Neo-Proudhonian Mutualism.—Between Contr'archy and Guarantism.—The Multiplication of Free Forces is the True Contr'un.
Give money to those AFAQ-making anti-libertarians? No way!
Hey, Francois. Infoshop is run by some folks who have been very gracious in their treatment of left-libertarians over the last year or so. Whatever beef you have with Iain, infoshop isn't his thing.
Only over the last year? What was their treatment before that?
If you have to ask, then what are you going on about? Obviously, since the formation of the ALLiance, the terms of the debate have changed quite a bit. To be "left-libertarian" three years ago was something rather different, and five years ago it was different again. But, hey, Chuck0 has always treated me fine, and infoshop is a good resource.
What *did* it mean to be a LL three years ago?
Figure that it was 2005 when Knappster started the BLL, and extended "left-libertarian" beyond just agorists and the like. As Kevin said at the time: "Most of the membership is more or less left-Rothbardian (that is, keeping up the tradition of Rothbard's and Hess' alliance with the New Left ca. 1970), in keeping with Tom's vision; but there's also a miscellaneous assortment of other left-decentralists, including old Tuckerites like me, and various and sundry land or money cranks." And you may recall the kinds of complicated negotiations we had over labels as recently as the founding of the ALL and A3. As we've got more comfortable with one another, and with the notion of a broad left-libertarian alliance, others have adapted.
"Give money to those AFAQ-making anti-libertarians? No way!"Anti-libertarians? Communist-anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" since 1858, so I can only assume you mean "propertarian"... Otherwise you are saying an anarchist FAQ is anti-anarchist, which seems unlikely!And I should point out that AFAQ discusses individualist anarchism in some detail, showing how it is a form of anarchism and so a genuine form of libertarian ideas.And as Shawn points out, infoshop is not the same as AFAQ (it is only mirrored there). So whatever your dislike of AFAQ, do not equate the two.IainAn Anarchist FAQ
No way! Libertarian means non-coercive. Besides, I've read Infoshop and they're all just commies. I've seen nothing of value on there.
Yes, I also hate Iain and "AFAQ" for obvious reasons :)"And I should point out that AFAQ discusses individualist anarchism in some detail"We know, we are "inconsistent anarchists"... (by pseudo-anarchist Chomsky definition). But we can easily become "consistent anarchists" by consistently applying "our own principles"?Forget it :)
"No way! Libertarian means non-coercive."Look, it is really simple. Communist-anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" as an alternative to anarchist since 1858. It became widespread in Europe by the 1880s and 1890s and spread from there to the English speaking world. Until propertarians in America stole the name in the 1950s onwards, "libertarian" was exclusively used to descrive "commies" (to use your lovely term). Outside of North America, it still is (although it is under pressure in English speaking countries from the right).Thus Woodcock's Anarchism has the subtitle "A history of libertarian ideas and movements -- and not a single propertarian is mentioned (rightly). It does, of course, mention individualist anarchists."Besides, I've read Infoshop and they're all just commies. I've seen nothing of value on there."Well, I guess that sums it up... Still, does not change the awkward fact that the "commies" used libertarian first -- and we still do! As such, AFAQ is hardly "anti-libertarian"IainAn Anarchist FAQ
"Yes, I also hate Iain and 'AFAQ' for obvious reasons :)"Ah, well, I guess my attempts to present individualist anarchism to a wider circle are unappreciated. Oh, hum. Still, it was nice to see that Rothbard once made the same, correct, conclusion."We know, we are 'inconsistent anarchists'... (by pseudo-anarchist Chomsky definition)."Actually, if you have read that much you will know that conclusion flows from their own definition. And as Chomsky is making a general point about workers self-management I can only assumes that Proudhon is also a pseudo-anarchist as well?"But we can easily become 'consistent anarchists' by consistently applying 'our own principles'?"Oh, you have read it, nice to know. Yes, if you consistently apply the ideas expounded by Proudhon on property then you logically end up with the position Proudhon arrived at, namely the need for workers' self-management and co-operatives.But I guess Proudhon is a "pseudo-anarchist" like Chomsky, Kropotkin, Bakunin and so forth?IainAn Anarchist FAQ
I'm a mutualist, incidentally, not an individualist anarchist. But I still honestly don't see much value in either AFAQ or Infoshop.
quit it w/the true anarchist shit already. i'm more interested in the intersection of hip-hop and libertarianism anyway.
Post a Comment