The first person to explain to me how these systems could be mixed together shall be awarded one internet.
(If authenticiouslycounterfeit has already been answered, forgive me…) I would guess that their anarchist natures allow all three to coexist. On the global scale, the state is dissolved, so socialistic, communistic, and voluntaristic capitalist societies would creep up on their own, y’know? Without a state, no one would be coerced, and then, just for an example, there could be an anarcho-capitalism in Las Vegas with all the “is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?” thing, an anarcho-communism in Los Angeles where all is equally distributed and there’s no currency, then in Phoenix the more Bakunin-y/anarcho-collectivist scene? And so on and so forth for different organizations of socio-political thought. And of course people would have the power to roam around, just because you were born to a capitalism doesn’t mean you have to stay there, it is anarchy after all.
Something like that?
I’ve actually advocated for the compatibility of these systems, and I believe it would require anarchy to supersede economics. Then economic systems being what they are (natural entities, organized from the bottom-up), different economies would emerge in different regions depending on the attitude of the people.
Posting it instead of reblogging it, because I think a little forward is necessary.
The article itself is filled with inflammatory and equivocal language. Bits like “Socialism, communism, Marxism, whatever you want to call it” and “Marxism demands a strict centralized command and control government, where the people surrender all of their rights to the almighty government” show a profound misunderstanding, or perhaps miseducation.
But nonetheless, there are seventy Democratic Socialist members of congress. I feel it my duty as a good young libertarian to pass this list along. That’s not too McCarthyist, is it?
John Steinbeck (via veggielezzyfemmie)