[:D]
If you want to take Leftist back than us Leftists get the term “libertarian” back.
Er…Grammatical errors, how do I edit my posts?
In the More button. Please explain what you mean by liberals taking about the ‘libertarian’ term? Do you mean progressive liberals? Or classical liberals? I have to go to work but I will check back at your response.
More–>edit
This will be my last post on the subject, in accordance with your request.
“Collectivism” has a very precise definition and is definitely not useless. It is precisely the construct that I needed to use to disprove your false analogy
anarcho-communism : state communism :: anarcho-capitalism : rightist dictators (incorrect because only anarcho-capitalist is an individualist philosophy that opposes aggression. Hence it logically follows that ‘state communism’ and ‘rightist dictators’ are both just ‘state collectivism’ and then the analogy breaks apart because anarcho-communism != anarcho-capitalism)
“Calling everything you disagree with “collectivist” is the equivalent of me calling everything I disagree with “reactionary”.”
Again, incorrect. The correct equivalence would be you calling everything you disagree with “individualist”. Reactionary would be an incorrect substitution because what is reactionary is subjective (depends on what one considers to be upholding the entrenched elite), meanwhile collectivism has a precise definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist.
I didn’t refer to liberals anywhere in that post, I was refering to you all who are frequently called/call yourselves “libertarians” when “libertarian” and “anarchist” (which I use to refer to us “left anarchists”), definitely not a supporter of Capitalism.
Have fun being a wage slave! [:P]
I saw that one coming 
Alright, so I’ve gotten one on topic question, come on there must be more! Anarchist partisans in WWII? Spanish Revolution? Russian Revolution? Anything?
In other words, you want to lecture, but not debate, thereby curing your boredom with an ego-stroking exercise at our expense. Did you really expect us to come in here, gather around your feet, and listen raptly as you drone on about your confused forerunners? First you need to earn our respect. Show us in debate why we should even bother with the back-story of your doctrines.
PS: You seem like an puffed-up jerk, your entire ideology is one big oxymoron, and you can’t calculate.
That’s constructive. Do you wake up in the morning and think of creative ways to be an asshole?
If you wanted to debate, there’s an entire forum you can make your little pissant arguements in, but this thread has a purpose, and that is not debate of ideology v. ideology, but history.
In short, go fuck yourself.
You entirely missed the primary point of my post. I don’t believe you ever had any intention of being “constructive”. If you had, you would have proposed a discussion in which you also asked questions. Instead, you most likely just want to pompously “school” us. No thanks. We are highly resourceful autodidacts to a man here. We’ll do our own research if our studies ever lead us to your “specialty”. You want to be constructive? Start a real conversation. Not this condescending drivel.
easy
Wow, people can’t stay on topic. Maybe it is just too difficult for people to remain neutral. I didn’t really have a question, but out of sympathy for you I suppose I’ll try and ask one or two.
Would you consider any of the Ancient city-states of Mesopotamia-Medeteranian region to display anything near anarchy?
Did either Proudhon or Stirner recognize each other as anarchists? Did Marx get along with any anarchists? I know he had major issues with Proudhon and Stirner. Were there any anarchist individual groups that were prevelent in Russia during the Revolution? If so what was their role in anything?
What can you tell me about Pancho Villa, Emiliano Zapata, and the Mexican revolutions?
I’m not sure I get this: if two people agreed to exchange something using money, they were to be (symbolic or not) killed?
Is this what anarco consider Freedom, or has your anarchy nothing to do with freedom?
Celtic Ireland.
… Go!
well a libertarian is an individual who promotes individual freedom etc. Though I do think it is an ambiguous term. The libertarians today that formulate their own party welcome [ to a small degree but a degree no less ] the very institution which trangresses their ideology.
Slavery is a condition of involuntary servitude. I’m happy to have a job. Labor is just a means to achieveing an end. However, I am glad that we can be flippant, commie scum [:D]
Proudhon criticized everyone. Stirner hated everyone who couldn’t dominate him and thereby make him like that person. Marx thought anarchism was childish and called Bakunin a ‘school boy’
Emma Goldmann was there though I can’t remember between what time.
By that do you mean anarchist groups in general, or individualists? There were plenty of anarchist groups that I can go into detail about when I’m home, but no individualist groups, and it wouldn’t be a far stretch to claim there weren’t more than a dozen individualists in Russia at the time.
Sorry I’m ignoring most of your questions right now, I have to leave soon, I’ll respond when I’m home.
Your analysis of Proudhon/Stirner etc is dead on, I’ll elaborate later.
Emma Goldman was in Russia after the Bolsheviks seized power, she was sent over on the “Red Ark” with hundreds of other prominent Leftists during the first Red Scare, so that was 1919. The Revolution had ended, but the civil war was still raging.