hmmm... yea, I think we are mostly dancing around definitions. Let me try it this way:
In pure Marxism everyone takes what they need and provide for those who need it - the Communist utopia. What people need and what people should provide those in need is not defined - there is no need to define it because 'whatever the perfect answer is' will already be known by the 'educated masses'. The people ARE the state and since none of them disagree with the state then there is no need for any enforcing body etc... If no one committed any crime then there would be no need for police. So whether I say everything is owned by the state, or you say everything is owned by the people - is a bit of a moot point, cuz the people are all sheep and all think the same (hence the bloody, hellish attempts to brainwash entire populations through terror and doublethink). If everyone was a policeman, there would not be a need for what we think of as an official police force, but the line between saying there is NO police force and that there is a TOTAL police force is almost non existent.
In extreme (and not the kind that a vast majority of Libertarians subscribe to) Libertarianism, more accurately described, as you put it, as Anarchist Capitalism, all (or almost all) needs will be met and those that need will be provided. Indeed, a society will form that is very similar to the pure Communist one. A key difference is that the giving and providing is 'voluntary' (a Communist utopia is ‘voluntary’ too, but everyone 'chooses' the same thing - as soon as one person doesn't conform then the masses must pounce on him/her and a ‘state’ forms and the society reverts to Socialism). In an Anarchist Capitalist society it is unknown what % of people will give, but assumed that the prosperity will be so great that there will be more then enough for all. So there are no sheep. People will think and act differently with varying shades of 'generosity'.
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.
After the Russian revolution I believe the Communists were initially allied with the Anarchists, but soon brutally purged them. A similar event occurred in the Spanish civil war. I think the historical Anarchists were a bit different in ideology then what we consider Capitalist Anarchists or extreme Libertarians. Or? It is a bit ironic that, in reality, Communists could get closest to their goal by doing the exact opposite of what Marx suggests.
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. Movement in the Libertarian direction yields only goodness, while movement in the socialistic direction yields only evil. IF such a utopia as the Communists and extreme Libertarians strive for really exists, it can certainly only be reached by the Libertarian path. And I have yet to see any historical example where government progressed so far towards the Libertarian extreme as to become hurtful.
I dunno... It this is all a bit confusing to think about for too long. :)
btw that site on your tag line is a neat site, I read the entire thing through a year or two ago.
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.