Anarchism = Socialism?

[Random Precision]

Are anarchists socialists? Since I became involved on the Left I have always believed that this was the case. My admittedly brief readings on anarchist theory seemed to have confirmed this, for example:

"Outside of the Mazzinian system which is the system of the republic in the form of a State, there is no other system but that of the republic as a commune, the republic as a federation, a Socialist and a genuine people's republic - the system of Anarchism."

- Mikhail Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin

"Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man."

- Daniel Guerin, Anarchism

Now, most anarchists that I know personally would be comfortable in calling themselves "libertarian socialists", a term which I have semantics issues with as a Marxist, since this would imply that I and my fellow Marxists are "authoritarian".

But I digress: I am certainly aware of anti-worker trends within Anarchism as a whole, for example Murray Bookchin later in his life declared himself the avowed enemy of workers. There is also "anarcho-capitalism" on the Right, which most anarchist comrades I know would say is not anarchism at all. Then there are the individualist and lifestyle anarchists, who reject mass work to build anarchism and do their own thing, whatever that might be.

At least on this forum, however, this does not seem to be the case: the anarchists I have known on here seem to be very pro-worker, and want the same classless society that Marxists do, except for disagreements on how to reach that point. Msybe some of them can answer the question.

So, are anarchists socialists?

[syndicat]

You assume "socialism" has a clear meaning. it is a merely rhetorical term, an ideological buzzword, like "anarchism", and both terms have various interpretations.

so your question is sort of mush on both sides of the equation.

Americans tend use the word "socialism" to refer to state ownership and control over the economy. that would make "socialism" inconsistent with anarchism since anarchists are in favor of doing away with the state.

self-management is a fundamental concept for anarchism, and this can be defined as people having control over the decisions that affect them.

however, the American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism this way:

"a system or theory of social organization in which the producers possess both political power and production and distribution means."

quite a few anarchists have advocated neighborhood or community assemblies as a building block of a self-managed society. but most anarchists -- certainly all anarcho-syndicalists -- have also advocated workers self-management, rooted in workplace assemblies.

most anarchists have said they were for "libertarian communism" which presupposes, i would think, that the land and means of production are owned in common by everyone. if workers self-management is added to this, then you have at least part of the dictionary definition.

anarchists historically have had different things to say about political power. i think many anarchists -- such as anarcho-syndicalists -- would argue that in a revolution the state is replaced by a different type of governance system, that is rooted in the more direct control of the mass of the people through the assemblies and bodies derived from them, such as congresses of delegates from the base assemblies in a revolutionary region. so there is a way to make basic rules and things like a militia to protect the revolution and to ensure the basic rules are enforced. just because they are for the abolition of the state doesn't mean they are not for working class political power. the issue is how that power is to be constituted.

now the idea is to empower the working class in this process. anarcho-syndicalists, at least, always adhered to the slogan "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves," and thus that the self-managed, socialized economy and the overall governing structure are to be created from below.

[redflagfires]

Anarchism in the true state of the word, deriving from it's Greek root means: with archons, i.e. without rulers. Socialism is defined by its econimic standing: community ownership of the means of production.

Anarchism, no rulers.
Socialism, no hierarchal in the workforce.

similar, YES, the same, most definitely not.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I'm sure both parties had some very valid points and some astutely obtuse ones.

Just like Marx.

The smart thing would do is take what's relevant and practical in the modern era and toss out the rest.

Regardless, who really cares about what these two deat cats thought about a trivial issue anyhow?

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafa[email protected] 23, 2007 03:56 am


Regardless, who really cares about what these two deat cats thought about a trivial issue anyhow?
An obscenely large amount of people, apparently.


example Murray Bookchin later in his life declared himself the avowed enemy of workers.

Where did you hear this? It's certainly news to me!

---------------
Anyway, yes, anarchists are socialists.

All anarchists (with the except of Proudhon and a few others) have always considered themselves socialists; many labeled themselves as the "True socialists".

If you simply read Bakunin's writings, or Kropotkins, Or Malatesta's, you will see this.

freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice (...) Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality Sourse: Stateless Socialism: Anarchism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/stateless.html)

-----------
Also just saw Syndicat's post. Covers alot of things. :)

[Dimentio]

All anarchists? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:38 am
All anarchists? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
:wacko:
?

[syndicat]

example Murray Bookchin later in his life declared himself the avowed enemy of workers.

not so. Bookchin gave up on the idea of the class struggle, and was opposed to organizing people AS workers, as opposed to organizing them as community members. but he would say that one must appeal to working people as citizens, community members. he didn't say he was their "enemy."

i don't agree with Bookchin but let's not misrepresent him.

[Coggeh]

I've never used "socialism" as an end goal . Socialism is a way to getting to communism . The differences between anarchism and socialism lie in the way to get to communism .

Revolutionary Socialists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat , the vanguard as a way of steering the revolution and the state controlled by the workers using it also as a way of protecting the revolution and then push through to create a state less and classless society(Communism) .

Best you ask an Anarchist their opinion but ...Anarchists (as far as i know) believe in going straight to communism although they know it can't be done in a day . But they believe that in socialism bureaucracy will prevail in any case and therfore lead back to capitalism .

[Random Precision]

Forgive me for the error on Bookchin. I was repeating something I had heard elsewhere, and should have not done so.

[syndicat]

coggy:
I've never used "socialism" as an end goal . Socialism is a way to getting to communism . The differences between anarchism and socialism lie in the way to get to communism .

anarchists don't use that terminology. Bookchin said that the aim is "free socialism."


Anarchists (as far as i know) believe in going straight to communism although they know it can't be done in a day . But they believe that in socialism bureaucracy will prevail in any case and therfore lead back to capitalism .

it's true that anarchists don't take "socialism" and "communism" to refer to something different, insofar as these terms are interpreted as something they would support.

sometimes anarchists have accepted something like a period of transition, but it is not like the Leninist conception. anarchists may agree there is an important role to play for a revolutionary political organization, thru the "leadership of ideas", and influence within mass organizations, against reformist or bureaucratic or authoritarian centralist tendencies. the idea of a "vanguard party" running things would be rejected as substitutionist and inevitably leading to a new class system.

socialism, from an anarchist point of view, is the common ownership of the means of production by the entire society and the end to the class system. from the anarchist point of view, this means, at least workers selfmanagement of industry and an end to the state. this does not necessarily mean there would be no governance structure (despite the statements of SOME anarchists about "abolishing all government"), rules decided by the community, etc. The anarchist view is that in the early transitional period the revolution can be defended with a well organized militia and well coordinated system of of making decisions. during the Spanish revolution for example the anarcho-syndicalist union federation proposed a unified militia for the whole country to fight the fascists, with a unified command.

there may also be some evolution in the economic system from an earlier period of people earning consumption entitlement thru work effort to a later period of more and more things distributed free.

[Nikias]

Socialism is the eonomic side of the left, the idea of having complete equality when producing and destributing goods and services.

Anarchism is the governmental side of things; the notion of having no governancxe or heirarchy, in a society that does not need it.

Libertarianism is much the same as anarchism, so I suppose libertarian socialism is the same as anarchism, but not socialism in general, as you can have authoritarian socialism, which is for a government and its role in society.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:27 am
Socialism is the eonomic side of the left, the idea of having complete equality when producing and destributing goods and services.

Anarchism is the governmental side of things; the notion of having no governancxe or heirarchy, in a society that does not need it.

Libertarianism is much the same as anarchism, so I suppose libertarian socialism is the same as anarchism, but not socialism in general, as you can have authoritarian socialism, which is for a government and its role in society.
I agree with you here, just that Libertarianism is only partially anti-statist does have a governing body, hierarchy, and such things that Anarchism eliminates.

[funkmasterswede]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:38 pm
All anarchists? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
Yes, there do exist people who call themselves Market Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists. Many leftist anarchists would say that these people are not anarchists, due to the fact that in a capitalist society without the state there will be de facto rulers. They will not have the monopoly of force per se, but in all reality the power relations remain relatively the same. However for MA's this is fine as there ideology is based on formalized terms like the classical liberal ethos from which it has sprung. Where the anarchists on this site stem from a school of thought that is not concerned with formal freedom and lack of formal rulers, but a total absence of man over man.

Basically in the end, MA's support wage slavery and support man selling his liberty where socialist anarchists dont.