Anarchy Vs. Socialism, You tell me Options

[Rage Head]

Okay, in another topic there was a small little debate of if you can be an Anarcho-Socialist or not. The topic got off its original topic, and I thought the original topic needs to stay, so I'd make a seperate thread. So, do you think you can be both an Anarchist and Socialist? Why or why not? If you think that Anarchy is better than Socialism please do tell why. And if you think Socialism is better than Anarchy, please do tell why. I myself am caught inbetween the two and would like to get opinions. I myself don't think you can be both an Anarchist and a Socialist, but if you think so do explain.

Q

[Cecilia]

I don't think it's possible to be an anarchist and a socialist at the same time. I've heard people describe themselves as "anarcho-socialist", but I think "anarcho-communist" is a more correct term.

A lot of people are confused as to what is the difference between communism and socialism. Communism is an economic system in which everything is shared between all the people. Communism only refers to an economic system and NOT a government system. In true communism, there would ideally be no government - everyone would share everything of their own free will. Socialism, like communism, is an economic system where everything is shared. However, the government supervises this 'sharing'.

Anarchy is usually defined as the absence of a government. Obviously, if socialism involves a government, it is impossible for socialism and anarchy to coexist. Anarchy and communism CAN coexist, however, because 'communism' does not necessarily mean a government is involved.

Personally, I think socialism is the best system out of the three because it could actually work. Unless all people in a society have perfect morals, some kind of government needs to exist to set rules and consequences for breaking the rules. Anarchy and communism are just not practical.

[insurrection]

I cannot stress this point enough (which I already made in the thread which Rage Head is referring to), and that is socialism is not necessarily statist!
A definition of socialism from dictionary.com (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition):
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Not to mention the fact that as I said in the other thread, anarchism is often referred to as "Libertarian socialism" as opposed to "Authoritarian socialism" (state socialism).
Now, I could very well be wrong, but it certainly doesn't seem that way to me.

This post has been edited by insurrection: Nov 14 2004, 03:42 PM

[Test subject #41]

Personally, I think socialism is the best system out of the three because it could actually work. Unless all people in a society have perfect morals, some kind of government needs to exist to set rules and consequences for breaking the rules. Anarchy and communism are just not practical.

I don't mean to take this off topic but, I think you are missing something. A stateless society has consequences. If you don't work and waste goods, your peers won't respect you, and therefore you well spend most of your life alone. And which life do you think you would rather live, sharing, partying and working together with the people around you, or hording and laying around by yourself.

[defiance]

I already posted part of this on the other thread:

Socialism in an economic sense (which is not really all of socialism, but...) basically means an economic system with a publicly-owned economic structure. In other words, whether the economy is controlled by the government or is democratically controlled by the public itself (i.e., worker-owned cooperatives, socialist communes, etc.), it is still socialistic. Anarcho-socialism thus would be socialist because the means of production would be directly controlled by the workers, rather than by stockholders, supervisors and CEO's.

What Cecilia seems to be referring to about the difference between socialism and communism is what Marx outlined in the transition from capitalism to communism. However, as I see it, that is purely outlined by Marx for the sake of showing the difference. Communism has no state, thus the period in which there still is a state would be the socialist transition. This is a period of state sponsored socialism, whereas (this is my interpretation anyway, not of Marxism but of socialism) communism would be the fulfillment of that socialist transition, i.e. non-state socialism, or anarcho-socialism. Anarcho-communism is basically communism without the socialist transition. In other words, the transition goes directly from capitalism to communism, which is in effect anarchy. Whether we agree with anarchism or not, I think that definition is basically accurate. Wouldn't you say?

I'll post my thoughts on socialism and anarchism later.

[insurrection]

I already posted part of this on the other thread:

Socialism in an economic sense (which is not really all of socialism, but...) basically means an economic system with a publicly-owned economic structure. In other words, whether the economy is controlled by the government or is democratically controlled by the public itself (i.e., worker-owned cooperatives, socialist communes, etc.), it is still socialistic. Anarcho-socialism thus would be socialist because the means of production would be directly controlled by the workers, rather than by stockholders, supervisors and CEO's.
...
[right][snapback]143559[/snapback][/right]

that's pretty much what I was saying... lol

[Dataika]

I don't think it's possible to be an anarchist and a socialist at the same time. I've heard people describe themselves as "anarcho-socialist", but I think "anarcho-communist" is a more correct term.

No offense but you seem to have very little grasp of what socialism actually is. As insurrection already posted, socialism is merely when the means of productions are owned by the masses. This could be in a state made up of democratically elected officials (Democratic socialism), a state made up of a "vanguard" (Leninism), or merely, being owned by the common people through collectives, syndicates, soviets, etc... (Anarchism)

Communism only refers to an economic system and NOT a government system.

No, Communism is both social and economic. It is social in that it demands that no government exists because it demands that no classes exist (if a state existed, it would be a ruling class). It is also economic in that it is socialist.

Communism is socialist, but not all Socialism is Communism.

Anarchy and communism are just not practical.

Well it's certainly easy to make blanket statements while not defending it isn't it?

[Cecilia]

No offense but you seem to have very little grasp of what socialism actually is. 

Sorry...What I wrote was based on the definition of communism vs. socialism that I was taught in school. I guess it's true how half of what you learn in history classes is misleading.

I was taught that the main difference between communism and socialism is that in communism the people share everything of their own free will (without a government telling them to share it), but in socialism the government owns everything which the people share.

[somasoul]

I'm not an anarchist. I understand the value of having laws and a playbook so we know the consequences of not obeying certain laws.

Socialism, in my opinion, cannot compete on the world market. And while I do not doubt some companies being able to operate in a socialistic style I highly doubt any long term longevity for any corporation without leadership. I still believe the best bet for workers is strong, able and honest unions.

Lastly, let me clarify that while I am a capitalist and I believe capitalism provides us with the best products at the cheapest prices I am not a consumerist (Shit, is that ever a word.). IMHO, American consumerism has taken on a disgusting form. And I'd like to be able to seperate Capitalism from Consumerism in any way I can.

[AllPowerToThePeo...]

Well In my opinion Anarchism isn't a choice, because people are just stupid and they will start doing what ever they please, I remember that there was a World Congrest about Anarchism, in Europe, and it was just stupid, because they say that for mantain some order (like freedom for every one, you know, your freedom stops when other people freedom start) there will be like delegations in each city, distric and area, and is kindda stupid beacuse there is already that system, and that isn't in the Anarchy definition, wich is all about no autority, right?, and was the first thing they think of...Well what I'm trying to say is that people can live in anarchy, it will be a total riot, I mean, you can kill someone and since there isn't some autority to judge...

By definition in Anarchy and Comunism, the only thing in comun are the disagreement with Capitalism.

[insurrection]

I'm not an anarchist. I understand the value of having laws and a playbook so we know the consequences of not obeying certain laws.
[right][snapback]143670[/snapback][/right]

Who ever said that anarchism had no laws at all? Do not mistake decentralization of authority for lawlessness.

Lastly, let me clarify that while I am a capitalist and I believe capitalism provides us with the best products at the cheapest prices I am not a consumerist (Shit, is that ever a word.). IMHO, American consumerism has taken on a disgusting form. And I'd like to be able to seperate Capitalism from Consumerism in any way I can.
[right][snapback]143670[/snapback][/right]

That's a rather fanciful idea. I agree with you, but it is my belief that Capitalism, by definition, encourages Consumerism. After all, Consumerism is necessary in a Capitalist economy, for that economy to "do well".

[Dataika]

Sorry...What I wrote was based on the definition of communism vs. socialism that I was taught in school. I guess it's true how half of what you learn in history classes is misleading.

That's understandable. Afterall, they're the same people who claim that Stalin purposefully murdered 20 - 60 million people

They do everything to make every system look as twisted as they can make it so it appeals to no one.


AllPowerToThePeople:

Well In my opinion Anarchism isn't a choice, because people are just stupid and they will start doing what ever they please

Your name is "power to the people" yet you claim people are "too stupid"? That's a walking contradiction, my friend.

I remember that there was a World Congrest about Anarchism, in Europe, and it was just stupid, because they say that for mantain some order (like freedom for every one, you know, your freedom stops when other people freedom start) there will be like delegations in each city, distric and area, and is kindda stupid beacuse there is already that system

Now it's obvious you don't know a thing about anarchism. When they say delegation they mean a confederation of directly elected represented people in order to communicate among broad distances. It's not a system of authority like the current one is.

Well what I'm trying to say is that people can live in anarchy, it will be a total riot, I mean, you can kill someone and since there isn't some autority to judge...

Wow, to claim something like this, shows you have no idea what anarchism is. Apparently you don't think a community would have the right to protect itself nor do you think that people can as well. Here's a starting place for you to actually learn something about anarchism: Infoshop

[Rage Head]

Okay I would like for someone who knows alot of about Anarchism to clarify it to me. I know that it isn't lawlessness, and isn't chaos, but won't you still need authority? I have battled myself, as I've said earlier, Anarchism and Socialism are the two I seem to debate between which one is better in my opinion. How exactly can Anarchy work without authority? There are rules, but who makes sure the rules are followed through? And if there is someone to keep the rules from being broken, wouldn't that be an authority? Therefore making it no longer an anarchy? Please help me here.

[defiance]

Okay I would like for someone who knows alot of about Anarchism to clarify it to me. I know that it isn't lawlessness, and isn't chaos, but won't you still need authority? I have battled myself, as I've said earlier, Anarchism and Socialism are the two I seem to debate between which one is better in my opinion. How exactly can Anarchy work without authority? There are rules, but who makes sure the rules are followed through? And if there is someone to keep the rules from being broken, wouldn't that be an authority? Therefore making it no longer an anarchy? Please help me here.
[right][snapback]143753[/snapback][/right]

The rules in anarchy are only basic and are decided by popular vote, and enforced by anarchist militias composed of "the people." For the most part even the community rules in anarchism are largely voluntary. If it is something you must go by and you don't like it, you can leave the community. In the case of someone breaking an important law of the community, the case would be investigated by a jury of the people (who I believe is popularly chosen, right Dataika?). The people's militias would act as both a basic "police" force (not really a proper description, but...) to help protect the community from internal problems, and as a military force. It would be composed of a very anarchistic structure for the most part, modelled very closely to the communal structures. Basically, this includes a democratic confederation of popularly elected leaders (in the militia they would be elected by the soldiers) whose job would simply be to advise and communicate for the community, and these local communes would in turn be represented by a more regional confederation (to put it in more simple terms, it goes up in levels, from, say, county to state, to region, etc.). I assume that is what the world congress that "AllPowerToThePeople" referred to was attemptign to lay out. Because I once made the same mistake, I would like to emphasize, do not confuse this confederation sytem with a republic. It sounds similar because of the basic system of elected representatives going "up the chain," but in fact it is very different, because these leaders do not, for the most part, have any direct authority, but merely serve as advisors to help the people, but the authority still lies in the people, in the uncommon instance that a mandatory law is to be created.

Was that all accurate Dataika? Hopefully that can provide at least a basic outline of what anarchism entails when it comes to leadership and laws.

I too tend to swing between socialism and anarchism. At this point I am more solidly socialist, but I still have a lot of respect for anarchism and some of the anarchist movements that have taken place, namely those during the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War. I would hope that in any future movement toward social equality and justice, that socialists and anarchists can unite, as they did durign those two revolutions. I would hope that the legacy of the communist betrayal of the anarchist movements will not affect those future movements, although I could certainly understand the anarchists being very skeptical about it. Unity is everything in the revolutionary struggle.

[AllPowerToThePeo...]

AllPowerToThePeople:

Well In my opinion Anarchism isn't a choice, because people are just stupid and they will start doing what ever they please

Your name is "power to the people" yet you claim people are "too stupid"? That's a walking contradiction, my friend.
[right][snapback]143700[/snapback][/right]

All Power To The People = Democracy

I have my own pro's and againsts on it, but people can be manipulated very easily when ignorance is all they have, people need education, in so many ways...





PD: Sorry About the spelling.