Five Easy Steps To Become A Commie

[Havet]

First of all, the following five steps were made by this guy (http://www.skepticaleye.com/2009/06/five-easy-steps-to-becoming-commie.html), him being basically a right-winger, and he made that to show how a guy called François Tremblay (check him at comments section) evolved in his ideology over time.

I found this amusing so here it goes for all of you to see:




Step 1: Be very intelligent in an idiot savant sort of way, becoming attracted to a philosophy or worldview that appeals to youthful idealism. Read Ayn Rand and become an Objectivist.

Step 2: Move slowly away from the orthodoxy of your belief system and one day announce that you are really a market anarchist but that Ayn Rand was still pretty great.

Step 3: Declare one day that "capitalism" wasn't what you thought it was.

Step 4: Discover that there is something called "mutualism".

Step 5: Make sure you are working for a low wage in a menial job (preferably at a supermarket) and realize that in spite of all your talent you'll always be poor under the rotten, exploitative capitalist system.

Congratulations! You're now a commie!

Amazingly enough, i'm currently at step 4 :D

Some of the most interesting comments:


do i really have to like Ayn Rand?


Yea, everyone who disagrees with you is a commie, right?

Do you even know what the terms communism and mutualism mean, you retard? You claim to write about these issues and you don't even know the difference?

Get my blogs off your blogroll, if your friends are as retarded as you are, I don't want them on my blog.

And that goes double for you Cork. I am tired of you fucking ancap anklebiters. Go back to Austria.

"ancap anklebiters" hahahaha that was brilliant!

Anyway, here's his reply (http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/yea-im-declared-a-commie-again/) if you're interested.

Thoughts?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Interesting. I went through a similar process. Although I NEVER liked Ayn Rand, I did go from being a reactionary right-libertarian to being an anarcho-communist over the course of about two years, and it did involve pretty much all of these steps.

[Pogue]

I don't see how anyone would ever be a Randroid. I don't think you would ever find a working class person with that ideology.

[Bud Struggle]

Step 1: Be very intelligent in an idiot savant sort of way, becoming attracted to a philosophy or worldview that appeals to youthful idealism. Read Ayn Rand and become an Objectivist.

Step 5: Make sure you are working for a low wage in a menial job (preferably at a supermarket) and realize that in spite of all your talent you'll always be poor under the rotten, exploitative capitalist system.

These seem rather true...most of the regular Commies here seem to be pretty bright in a kind of "know a lot of abstruse economics but don't know how to find a good paying job" sort of way.

[IcarusAngel]

Actually, TK, he's talking about right-wingers who end up becoming mutalists. The outline is probably accurate for many of these people - they really do come from a far right background. I think they may have been good people inside but got sucked into a lot of right-wing lies and propaganda, and are now trying to get back out.

First, I should mention that François Tremblay has trolled Mike Huben's excellent blog "Critiques of Libertarianism" asking him to stop using the term "Libertarian" to refer to the right-wing fascism it refers to here in the US.

But this is ridiculous. Lefitsts should be smart enough to realize the name of an ideology doesn't really mean anything. By that logic, the USSR really were socialists. What you have to criticize is authoritarian nature of the USSR, and you may as well call the authoritarian structure "the USSR" or in this case the "Libertarian Party" in America. Huben has excellent stuff and even many lefitsts here have used his Criticisms of Libertarians website.

Anyway, Mutalism is really an attempt to bridge some right-wing thinking on markets with socialist equality. This isn't totally unheard of in philosophy - Adam Smith attempted to do something similar; of course, he wasn't trying to be 'socialist,' he just didn't want institutions or incorporations dominating the poor people or workers.

However, since they come from the right, and most people who are socialists generally come from left-wing or progressive thinking, there are still a lot of discrepencies between us.

This is how they view the political systems:

"1) the "Community Economy", the material life consisting of the world of self-sufficiency, bartering of goods and services, and benevolent organizations and cooperative activities.

2) The "Market Economy", which still controls the great mass of transactions that show up in the statistics today. Yet free competition, which is the distinctive characteristic of an unrestricted marketplace, is scarcely found in today's economy. 3) The "Capitalist Economy", today as in the past is Corporate Statism/Mercantilism involving big finances, and multi-regional or multi-national investments. For most of its history, the capitalist economy has been dominated by government-monopoly capitalism, as in such cases as the big Indies companies, as well as monopolies of all sizes, official and unofficial, which have existed analogous in principle to our current monopolies. "

http://www.tpaine.org/river1.htm

Ignoring the fact that there are other political types (true individualism I've always thought of as leftist, that doesn't fit into any of the above, and would be receiving goods that you do not have to give back to the community and communities taking what they want by sheer force or chaos), I still have a lot of problems with their views.

They claim that the capitalist economy and the market economy are not the same thing.

They also stick to a lot of their right-wing thinking, such as that "Democracy is bad and evil" (how can you support democracy and anarchism while being leftist?) and they still believe in bizarre, Misean logic like on how you own property - through market transactions where you receive "unappropriated good." But this is not democratic or leftist.

Even worse, some of them think "socialism" is worse than "state capitalism."

Finally, they do not show how totalitarian capitalism would be prevented in a market economy. "Regulations," Well, it doesn't logically follow that if you believe that you should "own" uncontrollably the things you get by "market transactions" that they should be regulated. The whole reason Miseans make up these kind of ridiculous "ownership" laws is to justify capitalism and exploitation.

Thus, since mutualists aren't completely egalitarian and democratic, they are not exactly left-wing.

I would classify them, though, as the true "centrists" on the political line, as they don't WANT hierarchy like most on the right do, but still believe in some right-wing stuff here and there. I would also put them in the "anarchists without adjectives" category - people who can be either more left or right.

[Pogue]

I don't trust someone who 'finds communism' through this means.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, they aren't trying to be "communists," they are trying to be "market leftists" or "left libertarians," whatever that is.

Note, that I was just outlining their thinking. I consider myself a socialist who has an interest in Marx but who advocates anarcho-syndicalism.

And by the way, many working people read Ayn Rand, and believe in her nonsense.

Propaganda is massive in a capitalist society, especially in a democratic one, so it's easy for anybody to get confused psychologically. There is massive research done on this in both psychology and the social sciences.

For the media I'd recommend Chomsky, and Huxley outlines it in some of his books.

[Pogue]

Well, they aren't trying to be "communists," they are trying to be "market leftists" or "left libertarians," whatever that is.

Note, that I was just outlining their thinking. I consider myself a socialist who has an interest in Marx but who advocates anarcho-syndicalism.

And by the way, many working people read Ayn Rand, and believe in her nonsense.

Propaganda is massive in a capitalist society, especially in a democratic one, so it's easy for anybody to get confused psychologically. There is massive research done on this in both psychology and the social sciences.

For the media I'd recommend Chomsky, and Huxley outlines it in some of his books.

I do not trust them, I don't think they are serious about class struggle.

Can you honestly tell me theres many working class people who subscribe to the ideas of Rand? I know theres some idiots out there but really, do you think there are seriously a substantial amount of geunine working class people who believe in that stuff. I don't think so, probably the same as the amount of UFO believers.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, I was being as sympathetic as I can to the mutalists.

It is this forum that has unrestricted members on the basis that they're "mutalists" and therefore leftists -- not me. You might as well unrestrict conservatives and liberals as well. In fact, I believe I could make a powerful case that the liberal is closer to the leftist than the "mutalist," as the liberal wouldn't necessarily believe in a "market economy" through a priori reasoning, nor would the utilitarian.

Of course there isn't a substantial amount of workers that believe in Ayn Rand's nonsense. I'd agree it's probably the same amount as who are scientologists or who are UFO conspiracy nuts. Such things usually appeal to upper class people with more time on their hands.

But there are many who are taken in by extreme propaganda from all sides, and their working hours and so on continues to dehumanize them. Marx himself discussed this.

[Pogue]

Well, I was being as sympathetic as I can to the mutalists.

It is this forum that has unrestricted members on the basis that they're "mutalists" and therefore leftists -- not me. You might as well unrestrict conservatives and liberals as well. In fact, I believe I could make a powerful case that the liberal is closer to the leftist than the "mutalist," as the liberal wouldn't necessarily believe in a "market economy" through a priori reasoning, nor would the utilitarian.

Of course there isn't a substantial amount of workers that believe in Ayn Rand's nonsense. I'd agree it's probably the same amount as who are scientologists or who are UFO conspiracy nuts. Such things usually appeal to upper class people with more time on their hands.

But there are many who are taken in by extreme propaganda from all sides, and their working hours and so on continues to dehumanize them. Marx himself discussed this.

I think such people are on the fringe and are not worth much consideration.

It's not that I think Mutualism is entirely suspect (although I don't really know enough about it to judge), its just that I think people like Hayenmill, who never do any real life activism and are nutty enough to be, as he was originally, attracted to extreme capitalism, probably due to being middle class intellectuals living in positions of extreme privilige, are not genuinely revolutionaries. I think they see politics as a play thing just like philosophy and thus will settle on whatever theory sits best with them following a bit of intellectual theorising. I think this thus means he has no solid basis for his beliefs and will change them easily. He is still in my opinion a intellectual and I don't trust the purely intellectual type 'leftists'.

[Havet]

I think people like Hayenmill, who never do any real life activism and are nutty enough to be, as he was originally, attracted to extreme capitalism, probably due to being middle class intellectuals living in positions of extreme privilige, are not genuinely revolutionaries. I think they see politics as a play thing just like philosophy and thus will settle on whatever theory sits best with them following a bit of intellectual theorising. I think this thus means he has no solid basis for his beliefs and will change them easily. He is still in my opinion a intellectual and I don't trust the purely intellectual type 'leftists'.

Yes, we should never trust anyone who changes their beliefs toward more reasonable ones... :rolleyes:

I think it's safe to say there are too many communist intellectuals out there who also live in a position of extreme privilege and have yet made any real life activism. This does not mean they will never do any activism (you haven't even considered the fact that activism might not be productive at all, depending on the kind of activism you are sympathetic towards).

[Durruti's Ghost]

It is this forum that has unrestricted members on the basis that they're "mutalists" and therefore leftists -- not me. You might as well unrestrict conservatives and liberals as well. In fact, I believe I could make a powerful case that the liberal is closer to the leftist than the "mutalist," as the liberal wouldn't necessarily believe in a "market economy" through a priori reasoning, nor would the utilitarian.


Um...what? Mutualists want to abolish private property and transfer ownership of all capital to the people working said capital. That seems pretty leftist to me. Admittedly, they retain some right-wing views on the market (e.g., they believe that the market is a more "efficient" means of distribution than the commune :rolleyes:), but they don't oppose the commune or the syndicate. Hell, the first self-described anarchist, Proudhon, was the primary theoretician of mutualism.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, without dragging this on much further I'd just add that you should try and convince working people of the class struggle and the dangers of conspiracy theory thinking whether it be Alex Jones or scientology. Here in the US, if you don't combat nonsense it grows rapidly. We have a weak educational system here that is sponsored by Fed Ex, Coca-Cola, and Mercedes-Benz USA. Only in the US could you be suspended for wearing a Pepsi work shirt on Coca-Cola day.

Socialists also have encouraged people to be smart and avoid capitalist propagnda. Hence socialist literature and books like "Mathematics for the Millions" and why Chomsky talks to the average person the same way he would talk to an intellectual etc. They're not all completely untrustworthy. His continued slamming of American imperialism despite the shots he took and what he has paid in his career is really nothing short of heroic and he should have received a Nobel Peace Prize by now.

Anyway, I don't see how Ayn Rand is any more "intellectual" than say Stephen King.

I asked in one of the other threads why Rand's fiction is more important than King's, and no one could even provide an answer.

She supposedly has sold a lot of books, but King has also sold millions, and is no doubt read by far more working class people, and has also been recognized as an American literary figure.

[Pogue]

Yes, we should never trust anyone who changes their beliefs toward more reasonable ones... :rolleyes:

I think it's safe to say there are too many communist intellectuals out there who also live in a position of extreme privilege and have yet made any real life activism. This does not mean they will never do any activism (you haven't even considered the fact that activism might not be productive at all, depending on the kind of activism you are sympathetic towards).

Right, so it could be more productive to not do any activism than it would be to do some. Whatever.

I don't think we can never trust people. Alot of former fascists became trusted and brilliant anti-fascists in this country during the 70s and 80s. I have nothing against trusting people if there is a reason to trust them. I just don't trust people like you. Not that I never will, in fairness, but I don't at the moment. I think your playing around with ideologies in the typical way of middle class kids who want to be rebellious in youth.

[IcarusAngel]

Um...what? Mutualists want to abolish private property and transfer ownership of all capital to the people working said capital. That seems pretty leftist to me. Admittedly, they retain some right-wing views on the market (e.g., they believe that the market is a more "efficient" means of distribution than the commune :rolleyes:), but they don't oppose the commune or the syndicate. Hell, the first self-described anarchist, Proudhon, was the primary theoretician of mutualism.

"Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market) and private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession.")[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)#cite_note-6) "


It sounds to me like they support private property and they support "titles to land."

The capitalist in this theory could claim he's using the land, and thus, he owns it.

Every mutalist I've ever talked to has also said that business owners should still exist.

So, how do I know who's telling the truth in "mutalism."

[Havet]

(e.g., they believe that the market is a more "efficient" means of distribution than the commune :rolleyes:), but they don't oppose the commune or the syndicate. Hell, the first self-described anarchist, Proudhon, was the primary theoretician of mutualism.

Yeah, it is exactly that part which you said Richard which might have led to some confusion. Everyone would be free to trade and/or to create a commune.

Proudhon's Mutualism supports labor-owned cooperative firms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) and associations[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-7) for "we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society" and so "it becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism."

[IcarusAngel]

Private property is an evil thing that needs to be reduced.

There is no "private property" in all that is good, like in intellectual activities.

It should thus be reduced. Many mutalists are nothing more than "agorists" who think private property is some sort of a Godsend.

Most original anarchists hated private property and thought it was exploitative. Proudhon attacked private property all the time.

Mutalists simply quote them out of context to make their points.

[Havet]

It should thus be reduced. Many mutalists are nothing more than "agorists" who think private property is some sort of a Godsend. I think you are confusing some people here. Most agorists i've talked to give a shit about natural rights and have some level of tolerance towards possesion, interest, ground rent, etc, far from beliving it is "godsent"

Though Proudhon opposed this type of income, he expressed that he had never intended: "to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."

Basically he believes they would naturally disappear unless there was a state imposing these things.



Most original anarchists hated private property and thought it was exploitative. Proudhon attacked private property all the time.

Mutalists simply quote them out of context to make their points.

In his 1849 treatise What is Property? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Property%3F), Pierre Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Proudhon) answers with "Property is theft! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft%21)" In natural resources, he sees two types of property, de jure property (legal title) and de facto property (physical possession), and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon's conclusion is that "property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition.

Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Mikhail Bakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin) who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx).

[Durruti's Ghost]

"Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market) and private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession.")[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-6) "

The Wikipedia article on mutualism is shit. Seriously, half of it is written by idiot ancaps to make it look like their form of "anarchism" is legitimate because "Oh, look, the first anarchist supported private property! Sure, he called it possession, but that doesn't mean anything! He just didn't know what capitalism really meant, and if he'd been around when the Austrian school was, he'd be a capitalist like all of us!"

/end rant

Private property is not the same as possession. In fact, the distinction between the two is the basis for the famous anarchist slogan "Property is theft". Proudhon argued that workers ought to own the products of their labor and that the capitalist, because of private property "rights", was able to steal the rightful possessions of the workers. In order to prevent this, he proposed a redefinition of property rights so that whoever uses a tool, piece of land, factory, etc. is regarded as the owner of that piece of capital. Later anarchists mostly dispensed with this idea of "possession" in favor of communal property as they incorporated some of the ideas of other socialists on the possibilities for small-scale democratic planning, which would eliminate the need for a market and thus for any ownership other than communal ownership.


The capitalist in this theory could claim he's using the land, and thus, he owns it.

Except that that's exactly what Proudhon's theory was intended to prevent and, if this were to happen, any mutualist would quickly eschew possession in favor of communal property.


Every mutalist I've ever talked to has also said that business owners should still exist.

Only as independent producers or as worker-owned cooperatives. Wage labor would necessarily be abolished because wage laborers are the ones who use capital, not the business owners.


So, how do I know who's telling the truth in "mutalism."

Read Proudhon. Mutualism is his theory and he's the only authority on it.

[IcarusAngel]

Mutalism.org is also incorrect then? It says there would be private property and independent producers. As I understand Proudhon thought that "capital," not just "capitalism" or "state capitalism" was exploitative, especially when it became consolidated.

Why do they align themselves with "agorists" - "extreme anarcho-capitalists"?

What's the main difference between mutalism and libertarian-socialism?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Though Proudhon opposed this type of income, he expressed that he had never intended: "to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."

Basically he believes they would naturally disappear unless there was a state imposing these things.

Sort of. What he actually means by this is that, since he wants no State, it is impossible to forcibly suppress interest on capital; however, since private property is a social construct that is against the interests of the proletarian majority, a proletarian majority, once liberated from the ideological shackles of the "natural law" theory of property, would refuse to enforce private property claims, instead upholding possession as a mode of ownership suited to their interests. This is what he means by what "result(s) naturally... from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity I propose"; that the result of switching from private property to possession would be to eliminate interest on capital, the extraction of surplus value, wage-slavery, etc. Later anarchists, such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, dispensed with the individualist implications of possession and instead advocated for common ownership of all capital goods or, in Kropotkin's case, all property.

[Havet]

Sort of. What he actually means by this is that, since he wants no State, it is impossible to forcibly suppress interest on capital; however, since private property is a social construct that is against the interests of the proletarian majority, a proletarian majority, once liberated from the ideological shackles of the "natural law" theory of property, would refuse to enforce private property claims, instead upholding possession as a mode of ownership suited to their interests. This is what he means by what "result(s) naturally... from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity I propose"; that the result of switching from private property to possession would be to eliminate interest on capital, the extraction of surplus value, wage-slavery, etc. Later anarchists, such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, dispensed with the individualist implications of possession and instead advocated for common ownership of all capital goods or, in Kropotkin's case, all property.

Thanks for straightening that up

[Durruti's Ghost]

Mutalism.org is also incorrect then? It says there would be private property and independent producers. As I understand Proudhon thought that "capital," not just "capitalism" or "state capitalism" was exploitative, especially when it became consolidated.

Why do they align themselves with "agorists" - "extreme anarcho-capitalists"?

What's the main difference between mutalism and libertarian-socialism?

Mutualist.org is a Tuckerite site, not a Proudhonist site. Views vary on whether Tucker was a genuine anarchist; I don't think he was, so I'm not really interested in trying to defend a website that espouses his views. The writers of An Anarchist FAQ disagree with me, though: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secG5.html

BTW, that FAQ's section on "Is Individualist Anarchism Capitalistic?" is probably the best source on mutualism short of actually reading Proudhon's writings.

[Havet]

Mutalism.org is also incorrect then? It says there would be private property and independent producers. As I understand Proudhon thought that "capital," not just "capitalism" or "state capitalism" was exploitative, especially when it became consolidated.

I think the problem we're discussing is merely semantics between wikipedia and mutualism.org on the term "private property". Like Richard said:


Private property is not the same as possession. In fact, the distinction between the two is the basis for the famous anarchist slogan "Property is theft". Proudhon argued that workers ought to own the products of their labor and that the capitalist, because of private property "rights", was able to steal the rightful possessions of the workers. In order to prevent this, he proposed a redefinition of property rights so that whoever uses a tool, piece of land, factory, etc. is regarded as the owner of that piece of capital. Later anarchists mostly dispensed with this idea of "possession" in favor of communal property as they incorporated some of the ideas of other socialists on the possibilities for small-scale democratic planning, which would eliminate the need for a market and thus for any ownership other than communal ownership.


Why do they align themselves with "agorists" - "extreme anarcho-capitalists"? Basically because they have many things in common with agorists: preference for non-hierarchical institutions, voluntaristic nature of society, free exchange of goods and services, abolition of state, mostly inevitable conclusion that many things like ground rent and interest could disappear, freedom, equality, you get the point.


What's the main difference between mutalism and libertarian-socialism?

I think Mutualism can fall under the umbrella of Libertarian Socialism

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) (especially anarchist communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism), anarchist collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism), anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism),[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-9) mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29),[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-10) social ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology),[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-11) autonomism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism) and council communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism)).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-12) Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-13) and in particular socialist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_anarchism).

So basically asking for differences between mutualism and libertarian socialism is the same as asking differences between mutualism and anarchist-communism, anarchist-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, social ecology, autonomism, council communism, etc.

[Havet]

Also, this might be helpful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U-iwhE4-fc&feature=PlayList&p=A971A387C5BB6F87&index=20

[IcarusAngel]

I myself am basically a mutalist then. However, I'm going to stick to the term Libertarian-Socialism, as I prefer that. Libertarian Socialists also make it more clear that they will not allow one individual to monopolize the resources, like a capitalist does (usually with help from the state). They also make it clear they oppose so-called "wage slavery," meaning you wouldn't have to rent yourself to survive. This is almost like Communism in that you receive according to your need. However, a bit more would be expected out of you in these anarchist theories which is why I like it.

I found some of the anarchist criticisms of the state to always be the best ones. It was only later that I heard that some "anarcho-capitalists" claim that they were only opposing certain forms of anarchism.

And of course, I've read the anarchist FAQ.

By the way, if you use Debian Linux, you can install that faq on your computer: apt-get install anarchism.

I love that command. You could then host the anarchist faq.

[IcarusAngel]

The only problem with "Libertarian socialism," however, is that right-libertarians claim it's an "oxymoron." And, of course, the problem with "mutalism" is that some conflate it with anarcho-capitalism.

[RHIZOMES]

I went from libertarianism to communism but my libertarian phase was more my beginner confusion in trying to find a radical ideology that dealt sufficiently with US imperialism, so obviously my libertarianism only lasted a week.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I think he might be onto something with the "youthful idealism" in step 1. It's what got me into Rousseu, then Marx, then communism.