Gabriella Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I should point out that anarchism [1] means different things to differently >> people, and the anarchism of Kropotkin, quoted at the start of the above >> paper, is *very* different from Friedman's Anarcho-libertarianism, which has >> individual property rights at its heart. > > I could not agree more. I just think there is a far richer tradition, > in theory and in practice, when it comes to the anarchism of > Kropotkin, Bakunin, Bookchin than that of Anarcho-libertarianism (but > correct me if I am wrong here).
First, let me note that to many non-propertarian anarchists, "libertarian" means "anarchist", so we should be a bit careful (out of respect for them) about our terminology. I think the property rights branch of anarchism has a history at least as old and rich as the non-propertarian branch, it is just less well known. Lysander Spooner, Gustave de Molinari, and others were talking about this stuff a hundred years before folks like David Friedman. > It also seems to me that often time when people use the term anarchy, > they use it colloquially, which is, well anarchy, without organization > or simply without the state. But the philosophical tradition, > instantiated in the past in the unions in Spain or more recently in > the organization of meetings before the Seattle WTO protests, is > highly organized (almost tediously so) because of a commitment to > consensus. Most anarchists are interested in a peaceful, reasonably organized society. To the non-propertarian anarchists, that means various kinds of radical, bottom up collective organization. To the propertarian anarchists, that generally means market based mechanisms and spontaneous order. > Another great book that explores the strengths and limits of both > anarchism (in the classical, enlightenment tradition) and capitalism > is the Dispossessed by Ursula l LeGuinn. I like the book, but I find the systems described unrealistic. -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
