It's ugly. First of all, it's ugly, terrible: Cocapí and all those things, Anar, Talista. To continue: It is the dirtiest deception.
There are sometimes words that appear, impose themselves on logic and spread, even though what they say is impossible, and every time the person who says them is laughed at. They have fun: words that look at each other and wink and say: “Oh, how stupid, he told me that again.” Think of microgiants, barbilampiños and imitation leather: words that contain their own negation. Or implausible words, like calling myself Bald Pitt: a Brad Pitt with a cakey face, wrinkled brown eyes, no hair on his skull, but yes, something on his earlobes that looks like an American's ears. Of course people would laugh at me. That's why these disappointing words usually only have a short career. But now there is something that too many people accept, launch and reproduce without laughing: anarcho-capitalism, they say, as if they were saying something. Calvopitt.
The word anarcho-capitalism is an invention that remained in the shadows for decades. It was coined by Murray Rothbard, an American caveman. He was born in the Bronx in 1926 to European Jewish immigrants; Enthusiastic and hard-working, he became an economist, mathematician and political scientist and began giving courses and writing books. In one of them, around 1955, he tried to define “anarcho-capitalism”: a system in which “anarcho” meant that the state had to disappear so that “the market” could operate without regulation because it was the only inalienable right, said he Furthermore, life is private property, and the state violates it by collecting taxes and confiscating everyone's property. “The state is a band of thieves made up of the most immoral, greedy and unscrupulous individuals in every society,” he wrote. And he appropriated the word anarchism, depriving it of all its meanings and retaining only one: that of rejection of the state.
Without the state, only “the market” could define and confirm the relationships between people: everyone has the right to sell their work and property – including their body or body parts – if they feel like it or want to, and no one has the right to sell it. The possibility of preventing it: It is your freedom. He who knows how to do well will live well; Those who don't are out of luck. He who can sell or be sold will eat; The others, who knows, pedal or steal or die. It is the definition of a hyper-individualistic society in which only personal triumph counts and any form of solidarity is an affront. Nothing could be further from the idea of anarchism, so much more complex than Rothbard's stain. Anarchism had its great heyday in the 19th century, promoted by thinkers/militants such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin and many others: at that time, along with socialism, it was the most common way of rebelling against institutions and their economic basis. , capitalism.
Anarchism was not defined against the state: it was defined against power. The unions and anarchist groups rejected all forms: money, bosses, priests, weapons. Anarchism does not oppose the state simply because it raises taxes or prevents business: it fights it because it is the instrument of domination that enables the exercise of all other powers.
Anarchism was never seen as “every man for himself”: on the contrary, it was defined as “order minus power,” societies that regulated themselves through the solidarity and cooperation of all their members to create and end an egalitarian collective order put, to the kingdom. of money. The most effective and widespread form of this in our societies is capitalism. This is why “anarcho-capitalism” is a glaring contradiction, one of the greatest errors of this era of false identities. It is obvious that one cannot be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time. But so many repeat it, accept it as if it were even conceivable. The shame of saying it should be avoided because, for example, it would be better to avoid the shame of saying “Catholic” or “pacibelist.” Or talk about “freedom” when you just want to drink a beer – or want to be exploited. Or call “change” what the rich neoliberals did in the 90s when they regained old privileges. Not for nothing: simply to maintain a certain self-respect, so as not to be spoken to by the language of the cheap media, the language of the gentlemen. Knowing – or hiding that you don’t know – what you’re saying when you speak.
And I apologize for the outbursts: there are few things that make me more nervous than listening to millions of people say what some of them would like to repeat. This is exactly what this form of education called anarchism always wanted to avoid.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_