Some Random Thoughts on Socialism and Individualism

I recently read David Goodway’s newest piece from the Guardian about anarchism, and what it means to be an anarchist. It made me think about the terms “socialist” and “individualist” from an anarchist perspective. The following were some random fragments of ideas I pondered:

It would seem that the anarchist aversion to the word “socialist” comes from the post-left influence, which is still pretty chic in the anarchist milieu. A historical perspective would yield that what we formally, for lack of a better term, understand to be “anarchism” — that is, a social theory/philosophy that emerged in the thought of individuals like Godwin, Proudhon, and Bakunin (acknowledging here, of course, that anarchism/anarchy, i.e., a rejection of authority and domination, is a way of organizing communities and a sensibility that has always been with us) — is a branch from the socialist tradition; however, many different tendencies within the milieu do not want any affiliation with what’s referred to as the Left (see post-left anarchy, anarcho-primitivists, many anti-civ non-primitivists, and many insurrectionary anarchists, to name a few).

The anarchist aversion to the word “individualist” is understandable; however, it’s grossly misunderstood. I’m inclined to think that your average anarcho-communist/syndicalist hears the term “individualist” and cringes. This is due to the Randroid wing of the right-”Libertarian”(if ever there was a misnomer — I still prefer to think of it as describing anti-authoritarian communism) movement proclaiming that their philosophy is “individualist.” While I’m not a big fan of the term, and don’t find it especially useful to describe my own sensibilities, it doesn’t mean anarchists should discount their comrades who identify with individualist anarchist strains. Social anarchists, myself included, could benefit a great deal from reading more of the works of the European individualist anarchists, for example — I’m attempting to play catch-up on that literature, which is often neglected in a study of anarchist history.

It is quite interesting that many still treat anarchists as a group basing their anti-authoritarianism on either “socialism” or “individualism.” While it’s true that some of the individualist anarchists had a favorable conception of “property,” it’s also true that many of them identified as socialists (e.g., Benjamin Tucker). Their conception of “property” relies on occupancy and use, and they’re economically in favor of the labor theory of value (LTV). Whatever you think about this brand of anarchist market socialism (i.e., mutualism) or LTV — and I’m not particularly fond of it, to be clear, or any philosophy which supports the existence of financial markets — it could be compatible with the heterogenous lineage of “socialism,” i.e., workers owning the means of production, and controlling it, collectively. Socialism has come to fruition both in the form of authoritarian states, and libertarian communes.

There are also many socialistic figures like William Godwin in the anarchist tradition — he’s often considered an individualist; however, Godwin essentially made the case for a kind of gift economy, what historian Peter Marshall called “voluntary communism.” Marshall also says that Godwin anticipated the anarcho-communism of Kropotkin. This all points to the notion that this dichotomy is not so neat. Another example is the Spanish anarchists that had no problem identifying as “Stirnerites” or individualists, who were involved with the FAI. Hell, Emma Goldman adored Stirner’s ideas — as well as Nietzche (F.N. is often categorized as an “individualist”), and she’s much closer to the tradition of anarcho-communism/syndicalism (see her sympathies for anarcho-syndicalism and the movement in Spain, as well as her plea to R. Rocker to publish a book on the subject).

The problem is that these words, i.e., socialism and individualism, no longer say a whole hell of a lot: hyper-authoritarians have used both “socialism” and “individualism” to define their worldview, as well as figures with libertarian sensibilities. Both phrases are hollow and devoid of meaning in the 21st century. I still — perhaps naively and stubbornly — hold on to the phrase “socialist” within an appropriate context, though it requires an explanation. I’m much more at home with the term “anarcho-communist” (with some caveats — this phrase does not connote Platformism) to describe the anti-market, anti-nation-state relations I desire. However, socialism — meaning that if there are hospitals, community gardens, farms, public transit, workshops, or whatever communities desire, they’ll be owned and controlled collectively by communities and the workers — is certainly something I value as an alternative to capitalist production, or financial markets.

Advertisement