Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
>
> You, Howard Olson, wrote:
>
> >        I do not think there is any such thing as "the right kind" of
> >regulation. The real problem is the wage system.  < The rest of my anarchist ravings deleted by myself --HO>

Tresy said:
> To me, libertarian socialism does not preclude the existence of authority
> (and by extension, regulation) as long as it is duly constituted and
> democratically recognized. In fact I can't see how it could preclude
> authority. Anyone seen "Land and Freedom", about the Spanish Civil War?
> There are scenes in that movie dealing with the anarchist  expropriation
> of land that struck me as governmental in function. But I would be
> interested to hear more about the cited alternatives to the wage system
> in any event, and why, in your opinion they were prematurely relegated to
> failure.
>
> y'r obdt. Svt.,
>
> Tresy

        I have not yet seen Land and Freedom. And libertarian socialism
may not preclude authority or government for that matter. That is why I
am an anarchist , per se. Anarchists must make a clean break with ALL
forms of hierarchy. This is the challenge of anarchist theory and
practice.
        Some transition might be necessary but it will have to be
overthrown before libertarian socialist "authorities" obtain a monopoly
of force (or anyone else does by siezing its apparatus). I apologize for
the dogmatic tone I am taking. I feel that it is necessary to distance
anarchism from ANY type of revolutionary process that could lead to a
monopoly of force. It would be far better to have decentralized banking
than have a bunch of ideologues, including putative anarchists, in
control. More anarchist ravings , I know. But centralization is not the
answer. You may not have been proposing centralization either, Tresy,
when you referred to a possible banking authority. If so, I apologize.
The solution may be some kind of Union control ( like the IWW's OBU
concept) of banks with no statist authority. This is itself open to
challenge as well but it seems safer than leaving any State or government
(i.e. monopoly of force) in charge.

                                Howard