Chomsky notes in his pithy "government in the future" that all anarchists are socialists. Anarchy implies the eradication of the state, leaving only
"industrialized organizations" in their place.
This all sounds nice and neat, and I know to many of you, this sounds downright utopian. But what does that mean, in practice? How would such an
industrialized organization work? First, there's the issue of interests. Do we all have the same interests? Do we all agree on the same ends? or the
same means? Since this is an inevitable stumbling block, whose
ends and means will take priority? Within the framework of the "industrialized
organization", there will be representatives, or, if you will, demagogues. Since becoming a representative requires election, the old rule that
democracy serves the interests of demagogues is bound to come into play. So, these demagogues - people with deep interests, ideologies, whose
interests will they advance? Lets say a particular workers union is made up of 40% conservatives and 60% liberals. Logically, only the interests of
the majority can be advanced; and since this is a socialized system where only one end can be concentrated upon, a significant segment of the
population is bound to feel themselves disenfranchised and unrepresented by the "industrialized organization". Anarchy becomes totalitarianism by
In the Libertarian Socialist portal at wikipedia, many concepts are enumerated in the concept section. One idea - consistent with the metaphysical
anarchist idea of critical pedagogy - is free love, which calls for the elimination of marriage, and a free association unhinged by relational
commitment. Another is called 'queer theory', which lauds the merits of moral eccentricity. Clearly then, the designs of anarchism are by no means
libertarian (that is, seeks to defend the interests of individual), but rather, is philosophically gnostic, interested more in changing the individual
into an "anarchist" than in leaving an individual to choose for him or herself what he or she believes. Classical libertarianism, works only within
a capitalist system, since the notion of private property and competition is the prerogative of individuals. So long as a private enterprise exists,
people of all types can pursue their individual interests, and feel safe that neither a state nor the tyranny of the majority will interfere. Replace
capitalism with socialism, and you replace the individual with the community. While capitalism leaves people truly free to pursue their own ends,
socialism creates innumerable barriers to personal freedoms by erecting institutional frameworks that work along purely "democratic" lines. In this
sense, the aims of the majority supplant those of smaller social groups. And since interests almost never converge, those at the top will seek to
eliminate those at the bottom in order to create their more "perfect" utopian society.
A more fundamental problem with anarchism/socialism is the presupposition that the community is more primary than the individual. Realistically, in
our everyday experience, we encounter and interact with individuals; we ourselves are individuals. The "community", although a useful concept, and
real in that it is an aggregation of individuals, is still inherently abstract. It is vertical in that the individual derives meaning from some
abstract notion called the community - which exists only in thought, and not from his own essential self. Conversely, seeing the individual as primary
suits the American concept of E Plurabus Unum - out of many, one. First, the many, the individuals (many), than the community (one). This is a
horizontal construct where individuals as individuals come together to make up a community. Whats most important is the individual and his right to
believe what he or she feels compelled to
Another objection, besides the infeasibility of the economics and the infringement by the community on personal or smaller group beliefs, is the sheer
atavistic inanity of Anarchic goals. Frederich Hayek has this to say:
One revealing mark of how poorly the ordering principle of the market is understood is the common notion that "cooperation is better than
competition".Cooperation, like solidarity, presupposed a large measure of agreement on ends as well as methods employed in their particular pursuit.
It makes sense in a small group where members share particular habits, knowledge and belief about possibilities. It makes hardly any sense when the
problem is to adapt to unknown circumstances; yet it is the adaptation to the unknown which the coordination of efforts in the extended order rests.
Competition is a procedure of discovery, a procedure involved in all evolution, that led man unwittingly to respond to novel situations; and
through further competition, not through agreement, we gradually increase our efficiency.
Competition is a basic property of the Human experience. The Hebrews ingeniously recognized this in the tale of Cain and Abel. Adam and Eve, ejected
from Eden (paradise, or Utopia), have two children who act out this process in Cains murder of Abel; it was from Cains own trials - his being
condemned to a life of wandering - that civilization was born.
Stress is the salt of life. Without stress, without sufficient challenges, human beings becomes either lazy or aggressive.