Socialism vs Anarchism: Why Socialism is Totalitarian

Many socialists would have you believe that socialism can be anarchist, however, as I argue in this debate on socialism vs anarchism in response to the question asked, I explain why socialism is totalitarian and why it cannot exist without a government.

Socialism is everything other than what it actually is when it comes to socialists, they will relabel and repackage socialism under different names, but the fundamental problem with their argument is the reality of economics and human nature which defy them.

As explained, it is impossible to rail against human nature and expect to avoid dictatorship, even then, being faced with a variety of economic problems due to the core problem of the central planning problem. Central planning is the natural state of socialism in its path of aiming to achieve the end goal of ridding the economy of the private sector, but as I've mentioned, you are then faced with dire consequences.

As I have mentioned numerous times before, no matter how many time you ask the question, you never get a straight answer as to how the state will just wither away after it has nationalised everything. Aspirations are all well said, but when push comes to shove, practice is an entirely different world to the theories they imagine. You could see this from the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone experiment regardless of how childish it was, it was rife with violence and problems they faced due to self-interest, even when trying to self-police such an issue, more violence occurred.

The very definition of socialism is predicated around collective ownership, which requires the subordination of the individuals rights and liberty, as well as all individual ownership. I reiterate, personal pertains to individual, therefore, any socialist trying to redefine collective ownership to mean personal ownership are simply being pedantic and attempting to redefine the entire meaning of socialism. Personal property is often used to describe movable property, which is the only slight difference from immovable property, but still defies the entire meaning of what is based on communal ownership.

As I've illustrated before, communal ownership of property resulted in starvation prior to the industrial revolution because individuals were forced to work for the collective and everything that was to be produced was communally owned, they could not work for the fruits of their own labour. Any attempt to redefine communal ownership outside of that is disingenuous and merely an attempt to pull socialism away from what it actually is. A good reason for why socialists attempt this is because they can't defend such an irrational position, the idea of socialism itself is completely irrational, never let alone how it turns out in practice.

You can't remove the government and then expect society to just do as you say, with individual self-interest, the only way you can attempt such a thing is a central governing body, especially across a vast society such as 65 million people of Great Britain. This is why socialism cannot avoid totalitarianism, it needs the state even to achieve the egalitarian utopia.

The failed examples of the Paris Commune, Ukraine 'Free' Territory and Anarchist Catalonia were anything but anarchist, but a prime example for what played out in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

*Follow Me on Social Media:*
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM
• Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie
• Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM
• Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot
• Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/
• MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie
• WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/
• LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6
• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494
• BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/

*You can also support me here on Patreon:*
https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM