The Russian anarcho-communist Mikhail Bakunin, himself a reader of Karl Marx, criticized the greatest flaw of Marxism through his communication with the primary author of The Communist Manifesto himself.
“We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim — the foundation of a people’s state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state.”
Bakunin could almost have projected the content of Marx’s reply. If Marxism and Rothbard’s foundation for libertarianism — anarchy — must lead to chaos and mob rule, the bleakest form of tyranny will arise and, in Marx’s reply to Bakunin, “so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means.” Furthermore, Marx asserted that for a revolution to continue, the proletariat must remain “still a class” while the “economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes… must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.” Thus serfdom, or the working class in the name of the proletariat and the state, was meant to rule absolute as inspired by the dialectic model of German philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel. Anarchy is merely the vehicle for arriving there, a means that, under an aggressive tyranny unimaginably evil and amoral, becomes entrenched in all characteristics of the individual’s life.
Revisionism Under Libertarianism and Marxism
If communism cannot recreate the world under a totalitarian regime, the Fabian Society’s flexibility can include corporatism. Rothbard’s point that “… the foundations of today’s massive state intervention in the internal life of the American family were laid in the so-called “progressive era” from the 1870s to the 1920s” accurately crafts the narrative that “‘Pietists and ‘progressives’ united to control the material and sexual choices of the rest of the American people, their drinking habits, and their recreational preferences,” curiously ignoring how anarchism yields an enduring amoral presence. The art of sublimation, having successfully engineered a world whereby the individual’s “… values, the very nurture and education of their children, were to be determined by their better,” comprised of “The spiritual, biological, political, intellectual, and moral elite would govern, through state power, the character and quality of American family life.” To libertarians, it is no longer “hip to be square” given mankind can only rely on faith that it is, what it is. And as the state of nature, of matter, can be neither created nor dematerialized under man’s own fallible designs, the chips must fall where they may, its process through man’s design forcibly hastened. Through this, then, may the origins of dialectic materialism be explained.
As Marx and Mao revised history to build socialism, so too did Rothbard for his design of a libertarian utopia. History never guarantees even the most gifted intellectuals that any idea is full-proof. Rather, it requires the most grandiose narcissist akin to Marx, Rothbard and Barack Obama to psychoanalyse through the pen and phone, always politically mightier than the sword. In the end, while it may be recorded in one manner and recounted differently, God alone has the final word given his infallibility even in each individual’s subconscious, where humanism fails to explain our common humanity save to purify it at the source through targeted exterminations. Racial and political undesirables condemned as “human weeds” by paramount feminist Margaret Sanger have been segregated and exterminated through sterilizations, even forced abortions as with Planned Parenthood’s critical role of running China’s “One Child Policy”. What should be an anachronism since the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945 will ultimately lead to a libertarian revolution mobilized as a disgruntled caste of anarchists to topple the oppressive state through a similar, albeit revised, vision in its language, yet not ingenuity. If Rothbard could not invent the wheel, he may “reinvent it” by revising history simply to steal credit. Libertarians through the anarcho-capitalist model reject any property rights — particularly intellectual property rights — in applying a malleable lens to how history will be learned, or the language of how one will lose what he built through his industry.
Hayek vs. Rothbard on the State and Coercion
Seeing in politics (almost) universally leads to believing. Then again, no absolute truths exist to ensure this as reality. Yet in rejecting both the state’s tyranny and its greatest weapon, anarchy, Hayek’s position was to explain that while government trends towards tyranny, it is controlled contractually based on the plebiscite’s power in their wallets, the marketplace and through competition — given the truth of the consequences behind the state’s actions can never be revised beyond print.
“The coercion which a government must still use … is reduced to a minimum and made as innocuous as possible by restraining it through known general rules, so that in most instances the individual need never be coerced unless he has placed himself in a position where he knows he will be coerced. Even where coercion is not avoidable, it is deprived of its most harmful effects by being confined to limited and foreseeable duties, or at least made independent of the arbitrary will of another person. Being made impersonal and dependent upon general, abstract rules, whose effect on particular individuals cannot be foreseen at the time they are laid down, even the coercive acts of government become data on which the individual can base his own plans.”
If Rothbard truly subscribed to property ownership as theft like through taxation, the utilitarian endorsement as to what is “ right and just whatever the government happens to decide,” is merely the state “blindly apologizing for the status quo.” If punishing a McCoy for killing a Hatfield is not the same as serving justice to one “… he believes to be the guilty Hatfield,” vigilantism naturally ensues “… in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression.”
No different than a Marxist state’s central authority, anarcho-capitalism may thrive through only false narratives diffusing the myth that individuals cast off their chains in waging a revolution without an organizer of superior intellect to collectivize this manpower. While Rothbard, the anarcho-capitalist, rejects civil societies, Marxism thrives in centrally manufacturing similar conditions behind the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as did Saul Alinsky. Such deception of anarchy needed for radical change in the status quo might explain the Left and libertarian rejection of religion, through Christ’s explanation requiring civil societies to embrace morality, where,
“To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.”
— Romans 5:13
Before Christ, however, the Lord revealed to Jeremiah that no nation’s destiny is met without embracing His design, with his one simple prescription ensuring this being the most fundamental natural right: life.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
— Jeremiah 1:5
Therefore, the individual must limit his liberties in order that he possess them. No person should be morally enslaved by another with greater wealth or the state. It was God’s command that each baby fulfill its destiny before leaving the womb rather than ethnic cleansing through segregation, industrialized mass murder and abortions under social Darwinism. Even Rothbard contradicted himself upon acknowledging that though rights may be universal, “their enforcement must be local” in accordance to each culture’s traditions and values, in understating the relevance intellectually behind anarcho-capitalism.