soicial anarchist

I while ago,You'll remember, that I was confused over whether I was an individualist anarchist or a social anarchist. I know that Mutualism in many ways is between the social and individualist schools. I have realised that I am primarily a social anarchist because I would prefer that mutualist banks (I will probably talk about this at some point) be collectively owned by the community to avoid the generation of a capitalist enterprise. I also lean more towards the original proudhonian mutualism rather then the more tuckerite strand. There are bits of individualist thoughts in my general philosophy, but large areas of social anarchism exist there too.

Tucker

Yesterday I talked about whether I was an individualist anarchist or a social anarchist. I am a mutualist, so the confusion in me regarding that is understandable, due to the fact that mutualism is the meeting point between the two strands of the anarchist tradition. After thinking about it I cannot subscribe to the teachings of people like tucker because of this whole idea of private competing protection agencies. This is an awful idea. not only is it exploitative from lots of angles, it would lead to all sorts of armed conflicts and has capitalistic features. I see some REAL problems there. not good, not good at all. Which is why I have decided that when I refer to specifically what type of anarchist I am I will just say Mutualist.

I won't use the term "market anarchist", even though technically I am, because I don't want to be thought of as anywhere near those vulgar libertarians that call themselves "anarcho-capitalists". no way.

My individualism is not as radical as some, I must admit. I'm no egoist. I have aspects of individualist and social thought in my general philosophy.

what you have to realise about these posts is that it is essentially me thinking out loud. I'm figuring things out. So I seem to contradict myself it's just that I'm thinking matters over.

individualism

turns out I might be an individualist anarchist, which surprised me because I thought I was a social anarchist. Not that it matters in the long run, but hey, we'll see if this proves true. I'm certainly pro-free-market, anti-capitalist,anti-rothbard,anti-konkin, anti-state, pro-mutualist, pro-freedom.

I would say I'm against the notion of collectives as the ideal. The rights of the individual are extremely important. I still maintain that social interaction is important, but individual rights are paramount.
Instead of people being bunched together in collectives, individuals, when needing to work with other individuals, should come together voluntarily to form co-operatives with no leaders, no higher authorities and therefore no hierarchies. decisions should be made when everyone in the co-operative has had a say and are in full agreement.

Does this make me an individualist? looks like it.


But I'm an anarchist first and foremost.