined here on revleft, which uses the more historical definition of anarchism. She is a right-wing Libertarian, not a leftist, and there is nothing at her site that has even a remote foundation in serious anarchism: rejection of all hierarchies, landed ownership, democratic ownership of the means of production and so on.

Actually, science is paving the way for the future, and it is a cooperative, anti-hierarchical future. It is not capitalist in any way, shape, or form. Even many mainstream economists now are starting to rethink capitalism. And it is well known in some of the more mathematical theories how important equilibrium. Why do you think those political scientists who ran all kinds of simulations found that cooperative strategies were always the most effective?

Libertarianism is not only non-scientific, it is a rejection of reality.

[Skooma Addict]

http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/765/76505.png

Anarcha-Feminists, discuss.

Really? lol.

[IcarusAngel]

I hate that term. "Individualist Anarchist". In fact, I hate any capitalist use of the idea of the individual.

Individual anarchist kind of makes sense in a leftist framework. There would be some forms of anarchism where of course everybody is guaranteed enough property that they never feel the need to submit themselves to anything. This is the highest form of individualism because they are taking but not giving any thing back. Furthermore, it could refer to the increase in free individual choices one has under leftism.

The right-wing anarchist attempted to hijack anarchism, individualism, socialism, cooperation, etc. If you try and enter a game of semantics with them, it's a game you cannot win:


There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
Noam Chomsky


Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner.
Noam Chomsky

[Havet]

"She says what she wants for society is "not necessarily a capitalistic arrangement but a free market system in which everyone can make the peaceful choices they wish with their own bodies and labor." Therefore, she doesn't call herself a capitalist but someone for a "free market."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_mcelroy#cite_note-Capitalism_Versus_the_Free_Market-2)"

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_mcelroy)

[IcarusAngel]

When she used to run ifeminist she described herself as Libertarian and not anarchist. ifeminist has been around for years. To me there still seems to be too much vulgar libertarianism at that site.

Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." ---Voltairine de Cleyre


Anyway, the 'free society' is not just about free choices. Well, it is, but anarchists clearly clarify that excludes allowing people authority over one another that derives from their land ownership.

Wendy McElroy seems to be one of those libertarians who think that everything would be fine if we privatized everything.

I actually prefer black crayon.

http://www.blackcrayon.com/

Even though there is some an-cap nonsense there, there is a lot of leftism too.

[Havet]

Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." ---Voltairine de Cleyre

ahh...:blushing::blushing::blushing: How did you know I loved Voltairine de Cleyre?? :D


Anyway, the 'free society' is not just about free choices. Well, it is, but anarchists clearly clarify that excludes allowing people authority over one another that derives from their land ownership.

Wendy McElroy seems to be one of those libertarians who think that everything would be fine if we privatized everything.

I actually prefer black crayon.

http://www.blackcrayon.com/

Even though there is some an-cap nonsense there, there is a lot of leftism too.

Agreed.

Have you read the New Libertarian Manifesto in black crayon?

[Conquer or Die]

There is an element of me that would like a Max Stirnerite society. The problem being that this is impossible. Collective power of corporations or the state are used because of their effectiveness. Freedom is only achieved when human equality is imposed on corporations or the state.