He uses an *Alliance of the Libertarian Left logo image* several times during the discussion of "liberal-tarians," but seeing as ALL is an anti-electoral, left-wing market anarchist group, which is extremely radical on questions of both economic freedom and the existence of the state as such -- and since this image pops up allegedly to illustrate a discussion of, essentially, civil-libertarian and anti-war political Progressives (he mentions Ralph Nader, Naomi Wolf and Glenn Greenwald along the way), using a label that was actually invented to describe the views of a couple guys at Cato (Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson, in particular) who wanted libertarians to reach out less towards conservatives and more towards those sorts of Progressives, largely for the purpose of greater success in government elections, it is pretty clear to me that the guy is, to put it gently, speaking outside of his area of expertise, and has not understood the views he's alluding to. Moreover, there is a considerable world of left-wing anarchist efforts other than ALL which aren't even mentioned. (For example people associated with Food Not Bombs, CopWatch, the anarchist factions within Occupy Wall Street, publishing projects like the Independent Media Centers or Infoshop.org, or more ideologically-driven groups like NEFAC, etc.) There is actually a wide range of views here and I don't expect anyone to have a comprehensive grasp of all of it if they haven't spent a long time immersed in it. But it is important to note the existence of such "types" if your goal is to make a video about all the types of libertarians. On the other hand, it seems clear enough that neither ALL nor other left-wing anarchist efforts could have been seriously addressed in the video without seriously disrupting his ridiculously forced conclusion that the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul supposedly unites all forms of "libertarians." Because, in general, we want nothing to do with Presidents, nothing to do with campaigns, and nothing to do with Ron Paul. If'n it helps, [here's one of the ALL's websites](http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm), which may help provide some orientation on what this sort of thing is about and why the video doesn't actually address it.

He uses an *Alliance of the Libertarian Left logo image* several times during the discussion of "liberal-tarians," but seeing as ALL is an anti-electoral, left-wing market anarchist group, which is extremely radical on questions of both economic freedom and the existence of the state as such -- and since this image pops up allegedly to illustrate a discussion of, essentially, civil-libertarian and anti-war political Progressives (he mentions Ralph Nader, Naomi Wolf and Glenn Greenwald along the way), using a label that was actually invented to describe the views of a couple guys at Cato (Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson, in particular) who wanted libertarians to reach out less towards conservatives and more towards those sorts of Progressives, largely for the purpose of greater success in government elections, it is pretty clear to me that the guy is, to put it gently, speaking outside of his area of expertise, and has not understood the views he's alluding to. Moreover, there is a considerable world of left-wing anarchist efforts other than ALL which aren't even mentioned. (For example people associated with Food Not Bombs, CopWatch, the anarchist factions within Occupy Wall Street, publishing projects like the Independent Media Centers or Infoshop.org, or more ideologically-driven groups like NEFAC, etc.) There is actually a wide range of views here and I don't expect anyone to have a comprehensive grasp of all of it if they haven't spent a long time immersed in it. But it is important to note the existence of such "types" if your goal is to make a video about all the types of libertarians. On the other hand, it seems clear enough that neither ALL nor other left-wing anarchist efforts could have been seriously addressed in the video without seriously disrupting his ridiculously forced conclusion that the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul supposedly unites all forms of "libertarians." Because, in general, we want nothing to do with Presidents, nothing to do with campaigns, and nothing to do with Ron Paul. If'n it helps, [here's one of the ALL's websites](http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm), which may help provide some orientation on what this sort of thing is about and why the video doesn't actually address it.

Proudhon emphasized a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts. However, I'm frankly baffled by the suggestion that Kevin *doesn't* "emphasize worker owned industries." He has produced more than one book specifically on the topic of worker ownership of the means of production (the Org Theory book, Homebrew Industrial Revolution book, etc.) and for good or for ill he hardly talks about anything else when he starts talking about the positive value that he sees in freed markets as spaces for economic experimentation -- the likelihood (as he sees it) that the collapse of protected industrial monopolies, and transformative drops in fixed costs of living, will clear space for an economy in which the wages-system is overthrown and supplanted by worker ownership. (Whether he's right about that or not is an interesting question -- but I think there's no question that this is constantly a bold-yellow highlighted central point in his writing.)

Author here. For the record, this is neither a critique of participatory planning, nor is it a critique of gift economies. I'm an active participant in several examples of both. Now it might be a "critique" (or joke at the expense of) "the" gift economy, singular, depending on what work "the" is supposed to be doing. But the words "all encompassing" were put in the sentence because they really are supposed to be doing some work. (The post is certainly not an argument that "anarchism doesn't work," since, after all, I think that it does.) As I wrote [elsewhere](https://www.facebook.com/charles.w.johnson.2/posts/10152557641540584): > I agree that every economy involves planning at some level. But the interesting questions have to do with things like how much different people's plans have to be coordinated ahead of time, how many plans can be tried out simultaneously, who gets power to propose or to block which plans and on whom this is binding, who has to support the plans that make it through the process, under what conditions a plan can be reconsidered or abandoned, etc. So, for example, whether the "process" looks like freewheeling experimentation within an open-ended field, or whether it looks like a uniform, all-encompassing and endless series of board meetings. . . . But my joke above in the OP was about unitary-structure participatory-democracy planning processes . . . . I definitely agree on the value and importance of gift economies entangled with market relations, and for that matter participatory democratic planning etc. in an open-ended framework which is bottom-lined by experimental initiative, rights to exit and rights to meet minority demands on your own dime. I'm sacrificing a lot for brevity above, but I'd want to lay a lot of stress on the importance of *"all encompassing"* as the danger-word in the first problem, and *[singular] "process"* in the second one. Of course there are a lot of thoughts packed in here, and I might be mistaken on any or all of them. But if there's oversimplification here, it may be in the reading, not in the writing. Hope this helps.

Author here. For the record, this is neither a critique of participatory planning, nor is it a critique of gift economies. I’m an active participant in several examples of both. Now it might be a "critique" (or joke at the expense of) "the" gift economy, singular, depending on what work "the" is supposed to be doing. But the words "all encompassing" were put in the sentence because they really are supposed to be doing some work. (The post is certainly not an argument that "anarchism doesn’t work," since, after all, I think that it does.) As I wrote elsewhere: > I agree that every economy involves planning at some level. But the interesting questions have to do with things like how much different people’s plans have to be coordinated ahead of time, how many plans can be tried out simultaneously, who gets power to propose or to block which plans and on whom this is binding, who has to support the plans that make it through the process, under what conditions a plan can be reconsidered or abandoned, etc. So, for example, whether the "process" looks like freewheeling experimentation within an open-ended field, or whether it looks like a uniform, all-encompassing and endless series of board meetings. . . . But my joke above in the OP was about unitary-structure participatory-democracy planning processes . . . . I definitely agree on the value and importance of gift economies entangled with market relations, and for that matter participatory democratic planning etc. in an open-ended framework which is bottom-lined by experimental initiative, rights to exit and rights to meet minority demands on your own dime. I’m sacrificing a lot for brevity above, but I’d want to lay a lot of stress on the importance of "all encompassing" as the danger-word in the first problem, and [singular] "process" in the second one. Of course there are a lot of thoughts packed in here, and I might be mistaken on any or all of them. But if there’s oversimplification here, it may be in the reading, not in the writing. Hope this helps.

Some people, when confronted with a problem in keeping all-encompassing gift economies sustainable, think, “I know, we’ll start using a participatory planning process!”

Now they have two problems.