WereKitten said:
Actually the overwhelming majority of self-defined libertarian groups in Europe are of anarco-sindacalist matrix, offspring of historical anarchism, consider themselves roughly part of what is generally called the left wing and are opposed to the doctrine of complete economic laissez-faire, perceived as an an environment mostly tuned to the interests of big multinational corporations. It's the american (capitalistic) libertarian movement that is considered somewhat of an odd duck, but you might say that it's basically the same term being used to denote very different things. Historical anarchism shared with marxism the praxis and theory of the liberation of downtrodden masses, mainly country workers back in the 19th century. In 1848 Paris, red and black flags were placed together side by side on the barricades. In Spain's civil war the perceived betrayal of the social revolution by the PCE was all the more bitter for anarchists and POUM as they had fought together with the communists up to the point when the Soviet Union diktat asked for a quelching of the workers' insurgence. Still, even though they did not share the marxist analysis and theory, that was an occasion when the anarchists were able to actually try out the bottom-up, self-organized, small scale collectivistic communities that were the actual goal of anarchic insurrections in backward rural areas. |
If your counting Left Libretarians and anarchists... well that's the closest this guy counts politics wise, as all of the books he liked were basically man vs the establishment.
How many anarchist groups are one of the two or three parties to where they would deserve to define one of the political extremes?
This is what I mean by "They don't exist."
Neither do american Libretarians. Hence why Libretarians don't deserve to define the current right to left political field.
