I’ve never heard of anything dumber than anarcho-capitalism which opposes democracy and the current state system, but thinks all property/wealth gained under the current, unethical system should be preserved even after it is abolished. Many use the terms “voluntaryism” or “anarcho-libertarianism” to mask a system solely revolving around rich people unfairly owning everything and the majority having no ability to reclaim the earth as free, voluntary association.
In their minds, the rich have the right to defend unfairly acquired wealth using machine guns and personal armies, but the majority using democracy to reclaim property they never consented to conceding in the first place is categorized as “theft.”
I was completely wrong when I said there was a split in the left. These phoney-leftists opposing democracy have one basic argument: “As long as you leave rich people’s stuff alone and don’t use democracy to take back what rightfully belongs to the public, you are free to do whatever you want.”
One doesn’t even have to read Ayn Rand’s work—only get a synopsis of what it’s about—to know it doesn’t make any sense.
Why did Ayn Rand write what she wrote? She would probably say because she is advocating for ethical conduct, leading to what she regards as the best functioning society. Her basic assumption is that people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.
Would Ayn Rand ever admit to being a purely self-serving human being? I, personally, think she is. Technically, she should be okay with me viewing her in this light. Yet, it’s pretty obvious she would be upset if confronted with the notion that she is someone who pathologically supports the ideology of the oppressor to move up the ranks of the social ladder at the expense of others.
Her entire career is pure self-contradiction, in my opinion.
And what happens when “utopia” becomes practical? What will their excuses be then???
Terminology has gotten so confusing. Soviet-style socialism had absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx’s original manifesto aside from using it to justify illegitimate forms of control. China being more of a free market that is run by an all powerful autocratic élite is now the complete opposite of what Karl Marx had envisioned for communism. American liberalism is pure subservience – pushing for every “liberal,” “humanitarian” cause that doesn’t actually question unnecessary institutions of power.
(Other glaring misnomers are Hitler’s National “Socialist” Party and The “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea (who have a surprisingly cute website I should add.))
I think I might be adding to this confusion, so I want to make myself quite clear:
I condemn traditional forms of capitalism that try to keep people poor arbitrarily and unnecessarily. The only type of “capitalism” I uphold is High-Efficiency Capitalism.
Beyond High-Efficiency Capitalism is one other type of economic system I think is both feasible and ethical which us pure collectivism because it provides exponential benefit for all involved when people properly contribute to it. And those who argue against it and have such a huge problem with such things are most likely the ones incapable of contributing properly, in my opinion.
The exponential stability of teamwork
One problem is that going from our current system to pure collectivism (which again has absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Russia seeing as how true collectivism has no dictator) is like turning a balloon inside out. High-Efficiency Capitalism would actually be an amazing way to catalyze such a transition which in reality is inevitable because that’s how groups of organisms naturally stabilize in the environment anyway. (The last few thousands years of human civilization mean diddly-squat compared to the millions of years that species spend approaching a stable group dynamic, in my opinion.)
Keeping the economy afloat is not actually an objective or something worth applauding within itself. We need to start asking: “What direction should humanity be heading? What should we as people be trying to achieve?”
“A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.”