Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments


BigG wrote

I don't agree that individualism is to blame for this. Individualist anarchists, for instance, are completely for voluntary community, just not forced community (collectivism).


Foreheader wrote

I find that liberal individualism is mostly an excuse to avoid feeling empathy. According to liberals everyone is responsible for their own "success" in life and if they fail it's exclusively their own fault. This implies that giving a homeless guy some money is bad because it's his own fault, that drug addicts don't deserve help because the addiction is punishment for the sin of taking drugs.

Anarchist individualism is more about doing what you want without being restricted by fixed ideas. Stirner, whose writings have greatly influenced it, embraced empathy as ownership of other being's feelings. Early individualist anarchists built communes far from civilization and state violence where they lived off the land with free love, optional clothing, education that aimed to produce free individuals and so on.


qinpgq wrote (edited )

Going far away to be independent may work, but what about when they, the ones who separated themselves, want to throw uranium on the river they share with people down stream? Say everyone has a police of their own, and say everyone has the same amount of police per citizen; then what the majority wants is what's going to be done, because the majority will have more police. So basically, the majority's desires will still be enforced, voting or not.

And maybe even there won't be a fight, just a declaration of against or in favor. Bc with that, you'll already know if you'll lose or win.

So why not just go to voting and that's it?

Also, at least in voting everyone has the same weight in votes; while with the police thing, a group more inclined to militarism and less to culture, or a richer group, has more "votes", more police to put in a fight, in such a conflict.

And then, Leaving people alone, or not leaving them alone, is also a policy. Leaving alone other people is also something a group might or might not want to do.

And you can say "let them choose for themselves if they want to leave us alone, and if they want to excersise that right (the right to choose in that matter) to come fight, let them do it", well...

What I said above would happen, the majority's desires would be enforced, in reality modified by who's richer or more militarily developed in general for wtv other reason, and then maybe there wouldn't even be an actual fight, and then just vote and wtv.

That chain of logic would unroll, and you'll end up in, let's just vote to settle this dispute.

So going back: "Leaving people alone, or not leaving them alone, is also a policy. Leaving alone other people is also something a group might or might not want to do."

Well, then if the majority would want to leave you alone, that'd happen, or the opposite if they want the opposite.

So let's just vote it.


videl wrote

OP probably meant to say something closer to alienation than to individualism.


qinpgq wrote (edited )

Maybe you are forced to be a community when you're near enough of each other to bother each other in something, and you're forced to decide who wins that discussion.

Also maybe someone wants to attack you, not because you are bothering him, but because you have something he wants, and you're forced to coordinate with others to defend from him. Which, actually, maybe you having something he wants can be considered a variety of "2 people are bothering each other".

And even if you don't bother each other, and are not attacking one another, you're "forced"... It may seem that you're not making any agreements with others, but you and the others are actually agreeing, whether or not that has been expressed out, to not attack each other, you're forced to agree on that.

Like, "letting each other do their thing and not bother each other", is already a form of agreement between a group of people.

Also, I'm not being banned, I'm deleting this account.

Pd: Ok, great, I can't find how to delete the user. Mods, if you want, you can do it, just to leave the username available to others, i don't care more than for that.


ziq wrote

why would anyone ban you..?


qinpgq wrote

I mean, first, wanted to say that with a few words on the internet, intentions get misunderstood.

Second, just wanted to clarify, because maybe say one right winger or wtv oppositor, comes in and says "ah, he goes critical of anarchism in the anarchism sub, he gets banned", so it occurred to me to clarify that.

That being said, I wanted to erase the account to free up the username, as I said, bc I'm not going to keep using the account.