Socialism, Anarchy and Totalitarianism

The conclusion of the preceding sections has been that practical democracy, in the form of representative democracy, effectively becomes a form of oligarchy, with a small number of capitalists hoarding wealth. Meanwhile the large majority of the people struggle in a system that effectively fights any real attempt to break out of one's economic class. This is achieved through a potent combination of institutionalized economic barriers to wealth accumulation by have-nots and political barriers to effective legislation or judicial protection for the disadvantaged.

But what of the alternatives to democracy and "free markets"? The two most common and popular are socialism (which I use interchangeably with communism) and anarchy. It has been shown over and over again that socialism is not an efficient model for any economy. The inefficiencies of government control are massive and bleed any incentives to entrepreneurship. The same arguments hold true to an even larger extent when considering anarchy. However, it has also been put forth that efficiency is not an end in itself. Thus, if it could be demonstrated that either system could provide a more fair distribution of wealth and resources, it could still be put forth as a useful substitute for the free market democracy. However, as the subsequent sections will show, neither system provides hope in this regard.



back to other rants

home to hellhed