Slashdot Mirror

In a practical sense, that's never going to be true, and various kinds of associations will evolve as people who can not defend their interests on their own realize they can band together to defend common interests (like survival). Some of these bands might reasonably be called governments.

See medieval Iceland as an example of this happening. There's more about libertarianism from an anarchist POV here, as well.

In a practical sense, that's never going to be true, and various kinds of associations will evolve as people who can not defend their interests on their own realize they can band together to defend common interests (like survival). Some of these bands might reasonably be called governments.

See medieval Iceland as an example of this happening. There's more about libertarianism from an anarchist POV here, as well.

Ah, maybe those places aren't actually where ultra-left people hang out? Ever thought of that? How about you go and talk to some actual anarchists for example. They do hang out on the Internet some times.

An Anarchist FAQ is a place you can found out more than you ever wanted about a particular type of anarchism (a communists/socialist type). You might start with What is anarchism?.

Also the terms ultra and far left actually have meaning in political science and in radical politics. Ultra left tends to be used as an insult against those who refuse to work with statist parties, and otherwise take "extreme" positions (such as, "a pox on both your houses, neither Hamas nor Israel, but no state at all"). That said, many ultra leftists thus take the insult and embrace it. The term originated in the 1920s:

For Lenin, the main revolutionary problem was to forge a "leadership" capable of leading the workers to victory. When ultra-leftists tried to give a theoretical explanation of the rise of factory organizations in Germany, they said the working class does not need a party in order to be revolutionary. Revolution would be made by the masses organized in workers' councils and not by a proletariat "led" by professional revolutionaries.

This "infantile" rejection of the need for statist parties to bring about a communist (and thus, buy definition stateless) society really upset Leninists and similar.

Far left just tends to mean the extreme left. And by definition can not mean any sort of statist, as there is always a further left position (against the state).

You seem to be confused about certain types of statist who seem pretty left when compared to mainstream politics. Actually though, these people, by wanting a Soviet style state (or even just a nicer welfare state) end up being the enemies of all those who would do away with the state altogether.

In conclusion, I was drunk when I wrote the previous post. I'm now just slightly hung-over. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Ah, maybe those places aren't actually where ultra-left people hang out? Ever thought of that? How about you go and talk to some actual anarchists for example. They do hang out on the Internet some times.

An Anarchist FAQ is a place you can found out more than you ever wanted about a particular type of anarchism (a communists/socialist type). You might start with What is anarchism?.

Also the terms ultra and far left actually have meaning in political science and in radical politics. Ultra left tends to be used as an insult against those who refuse to work with statist parties, and otherwise take "extreme" positions (such as, "a pox on both your houses, neither Hamas nor Israel, but no state at all"). That said, many ultra leftists thus take the insult and embrace it. The term originated in the 1920s:

For Lenin, the main revolutionary problem was to forge a "leadership" capable of leading the workers to victory. When ultra-leftists tried to give a theoretical explanation of the rise of factory organizations in Germany, they said the working class does not need a party in order to be revolutionary. Revolution would be made by the masses organized in workers' councils and not by a proletariat "led" by professional revolutionaries.

This "infantile" rejection of the need for statist parties to bring about a communist (and thus, buy definition stateless) society really upset Leninists and similar.

Far left just tends to mean the extreme left. And by definition can not mean any sort of statist, as there is always a further left position (against the state).

You seem to be confused about certain types of statist who seem pretty left when compared to mainstream politics. Actually though, these people, by wanting a Soviet style state (or even just a nicer welfare state) end up being the enemies of all those who would do away with the state altogether.

In conclusion, I was drunk when I wrote the previous post. I'm now just slightly hung-over. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Meh. Ignorance is bliss. It depends on how you define your terms.
The early anarchists (from ~1840s through to ~1940s) all described themselves as socialists. They were all on the left.

Anarchism, desiring an end to hierarchy, and freedom from oppression, etc. etc. is a type of socialism. It's not a type of state socialism, it's also not Marxian socialism. But, wanting workers to get the full value for their labour (an anarchist pillar) is a socialist pillar.

You can continue to define socialism narrowly as where the state controls everything, but by doing so you ignore thousands (more?) of people who define it much more broadly, and who happily called themselves (and call themselves) anarchists.

For reference I'll point you to An Anarchist FAQ, a collaborative effort of anarchists today. Specifically, A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism? and the next section A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?". The authors of the FAQ use historical writings from a variety of anarchists to support their claim (and my claim) that anarchism is a type of socialism. (You may also be interested in Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?.)

Meh. Ignorance is bliss. It depends on how you define your terms.
The early anarchists (from ~1840s through to ~1940s) all described themselves as socialists. They were all on the left.

Anarchism, desiring an end to hierarchy, and freedom from oppression, etc. etc. is a type of socialism. It's not a type of state socialism, it's also not Marxian socialism. But, wanting workers to get the full value for their labour (an anarchist pillar) is a socialist pillar.

You can continue to define socialism narrowly as where the state controls everything, but by doing so you ignore thousands (more?) of people who define it much more broadly, and who happily called themselves (and call themselves) anarchists.

For reference I'll point you to An Anarchist FAQ, a collaborative effort of anarchists today. Specifically, A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism? and the next section A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?". The authors of the FAQ use historical writings from a variety of anarchists to support their claim (and my claim) that anarchism is a type of socialism. (You may also be interested in Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?.)

Meh. Ignorance is bliss. It depends on how you define your terms.
The early anarchists (from ~1840s through to ~1940s) all described themselves as socialists. They were all on the left.

Anarchism, desiring an end to hierarchy, and freedom from oppression, etc. etc. is a type of socialism. It's not a type of state socialism, it's also not Marxian socialism. But, wanting workers to get the full value for their labour (an anarchist pillar) is a socialist pillar.

You can continue to define socialism narrowly as where the state controls everything, but by doing so you ignore thousands (more?) of people who define it much more broadly, and who happily called themselves (and call themselves) anarchists.

For reference I'll point you to An Anarchist FAQ, a collaborative effort of anarchists today. Specifically, A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism? and the next section A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?". The authors of the FAQ use historical writings from a variety of anarchists to support their claim (and my claim) that anarchism is a type of socialism. (You may also be interested in Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?.)

[the] ... hierarchical control of wage labour has the effect of alienating workers from their own work, and so from themselves. Workers no longer govern themselves during work hours and so are no longer free. And so, due to capitalism, there is "an oppression in the land," a "form of slavery" rooted in current "property institutions" which produces "a social war, inevitable so long as present legal-social conditions endure." [Voltairine de Cleyre, Op. Cit., pp. 54-5] The Anarchist FAQ

Socialism is state control. What we have on the web is anarchy. Fun, friendly anarchy.

I think you need to take a look at An Anarchist FAQ :)

Anarchism is a rich branch of the socialist tradition, and socialism is certainly not "state control" (contrary to what Cold War and current recession propaganda would have you believe).