Anarchism: Liberty

Individualist anarchism emphasises the importance of individual freedom from government control. Stirner first introduced this idea in the 1800s. Later, anarcho-capitalists in the 1900s helped spread these concepts more widely.

Collectivist anarchism views liberty/freedom very much as a communal phenomenon, however, there are different collectivist versions of liberty. Within anarchism, there is debate about human nature. Collectivists see people as naturally social and caring, while individualists believe humans are mainly self-interested, cooperating only to gain personal benefits. Despite these differences, all anarchists, like liberals, trust in human rationality.

Proudhon rejects the social contract theory of liberty and socialist collectivism.

Anarchists strive for positive freedom, believing that true freedom cannot exist alongside any form of state or authority socialist,. capitalist or liberal democratic.  Such systems hinder individuals from fully controlling their own lives. As a result, anarchists reject hierarchies and leaders, viewing liberty as a fundamental part of human nature and personal fulfillment.

Proudon argued human liberty can come about only when people, rather than their governments, govern themselves.  Unfortunately, according to Proudhon, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke did not trust the people to structure a free society, for the social contract theorists it is the state that remains sovereign, not the individual citizen.  They (Rousseau, Hobbes & Locke) promise the individual both liberty and equality in exchange for subordinating his private will to the greater demands of the general will, which, according to Proudhon, removes personal autonomy from the individual.  Rousseau, Lock, and Hobbes do not have any real trust in the individual as a responsible, free agent capable of functioning autonomously in a system of unrestrained self-government  For the same reasons Proudhon rejects socialist collectivism which submerges the individual in the collective 'whole'.

According to Proudhon, collectivism is a dogma that inevitably results in a rigid "SYSTEM,". For example, socialist utopians such as  Fourier, Robert Owen, Cabet, Pierre Leroux, Baboeuf, and Louis Blanc ended in systems. Systems, Proudhon argued, necessarily imply obligation, common responsibility, and a fusion of rights and duties. For Proudon liberty means we must revise our thinking concerning the relationships that people have to one another as well as to the state. 

In 'What Is Property?',  Proudhon made his most famous observation that "property is theft,"   Marx admired the idea but later they fell out when  Proudhon expressed the conviction that "all socialists must maintain. . . an almost absolute economic anti dogmatism,"' by which he meant that social reformers such as themselves ought not to form political parties since this would involve the imposition of narrow class interest on all people, instead ought to be primarily concerned with effecting justice for all people in society regardless of class affiliation. Marx saw this as evidence that Proudhon had abandoned a revolutionary path in the name of intellectual moderation and broad tolerance of all social groups.

Kropotkin believed that humans are naturally positive and inclined to cooperate, which he referred to as mutual aid. He argued that true freedom stems from nature, and solidarity is a key trait of all social beings. His anarchist ideas were supported by anthropological studies of species that thrive through mutual assistance. Kropotkin noted that mutual aid existed in early communities and in free cities during the Middle Ages. However, he claimed that the emergence of the state and capitalism disrupted this natural state, stifling local and individual life.

In a society without a state, freedom would thrive within voluntary associations like communes that embrace equality, direct democracy, and active participation. These small communes would encourage regular interactions, preventing people from feeling lost in large, anonymous organizations. Individuals would have the freedom to join any community they choose.

Goldman shared a vision of communal individuality similar to Kropotkin and Proudhon, where liberty comes through cooperation yet respects individual uniqueness. She also viewed freedom through a feminist lens, opposing traditional gender roles and refusing to be subservient to authority, whether that be God, the state, or family.

Goldman supported free love, advocating for sexual relationships outside of marriage and non-traditional connections such as ménage-à-trois and lesbianism. At the time, these views were considered taboo and led to her being distanced from other feminists.