explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Anarchy Or Marxism - Both Fail For The Same Reason

MalevolentSpockMar 26, 2018, 9:06:28 AM

When I was young and had not yet learned to think for myself, I studied Marxism in school and learned that the end goal of Marxism was a self-managed socialist society. The communist government is supposed to be a temporary phase in the process to help the people establish the patterns needed for success, and then it is supposed to be dissolved.

At the time, I thought, "If the Communists had just followed through with handing everything over to the people, Marxism would be great! It would be a utopia with everyone sharing, and getting what they need." It wasn't until later that I came to the realization that Marxism was a fairy tale for several reasons, but it all boiled down to one thing: human nature.

The first major failure point that Marxism can't get past is the creation of a communist government that controls all of the production and distribution of capital. Why would any government in that position give up that power? It is contrary to human nature to relinquish that much power, just to become one of the masses.

Since I have joined Minds, I have noticed a very high percentage of people that are proposing that the right answer to our corrupt government problems is anarchy. I see memes on a daily basis that talk about waking up from the popular induced idea that the government is anything other than a slave master, and that we are nothing but slaves. I agree with most of this... to a point.

The idea of anarchy is actually very similar to that of Marxism in some ways. The end goal of each is a self-managed population. There are really only two main differences. The first being the whole "all-powerful government" step, which I have to give props to anarchy on this one; that failure point is totally side-stepped. The real challenge is the self-management part.

A Marxist state, if it were ever able to reach the self-management point, would fail because human nature dictates that we must strive to out-compete one another. Anarchy would fail for essentially the same reason.

We all have a basic component of our psyche that, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, tells us that we are special. This is why lotteries, or gambling in general, are such lucrative business. This part of our mind is the part that fuels our university system, religion, and any other exclusion-oriented systems. 

We have a need to feel as though we are in some secret way, smarter or better than others. This unsubstantiated ego is the thing that allows us to take risks and "push the envelope." It is what gives us the courage to express ourselves with art and the confidence to explore. 

That same part of our psyche is the part that tells us that we should strive for greatness, and that, even in the face of consistent failure, we can succeed. It makes us fiercely independent, and without leadership, it would be our downfall. This same facet of humanity is what allows us to hold to our ideals, and believe that we are right enough in our principles to fight for that in which we believe.

While I would consider myself a "minarchist", I recognize that some leadership is necessary. The first thing you have to recognize to accept this view is that regardless of how you voted on the last presidential election, almost half of the country voted in a way that not only opposes your views but is dogmatically almost polar opposite.

One only needs to look at the aggressive masses, pushing so hard on a daily basis to forfeit our rights, to see that a huge percentage of our population is willing to do anything once they are sold on an idea. Some human beings have the gift of vision, but like any other trait, just as many do not. Without leadership and structure, too many decisions become mired in argument, and nothing moves forward.

Anyone who has held a role as a leader in any organization, especially if they ever failed as a leader, knows that while individuals can be independent, strong and driven to succeed, groups need leadership.

Government has been a part of human culture as long as humans have had any semblance of culture. The reason that humans invented government, and have continuously maintained that invention, is that government serves a purpose. 

When the U.S. government was created, the primary function of the federal government was to manage a common resource for security by providing military protection. This is yet another area where both Marxism and Anarchism fail. Neither can work as a standalone structure within a global system that contains other ideologies. Somehow, both extremes meet in the belief that their ideologies will protect them; as though every other nation would be prepared to respect a self-managed nation with no organized military.

They are both all or nothing solutions, requiring the entire globe to agree to adopt a common structure at the same time.

The fact is that every great human accomplishment and every advancement the human race has ever achieved has been the result of a balance of organized leadership, sharing resources, and independent thinkers having the freedom to strive for new heights. A combination of both ideals with just enough leadership to not get in the way.

The question is, what is the right balance.