Libertarianism, Communism and Anarchism
Written by johnleemk on 4:06:48 pm May 14, 2007.
Categories: Philosophy and Religion, Public Policy
It is commonly presupposed that libertarianism, communism and anarchism are three different and unrelated systems of government. But taken to their natural extreme, libertarianism and communism both lead to anarchism.
Libertarianism is basically the idea that the individual should be given freedom to act in both his personal life and in his economic life. In short, it is classical liberalism — the idea that the individual should be free.
It is normally assumed that communism is about the oppression of the individual by the state, ostensibly for the greater good of the collective. But this erroneous belief stems from the fact that this has been the result of communism wherever it has been implemented as a state ideology.
The true spirit of communism is closer to the short-lived Paris Commune. The communist state has no place for the state, so to speak. The people are meant to govern themselves, to deal with each other freely.
Now, doesn't that ring a bell? Both libertarianism and communism, taken to their logical extremes, are ideologies preaching maximal freedom as an ideal. That doesn't mean that that is their end result — probably the closest thing we have to a libertarian state is the United States, and even then, it is far from the ideal bastion of libertarianism, while all the communist states we have seen turned out to be dictatorships in reality.
Both extreme libertarians and communists, were they given free rein to implement their ideas, would create basically an anarchist society. Now, anarchy generally has negative misconceptions attached to it, since it is basically the absence of a government.
However, anarchists generally have a very optimistic opinion of the individual — that he will not act to suppress his fellow man, or that his fellow men will be able to stop him. Anarchy is not about chaos and disorder or the law of the jungle, if you listen to its proponents.
Instead, both anarcho-libertarians and anarcho-communists insist that an anarchy would create a better life for all. Where they beg to differ, of course, is how this would be achieved — anarcho-libertarians believe that there would still be private property, while anarcho-communists would insist on everything belonging to everyone as a collective.
The problem with this vision of the world, however, is its reliance on the individual being able to put the needs of the collective over himself. Anarcho-libertarians would insist that this is not true for their society, but they overlook the reason governments exist in the first place.
Economically speaking, the government exists to provide services which benefit everyone as a collective, but would not exist if funded solely by individual effort. For instance, who would pay for national defence? The collective society derives great benefits from being able to defend itself, but the individual would not see any point in paying for a standing army, because hey, everyone else is already paying for it. This tragedy of the commons is why the government exists at all — to enforce such payment.
At this point, the anarchists often turn to tenuous-sounding arguments which all continue to revolve around assuming that the individual always acts in good faith and has the greater good at heart — and won't be able to muster a sufficiently organised group of likeminded greedy people to subvert the anarchic order.
Does this mean that all libertarians and communists are crazy? I don't think so — I'm not sure about the communists, but I certainly think that the libertarian ideology has its merits. I would classify myself as a moderate libertarian.
What worries me is that people often allow their ideologies to determine what they think is best, rather than using any sensibility or rationality. Abandoning their faculties of reason, they turn to ideals to determine what is best.
I am firmly an utilitarian — my ideal is upholding policies which will accomplish what is best for society and the individual. It just so happens that libertarianism is an ideology which often works best.
Allowing ourselves to be carried away by ideals is the wrong thing to do. Libertarians and communists who unthinkingly condemn government, reasoning that if something does not jibe with their philosophy, it must be wrong, are not doing their society a favour, and are setting down the road to anarchy.
Here are the most popular articles in Philosophy and Religion:
If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:
(Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "Communism": | |
|---|---|
|
ricardo
Member Posts: 73 IP Logged | Posted at 3:02:42 pm Dec 11, 2005
Good or bad? There are a lot of good arguments on both sides, but in the end, I think communism is an untenable philosophy. The only true communist country left in the world is Cuba, and it'll probably die once Castro goes. Most communist nations degenerated into dictatorships anyhow. Besides, if "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", who decides the abilities and the needs of everyone? |
| Last five replies (23 comments not shown): | |
|
Vissario
Member Posts: 35 IP Logged | Posted at 12:30:09 pm Mar 31, 2006
surely it is better to just select another batch of educated people who were not one of Saddam's top advisors? And where, do you propose, we get them? The United States, perhaps? Europe, maybe? Or should we just hire a group of charlatans and idealistic demagogues off the street and tell them to 'have at it'? Now, if you were to discuss the Paris Commune, or the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, that it is another matter I prefer examples that have had a degree of success in long-term situations where they actually had control of the government for an extended period of time. Sensible people don't gamble, and they realize wealth can be accumulated surely and collectively through communist methods. You, like most before you, assume too highly the nature of the average person. Their dreams are for a pie-in-the-sky that can be gained through their own personal initiative and abilities, not some slow, methodological approach, which may insure that their great-great grandchildren live moderately comfortable lives. Your parents, natalina, when they look at you in your crib, have dreams and aspirations to make your dreams and aspirations come true; they want you to be all that you can become based both on your natural endowments from Yahweh and their ability to nuture those endowments into something which will let you achieve success in whatever form desired. Communism runs directly in detriment to this, it preaches the draconian gospel of everyone working for the exclusive benefit of the state/community/society, not for themselves or their dreams. This natalina, the shallow, but very convincing allure of self-improvement, is why capitalism is so pervasive, and, depending on who you are, successful. I suppose, natalina, that if we humans lived longer lives, then we would not be so short-sighted, and we would be able to have the patience for communism to work instead of requiring the instant gratification which capitalism can quickly, intoxicatingly give us. Where did you get the definition Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary (Revised 2004) I suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree on the definition of anarchism and communism Natalina; the interpretations of abstract concepts made by humans are far to diverse to be settled in any debate or intellectual discussion. intellectual minority The 'intellectual minority' are the ones running the show, natalinas. It really is power by subjugation; the intellectual minority at the top of government retain their power by playing off on the base fears and desires of the hugely conservative majority by supplying them with a constant flow of things to hate, fear, and expend their energies upon instead of doing those same things on the government. "What entity has existed which did not act as the valiant rival of another entity which existed in its time?" |
|
natalinasmpf
Member Posts: 39 IP Logged | Posted at 8:53:39 am Apr 2, 2006
And where, do you propose, we get them? The United States, perhaps? Europe, maybe? Or should we just hire a group of charlatans and idealistic demagogues off the street and tell them to 'have at it'? No, because I am certain there are competent people, who have gone to university, are Muslims, and that sort of intellectual type, who are educated in administrative issues. After all, choosing to work with Saddam's top aides must cast suspicion that they are indeed, very incompetent. You would think that if they had any degree of competency it wouldn't take three years and running just to get the water running again in some neighbourhoods three years after the invasion. Methinks the funds the departments are getting aren't exactly being totally used for government projects....
The anarchist syndicalist communes lasted for years, by the way. But why success? Arguably, these communes were more successful than the USSR ever were. They did not carry out mass killings, they fought honourably (ie. no war crimes), and it had been quite utopian beforehand. Choosing to cite the USSR, or Cuba, or some other communist country over examples like these is a selective bias because of the incapability to admit some degree of success. After all, why do we give glory to the fighters at Thermopylae? They were defeated after all. But was it a pointless defeat? Was it disastrous? It served a purpose. Do we say, "yep, the Spartans were total failures at Thermopylae, not only did they fail to drive back the Persians, they were all killed to the last man!", or do we applaud their act? Perhaps if everyone bothered to be stake their right to participate in a voluntary communal society without being externally overrun by fascists, there would be a point. Mind you: the United Nations did not exist then. The Allies were carrying out their stupid appeasement policy. Wrong place, wrong time. As for the Paris Commune, they had taken over the entire Paris government for months, and held it. The mistake not to take the gold bullion was a tragic flaw, just like the second pass at Thermopylae. not some slow, methodological approach, which may insure that their great-great grandchildren live moderately comfortable lives. Or is it because the culture encourages it? You describe an individual in Western culture; after all, do the !Kung bushmen necessarily want a pie-in-the-sky life? Or the Hui Chinese Muslims? And is it not a fallacy to assume that a communist arrangement is slow, or moderate? Is it rather not an example of delay gratification for a higher gain? Look at the stories of ancients: Esau and his bowl of soup. Heck, if we want to use Aesop's Tortoise and the Hare, then yes. Clearly, this is a sentiment the average man is capable of. It is thus possible to create a culture conducive to a gift economy. One cannot create a culture through force, which is precisely where interaction comes in. Anarchist communists' concept of revolution after all, is not at all like the Leninist mode of having a small but elite cadre of revolutionaries launching a coup and seizing power in the name of the proleteriat, then forcing the ideology down everyone's throats, but rather akin to conversion. Communism runs directly in detriment to this, it preaches the draconian gospel of everyone working for the exclusive benefit of the state/community/society, not for themselves or their dreams. This natalina, the shallow, but very convincing allure of self-improvement, is why capitalism is so pervasive, and, depending on who you are, successful. Since when did you get the idea that communism prevents people from being all they can be? The whole point of communism after all, is to elevate everyone to their highest potential. That is the concept of "positive liberty" after all - a right to the positives in society, which mind you is the leftist focus, rather than negative liberty, which is the classical liberal focus, ie. the right not to have a certain negative effect in society, ie. get murdered, although one can implement both. And how is it draconian in any way? It is extremist, perhaps. It is not the absolute tyranny of the majority after all, which only leads to increased factionalism, which in terms of a social contract would be pointless (the surviving majority further splits among themselves a la the French Revolution). Communism advocates that that working as a collective, that working communally, is much more beneficial and insured of to achieve certain dreams, certain goals, than if working in a capitalist society. You fallaciously use the concept of "exclusive benefit for the community". In doing so, you treat the community like some sort of alien entity which the individual is not part of! That it is something to be feared! But does not the community include the individual? And at the same time, is not everyone contributing to you? As no hierarchy is established, the products given to the community are not all siphoned up by some great leader, either. to work instead of requiring the instant gratification which capitalism can quickly, intoxicatingly give us. Christians, all Christians are supposed to ignore instant gratification. Perhaps you're not Christian, but I'll find plenty of Christians who will agree that such behaviour is indeed sinful. Perhaps if you want to make an argument how the ideals of Christianity is pointless, stupid or impossible to achieve as well, but you see, my communist ideology runs very closely with my Christian philosophy. Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary (Revised 2004) Yes, but you used selective definition. If you used the first definitions of communism, you will find it is completely compatible with anarchism. I looked it up and found your definition, but it was the second or third after the first one: communism is meant to achieve a stateless society. Anarchism is stateless. Are their goals not the same? There is anarchist capitalism, but I don't consider that true anarchism, although the libertarian philosophy is more tolerable than the PRC's. The 'intellectual minority' are the ones running the show, natalinas. The majority are not conservative; they are apathetic. Thus, they will favour the status quo but if someone changes it they are not alarmed. The power of government is derived from popular sovereignty and support of the masses. Manipulation can cause a tyrannical government to form, getting support of the masses without benefiting them. A libertarian culture highly suspicious of potential despotism would run counter to such manipulation. |
|
Vissario
Member Posts: 35 IP Logged | Posted at 2:26:20 pm Apr 18, 2006
No, because I am certain there are competent people, who have gone to university, are Muslims, and that sort of intellectual type, who are educated in administrative issues. This is Iraq, not the United States or Europe, Natalina. The pool of 'intellectual type...educated in administrative issues' are the people who worked for the former regime, not the private sector or even small business since there were none not in some way tied to the regime. You seem to discount the fact that this was a former authoritarian country which actively supressed its citizens and denied them positions of power and any 'real world' education for the expressed reason of maintaining dictatorial power. Give it another 20 years Natalina, and Iraq, if it survives the insurgent activities and its less-then-friendly neighbors buttressing (or at least condoning) those insurgent activies, it will develope a middle class which will be able to supply the government with a steady stream of people who know what is best for the country as a whole instead of catering to the either the very poor and ignorant or the very rich and snobish. After all, choosing to work with Saddam's top aides must cast suspicion that they are indeed, very incompetent. I see no obvious examples of them being incompetent in managing the country's very precarious position Natalina; they are indeed waging two wars, one against the foreigners who are invading their land from neighboring countries to fight both the United States as well as their (Iraq's) democratic experiment, and the war to unite a country which still has ages old racial and dogmatic differences which will have to be, at least, mellowed in order for a democratic government to work. You would think that if they had any degree of competency it wouldn't take three years and running just to get the water running again in some neighbourhoods three years after the invasion Since you have the advantage of being the outsider looking in Natalina, I am sure that statement is much easier dreampt when one ignores the constant attacks that Iraq has sustained since its regime change; no, not the ones who hear on the News every night, but the ones they don't have time to point out in their 30 second per issue broadcasts. my communist ideology runs very closely with my Christian philosophy. Christians are supposed to model their life after Jesus Christ and strive to become as close to God as he was during his ascension to Heaven. Everything you do, from your bed time prayer to your daily alms to the poor, are simply ways in which to enlighten yourselves and purify yourselves so that you may be deemed fit to enter the pearly gates after your death. In reallity, natalina, to be a 'true' Christian, one forsakes all worldy possessions and seeks a quest of enlightenment, devoid of material pleasures which tend to lead humans to different goals, where one convenes to a state which is close to God and where one can make decisions which are in service of God, not themselves. This is the true teaching of Jesus Christ, the structured, leviathan organization of Christianity is not the teaching of Jesus Christ, but is the creation of his deciples who's goal was not neccessarily the attainment of Heaven by its practicioners, but the sense of security and community which most Romans, Greeks, and Middle Easterners craved at the time, and, most interestingly, still do. And as such, I agree, natalina, Christianity, like most religions, does go in line with a communalised society of equal wealth, but one who follows the teachings of Christ will not even see the need to participate in society, and will exist from day to day striving to become closer to his God; and the latter, I must say, is by far a greater use of one's life not because I specifically believe in God, but because of the courage and fortitude one must have to so actively pursue a goal, a cause, and most importantly, a fundamental Truth. bias because of the incapability to admit some degree of success. Success is always measured in terms biased by our relative time period, geographical location, and national history, Natalina. To claim that they were successful infers a bias on your own part because your political slant, ideologies, and need to be vindicated in your own particular cause Natalina. I am sure that if communism and those other radically "Left" economic systems to rise to prominence, then they shall look on the communist and socialist "experiments" of the 19th and 20th century as great success and capitalism as a terrible failure even though it remarkably changed the West from backwards feudal kingdoms into the most technologically advanced and culturally dominate culture in the 20th and, most likely, the 21st century. Really, let success be measured by the neutral forces later on in history Natalina, for this is one bridge we shall never meet half-way on. Is it rather not an example of delay gratification for a higher gain? Once again, I contend, like in my previous post, that humans, as a whole, are incapable of this fortitude based on their previous failures and blunders. Try the child and the cookie Experiment: A 5-year-old child is placed in a room with a small table and a cookie placed upon it. An instructor tells the child that if he waits 20 minutes while he (the instructor) is gone, he will receive the cookie already there PLUS another cookie when he returns. Otherwise, the child may eat the cookie now and be done with it. Nearly 87% of the children tested ate the cookie before the 20 minutes were up. The 13% who didn't were told that if they wanted to wait another 20 minutes, they could keep the two cookies there and receive another cookie for their time. Of the 13%, nearly 2/3 (8%) of them ate their two cookies before the 20 minutes had passed. This famous study was done in the early 1980's by Leonard Brussly to study self-restraint among individuals from a wide geographic range and found that most of the small children tested, irrelevant of their parent's economic or social status (the 87%) did not have the natural patience to delay instant gratification for higher, future gains. And that the 13% who could delay, even for only two cookies, were individuals who tended to see things in a much greater scope and to be much more successful individuals in their professional careers. Though the conclusion is for another hypothesis Natalina, the point is obvious that most humans do not think in the way which you want them to, and that for a communist government to work in the way which you want it too, there will have to be a fundamental change in the way the human mind thinks. But does not the community include the individual? And at the same time, is not everyone contributing to you? Then apparently I am not understanding something in the same way you are. Communism is the concept that we pull together our resources towards benefit of the community as opposed to the exclusive benefit of ourselves as in a capitalist society. This implies that the community is what is important, not the individual living within that community because he does not encompass the needs of all. Ignoring the usual attacks by most capitalist objectors about laziness and incentive, I would wonder about the potential loss of individual value and importance within such a community as now the individual's importance has become less then that of the community which he now services. As such, depending upon what governmental body they chose (lets say democracy, not the historical favorite of autocracy), this opens up the potential abuse of the individual by the community because of the obvious priority that this society has created; the extension and continue prosperity of the community, not the individual. Why, one could say that Singapore, as a community, is prosperous, Natalina, but as individuals, the Singaporeans are oppressed under a regime which could be called democratic (although I would hardly extend it that courtesy, but for the sake of expedience I will) and which actively works for its benefit. The potential abuse, as shown in your current government, is obvious, and, it could easily become the same way in some giant collective democratic society which values the community, the society, above the individual. A libertarian culture highly suspicious of potential despotism would run counter to such manipulation. Thus what we in the West have been working at the last 3,000 years and have only had promising movements and gestures towards it in the last 200. Perhaps Asia will join us someday, but I am inclined to say it won't natalina. |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 948 IP Logged | Posted at 9:27:26 am Apr 19, 2006
the structured, leviathan organization of Christianity is not the teaching of Jesus Christ, but is the creation of his deciples who's goal was not neccessarily the attainment of Heaven by its practicioners, but the sense of security and community which most Romans, Greeks, and Middle Easterners craved at the time, and, most interestingly, still do.What structured, leviathan organisation? Roman Catholicism/Mormonism/what have you != Christianity. One thing I enjoy about Christianity is that by nature, it isn't a form of organised religion. Churches are supposed to be informal meetings of Christians, not some group of people performing complicated rituals. You are entirely correct that Jesus never preached about the creation of a complex hierarchy, etc. But you are incorrect to assume that you can equate a few cults with the whole of Christianity. |
|
Vissario
Member Posts: 35 IP Logged | Posted at 5:59:33 pm Apr 19, 2006
equate a few cults with the whole of Christianity. Since when Roman Catholicism considered a 'cult' within the Christian dominations? Seeing as how Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodox account for almost 2 billion souls, yes, I can equate those 'cults' with a form of highly rigid, organized, and tiered Christianity. |
