Anarchism and Socialism

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Yesterday, I had a big discussion with some comrades here on revleft, they argued that anarchism is a tendency of socialism and that anarchists were socialists, I am making this thread to clear some things about this matter.

First of all anarchism has different origins than socialism, and, most importantly, they are about different things: anarchism is about freedom and equality in all forms, and socialism is about economic freedom.

One of the argumments the comrades used was that anarchism was just a political theory and it would be meaningless if it was not attached to an economic theory, but it is the same with socialism, it is just an economic theory with no value if not attached to a political theory.

Therefore modern anarchism is not a tendency of socialism, it is a synthesis between libertarianism and socialism.

According to this logic anarchists should call themselves anarcho-socialists, and therefore anarcho-communists.

So, if anarchism is already identified with socialist economy it makes sense that anarchists should not call themselves socialists, because there are many political theories associated with socialism, so we should call ourselves anarchists, just as you call yourselves marxist-leninists, left-communists, etc.

In the other thread when I said anarchists were not socialists I was stating the fact that we don't, nor should we, call ourselves that.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I'm an Anarchist. Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism is what I'm looking into now, you and I have held a personal discussion on this matter. Anyways, I don't call myself a Socialist either because the term is very vague. In addition, many Americans associate it with state-socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

I was an anarchist for 20 years and always considered myself a socialist.

While there are individualists and others who claim to be anarchists who are not socialists, anarchism as a political philosophy emerged from the workers' movement. Of course anarchism is a school of socialism. Ask Berkman, Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Makhno, Maximov, Arshinov, Voline, Malatesta... all conisidered themselves socialists. I can't think of a single Anarchist thinker who didn't see themselves as a socialist.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I was an anarchist for 20 years and always considered myself a socialist.

While there are individualists and others who claim to be anarchists who are not socialists, anarchism as a political philosophy emerged from the workers' movement. Of course anarchism is a school of socialism. Ask Berkman, Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Makhno, Maximov, Arshinov, Voline, Malatesta... all conisidered themselves socialists. I can't think of a single Anarchist thinker who didn't see themselves as a socialist.

Many correspond that into exclusive state socialism. To try and teach an American there is a huge difference isn't worth the effort, or at-least those in Missouri. I don't disagree with your post, as I am a communist, but try teaching the different ideologies is difficult.

[Caj]

Many correspond that into exclusive state socialism. To try and teach an American there is a huge difference isn't worth the effort, or at-least those in Missouri.

By that logic you shouldn't call yourself a communist either. Or even an anarchist for that matter, since almost all Americans equate it with violence, terrorism, and chaos.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

By that logic you shouldn't call yourself a communist either. Or even an anarchist for that matter, since almost all Americans equate it with violence, terrorism, and chaos.

Explaining the many different forms of economic socialism / communism is different from explaining what Anarchism, Communism, and Socialism is.

[Caj]

Explaining the many different forms of economic socialism / communism is different from explaining what Anarchism, Communism, and Socialism is.

What do you mean? If you're concerned about having to explain things to people, then you shouldn't call yourself an anarchist communist. In fact, the average American is going to be more confused by the term anarchist communist than anarchist socialist.

[kuriousoranj]

As I understand it, all are basically different ways of achieving socialism. As an anarchist, or a communist, you may not identify as a socialist, but it is socialism you strive for as either or.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Blake's baby

"Of course anarchism is a school of socialism. Ask Berkman, Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Makhno, Maximov, Arshinov, Voline, Malatesta... all conisidered themselves socialists. I can't think of a single Anarchist thinker who didn't see themselves as a socialist."

Did you even bother to read what I wrote, anarchism is a political theory and socialism is an economic theory, the anarchism you now today is a synthesis between those two, therefore it is not a school of socialism, because it was not created from socialism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"In fact, the average American is going to be more confused by the term anarchist communist than anarchist socialist."

I always call myself an anarchist, never an anarchist communist, I find that people find anarchism interesting, many have asked me what it was after I told them I was an anarchist. (except my science teacher...)

[Caj]

Call yourself whatever you want, but anarchism is, and has always been, a part of the socialist movement.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

What do you mean? If you're concerned about having to explain things to people, then you shouldn't call yourself an anarchist communist. In fact, the average American is going to be more confused by the term anarchist communist than anarchist socialist.

You do know Communism, Anarchism, and Socialism are fairly easy to grasp compared to the economic theories of each classification. They ask "What is Anarcho-Communism and Syndicalism". I explain, they don't understand, so I tell them I'm a Communist who believes in self-liberation and leave it alone. When someone, which is often, asks what is syndicalism's economic theory, you waste 30 minutes of your time trying to explain to them what it technically is, therefor I repeat I'm a Communist who believes in self-liberation.

If you have time to give an in-depth oration to everyone who asks about all the economic theories, congratulations, I don't.

EDIT : Let me add, I don't say I'm not a Communist, because I am, to make things easier for those who don't understand what Anarcho-Communism, Syndicalism etc., is, I simply state I'm a Communist who doesn't believe in state capitalism.

[Railyon]

Semantics game. You don't want to come across as a Stalinist so you don't call yourself a socialist because people have been force-fed stereotypes... what else is new?

Also read post #52 people, post #52. All explained there.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Did you even bother to read what I wrote, anarchism is a political theory and socialism is an economic theory, the anarchism you now today is a synthesis between those two, therefore it is not a school of socialism, because it was not created from socialism.

Yes I did.

I'm not aware of 'the Anarchism you know today'. The Anarchism that I'm aware of, that I was proud to identify myself with for 20 years, was the anarchism of Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Maximov etc. Socialism,that is.

Please explain what this new 'non-socialist' anarchism is. Perhaps I can read about it somewhere? Please tell me the names of anarchist thinkers you've come across in the last... I dunno, 30 years or so, that reject the notion of anarchism being a school of socialism.



... Also read post #52 people, post #52. All explained there.

What does this mean?

[Caj]

You do know Communism, Anarchism, and Socialism are fairly easy to grasp compared to the economic theories of each classification. They ask "What is Anarcho-Communism and Syndicalism". I explain, they don't understand, so I tell them I'm a Communist who believes in self-liberation and leave it alone. When someone, which is often, asks what is syndicalism's economic theory, you waste 30 minutes of your time trying to explain to them what it technically is, therefor I repeat I'm a Communist who believes in self-liberation.

If you have time to give an in-depth oration to everyone who asks about all the economic theories, congratulations, I don't.

So why do you say you're communist that believes in self-liberation but not a socialist that believes in self-liberation? Both of these statements are more or less equally understandable. Neither of these statements requires an "in-depth oration" about economic theories.

[Railyon]

Please tell me the names of anarchist thinkers you've come across in the last... I dunno, 30 years or so, that reject the notion of anarchism being a school of socialism.

I can already see this will not end well if the thread yesterday is anything to go by...

(the #52 reference is also an in-joke from yesterday, nevermind)

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

So why do you say you're communist that believes in self-liberation but not a socialist that believes in self-liberation? Both of these statements are more or less equally understandable. Neither of these statements requires an "in-depth oration" about economic theories.

To answer your question easily it's semantics.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"What does this mean?"

How dare you not know about post 52!!

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Blake's baby

"I'm not aware of 'the Anarchism you know today'. The Anarchism that I'm aware of, that I was proud to identify myself with for 20 years, was the anarchism of Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Maximov etc. Socialism,that is.

Please explain what this new 'non-socialist' anarchism is. Perhaps I can read about it somewhere? Please tell me the names of anarchist thinkers you've come across in the last... I dunno, 30 years or so, that reject the notion of anarchism being a school of socialism."


By "the anarchism you know today " I mean modern anarchism, you know the idea evolved for several years to become what we today know as anarchism.

You are saying that if there was no socialism there would be no anarchism, I am refuting that idea by saying they have different origins, for anarchism to be a tendency of socialism it would need to have been created from the socialist theory, which it was not.

If only you had read post 52...

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Caj

"Call yourself whatever you want, but anarchism is, and has always been, a part of the socialist movement."

You mean socialism has been a part of the anarchist movement.

[Caj]

To answer your question easily it's semantics.

So you admit that it's just semantics now and not for purposes of making it easier to explain. Good.

[Caj]

You mean socialism has been a part of the anarchist movement.

Yeah, totally. Lenin was such an anarchist. :rolleyes:

[Blake's Baby]

@Blake's baby

"I'm not aware of 'the Anarchism you know today'. The Anarchism that I'm aware of, that I was proud to identify myself with for 20 years, was the anarchism of Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Maximov etc. Socialism,that is.

Please explain what this new 'non-socialist' anarchism is. Perhaps I can read about it somewhere? Please tell me the names of anarchist thinkers you've come across in the last... I dunno, 30 years or so, that reject the notion of anarchism being a school of socialism."


By "the anarchism you know today " I mean modern anarchism, you know the idea evolved for several years to become what we today know as anarchism.

You are saying that if there was no socialism there would be no anarchism, I am refuting that idea by saying they have different origins, for anarchism to be a tendency of socialism it would need to have been created from the socialist theory, which it was not.

If only you had read post 52...

Yeah it was. Go read up on the history of Anarchism.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

@Caj

"Call yourself whatever you want, but anarchism is, and has always been, a part of the socialist movement."

You mean socialism has been a part of the anarchist movement.

Indeed, Socialism, Communism and the likes are all part of the Anarchist movement and derive on the bases of production being collectively owned to end exploitation which is socialism and communism.

The difference between Anarchism and Marxism is the state, which we believe leads to hinder the progress of human progression through repression of the state. Also, the state works for those of power, like Rudolf Rocker says The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more but the dictatorship of a clique over the proletariat. I paraphrased of course.

Then we can go into deeper thought of why it is socialist. The means of production is owned by those who are both producers and consumers of labor, either by labor cartels or workers' councils, because only they [the individuals who produce] have their own best interest at heart, instead of the state for said reasons explained earlier.

Now let's look how necessities are allocated. It's based on your need, which goes hand in hand with your out-put.

Even the motto For each according to their abilities for each according to their needs still applies.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Blake's baby

Anarchism as an idea is much older than socialism, therefore it is not a tendency of socialism, because it was created by different reasons, in diferent places, and diferent times.

@Caj

I was validating your argument by saying that socialism is part of anarchism.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

So you admit that it's just semantics now and not for purposes of making it easier to explain. Good.

It's semantics on why I call myself a Communist or Socialist. The purpose for explanation is still difficult, therefor I remove the adjective in front of communist, socialist etc.

[Caj]

Indeed, Socialism, Communism and the likes are all part of the Anarchist movement and derive on the bases of production being collectively owned to end exploitation which is socialism and communism.


@Caj

I was validating your argument by saying that socialism is part of anarchism.

Socialism is not a part of the anarchist movement; the anarchist movement is part of the socialist movement. All anarchists are socialists; not all socialists are anarchists. It's not that hard to understand.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Caj

What I meant was that socialism as a theory is part of the anarchist movement.

Not all anarchists are socialists (anarcho-capitalists)

[Railyon]

Not all anarchists are socialists (anarcho-capitalists)

I'd like you to elaborate on that, because I think the misunderstanding you're falling victim to is the heart of the matter here.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Socialism is not a part of the anarchist movement; the anarchist movement is part of the socialist movement. All anarchists are socialists; not all socialists are anarchists. It's not that hard to understand.

Now you're just throwing words around, :D I'm sure you knew what I was trying to say.

[Caj]

@Caj

What I meant was that socialism as a theory is part of the anarchist movement.

Therefore anarchists are socialists. Jesus fucking Christ!


Not all anarchists are socialists (anarcho-capitalists)

No, just no. . . .

[Ostrinski]

Ancaps don't matter. They are a figment of your imagination.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchism is libertarianism, libertarianism alone is nothing, it needs an economic theory atached to it (like socialism), in the case of anarcho-capitalism it is capitalism.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Therefore anarchists are socialists. Jesus fucking Christ!



No, just no. . . .
:laugh::laugh::thumbup1:

[Ostrinski]

TheRedAnarchist23, I have a question for you. What is more important, socialism or (your conception of) anarchism? If it is the latter then you could hardly be considered a revolutionary leftist.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

If socialism is a part of the anarchist theory/movement then anarchists are anarchists.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Brospeire

"What is more important, socialism or (your conception of) anarchism?"

They both have the same importance, I say I am an anarchist, because anarchism= libertarian socialism.
BTW
Did I not just explain that modern anarchism is a synthesis between libertarianism and socialism

[Ostrinski]

If socialism is a part of the anarchist theory/movement then anarchists are anarchists.wut

[TheRedAnarchist23]

wut

Look at post #52 it will explain that:D

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

If socialism is a part of the anarchist theory/movement then anarchists are anarchists.

Comrade, Leftist Anarchism embraces the concept of Socialism, just without the state. It's a revolutionary movement since the way of attaining Socialism doesn't come by asking for it.

Let me word this easier and make sure Caj doesn't shoot me on how I say this :

Leftist Anarchism is based around Socialism. I've explained this already. Anarchism is an ideology withing Socialism with regards to production and allocations of needs. The most profound contrast with Marxism is the need of a transitional authority. Anarchist don't believe we need it, and instead utilize unions and workers' councils instead of the state.

I've got to go to work now, you guys play nicely.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"Comrade, Leftist Anarchism embraces the concept of Socialism,"

I just said that:crying::crying:!!!

"Leftist Anarchism is based around Socialism."

Yes, but anarchism as the libertarian theory is not a tendency of socialism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I will conclude this with:

Anarchism is a theory that calls for the abolition of state, hierarchy and discrimination of all kind.

Socialism is a theory that calls for the reorganization of the economy using the principal "To each according to his need. From each according to his ability".

The anarchism you know as a theory is a synthesis between the two, and it is oficially called anarchist-communism.

Therefore anarchism is not a tendency of socialism, it is a synthesis.
anarchists are socialists, but we stand for anarchist political organization.
anarchists should be called anarchists even though they support socialist economy, most people here support socialist theory anyway.

If anybody has any questions I urge you to go read post #52.

[Geiseric]

didn't Bakunin join the 1st international? Thus he was a Communist?

[Railyon]

Show me one anarchist prior to Proudhon who was not also a socialist. Pretty please.

[Ostrinski]

Show me one anarchist prior to Proudhon who was not also a socialist. Pretty please.Were there any anarchists prior to Proudhon?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

First of all anarchism has different origins than socialism

Proof for this assertion, please. While some ancient individuals may be classified as "anarchist" the first person to be a self-described anarchist was Proudhon, who was also a socialist.



One of the argumments the comrades used was that anarchism was just a political theory and it would be meaningless if it was not attached to an economic theory, but it is the same with socialism, it is just an economic theory with no value if not attached to a political theory.

Socialism is the economic basis for all movements and ideologies claiming workers control of production and any political theory added to this that doesn't interfere with workers' control of production is a tendency of this economic base: socialism.


Therefore modern anarchism is not a tendency of socialism, it is a synthesis between libertarianism and socialism.

No, as stated above it is still a tendency of socialism because it contains the economic base of socialism but with a different political theory making it a tendency. Actually, socialism is a classless and stateless society and the different tendencies of socialism, whether left-communism, anarchism, etc. are just different ideas on how to reach this end.


So, if anarchism is already identified with socialist economy it makes sense that anarchists should not call themselves socialists, because there are many political theories associated with socialism, so we should call ourselves anarchists, just as you call yourselves marxist-leninists, left-communists, etc.

Yes, this makes sense. But to claim that anarchism is not socialism because of this is, to be blunt, stupid. While M-L's, left-communists, etc. would specifically call themselves that, they would not deny that they are socialists. Why would anarchism do that?


In the other thread when I said anarchists were not socialists I was stating the fact that we don't, nor should we, call ourselves that.

My understanding from that thread was that you did not believe that anarchism was a tendency of socialism, which is incorrect.

[Art Vandelay]

When defined in that way, alot of people are considered anarchist, who actually are not. Anarchism developed out of the 1st international from the teachings of Bakunin and Kropotkin. To say that anarchists are not socialists is absurd and quite clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding on the topic.

[hatzel]

Were there any anarchists prior to Proudhon?

One could argue that the likes of Chelčický, de la Boétie and Godwin were anarchists avant la lettre, which I assume is the angle RA23 is going for here. But it's arguably not anarchism per se. His calling it libertarianism doesn't help, either, as that's a more recently coined term than anarchism. Vague anti-state sentiments certainly existed before the emergence of socialism and anarchism, yet anarchism as a political current may well suggest more than just a general distaste for the government...anarchism-by-name emerging out of the broad socialist movement, yes...

[Railyon]

Were there any anarchists prior to Proudhon?

Aw, you just had to go and spoil it, didn't you... :(

[Per Levy]

What does this mean?

thats more of a joke, in the discussion from yesterday redanarchist123 wrote a post, post 52 that was, and after that just pointed everone in the discussion to that post for it would explain everything, even though it didnt explain everything at all.

[Grenzer]

Proof for this assertion, please. While some ancient individuals may be classified as "anarchist" the first person to be a self-described anarchist was Proudhon, who was also a socialist.

The problem is that Proudhon wasn't really a communist at all. He was a radical petit-bourgeois capitalist. It's not for no reason that the anarchist movement has mostly dumped him behind in the dust..

[Art Vandelay]

The problem is that Proudhon wasn't really a communist at all. He was a radical petit-bourgeois capitalist. It's not for no reason that the anarchist movement has mostly dumped him behind in the dust..

Proudhon, despite being the first to call himself an anarchist, was not an anarchist. He was some sort of utopian market socialist, I agree with some of what Proudhon said, but overall his ideology has been left behind.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

While I am not Proudhonist at all and feel that Proudhon was wrong and incorrect on a lot of things, his ideas on property being theft, etc. have me believe he was a socialist (albeit barley). That was not the point of my post though. I was trying to debunk RedAnarchist123's ridiculous claims.

[hatzel]

I tend to just sidestep this whole mind-numbing matter by wildly declaring myself a theocrat. It's subversive as fook, I'll have you know...

[Railyon]

I tend to just sidestep this whole mind-numbing matter by wildly declaring myself a theocrat. It's subversive as fook, I'll have you know...

Somethingsomething-ism all the way, dude.

[hatzel]

Is anarcho-monarchism socialist, though?

[NewLeft]

Is anarcho-monarchism socialist, though?
It's slightly to the left of anarcho-fascism, so yes.