Don Brayton wrote:
> While we are discussing identities:
>
> If liberal=left and left=sinister, does liberal=sinister?
>
> If my recollection is accurate, the original liberal philosophy, having
> quickly attracted so large and active a following, was hijacked and drawn
> so far off course that now it is proceeding towards tyranny rather than
> away.  Those who would promote the ideas of the original liberals find
> they must alter the label in order to escape modern stereotyping.  So, to
> discover what Neoliberalism is in theory, look up Classical Liberalism or
> to discover what it is in practice, get on the Internet and browse for
> people with whom to discuss it.

        I have found that many groups, especially groups with Marxist leanings
outside the US, are using the term "neoliberalism" to describe the
coercive economic policies imposed by the US through the World Bank and
IMF (who have always had US citizens at their head). I too am still a
little confused with how Marxist guerilla groups could hate "new
left"-wingers, as Marxism is always seen to be on the far left of the
political spectrum. Nevertheless, the Zapatistas, the Tupac Amaru, and
many anarchist groups are professedly anti-neoliberalism. This reminds
me a little of the current exposure US "militias" ( a term incorrectly
applied) are getting: most militias profess to be ultra-conservative and
anti-liberal, yet feel that the government is too centralized and hordes
too much wealth and power. Maybe there is a link there, maybe there
isn't.

<SNIP>

>
> If I venture to discuss the term anarcho-capitalism after only an
> examination of the roots and definitions of the composite words, can I
> presume that anarcho- precludes any legally sanctioned and enforced
> limitation on any action by anyone, potentate, impotentate or pauper,
> whether grouped or individual?  Adding -capitalism means that free market
> contracts are not subject to this preclusion and are somehow protected or
> sanctioned.  Can a contract exist within any kind of anarchy except when
> voluntarily struck between two or more honorable participants?  In such
> agreements,  law and the state, it seems to me, is always irrelevant.
> Does law then  become just a tool to be used by the potentates to
> interfere with and control the actions and prerogatives of honorable
> individuals?
>
> Submitted with Respect,
>
> Don Brayton
> [log in to unmask]

        Well, I know Proudhon would loathe the idea of anyone having any sort
of private ownership of anything, let alone resources or wealth or land.
Anarcho-capitalism seems to presuppose that people will own property
exclusively and use that to conduct commerce. There is no government or
regulating structure there to tell someone what to do or not to do with
that property.
        With anarchosyndicalism...and what I perceive to be a more favorable
and truthful form of anarchism...the property would not be owned
exclusively by anyone, but would be collectively owned by ALL. On my
signature file below is a quote from Chomsky explaining this. He was
largely influenced by Rudolph Rocker and the Spanish Anarchists of
Spain's Civil War in this regard.

                                --brian o.
                                mailto:[log in to unmask]

--
"If it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of
human nature is the need for creative work or creative inquiry, for free
creation without the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive
institutions, then of course it will follow that a decent society should
maximize the possibilities for this fundamental human characteristic to
be realized. Now, a federated, decentralized system of free associations
incorporating economic as well as social institutions would be what I
refer to as anarcho-syndicalism. And it seems to me that it is the
appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological
society, in which human beings do not have to be forced into the
position of tools, of cogs in a machine. " --Noam Chomsky