Between Anarchy And Libertarianism Essay Research Paper

Between Anarchy And Libertarianism Essay, Research PaperBetween Anarchism and Libertarianism: Specifying Slightly Different Political Choices I. Maping the Political Landscape The political doctrine of anarchism is a curious animal, historically misunderstood and frequently misrepresented, either consciously or unwittingly. To best understand it, one must divine some feasible method of comparing it to other political doctrines, but unluckily the tradition system, the additive graph, seems conspicuously unequal.

The additive graph, or the alleged & # 8220 ; political spectrum, & # 8221 ; allegedly displays the entireness of political options along a individual line, from left to compensate, stretching out from a cardinal point stand foring & # 8220 ; moderate. & # 8221 ; From there it leads to & # 8220 ; liberalism & # 8221 ; on the left, until it reaches to & # 8220 ; extremist liberalism & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; communism, & # 8221 ; which is the utmost left & # 8220 ; fringe. & # 8221 ; To the right it leads to & # 8220 ; conservativism, & # 8221 ; and eventually to a reactionist conservativism & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; fascism, & # 8221 ; which is the utmost right & # 8220 ; fringe. & # 8221 ; ( See Fig. 1 ) .

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Fig. 1 & # 8211 ; Traditional image of political spectrum [ TN: additive representation ] Communism & # 8211 ; Liberalism & # 8211 ; Moderate & # 8211 ; Conservatism & # 8211 ; Fascism This image offers little in the manner of understanding the differences between the & # 8220 ; left & # 8221 ; and the & # 8220 ; right. & # 8221 ; Indeed, if we compare the Nazi authorities of 1930 & # 8217 ; s Germany, which is widely considered a good instance survey in fascism, and compare it with the Bolshevik authorities of the Soviet Union, widely regarded as a good instance survey in communism, the obvious totalitarian nature of both political systems may take us to believe that the two are virtually the same system.

And if fascism and communism are about indistinguishable, why are they so & # 8220 ; highly & # 8221 ; divide on the spectrum? Are they really the same political orientation in pattern, distinguishable merely by the rhetoric employed by the occupant & # 8220 ; Ministry of Truth? & # 8221 ; That would propose that this additive graph is really a circle, and that fascism and communism are really on approximately the same point on the spectrum. ( Fig.2 & # 8211 ; common alteration of traditional image.

) [ TN: Writer ‘s Fig. 2 shows the end points of Fig. 1 shutting into a circle, doing a round representation, whereby Communism and Fascism coincide. ] Possibly fascism and communism are merely cants for a individual system, dictatorship. That would look consistent in that liberalism and conservativism are at opposite poles, but is the polar antonym of dictatorship something labeled & # 8220 ; chair? & # 8221 ; What is the shared political orientation of centrists? If dictatorship endorses a society about wholly controlled by a strong cardinal authorities, shouldn & # 8217 ; t its opposite doctrine endorse a society about wholly absent of strong cardinal authorities? Surely moderates ( in our society at least ) do non back a society without authorities, which is basically an anarchist place.

Then where does anarchism suit on this spectrum? And where does & # 8220 ; libertarianism, & # 8221 ; as endorsed by thenewly formed ( U.S. ) Libertarian Party, tantrum on this spectrum? To reply these inquiries we must, in short, reject the tradition linear & # 8221 ; image, and even the & # 8220 ; round & # 8221 ; image of the political spectrum, and analyze a new image. For the intents of this essay, a two- dimensional option, borrowed from the goodpeople of Utne Reader, will be used.1 This alternate spectrum takes as its nonsubjective & # 8220 ; foundation, & # 8221 ; its criterion, its & # 8220 ; yardstick & # 8221 ; with which to estimate assorted political orientations, two primary inquiries: the inquiry of belongings ownership, and the inquiry of Statecontrol. The graph is composed of two axes, one ( left- right ) stand foring the fluctuations of systems of belongings ownership, the other ( top-bottom ) stand foring the fluctuations of State control over society. Fig. 3 & # 8211 ; the Property/State Axis Decentralism S ( & # 8221 ; Small & # 8221 ; or & # 8220 ; No Government & # 8221 ; ) t a Collectivism Privatism T ( Community Ownership ) ( Individual Ownership ) e Centralism ( & # 8221 ; Big Government & # 8221 ; ) P R O P vitamin E R T y & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8211 ; & gt ; The & # 8220 ; belongings & # 8221 ; axis varies from entire collectivisation of belongings ( community control of land and the & # 8220 ; agencies of production & # 8221 ; ) to entire denationalization of belongings ( single ownership of land and the & # 8220 ; agencies of production & # 8221 ; ) .

The & # 8220 ; State & # 8221 ; axis varies from entire control or distinction of State authorities ( dictatorship ) to entire absence or highly minimum State authorities ( decentralism ) . Once these two linear spectrums are combined into a two- dimensional graph, the undertaking of distinguishing variouspolitical political orientations becomes much easier. It besides allows us to delegate specific significances to specific footings, footings whose traditional definitions have been all but buried in decennaries after decennaries of contradictory use. It can & # 8217 ; t be denied that many political footings ( & # 8221 ; broad & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; conservative, & # 8221 ; for illustration ) merely do non hold the same rigorous indications today that they may hold had a century or two ago.

Their significances have changed, evolved, and, in the content of historical analysis, it becomes necessary to clear up their specific significances if we insist upon utilizing them. Fortunately, clear uping the footings & # 8220 ; liberalism & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; conservativism & # 8221 ; is unneeded to this peculiar essay, but others are so necessary. For the class of this paper, we will delegate certain forms to denominate poles of the & # 8220 ; landscape & # 8221 ; graph. For case, the term & # 8220 ; socialistic & # 8221 ; will be used to depict persons or philosophies recommending Bolshevism, or the abolishment of private belongings. Fig. 4 & # 8211 ; Descriptive Labels & # 8220 ; Libertarian & # 8221 ; S ( & # 8221 ; Small & # 8221 ; or & # 8220 ; No Government & # 8221 ; ) t a & # 8220 ; Socialistic & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; Capitalistic & # 8221 ; T ( Community Ownership ) ( Individual Ownership ) e & # 8220 ; Authoritarian & # 8221 ; ( & # 8221 ; Big Government & # 8221 ; ) P R O P vitamin E R T y & # 8212 ; & gt ; & # 8220 ; Capitalistic & # 8221 ; will be used to depict those who defend the right to private belongings. & # 8220 ; Authoritarian & # 8221 ; will depict those who advocate a strong State, a powerful cardinal authorities.

And & # 8220 ; libertarian & # 8221 ; will depict advocators of minimum or nonexistentgovernment power. Surely these indications are non needfully consistent with all their historical utilizations, but such consistence is an impossibleness, and these definitions are non wholly divorced from modern-day use, as shall be seen. With our footings now defined, certain political orientations may be pin- pointed on the graph. In peculiar, the political orientations of Communism, Fascism, Libertarianism, and Anarchism can be designated. These four political doctrines are peculiarly of import ( on thisgraph at least ) because they represent the & # 8220 ; corners. & # 8221 ; By inquiring how these political orientations stand on the issues of belongings and centralism, we can put them on the graph.

Fig. 5 & # 8211 ; The in writing locations of the four political orientations ANARCHISM LIBERTARIANISM & # 8220 ; Libertarian & # 8221 ; S ( & # 8221 ; Small & # 8221 ; or & # 8220 ; No Government & # 8221 ; ) t a & # 8220 ; Socialistic & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; Capitalistic & # 8221 ; T ( Community Ownership ) ( Individual Ownership ) e & # 8220 ; Authoritarian & # 8221 ; ( & # 8221 ; Big Government & # 8221 ; ) COMMUNISM FASCISM P R O P vitamin E R T y & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & gt ; II. Toward a Definition of Anarchism To get down this comparing, we are required to come to some consensus as to the existent significance of the term & # 8220 ; anarchism, & # 8221 ; if for no other ground to find if its arrangement on the above & # 8220 ; landscape & # 8221 ; graph is so accurate. A good starting point is the newHarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy which, interestingly plenty, has two definitions, a & # 8220 ; positive intension & # 8221 ; and a & # 8220 ; negative intension: & # 8221 ; Anarchism is the societal political orientation that refuses to accept an autocratic opinion authorities. It holds that persons should form themselves in any manner they wish in order to carry through their demands and ideals. In this sense anarchism is non to be identified with nihilism but can be seen to hold similarities with political libertarianism & # 8230 ; . Anarchism is the belief that denies any regard for jurisprudence and order and actively engages in the publicity of pandemonium through the devastation of society. It advocates the usage of single terrorist act as a means toward progressing the cause of societal and political disorganisation.

Every nihilist who wrote about the theory had to offer their definition, as it was so ill understood. One of the clearest was offered by Kropotkin in his booklet Anarchist Communism, Its Basis and Principles, in which he defines anarchism as & # 8220 ; theno-government system of socialism & # 8230 ; . & # 8221 ; In common with all socialists, the nihilists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its clip ; that it is condemned to vanish: and that all necessities for production must, and will, go the common belongings of society, and be managed in common by the manufacturers of wealth. And & # 8230 ; they maintain that the ideal of thepolitical organisation of society is a status of things where the maps of authorities are reduced to minimum & # 8230 ; . ( and ) that the ultimate purpose of society is the decrease of the maps of authorities to nil & # 8211 ; that is, to a society without authorities, to anarchy.6 A Twentieth Century nihilist, Rudolf Rocker, accepted the socialist definition of the doctrine. In specifying anarchism he writes, & # 8220 ; Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political and societal coercive establishments which stand in the manner of thedevelopment of a free humanity.

& # 8221 ; Rocker sees this realisation merely in realizing the Liberalist and Socialist traditions of the Gallic Revolution. Convinced that the dandy but & # 8220 ; preeminently political & # 8221 ; constructs of Liberalism and Democracy were & # 8220 ; shipwrecked on the worlds of the capitalist economic signifier, & # 8221 ; Rocker asserts. . . In common with laminitiss of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolishment of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the dirt and all other agencies of production, the usage of which must be available to all without differentiation & # 8230 ; . [ T ] he Anarchists represent the point of view that the war against capitalist economy must be at the same clip a war against all establishments of political power, for in history economic development has ever gone manus in manus with political and societal subjugation.

The development of adult male by adult male and the domination of adult male over adult male are inseparable, and each is the status of the other.8 III. Modern Libertarianism and Ayn Rand Information on the Libertarian Party is, unluckily, instead scarce. While allegedly the & # 8220 ; third-largest and fastest-growing & # 8221 ; political party in the United States, their stuff is still non readily accessible in the Tallahassee, FL country, and their toll-free telephone figure was invariably busy prior to the 1992 Presidential elections. However, a short, one-page booklet entitled & # 8220 ; Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy & # 8221 ; was fortuitously available. ( A transcript is enclosed with this essay ) [ TN: another twenty-four hours ] . This booklet, written by Joseph E.

Knight, Libertarian Party Field Organizer, is a compendious effort at clear uping the nucleus political orientation, ifnot the specific programmatic platform, of the Party. Of class, non much can be said in one page, no affair how little the type.However, there are certain tell-tale & # 8220 ; fingerprints & # 8221 ; in Mr. Knight & # 8217 ; s brief history, which may bind it to a larger and more accessiblebody of work, with which we may make full in some conceptual spreads. It has been rumored, though no written cogent evidence is available to the writer of this essay, that the Libertarian Party is to a great extent influencedby the Objectivist motion, of which Ayn Rand has emerged as the main interpreter. Ayn Rand died in 1982, but she leftbehind a significant organic structure of literature, both fictional and expositional, most of which can be sampled at any local bookshop orlibrary.

If the Libertarians truly are influenced by Rand & # 8217 ; s work, so an apprehension of Rand & # 8217 ; s objectivism would function good toclarify the Libertarian & # 8220 ; universe view. & # 8221 ; But is at that place a connexion? The subject of Knight & # 8217 ; s booklet is chiefly the & # 8220 ; proper function of authorities in a free society. & # 8221 ; An explication of the booklet isunnecessary, as the booklet is included with this essay and should be examined by the reader [ TN: Write: The Libertarian Party,1528 Pennsylvania Ave. , Washington, D.

C. , 20003, or name ( 202 ) 543-1988 or ( 800 ) 682-1776 ] . What follows is a comparing ofcertain peculiarly of import transitions of the booklet and certain pertinent statements from the Hagiographas of Ayn Rand: Government is the usage of force. To regulate agencies to command. The usage of force is inexplicit in the definition of control & # 8230 ; . [ Therefore, ] the inquiry becomes, & # 8220 ; What is the proper usage of force in a free society? [ A ] authorities holds a legal monopoly on the we of physical force & # 8230 ; . The nature of governmental action is: coercive action.

10 Freedom & # 8230 ; has merely one significance: the absence of physical coercion.12 The proper function of authorities ( force ) in a free society so, is to support and/or retaliate against those who initiate force. The lone proper intent of authorities is to protect adult male & # 8217 ; s rights, which means: to protect him from physical force. A proper authorities is merely a police officer, moving as an agent of adult male & # 8217 ; s self- defence, and, as such, may fall back to coerce merely against those who start the usage of force.13 In a free society, you have belongings rights & # 8230 ; . In a free society, you have personal rights & # 8230 ; . Property rights andpersonal rights are truly the same.

Personal rights are based on belongings rights because you own your life, your organic structure, and your head. The right to life is the beginning of all rights & # 8211 ; and the right to belongings is their lone execution. without belongings rights, no other rights are possible.14 All of the transitions are taken from assorted essaysauthored by Ayn Rand and Richard Knight. When compared, these paired extracts read like paraphrasiss of each other.

V. Society, Individualism, and Inheritance To better understand the differences between the nihilists and the Objectivists/Libertarians, it is necessary to delve deeper than merely their & # 8220 ; soundbites & # 8221 ; on the proper function of the State and their bandying of the footings & # 8220 ; socialism & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; capitalism. & # 8221 ; While our & # 8220 ; landscape & # 8221 ; graph can accurately contrast different political orientations on the footing of these two of import issues, it can non assist us understand the philosophical foundation of these political and economic places. That is a much more complicated procedure, andan adequate appraisal of the philosophies of anarchism and Objectivism cannot be made in merely a few typed pages. But it maybe possible to highlight certain particulars that most clearly contrast each other, thereby granting us a glimpse of the rootdifferences between these two schools of thought. The most glaring example of this is the concepts of individualism and society. Individualism is the keystone of Objectivistphilosophy, and it pervades all other conclusions.

“[E]very man . . . must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself toothers nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self- interest and of his own happiness is the highest moralpurpose of his life.” 25 Rand’s image of humanity is rooted in the “classical liberal” view, in the tradition of John Locke, which seesall people as absolute individual entities, whose only effect on one another is comparable to “billiard balls” randomly colliding andaltering the otherwise linear course of their independent lives. Attempting to coexist among each other, people are forced, byovercrowding or whatever, to enter into a Rousseau-esque “social contract,” a State, which guarantees security to all its citizens atthe price of a “little” sacrificed freedom.

The goal of individuals now is to reap the fruits of their labor, with their rightfullypurchased land, and try to keep the State’s tax of liberty” to an unobtrusive minimum. To Ayn Rand, there are no rights butindividual rights, and “a group . . . has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.

” 26 Bakunin addressed these issues a century earlier, dismissing Rousseau’s “social contract” as a “terrible nonsense,” “a perniciousfiction.” He defined humanity more broadly. “Man is not only the most individual being on earth, but also the most social.”27Neither of these qualities can be ignored or dismissed. Bakunin described every human being as being the product of anenvironment, both natural and social, and as such, unable to escape the social element of their existence.

“Man does not choosesociety; on the contrary, he is the product of the latter.”28 Through education, the values of a society or community are transferredto the next generation, thus all original ideas and concepts are produced on the foundation of what society has transmitted to itsmembers. Here we see the starkest contrast between Objectivism and anarchism. Rand denies the value of society: Mankind is not an entity, an organism, or a coral bush.

The entity involved in production and trade is man. It is with the study of man — not of the loose aggregate known as “community” — that any science of the humanities has to begin…. A great deal may be learned about society by studying man; but this process cannot be reversed: nothing can be learned about man by studying society — by studying the inter-relationships of entities one has never identified or defined.29 Rand’s repudiation of the importance of society is echoed repeatedly: Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life — but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal.30 In Rand’s paradigm, “society” is merely a bundle of individuals who interact with one another when convenience requires it.Cooperation takes place on the basis of strict mutual self-interest, and typically on a “contractual” basis, such as employment.

”Culture” is merely the sum total of ideas among a mass of individuals whose general acceptance is dominant over other”dissident” ideas. These definitions are dry and stoic only because the truly important unit of human society is the isolate humanbeing, whose “creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed.” 31 Bakunin offers an elaborate renunciation of this image: [E]verything that lives, does so under the categorical condition of decisively interfering in the life of someone else…. The worse it is for those who are so ignorant of the natural and social law of human solidarity that they deem possible or even desirable the absolute independence of individuals in regard to one another. To will it is to will the disappearance of society…. All men, even the most intelligent and strongest are at every instant of their lives the producers and the product.

Freedom itself, the freedom of every man, is the ever-renewed effect of the great mass of physical. intellectual, and moral influonces to which this man is subjected by the people surrounding him and the environment in which he was born and in which he passed his whole life. To wish to escape this influence in the name of some . . .

self-sufficient and absolutely egoistical freedom. is to aim toward non-being. To do away with this reciprocal influence is tantamount to death. And in demanding the freedom of the masses we do not intend to do away with natural influences to which man is subjected by individuals and groups.

All we want is to do away with is factitious. legitimized influences. to do away with the priviledges in exerting influence.32 What does Bakunin mean by “privileges of influence?” He means, in general, hierarchies of power, and in specific, the politicalleaders who control the State, the ministers who control the Church, and of course, the capitalists who own and thereby control allcapital, land, and the means of production. The premier issue that Bakunin addresses in his work, which Rand explicitly denies inhers, is that of economic exploitation. Rand does not believe exploitation is possible in “free trade” capitalism, so long as there isno physical force involved in the process. She is explicit: Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion.

It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state — and nothing else!33 Note the juxtaposition of “landlord,” “employer,” and the “laws of nature,” the implication being that all three are an inevitability.And again, please note the sole emphasis on active physical force. “What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle thatdifferentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.” 34 Rand’sassumption is that, so long as there are no chains around one’s ankles and no state requiring labor by threat of punishment, thenlabor is optional and workers are free. A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him, Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent — his right has been violated.

35 To the anarchists, this is preposterous. Once a State has been established, and most of the country’s capital privatized, the threatof physical force is no longer necessary to coerce workers into accepting jobs, even with low pay and poor conditions. To useRand’s tern, “initial force” has already taken place, by those who now have capital against those who do not. Bakunin describedthe conditions which make “voluntary” labor and illusion: Juridically they are equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist … thereby the worker sells his person ant his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer…. The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer.

He is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer. [I]t has been proven 8 thousand times that an isolated worker cannot produce much more than what he consumes. We challenge any real worker, any worker who does not enjoy a single privilege, to amass tens or hundreds of thousands of francs, or millions! That would be quite impossible.

Therefore, if some individuals in present-day society do acquire such great sums, it is not by their labor that they do so but by their privilege, that is, by a juridically legalized injustice. And since a person inevitably takes from others whatever he does not gain from his own, we have the right to say that all such profits are thefts of collective labor, committed by a few privileged individuals with the sanction of the State and under its protection.42 In other words, if a thief died and willed his “ill-gotten gain” to his children, would the children have a right to the stolen property?Not legally. So if “property is theft,” to borrow Proudhon’s quip, and the fruit of exploited labor is simply legal theft, then the onlyfactor giving the children of a deceased capitalist a right to inherit the “booty” is the law, the State. As Bakunin wrote, “Ghostsshould not rule and oppress this world, which belongs only to the living.” What is Ayn Rand’s response to this? Unfortunately, she has no response.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon, an alphabetized glossary ofquotations of Rand on myriad topics, published after her death, has no entry on inheritance rights, and nowhere, in all of herelaborate and occasionally repetitious descriptions of the virtue of property does she mention the issue of inheritance, neither toendorse it nor condemn it. But what would she say? If she were consistent to her doctrine of individualism and independentachievement, she would logically condemn it. After all, if an individual were to be given an abundance of land from a deceasedparent, then they would have an advantage over their neighbors, an advantage which they did nothing directly to earn. They wouldbe reaping the fruits of collective labor, to a limited degree, that is, the collective labor of numerous ancestors, whose horde ofproperty grows along familial lines, giving each generation an even greater advantage. There is nothing “independent” or”individual” about investing a parent’s “hard-earned” money.

However, if she condemned inheritance, then, considering her background, she would be severely violating her own past, andlikewise, her self-interest. While her theories may be flawed, she was no idiot. The fact that she never mentioned the topic ofinheritance suggests, not that it never crossed her mind, but rather, that she had no serious ideological problems with it. If sheproperly saw it as a violation of the Objectivist ideal, she would likely have devoted an entire essay to condemning it. Instead it isconspicuously absent from her tenets.

We therefore do not know how she would have responded to Bakunin’s program. But itwould have been intriguing, no doubt. VI. Conclusion There has, of late, been a profound confusion in the minds of many, who have mistakenly described the Libertarian Party as being”anarchist.” It has been the aim of this essay to clarify the specific nature of this erroneous comparison.

This confusion, however, is interesting, in and of itself. It is rooted in this society’s general acceptance, as an objective reality, thepresence of a fairly powerful state. We, the American public, have been lulled into accepting an image of politics wherein we seeour options only as “moderate democracy,” “extremist dictatorship,” or “chaotic anarchy.” Government, to the average American, isa bit like the porridge that Goldilocks sampled in the house of the three bears: “too much government,” “not enough government,” or”just the right amount of government.” “We’re losing the ability to differentiate between politics and economics, and what differentgovernments really stand for.

This is not simply sad, it’s dangerous. The Libertarian Party is seen as anarchistic only because, today any group which advocates a drastic reduction in State power ofany kind, regardless of economic policy, is interpreted as “anarchist.” This would not have happened a century ago, in Europe orAmerica. These subtleties were much more clearly understood and delineated.

They knew the difference between anarchism,(State) communism, and Libertarian (laissez-faire) capitalism. The differences were important back then. Now we are out ofpractice, and it is difficult to distinguish them. It is the sincere wish of the author that the “landscape” graph will help facilitate thereattunement necessary to recognize the genuine positions of present and future political/economic groups. The author haspersonally found this graph invaluable in that regard. Bakunin once wrote that, “[L]iberty without socialism is privilege and injustice, and that socialism without liberty is slavery andbrutality.”43 It has been the goal of the author to illustrate that, in Bakunin’s words, the Libertarian Party represents “liberty withoutsocialism,” and therefore, “privilege and injustice.

” Endnotes 1. Utne Reader, No. 48; Nov./Dec.

1991. The centerfold for this issue included a multi-colored display entitled “The AmericanPolitical Landscape: An Alternative View.” No specific authors were cited. It should be noted that the version presented in thisessay has been substantially modified and expanded, and all modifications are strictly the product of the author. 2. More often than not, the industrial complex of a fascist state is often composed of foreign corporations. This is particularly thecase in most “Third World” nations, where the relationship to foreign investors and domestic fascism is seen as having”imperialististic” or “colonialistic” implications.

3. Bookchin, Murray; The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy, N.Y: Black Rose, Rev.1991, p. liv.

Bookchin refers to his theory of Social Ecology as “Libertarian Municipalism.” 4. Angeles, Peter A.; The HarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, N.Y: HarperPerennial, 1992, pp. 11-12.

5. Maximoff, G. P. (Ed.); The Political Philo


I'm Ruth!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out