>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?
And what about all those Americans who like to be told what to do, and who admire authoritarian institutions like the military, the church, and the cops?
Doug