Editing Individualist anarchism (section)

== Overview ==

The term ''individualist anarchism'' is often used as a classificatory term but in very different ways. Some such as the authors of ''An Anarchist FAQ'' use the classification individualist anarchism/[[social anarchism]],<ref name="AFAQ"/> while [[Bob Black (anarchist)|Bob Black]] contrasts an individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism ("Type 2 anarchism") less representative of the anarchist tradition with the more representative collectivist anarchism or anarcho-leftism ("Type 1 anarchism").<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf01/113c3fe9059d59b9e4ea37f48cbe3747cae9.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190303000808/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf01/113c3fe9059d59b9e4ea37f48cbe3747cae9.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2019-03-03|s2cid=35607336|doi=10.5860/choice.44-5863|author=Curran, Giorel|title=21st century dissent: Anarchism, anti-globalization and environmentalism|journal=Choice Reviews Online|year=2007|volume=44|issue=10|pages=44–5863|doi-broken-date=1 February 2025 |hdl=10072/12679|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Others such as [[Geoffrey Ostergaard]], who see individualist anarchism as distinctly non-socialist, recognizing [[anarcho-capitalist]] as part of the individualist anarchist tradition, use the classification individualist anarchism/socialist anarchism accordingly.<ref name="Ostergaard">[[Geoffrey Ostergaard|Ostergaard, Geoffrey]]. "Anarchism". ''The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought''. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.</ref> However, others do not consider anarcho-capitalism as part of the [[anarchist movement]], arguing that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and anarchists reject that it is compatible with [[capitalism]].<ref>Meltzer, Albert (2000). [https://archive.org/details/anarchism00albe ''Anarchism: Arguments For and Against'']. AK Press. p. 50. "The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism' dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper".</ref><ref>Goodway, David (2006). ''[[Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward]]''. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Marshall|1992|p=565}}: "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists".</ref><ref>[http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html "Section F – Is 'anarcho'-capitalism a type of anarchism?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190909065550/http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html |date=2019-09-09 }}. ''An Anarchist FAQ'' (2008). Published in physical book form by "An Anarchist FAQ" as Volume I. Oakland/Edinburgh: AK Press. 558 pp. {{ISBN|9781902593906}}.</ref><ref>Newman, Saul (2010). [https://books.google.com/books?id=SiqBiViUsOkC&q=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian&pg=PA43 ''The Politics of Postanarchism, Edinburgh University Press'']. p. 43. {{ISBN|0748634959}}. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)".</ref> In addition, an analysis of several individualist anarchists who advocated [[Market anarchism|free-market anarchism]] shows that it is different from anarcho-capitalism and other capitalist theories due to these individualist anarchists retaining the [[labor theory of value]] and [[Socialist economics|socialist doctrines]].<ref name="Franks 2013"/><ref name="Adams & Levy 2018"/> Other classifications include communal/mutualist anarchism.<ref>[[Kevin Carson|Carson, Kevin]], [http://www.mutualist.org/id24.html "A Mutualist FAQ"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070718061309/http://www.mutualist.org/id24.html |date=2007-07-18 }}.</ref> 

[[Michael Freeden]] identifies four broad types of individualist anarchism. Freeden says the first is the type associated with [[William Godwin]] that advocates [[self-government]] with a "progressive [[rationalism]] that included benevolence to others". The second type is the [[Moral nihilism|amoral]] self-serving rationality of [[Egoist anarchism|egoism]] as most associated with [[Max Stirner]]. The third type is "found in [[Herbert Spencer]]'s early predictions, and in that of some of his disciples such as [[Wordsworth Donisthorpe]], foreseeing the redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution". The fourth type retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of market relationships.<ref name="Freeden, Michael pp. 313–314"/> Individualist anarchism of different kinds have the following things in common:
# The concentration on the [[individual]] and their will in preference to any construction such as [[morality]], ideology, social custom, religion, [[metaphysics]], ideas or the will of others.<ref name="individualism">{{harvnb|Díez|2006|pp=30–31}}: "En la vida de todo único, todo vínculo, independientemente de la forma en que éste se presente, supone una cadena que condiciona, y por tanto elimina la condición de persona libre. Ello supone dos consecuencias; la libertad se mantendrá al margen de toda categoría moral. Este último concepto quedará al margen del vocabulario estirneriano, puesto que tanto ética como moral serán dos conceptos absolutos que, como tales, no pueden situarse por encima de la voluntad individual. La libertad se vive siempre al margen de cualquier condicionamiento material o espiritual, 'más allá del bien y del mal' como enunciará Nietzsche en una de sus principales obras. Las creencias colectivas, los prejuicios compartidos, los convencionalismos sociales serán, pues, objeto de destrucción."</ref><ref name="individualism2">"Stirner himself, however, has no truck with 'higher beings.' Indeed, with the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls "spooks," or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which they are dominated. First amongst these is the abstraction "Man", into which all unique individuals are submerged and lost. As he put it, "liberalism is a religion because it separates my essence from me and sets it above me, because it exalts 'Man' to the same extent as any other religion does to God ... it sets me beneath Man." Indeed, he "who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook." [p. 176 and p. 79] Among the many "spooks" Stirner attacks are such notable aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour, the state, religion, and (at times) society itself. We will discuss Stirner's critique of capitalism before moving onto his vision of an egoist society and how it relates to social anarchism. [http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG6 "G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101123154932/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG6|date=November 23, 2010}} in An Anarchist FAQ</ref>
# The rejection of or reservations about the idea of revolution, seeing it as a time of mass uprising which could bring about new hierarchies. Instead, they favor more [[evolutionary]] methods of bringing about anarchy through alternative experiences and experiments and education which could be brought about [[Immediatism|today]].<ref name="evolutionary">"The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now (and so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists generally prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions, such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. Such activity, they argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out of government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists, not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action to create revolutionary situations."[http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA3#seca31 "A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101123103313/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA3|date=2010-11-23}} in An Anarchist FAQ</ref><ref name="evolution2">{{harvnb|Díez|2006|p=30}}: "Toda revolución, pues, hecha en nombre de principios abstractos como igualdad, fraternidad, libertad o humanidad, persigue el mismo fin; anular la voluntad y soberanía del individuo, para así poderlo dominar."</ref>
# Individual experience and exploration is emphasized. The view that relationships with other persons or things can be in one's own interest only and can be as transitory and without compromises as desired since in individualist anarchism sacrifice is usually rejected. In this way, Max Stirner recommended [[Union of egoists|associations of egoists]].<ref name="association">{{harvnb|Díez|2006|p=31}}: Finalmente, y este es un tema poco resuelto por el filósofo bávaro, resulta evidente que, a pesar de todo culto a la soberanía individual, es necesario y deseable que los individuos cooperen. Pero el peligro de la asociación conlleva la reproducción, an escala diferente, de una sociedad, y es evidente que en este contexto, los individuos deban renunciar a buena parte de su soberanía. Stirner propone "uniones de egoístas", formadas por individuos libres que pueden unirse episódicamente para colaborar, pero evitando la estabilidad o la permanencia."</ref><ref name="association2">"The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual interests of those involved, who would "care best for their welfare if they unite with others." [p.&nbsp;309] The unions, unlike the state, exist to ensure what Stirner calls "intercourse," or "union" between individuals. To better understand the nature of these associations, which will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends, lovers, and children at play as examples. [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p.&nbsp;25] These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it, "intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the commercium, of individuals." [p.&nbsp;218] Its aim is "pleasure" and "self-enjoyment." Thus Stirner sought a broad egoism, one which appreciated others and their uniqueness, and so criticised the narrow egoism of people who forgot the wealth others are:
:"But that would be a man who does not know and cannot appreciate any of the delights emanating from an interest taken in others, from the consideration shown to others. That would be a man bereft of innumerable pleasures, a wretched character&nbsp;... would he not be a wretched egoist, rather than a genuine Egoist?&nbsp;... The person who loves a human being is, by virtue of that love, a wealthier man that someone else who loves no one." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 23]"[https://web.archive.org/web/19991008043031/http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secG6.html What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?]</ref>

Tucker's two socialisms were the state socialism which he associated to the [[Marxism|Marxist school]] and the [[libertarian socialism]] that he advocated. What those two schools of socialism had in common was the [[labor theory of value]] and the ends, by which [[anarchism]] pursued different means.<ref>Brown, Susan Love (1997). "The Free Market as Salvation from Government". In Carrier, James G., ed. ''Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture''. Berg Publishers. p. 107. {{ISBN|9781859731499}}.</ref>

The [[Egoist anarchism|egoist]] form of individualist anarchism, derived from the [[philosophy of Max Stirner]], supports the individual doing exactly what he pleases—taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules.<ref>{{cite book|last=Miller |first=David |title=The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought |year=1987 |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |page=11|isbn=0631227814}}</ref> To Stirner, rights were ''[[Reification (fallacy)|spooks]]'' in the mind, and he held that [[society]] does not exist but "the individuals are its reality"—he supported property by force of might rather than moral right.<ref>"What my might reaches is my property; and let me claim as property everything I feel myself strong enough to attain, and let me extend my actual property as fas as ''I'' entitle, that is, empower myself to take..." From ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'', quoted in {{cite book|last=Ossar |first=Michael |year=1980 |title=Anarchism in the Dramas of Ernst Toller |publisher=[[State University of New York Press]] |page=27|isbn=0873953932}}</ref> Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw "associations of egoists" drawn together by respect for each other's ruthlessness.<ref name=woodcock20>{{cite book|author-link=George Woodcock|last=Woodcock |first=George |year=2004 |title=Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements |publisher=Broadview Press |page=20|isbn=0140206221}}</ref>

A European tendency of individualist anarchism advocated violent individual acts of [[individual reclamation]], [[propaganda by the deed]] and criticism of organization. Such individualist anarchist tendencies include French [[illegalism]]<ref name="Parry, Richard 1987. p. 15">Parry, Richard. The Bonnot Gang. Rebel Press, 1987. p. 15</ref> and Italian anti-organizational [[Insurrectionary anarchism#19th century|insurrectionarism]].<ref>{{harvnb|Woodcock|1962}}: "Anarchist historian [[George Woodcock]] reports the incident in which the important Italian [[social anarchist]] [[Errico Malatesta]] became involved "in a dispute with the individualist anarchists of [[Paterson, New Jersey|Paterson]], who insisted that anarchism implied no organization at all, and that every man must act solely on his impulses. At last, in one noisy debate, the individual impulse of a certain Ciancabilla directed him to shoot Malatesta, who was badly wounded but obstinately refused to name his assailant."</ref>

Another important tendency within individualist anarchist currents emphasizes individual subjective exploration and defiance of social conventions. Individualist anarchist philosophy attracted "amongst artists, intellectuals and the well-read, urban middle classes in general".{{sfn|Parry|1987|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=qwELAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA15 15]}}

Anarchist historian [[George Woodcock]] wrote of individualist anarchism's tendency to distrust co-operation beyond the bare necessities for an [[Simple living|ascetic life]].{{sfn|Woodcock|1962}}