What's the real difference between anarcho-capitalism (free-market anarchism) and anarchist communism if neither ideology could advocate the use of force to implement itself in society? (If it did, then it would be advocating a form of government.) Therefore, what separates different brands of anarchism is not the government policies they advocate (which is the policy of terminating it), but their forecasts for what a post-state society would be like. The anarcho-capitalist proposes the abolition of the state, and he predicts that an entirely free-market economy would take hold, providing for all goods and services. The anarchist communist, too, proposes the abolition of the state, and he predicts that a socialist, classless society would take hold, with common ownership of the means of production.
What I propose is a new term, weak anarchism. Weak anarchism allows for a temporary government to help bring about a particular type of stateless society, whereas strict (or strong) anarchism believes the best thing the government can do at any point in time is to cease existing. The anarcho-capitalist, for example, might advocate a temporary government security force to give time for private security firms to come into existence.
In my opinion, weak anarchism is the only way for the various branches of anarchism to have any meaningful differences between each other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
government is like cancer. a little bit can't be good. Once started can't be controlled. It grows until the host dies.
Society has repeated this farce throughout history. One day enough of us will have taken the red pill and not repeat this awful, evil system.
Post a Comment