Comments on: Murray Rothbard on Chomsky, Left Anarchists

By: Garrett

Garrett — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:42:15 +0000

By “economically harass”, do you mean outperform in terms of standard of living (as capitalist economies inevitably do)? Or that the temptation to join the successful capitalist camp is too compelling to remain voluntarily enslaved to the other members of the collective?

Jay, it is that simple.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:54:54 +0000

Not that simple, Jay. The capitalistic community A, driven by its greedy, profit-driven members will economically harass B and C to privatize B and C’s means of subsistence and force them into wage-slavery. Nevertheless, I appreciated your social tolerance.

P.S: I’m an anarcho-communist.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:39:27 +0000

I think it would probably depend on who you ask within the anarcho communist camps. Same could be asked for an anarcho capitalist. What if you had your society and a group within it wanted to own their property and businesses communally, would they have the freedom to do so? To be truly anarchist of any stripe (capitalist, mutualist, communist, etc) you would have to allow people the free choice as to how they order themselves both individually and collectively. Since people would have the freedom to do that, capitalism, mutualism, and communism would essentially be preferences. A group might form one community based on capitalist ideas, call that community A. Another forms on mutualist ideas, community B. A third forms on communist ideas, community C. Then there could also be a community D that has a mixture of capitalism, mutualism, and communism. All four hopefully would live in peace and learn from the others experience.

By: James Tuttle

James Tuttle — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:23:19 +0000

Rothbard’s question is pertinent and Chomsky’s reply is passionate and unfortunate.

I am reminded of the debate between Karl Hess and Alfred Henley where, according to Hess’ autobiography “Mostly on the Edge” pg 186, Communist True-believer Henley said, “(Hess would) never understand revolution until you have had to order an execution.”

Is this true of all lefty-anarchists? No, it is not a position I hold as a lefty-anarchist of the mutualist persuasion, and it is also not held by other lefties who are committed to moral-suasion, mutual aid and agorism.

This position is also found in the archives of our movement as well. I submit Gertrude B. Kelly’s “The Wages of Sin is Death.”text (pg.5)

Toast to the Revolution,

–James

This

By: Tiberius Leodis

Tiberius Leodis — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:15:07 +0000

Rothbard says Chomsky is “concerned that we might succeed in abolishing the State before the State has succeeded in abolishing private property!”

Is that supposed to be a joke? Where has Chomsky ever said he advocates the state ‘abolising private property’?

By: Mike Gogulski

Mike Gogulski — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:03:50 +0000

My distrust is, unfortunately, enhanced. Thanks for this.

By: Cork

Cork — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:39:11 +0000

Rothbard was completely dead on in this article, which despite being published in 1971, could have been written yesterday.

The left-wing anarchists, in my opinion, make even the worst left-progressives look good in comparison. For instance, when Paul Krugman was interviewed on the Young Turks, he admitted that the welfare/regulatory state in Germany goes too far. There’s no doubt in my mind that the left-anarchists over there want it expanded, just as they do in every other country.