Anarchism Beyond The Binary

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]So, I was reading John Clark's Bridging the Unbridgeable Chasm, which is one critique among many of Bookchin's characterizations or mischaracterizations of anarchism. And it motivated me to put together this very quick primer on individual and social anarchism. So, if you're in anarchist spaces, you might have heard of this alleged division between individualist anarchism and social anarchism.

[00:00:24]Sometimes, if the person is a big Bookchin fan, they might characterize it as lifestyle anarchism. Although, you probably shouldn't expect the most accurate characterization of social anarchism from them, either.

[00:00:36]Because I think Bookchin's caricature of what is serious social anarchism versus lifestyle anarchism, one is focused on the collective struggle, the other on just personal rebellion and aesthetics, is is a real old man yells at cloud kind of energy. And it really straw mans his enemies, in my opinion. He lumps together a lot of diverse currents, whether it be Stirnerite, egoism, post-structuralist theory, primitivism, various countercultural practices.

[00:01:04]He puts them all under this dismissive label that I really don't find useful.

[00:01:08]He frames his lifestyleist opponents as apolitical, as narcissistic, as disengaged from collective struggle, when really it was not the case. And he creates this false dichotomy, I think, through the framing of his original book, Social Anarchism and Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm, that one must choose between social and lifestyle, the individual and the collective.

[00:01:34]It's all intertwined.

[00:01:36]Anarchism, historically, has sought to reconcile these dimensions. And by caricaturing those that he considers to be lifestyle anarchists, lifestyleists, whatever, he completely misses the opportunity to build a more pluralistic, nuanced, and layered anarchist theory that embraces both individuality and solidarity. Of course, he wasn't particularly interested in anarchism, anyway, because he went and founded his own ideology, but so be Bookchin's goal.

[00:02:03]We don't have to get into it with Bookchin right now. But this little article reminded me that I wanted to address this whole topic of individual and social anarchism. So, I'm just going to do that real quick. He says that Bookchin argues that this stark dichotomy has its roots in the history of anarchism. And that certain flaws in the very mainstream of historical anarchism have contributed to the ways in which the contemporary movement has gone astray. He presents his unbridgeable chasm thesis as follows.

[00:02:27]Stated bluntly, between the socialist pedigree of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, which have never denied the importance of self-realization and the fulfillment of desire, and the basically liberal individualistic pedigree of lifestyle anarchism, which fosters social ineffectuality, if not outright social negation, there exist a divide that cannot be bridged, unless we completely disregard the profoundly different goals, methods, and underlying philosophy that distinguish them. So, I'm not going to read the entire article. You could read it for yourself.

[00:02:55]I'm going to link in the description.

[00:02:56]But I want to quickly introduce Alan Ritter's concept. An apt description of the anarchist view of the relation between the personal and social dimensions is found in Alan Ritter's concept of communal individuality. I like that term, communal individuality.

[00:03:11]Ritter, a careful student of classical anarchist thought, explains that in espousing communal individuality, the anarchist tradition asserts that personal autonomy and social solidarity, rather than opposing one another, are inseparable and mutually reinforcing.

[00:03:28]What is striking when one looks at this tradition is its consistency in upholding the importance of both poles of the individual-social polarity. And the last quote I want to reference, Bookchin's thesis that there is an unbridgeable chasm between forms of anarchism that stress individuality and those that stress social solidarity is refuted by the history of both anarchist theory and anarchist practice. The bridge is crossed many times each day by those who practice the anarchist ideal of communal individuality in their everyday lives. Now, a few weeks before I read this particular article, I had read Ricardo Flores' Considering an Antinomy, which really gets to the heart of this exact conversation. I've been working through articulating my Anarchism Without Adjectives / Synthesis. And so, wrestling with those balances was already floating in my mind before I saw how Flores put it. So, I'll read some selected portions and then get into it. So, he says that everything, facts, events, feelings, ideas, appears as if it had two faces, two opposites and irreducible twos.

[00:04:30]It could be said that the principle of contradiction is the essence of life itself.

[00:04:34]One small quibble, I don't think that everything can or should be framed as a binary, but I do recognize that there are rhetorical and analytical benefits to posing binaries within particular contexts. So, let's proceed. In the midst of the aspirations of social renewal, the associationist trend and the autonomous tendency tends to an unequal combat.

[00:04:59]Ideals range from the assertion of independent individuality to the consecration of the mass, the all-powerful collective. Social practices reflect at every instant the angle of the individual in rebellion and the arrogance of the overwhelming multitude. The antinomy, the contradiction, is flagrant between the conquered and the conqueror.

[00:05:20]There is a dissolving and dispersing force called individualism, a conglomerating and conservative force called socialism or societarianism.

[00:05:30]At bottom, whatever terms we use, there is an obvious opposition between unity and totality. He goes on to say, and by the way, this whole thing is very short, but I didn't want to read the whole thing. He goes on to say that the antinomy between individuality and association continues to stand in favor of the undisputed and overwhelming sovereignty of the multitude. Basically, our common conception is that we defer to the majority, to the to the mass, to the group, the collective. And in general, individuals seem happy to immerse themselves and disappear into the motley and undefined body of the mass, the crowd, the army, the party, or any association whatsoever.

[00:06:08]Few are zealous of the protection of their personalities. Few, and commonly taken to be crazy and eccentric.

[00:06:15]And yet, many call themselves autonomists. They proclaim great and incontestable truths regarding human liberation. They want to dignify and ennoble the individual. But when push comes to shove, they surrender to the habits of routine, are submerged, forgetful of themselves in the mob that overwhelms, like an impetus current, all obstacles. So, there are people who say that they're all for individuality, they're all for the freedom of the individual, and yet they're very quick to subordinate the individual to a collective simply because it is a collective. Flores says, "No, association, when it is not the result of a free contract between equals, is no different from blind, automatic subordination to the will of others."

[00:07:00]Solidarity and association do not require individual sacrifice. They do not obstruct independence.

[00:07:07]I haven't fully interrogated that particular statement, that solidarity and association don't require individual sacrifice. I think there are instances where solidarity does demand sacrifice on your part as a demonstration of solidarity.

[00:07:22]However, it could be that we're speaking of two different senses of sacrifice. It could be that Flores is speaking specifically of the sense of sacrifice where the individual literally disintegrates themselves and their wishes and their needs to the mass, that the individual bows themselves and puts themselves to the whim of collective determinations. This need and this negation have their roots in the remnants of voluntary submission and compliance with imposed authority.

[00:07:53]This I agree with. You know, as anarchists, we speak about challenging authority, interrogating authority, overcoming authority, being vigilant about how authority may arise in our spaces.

[00:08:06]And yet, I think we still carry on, in some cases, that heavily conditioned impulse to subordinate ourselves to authorities, authorities that are less apparent because they obscure themselves with titles like collective will, but authorities nonetheless. I put this in green because I found it key. The antinomy exists, anyway, because without personal independence, the individual is a nullity, and without the association of individuals, life is impossible. To escape this impasse by submitting to the group or by denying it is to cut the knot.

[00:08:39]And what is needed is to untie it.

[00:08:42]To untie it is to remain autonomous and to cooperate voluntarily. To come together, to show solidarity in a common work. Again, we're speaking of a shared affinities, a shared association, shared goals. You come together on that basis, not on the basis of this organization exists forever and ever and for all eternity, regardless of the needs of its individual components.

[00:09:06]It is that we are coming together, to be a standing in solidarity for the sake of a common work. To speak of associationism means speaking of the deliberate acts of free wills.

[00:09:17]Anything less is subordination, regimentation, and slavery.

[00:09:22]It is not, in short, association in any sense. And I'll leave you with this line, the pact between equal and free beings resolves the antinomy, consecrates independence, and realizes solidarity.

[00:09:35]Such is, ultimately, the anarchist principle. So, this gets into what I mean when I'm talking about free association, right? And I speak about organization, coordination, grouping, decision-making, etc., through the lens of free association and not democracy for a reason.

[00:09:53]Democracy has a lot of associations and meanings and such in people's heads.

[00:09:58]I acknowledge that. I intend to address that when I do my full video on democracy.

[00:10:03]But the mean kind of radical approach to democracy, direct democracy, has etymological and practical flaws that make it incongruent with my goal, which is anarchy, which is the practice of anarchism. The elevation of collective majorities above individuals and minorities just reproduces an authority of the many over the few. When I talk about anarchist organization, I focus on free association, which results from and in consensus. Not consensus democracy, but consensus and consent-based decision-making. A focus on free consent-based association ensures that minorities aren't overridden by majorities.

[00:10:42]Each person retains a freedom.

[00:10:45]Conflict resolution comes to the forefront. There's no government structure imposing wills, enforcing authority, demanding compliance, granting legitimacy, granting permission or prohibition.

[00:10:56]If agreements can't be reached, again, conflict resolution or disassociation.

[00:11:02]And this results in a dynamic association, ordered chaos.

[00:11:08]Groups form, dissolve, and reconfigure freely based on ongoing consent. And this fluidity to choose with whom and how we associate is one of our principal defenses against the calcification of hierarchies. I like the phrase of Malatesta he used to sum it all up.

[00:11:26]That we are neither democrats nor dictators, but anarchists. Still, this is a digression from my main point. That individual liberty and collective solidarity are not enemies, but conditions for each other. There is, of course, a pull between autonomy and solidarity, but it's necessary for us to hold both together. I welcome the different trends and focuses within anarchism that highlight different things. Some with more of a collective focus, some with more of an individual focus. But anything that I would recognize as anarchy, as I understand the philosophy and value of anarchy, would see that the fullest individuality exists in free collective association.

[00:12:05]And that anarchist collectives are those that maximize individual freedom. All power to all the people.

[00:12:12]Peace.