Individualist Anarchism

[commie kg]

I remember awhile back on Che-Lives there was a poll asking Anarchists if they were individualists or collectivists. A few voted that they were individualist anarchists.

Well, it seems to me that individualist anarchism is crap. It has nothing to do with leftism. From what I've been reading, it's for a bunch of suicidal nihilists who hate themselves. This is the anarchism that gives all anarchism a bad name in the western world.

I believe it was Max Stirner or Steiner or something that is considered the main mind of individualist anarchism. He wants a society where you are free to murder if you want, with no consequences...

So, are there really any individualist anarchists here?

[Blackberry]

I think you confuse the poll question. The term 'individualist' in that poll question has nothing to do with individualist anarchism. It is a different topic altogether. The Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca213) attempts to answer the question as to whether anarchists are individualists or collectivists (it argues that they are both).

The difference between social anarchists and individualist anarchists is mainly the way to come about an anarchist society (referring to basic and strict definitions).

Individualist anarchists prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions. Strikes and non-violent forms of action are supported, but any sort of direct action is not tolerated. They argue that through this way society will gradually develop out of government into an anarchist one. Revolution involves the expropriation of capitalists, and is therefore authoritarian. They can be described as 'evolutionists', rather than revolutionists.

Social anarchists recognise the need for eduation and the creation of alternative institutions, but go a step further in the advocation of direct action and revolution. Revolution is rather libertarian since it frees people from hierarchy.

There are other differences, such as property. Individualist anarchists do not see private property as a contradiction to anarchist principles.

The type of economy in an anarchist society is also one of dispute. Social anarchists normally argue for social ownership and use -- a need-based system. Individualist anarchists propose a more market based system in which workers would possess their own means of production and exchange the product of their labour freely with other workers.

There is a complex analysis of the differences here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html#seca31).

[Raisa]

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 13 2004, 02:23 AM
I remember awhile back on Che-Lives there was a poll asking Anarchists if they were individualists or collectivists. A few voted that they were individualist anarchists.

Well, it seems to me that individualist anarchism is crap. It has nothing to do with leftism. From what I've been reading, it's for a bunch of suicidal nihilists who hate themselves. This is the anarchism that gives all anarchism a bad name in the western world.

I believe it was Max Stirner or Steiner or something that is considered the main mind of individualist anarchism. He wants a society where you are free to murder if you want, with no consequences...

So, are there really any individualist anarchists here?
To me I dont think individualist anarchism really makes anarchy then.

If you have the freedom to opress some one, thats not worthy of being called freedom.

Not a leftist philosophy indeed.

[Kaan]

Individualist Anarchy, as I understand it, is mostly a different type of motivation for achieving the same thing. A Social Anarchist will support anarchy with emphasis on the masses or working class liberation. An Individualist emphasizes the need for personal freedom, but does recognize the need for soceity. Max Stirner even noted that to be an absolutely complete individual, one must interact with soceity, as long as the interaction is based solely on free association. I happen to think its an alright thought, as some people are kind of egotistical, and if the somewhat selfish rantings of Max Stirner can help move them towards the left, its ok with me.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 13 2004, 02:23 AM
I believe it was Max Stirner or Steiner or something that is considered the main mind of individualist anarchism. He wants a society where you are free to murder if you want, with no consequences...

So, are there really any individualist anarchists here?
I haven't teken on an ideological brandname yet, so no I'm no nessecarilly an individualist-anarchist.

I'm sure he wasn't talking just about murdering for no reason. Aswell you might argue from an individualist's perspective, that killing a man who kills for fun is in his/her idividual interest, it's not as simple as "do whatever you want, no consequences".

Besides if it's only a murder sentence that stops you from killing people left, right, and, center then why are YOU a leftist?

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 13 2004, 12:23 PM
I believe it was Max Stirner or Steiner or something that is considered the main mind of individualist anarchism. He wants a society where you are free to murder if you want, with no consequences...
He may or may not advocate murder without consequence. But would you provide specific text, with a full link to the text in order for the context in which it is written in may be recognised, so that this claim you make may be substantiated?

It would interest me to see the argument put foward to support such a view.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by Comrade James+Apr 20 2004, 03:34 AM--> (Comrade James @ Apr 20 2004, 03:34 AM)
commie [email protected] 13 2004, 12:23 PM
I believe it was Max Stirner or Steiner or something that is considered the main mind of individualist anarchism. He wants a society where you are free to murder if you want, with no consequences...
He may or may not advocate murder without consequence. But would you provide specific text, with a full link to the text in order for the context in which it is written in may be recognised, so that this claim you make may be substantiated?

It would interest me to see the argument put foward to support such a view. [/b]
It is in my political philosophy textbook. I have a History exam to get to in a few minutes, but later I will post what it says in the book.

[DaCuBaN]

...I guess he never got back from his exam :lol:

Will we ever know what was printed in that book? ;)

[Morpheus]

It is in my political philosophy textbook. I have a History exam to get to in a few minutes, but later I will post what it says in the book.

Your political philosophy textbook is lying. I suspect the author has never even read the people he's referring to. It's pretty standard for textbooks to slander any kind of radical philosophy. Whenever something characterizes a philosophy (whether it's individualist anarchism, nihilism, or some other ideology) as "suicidal nihilists who hate themselves" and who "want a society where you are free to murder if you want" you should assume it is a lie unless proven otherwise. Such nonsense is a common libel against anarchists of many stripes (and sometimes other ideologies) and almost always turn out to be false.

IIRC, Max Stirner never technically called himself an anarchist, however his philosophy is almost always taken to imply anarchism. He called his philosophy egoism. Almost all contemporary egoists are anarchists. If you want to know what he believed, you should read his book The Ego and It's Own It's online at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/...er/theego0.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html)

Individualist anarchism is a form of anarchism that focuses more on the individual, rather than on the collective. The best known individualist anarchist was Benjamin Tucker. You can find many of his writings online at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/index.html Note that he repeatedly refers to himself as a socialist.

[apathy maybe]

I refere to myself as a anarchist/communist. I think that communism is a mainly social society plan, while anarchy is mainly an indervidual thing. (As in rights for society as opposed to rights for inderviduals.)
I also call my self an indervidualist. (And other things.)

[iloveatomickitten]

He wants a society where you are free to murder if you want, with no consequences

I think it's more that there are no moral consequences to actions, revenge taken by a "loved one" would surely count as a consequence.


If you have the freedom to opress some one, thats not worthy of being called freedom.

There would be no reason to accept opression, and no infrastructure to sustain it. Without restrictive moral and legal considerations or a concept of duty, it would be very difficult for an individual to attain a stable power basis.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:34 AM
...I guess he never got back from his exam :lol:

Will we ever know what was printed in that book? ;)
No, I ended up going to a baseball game after the exam. :P

And now I'm in the same situation. I have to go to work, but I'll scan what's in the book for you when I get home.

[Pawn Power]

it is simpler to be a individualist anarchists because you do not have to really do anything, communism will take effort to achive but is worth it in the end.