Utopian Visions

The absurd, the dangerous, and the misunderstood.

The poll on utopian absurdity highlights significant misunderstandings regarding political ideologies, both practically and theoretically.

Marxism, despite mainstream academic acceptance, is theoretically absurd: it promises the eventual withering away of state, class, and money without clear mechanisms for incentive alignment or coordination. Its utopia relies on an unrealistic view of human nature and economic incentives.

Libertarianism, which received the lowest absurdity vote, emphasizes minimal coercion and maximized voluntary interactions through markets. While it may oversimplify externalities and enforcement, it remains grounded in real-world mechanisms such as price signals and contracts.

Anarchism, initially deemed most absurd by the poll, requires careful distinction. Naive anarchism expects large-scale coordination without coercive enforcement or formal reputation systems, which indeed borders on absurdity. However, practical anarchism—such as anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism—is theoretically robust and practically credible, as it explicitly addresses incentives, property rights, and dispute resolution through decentralized mechanisms. This form of anarchism is not absurd but rather empirically defensible.

Blank Statism, the belief in an omnipotent yet ideologically void state, combines absurdity with danger. It assumes centralized coercive power alone can reliably produce positive outcomes without coherent guiding principles, leaving it vulnerable to authoritarian exploitation.

Ultimately, Marxism takes the prize for theoretical absurdity, naive anarchism for practical absurdity, blank statism for sheer danger, and practical anarchism emerges as a credible alternative deserving serious consideration.