Individualist anarchism

Individualist anarchism or anarcho-individualism is a collection of anarchist currents that generally emphasize the individual and their will over external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems.
Individualist anarchism can be divided into two main distinct movements, each with its own ideological orientations and choices. On one hand, there is American individualist anarchism, which began with Warren in the 1860s. It focuses primarily on economic freedom, drawing upon Stirner's egoist anarchism and Proudhon's mutualism, and develops perspectives that are notably financial in nature. Most American individualist anarchists of the 19th century advocated mutualism, a libertarian socialist form of market socialism, or a free-market socialist form of classical economics.
On the other hand, European individualist anarchism emerged between 1885 and 1895 in the labour movement. Much less studied and not directly connected to American individualist anarchism, with virtually no influence by Proudhon or Stirner for example, it generally consisted of militants with very different outlooks—particularly marked by strong radicalism, general adherence to anarchist communism, and often highly radical positions, including significant support for revolutionary violence and propaganda of the deed. The European movement was also distinguished by its strong opposition to the emerging anarcho-syndicalism of the same period, its rejection of the distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat—seen as social constructs of capitalism to be abolished—and its close affinity with the social outlook of the women, sex workers or criminals. This helps explain its rapid association with the rise of anarcha-feminism or illegalism in Europe, for example.
Although usually contrasted with social anarchism, both individualist and social anarchism have influenced each other. Among the early influences on American individualist anarchism Josiah Warren, Max Stirner, Lysander Spooner, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Henry David Thoreau, Herbert Spencer and Anselme Bellegarrigue. For European individualist anarchism, one can find Pierre Martinet, Vittorio Pini, Clément Duval, Errico Malatesta, Émile Henry, Zo d'Axa, or groups such as the Intransigeants of London and Paris or the Pieds plats.
Within anarchism, American individualist anarchism is primarily a literary phenomenon while social anarchism has been the dominant form of anarchism, emerging in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism after anarcho-communism replaced collectivist anarchism as the dominant tendency. American individualist anarchism has been described by some as the anarchist branch most influenced by and tied to liberalism, or as a part of the liberal or liberal-socialist wing of anarchism — in contrast to the collectivist or communist wing of anarchism and libertarian socialism. However, others suggest a softer divide, seeing individualist anarchists as sharing with social anarchists an opposition to state, capitalism and authority, while diverging due to their evolutionary approach to change, preferring the creation of alternative institutions, such as mutual banks or communes, and in their preference for a market-based system of distribution over the need-based system advocated by social anarchists. The very idea of an individualist–socialist divide is also contested by those who argue that individualist anarchism is largely socialistic and can be considered a form of individualist socialism, with non-Lockean individualism encompassing socialism. Lastly, some anarcho-capitalists claim anarcho-capitalism is part of the individualist anarchist tradition, while others disagree and reject the notion that anarcho-capitalism is a genuinely anarchist belief system or movement.

General and ideological overview

Distinction

American and European individualist anarchism are distinct movements that can be considered independently from one another. This is largely due to the fact that the ideological perspectives within these currents are highly fragmented and that both movements don't influence each other in their first decades. For example, while Stirner's egoist anarchism and Proudhon's mutualism are major influences on the American individualist anarchist movement, they have little to no impact on the European movement.
Stirner, for instance, was only belatedly received in France by individualist anarchists, who found his ideas unoriginal and articulating concepts they believed they had already developed more effectively themselves. American individualist anarchism is usually way more studied and known than its European counterpart.

American individualist anarchism

The term individualist anarchism is often used as a classificatory term but in very different ways. Some such as the authors of An Anarchist FAQ use the classification individualist anarchism/social anarchism, while Bob Black contrasts an individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism less representative of the anarchist tradition with the more representative collectivist anarchism or anarcho-leftism. Others such as Geoffrey Ostergaard, who see individualist anarchism as distinctly non-socialist, recognizing anarcho-capitalist as part of the individualist anarchist tradition, use the classification individualist anarchism/socialist anarchism accordingly. However, others do not consider anarcho-capitalism as part of the anarchist movement, arguing that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and anarchists reject that it is compatible with capitalism. In addition, an analysis of several individualist anarchists who advocated free-market anarchism shows that it is different from anarcho-capitalism and other capitalist theories due to these individualist anarchists retaining the labor theory of value and socialist doctrines. Other classifications include communal/mutualist anarchism.
Michael Freeden identifies four broad types of individualist anarchism. Freeden says the first is the type associated with William Godwin that advocates self-government with a "progressive rationalism that included benevolence to others". The second type is the amoral self-serving rationality of egoism as most associated with Max Stirner. The third type is "found in Herbert Spencer's early predictions, and in that of some of his disciples such as Wordsworth Donisthorpe, foreseeing the redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution". The fourth type retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of market relationships. Individualist anarchism of different kinds have the following things in common:

The concentration on the individual and their will in preference to any construction such as morality, ideology, social custom, religion, metaphysics, ideas or the will of others.
The rejection of or reservations about the idea of revolution, seeing it as a time of mass uprising which could bring about new hierarchies. Instead, they favor more evolutionary methods of bringing about anarchy through alternative experiences and experiments and education which could be brought about today.
Individual experience and exploration is emphasized. The view that relationships with other persons or things can be in one's own interest only and can be as transitory and without compromises as desired since in individualist anarchism sacrifice is usually rejected. In this way, Max Stirner recommended associations of egoists.

Tucker's two socialisms were the state socialism which he associated to the Marxist school and the libertarian socialism that he advocated. What those two schools of socialism had in common was the labor theory of value and the ends, by which anarchism pursued different means.
The egoist form of individualist anarchism, derived from the philosophy of Max Stirner, supports the individual doing exactly what he pleases—taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules. To Stirner, rights were spooks in the mind, and he held that society does not exist but "the individuals are its reality"—he supported property by force of might rather than moral right. Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw "associations of egoists" drawn together by respect for each other's ruthlessness. Another important tendency within individualist anarchist currents emphasizes individual subjective exploration and defiance of social conventions. Individualist anarchist philosophy attracted "amongst artists, intellectuals and the well-read, urban middle classes in general".
Anarchist historian George Woodcock wrote of individualist anarchism's tendency to distrust co-operation beyond the bare necessities for an ascetic life.

European individualist anarchism

In Europe, the tendency emerged later, during the 1880s and 1890s. Although it emerged later chronologically, this tendency generally did not exhibit causal links with previous American individualist anarchism, at least during its initial period. It emerged in the European labour movement of the time.
Before being theorized, the first European individualists, particularly in France, were often militants involved in illegalism or insurrectionarism. Within these circles, European individualist anarchism gradually took shape. In general, anarchists of this tendency shared several intellectual positions identified by Carl Frayne in their thesis regarding the French individualist tendency:

Anti-capitalism, anarcho-communism and need for an immediate Revolution : French and Italian individualist anarchists were economically committed to anarchist communism and believed that a revolution was necessary. They sometimes held romanticized views of revolution, inspired by the Paris Commune and the French Revolution. This led them to adopt a generally radical stance and support violent methods to advance the revolution. As such, they were, like other anarcho-communists, strong advocates of propaganda by the deed as a revolutionary strategy. For a number of them, this also passed through illegalism, a tendency emerged within European individualist anarchism that advocates for the robbery of capitalists.
Anti-syndicalism: A strong opposition to syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism was found among these militants. Unions were perceived as structures of domination and as potential social-traitors due to their alleged reformist stances and collaboration with power. As a result, these militants were strongly opposed to the majority of the European anarchist movement at the time, which was gradually moving toward anarcho-syndicalism.
Critique of economic frameworks and attention to other struggles : These anarchists also distinguished themselves by challenging the exclusively economic interpretations of domination. Thus, communism, although shared, was not placed at the center of French individualist thought. They advocated for the abolition of the proletariat after the revolution, considering it—like the bourgeoisie—to be a social construct of capitalism. The central role given to the worker in anarcho-syndicalism also became a strong point of criticism for individualist anarchists of this tendency, who generally focused more on women, the unemployed, sex workers, or criminals, showing particular interest in the struggles of the so-called Lumpenproletariat.

This last point is illustrated for example by the soup conferences held in Paris by Pierre Martinet or Séverine in the winters of the early 1890s. The distinction between the European and American individualist anarchist movements was noted by Errico Malatesta in 1897, when he said that there would be 'the individualist anarchists of Tucker’s school' and 'the individualist anarchists of the communist school'.
The European individualist anarchism later on met the American one, such as in the thought, for example, of Émile Armand, who started including Stirner in his thought and his tendency of the European branch in the interwar period.
Individualist European anarchists are described as such by historian Céline Beaudet in her monograph on free communities in France at the beginning of the 20th century—anarchist experiments often linked to individualist circles, such as the Naturians—which prefigure anarcho-primitivism and engage in calls for a return to 'nature', she writes that:

Dissenters among dissenters, 'anarchy within anarchism', are rarely considered for their own sake, either relegated to the closets of History or described through the lens of their detractors: bourgeois or police informants for 'orthodox' anarchists, bandits or criminals for the bourgeois, 'dispersion of tendencies' or 'irresponsible' revolt among historians.