‘Anarchism’ or ‘anarchy’ is a term which has always been difficult to define and pin-down to specific positions and acts. Some people equate it to ‘chaos’ and the like but this is not what I want to discuss, what I want to discuss is the relationship between the individual and the collective. It goes without saying that any collective is made up of individual people (We are not born of all one single human body) who come together to work and act collectively but there’s more to the ‘individual-vs-collective’ dynamic within anarchism. Some people have defined ‘anarchism’ as an exclusively individual position whereas others have chosen to define it as an exclusively collective position and both such definitions are both wrong and right. Anarchism, in my opinion, is neither an exclusively individual or an exclusively collective position but in my humble opinion based on my own personal position is that it is BOTH, it contains both the individual and the collective. What I mean is, take myself for example, I choose to express my anarchism individually by my vegetarianism (Of course vegetarianism and veganism are not prerequisites to being an anarchist), by being straight edge (Nor is straight adge a prerequisite), my art and my attitudes towards sexual liberation etc. but collectively I choose to take action in the form of a ‘group’ or ‘organisation’ and further and most importantly, within my class. This is how I express my anarchism collectively i.e. through my actions, organisational methods and my class solidarity. Some of my friends express their anarchism individually by their sexual relationships, nudism, veganism, vegetarianism, art etc. as well as taking collective positions, carrying out collective acts and being part of the working-class.
But what do things such as nudism, sexual relationships etc. have to do with anarchism? To answer this would require me to deviate from the current topic and go off on a tangent as they are issues in themselves and require individual explanation. But overall, in the cases of some of my friends and myself, things such as for example nudism and sexual relationships are carried out as expressions of fun, freedom, free thinking, love, trust, breaking down hierarchy and social; individual and collective barriers and believe it or not; it builds bonds, closeness and trust. In short, it helps in breaking down the control which social control binds us in whether it is our own self-imposed control or control by the state, society, the ‘family’ or something else such as ‘social convention’ and ‘the norm’. It is not just a way to stick a finger up to social control, it is also simply a nice way to live.
This is my definition of anarchism’s relationship between the individual and the collective, just one of many, many definitions and positions, some I think make sense and I agree with and others I think are total nonsense pieces of shit. Expression of anarchism individually to me merely means taking on and carrying out positions beyond a group or collective (To do so is not detrimental to a group or collective), which interest me myself and having my own personal take on a given issue, position etc. Such as what I am writing now being an individual act and position which some people may or may not agree with. Collective acts and positions are when any individuals/groups/collectives come together and agree to carry out a collective act and form a collective position. The two do not cancel each other out!
Anarchism itself I believe is an individual, a collective, an economic, a political and a social position. It is both political and apolitical. Political in the political, economic and sometimes the individual sense but it is also apolitical in the sense of it being a social relationship. What do I mean by anarchism as a social relationship? Well, in this sense I think it is fundamentally apoliticial so I choose to define it as such because it covers general social relationships in our daily lives and so with both political and apolitical people. This is relationships with(in) our ‘families’, friends, lovers, sex partners, acquaintances, pets, the wider public etc. But whilst being fundamentally apolitical in this aspect of anarchism it also intersects with what we see as the political aspects of anarchism. Anarchism as a social relationship means the way in which we relate to one another such as non-hierarchically, non-domineering, understanding (As much as possible), not being a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, speciesist, ecocidal fuckbag etc. For example, not being the domineering one in a sexual relationship, not thinking you are better than your mates and everyone else, not battering and neglecting your kids, abusing your pet or abusing kids.
A Venemous Butterfly publication described the relationship between the individual and the collective. Said person described it as communism providing access to the means in which an individual can use to flourish.
The individual expression of anarchism can, and does, run in tandem with anarchism’s collective position, they do not and should not cancel eachother out. They both go hand-in-hand. We can take individual and collective positions and carry out individual and collective acts. What’s the problem with adopting both? Most people seem to think that you can only be one or the other if not simply just one. For someone to dogmatically dictate to someone else about what they think anarchism ‘IS’ (Emphasis on the ‘is’ for dogmatism) is anti-free thinking, hierarchicial, dogmatic, vanguardist and domineering. It is preaching to someone about the ‘correct way of thinking’ rather than informing people of your position by saying “hey, this is what I think…” and trying to spread your ideas in a less wanky way. Having said that, one thing anarchism definitely is not is right-wing! Let’s move on!