Individualist and Lifesyle Anarchism

[Cult of Reason]

I consider myself a social Anarchist, but what are lifestylism and individualism? Why are they good/bad?

Thanks.

[JazzRemington]

Lifestylism is only applying certain principles of a belief to one's lifestyle. For instance, tehre is a tendency in the United States for people to believe that one can live like anarchist, as if being an anarchist was like being a hippy (if you follow). The problem with lifestylism is that energy is focused inward and on changing the self, as opposed to focusing energy outward and changing society, which has been the goal of anarchists and Marxists sicne their inceptions.

ALL anarchists have respect for the individual, so do not let the title of "individualist" fool you. The difference here is that Individualism espouses that the individual should be able to do ANYTHING (including owning slaves, exploit people, etc.), as in the type of Individualism that Capitalism promotes.

Individualist Anarchism is simply "market anarchism," meaning it's basically anarchism with respect for personal (not private) ownership of property and socialist markets (markets that opperate with prices being the cost to bring the object to the market). Most Individualist Anarchists are egoists in the Stirner sense of the word. There is a small minority of anarchists today, mostly American, that claim they are Individualist Anarchists but support Capitalism. This is nonsense because every single Individualist Anarchist has been anti-capitalism and clearly stated an opposition to capitalism as being part of their beliefs.

[Cult of Reason]

The difference here is that Individualism espouses that the individual should be able to do ANYTHING (including owning slaves, exploit people, etc.), as in the type of Individualism that Capitalism promotes.

Hmmm... Sounds similar to Medieval Icelandic society.

[anomaly]

I asked this question to apathy maybe. He told me that individualist anarchists simply don't support 'revolution' in the classic sense. They want to do away with capitalism by things like not participating in the system, not participating in the government, etc. Things that would make capitalism and the state lose its legitimacy.

I don't know if that's accurate, but it does sound a hell of a lot better than JazzRemington's definition.