... She was briefly permitted to return to the U.S., temporarily, for the purposes of a lecture tour in the mid-1930s. But she was never able to live in the

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read one of Kevin Carson’s books (such as Studies in Mutualist Political Economy), where he gives the arguments in favor of the economic claims that he makes? (I mean actually read it, from cover to cover.)

Or are you just taking it for granted that the conclusions he draws have been pre-refuted, since some part of those conclusions are, in some sense or another, shared by Marxists?

In particular, have you ever read Part 1 of Studies of Mutualist Political Economy, wherein (among other things), Carson discusses several different versions of the Labor Theory of Value, including but not limited to Marx’s version (Marx did not invent the idea, and there were many rival versions of the LTV at the time he wrote), explains why he finds Marx’s version severely lacking, and why the specific Labor Theory that he intends to defend (a version which he identifies with Tucker and radical interpreters of Ricardo) is not susceptible to the same counter-arguments that Marx’s version is?

... Well, no, Marx does not equate feudalism with free markets. He views it as a now-surpassed stage of historical development, which was characterized by

… a rather old and obscure left-anarchist system called “mutualism.” This theory is a pastiche. It is an ill-conceived attempt to find some kind of perverse Hegelian synthesis of Rothbardian and Marxist political economy.

You are aware, aren’t you, that mutualism — which is commonly associated with the ideas of Josiah Warren in America and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in France, among many others — was written in the 1820s-1840s, and predates Marx? It certainly also predates Rothbard. If this is a “pastiche,” it must be one that was assembled with the aid of a time machine.

That said, if it were a combination of thoughts from widely-separated schools of thought, I don’t know why that would be an objection.

This attempt at creating a new “anarchist” economic system by taking bits and pieces from here and there in order to piece together an aesthetically and ideologically pleasing system is flawed from the start.

You mean like when Rothbard tried to piece together a radical approach to politics and economics by piecing together Misesian praxeology and monetary theory, individualist Anarchism, Randian ethical individualism, Nock’s and Oppenheimer’s analysis of the state as the “political means” of organized exploitation, historical revisionism in the school of Charles Beard and Harry Elmer Barnes, Kolko/Williams “Madison school” critiques of the Progressive era, New Left critiques of conservative militarism and “corporate liberalism,” and a Thomistic/Aristotelian account of natural rights?

Yeah, obviously doomed to failure from the start. Who ever thought of taking parts of some ideas and trying to integrate them with, or rearticulate them in light of, other ideas? What a maroon.

... In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Walker ... Perhaps my favorite part is the speculation on motives: "I can only guess at

... Yes, I also read Jeff's article. But I deny that so-called "native American" Anarchism (if this is supposed to mean the views of Anarchists born in

... Since Goldman was not an Anarchist when she came to America, became an Anarchist while she was living in America, picked up her Anarchist ideas from other

... I don't know; it seems to me that a lot of people in the U.S. thought revolution was in the air, too. Certainly the government did; hence the mass arrests,

... In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Walker ... Well, she *wrote* one book. It was *published* as two, because the original

... Well, she was an immigrant who always spoke with a thick accent. But she came to America in 1885 when she was 16 years old, gained U.S. citizenship, and