>>3314>individualist anarchism predates the 90s by a long time and would have been uncomfortably close to "social anarchism"well, as you said yourself, perlmans ans serges anarchism wasn't that different from social anarchism, they were very close to it. even though they wrote with a individualist character, the real devide between social and individualist anarchism only happened in the scenario I described - in the 90's. its really retarded how you bring them up while ate the same time conceding that they did NOT develop beyond the scope of social anarchism. I mean sure, you definetly win 100 internetz argument points by showing that, akshually, there already were indiviualist anarchists before. buuuut, as you said yourself, they still moved within the paradigm of traditional, social anarchism. the actual break from those dead, 19th century theories, burdened by their systemic hegelian nature, only took place afterwards. so your point is really asinine - to your own admition btw.
>your dumb urban tribe rivalry has nothing to do with the actual course of history of anarchismohh yeah, the ACTUAL course of anarchism. by actual you, of course, you mean to describe the course which you determin to be the essential feature of change unlike it's sinful, not ACTUAL ones. or with other words, you are the sepertaing its essential features from its concrete existence. I dont care about your spooked concept btw. social anarchism parted from individualist tendencies in the 90's, because all that existed before were social anarchists with individual tendiencies, as you yourself pointed out (uncomfortably close to "social anarchism"). just because you try to wave away this devide doesnt make it any less substantial.