What's the absolute minimum someone has to believe in order to be an Anarchist

Hey ComradeAppleton, by your reasoning, what is "The Individual"? It's so fascinating, I want to hear it again. Please entertain us about how great he is, how he subjugates women, colonizes Africans, and fantasizes about having mass orgies.

Um... but... you... just... did... anyway... by... starting... it... all... over... again... even... though... you... didn't... want... too... !?

My head hurts!

He fantasizes about not having mass orgies! He doesn't like the post-revolution communist orgies, remember. Onanism is the individualist way!

I don't know. The things that come out of his brain can be quite surprising. I think, deep down in his heart, in his inner communism (which we all have), he does fantasize about orgies.

You'll pardon me if instead of replying to all these idiotic comments I just accept Kropotkin's definition of anachism

you accept this? - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html

I hope you actually read that and you know that at one point Kropotkin writes:

So Kropotkin fully acknowledges that individualist anarchists are anarchists. He does not agree with their theories, but he does not try to deny to them the label of 'anarchism' which people on libcom have been doing to me ever since I showed up... I hope this clears the situation up a bit.

the next parigraph is

For the record, I'm not even denying individualists the label, but the 'each plot of land is a state' stuff is ridiculous (and that's what your views of property amount to as you posit yourself as the sole sovereign of your property with a right to do whatever is necessary to protect it, which is a contradiction to the anarchist label if I ever saw one).

I don't see a contradiction in someone not belonging to a commune in the sense that they got a farm out in the sticks and go to town to stock up on stuff once a week. That's not leeching how I understand it, and my stance on leeching is pretty unambiguous anyway; post-scarcity means it's not a real problem. So if you want to keep to yourself, be my fucking guest.

But excuse me for not being a Lockean who thinks property is something natural and eternal.

The statement above can be easily rebutted in three ways:

1. It is irrelevant. It does not matter how popular or unpopular something is, as long as it's true. Abolitionism was unpopular in the 17th century, but that did not make slavery a valid institution. Individualist is not popular, but it is still right.

2. This is just Kropotkin's opinion. Just because he thinks individualists are "intellectuals" does not make it true. I know many individualists and none of us are intellectuals. We all work shitty little jobs like the average person does, none of us are rick, influential, or "special" in any way.

3. It is an ad hominem attack by Kropotkin. He labels individualists "intellectual" and puts them in opposition to the working classes in order to make them look bad and associate them with the capitalist class. Anyone who reads Proudhon or Tucker knows this is absolutely untrue. Furthermore in today’s world I don’t know of any intellectuals who espouse individualist views... just the opposite is true. All I hear around me is propaganda of “unity”, “duty” and, “responsibility”.

But none of this is actually relevant to the topic under discussion. It is sufficient for me that you now realize that individualist anarchist is also anarchism and that you do not have a monopoly on the term anarchism. We can discuss the merits or faults of our respective positions, but we can do so in the realization that we cannot dismiss each other by changing the definition of the word anarchism to mean anarchist communism.

Individualists aren't saying that property is something natural or eternal. They are instead saying it is something rational to uphold. It is not an absolute. No one has to accept property. It is a matter of individual choice. What most individualists say is that the product is the property of the labourer. But it is still property because it belongs exclusively to the producer and may be used by him/her in any way he/she desires.

By the way I realize I am collectivising indivdualists here, which I should not be doing. Some individualists did in fact reject this theory (of proper ownership - product belonging to the producer) and instead embraced either communism (because they thought all people should be provided for, like Albert Libertad) or illegalism (just look at Novatore!).

you said you agreed with Kropotkin about anarchism, he says individualist anarchism doesn't work, there for you must agree that it doesn't right?

btw those individualist anarchists had different politics to you as they don't support private ownership of the means of production in the way you do.

I said that I agreed with Kropotkin's definition of anarchism (which includes individualist and collectivist anarchism), but I did not say that I agree with Kropotkin's communist ideals. I do not agree with communism. I have little or nothing in common with communists. I think individualist anarchism "works" (whatever that means) just as well as any other voluntary arrangement "works".

Regarding your other statement, individualist anarchists do not have "a politics". They are against all politics. They are completely apolitical. Benjamin Tucker, who Kropotkin mentions, was very much a Spencerian in that he believed that a contractual social arrangement is the only legitimate social arrangement. Lysander Spooner (who Kropotkin also mentions in a favourable light) was of a different and I believe mistaken opinion that rights are natural. Nonetheless Kropotkin did not deny either of these thinkers the title of anarchist.

both you examples are political positions

Whatever you call it, it is still anarchism. Thank you for listening

It also doesn't seem like you have any separation between "politics" and "morality". In my mind those are distinct categories...

it may have been, but anarchism has since moved on, and regardless their ideas around things like ownership of the means of production are different to yours. Prohon for example rejected the idea the someone should be able to dispose of there property as they wished

politics covers a wide range of things including morality.

Yes, individualist anarchism has also moved on. Most individualists have since dropped the "cost as limit of price" theorem and rather accepted pure or modified version of the subjective theory of value. This has been long overdue seeing as Nietzsche's metaphor about "weights and measures" being subjective in the Zarathustra were written in 1885. But economics seems to be behind philosophy at every step throughout history...
Unfortunately we find all too many individualists enthralled by the Spooner tradition which I mentioned earlier and which makes them susceptible to the schemes of Rothbard.

I really find your whole argument about anarchism "moving on" rather funny. I mean just because some new bullshit is invented doesn't mean it's suddenly better than what came before it. Tucker's ideas are just as relevant today as they were in the 19th century, though of course people have been questioning them for longer and therefore they are more refined and precise. The logical Law of Identity is the same today as it was in Aristotle's day. If someone tries to deny it today and claim it is "old and outdated and logic has moved on", that person would rightfully be called an idiot because any more modern developments in epistemology and logic (Frege, Wittgenstein, etc.) confirm rather than deny the Law of Identity.

You really have to present a coherent counter-argument to individualist anarchism rather than just say that "this is old" or "this is not anarchism". If it is correct then it is correct regardless of these silly labels. Nonetheless my aim today was at least achieved in that I did in fact establish individualist anarchism is anarchism. That is all I wanted from this conversation, as that is the topic of this article.

This is not true if you really understand Proudhon. Proudhon thought that the producer has 100% right to do whatever he/she wishes to do with his/her product. If the workers are working in association, then of course they all have a say in how their product is used, but it is only the workers who were directly involved in creating that product that have a say. The general public has no say in how products are disposed of. If I am a manufacturer of shoes, I alone decide how the shoes are used. If a factory of 50 workers produce shoes, then they all decide what happens with their product and no one else may have a say in that process. So once again, the statement I quoted from you above is incorrect.

Look, I don’t think anyone here is denying you the label of “individualist anarchism.” What we are doing, and what Kropotkin was doing in that text, is just revealing the hypocrisy behind the label. It’s the content that matters, not the cover. Those who profess “individualist anarchism” have always been opposed to working class struggle; that’s why they have always been reduced to “intellectual” status. But now you might say: “well, working class movements have always excluded individualists, or that they always disagreed in organizational tactics.” But the “individualists” don’t need to join existing organizations. I mean, have you ever heard of a working class organization built from the ground up by “individualist anarchists” on “individualist anarchist” principles. No.

All “individualist anarchists” are intellectuals, but not all intellectuals are “individualist anarchists.” That’s my quote.

Agent of the Fifth International,

Wow, nobody has called me an "intellectual" before... I guess I never thought a average guy working in a store can be an "intellectual". Also I haven't seen any individualist anarchist who opposed workers' struggle against the system. They've been endorsing it if anything. What individualists have usually opposed was the use of violence because there is no denying that violent struggle and revolution have been counterproductive in most cases throughout history. Unless you prefer Lenin to the Tsar or Robespierre to the king, in which case you might have the opposite opinion... but to each his own tyrant.

Having said that, the topic of this thread was pretty clear: What does one have to believe to be an anarchist? I think anarchist individualism meets the criteria of being called anarchism. Of course you can make up new and very restrictive/exclusionary definitions of anarchism which might put even Bakunin or Proudhon outside the definition. But what would be the point of doing that? Self-gratification? Producing a sense of exceptionalism for oneself? I can't understand those motives.

Kropotkin, in his definition of Anarchism, seemed fairly satisfied with the arguments Tucker gave as placing him in the anarchist movement. So why deny him that place now?

You surprise me.

As I said, nobody here is denying you the label you prefer to call yourself. But the question posed by this thread asks for what one has to believe in order to be considered an anarchist, not if this or that particular school meets the criteria for being categorized as anarchist. I think the person who asked the question is looking for an answer that we can all fairly agree with. After all, anarchism is a social philosophy. I don't think he's looking for only your definition of anarchism, one that you can and do wrap around your reactionary politics with.

I think we can all fairly agree that to be a consistent anarchist, you should be opposed to all unjust and illegitimate social hierarchies. If you don't, your just a hypocrite who's not being honest to him/herself and everyone else who took the time to engage with you in this forum. As I said before, it's not the label that matters, it's the content. It's just unfortunate that some labels are abused the way they are.

I certainly agree with that statement! The question then becomes: what are unjust and illegitimate social hierarchies? All these terms can have different definitions. Different people obviously have different conceptions of what is "unjust" or "illegitimate" or what is "social" or a "social hierarchy". And how exactly should "opposition" be defined? You seem to think opposition is defined by "class struggle" (whatever that means also!) and you accuse me of being an "intellectual" (one who does not participate in class struggle?). So I think you will agree that your statement is extremely broad and would apply to many people who have completely different sets of ideas.

In this case, by our experience of previous communication, you know what we mean and we know what you mean. You don't have to play stupid with us, which is something you're quite good at playing. But why in the world would you say you agree with that statement I made above if you just admitted that you didn't know what any of the key terms in it meant? You ask what "opposition" means, and accuse me of being too broad. In the case with the term "opposition," I was trying to be narrow. I mean, we can go on a whole debate about different means and ends, which is what we don't want to do. You associate my statement with the "class struggle," which would make my whole statement narrow (which is not what I was trying to do; certainly not in the same way when I used "opposition"), but not broad. This is just getting confusing, but I'm not expecting to find any agreement here.

Look, we can all agree that anarchism is a profession to "anarchy," which is the ideal; an end in itself. And we have a whole range of means that can move us closer to that end. But in many cases, there are means that can unintentionally contradict the ideal of "anarchy," or put us farther away from it rather than moving us closer. Now our disagreement is with means, of course. One can say we each have different tendencies (which is subscription to different means) towards approaching the struggle for "anarchy."

Now, from my point of view, your position is one of those tendencies that contradict the ideal you strive to achieve. I'll admit it, I do not consider you an anarchist. Your "opposed" to some tyrannies, but not all of them. I consider the only true anarchist to be that of a socialist anarchist (or a libertarian socialist), with it's various tendencies. But that would be wrong of me to make such an exclusionary assertion in this particular discussion.

Why? Because that is my point of view. Your definition is also wrong, although I hardly saw one, because that would be coming from your point of view. The whole point of this thread is to find something we can socially agree upon as to what makes an anarchist, which could be an difficult, if not, impossible task. And I don't think we will find one, since your here. We can say that about 80% of all anarchists in the world are socialists, about 20% are individualists. I don't know if that would help. But what's not to be ignored is the content behind the labels, which at this point, is the only thing that is important.

Agent of the Fifth International,

I wasn't "accusing" you of anything, so there is no need to ascribe hostility to what I am saying. I said that I agreed with your statement: "I think we can all fairly agree that to be a consistent anarchist, you should be opposed to all unjust and illegitimate social hierarchies". I don't agree with your definitions of some of the terms in that statement, but at least having that much in common could make us allies in a lot of ways. I really don't know why people on libcom seem to bombard me with invectives and abuse when the fact is individualists could work together with communists on changing the current sick and evil system.

You say that the division between individualists and communists is 20/80. But in America the individualist anarchist camp is growing daily with the addition of more and more disillusioned right-libertarians to the group. If we can get rid of the all the "vulgar libertarian" (as Kevin Carson calls it) preconceptions about capitalism which they all share (I think this is largely a Randian trait although Rothbard was in on this too) they will finally be free human beings. Once the dogmatism of "natural law" and such other bogymen are eliminated from these people's thinking they will be potential allies. And I see this happening all the time (although I am living in the UK now). The 20/80 proportion might eventually begin to shift...

So wouldn't it be a better idea to learn to coexist and work together? Dismantling the current system of states and corporations (but I repeat myself) is a hell of a job.

PS. Anarchy is not an ideal end or an end in itself because there is no way to know what anarchy is or looks or feels like, so idealizing this concept is unnecessary and even harmful. Anarchy is not an end, anarchy is a means to a happy and good life.

(Sorry for the long post, there's a tl;dr executive summary down at the bottom!)

How do individualist anarchists achieve the revolution? I suppose "Comrade" Appleton would have them all just go off and do their own thing peacefully, and because everyone had agreed he was right, it would all work out. But I'd be happy to hear from our "Comrade" how he supposes that can be done in the face of capitalism. Are you going to persuade all the exploiters to cease their exploitation and become individuals, treating everyone else as individuals? How will it happen, acting as individuals? Remember, you can't confer on this one, you're on your own.

You can guess my own view on this, it won't get far. Individuals don't achieve social revolution.

And after the revolution, positing that the collectivists have got off their arses and worked together despite all these individualists who prefer to do their own thing, and achieved emancipation from capitalism, what position does the individualist stand in relation to the all these stupid collectivists who work together?

Well, he only gets to be an individualist by the good will of the collective. There is power in numbers! You better thank your lucky stars that communists are nice people, "Comrade".

EDIT To give my view of the thread's question, I think an Anarchist must be opposed to exploitation, or subjugation. I don't mean "exploitation" in the Marxian sense of extraction of surplus-value, rather the mundane sense of forcing others to do things they don't want, in the favour of the exploiter (who else's favour would such coercion be in?) - although this subsumes the Marxian meaning. In a more pragmatic formulation, which takes into account that great Spock quote, "the needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few", a minority should not be able to exert it's will over, or exploit, a majority. A generous communism would undoubtedly tolerate dissent, but when push comes to shove, the majority cannot be held hostage to a minority dissenting opinion. A corollary of this is that an Anarchist must be opposed to class society - as classes emerge from, and are reproduced through, exploitative relationships.

That's the basic idea. From this, other principles seem to flow naturally (obviously these are open to argument, but right now I'm fairly confident about these).

If you're opposed to class society, then you're opposed to capitalism, the state, and money. Capitalism should be obvious - by it's nature it requires a capitalist class and a working class. The State - as usually defined by Anarchists / Libcommers - is identifiable by a monopoly on violence, whose only rational for existing would be to enforce something, i.e. to exercise power over people, which is explotation. Money (and indeed private property generally), is the thing which enables capitalist accumulation. It also enables straightforward power differentials, based on the possibility of accumulating money, even outside a capitalist system.

The opposition to exploitation / subjugation also implies that everyone should have their say in what happens in human society. This implies institutions to ensure this happens - in particular, an inclusive democracy of some kind, indeed direct democracy, whether involving delegates or straightforward direct democracy on all questions. Everyone should have the option of tabling proposals for collective decision making. Everyone should have the option of presenting their arguments in favour of, or against, particular decisions.

Involvement in the institutions which put into action such collective decisions implies at least some involvement in collectivism, in communal living. You can't engage effectively in collective decision making unless you speak to other people, have relationships with people which allow you to be persuasive, or simply expressive, of your views. You need to turn up at the meetings, and preferably not be seen as an outsider with your own self-serving axe to grind.

To participate in such democratic institutions also implies you afford your fellow humans an equal right to be heard, to put forward ideas, and to have their views counted.

In short it implies strong relationships with your fellow workers.

It implies communism.

Relating this to the "individualist anarchist" case:

I don't think an individualist can have such strong relationships. I think an individualist, while they will most likely be tolerated by kind-hearted collectivists / communists, chooses to separate themselves from the decision making processes made by mankind. As such, they can't complain when the decisions never go their way. It would be perverse, for a commune to put the interests of an individualist ahead of their communal interests. The sheer weight of numbers in the commune suggests that the communal programme of activity takes precedence over an individualist's whims, purely because many more people stand to benefit from the communal activities.

I think, then, the individualist has to accept a couple of things:

- they should be grateful to be given the opportunity to isolate themselves.
- they should not be surprised if, when their activities are in conflict with the commune's activities, that the commune's activities will outweigh theirs.

Now, the individualist can avoid being indebted and sidelined by joining the commune. That's an option that should always be open.

tl;dr

Anarchism implies communism. Without communism, power imbalances take root. Such imbalances manifest themselves as classes. The existence of class society demands the creation of state functions (coercion, backed by the threat of violence) in order to reproduce class society. And thus we're back where we started, back to how things are now.

An individualist is likely to find themselves suffering various disadvantages - of their own making. I would imagine it won't take too long before they see how silly they've been and come and join their friends, who've been waiting patiently for them to come to their senses , as a true comrade.

FINAL EDIT

I haven't said anything about anarchist means for anarchist aims. The same principles apply though, a revolution conducted by a minority puts power in the hands of the minority and doesn't lead to a communist, or indeed an Anarchist, post-revolutionary outcome. It's the necessary application of Anarchist / Communist principles to the revolution itself.

Whether it's enough to believe things in order to be an anarchist / lib-com, I'm not sure. I think you have to at least be prepared to actually do stuff, though.

REAL FINAL EDIT

It's been said that an Anarchist should not reproduce exploitative socialist relations. I tend to agree, but it strikes me that engaging in wage-labour, or being a landlord's tenant, reproduces those relations, albeit from the position of the exploiter; it takes at least two to make a relation.

But the wage labourer and the tenant are in a position to engage in the class struggle, so you might say reproducing those relations as the exploited is a necessary step in destroying the relations.

Individualist anarchists are some of the most communal and decent people I ever met. Their insistence on personal responsibility makes them much more active than random communist initiatives which are usually limited to some completely fruitless strikes or acts of vandalism which achieve absolutely nothing beyond turning the general public away from the anarchist cause, as anarchists become associated with violence. I recommend you go visit individualist libertarian communities in areas like New Hampshire, which I was unfortunately forced to leave because of the American state. Everyone there works together, agorism is extremely popular, more and more people are opting out of state run markets and currency everyday and establishing their own free cooperatives. I helped teach a few subjects in a libertarian homeschooling cooperative in Philadelphia. Please show me where communists have organized their own communities in a way so comprehensive as individualists do in America. Individualists have their own schooling cooperatives, their own forms of currency, their own trade and business relations, their own markets outside of state control, they even produce their own food. Where have the communists achieved something like that? Please show me, and once you do then you'll have the right to degrade individualist accomplishments and make us look like "all talk, no action" intellectuals. We act to change our lives every day and escape the state to the highest extent possible. What do most communists I know do? They sit home and do absolutely nothing except write angry letters, have meet-ups where they endlessly debate some Marxist dogma, and organize all kinds of pointless protests which, but I repeat myself, achieve absolutely nothing.

Individualists are not, for the most part, isolationist hermits. I don't know where you get this idea from - maybe you just don't know many individualists.

Oh please get out of here with this utilitarian claptrap. If I wanted to read John Stuart Mill I'd be writing posts on some ridiculous liberal forum. The needs of the many do not outweight the needs of the few. The needs of a million do not outweigh the needs of one. I might as well just assert the opposite, "the needs of the few are greater than the needs of the many", and it would make just as much sense. Numbers do not contribute to ethics in any way. If they did, lynch mobs and flash mobs would be praiseworthy moral institutions based on spontaneous direct democratic action.

Sometimes they actually are!

I want to highlight that important word in your response. Sometimes they are. So there must be some criterion more important than numbers in judging actions. And because of this criterion democracy is useless in determining whether something is ethical or not, or in determining the value of anything really. Democracy can only be a useful tool for making simple practical decisions like "what movie are we going to see tonight?" in a gathering of friends. And even then there is no obligation on the part of the minority to see the movie that the majority vote for.

I have been making the "mistake" of taking terms and expressions at face value for a long time. I also try not to read between the lines of arguments, even where it is patently obvious that what has been said or written is not what is meant. This attitude of deliberate obtuseness has never yet made me many friends, and it also doesn't allow me to easily participate in partisan politics, but I found that it gets me to the nub of any issue quite reliably. I think that's worth it.

The nub of anarchism rests on the insight that coercion in all its forms - physical, economic and cognitive - amounts to the wilful overiding of someone else's will and is both ethically unacceptable and counterproductive in the practical, utilitarian sense. Even where the exertion of coercive pressure promises a shortcut to an otherwise seemingly difficult or impossible aim, I submit that it always comes at a cost that outweighs the benefits. People who don't see this are just not looking hard enough. That's my view, anyway.