An Overview of Anarchism in Politics

Individual Anarchists: It's All About Me (And That's OK)

Individual anarchists reckon the state is basically a massive bully that steals your money through taxes and tells you what to do. They're not even happy with the liberal idea of a minimal 'nightwatchman state' - any state is too much state for them.

Max Stirner summed it up perfectly: "there is no judge but myself who can decide if I am right or wrong" and "the state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime." Basically, they think humans are entirely self-interested and rational, which isn't a bad thing - it's just natural.

Instead of violent revolution (which they think would just create more problems), individual anarchists prefer individual insurrection and peaceful protests. They believe the state will eventually collapse when people simply stop cooperating with it - like mass withdrawal of labour.

Key Point: Individual anarchists believe your ego and personal autonomy are the most important things, and any form of authority - whether it's the state, church, or social institutions - damages your freedom and should be rejected.

The Individual Anarchist Worldview: Freedom Through Self-Interest

These anarchists have a pretty optimistic view of human nature - they think we're rational and good, but we need individual liberty to flourish. The egoism approach says we're naturally self-interested, and that's actually brilliant because our rationality will lead us to make decisions that protect everyone's liberty.

Anarcho-capitalists are obsessed with the free market and private property. They think the state exploits us through taxation and should hand over everything (even police and courts) to private companies. Competition gives you choice, and choice equals freedom.

Egoists are a bit different - they actually reject capitalism because they think workforces get exploited. Work should be meaningful and benefit the individual, not some boss getting rich off your labour.

The big idea is "anarchy is order" - they believe that when you remove all the legal, political, and social constraints, people's natural qualities of rationalism and self-interest will create a perfectly balanced society. It's like removing the training wheels and trusting that humans will naturally figure out how to cooperate.

Key Point: Individual anarchists think a utopian society will develop naturally once we remove the state - humans are good enough and smart enough to sort themselves out without being told what to do.

Economic Freedom: Your Money, Your Choice

Individual anarchists are absolutely furious about taxation - they see it as theft that violates your private property. Max Stirner called regular employment "machine-like labour that amounts to the same thing as slavery" because you're not really free if someone else controls your work.

There's a split between anarcho-capitalists and egoists here. Anarcho-capitalists want a completely free market with private property, profit motives, and wage systems - just without any state interference. They think inequality is natural and that liberty doesn't equal equality.

Egoists take a harder line - they think anyone who works for someone else is being exploited. They want workers to keep the full fruits of their labour and reject private property altogether. They support Proudhon's idea of "possession rights" instead.

Both groups agree that removing state regulation and taxation would allow truly free, competitive, and rational individuals to make decisions in their own best interests. This would create what they call a "union of egoists" - a free society based on voluntary agreements rather than forced cooperation.

Key Point: Economic freedom means being master of yourself rather than being controlled by the state through taxes or by bosses through exploitative work - you should control your own labour and keep what you produce.

Collectivist Anarchists: We're Better Together

Collectivist anarchists think individual anarchists have got it completely wrong - humans aren't naturally selfish, we're naturally cooperative and altruistic. The state doesn't just oppress individuals, it stops us from working together properly and creates unnecessary competition and hierarchy.

Mikhail Bakunin was blunt about it: "if there is a state, there must be a domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery." They reject even Marx's idea of a worker-controlled state because "a state is still a state."

Unlike individual anarchists who prefer peaceful resistance, collectivists believe in "propaganda by the deed" - revolution and sometimes violence to destroy the state. Anarcho-syndicalists want to build new social institutions (like revolutionary trade unions) within the existing system to prepare for this social revolution.

They think capitalism is a cruel joke - calling workers "wage slaves" who are only free to choose which boss exploits them. The state protects private property, which creates inequality and prevents the natural human tendency toward cooperation from flourishing.

Key Point: Collectivists believe human nature is fundamentally social and cooperative, but the state corrupts this by creating hierarchy and inequality - remove the state and we'll naturally work together for everyone's benefit.

The Collectivist Vision: Liberty Through Unity

Collectivists have a completely different take on liberty - they think you can only be truly free when you work collectively with others. Individual freedom without cooperation is meaningless because you'll just get exploited by those with more power or resources.

Common ownership and cooperation would advance liberty because individuals would own the fruits of their labour collectively. Different flavours of collectivism have different ideas: anarcho-communism focuses on small communes, mutualism creates mutual societies and groups, and anarcho-syndicalism works through trade unions.

They believe "anarchy is order" but their version looks very different from the individualist one. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said "anarchy is order without the power" - meaning that natural human solidarity and cooperation will create order once hierarchy and inequality are removed.

The state undermines this natural order by making people compete against each other instead of working together. Remove the state, and humans will return to their natural altruistic and cooperative behaviour, creating a society centred on mutualism and collective benefit.

Key Point: True liberty comes through collective action and cooperation - working together in communes, unions, or mutual societies protects individual freedom better than going it alone.

Collectivist Utopia: Everyone Gets What They Need

Collectivists are massively optimistic about creating a utopian society through collective effort. Peter Kropotkin believed "the revolution can and ought to assure shelter, food and clothes to all" - basically, cooperation can solve material problems for everyone.

Their utopia would be organised from the bottom up through direct democracy, with everyone playing a part. Anarcho-communist communes would be small-scale groups governed by direct democracy, following Marx's principle of "each according to their ability, each according to their need."

The key difference from individual anarchist utopia is that this one's built on collective endeavour and common ownership. Private property and individual ownership of production creates hierarchy, which prevents true utopia from developing.

These communes wouldn't be isolated - they'd work together in larger federations, but membership would always be voluntary. The state is seen as a barrier because it imposes external morality that limits our natural capacity for cooperation.

Key Point: A collectivist utopia emerges naturally when people form cooperative groups and share resources - think small democratic communes working together voluntarily, not top-down government control.

Economic Freedom: Property Is Theft

Here's where collectivists really differ from individualists - they think private property is the root of all exploitation. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's famous phrase "property is theft" sums up their view that property owners exploit everyone else through high rents, interest, and low wages.

They want to replace private property with collective ownership or mutualism. Land and the means of production would be held in common, but individuals would still own the product of their own labour. It's about removing exploitation, not removing all personal possessions.

Peter Kropotkin argued that "all things are for men, since all men have need of them" - cooperation beats competition every time. Different approaches include anarcho-communism (full communism with communes), mutualism (individuals and small associations keep products of their labour), and anarcho-syndicalism (revolutionary trade unions leading change).

Anarcho-syndicalists want to use trade unions to campaign for better working conditions and build horizontal (non-hierarchical) economic institutions. These would prepare for a mass strike - their version of "propaganda by the deed" - to trigger social revolution.

Key Point: Economic freedom comes through collective ownership and cooperation, not individual property rights - when everyone owns the means of production together, no one can exploit anyone else's labour.

Putting It All Together: Two Paths, Same Destination

Both individual and collectivist anarchists agree that the state needs to go, but they've got completely different ideas about what should replace it. Anarcho-communists want small democratic communes connected by voluntary federations, while mutualists prefer individuals and small associations working together through exchange systems.

Anarcho-syndicalists believe new social institutions (especially trade unions) can provide the foundation for a stateless society by building alternative structures within the current system. They're basically creating the new world inside the shell of the old one.

The fundamental split comes down to human nature - are we naturally self-interested individuals who cooperate when it benefits us, or naturally social creatures who thrive through collective effort? Both sides think their approach leads to freedom, order, and utopia.

What's fascinating is that both camps believe their vision will emerge naturally once the state is removed - they just disagree about whether that natural state involves competition or cooperation.

Key Point: Whether you lean toward individualist or collectivist anarchism, both believe that humans are smart and good enough to organise society without government control - they just disagree on whether we do this best alone or together.