i appreciate the way you have framed the question.
i wouldn't even attempt to provide an answer, as i find almost no value in the need/desire to fit oneself or others into tidy ideological boxes. (there are exceptions...)
looking at your core beliefs, some initial responses i have:
1, 2 and 3 have pretty much nothing to do with anarchy per se; they describe your worldview, but aside from maybe 2, i don't think they necessarily align with or against an anarchic view. moralism is highly questionable for an anarchist perspective, imo. how can there be an "absolute morality" without some sort of authority to define it? and when you talk about the human species being "naturally ego-centric", you are declaring a human nature, which is hugely problematic for me.
because both 4 and 5 presume the moralism previously articulated, i find both to be questionable at best. and your reference to "business relationships" in 5 is also quite problematic from this anarchist perspective. that seems to imply a mindset of economic systems and relations, which i personally find completely anti-anarchistic.
6, despite mention of hierarchy and coercion, continues your seeming reliance on "business" as a (if not the) primary means of relating. bosses and customers? not in my anarchy.
7 is the point that seems most resonant with me, although i am never very clear on what people mean by "will". and while i myself tend towards an individualistic focus, saying stuff like "collective is a bad word" just seems like moralistic word policing.
in general, i find your perspective - as articulated in those "core beliefs" - to be very prescriptive. which i do find problematic. combining that with your moralism and "business" focus, i would probably say you are not my kind of anarchist. but then, honestly, relatively few are.
i agree with dot that there are elements of individualist @ and possibly even a greenish @ perspective in there - though your valuing of specialization (and business in general) would conflict with that. i don't know enough about mutualism to say much about that. i do wonder if maybe you lean in the direction of a greenish-anarcho-capitalist. how's that for specialized categorization?!?!
a few questions for you:
do you think there is a single, correct way for all humans to live? and what of that applies to the non-human world?
how do you define "will"?
how do you define "absolute morality"?
how do you define equality?
how do you define "duty"?
you talk about all life being "equal", and of predation and competition in a negative way. would you also look to eliminate those "antagonistic" behaviors in the non-human world? or perhaps you are using those terms in purely economic context?
do you see the existence of entrepreneurs, bosses and customers as feasible in a world of anarchic relations?
would you say that the growth of a plant is "willful"? or the formation of a mountain?
anyway, i'll be interested to see what you and others have to say about where you fit in the realm of ideological categories.
well, clearly we see things very, very differently. but i appreciate your desire to engage, and the way you have done so.
when i have a bit more time, i will ask for some further clarification on things you said in this response. but i suspect the only truly meaningful discussion to be had, especially between individuals with such divergent perspectives, would be face to face, while sipping our beverages of choice. the internet - and all digital technology - is such a shitty medium for real conversation.
With your rejection of even the word "collective" and the focus on "individual entrepreneurs, you're putting some distance between yourself and Proudhon. You might dig deeper into Proudhon to see if you change your mind and work through some of the better egoist material (Stirner, James L. Walker, Landstreicher, Bonanno) to see if perhaps the unique, and not so much the individual, holds some interest for you.
The shoe, as presented second-hand by Spunk anyway, fits pretty well.
Until further notice I shall refer to myself not as a mutualist but as a spooner (even if my wife would say I'm not)
syrphant, you have made it abundantly clear that i have virtually no affinity with the positions you espouse.
i reject moralism (which you take further than most religionists i know); duty; any kind of law (especially "natural" law); any knowable human nature; the concepts of property, work, and economic systems (and the perspectives that lead to and support them); and most everything else you seem to support. but most of all, i reject any perspective that claims to be the "correct" one for everyone, and prescribes how everyone should think, feel and live.
Syrphant: "Happiness is overrated."
not in my experience....
i find most people put very little importance on it, whereas i think of happiness (or joy, or creative living) as one of the main reasons i continue wanting to stay alive.
Syrphant: "we are all struggling desperately in the interest of a higher duty"
you can exclude me from this "we". i have no interest in "a higher duty".
"Happiness is overrated.Except in scattered brief moments when we ignore reality, we are all struggling desperately in the interest of a higher duty, which is ultimately just to help each other struggle better."
no. not me. none of this...starting with the miserable presumption that 1) the parameters of 'reality' are so narrow, 2) insufficient for joy and 3) that 'reality' is ignored only in 'scattered brief moments.' it seems to me that civilization, particularly now, is predicated upon this ignorance which predominates and reproduces itself in perspectives such as you seem entrenched and espouse.
dot: "i don't think it's especially revealing to talk about how we're different. "
i reveal that i disagree. i think where we disagree is often quite revealing, maybe more so than where we agree.
syrphant: i was not referring to any spirituality (not sure where you get that, much less what you mean by it), i was referring to your morality and "higher duty", etc. i see those as religious beliefs, even if the believer despises organized or traditional religion.
why would you call symbiotic relationships a "law"? is love also a law? or friendship? or playing music with someone? i would also point out that you are completely anthropomorphizing when you talk of plants and other forms of life "appreciating" and "struggle to have meaning".
"Many people whose lives had value died poor and alone."
value to who? based on what criteria? and do you have a problem with someone dying poor and alone? especially if that is how they choose to live? i'd also question what you mean by "poor". more economics? most people would consider my life to be one of abject poverty; i feel far richer, and freer, than most anyone i know.
in the above post, you seem to be using the word "value" in 2 different ways. you talk of one's life having "value". and then you talk of exchange "value" (and humans getting more value than they give). do you see those as one and the same?
"In fact, I refuse to let any human tell me how to be a good person. "
perhaps not, but you sure do claim to let "absolute morality" do so. do you only see authority as embodied in another human?
what is "good"? if you define goodness strictly for yourself, then cool, have at it; but then you would be seemingly contradicting your belief in absolute morality, no?
it is the intent of defining "good" and "bad" (and value, and happiness, and meaning, etc) in any context outside your own individual life, that i find problematic. unless i have misunderstood everything you have said so far, that is exactly what you are doing; you are telling everyone what is right and wrong, regardless of context. have i misunderstood you?
"... this kind of activity if I receive confirmation of its value. Otherwise I should go do something else for something that appreciates my labor, my life, my liberty."
i guess this hits a core issue. why do you need to live for someone/something outside yourself? and let me be very clear: living entirely for yourself - making yourself the primary focus of your life - does not in any way preclude doing things with and for others. you can be a servant all your life; if that is what you truly want, then you are doing it for yourself. it is when you do it out of duty, or the expectations of others, or any of a variety of other possible externally driven reasons, that you have sacrificed your own freedom, autonomy and desires. and if that is the case, i would seriously question why you are interested in labeling yourself within the realm of anarchy at all.
dot: "i don't think it's especially revealing to talk about how we're different. syrphant pretty much came on here already clear on being quite different."
perhaps. but i often feel compelled to respond to "happiness is" and "that is not important" and other absolute type of statements, especially when my experience varies greatly.
ok - here are some things that i responded to, since we're going there.
you don't like arrogance, which is cool, but you talk about people being "led to anarchy." as i have said before, this gets to one of the crucial issues with anarchy for me at least, which is that i believe in autonomy and that people know themselves best, and i also think that i know a better way to be in the world. those two things don't go together. yet here i am.
next point: there are people who claim urges similar to the ones you describe, but in the name of themselves and their own joy, rather than in the name of morality or duty. you seem to take empowerment from your frame of this as something universal, rather than personal. which seems like the religious part to me (i think F@ probably already said that, but sometimes different words are helpful?). i for one am suspicious of people thinking that they know the way i should live. see my first point...
ps:i really sympathize with looking for people who know how to say things i already think.
pps: f@, i was just complaining about the brief expressions of only disagreement. going into the particulars is more interesting, although i continue to think that head on is easiest but not necessarily the most educational.
i definitely appreciate your serious attempts at explaining yourself. and i definitely understand the difficulties of finding words to express your thoughts/feelings/etc.
i do think i understand where you are coming from, at least to a reasonable extent. your perspective simply does not resonate with me at all. i think there was a time that i probably would have been less critical of it. but since you originally asked about where your views fit in an overall anarchist perspective, that is the basis from which i critique it. i find much of your perspective contrary to what i think of as anarchy.
the fact that you make it clear that "value" (based on "labor" etc) is your defining aspect of life and freedom (i'm short-cutting there), combined with your continued assertion that absolute morality and higher duty are the driving forces (by your account, for all of life), confirm that i have not misunderstood you - at least not by too far. your acceptance and submission to external forces (morality and duty, at minimum) - and your idea that one overarching set of ideas apply to all of life equally - are primarily where i find an irreconcilable difference with anything i can think of as anarchy.
i have no doubt your various ideas have a consistency for you. from my own anarchistic perspective, while they may well hold a consistency within the sphere of your world where they exist, they do not seem consistent with my own anarchy. but again i point out - that is just my own thinking. i speak for nobody but myself.
i give you props for your efforts in this discussion. but it is unlikely we will ever agree. i am fine with that. i have no illusions about some single, "consistent" worldview being correct for everyone. perhaps others here (or passing through) will engage with you more meaningfully. i don't think i will be able to do so any more than i already have.
I have prepared and uploaded this schematic diagram of my worldview in hopes of getting some good discussion out of you. This is pretty much my whole entire worldview -- the way things are. All my more practical ideas flow from this. Would really enjoy a vigorous attack on this diagram.
syrphant, that diagram is completely repetitive (even within itself), and provides exactly nothing new on your perspective from what you have expressed here in words. it simply reiterates your views that i already find problematic:
property, labor (especially as equal to life), products, exchange, value, specialization, etc. a perspective completely rooted in (mass-based) economics. i want no part of it.