Evolution Of Thought: Away From Individualist Anarchism, Why?

[A_L_Pruitt]

@Brainpolice

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 attacked Proudhon’s notions as too individualistic and a concession that would end up turning back into capitalism.

I don’t think whether mutualism either is a form of individualist anarchism or overlaps with it, hinders asking the question why people move from one part of the anarchist spectrum to the others.

When I originally asked the question, I painted it in broad strokes, essentially, why do people move from the groups that are considered and/or commonly associated with the right to the left, and even visa versa.

Now, I didn’t use right vs left, since I particularly don’t like those terms, so I decided to refer to them as individualist and collectivist. I mentioned mutualism, because it is distinct enough in my opinion to be considered its own its, since it also overlaps with various collectivist anarchist elements.

@Brainpolice

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.

I think your taking issue with the wrong thing here Brainpolice. Its just like the STV thing. My point was that there are various issues within each anarchist framework, that can be identified with one or the other. I’m interested in why people change their minds from one to the other. Eventually to where they label themselves with in another camp.

Whether those examples I came up with are good or bad doesn’t matter. Its the above point I was trying to make.

Yes, I’ve seen some of your videos, and you try to define yourself out of them.But wouldn’t you agree that you consider yourself to share more in common with anarchists of another variety that is not within the individualist anarchist variety? Vountaryists, anarcho-capiatlists, market anarchists call it what you will.

Don’t you think there is a large enough range of issues that you take a similar stand as an anarchist group, enough for you to be positioned within that camp?

@Brainpolice

Well, that’s the issue from my POV in that I think these things tend to be more nuanced.

I think that depends on the person. But even if you aren’t the correct example, the question still stands.

People move away from the anarchist groups that can be associated with anarcho-capitalism, (how would this be defined to your satisfaction?) to other anarchist camps.

Brainpolice, I must say, if you don’t like me using that word then what word best describes anarchist groups of the Agorist (SEK3), Voluntaryist, Anarcho-capilist variety vs the primitivist, syndiclist, collectivist variety?

What is so wrong with bundling them? Do they not share many characteristics?

[Libertyandlife]

If we’re going to start labeling anarchists, this is the way I see it: If Anarchosocialists are “left” anarchists, and anarchocapitalists are “right” anarchists, mutualists, left Rothbardians, agorists and the like seem to be “center” anarchists. Still doesn’t mean we can’t cooperate for a common goal of statelessness. We have nothing to compromise.

In anarchy, noone needs to force anyone to be in any type of system. Anything could be.

[Brainpolice]

I don’t think whether mutualism either is a form of individualist anarchism or overlaps with it, hinders asking the question why people move from one part of the anarchist spectrum to the others.

When I originally asked the question, I painted it in broad strokes, essentially, why do people move from the groups that are considered and/or commonly associated with the right to the left, and even visa versa.

Now, I didn’t use right vs left, since I particularly don’t like those terms, so I decided to refer to them as individualist and collectivist. I mentioned mutualism, because it is distinct enough in my opinion to be considered its own its, since it also overlaps with various collectivist anarchist elements.

I think that’s fair enough, but the wording of the OP appears to imply that anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism are one and the same thing rather than things that overlap, and that I’ve somehow completely abandoned anything to do with “individualism”. I’m also not fond of the way in which some people wield “individualist” and “collectivist” as an opposition.

Yes, I’ve seen some of your videos, and you try to define yourself out of them.But wouldn’t you agree that you consider yourself to share more in common with anarchists of another variety that is not within the individualist anarchist variety? Vountaryists, anarcho-capiatlists, market anarchists call it what you will.

It would depend on what the question or issue is.

Don’t you think there is a large enough range of issues that you take a similar stand as an anarchist group, enough for you to be positioned within that camp?

Not to the point where I can fairly be characterized as sharing the exact same ideological space as most anarcho-communists and Chomsky fans.

People move away from the anarchist groups that can be associated with anarcho-capitalism, (how would this be defined to your satisfaction?) to other anarchist camps.

Brainpolice, I must say, if you don’t like me using that word then what word best describes anarchist groups of the Agorist (SEK3), Voluntaryist, Anarcho-capilist variety vs the primitivist, syndiclist, collectivist variety?

What is so wrong with bundling them? Do they not share many characteristics?

The issue with bundling them is that it is not at all even clear that there is uniformity inside of them, let alone that the specific ideas of an individual can be accurately represented by a particular label of this sort.

[Brainpolice]

If we’re going to start labeling anarchists, this is the way I see it: If Anarchosocialists are “left” anarchists, and anarchocapitalists are “right” anarchists, mutualists, left Rothbardians, agorists and the like seem to be “center” anarchists. Still doesn’t mean we can’t cooperate for a common goal of statelessness. We have nothing to compromise.

I think, to the extent that we are going to make use of the terms left and right, that this kind of makes sense. In fact, I’ve argued before that many of the “left-libertarians” of the Roderick Long and Brad Spangler variety really have “centrist” views.

[Libertyandlife]

Yes, because they aren’t really socialists, or inherently egalitarian. The only thing they are “left” from is anarchocapitalism.

When it comes to labels, labels are good for personal ideas on anarchism, but as a whole, we can be adjectiveless. We’re not statists, so we do not need to force each others ideas on each other.

[Brainpolice]

Yes, because they aren’t really socialists, or inherently egalitarian. The only thing they are “left” from is anarchocapitalism.

I’d argue that, at least in the case of folks like Long and Spangler, the vast majority of their political views are the same as most anarcho-capitalists. There are just a few twists here and there in the details and some rhetorical tendencies outside of the norm. In the case of Spangler, I believe his “left-libertarianism” is almost nothing more than a semantic thing for PR purposes. Of course, I’m saying this in the spirit of not considering them substantively “leftist” enough, although I greatly respect Long.

Agorism is mostly just anarcho-capitalism with anti-politics/anti-voting as a commitment, a strategic focus on oppurtunities in black and grey markets, as well as a class theory that is mostly already implicit in fairly standard anarcho-capitalist beliefs. Left-rothbardianism is an interpretation that singles out a very specific period of Rothbard’s thought that he later abandoned, but mostly retains core anarcho-capitalist beliefs. So from my point of view none of these things are very significant deviations.

The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is at best dominanted by “centrist” views relative to the norm in anarcho-capitalism and social anarchism. The mutualists are about as “left” as that particular loose group gets, and there isn’t even a consensus as to what mutualism is (the interpretations range from Tuckerite individualism to some Neo-Proudhonian thing to something not too far from communism afterall). Of course, all of this is why I find hardcore anarcho-capitalists regarding these as a big threat to their house of cards to be bizarre.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I’m also not fond of the way in which some people wield “individualist” and “collectivist” as an opposition.

[Brainpolice]

Well, the convo often ends up being a debate of straws. Anti-individualism = “you think everyone lives in a vacuum or should do everything by themselves”. Anti-collectivism = “you think we should be like the borg”.

[Stranger]

Who the hell are these people?

[Brainpolice]

What people?

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Who the hell are these people?

What do you mean by you people?

[MisguidedThoughts]

The label “leftist” has a certain aesthetic appeal to it.