Fascism and Socialism and Anarchy and Libertarianism, Oh My!

Jeff Bone (jbone@activerse.com)
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:43:48 -0500

Good lord. What a morass of definitions, redefinitions, historical
confusion, and so forth seem to surround this issue. I have to confess
that I've apparently only been exposed to the notions of anarchy in the
literatures of Rand / objectivism, Heinlein, Hakim Bey, the libertarian
corpus, and some of the political stuff from quasi-libertarian orgs like
Cato &c. The "historical" flavor of anarchy appears to be quite
different from the intuitive definition adopted by folks who've had the
same roundabout exposure to anarchy as I have. Check this out:


In particular, I find the following statements from that article

> A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?
> Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism.

I've been a dupe, a pawn... to hell with it. I *need* a label, I *must
have* a label! Maybe I'll try out "Optimistic Deconstructionistic
PostDadaistic Neo-Jeffersonian Heinleinesque New-Reformed-Neo-Orthodox
PsuedoRandite Quasiantifederalist Govermental-Minimalist
Ultra-Individualistic Anti-ismistic Ubercapitalistic Antisocialistic
Libertarian Mythopoetic Procompetitive Obscurantistic
Antimystical-Discordian Prochaotic Nonprokaryotic Autonomic
Pretranshuman Extropian." Uh, wait, maybe not.



PS - Tom. Laibach. Yes. ;-) Though personally I like their lighter
fare, for instance their covers of "Sympathy for the Devil" &c. (Oh,
geez --- geez, not Geege --- not the "Devil Thread" again!) Don't
particularly give a damn about their political content, but the music is
wicked awesome.