Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

If you're going to write this:

"I also think your characterization of anarchist individualism is also unfair"

You need to define "anarchist individualism".

Why do you think your definition is a rule?

This is a problem of subjectivity.

The only way any one learns their identity is through the culture, we can only have our psychological needs filled by other people, and we can only get justice from the system if we act collectively. That's the beginning of collectivism.

Where does "anarchist individualism" fit in that?

3

leftous wrote

I am not saying my version of individualism is a rule, but rather that right-wing individualism ("rugged individualism") is self-contradictory since it oppresses the individual. Anyone who actually values the individual would oppose it. So associating it with anarchist individualism doesn't make sense.

Anarchist individualism on the other hand values free association and self-determination. It opposes the oppression of individuals.

The desirable form of collectivism is one which acknowledges, and doesn't suppress, the individual. So in this sense, individualism can work in concert with collectivism. When the collective is all that matters, and the individual's ability to choose how to live is disregarded, it leads to oppression and harm (psychological and otherwise).