Your schools of thought..

Rotten_Republic · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:52 pm **Posts:** 20

Guest wrote:

Noor wrote:

'Proffer' - I assume you mean 'prefer'?

no, proffer, as in, promote or advance individualism as an idea.

Quote:

Again, I'm BOTH. I do not really prefer 'individualism' or 'collectivism' so stop strawmanning. It's a fucking false dichotomy.

we're all both. that's implicit in everything i've been saying. (btw, you shouldn't be taking this personally; i've been speaking generally, not directly to/about you; there's no need for hysterics.)

the collectivist understands this; he doesn't fear individualism, since the individual is at the core of his concern. the individualist doesn't understand it; he believes that he must choose one or the other (and that this is even possible), since he sees the collective as an enemy to the individual -- either that, or, for the umpteenth time, he simply doesn't want to bend with the winds of social change. the individualist is in some ways a conservative, which partly explains why the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quote:

The primary purpose of individualism is to recognize that persons have individual values and ought to be free to achieve those as long as they don't interfere with others' pursuits. That's it. Stop loading it with your assumptions.

and as i've repeated several times now, if that were all there was to individualism, then it would be absolutely redundant to collectivism. but of course that's not all there is to it. individualism is presented as a alternative -- a negation even -- of collectivism, which they present as a threat to the individual. this betrays (again!) either: 1) ignorance of the fact that collectivism is an expression of the desire for individual freedom; 2) disdain for collectivism for some other reason, the most intuitive possibility being that the individualist wants to avoid something inherent to collectivism, which, based on my experience, appears to be the recognition among collectivists that running with the herd, bending with the wind -- compromising -- is necessary for all social animals, including (especially?) homo sapiens.

Quote:

you simply seem to have a hard time accepting that someone can be both 'individualist' and 'collectivist'

nope, i've stated as much on this forum, before you even registered, and have repeated it in your presence. collectivists are the ultimate pro-individualists; individualists are the ultimate anti-collectivists. which of these fits your accurate contention that someone can be both (and my contention that everyone must be)?

individualism is superfluous to collectivism; or, rather, the former is subsumed by the latter. when you say 'collectivism', you are implicitly saying 'individualism'. the reverse is not true. indeed, when you say 'individualism', you are saying 'not-collectivism' (which, let's be honest, is part of the attraction, especially in the hyper-atomized usa, where the mere suggestion of human solidarity is met with hissing and whispers of gulags).

Quote:

because you have an allergy to the term 'individualist.'

nah, just to the literal nonsense which self-professed 'individualists' pass off as theory.

You are right fucking on Guest!
I've been in this argument more than my fair share of times, i wish i had your ability to explain it so well.

My point has always been, "what do you think the black flag of Anarchism stands for? nothing but individual freedom!" the right of the individual to say "i want no part of this!" and to find his own way. the "Social" Anarchists have always amended our black flags with red, to show that we believe in a highly organized, productive society. the red is the expression of our wilingness to compromise.

As far as the original topic of the thread, i consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist with an affinity for agorist like revolutionary counter economics (black/grey market businesses funding revolutionary activity!).

blacktriangle · **Posted:** Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:58 pm

I’ve lived on an primitive-communist community with a population of around 200 people for the past 40 years. We have a legal structure (Cooperative) that acts as a buffer between the State and our members. The land is owned communally and members’ use of it is restricted by Proudhon’s dictum that that which the artisan requires to earn his daily bread is not property and therefore not theft (my paraphrasing). Despite this I am reminded everyday that some of our members are native peoples who may have a different interpretation.
Members contribute an annual tithe to the community that can be made up of cash or community work, or a mix of both. Within the community there are various syndicalist like groups that form and reform in order to run things like a school, store, building projects and a fire brigade. We tend to spend more time on growing food than revolutionary theory and yet our community seems to be a launch pad for people who go on to engage in environmental actions.
Personally I see myself as a Darwinian with Kropotkinite tendencies but feel free to label – and flame me – as you see fit.

Guy Debord · **Posted:** Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:31 am

Collectivists are the only anarchists who can be taken seriously -- the pretensions of individualist anarchists have always been ludicrous.

Insecuritykiller · **Posted:** Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:43 am

Quote:

Collectivists are the only anarchists who can be taken seriously -- the pretensions of individualist anarchists have always been ludicrous.

Ai, the truth here. Whats the point of even being an anarchist if you dont care. Isnt that why people turn to politics, because they want to change the world?

Mind you this is only for the revolutionarys. Once the revolution is complete, there will be no more need to remain as super moral human beings. We can return to being arseholes and individualists again. To a certain degree, i think there should be a culture of caring in order to keep the social society going. But this by no means has to be painful.

Black flag to me represents humanity and the love of it.

Guest · **Posted:** Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:28 am

topical: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=76379

Guest · **Posted:** Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:02 am

I am an egoist mutualist, and my main influences come from Marx, Stirner and Proudhon. I advocate a free market based on direct trade (moneyless).

Guy Debord wrote:

the pretensions of individualist anarchists have always been ludicrous.

Not all individualists. Just the Misesean, Randian and ultra-Rothbardian ones. Then again, they are all capitalists, and IMO, capitalism is very altruistic and state-collectivist; so they aren't even 'individualists'.

Snowdrop · **Posted:** Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:07 am

Guest wrote:

I am an egoist mutualist, and my main influences come from Marx, Stirner and Proudhon. I advocate a free market based on direct trade (moneyless).

Thought I was logged in but I wasn't: this is MY post!

TeflonMaster · **Joined:** Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:13 pm **Posts:** 7

Anarcho-Communist

thelastindividual · **Joined:** Tue May 19, 2009 8:14 am **Posts:** 1013

Guest wrote:

Not all individualists. Just the Misesean, Randian and ultra-Rothbardian ones. Then again, they are all capitalists, and IMO, capitalism is very altruistic and state-collectivist; so they aren't even 'individualists'.

Someone who is against capitalism because it isn't greedy enough?!?!?!

*facepalm*

Snowdrop · **Posted:** Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:28 pm

thelastindividual wrote:

Someone who is against capitalism because it isn't greedy enough?!?!?!
*facepalm*

Not exactly. I am against capitalism, because all the greed is concentrated in a privileged upper class, where the vast majority must work for them in order to survive: wage serfdom.
And greed/selfishness isn't really the big problem of capitalism. Power is the big problem. Capitalists, just like vulgar communists, use the guns of the state to subordinate everyone to their property norms. That's pretty 'collectivist' in the capitalist sense of the word. Capitalism has also got some significant similarities with slavery:
If a slave retaliates against his owner and said owner's property, then the slave is imprisoned and/or murdered.
Some goes for a person who retaliates against a capitalist, no?
Both capitalists and slave owners use(d) empty rhetoric to try and justify their authority.
Both parties use(d) the guns of the state to advance their ideals.

Also, why are you conflating individualism (autonomy, freedom of choice, mutual aid...) with greed? Greed comes from corruption, corruption comes from power, power and individualism never have and never will be compatible.

Furthermore, why are you giving capitalism a human quality and calling it 'greedy' as if 'it' even exists. Capitalism, like all other -isms (even anarchism) is a spook, a ghost, a figment of the imagination of an organism stuck in some backwater galaxy floating through a mostly empty spacetime continuum.

And lastly, why are you acting so surprised? I already said I was influenced by Stirner, who said:

Max Stirner wrote:

Communism rightly revolts against the pressure I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble.

And also, he believed the employer-labourer relationship was exploitative, making the head egoist himself an anti-capitalist!

thelastindividual · **Joined:** Tue May 19, 2009 8:14 am **Posts:** 1013

Right I get most of that but explain this part -

Snowdrop wrote:

capitalism is very altruistic

Firstly you sound like a bloody randian. Secondly, how in the fuck is capitalism altruistic?

Snowdrop · **Posted:** Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:48 pm

thelastindividual wrote:

Right I get most of that but explain this part -

Snowdrop wrote:

capitalism is very altruistic

Firstly you sound like a bloody randian. Secondly, how in the fuck is capitalism altruistic?

Firstly, I know I do, but Randians are inconsistent (they support individual liberty, but then, a lot of their positions on the state, foreign policy and even their actions say otherwise), secondly I already made a loose explanation of how capitalism is altruistic:
1: Its dogmatic universalist (they erroneously believe that capitalism is going to be the worldwide socioeconomic system of anarchy) property norms
2: Wage serfdom (also known as wage slavery, although the term is rather vulgar)
3: The inequality of conditions in a typical employer-employee relationship: the desperate worker who is willing to work for the lowest wage and his employer, who just wants an extra room in his mansion (it can be the other way around). Exploitation is virtually inevitable. That worker is, by desperation, compelled to work hard for the good of someone else, receiving little in return (altruism). True, it is not exactly capitalism which causes the desperation (the state is the real cause), but capitalism cannot exist without a state, because it is based on landlordism, the -ism from which the first states sprung.

you don't need to be a bloody randian to oppose altruism... Stirner wasn't, Proudhon wasn't, Benjamin Tucker wasn't...

patrickhenry · **Posted:** Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:25 pm

Quote:

That worker is, by desperation, compelled to work hard for the good of someone else, receiving little in return (altruism).

Altruism by definition is: The unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

Quote:

Altruists choose to align their well-being with others - so they are happy when others thrive, sad when others are suffering. Essential in establishing strong relationships, most societies acknowledge the importance of altruism within the family. By motivating cooperation rather than conflict, it promotes harmony within communities of any size. Of course, peace within communities does not necessarily herald peace between communities, and the two may even be inversely related - witness for example, the way in which social strife tends to decrease within countries at war.

When I think of altruism I think of a voluntary reaction. Your use of the term in a capitalist system is altruism through coercian.

thelastindividual · **Joined:** Tue May 19, 2009 8:14 am **Posts:** 1013

Yeah that's the problem I have with most of the egoist types as well. They seem to want to define 'greed' out into absolutely every kind of voluntary interaction which just aint so. I can sort of understand the reasoning and it's a pretty good thing to throw in people's faces when they go on about 'anarchism/communism doesn't work because humans are naturally greedy' but it seems a little unnecessary.

Snowdrop wrote:

Proudhon wasn't

I'm pretty certain Proudhon wasn't an egoist.

jack · **Joined:** Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:48 pm **Posts:** 580

Guest wrote:

I am an egoist mutualist, and my main influences come from Marx, Stirner and Proudhon. I advocate a free market based on direct trade (moneyless).

Guy Debord wrote:

the pretensions of individualist anarchists have always been ludicrous.

Not all individualists. Just the Misesean, Randian and ultra-Rothbardian ones. Then again, they are all capitalists, and IMO, capitalism is very altruistic and state-collectivist; so they aren't even 'individualists'.

The quote is actually "The pretensions of anarchism in its individualist varients have always been laughable". And yes, it is about your kind (this was written before Rothbardism or any of its offshoots existed), you are laughable and your ideology is laughable,enjoy.

Your schools of thought..

Who is online