Neoliberalism Vs Individualism Analysis

1657 Words 7 Pages
Nishita Aggarwal
Individualist anarchists and collectivist anarchists have more in common with one another than they have with neoliberalism. Discuss.
Anarchist ideology is defined by the central belief that political authority in all its forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary because order and social harmony can arise naturally and spontaneously, and do not have to be imposed ‘from above’ through government (Heywood, A. 2007 p 175).
During the nineteenth century, anarchism was a significant component of a broad but growing socialist movement. In the late nineteenth century, anarchists sought mass support amongst the landless peasants of Russia and southern Europe through anarcho-syndicalism amongst the industrial working classes. Syndicalism was a form of revolutionary trade unionism, popular in France, Italy and Spain, which made anarchism a genuine mass movement in the early twentieth century. However, the spread of authoritarianism and political repression gradually undermined anarchism in both Europe and Latin America. Anarchism has never succeeded in winning power, at least at the
…show more content…
Neoliberalism amounts to a form of market fundamentalism. The market is seen to be morally and practically superior to government and any form of political control. From the neoliberal perspective, the defects of government are many and various (Heywood, A. 2007 p 52). Free-market economist Friedrich Hayek argued that planning in any form is bound to be economically inefficient because state bureaucrats, however competent they might be, are confronted by a range and complexity of information that is simply beyond their capacity to handle. As human beings are rationally self-interested creatures, government officials will inevitably use their position to further their own ends rather than those of the general public (Heywood, A. 2007 p

Related Documents