Chuck wrote
> The reasons for this are very simple. The American Left, broadly speaking
> (including liberals), is not going to regain a widespread constituency
> until it adopts a populist, i.e. *libertarian*, program and rhetoric. This
> means that in order to beat the right wing, the Left has to look more
> anarchist or libertarian leftist.
----
tfast replies:
Well one can be anarchist without being libertarian which is simply another strand of liberalism albeit headed in a different direction (Hayek). In general, I would agree that any form of left populism will have to involve a serious dose of anarchism insofar as it relates to a critique of the centralized state and expresses some notion of community autonomy. Anarcho-socialism may be the way of the future. I just wonder how you are going to square your vision of individual autonomy and liberty with some notion that the community can interefere in the individual's right to purchase/control/own/sell the social means of (re)production? And if the coummunity has such power how is this to be analytically and popularily understood as different from what governement does / is?
Chuck writes:
Meanwhile, while you blue state leftists discuss this quandary, we red state anarchists will be busy organizing without your help. ;-) ------- tfast replies I am not from a blue or red state, but rather from the other state that shares the continent with the US and Mexico :->.
Anarchists of the world unite you have nothing to loose but your decentralized principles!
tfast