It is love that binds us together. Truly, we may imagine ourselves as individuals, but surely our many billions in population counts against that much of the Enlightenment.
Perhaps this is the material basis for ideology--the division of the human perceptive and moral faculties from the empirical reality.
Why do we continue to fetishise the individual perceptive faculty over that of the collective? Can we trace a chain of efficient causation backwards in time? Will uncovering the genaeology of capitalist ideology bring us any closer to conquering the future of Anarchy?
I do not think so. The genaeological method of Foucault, and the basis of much of post-Modernism does not admit of activity. It does not look forward to the creation of a future, it merely passes over the dregs of the past.
Why should we, also, be pessimistic about human behaviour? Why not foster a culture of compassion and mutual aid, instead of, as Rorty calls it, "ironism"?
Don't the actions of those who espouse Individualism, most of all demonstrate their commitment to the struggle of collective and mutual liberation?
Perhaps we may here detach post-Modernism from the subject of our analysis, as they are difficult to draw on the subject, preferring to preach to "both choirs", as it were.
But the question remains--what have the Individualists even achieved? Their suspension of the "revolution" into the abstract and atomised individual has not pushed the struggle one bit further.
VIDAK.