Socialism Vs Anarchism

Some say that socialism would lead to anarchism within any country that truly adopted it. Socialism is of the left-wing of politics. But is anarchism? Some would say yes it is. But what we see, and it is one of those times when something is so obvious you are blind to it – anarchy is just around the corner for some countries such as the UK and the USA. Is this the case for Canada? It is a possibility if people do not begin to take a much more active role in the political arena.

Libertarians are, to me, pulling this world apart. They, in my opinion, do not care for anyone other than themselves. To them this is a virtue – me, I think it is a vice – one that is growing more and more powerful, and, in fact, may have already stepped over the cliff.

Socialism isn’t the end-game. Communism is. And we are not even in the realms of observing a stateless world, one where we all are seen as equal and work, play educate ourselves for the benefit of all, not simply ourselves. Socialism is about the people seeing that this, communism, is possible in a long off future. But before that time can come in a democratic manner, when the people of the world, or indeed the individual State, see their borders fall because we as people decide it to be so.

Today we are seeing a rise of what can be said to be a new form of libertarianism – one wild with ideology that seems, on the surface at least, to be the answer to all prayers. David Cameron calls it “The Big Society” – I call it madness, yet there are those who do support it. A cover to fight the evils that they see within socialism. Socialism offers what they say they will offer – so what is fundamentally different?

[…] this latest development is a sad sign of the power imbalance in American politics that has accrued over the last 30 years – during which time overall union membership has gone from about 25% of the workforce to barely 11%, and the richest 1% have seen their pre-tax incomes nearly quadruple while median earners have stayed flat.

Were the Democrats cleverer and braver, citizens would broadly know these facts. But most Americans have no idea of the massive class war – stealing from the bottom and the middle and giving to the very top – that has been waged over the last three decades.

The difference is how the wealthy have accrued that wealth and how they are manipulating how they are going to keep it to the detriment of everyone else. Earnings for the so-called middle-class in the USA has fallen since the 1980’s.

Long but good read:

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).

This new anarchy isn’t anything to do with left-wing politics either. It is fully in the province of right-wing, ultra right-wing and extreme right-wing – yet, and this is the kicker in it all, as it benefits the capitalist then they go along with it with consummate glee, jingling their new found wealth in over-laden pockets.

What we have, and there is a name for it, is Anarcho-capitalism. Seems a nouveau-speak phenomenon, it isn’t. See from the wiki introduction:

Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”[1] or “market anarchism”[2] or “free market anarchism”[3]) is a libertarian[4][5] and individualist anarchist[6] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term.[7][8] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and “state capitalism” is the difference between “peaceful, voluntary exchange” and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[12] “Capitalism,” as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein natural market incentives and disincentives are skewed by state intervention.[13] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists that view capitalism and its market as just another authority. Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms.[14]

Look around you today, this very day and see what is happening in a wider world, even the world outside your own windows. In the UK the PM is trying this fatal experiment with the citizens of the country as a whole. With the assistance of what can be loosely termed coalition government. We also see today that the US president is in his own battle against these anarchists – but added to that some of the people who would normally have supported him many decades ago. The deregulation of the banks, the whole world coming close to complete financial meltdown wasn’t, and isn’t because of socialism, but because of anarcho-capitalists buying power and more wealth right in front of your eyes – and you are letting it happen.

I am not using this as an argument for all to follow socialism, I cannot do that and do not presume to do so, either. Socialism will come about after these nouveau-anarchists-riche/old rich have had their fill and pretty much destroyed the world as we know it. Certainly not in apocalyptic senses, but almost certainly financial ones. The very thing they love so much will, to me, come about to bite them so hard it is beyond our imagination at present.

Socialism is an alternative – certainly not the only one, but one to take a close look at. One that cannot be forced upon the people. But one that can be put forward.

Our world is changing, not for the better for most.


About Bolshy

Blogging in the ether to see if that elusive literary agent or publisher wants some new talent.
This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Comment, Conservatives, Democracy, Democrats, Economy, Liberal, Modern Liberty, Money, Personal Opinion, Personal philosophy, Politics, Socialism, Sociology, UK, United States of America, World and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Socialism Vs Anarchism

  1. Pingback: Anarcho-Capitalist | Along the Way...

By all means, leave your 2 bobs worth

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s