Adjectives
Anarchism, the philosophy that seeks to abolish rulership or the authority of one person over another, is generally both individualist and collectivist.
Anarchism is individualist because it seeks to maximize individual liberty, and sees its preferred social arrangement as the most realistic way to do so.
Anarchism is collectivist because anarchists prefer people who will be involved in implementing decisions to be involved in making the decisions, with a collective agreement as the goal. Though one individual or group of individuals may take the lead in certain areas by investing more energy or experience, final decisions are generally made in a way that requires consent from, and encourages participation by, everyone taking the action. Although some form of hierarchy can be written into most group activities, anarchists do not establish a hierarchical structure as people are not locked into ranks. Therefore the relationship is not necessarily authoritarian. Collective decision making enables each individual who enters an arrangement to retain some level of autonomy and influence in group decisions she cares about.
But there are reasons to distinguish my anarchism as more individualist than others by adopting the label “individualist anarchist”.
1) I generally prefer individually owned enterprises whenever possible. Think of networks of self-employed people, possibly with membership in a guild or union. Instead of being tied to one career, they might engage in whatever work they want to do, as an economy that is generally more egalitarian, prosperous, and free will make it easier to stay alive, so comparative advantage and maximal efficiency may become less valued in proportion to self-expression and enjoyment. I don’t think this arrangement will be optimal in all cases, which is where an element of collectivism must step in. But in general my ideal sees a greater percentage of things owned by individuals than more collectivist anarchism would.
2) Collectives need to possess concern for the individual and have competition from other arrangements concerned with the individual if they are to be useful in maximizing individual liberty. A collective is only as good as the individuals who comprise it, and any structure is only as libertarian as the ideas that shape it. Focusing specifically on the individual’s liberty above any proposed organization will help ensure that organizations are shaped by the idea of liberty.
3) My focus is individualistic. I begin with the need of the individual for maximum freedom of action, not in class conflict. Though this often leads to the same places as more collectivist forms of anarchism and I may classify people into categories when it is advantageous to do so, there is a different focus.
I certainly could be described as a market anarchist: I favor an actual free market of people exchanging things they desire without coercion or hierarchical structures. Peaceable competition between social arrangements is a necessary part of my ideal. I think some kinds of monies will need to be used on a regional level for society to function (though I expect currency to diminish in importance on a personal level as wealth is seen less as a quantifiable status symbol and more as a means to individual and collective flourishing). But “individualist” sounds like a more accurate label than does “market”. My anarchism was never based in economic examination, but in a focus on individual freedom. If the adjective used is “market” rather than “individualist”, the different emphasis in the label suggests different emphasis in thought or practice. I also think it’s more excusable to mistake market anarchism for an order in which everything must be bought and sold than to mistake individualist anarchism with atomism or rule by individuals.
I do think it would be inaccurate to call me an anarcho-capitalist, as I do not favor most things that go by the label capitalist or capitalism. However, self-described anarcho-capitalists that I’ve interacted with off of the internet are generally good folks, and I’m not afraid to take from Rothbard or Von Mises.
As for sectarianism, I think that as long as we base our actions in mutual consent with those who treat us with the same respect, are willing to learn from each other, and oppose authoritarianism with proportionality and mutuality in mind our efforts will bring us close enough to the freest world possible (which should always be improved and never static anyway). Words do matter, because words have meaning and carry thoughts with their use. And every action has ideas behind it. But so long as the goal is maximizing individual liberty, we should be able to work out our differences consensually.
related:
Examining Principles
Stateless Socialism: Anarchism by Mikhail Bakunin
State Socialism and Anarchism by Benjamin Tucker
[edited a typo - "may I" to "I may"]
