> 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, I actually agree with many of the things you post to this list, so it's a bit sad to see you jump on the bandwagon of those who prefer to attack me personally instead of arguing to my ideas.
I am anti-red only to the extent that I'm at war with authoritarian varities of leftism (which included everything from the Democrats to the ISO). On the other hand, I work with many types of leftists and I'm very friendly towards autonomous Marxists of different flavors.
Individualism? I don't think so. There are very few anarchists who call themselves "individualists" and anarchism is not an individualist political philosophy. I'm not an individualist and never have been. My tendency to create collectives and attend way too many meetings puts me a long way from individualism.
Chuck