Ironically many articles in Total Liberty seem to be aligned in their own way, towards anarchist individualism. A refreshing change perhaps, though this form of anarchism is sometimes little more than a reactionary mirror image of social collectivist forms of anarcho-communism, and as such has its own problems and contradictions.

But this sectarian bias is not universal within the pages and so may be due to the personal predilections of the editor(s). On the other hand, anarchist individualist ideas have much to offer and a vessel for their dissemination would be a valuable asset for the British anarchist movement. Total Liberty needs to decide where it stands.

The editorial is interesting, though I see they haven't yet dropped the old reformist cliche of 'building the new society in the shell of the old'. More on that later.

The general ethos seems to be another manifestation of the emerging pluralistic culture of resistance in modern British anarchism and as such is quite encouraging.

The emphasis on the Internet was also on the mark.

The article on LETS is ludicrous. The ASP has had some discussion on LETS and none of us feel that LETS (when properly understood) has any place in anarchism. The whole article is imbued with the petit bourgeois mentality of propertarianism.

Far from serving the individual, such a society would be one of social alienation in which atomic individuals are incapable of relating beyond detached, rational exchanges. A kind of economic system for sociopaths. The key to any worthwhile social anarchism is the elimination not only of capitalism but (ideally) all exchange relations. A gift economy (ala Bataille) or Malatestan anarchist communism are two of many alternative ways to an economy thats frees the individual to relate as an individual. The market shields the bourgeoisie from the scary possibility of human relationship (and thus challenge and individual psychological development) with its neutral exchange systems. Of course in a free community individuals will form a variety of temporary economic relations, some based on exchange, some not, to match their changing social relations, and no doubt under pluralist national federations a few recidivist market based communities will exist. But it is the globalization of market practises that is the problem, a market community is a failed community. A counter to this might be that it is confusing economic and social relations, but it is risibly naive to think these are clearly separable.

More immediately, in the here and now, we have a capitalist system to overturn and replace with social anarchism. Is it credible that this will be done by merely exchanging bank notes for LETS vouchers? Or by equal commercial relations rather than hierarchical ones? I don't think so. Something a little more revolutionary is called for.

As I was told by a comrade recently, the best thing to do in a LETS scheme is to forge the vouchers and let it collapse under hyperinflation!

A similar criticism could be made of the article on Tucker, where a concern for the market (presumably based on false perceptions of 'efficiency') is prioritized over any social concerns. But it is the Capitalist system we have now that has proved the most efficient type of market economy, Tucker's only advantage seems to be a social one.

If this is a motivation of his admirers, it seems they need to look a little deeper at the social. Even if Tucker never seemed to. Although to be fair to the dead I am not certain whether the modern interpretations of the man's ideas are entirely accurate.

The main problem with individualist anarchism is that it is rooted in the bourgeois concept of the atomic individual and largely ignores the fact that the individual is a product of social relations. It thus undermines true individualism. A grasping, protectionist and defense ethos of negative freedom (the attitude of 'leave me alone' and 'thats mine'') pervades the ideology and this comes across in many Total Liberty articles.

Peter Neville's article on sociology was a very useful and informative one (if a little limited in its scope), and his emphasis on the post-modern, model agnosticism of contemporary sociology (in its multiple paradigms) was one that finds a great deal of sympathy in the ASP. However he then went on to contradict this stance by taking his usual simplistic, Weber/Elias vs. Marx position. But presumably he is aware of this contradiction and is simply trying to address a bias that he perceives in left wing sociology (though his comments at the anarchist forum might sometimes lead one to think otherwise).

The ideas of Elias, while in their details unlikely to be true, are very interesting and warrant further study. The general thesis is a very powerful one. His idea of society, as a set of communities based on the evolving social configurations of individuals, is more or less the same conclusion drawn by many of us at the ASP. It has problems though, or appears to in P.N's exposition. Most prominently in the emphasis on the independent individual. While they do create society with their free interactions, individuals are only partly independent, their mores, habits, character and even (language based) thought processes are largely conditioned by the society (or inherited relationship patterns, which ever you prefer) that they operate in. The fact that we can change society shows that the loop can be broken, but we must not underestimate the difficulty or think we have total liberty in this (pun intended).

Class struggle (in the widest sense of the term) remains important in that modern society is informed by, and informing on, the dominant (socially conservative, liberal-capitalist) ideology of the bourgeoisie. Opposition to which (and to whom) is the root of genuine class struggle (part of the problem may be that it is only Peter Neville who insists on a strict Marxist definition of what this term means). The 'lower classes', while increasingly bourgeoisified (or culturally conditioned) by their widening 'social and economic participation' and relation with the middle classes, is still the most likely place to find potential anti-bourgeois resistance. Though of course even the category of 'working class' is another bourgeois generated prison to escape from. A 'declassed' revolutionary 'caste' (majoritarian rather than vanguardist of course) will thus still be recruited mostly from plebian sources. Declassed, or deconditioned (partly or complete), (ex)bourgeoisie are rarer, though valuable.

In summary, elements of all the sociological theories given in the article (including Marxism) are likely to be true, even if a single unified theory remains elusive. The social process is a complex one, and like nature itself may ultimately be beyond our human capacity to understand, justifying the model pluralism of sociology. Of course it should also be remembered that sociology itself is a rationalist bourgeois construct and therefore limited in its revolutionary utility!

Joe Peacott's critique of Chomsky was well targeted. But the highlight of this issue was without doubt Richard Griffin's defence of a 'post modern' anarchism. It is about time anarchists woke up to the realities of the late 20th century, hopefully they will before we reach the 21^st!