Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:16:05 -0600 (CST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?eduardo=20enriquez?= <eduardofenriquez-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Autonomous Liberalism vs. Autonomous Marxism  (i.e., L. Susan Brown)


 --- "J.M. Adams" <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com> escribió: > 
I have only read the
> first two chapters so far but what are other
> people's
> reactions to this? Anarchist thinkers from Rudolf
> Rocker to Noam Chomsky have been saying that
> anarchism
> has always contained a strong dose of liberalism,
> but
> it seems that there has been a shift toward (the
> best
> of) Marxism recently. 

the important issue her will be their position on
private property. indeed william godwin began as a
liberal and ended anti-statist and anti-private
property because of the limitation those institutions
impose on freedom. liberalism pretty much emerged as
the ideology of bourgoise and pettite bourgoise
rebeling againts aristocracy, monarchies, trade state
intervention, and in catholic countries againts
church. in anarchism it might be common to find
anticlericalism but more similar to the socialist one
than to the liberal one which included an abhorrence
of christian communalism. indeed one finds so many
peasants joining traditionalist radical right wing
monarchist movements againts the "freedom" that
liberalism offered. in those cases traditionalism
could offer more small town autonomy than what the
centralized liberal nation state could offer. and of
course it was clear that the old ways did not include
such new very unwanted plages brought by capitalism
such as was unemployment and street crime at the
current levels.

indeed in order to include rebelion againts private
property means exiting liberalism. it seems to me it
is within the space of anarchism that people building
homes in unuthorized places both by state and the
owners or say squatting are located. people like john
locke will not hesitantly call the police to get them
out of there just as current neoliberals who are the
biggest loudest people on politics right now for
"freedom" will. the liberal "utopia" means a place
where people are let to accumulate riches with the
least possible state intervention but the state will
quickly be called to protec their property thats for
sure. and if the state is too inneficient to do that,
one can very well hire private security. indeed what
does the mafia do in a state of ilegality when facing
opposition to its business?

but of course that on the side of property. what
parliament instead of local assembly and webs of
communities in federation allows is guaranteing a
practical semi aristocracy of power,in legislators and
bureacracy,to rule. liberalism proposed the creation
of nation-state no matter how arbitrarly those where
created at times  and tending towards centralization
of power in the nations capital. since it basically
contains an enlightenment philosophical basis thus
wants to create universalistic rule within territories
since it only knows the existence of "humans" and
nothing else. from this in contemporary educational
systems theres always the original XIX century wish to
create a national culture without considering local
cultures.adding the fact that mostly XIX century
states were little more than settlement between
bourgoise merchants and aristocratic landowners thus
XIX century parliamentary politics tend to be
reducible to a conflict between liberals and
conservatives, and thus it smells always that
something like liberal autonomy ill be within ones
private property as an individual or at most as a
family. its the old idea of ones home (mansion) as
ones personal empire.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com