Comments on: Klafta and left libertarian reconciliation http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/369 the bottom of the rabbit hole Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:11:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Market anarchism as stigmergic socialism http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/369/comment-page-1#comment-11682 BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Market anarchism as stigmergic socialism Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:01:25 +0000 http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/369#comment-11682 [...] Agorism might be considered a branch of anarcho-capitalism or individualist anarchism/mutualism. It might be considered an attempt to reconcile anarcho-capitalism with individualist anarchism and even the rest of libertarian socialism where possible. [1] [...] [...] Agorism might be considered a branch of anarcho-capitalism or individualist anarchism/mutualism. It might be considered an attempt to reconcile anarcho-capitalism with individualist anarchism and even the rest of libertarian socialism where possible. [1] [...]

]]> By: BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Rothbard’s Reds http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/369/comment-page-1#comment-5293 BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Rothbard’s Reds Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:23:43 +0000 http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/369#comment-5293 [...] While Rothbard was a giant in terms of pure market anarchist theory, he either failed to see past political reformism or his courage failed to be sufficient enough to cause him to forsake it for the full implications of his ideas. Konkin, however, did and the result was revolutionary market anarchism — agorism. Strictly speaking, agorism is just an overlay of a revolutionary strategy consistent with libertarian ethics on top of market anarchist theory. Not in all cases perhaps, but as a tendency, the embrace of the revolutionary attitude additionally allows one to purge one’s self of conservative attitudes that blind one’s self to the full implications of Rothbardian theory, which Richman might call “Free-Market Bolshevism”. and its potential to serve as a basis, once the terminological gap has been bridged, to reunite the modern American libertarian movement, which has historically beeen allied with conservatism, with libertarian socialism instead. [...] [...] While Rothbard was a giant in terms of pure market anarchist theory, he either failed to see past political reformism or his courage failed to be sufficient enough to cause him to forsake it for the full implications of his ideas. Konkin, however, did and the result was revolutionary market anarchism — agorism. Strictly speaking, agorism is just an overlay of a revolutionary strategy consistent with libertarian ethics on top of market anarchist theory. Not in all cases perhaps, but as a tendency, the embrace of the revolutionary attitude additionally allows one to purge one’s self of conservative attitudes that blind one’s self to the full implications of Rothbardian theory, which Richman might call “Free-Market Bolshevism”. and its potential to serve as a basis, once the terminological gap has been bridged, to reunite the modern American libertarian movement, which has historically beeen allied with conservatism, with libertarian socialism instead. [...]

]]> By: berserkrl http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/369/comment-page-1#comment-4755 berserkrl Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:55:49 +0000 http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/369#comment-4755 I don't think Rand can be saddled with sole responsibility for libertarians' current use of the words "capitalism" and "socialism." That use was already widespread before Rand. Mises, for example, so used them in <i>Socialism</i> and <i>The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality</i>, both published prior to <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> and <i>Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal</i>. And he didn't invent that usage either. Already in the 19th century, people were using the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" in a variety of different and deeply incompatible ways, including the one now standard among libertarians. Even Benjamin Tucker, who called himself a voluntary socialism, sometimes uses the term "socialism" (without adjective) as a blanket term for the authoritarian collectivist tendency he's attacking. Sometimes I think to would be better to drop the terms "socialism" and "capitalism" entirely rather than attempt to hold them to any one of the many meanings they've historically had. (At any rate I never use them without qualifying adjectives.) I don’t think Rand can be saddled with sole responsibility for libertarians’ current use of the words “capitalism” and “socialism.” That use was already widespread before Rand. Mises, for example, so used them in Socialism and The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, both published prior to Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. And he didn’t invent that usage either. Already in the 19th century, people were using the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” in a variety of different and deeply incompatible ways, including the one now standard among libertarians. Even Benjamin Tucker, who called himself a voluntary socialism, sometimes uses the term “socialism” (without adjective) as a blanket term for the authoritarian collectivist tendency he’s attacking.

Sometimes I think to would be better to drop the terms “socialism” and “capitalism” entirely rather than attempt to hold them to any one of the many meanings they’ve historically had. (At any rate I never use them without qualifying adjectives.)

]]>