On 5/1/11 8:14 PM, SA wrote:
> On 5/1/2011 9:02 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> On May 1, 2011, at 8:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>> Cf. his lecture from 40 years ago, "Government in the Future" (Seven Stories
>>> Press 2005):
>>>
>>> "I think that the libertarian socialist concepts - and by that I mean a
>>> range of thinking that extends from left-wing Marxism through anarchism -
>>> are fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural extension
>>> of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society."
>> Classical liberalism? Really? You like this, Carl? This only confirms my
>> worst suspicions about anarchists - they're individualists of a fundamentally
>> conventional sort.
>
> This seems like an unhistorical way of looking at things. The claim is that
> socialism is to advanced industrial society what classical liberalism was to
> pre-industrial (or proto-industrial) society: i.e. an emancipatory project.
> What is the counter-argument? That you could have had socialism in a rural
> society emerging from feudalism? Or that the bourgeoisie contributed nothing
> in its day?
>
> I agree that many strands of anarchism are scurrilously individualistic, but I
> don't think Chomsky's really suffers from that flaw, or at least not that much.
>
> SA
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk