This has been a much debated item in the libertarian movement, as well as in the LP itself. True, when the debates ground to a halt between 1983-87, the anarchists had the upper hand in making your claim, declaring total victory. But that was not because they were right. The minarchists just failed to effectively radicalize their presentation. Had they done so, I say the minarchists would have won the debate hands down. In other words, the anarchists won only by default, and not because their position was in fact better supported.
The differences are most glaring between these two ideologies in the beginning, Communists have to fight for more state control and anarchy capitalists have to fight for less state control. So, it is a bit curious to me that the Communists and Anarchists have allied together as much as they have.
You seem seem to be confusing "anarchy capitalists" with "anarchists." The former is only one type of the latter. Among anarchists, the range of opposing philosophies is as great as the range exists any where in political philosophy. The anarchists that are usually found in alliance with communists are collectivist anarchists (ie Anarcho Syndicalists), and very rarely anarcho capitalists.
After the Russian revolution I believe the Communists were initially allied with the Anarchists...
Actually the both were circumstantially allies long before that, going back before even Marx. Even Marxism qualifies as a type of anarchism, and thereby can be propagated as a the true anarchist philosophy over all others, depending of course on the propagandist's point of view. One might also keep in mind that there were two Marxes, an early and later one. Early in his life he called for weakening the state, later in life he favored its strengthening, as the best means to move forward. Such positions have nothing to do with the political philosophy, they fall under the category of political strategy.
The author of the original piece is full of it because the actual results and pathways of the two different ideologies are so different that it is absurd to even compare them.
Not so, with regard to "pathways" only. Pathways are a question of strategy, and not ideology. Libertarians strategies are a long way from being settled, and in actuality can never be completely settled. Though I would propose that where the strategy runs counter to the philosophy, then it should be a settled matter. For example, the number one strategy in use with in the LP today is to hide the LP principles so as to better reach out to conservatives. I say this amounts to fraud, and should have been rejected back in the early 80s as as running counter to Libertarian philosophy. But it was put forward and made popular, with out debate. Liberarians had grown tired of the infightening that had brought the party uncontroled growth, and feared such growth might lead it to far down the left wing path. So the leadership called for an end to debate, popularized it with speakers and articles, and thereby ended up going down a right wing path, ultimately to the harm of both the conservative as well as libertarian movements.
ok. well I think i have the various anarchists types now under my belt. I think many of them, I'm thinking of the anti-authority anti-globalist type protestors today, are confused themselves as to exactly what they are for or against and why.
"Early in his life he called for weakening the state, later in life he favored its strengthening, as the best means to move forward."
Have never heard this before. Can you elaborate?
"For example, the number one strategy in use with in the LP today is to hide the LP principles so as to better reach out to conservatives."
IHMO they are doing almost the opposite. (although I guess it depends on perspective) Polling MUST show that there is a huge demand for much more limited government then the Bloated Republicans are for, but with a strong military and foreign policy. Yet their Presidential Candidate was against the Iraq war and danced around conspiratorial 9/11 theories and blamed American for meddling in the Middle East etc.. Sounded almost like Michael Moore... And why do they keep bringing up this kookiness about a silver/gold standard? That has no place in politics and is junk economics anyway - so in that case I can at least commend them for sticking to principle, as some really seem to believe a silver/gold standard etc... is that right thing.
If they had a charismatic standard bearer, someone to really unite the party, and a sensible, comprehensive blueprint of what they believe and how they can achieve it, I think over time (20 years) they could actually become the majority party in America (if the Republicans don't steal their popular ideas first). I think the admittedly diverse factions in the lib party should 'settle' around a few core principles which they could build a foundation on and ignore some of the other minor more controversial issues.