Some
time ago on Twitter I made the statement that anarchism and socialism are
opposites and cannot be reconciled. Since then I’ve noted it tweeted by Left
Anarchists as some type of ‘in joke’ amongst themselves, however, over time, no
Left Libertarian, nor Left Anarchist, when I’ve challenged them, has been able
to succinctly reconcile the two: the last time one did try
I received a contradictory mish-mash of nonsense that held no understanding of
economics, or philosophy.
So,
I can do little normal blog posting until the new year, my day job is too busy,
thus I’m opening this post up to the implied challenge. Here is the definition
of socialism by the Free Dictionary:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
In
comments I invite any Left Anarchist or Left Libertarian to reconcile anarchism
or libertarianism with these definitions of socialism. It needs to get directly
to the heart of the matter, and I’m not interested in links to the whole
Internet. The reconciliation will need to importantly contact the above
definitions particularly around the following words used:
‘Owned collectively’
‘Centralised government’
‘Plans and controls economy’
‘Dictatorship of the proletariat’
That
is, for me, classical liberalism, libertarianism, et al, are founded, as they
must be, in individualism, and the non-initiation of force principle, before all else: that was the West’s true
inheritance from the Enlightenment. So reconcile the freedom that arises from
the civilising acknowledgement of the absolute sanctity of the life of a
single human being going about their business, forcing themselves on no other,
to the force necessarily connoted with collectivism on which socialism is
based, where that individual's volition must be sacrificed to the mob, be that via centralised ownership or the state (which are the same).
Perhaps by this means I may finally understand -albeit, I doubt it - the ludicrous sight of those fools wearing anonymous masks conducting street protests, and more often than not, riots, to destroy the single economic system consistent with freedom: laissez faire capitalism.
Perhaps by this means I may finally understand -albeit, I doubt it - the ludicrous sight of those fools wearing anonymous masks conducting street protests, and more often than not, riots, to destroy the single economic system consistent with freedom: laissez faire capitalism.
Go
…
