Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>This has puzzled me for years now: like Chris, I see no meaningful
> distinction between a society genuinely based on Marxist principles
> and an anarchist society. No state, activities and groups based
> on mutual benefit and cooperation, no wage exploitation, no
> "property rights"--how does this Marxist dream differ from Chuck's
> anarchist utopia?
At one time, when it had a serious grounding in the working class and petty producers (independent craftsmen) of some nations, anarchism would fit your description, and the 'blame' for clashes between it and socialists were more or less equally distributed between the two tendencies. Even then, however, anarchism contained as thread of pure (one might even say Nietzschean) individualism -- hence, only seemingly a contradiction, the iron top-down discipline of various 19th-c anarchist tendencies. Chuck0 carried that individualist streak to its logical extreme, and he differs from right-libertarians only nominally. And the first principle of his position is anti-socialism, to which all other elements of it must be subordinate. Put otherwise, he is a common garden-variety anti-red. Not serious.
Carrol
>
> Miles
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk