reply to post by ANOK
The term is used instead of anarchism by some because of negative connotations associated with it. Yes he advocates it world wide because socialism
really will only work if it is world-wide.
No, you misunderstood what I meant. I mean there are people - the intelligentsia, or elite - who forcibly maintain society as a 'anarchist'.
In any case, the idea is patently absurd. I read Chomsky for #'s n giggles.
I really cannot for the life of me understand what would compel someone to think a lawless society would be best for human beings.
All other things abide by their own law. Man is the only creature able to transgress law, hence, the human requirement to impose law. And yet you
think a land without law would be best.
Until - oh wait - another group emerges that seeks to impose its own will.
The amount of neuterization of that society would be so hefty that instead of the freedom you sought, you would get the most thorough mind control
known to mankind.
I think you are confused because you don't understand what socialism is. Socialism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production.
Socialism itself is ultimately libertarian, it requires no state system.
I know what socialism is. You however don't know the difference between theory and practice. In practice, a socialist 'regime' or elite forms who
manipulates the system to benefit their cohorts. There is never 'perfect' equality in socialism; it's just a different mechanism used to ameliorate
Capitalism is considered theft because the worker has to produce more than they are paid for so the private owner, capitalist, can make profit. That
is theft of the workers labour.
That is such a ridiculous reductionism. Anyone of ability is allowed to embark on his own enterprises in life.
To change life in the way socialism demands - and it means a completely radical facelift, away from the traditional thinking of social distinction,
i.e. distinction between peoples and traditions, differences between families, and differences between individuals. Anarchy is the evisceration of
difference, because it requires the elimination of property. Property is the extension of self; if one cannot extend oneself outward into object fact,
than one is essentially overwhelmed or usurped in his individual identity by a mass collective identity that forces on every individual radical ideas
like 'shared property' a natural corollary of which is shared children, etc.
It is law which brings freedom to the world we live in. Yes, it's a great and interesting paradox. But it's true. Particularity, differences, rich and
poor, strong and weak, unique and average, all add something interesting to the greater human fabric.
Just think for a second: libertarian socialism requires COMPLETE RADICAL societal reform to work. It in every way opposes natural law. It's just
unworkable because human being WANT to be free to express themselves; they want to Croats, or Turks, or Bosnian, or Greeks, or Jews, or Portuguese, or
Arab, or Chinese etc, and to think you can change them, is laughable. Just look at Yugoslavia and the Soviet union for examples. 4 countries formed
from the former, and 15 from the latter. Why? Because different peoples just cant be stuffed together and asked to 'get along'.
What this world needs more is liberal democratic nations.
edit on 23-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)