#individual anarchism

[alpaca-clouds]

Understanding Individualism vs Collectivism

Making that post about individualism and capitalism yesterday, I got some questions, that showed me the same problem as the person I was talking about had: A lot of people do actually not know what individualism and collectivism mean. So, let me try to explain.

I had kinda hoped that Abigail from Philosophy Tube might have made a video on this, but no such luck. So, I guess I have to try and explain it, even though I mostly know it from sociology, rather from the philosophic origins where it comes from.

Basically, both concepts originate with socialist philosophy in the early 19th century, which correctly identified the early capitalist society as individualist and saw the dangers coming with it. It argued that an individualist society will be harmful on a societal level, because the society at large would always focus on the self, rather than the other. Capitalist philosophy however picked this up was like: “Yeah, awesome, right?” And especially in the 20th century they really started to run with it, realizing that they could use it to make people into better consumers.

Now, individualism does not mean “a sense of self”. This is not connected to it. You will still have a sense of self in a collectivist society and nobody says that you shouldn’t have. Rather it means that the focus of everyone should be on the individual. Both themselves – but also the individual actors in society. It is as such not a surprise that the idea of “Great Man Theory” came up and started to thrive during early capitalism in the 19th century.

So, if individualism does not mean “a sense of self”, what does it mean?

I would argue there are two aspects to it. Once the aforementioned tendency to put the individual above the society and apart from it, but also to create and sell a personal philosophy that people are defined by their differences from others, rather than what they have in common. It tells people that they are all so very different from everyone else, which is a useful political tool for capitalism to fight collective actions such as unions, but also collective action for things like environmental protection. In the same vein it is used to keep people riled up against one another within society, as they focus on their differences, rather than what they have in common.

The most anarchistic professor I had at university put it very well: “If you as a worker talk to a factory worker from Bangladesh, you will find you have a lot in common. In fact you will always have more in common with this other worker rather than any billionaire there is.”

Which brings me to the other aspect that individualism is about: It sells you an individualistic dream. Which is why capitalism focuses so much on those rags to riches stories (that tend to be lies most of the time). “See, this millionaire started out his business in daddy’s garage. So you can also become a billionaire if you have the right idea.” Fellow leftist might know the saying: “You are just one bad day away from homelessness, but you will never be a billionaire.” Which is basically the counter argument to this.

See, capitalism tries to convince you, that “I am the better system, because in me you could become a billionaire,” to sell you not only on your own exploitation, but the exploitation of the masses.

And more than that, capitalism also has realized that it can use individualism to make you a better consumer. I alluded to this a bit further up. But the long and short of it is, that capitalism pushes this idea of “you are, what you consume”. Your individuality is defined by the things you spent money on. Maybe by you having the most expensive things, but also by you having maybe the weirdest things or something. You know, the “not like the other girls” girl will probably spend as much, if not more on the things that make her special, as “the other girls”.

This also goes into the whole idea of greenwashing, pinkwashing and rainbow capitalism. All this is about getting you to consume something to gain some sort of individual aspect from it. Basically, through buying the “green” stuff, you are a better consumer.

Ironically this also goes into the entire anti-shipping discourse, which basically also says that your goodness as a person is defined by the things you consume.

Capitalism is selling you your identity. Your individual identity.

But sadly this is an idea very, very deeply engrained into the heads of most who have grown up in capitalism. Because it is everywhere in media. Sure, there is some media that calls it out, but most of it actually peddles the idea of the individual.

Because this is the second aspect at the core of individualism: The myths that only individuals can change something, rather than a collective. Which is what I call out so often when I am talking about the entire punk-genre stuff.

Even though it is less punk, let me take Star Wars as an example, because it is an amazing example of this. Especially the original trilogy, in which the Rebellion battles the Empire. However, the evil Empire is not defeated because the Rebellion manages to somehow outwit or outmaneuvre the Empire. Or because maybe the collective of the workers in the Empire turn against it. Rather it gets defeated because Luke, the individual, turns Darth Vater, an individual, and defeats the Emperor, the individual. Which goes back to this idea of the “great man”. It is those unique individuals who will save the world, rather than collective action.

This idea of some individuals being the ones to save the world, rather than we – the people – as a group and ourselves, is used to keep the people pacified under capitalism. They are waiting for “a good billionaire” to solve climate change, homelessness and all the other problems for us, rather than getting active themselves. They keep telling themselves: “Hey, under capitalism everyone can be a billionaire, including myself, and also my life isn’t that bad right now. So who cares that under socialism/communism everyone could be lifted up?”

Look, folks. I am saying this lovingly. But you are not as much of an individual as you think. You are your own person, but you are not unique. In fact, if you talk to a random person on the street – no matter who they are – and you and them are not instantly judging each other for one reason or another, you will find that you have a lot more in common than you think. Capitalist individualism just taught you to not see this, because your empathy can be its undoing.

#anti capitalism #socialism #communism #individualism #collectivism #anarchism #solarpunk #fandom culture #elon musk #philosophy #collective action #solidarity #empathy #climate change #homelessness

[extremesocialoutcast]

You know she would.

Someone better make a dub of this, with the Duke Nukem theme

#mlp #my little pony #mlp fim #mlp g4 #mlp meme #mlp memes #rainbow dash #philosophy #philosophy memes #egoism #individualism #anarchism #anarchy

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

"The history of anarcho-individualist veganism is practically unknown by the libertarian movement itself. In fact, when French anarchists began writing about environmentalism in the 1970's and veganism in the 1990's, no reference was made to their individualist predecessors of the first half of the 20th century...

...The first part of this article provides a synopsis of anarchism and its defense of the animal cause before looking at the naturian movement. The second part examines individualist anarchists' motives for adopting a plant-based diet, many of which, as we shall see, are just as topical as ever. The concluding remarks will highlight the fact that veganism allows us to better understand a vastly understudied strand of anarchism, namely individualism."

Read here.

#anarchism #anti-speciesism #vegan #veganism #anarcho individualism #green anarchism #individualist anarchy #warzone distro

[coyotegirl-domestic-terrorism]

tbh i think a lot of leftists just don’t know what individualism entails

#i saw a collectivism good post on my dash yesterday and am still kinda salty ngl #individualism #individualist anarchism #egoism #post left #post leftist #post leftism #anarcho nihilism

[imaginesyphilishappy]

and what if I told you that the world's most powerful people have, near the top of their agenda, the goal of making you more individualistic and lonely?

people who are lonely and isolated have their own netflix accounts, cars, insurance policies, internet plans, etc. and are much more likely to grab fast food, starbucks, etc. They are more likely to buy gadgets to entertain themselves and are less likely to share these with others. Individualism leads straight to mass consumerism which leads to corporate profits at the expense of us and the planet

#late stage capitalism #loneliness epidemic #individualism #anarchism #communism #community #leftism #star trek #global south #global warming #climate crisis

[cock-holliday]

I think that individualist theorists are important to learn from in the areas where collectivist theory fails (or sets itself up to fail), while still maintaining my sense of striving for betterment FOR a collective. Where individualism fails is in thinking “I got mine, fuck you,” but where collectivism fails is in creating a sense of duty and obligation that makes it easier to force people to fall in line—the crux of the fucking issue to begin with, right?

I WANT people to think for themselves and to act independent of a sense of duty…for the overall betterment of everyone. Of course I want the liberation of everyone—an injury to one is an injury to all, your struggle is my struggle and our paths are intertwined etc etc but forfeiting individual roles both speeds up burnout and makes group dissent impossible.

“You should care about x struggle because you should just care naturally” sure, but this strategy isolates each struggle from each other and isolates YOU from the struggle. “I am not x but I’ll care because I’m nice” survives as long as the fight doesn’t destroy you. You cannot martyr for every individual cause one at a time out of obligation.

“This hurts YOU, which is connected to what hurts ME, so together we are fighting for each other” is a much more sustainable practice.

Without personal connection, it is difficult to keep going, it is difficult to not feel split between struggles, and guilt becomes a tool you either self-destruct with, or it can be used to manipulate your actions. We cannot oust abusers because it would “harm the collective.” When one leader is removed, it’s over because my obligation was to that group above my own individual action. I cannot question the authority leadership of our group because it will undermine the Collective.

Self-preservation becomes ‘selfishness,’ all efforts not going to the cause become ‘unimportant,’ and dissent from within will be crushed unceremoniously. A new state is born, a new leader is chosen. The cycle repeats. What are we even fighting for if not to better all of our own lives together?

I don’t want to trade one lord for another, I don’t want my neighbors to be content with submission, I don’t want complacency.

I will fight for my neighbor any day, but I am not their savior. I am not their lord. They should be the arbiter of their future, like I should be mine. Rejecting a total melting into a collective is essential to resist tyranny from outside and within, not for the sake of “rugged individualism” but to actually ensure we all are really free.

Autonomy above all else, for the good of us all.

#anarchism #anarchy #LJsm #I recognize that individualism vs collectivism is often a false dichotomy #and many therorists of each camp have wildly different definitions for each #but the general sense of each is what I’m referring to #I also don’t think very many of the individualists even ARE ‘fuck you I got mine’ as they are framed #due to capitalistic rugged individualism and right wing ‘anarchists’ aka libertarians and ancaps

[anarchistin]

Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that “rugged individualism” which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality.

So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as “education.” That corrupt and perverse “individualism” is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is “the devil take the hindmost.”

This “rugged individualism” has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. “Rugged individualism” has meant all the “individualism” for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking “supermen.”

America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as “unAmerican” and evil in the name of that same individualism.'

— Emma Goldman, The Individual, Society and The State

#emma goldman #quote #individualism #anarchism

[wormonastringtheory]

i am going to give the main piece of advice i have gleaned from myalmost 23 years on this earth and my time learning from incredible organizers, which i said to a friend as she discovered community for the first time in person

Let your love, your connection with community, your care, your passion radicalize you. This world can be cold and cruel, it's true. But we cannot cave to the whims of imperialism, to the whims of colonial violence, to the whims of capitalist oppression and individualism, to the whims of individualism constantly sewing divide as a result of these forces. (This outlook was taught to me through learning from Riot Diaz @juicyparsons, Reaux @reaux07 and Walela Nehanda [@itswalela] in the time I've known and interacted with their content and work online). These forces will us to become cold, uncaring, brutal, uncaring in the face of strife, suffering and violence. They make us go numb and they rely on such. (paraphasing Stefanie Kaufman-Mthimkhulu's posts on the way this is specifically weaponized in the genocide of Palestinians, Oct. 2023) You need to resist this. The boldest act we can have in this world is to love deeply, to feel deeply. we need to learn to connect with this world in a tangiable way to combat the disconnect we've become accustomed to. By connecting with each other, by loving each other in a way where we ACTUALLY support each other, share, collaborate, co-conspire). By learning to love radically again we can build such passion and compassion for the world that we cannot be blind to the suffering of each other. We need to do this urgently. The whole of humanity depends on it (All of the last passage was shaped by a mosaic of wisdom from all above mentioned organizers, along with Lacey Weekes of Idle No More London ON, Layla Staats, an Indigenous land defender who was on the front lines in Wet'suwet'en, Skyler Williams of 1492 Land Back Lane, Emunah Wolfe of @safeusesketches on instagram, Bangishimo Johnston of O:se Kenhionhata:ie, Andrewism on Youtube, and Noname, as well as my friend Ash and one of my students.

For those who are loveless or lack empathy, do not feel guilty. Care is just as powerful as love. Build care in your communities. Build connection. You are not broken and you can be radical too. Community is so deeply important to all of us, inclusing loveless people. Let yourself be embraced, encaptured in a web of people with experience both shared and vastly different. Listen to their every word. Let their kindness and words, and your joy in community radicalize you too.

#community care #mutual aid #anarchism #life lessons #life advice #knowlege sharing #community #collectivism #individualism #capitalism #loveless #loveless aro #community organizing

[cuntryhuman]

love you anmuts!!

love you ancoms!!

love you aninds!!

love you anfems!!

love you anqueers!!

love you anprims!!

love you angeos!!!

love you ansyns!!

love you anpacifs!!

love you ancols!!!

love you anpunks!!

ancaps, anmonar, anfasc and an4zis die!!

#anarchy #anarchism #anarchomutualist #anarchocommunism #anarchopunk #anarcha feminism #anarcha queer #anarcho communism #anarcho syndicalism #anarchofeminism #anarchist #anarcho primitivism #anarcho individualism #geo anarchism #anarcho pacifist #anarchism positivity #positivity #positivity politics #politics positivity

[apas-95]

I’m definitely not as smart as everyone talking about this but I haven’t really seen it mentioned: my issue with individual arming is this. If I’m out with my gf and a homophobe pulls a gun on me, and I pull a gun on them, regardless of who “walks away” in the end, who do you think is 1) going to get the cops called on them and 2) going to be treated fairly by the cops? I might survive an initial encounter, but i may not survive the cop encounter, even if I don’t use the gun

Obviously I’m not saying you should roll over and die, but the idea that having a gun magically makes you survive every dangerous encounter you have, and that the encounter ends with no repercussions after you shoot the “bad guy” is a really flawed one, and one I know well bc my abusive exs dad was a cop. And having the cops called on you for retaliation in self defense is a real eye opener, and I’m still dealing with it today, more than 5 years later

Yeah, that's really the main problem - like, take this meme for example:

What happens after you kill someone on the street? Do you just walk away? What, exactly, happens when a Threatened Minority kills someone on the street? When the cops arrive to the scene of a shooting, with a minority holding a loaded gun, are they going to Approach you with Malicious Intent, too? And what, then? Is your concealed glock going to defeat the systemic oppression of the bourgeois police? And, as with the point I made in my larger post, the people most likely to approach you, as a threatened minority, with malicious intent in the first place, are the police themselves.

You're not going to be able to do anything about that situation, to be clear. Shooting a cop won't somehow reduce the amount of violence you're going to face. If the US cops want to kill you, you're going to die, unless you have an actual organisation that can engage in what amounts to civil war. Fundamentally, revolution is the only actual solution to the problem of violence against oppressed groups.

(This is, again, ignoring the fact that the hypervisibile minority sex worker getting attacked on the street likely cannot afford the monetary and time investment for firearms, equipment, and sufficient training to simply fend for themselves anyway.)

The fundamental point of the use of weapons in a communist sense is for the purposes of, explicitly, waging revolutionary civil war, one necessarily led by a communist vanguard party. The methods by which communist vanguards engage in armament, and by which individual concealed-carriers engage in armament, are completely different, and the latter has never been a part of a communist revolutionary war. The US cultural idea of individual gun owners using their second-amendment rights to Overthrow a Tyrannical Government is completely disconnected from the realities of revolution - we cannot simply get a list of US Political Issues and check off which sides communist theory supports, then go back to holding liberal positions because 'communism supports guns'.

Ignoring everything else, socialist states have enacted strict gun control once military and police power is in the hands of the proletariat as a class - the socialist position is not simply taking one side of the liberal US gun control debate, even if the proposed side is that of the libertarian would-be guerrillas with their recce rifles and floral shirts.

#if anything historically socialist parties have before being in state power *disarmed* the individual people #given the requisitioning of any personal firearms found among the people during revolutionary war #i mean honestly it's no surprise that the majority of people pushing the 'individual gun ownership' position are US anarchists #and other 'libertarian socialists' #given it fits entirely into that conception of revolution - 'living anarchically' as well as the ideal commune settler utopia #gun #guns

[alpaca-clouds]

Individualism is a product capitalism sells you

Let me talk about something that is in my mind recently, because someone I know kept harping on about how much better individualistic philosophies were compared to collectivist societies. Which... scientifically is just not true. Which they would just not accept. I could show them studies on this and... they would just not accept it. Instead they kept harping on about how much of an individual they were. Which got me to just sit there and roll my eyes very much.

Because here is the thing: Individualism is a product that capitalism sells to you.

People under capitalism will always go: "I am a total individual!" And... like, they are not. Sure, we all have our individual experiences that formed how we think and how we go about it. But most of what people consider their individualism is... Just stuff that gets sold to you.

Be it your style of clothing, be it your interests and fandoms, be it your music, your make-up, or whatever. Most of it is just something that got directly or indirectly sold to you.

This entire "I am such an individual!" stuff is just basically a "I am not like the other girls" thing on a societal level. It is bullshit.

#anti capitalism #individualism #collectivism #capitalism is evil #not like other girls #rant #vent #anarchism #consumerism

[philosophybitmaps]

#philosophy #quotes #Emma Goldman #Anarchism and Other Essays #Goldman #character #personality #individuality #sympathy #empathy #compassion #solidarity

[theoreticallysensible]

Okay so my first post is going to be about the link between capitalism and existential angst, which is the most on brand thing possible for me, so if you like this there’ll be much more of it and if not… sorry. 😅

I’ve always had a proclivity for angsty existentialism. Multiple times a housemate has found me sprawled on a sofa moping about the meaning of life which sounds really pretentious but idk I feel like on some level that’s just being a student. And it’s that material side of it that’s got me curious recently like - were these anxieties just a result of the kind of individualistic, listless existence a student inhabits? There’s probably a reason the stereotypes of angst are people with enough wealth to avoid work but not enough respect or expectations to have a solid idea about what they should be doing: Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, Søren Kierkegaard, etc.

In the first volume of his Critique of Everyday Life, Henri Lefebvre calls out Kierkegaard specifically as a prime example of bourgeoise alienation, the result of which was literally creating existentialist philosophy - the idea that we have to create meaning for ourselves by force of will and taking a leap of faith. Lefebvre claims that existential angst is always a result of some sort of alienation. When Marx formulated alienation as the psychological suffering we experience when we are separation from ourselves, each other, the products of our labour, and nature, he was thinking about the way the working class are made to suffer under capitalism, but Lefebvre expands the theory beyond this. He describes how alienation is always relative and present in all types of society for all people within it. Alienation is not just a result of individualism and exploitation - it also presents itself when we feel too far from someone we love, and when we are mystified by the natural world. Crucially, we are alienated when we become detached from the fact that we are dependent on others for our survival, something common to all the bourgeoisie.

Acknowledging this dependency would make us aware of the injustice of how these responsibilities are distributed (according to class, gender, race, etc.), and getting past the separation would require a radical change in lifestyle involving the rejection of the serving of the individual self so integral to bourgeoise morality. It’s hard! But with the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie becoming more and more blurred with the expansion of the middle class, recognising this particularly bourgeoise suffering is important, I think, if we want to articulate a reason more people can get behind to resist capitalism.

People suffer when they’re separated from people, when their material existence feels so isolated and insignificant that they have to rely on spirituality to give them any sense of grounding, but are unable to be confident in their beliefs so can only ever relate to religion through anxiety (both my best friends speak of religion in this way, and before I read Lefebvre I was tempted to join them because it sounded better than the nihilism I was struggling with). Seriously, read any Kierkegaard and you will know he was not a happy guy. He wrote book called The Concept of Anxiety, and Fear and Trembling for God’s sake. He’s not okay! 🥺 But poor Søren might have been okay if he’d been a bit less self obsessed, acknowledged the value of *inter*subjectivity rather than pure responsibility, and actually married his fianceé rather than worrying about his independent morality, which was really just arrogance. I sound mean but I love him really. He’s very entertaining and *painfully* relatable.

But this is why I find Simone de Beauvoir to be the absolute best of the existentialist canon, because she recognises the need for recognition and connection, even for the powerful. In The Ethics of Ambiguity, she writes about how even tyrants suffer in hierarchical societies because they can never know authentic respect, since people always see their power and the threat implicit in it rather than their whole humanity. This doesn’t mean that we should never violently resist tyranny, because individualism is hard to overcome, even when it’s self-sabotaging, but awareness of this could get more people on the side of equality. This idea is apparently supported empirically in The Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, but I haven’t read that one yet. I like to put it in Spinozist terms: the satisfaction of one desire can be excessive when it blinds us to our other needs and presents us from feeling other forms of joy.

On how it can be overcome though, I think Judith Butler offers an interesting frame for thinking about it. Though they’re best known for their work on the social construction of gender, my favourite book of theirs is Giving An Account of Oneself, where they write about how our mental life is a product of all our previous experiences, especially with other people. This seems obvious on some level, but it really undermines individualism. In particular, it deconstructs the distinction between attacking parts of yourself and attacking other people. If our internal and external lives are so interlinked, is it really surprising if attacking ourselves isolates us? Recognising that other people are in some sense present within us is conducive to greater intimacy, and though this can be uncomfortable if we dislike part of them, that doesn’t make it less true, and recognising this can make us more compassionate with everything within us. Self-hatred and hatred of others are intimately connected, and they reinforce each other.

I like to think of the relationship between different parts of myself in terms of Deleuze and Guattari’s machinic unconscious, where our minds are made up of interlocking parts from the larger social context. I think differ though in wanting to negotiate and find equilibrium between them rather than experimenting by letting certain parts go to extremes to make change though. I like the way Jacques Derrida writes about it in The Politics of Friendship, where to recognise the other in oneself, and so recognise the misalignment within ourselves, requires us to be a friend to oneself, which makes friendship so central that it undercuts any potential narcissism because by loving oneself as an other we learn to love others better (as well ourselves).

This doesn’t address the concrete politics of the situation though. The aspect missing is that we have to think of ourselves as inextricably linked to our social and political systems, part of a historical process, and our feelings about those systems are a very real part of that process, and if we want to be true to ourselves we have to act on those feelings rather than repress them. I’m still working out what that means for myself, and as Lefebvre notes it’s this final hurdle that most people fail at, but we can all try.

That kind of went all over the place, but hopefully it’s understandable and valuable, and if not it was helpful for me to articulate all these ideas that have been swirling around in my head for the past year or so. 😅

#existential angst #existentialism #marx #karl marx #henri lefebvre #simone de beauvoir #judith butler #soren kierkegaard #alienation #interdependence #individualism #deleuze and guattari #gilles deleuze #derrida #jacques derrida #deleuze #capitalism #bourgeoisie #communism #anarchism #spinoza #psychoanalysis #politics #social theory #sociology #philosophy

[coyotegirl-domestic-terrorism]

#reposting my own content #ignore the fact my bandlab name is elon crust okay #im just a bit silly #liberalism #anti liberalism #anti capitalism #individualism #individualist anarchism #post leftist #post left #post leftism #egoism #anarcho nihilist #anarcho nihilism #nihilist anarchist

[dumbasstralseaslug]

I've thought about it and I believe laws are a substitute for a healthy society.

Laws, enforced by some kind of authority, are necessary as long as we live in an unhealthy society. But we shouldn't rely on them, we should strive to heal society instead.

For example, laws against child abuse are only essential in a society in which:

punishment, even physical punishment, is culturally acceptable and even encouraged;

in which gerontocracy (the authority of the old over the young) is upheld as something natural and sacred;

and which shuns and discourages all models of child-rearing and family organization that defy the nuclear family (in which a child is raised by their parents only, and not by the community, therefore allowing parents to essentially treat their children as personal property rather than as human members of society).

If we focused on creating a healthier society, those laws against child abuse would become obsolete, as even in cases in which some form of abuse may happen, wider society would be equipped to deal with it. And the child would participate in that effort.

@ AnCaps now:

capitalism wasn't designed to create a healthy and stable society. Even if we're very generous, capitalism puts "the best at the top" (...) and creates hierarchies and inequality—in fact it relies on material inequality to function, as the Phillips Curve and the state of the world demonstrate. There is no way it's moral or rational for billionaires and homeless people to exist in the same country but they do and that's intentional.

How does that relate to the rest of the post?

Well, laws are necessary to reduce harm and injustice as long as a society is unhealthy. Capitalism creates and relies on an unhealthy society. Therefore, as long as we have capitalism, it needs to be regulated and we need laws and a state—that's for everyone's sake. If you are genuinely an anti-authoritarian, and you genuinely don't want to cause harm and injustice, you must oppose capitalism as well as laws and the state.

Otherwise what you're advocating for isn't anarchism, it is privatized authoritarianism.

#anarchism #anarchocapitalism #capitalism #anti capitalism #the state #deregulation #libertarian #libertarianism #libertarian socialism #society #future #anarchocommunism #socialism #interesting #individualism #collectivism #nuclear family #gadsden #revolution #communism #economy #marxism #legality

[meet-you-at-the-cemetery-gates]

I also hate the whole anti-individualist attitude on this site. I am my own woman. I may have things in common with you, but I am myself. I own myself. If I have an identity, I do not belong to that community, I merely am in that community. For I belong to no one and nothing but myself. I may allow myself to work with others, but it's my decision, for I gain from it. I may allow myself in situations where I am less powerful, but that's because I enjoy it.

Fuck you. I am me.

#individualism #individualist anarchism #egoism #egoist #anti individualism #anti collectivism