Why keep calling them "Liberals" ?

Anarchy would solve this problem, in theory.

 

I don't need mere theory, I have history. Show me the history.

 

It isnt an oxymoron, you just don't understand what the word communism represents. Communism, on it's own, isn't an ideology, it's a theoretical society in which the state has ALREADY been abolished. The differences between communist ideologies (classical Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Council Communism, Autonomisn, Anarchism, etc) deal with how to create such a society. A communist society would, by definition, be an anarchist society.

Anarchists don't consider "opposition to the state" as a satisfactory definition of Anarchism. There's more to it. It's opposed to ALL forms of domination. The emancipation of the citizen from the state, labor from capital,
and some would include man from religion. This is how it was always defined until people like Rothbard decided to hijack the term, redefine it, and ignore it's history.

 

Great points. We can also agree then that no true Communism, nor any true Anarchy have ever existed as of yet. ( barring ancient stateless civilizations)

 

They haven't existed in full form, but large chunks of Spain during the Spanish revolution of the 30s, and a large chunk of Ukraine following the Russian revolution came close on both accounts.

I would consider Anarchist Spain to be simultaneously one of the most Important, and most ignored events of the past 200 years.

 

The defeated tend to be ignored.

 

I don't know about that. The old monarchy's, the Confederates, The Nazis, Imperial Japan..... They all seem to get a lot of attention.

 

They were forceful, the anarchists weren't.

 

The anarchists helped launch the first large scale assault against both fascism and Bolshevism. And they did it with guns.

 

They didn't do it with organization.

 

Yes.... They did.

 

The anarchist communes set about resuming normal life during the Spanish civil war, opening restaurants.

 

They didn't "resume normal life". Organizations like the CNT and FAI completely transformed social life in territories where they held a strong influence, with up to 8 million people participating in collectivization efforts (which ultimately increased production), many of whom were simultaneously fighting in a war against the fascists.

 

The war was a bad move on the part of the leftists. The Basque is practically independent without a war.

 

I'd say Rothbard corrected the definition of anarchism from the death-wishing murderous lefto-communists.

There's one problem with their collectivist anarchy. No one wants to share with them and it requires force/state.

But Rothbard actually said he was a "nonarchist" just to distance himself from murderous morons.

 

All of history is based upon force. Gandhi was backed by millions of hindu zealots.

 

Yeah, isn't that a shame, pitiful human history.

Voluntarists are the only ones who propose to evolve.

 

No, they propose giving all your property to the rich.

 

Do you mean like how free markets have consistently led to the greatest upwards mobility and nations full of middle class workers, or how collectivism has consistently led to (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

Indeed.

A "liberal" in Australia is a member or supporter of the Liberal Party of Australia, the conservatives and Australia's version of the Republican Party.

I have never voted for the Liberal Party of Australia in all my life,, but I do enjoy a "liberal" sprinkling of chocolate on my cappuccino.

- - - Updated - - -

Really?

 

I agree that collectivism is generally only useful when voluntary, but the colonization of the United States was funded by the British monarchy's subsidies in boat-making industries. The world did not get where it is today because of merchants, as much as they can be useful.

 

the liberal party of my province is conservative as well

 

How does that work? Anarchism had over 100 years of tradition and theory behind it, and all of its theorists had placed themselves firmly in the socialist camp. They had defined anarchism as anti-authoritarian socialism. Proudhon, who was the father of political anarchism, famously concluded that "property is robbery". How can someone who showed up 100 years after the fact "correct" an ideology by supporting a system that the the ideology had always opposed by its very definition? How can you claim he knew what anarchism meant better than the people who created the theory in the first place?

He didn't correct anarchism, he bastardized it. I don't care if you embrace the philosophy put forward by people like Rothbard, but it isn't anarchism.

 

Anarchism isn't inherently collectivist or individualist. It can operate in either direction. I don't care who you attribute the term to. Any attempt to define it as exclusively socialist is ill-fitting. In fact, if anything, the purest form of anarchism is probably somewhere in between; somewhere along the lines of anarcho-tribalism. Anarcho-tribalism is simply man in his natural state absent any sense of authority or government.

 

It is why I just call them the enemy.