Anarchism vs. Socialism

[Shader]

First of all, hello comrades. I have noticed that this site has both Anarchist and Socialist members living together in peace :D

I have few questions to both Anarchist and Socialist comrades, since I am more close to Anarchism but still haven't decided yet.

-Looks like the goals of the Anarchists and the Socialists are the same: A peacefull world with equal people. The Socialists claim that the the government they set up is a "temporary" government which will destroy capitalism, enlighten the people and reach the Communism stage. However the Anarchists think that the Socialists will soon forget their aim and the Com-Party members and the Military will be the new "Bourgeoise" class having authority over other people, so it should be directry to Anarchism/Communism stage.
"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." - Bakunin

Well, as a "young" rebbelion without enough theorical knowledge i belive that Anarchism is the right way but it has some lack of theory... I mean it sounds like a Uthopia, Socialism is stronger.

So, can you all the people inform and enlighten me from different sides? Thank you.

[Sasha]

peace? i would say more of an state of cold war ;)
no you're correct, we mostly agree to disagree

but what are your questions? we would hapily answer them but since we are not psychic it helps if you formulate them.

[zimmerwald1915]

I believe he wants us to explicate our differences, perhaps in open debate.

This will end well.

[Shader]

Yes, i want to understand why Socialists and Anarchists get seperated.

[PostAnarchy]

Socialists in the Marxist or Leninist sense believe in a transition workers state in order to achieve communism and defend the revolution.

Anarchists do not believe in this state that it is necessary and believe the state to be a inherently repressive structure that cannot be made into something progressive no matter who controls it.

[Motochi]

i used to think i'm a socialist, but as i see it explained more thoroughly, perhaps i am more anarcho-socialist. i realize that sounds like a complete impossibility, but everything's theory at this stage, right? who says there's not a chance things could make more sense in actuality.

and what of a loose, informal governance under "socialism", within a tight-knit, smaller community of roughly 20-30 people? could that stand and still exist in a just manner?

[Vendetta]

Yes, i want to understand why Socialists and Anarchists get seperated.

They differ on the role of the state in a revolutionary society. Anarchists believe that no government is necessary to bring about an ideal society, whereas Leninist socialists (and the other -ists of that variety) believe that a state is necessary to help change the current society to the ideal.

[zimmerwald1915]

They differ on the role of the state in a revolutionary society. Anarchists believe that no government is necessary to bring about an ideal society, whereas Leninist socialists (and the other -ists of that variety) believe that a state is necessary to help change the current society to the ideal.
That's a vulgarization of the position. IIRC, the position is that in a society where there are multiple if mutually unexploiting classes the development of a new state is inevitable, simply because different classes, even mutually unexploiting classes, have different interests.

[RebelDog]

-Looks like the goals of the Anarchists and the Socialists are the same: A peacefull world with equal people.At first glance yes. But the reality of authoritarian communism/Bolshevism is the control of the working class and the destruction of its institutions and freedom. In fact, Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism are ideologies which seek power and control over the producing class, far less to emancipate them. Control over production and society is the key element of these ideologies, not proletarian emancipation.


The Socialists claim that the the government they set up is a "temporary" government which will destroy capitalism, enlighten the people and reach the Communism stage.I think Bakunin trashed the idea of temporary bosses 130 years ago, as you say.


Well, as a "young" rebbelion without enough theorical knowledge i belive that Anarchism is the right way but it has some lack of theory... I mean it sounds like a Uthopia, Socialism is stronger.I think history shows authoritarian communism to be lacking at best and libertarian communism to be tantalizingly possible and desirable. Socialism is strong. But what is socialism? Is it the dictatorship of an elite or is it the freedom of the producing class and the community to organise society? You decide.

[CheGuevaraRage]

one word....anarcho-syndicalism

[The Feral Underclass]

You should read Stateless Socialism (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin2.html) by Mikhail Bakunin.

[Annie K.]

-Looks like the goals of the Anarchists and the Socialists are the same: A peacefull world with equal people.That's also the goal of most christian churches...


Yes, i want to understand why Socialists and Anarchists get seperated.Because socialists want authority to destroy all opposition to their authoritarian means by authoritarian means. And anarchists don't want them to have it.
The very definition of these two groups was build on their separation.

[zimmerwald1915]

At first glance yes. But the reality of authoritarian communism/Bolshevism is the control of the working class and the destruction of its institutions and freedom. In fact, Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism are ideologies which seek power and control over the producing class, far less to emancipate them. Control over production and society is the key element of these ideologies, not proletarian emancipation.

I think Bakunin trashed the idea of temporary bosses 130 years ago, as you say.

I think history shows authoritarian communism to be lacking at best and libertarian communism to be tantalizingly possible and desirable. Socialism is strong. But what is socialism? Is it the dictatorship of an elite or is it the freedom of the producing class and the community to organise society? You decide.
Thanks for not including the Communist Left in your diatribe. Shall I owe you one? :rolleyes:

[Kami]

A lot of Anarchists also describe ourselves as socialist. Less so here, admittedly, but on pure anarchist forums it's used much more often.

[ZeroNowhere]

Internationalist anarchism is socialist.
Marx was a socialist. Marx was also an anarchist. It's the same with Bakunin.


The Socialists claim that the the government they set up is a "temporary" government which will destroy capitalism, enlighten the people and reach the Communism stage.
That's Blanquism. It's socialism, but not anarchism.

[thejambo1]

we can learn a lot from each other and revleft is a good forum for that,things dont get too stupid on the threads here, most of the time!! we are all leftist at the end of the day.:)

[Revy]

Internationalist anarchism is socialist.
Marx was a socialist. Marx was also an anarchist. It's the same with Bakunin.


That's Blanquism. It's socialism, but not anarchism.

Marx was an anarchist? :confused:

then I suppose Stalin was a Trotskyist...;)

[benhur]

Anarchists have a point, because they can always argue that even socialists, if given power, might well become capitalists and abuse power (and ignore the proletarian), as has happened in practically every self-proclaimed socialist country, from Russia to China to Venezuela. This itself makes the case stronger for anarchism that the state is as severe a problem as the capital.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx was an anarchist? :confused:
Yes.


then I suppose Stalin was a Trotskyist...;)
I don't see your point here. Stalin was doing what Trotsky wished that he could, yes.

[Revy]

At first glance yes. But the reality of authoritarian communism/Bolshevism is the control of the working class and the destruction of its institutions and freedom. In fact, Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism are ideologies which seek power and control over the producing class, far less to emancipate them. Control over production and society is the key element of these ideologies, not proletarian emancipation.

I think Bakunin trashed the idea of temporary bosses 130 years ago, as you say.

I think history shows authoritarian communism to be lacking at best and libertarian communism to be tantalizingly possible and desirable. Socialism is strong. But what is socialism? Is it the dictatorship of an elite or is it the freedom of the producing class and the community to organise society? You decide.

Anarchists lack organization.
That is what the anarchists in 1930's Spain had, the anarchists in America do not.
Today many anarchists believe that anarchism is just throwing Molotov cocktails, breaking glass in window shops, burning flags, and overturning cars. Is that "revolution"? "Direct action"? Or is it just an excuse to get attention while not promoting any kind of unified principled action?

I am not a Leninist. But Trotskyism never defeated Stalin. Do you really think it would be the same had that not happened? Trotsky and his supporters wanted more democracy, more workers' control. I don't think you can lump Stalinism and Trotskyism together.

[F9]

Marx was also an anarchist

No he wasnt?:rolleyes: He didnt want Anarchists!
Why do you say that he was?

[ZeroNowhere]

No he wasnt?:rolleyes: He didnt want Anarchists!
Why do you say that he was?
Define 'anarchism'.

[Shader]

ZeroNowhere, didn't Marx and Bakunin were seperated after the first International?

[ZeroNowhere]

ZeroNowhere, didn't Marx and Bakunin were seperated after the first International?
Bakunin believed that 'scientific socialism' meant that only 'scientific people' would be able to rule, or something, and thus rejected Marxism as being bureacratic. :rolleyes:
Anyways, it wasn't due to a huge difference in beliefs (well, other than Marx's belief in historical materialism, and thus that the proletariat would have to become a major force in order for revolution to take place, as they were something of a minority then), just generally misunderstandings (pretty much all on Bakunin's part).

[zimmerwald1915]

Weren't there machinations going on in the background of the first international?