anarcho socialist

[EL CHICO ROJO]

can someone please help my friend wants to know exactly how a government is anarchist and socialist i have a good idea but cant put the words together

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by EL CHICO [email protected] 24 2004, 04:51 AM
can someone please help my friend wants to know exactly how a government is anarchist and socialist i have a good idea but cant put the words together
Anarchism and socialism can be two completely seperate idelogies, theories and philosophies but they can also be very similer.

Anarchism is a theory of organization which advocates non hierarchy and no centralized leadership. As a society, anarchism advocates the destruction of the state, from the beginning of any revolution, it is a society which is classless and without hierachy. There are many different types of anarchism. one of the most popular forms is anarchis communism, which advocates a communist form of economics. Meaning that the ecobomy would be run based on what was necessary, with people contributing what they could and taking what they needed. Karl Marx summend it up very well when he said [i]"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Anarchism also rejects authority as a fundamentally bad thing and advocates mutual co-operation through voluntary federations of humans. Rather than structures of government who hand down orders to people.

Socialism on the other hand is something completely different. Socialism in a classical marxist terms is the transtional period between capitalism and communism. It is argued that in order to achieve communism, which is a classless, governmentless, statless society, you first must have a period where the state is used, often controlled by what Lenin called a vangaurd, to organize society and fight the ruling class, or bourgeoisie. The state is structured using hierarchy and centralism. Things whch anarchism rejects. The theory is then, that the state, after finishing it's task will wither away. Anarchists also reject this theory, and believe that the state can not wither away and will ultimatly lead to dictatorships and eventually revision, resulting in capitalism. Which is what happened in Russia, China and will eventually happen in Cuba.

On the other hand socialism can be described as an ideology which calls for the liberation of working class people who take control of society for themselves. In this sense, you can call anarchism a form of Socialism, or how Bakunin called it, 'Stateless Socialism.'

Socialism can also be a bourgeois theory. Anarchism and marxism are both revolutionary theories which call for the overthrow of capitalism and the ruling class, by force, because they believe that it is the only way to succesfully create a classless society. Some, however, believe that socialism can be attained through legal or parlimentry means. That a socialist government could reform capitalism to make it more agreeable to the working class, and they reject what they term as "illegal" action against the existing system.

Saying anarcho-socialist is very confusing, and doesn't really exist. On the one hand I could argue, as an anarchist, I am also a socialist, but then at the same time, as an anarchist, I must reject socialism.

[atlanticche]

i thought anarichism was just no way of ruling not even a bloody organiusation and definately not a government,
also anarcho-socialist, i do not really now much about but what i do know is that, marx wanted anarcho0socialism, well that is what i have discovered, from my own research and the work of some dude i cant remember the name of

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 07:11 PM
i thought anarichism was just no way of ruling not even a bloody organiusation and definately not a government,
Anarchism advocates organization, but just a different kind of organization to marxist-leninist parties.


also anarcho-socialist, i do not really now much about but what i do know is that, marx wanted anarcho0socialism, well that is what i have discovered, from my own research and the work of some dude i cant remember the name of

You cant realyl say anarcho-socialist, it contradicts each other. Although it can be argued that an anarchist is kind of a socialist.

[DEPAVER]

Anarchism, as stated previously, is a political philosophy that embraces democracy and freedom, and seeks to eliminate all forms of coercion and oppression. It's practice is based on five basic principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual aid; 5) diversity.

It's doesn't mean no rules; it just means no rulers. And it doesn't mean there isn't GOVERNANCE. The people govern themselves, perhaps through the use of consensus process decision making, at the local level, extended to the regional or national level through federations, whereby the representives carry the voice of their people to the next level.

In short, it's true democracy, grown from the grass-roots.

Socialism is a economic system where the means of production are owned by the people. The problem with socialism is it doesn't provide any answers for how production and consumption will be reduced to help save the environment, specifically the non-human. Everyone is still producing and consuming while the planet goes to hell in a hand basket. It is an economic system devoid of any semblance of relevancy to human beings. It is an indoor philosophy, as Ed Abbey said once. Socialism appeals to economics students, who outgrow it when they graduate and find meaningful work.

That said, it is appealing to many students, in that it proposes a system of fairness to all workers, something we certainly don't have under the current capitalist system.

[Louis Pio]

Socialism is a economic system where the means of production are owned by the people. The problem with socialism is it doesn't provide any answers for how production and consumption will be reduced to help save the environment, specifically the non-human. Everyone is still producing and consuming while the planet goes to hell in a hand basket. It is an economic system devoid of any semblance of relevancy to human beings. It is an indoor philosophy, as Ed Abbey said once. Socialism appeals to economics students, who outgrow it when they graduate and find meaningful work.


Ok that is just stupid. The last part I mean. I have seen more anarchists "outgrow" anarchsim than socialists.

The problem with anarchism as I see it is that it don't have much of a clue on how to organise production. Most anarchists seem to think we should go back to some sort of "self sufficient commune". The problem with that is that we are a lot more people today. I can't see why we should follow a system leading to hunger or actually going backward in the way we organise society. We obviously need to have a developed production to suit the needs of the big majority of people in the world.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 02:42 PM
[QUOTE]Socialism is a economic system where the means of production are owned by the people. The problem with socialism is it doesn't provide any answers for how production and consumption will be reduced to help save the environment, specifically the non-human. Everyone is still The problem with anarchism as I see it is that it don't have much of a clue on how to organise production. Most anarchists seem to think we should go back to some sort of "self sufficient commune". The problem with that is that we are a lot more people today. I can't see why we should follow a system leading to hunger or actually going backward in the way we organise society. We obviously need to have a developed production to suit the needs of the big majority of people in the world.
People like depaver may very well advocate such a form of economic managment. Anarchist Communism on the other hand advocates the organization of our means of production using Marxs Maxim "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Meaning that the means of productioin would be divided into necessities, and poeople would contribute what the could to society, while being provided for in return. It would take a hell of a lot of organizing, in the extent that factories, electricty stations and development projects would have to be co-ordinated on a wide scale. Vast even.

[Louis Pio]

Yeh I know their is several brands of anarchism.
In Denmark we only have the "small self sufficient commune" people though. At least from my knowlegde.


It would take a hell of a lot of organizing, in the extent that factories, electricty stations and development projects would have to be co-ordinated on a wide scale. Vast even.

The big monopolies and cartells etc are already doing that. By concentrating production they have made it even easier for us to build a planned economy.