I think I may have a firmer grasp on the issue of Anarchist factions. Correct me if I am going off track, but it seems to me that the main difference between both factions is that one proposes individualism as the solution, while the other (more mainstream) faction proposes individualism as the problem (if not the main problem, then a major problem).
Is this accurate to say?
I would say that there is in fact no conflict here. I think both positions can be held at the same time. In fact, I think I do so myself.
On the one hand, I believe that all coercive social institutions are collectivist, and that Anarchy would lead to a society where the average individual's values come to the fore and are expressed, not ruling class values. In this view, Anarchy is fundamentally rooted in the moral values of the individual, which include social values like freedom, equality, etc.
On the other hand, I believe that the most fundamental perverse effect of collectivism is that it creates a whole society of non-confront and non-responsibility: everyone just "does their job" without any attention paid to the morality of one's actions whatsoever. People in this state have no thought whatsoever to society as a whole and the effects of their actions on society. So in this sense I would say I am also contra-individualist.
In essence, I think we need to differentiate what kind of individualism we're talking about: individualism of the individual working within the system, or individualism of the individual's true values and desires which, since morality is innate, will inevitably be more moral than whatever statist system we are faced with.
Do you think this is a possible way of resolving the conflict, or am I oversimplifying?