AUT: Re: individualist anarchism

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 10. juli 2002 13.57
Subject: AUT: individualist anarchism

Tahir, there exist such a thing as individualist anarchism but
what you are referring has nothing at all to do with anarchism,
if the concept is gonna have any sense at all. Anarchist have
disagreed about many things throughout its history, but not
about the the goal of abolishing class society. Put it simply, you
cannot simulataneously be a supporter of capitalism and an
anarchist. I think you will also find that the people you refer to,
logically enough, support a minimum state.
         But you cannot outlaw people calling themselves whatever
they want. Who knows, may be tomorrow Bill Gates will define
himseld as part of the working class. It is hardly a surprise that
this relative recent phenomenom arose in the United States.


The circle theory of yours (and others) I don't give much for, if
the reference is to political concepts. If we are talking in
psychological rather than political terms, there is something to it.
However, you would have to be far more concrete. But it might
for instance be said that people who are foremost attracted to
the action rather than to substance, may end up in the
strangest of places, and noone should be much surprised if
they do.
        But how do you define "extreme leftwing elements"? And
what do you refer to when say  "opposition to ... all politics".
There is not hard to find certain fascistoid undercurrents among
some "extreme leftwing elements" but  these are precisely not
libertarian traits, but a rightist one. That is also why I am
extremely sceptical to all talk about being against democracy,
or for that sake the term "pathological pacifism".  When people
talk as if they cannot distinguish between sane naivity and
what is "pathological"  something weird is happening which
is not very healthy.
        When anarchists historically have talked about being against
politics, that was only politics in the dominant marxist and
bourgeois sense. In every other sense, anarchists as a rule were
extremely political, even if it would not be hard to find exceptions,
especially in times of marginality.
        What is important here is however that the cental anarchist
claim has always been that there is no contradiction between
individual liberty and practical solidarity but on the contrary that
these reinforce each other. Kropotkin and others drew the logical
conclusion that anarchy is the condition for communism and the
other way around.

The above is very superfical but it is rather a large theme.

Harald



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---