Anarchist concept: Anarcho-Individualism

[Section8]

Hello folks, I'm the OP of the once featured "Anarchy Newbie..." thread. I had to delete my original account because Big Brother was going at me pretty darn hard at the time. But I've known about StP since 2014, no clue how I found it btw.

Anywho, I'd like to propose my concept and (possible) contribution to Anarchism. If anyone is willing to critique my concept, I would be happy to have a conversation about it.

Main Idea: We're living in a dystopian nightmare. We all know it. Nobody can truthfully deny it. Edward Snowden confirmed it in his revelations and it's only gotten worse since then we could imagine.

Now most you whom are reading this would be reviled by being subjected to a dystopian nightmare, but nuance is necessary for change in my opinion. See most Anarchists demand a complete dismantlement of hierarchical government. Let's face it folks, that ain't gonna happen in a dystopian nightmare, where Big Brother is watching your every move, and literally knows how you think and how to control and thus crush you. I propose a middle ground that could be possible....maybe.

The majority of society knows they're in a dystopian nightmare and either chooses to submit to it, or even entertains it. As absurd as that sounds... That's what the bulk of these filthy casuals need in order to survive. They need a God, they need a Master to outsource their minds to tell them what is right and wrong, how to think, how to act, how to behave. They simply don't have the gusto to think for themselves, let alone operate on their own. For anyone who falls into this category, one has no right (imo) to usurp them of that dynamic. Some sheep need shepherds. I have few, but some, qualms with them.

There other minority that says "well fuck that noise! That's how we're in a dystopian nightmare in the first place!!" And they too are correct. They protest. They make roadblocks, they disrupt pipeline construction, they may even engage in monkey-wrenching/ecotage (which I support theoretically but ask me if you want me to explain). If people have a problem with the aforementioned dystopian nightmare, then they have the right to "rage against the machine (tongue-in-cheek reference)". Nobody has a right to deny them of that stance. Nor do the sheep have a right... let alone the constituency to fight against them anyways.

Finally, there is a small few, whom look at the dystopian nightmare, then look at people protesting and say to themselves "fuck all that bullshit, I want no part of any of it." And would wish to be completely removed from that battle. They want to disappear into the woods, into the wilderness and live free of society and the resistance that it creates. Occasionally partake in society, but only at your own discretion. Whether in communities or alone, whatever you wish. Live by your own rules. Neither the sheep, nor the protestors have a right to violate the desired autonomy of this group.

[The philosophy, implementation strategies and practical guides are a work in progress mind you.]

If you call yourself an Anarchist and reject my concept, I say to you this. Why? Because it takes into account everyone, it's not "hardcore Anarchy" it attempts to bring Anarchism into the 21st (and a half) century. You may fear that accepting my concept deprives you of the right to call yourself a true Anarchist, but it doesn't really. Here's the hard truth folks. If you want a complete Anarchist society, you're forcing people into a society that not many can function in, that's not congruent with Anarchism=Order is it?

Idk if anyone here has watched "Pirates of the Caribbean" and thus knows about the pirate code. But if you support my concept, the best way to go about is...parlay?

 

[ali]

I think the desire to keep your head down and steer clear from whatever socio-political goings-on you find challenging/harmful/unsustainable/etc is not a niche point of view. In fact, i think most people feel this way. Disappearing into the woods to live with the squirrels really isn't all that different from disappearing into a suburb to live with the normies. It's essentially acknowledging to oneself that political struggle is not (or no longer) a priority in life, but staying healthy and happy is. There's nothing wrong with coming to that point, and i don't think it necessarily invalidates a person's idealistic views on how society could be in the abstract, it's just a pragmatic compromise for the purpose of survival. Most people, in the privacy of their own homes, practice the morals and ethics they feel comfortable with, whether those align with mainstream opinion and the letter of the law or not.

One important to point to consider, though, is that a certain amount of privilege is required in the first place to enable people to feel confident that they can be themselves behind proverbial closed doors. In all societies there are laws in place about what is acceptable in the public sphere, and that does extend to some degree into the private sphere, specifically in order to protect vulnerable groups (e.g. domestic violence laws). But by and large it is only in extremely authoritarian societies where there is a level of surveillance and enforcement that leaves people feeling they need to comply even within ostensibly private spaces. For most people who are not living in such societies, they have the privilege to enjoy relative freedom, and that's good enough for them.

The issue of privilege is relevant for unhoused people in the US, because that country has increasingly put in place laws that criminalize homelessness. Right now someone who chooses to disappear into the woods to live their best life might be able to do it in some jurisdictions, but not in others. So in those jurisdictions where people cannot, perhaps they feel that the political struggle is existential? Perhaps they feel that because they can no longer enjoy the privilege to quietly live their own lives, their only choice is to resist? It might be unfair but i hope it's understandable if those people also feel some resentment toward those who still enjoy the privilege to just shrug and disappear into their own, legal, woods. They might also hold a longer-term view that "first they came for my woods, next they'll come for yours", and that's why they advocate for solidarity.

On top of that you might have people who find themselves unjustly criminalized in other ways then simply where they choose to make camp, e.g. through their gender identity or their sexual orientation or their nationality. Or there might be people who require certain social services - in particular healthcare - who will never enjoy the privilege to simply disappear into the woods. And all of those people might also have a reason to actively resist, and might hope for solidarity from other marginalized groups. By the same token, some of those people might choose not to resist but to fly under the radar while living within society... does it mean they're not "real" anarchists like the ones who disappeared into the woods? No, they're just people trying to survive the best they can.

So, if you want to disappear into the woods and you have the privilege to do so... Sure, go ahead. Many have done it before and many will do so in the future. It's fine. Life for everyone else will go on. I would only suggest to consider that the choice is not coming from some uniquely enlightened point of view, it's just a facet of the normal human condition.

 

[Nada]

Hello folks, I'm the OP of the once featured "Anarchy Newbie..." thread. I had to delete my original account because Big Brother was going at me pretty darn hard at the time. But I've known about StP since 2014, no clue how I found it btw.

Anywho, I'd like to propose my concept and (possible) contribution to Anarchism. If anyone is willing to critique my concept, I would be happy to have a conversation about it.

Main Idea: We're living in a dystopian nightmare. We all know it. Nobody can truthfully deny it. Edward Snowden confirmed it in his revelations and it's only gotten worse since then we could imagine.

Now most you whom are reading this would be reviled by being subjected to a dystopian nightmare, but nuance is necessary for change in my opinion. See most Anarchists demand a complete dismantlement of hierarchical government. Let's face it folks, that ain't gonna happen in a dystopian nightmare, where Big Brother is watching your every move, and literally knows how you think and how to control and thus crush you. I propose a middle ground that could be possible....maybe.

The majority of society knows they're in a dystopian nightmare and either chooses to submit to it, or even entertains it. As absurd as that sounds... That's what the bulk of these filthy casuals need in order to survive. They need a God, they need a Master to outsource their minds to tell them what is right and wrong, how to think, how to act, how to behave. They simply don't have the gusto to think for themselves, let alone operate on their own. For anyone who falls into this category, one has no right (imo) to usurp them of that dynamic. Some sheep need shepherds. I have few, but some, qualms with them.

There other minority that says "well fuck that noise! That's how we're in a dystopian nightmare in the first place!!" And they too are correct. They protest. They make roadblocks, they disrupt pipeline construction, they may even engage in monkey-wrenching/ecotage (which I support theoretically but ask me if you want me to explain). If people have a problem with the aforementioned dystopian nightmare, then they have the right to "rage against the machine (tongue-in-cheek reference)". Nobody has a right to deny them of that stance. Nor do the sheep have a right... let alone the constituency to fight against them anyways.

Finally, there is a small few, whom look at the dystopian nightmare, then look at people protesting and say to themselves "fuck all that bullshit, I want no part of any of it." And would wish to be completely removed from that battle. They want to disappear into the woods, into the wilderness and live free of society and the resistance that it creates. Occasionally partake in society, but only at your own discretion. Whether in communities or alone, whatever you wish. Live by your own rules. Neither the sheep, nor the protestors have a right to violate the desired autonomy of this group.

[The philosophy, implementation strategies and practical guides are a work in progress mind you.]

If you call yourself an Anarchist and reject my concept, I say to you this. Why? Because it takes into account everyone, it's not "hardcore Anarchy" it attempts to bring Anarchism into the 21st (and a half) century. You may fear that accepting my concept deprives you of the right to call yourself a true Anarchist, but it doesn't really. Here's the hard truth folks. If you want a complete Anarchist society, you're forcing people into a society that not many can function in, that's not congruent with Anarchism=Order is it?

Idk if anyone here has watched "Pirates of the Caribbean" and thus knows about the pirate code. But if you support my concept, the best way to go about is...parlay?

I can't seem to understand what your concept is. I see an observation of what you believe society is subjected to, but no actual concept to accept or reject.

I will say, that I don't see how the answer to authoritarian individualism is anarchist individualism. Anarchist-Individualism seems like the idea of a 13 year old boy who has no real understanding of the government's purpose, human biology/sociology, the systems of control and oppression or knowledge of history and how we got to this point, but thinks that he would have better odds of survivability if there were no legal consequences.

In reality, forcing anarchy on other people doesn't mean hierarchies will be abolished. The way YOU think anarchy would be isn't the way it would be because 9+billion people aren't going to live by the ideals in your head because anarchy means they can do whatever THEY want (including reestablishing a government or continuing to believe in hierarchies).

Currently, we have a government and a way to enforce laws and look at how many people harm others when there is a consequence. Do you think that number is going to drop? Do you think people won't form groups to get their own kind of justice? What about roads, cars and all the other technologies we rely on for survival? What about those who are.most vulnerable? What about food? Water quality? Shelter?

There are more ways to govern than just authoritarianism or anarchy. There are more economic systems than just capitalism or communism. But we already are watching (and experiencing) what happens when individualism is taken to the extreme.

If you personally want to live alone in the woods, go. No one is stopping you except you. It isn't a requirement that everyone agrees with you nor does everyone also have to devolve into anarchy for you to do so.

 

[Section8]

Well, I guess we don't like my idea then. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with pitching an idea and being bashed for it in 2025. In summary, my idea was "You wanna be a sheep and have a master, go ahead, fine. You wanna rebel against Big Brother, go ahead, fine. You wanna have no part in that dichotomy? Go ahead, fine." Everyone wins in this concept. Nobody can win in a world obsessed with dominance and rage-driven algorithms. My idea allows everyone to "win", we all fight our fight and that's the beauty of it all.

Someone replied that nothing is stopping me from disappearing into the woods? Wrong. In this province, somebody did just that, built a floating home on a lake and let it "froze up" in the winter. Fined $3000. In Yellowknife you can do just that, the "houseboat community". People were building off-grid communities in unorganized townships here, you know what the news called em? "Medieval villages"

Call me a 13yo boy? Well this 13yo boy outmaneuvered the entire Five Eyes including a red team, an algorithmic based threat modelling system and half a dozen government agencies including CSIS (our perpetually sun-glassed friends). That cop in Tim Hortons? Looking at me with a mixture of fear and curiosity. He couldn't help it. All the songs written about me? The urban dictionary entries about me? Maybe, just maybe I have something important to imbue upon society? Maybe.