anarchy and individualism?

q: So whats the deal with yall mfs on individualism? How's that work with your ideology? Just recently I read Milstein’s primer on anarchism, which albeit is a introductory means of gaining knowledge with regard to anarchist theory, and interestingly [they] described anarchism as kinda of a fusion of ideals both liberals and communists live up to ie freedom and class upheaval for example. Ultimately tho about every anarchist I read from seems to fundamentally support an individualistic framework with regard to polity, even kropotkin that Ole coot, says that "the older obligations" that bound man by man in the medieval and prior periods were more tyrannical then industrial capitalisms bonds. So I'm just curious what yalls thoughts are with regard to anarchism and individualism. For reference, I refer to individualism as a philosophical position that elevates the individuals personal choice or desires above that of the needs or duties of their communities.

a: the division of individual and society, or even individual needs vs. communities’ needs, is entirely dependent on the statist idea of a bounded self. of independence that easily crosses the line into rugged individualism. of entirely self-made identities unaffected by networks of care. of autonomous emotions (never mind the neurodivergent hyperempathy that drives many of us to anarchy in the first place). thus, collectivist anarchy and individualist anarchy are something of a false binary, because individuality cannot exist without community, and vice versa.

additionally, even if bounded selves were fully possible, jouissance—that is, queer disruption of linearity and structure—would make them irrelevant. As queer anarchist journal Baedan puts it, “it is a desire for jouissance which sends us into the night seeking to overwhelm our bodily capacity, to disintegrate the corporeal limits of ourselves, to truly flee from what and who we are.” to generalize queer negation, to organize conflictually, even to provide care—all of this is rooted in the idea of jouissance, of infinite moments that prefigure rupture and negation, of moving beyond the pleasure principle and directed futures and instead organizing based on desire. bounded selves are not only not real in the practical sense, but antithetical to the core ideas of queer and trans anarchy.

so what does this mean for individualism? anarchists absolutely stand for following individual desire and impulse, but for many of us, providing care and being in community are a core part of our desires and impulses. to imply that individual desires run counter to communal ones is an outgrowth of statist ideas about individual nature, a negation of the universal love that so many queer and trans folx inherently feel. similarly, a collective idea of desire might easily get toward statism—as most statist societies do when they assume everyone is or should be straight, thus regulating desire and embodiment. taken to their extremes, both frameworks should be avoided.

tldr: one should always respond to “individualism or collectivity?” with “actually i’m nonbinary.”