>It is just an historical accident that the twin goals of solidarity and
>freedom were ever separated and counterposed. The revolutionary
>movements of the nineteenth century were movements for freedom through
>collectivism. The critique of liberal freedoms in the Communist
>Manifesto is not a rejection of freedom, but a rejection of the narrow
>form of market freedom - in fact the whole point of Marx's critique was
>that real freedom came through social revolution. It was only because
>the socialist movement was re-directed towards state-oriented socialism
>that the critique of market freedom was narrowed down into the
>apparatchik's innate distrust of independent initiative. Marx does make
>a case for 'authoritarianism' in the prosecution of the struggle against
>the capitalist class, because revolution is an authoritarian business.
>However, that authoritarian element only justifies itself on the grounds
>that it is the precondition for a greater freedom.
>
>A libertarian communist is someone who has nothing to lose but her
>chains.
Abso-bloody-lutely, Jim! The whole problem is that people spell Marx S-T-A-L-I-N; usually with the help of wilfull misreaders like Daniel Bell and Karl Popper and the bone-idle authors of just about every introductory political theory and economics text book since.
Good on you, Comrade! Rob.