I was aware that Brainpolice had migrated towards the more collectivist end of the Anarchist spectrum, but that Tremblay also had I found quite amusing/surprising.
I was curious if anyone would like to their thoughts as how people can migrate away from things like STV to LTV? etc
But a lot of people have moved from the collectivist side to the individualist side just as easily.
Your quite right Libertyandlife, quite right.
But what do you think happens to people that causes them to move to the collectivist side? Is it an experience? Something they read? Is it something that happens slowly over time?
But what do you think happens to people that causes them to move to the collectivist side? Is it an experience? Something they read? Is it something that happens slowly over time?
Why does it needs to be something progressive, or something that leads from one’s belief in individualistic market anarchy? It could be, just as well, the product of a fickle mind, which finds greater appeal to collectivist rhetoric (as opposed to individualist rhetoric, mind you). There are prior individualist market anarchists who have opted for statism, instead.
In any case, there is no one answer to your question. Each person probably has his own reasons for changing ideology.
The argument that I would make is that if individualist theory follows logically (and the principles behind collectivism do not), that the people who “switched sides” either had a lapse in logic or did not understand their position to begin with. This is, of course, arguing from the standpoint that the individualist view is the only one that is logically verifiable.
If they did not understand the position in the first place, then their poor understanding could have been further undermined in any number of ways.
A lapse in logic could have happened during any number of things… listening to a speech, watching a youtube video, reading an article, a slow buildup of emotion, etc.
I tend to agree with Callahan. Ideology is usually abandoned only when it becomes irreconciable with reality.
I tend to agree with Callahan. Ideology is usually abandoned only when it becomes irreconciable with reality.
It seems to me that ideology consists of, or is influenced by, one’s perception of reality. Of course, one can say that his beliefs are not an ideology because they coincide with reality, but to someone who disbelieves in that reality the other’s belief is just an ideology. It’s just much safer to assume that all beliefs are ideologies, including those of Callahan.
It’s a problem with the idea of an individual.
There is no such thing as an individual.
It’s also a problem with the idea of society.
There is no such thing as society.
On one hand, the hippies and primitivists who try to live as hermits living off the land by themselves have ended up living lives unimaginable in the Third World, because division of labour and the proprietal authority of one person over many is how people have survived this long. On the other hand, those who thought they could live collectively by and for other people lived as the Essenes did, who grew skinny and weak and dying in their attempts to live a non-proprietal, socially collective life.
The notion of “individualism” is confusing. Man is a social being, but the folks here talk about “methodological individualism”, which is to simply specify that you can’t put collective blame on people where it’s specific persons who made a decision. That’s not the same thing as complete hermit-like individualism, which too many young and newly initiated classical liberals assume it to be.
For the record, the ones who dislike liberals and pro-Austrians the most are ex-liberals and ex-Austrians. It happens at a point where they confuse methodology with personal living philosophy.
I think they are probably individualists. It seems their gripe is that if you have private property, someone else’s ownership of property compromises their freedom. So full individualism is the absence of property. Since you can free wheel and use anything and go anywhere you want.
Could clarify for the me the part about it being only progressive? Do you mean it doesn’t have to be a gradual change but an instant one?
Your quite right.
There is no one answer. However, there may be an answer that is true for most people. That is all I’m trying to explore. I realize it may appear futile, but I’m really just interested in what peoples opinions are. They may very well know someone personally, who has switched from side of the fence to the other.
Don’t you find it fascinating that someone can be fervently one kind of anarchist and then a whole other kind? I do.
Could clarify for the me the part about it being only progressive? Do you mean it doesn’t have to be a gradual change but an instant one?
Yes, I meant to imply that there is no reason why the change has to be gradual and systematic. In other words, there’s no reason why the change occurred because ideology B logically followed from some of the implications of ideology A.
Don’t you find it fascinating that someone can be fervently one kind of anarchist and then a whole other kind? I do.
I don’t find it fascinating, because I tend to agree (with some of the posters here) that it is most likely a product of the lack of true understanding of the original ideology they were supporting (and, also, most likely of the new ideology adopted). I don’t see it as a complete reversal of beliefs.
That doesn’t mattter, because he criticizes both sides. Of course, it would be cool if he could just confirm it himself, but I believe, that majority wouldn’t like his answer anyway 
hahaha
Actually my current position is not particularly incompatible with what historical individualist anarchists have believed (and arguably the position of many contemporary anarcho-capitalists is incompatible with it, but I don’t want to go down that road of argument here). And I don’t adhere to any LTV. So basically I’d have to unpack the loaded way you seem to be using the terms individualism and collectivism to clarify anything. In either case, from my point of view, I simply abandoned anarcho-capitalism in particular because many of the premises ends up appearing wrong or incoherant, or I discovered internal contradictions.
That is not my stated position, and you should note that me and Tremblay have different positions.
Were there any particular books or other writings that led you to these conclusions?
Thankyou for the correction Brainpolice.
That was perhaps a poor example, my intention was really just to ask, how people believe one thing commonly associated with Individualist anarchism, and then adopt a different position associated with the other sides, e.g mutualism, collectivism, insert anarchist label X here.
More examples could be property vs possession, or things like non-aggerssion principle vs moral nihilism…if thats what it called?
Does that help clarify my question?
Well, I am rather generalizing and making them loaded, but that is to simplify the analysis of moving from one to another. Although perhaps you could go into that a bit more.
Thanks again for giving an answer from the horses mouth, so to speak.
STV? LTV? Can someone enlighten me what this is?
Nothing in particular. A good deal of it was just internal thought process, although such a thought process took place in the context of on-going internal libertarian discussion and debate. I suppose some of the left-libertarian writings may have influenced me (and by left-libertarian, I’m mostly refering to the market-friendly left-libertarians like Carson, Chartier, and Long; but one may very well find at this point that even someone like Carson is friendlier to ancapism than I am).
Common acronyms for Subjective Theory of Value and Labor Theory of Value.
As is implied in the post you’re quoting, I don’t think you’re quite accurately using the term individualist anarchism, since mutualism (at least certain interpretations of it) is a form of individualist anarchism or overlaps with it. The 19th century individualist anarchists like Tucker were heavily inspired by Proudhon (and later Stirner). Kevin Carson, a contemporary mutualist, frankly has more in common with Tucker than Proudhon. Kropotkin and Bakunin attacked Proudhon’s notions as too individualistic and a concession that would end up turning back into capitalism. Relative to such extremes, mutualists have often been middle-grounders.
I think property/possession is largely a semantic wall, so I don’t cling to it much. I think the morality thing is an entirely separate issue. In fact, I’ve been debating for the past two years with anarcho-capitalists who self-proclaim to be moral nihilists, with me argueing against moral nihilism. Anarcho-capitalism itself has split into factions over the morality question. But I also have critisized those who think that non-aggression is an axiom or who dress it up with philosophical baggage that I find to be problematic. That puts me in a category that the binary you’ve presented cannot account for.
Well, that’s the issue from my POV in that I think these things tend to be more nuanced.