All too often anarchism as a movement and a discourse is oriented towards collectivist ideology. I mean this in a literal sense of an ideology. Much of what is called anarchism seems to be more of a form of Hegelianism. Possibly it becomes a way for Marxists to smooth out the more and more obvious contradictions of their ideology. To many so-called anarchists, freedom means freedom for the megamachine, the leviathan man, the super organism they inhabit.
The emphasis of anarchism should always be individual freedom. Individualism doesn’t mean nonsense like capitalism. Capitalism is a collectivist ideology as well, a structure of interlocking components. Individuality is not even the avoidance of other people. Most people want to be around others, with the exception of some hermit types. It strikes me as unreasonably misanthropic to mandate communal organization, as folks like anarcho-communists do. Organiz-ational and meeting fetishists seem to think that if they should cease their ritual, their revolutionary ideology would collapse. And there is truth to this, the perpetual meetings of bookchinists and Occupy drones are intended to indoctrinate participants into an insular subculture (who’s the lifestyle anarchist, college boy?) This ritualistic behavior creates structures which keep the participants in line, and possibly push a leader (or two) into a position of self-aggrandizement at the expense of other participants.
I am often pessimistic about others, but this is due to the social roles we inhabit. Pushing individualism and egoist liberation functions to break down these social roles. The liberation of one is the liberation of others. Most individuals want the presence of others. Liberated individuals will probably choose communalism. Mutual aid will take the form of a union of self-owning ones. The coming together enhances individual freedom and pleasure, becoming synergistic mutuality, where our freedom together is greater than the sum of our isolated and atomized parts.
It is difficult to determine how this individual freedom will be assured. It has been suggested that it should be formalized as a document, such as a bill of rights. I think this is the wrong way to go. As it is formalized and put into a static written form it becomes legalistic. Once it is legalistic it becomes a game of easy manipulation and can be turned on its head by any lawyer or logician. It may make sense to include it in forms such as mission statements for shared spaces and projects, but this is always a limited utility.
The only way to assure the continuation of freedom is a continual struggle. Anytime authoritarian structures begin to form they must be destroyed. This process never ends. Life becomes perpetual struggle, because perpetual war for individual freedom. This is okay, life is struggle. Insurrection never ends and civil war becomes the definition of a free society.