Found my way here

[h0lmes]

Hello all!

I found my way here while doing research for a term paper. I will be doing a comparison of anarchism and socialism. Unfortunately, I have come to realize that the only real difference is the role of the state in a socialist society and lack thereof in an anarchist society. I have no idea how I am going to write a lengthy paper on this! Any suggestions or links to threads or further reading on this would be very helpful. Thanks!

[ZeroNowhere]

All anarchism is socialism, but not all socialism is anarchism.
See, 'socialism' is a synonym for 'communism', that is, an international clasless (and thus stateless) society. Though I suppose that the above statement was something of a simplification, as I would argue that those who only want 'anarchy in one country' aren't exactly socialists (socialism is international), but there are hardly any people like that, hopefully.
However, I'm glad that you don't seem to be associating anarchism with the statist and hierarchal ideology of 'anarcho'-capitalism.
Now that we've got that over with, anarchists seek to abolish hierarchal authority (they generally differentiate between 'having authority' (hierachal/irrational authority) and 'being an authority' (rational authority)), which is not necessarily a condition necessary to be a socialist. Of course, all socialists seek to abolish the major hierarchy of capital (and thus the state), but that's about it. Also, Blanquists (they often call themselves 'Leninists' these days) are generally counted as socialists, and are in no way anarchists. Engels describes them thusly:

"Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government."

However, the 'state' is a term that I generally dislike using. See, many differentiate between Marxists and anarchists based on one wanting to preserve the 'state' after revolution, and the others wanting to get rid of it. Of course, many so-called 'Marxists' also make this fallacy, leading to all kinds of idiocy. Now, the real difference is that Marx had used the term 'state' differently to, say, Bakunin. While the Bakuninists and Blanquists like to portray Marx as a 'lover of the state', in reality the only difference was in terms of definition of the state. See, Marx saw the 'state' as meaning the enforcement of one class' interests over another. So under capitalism, the state was basically an organ of the capitalist class. In a "workers' state", however, it would simply be the enforcement of the interests of the working class over the bourgeoisie. In other words, it is what would exist for as long as the bourgeoisie exist.

While the Anarchist FAQ, among similar silly criticisms of Marx (It's generally a good resource, but not on anything to do with Marx), raises alarm over this, claiming, "OH NOES! THE CAPITALISTS WILL STILL EXIST AFTER A REVOLUTION?!?!", this is then undermined by them promoting the Spanish communes, during which the bourgeoisie did, in fact, still exist, and were funding Franco. Well, of course, the bourgeoisie of the USSR was more busy backstabbing the anarchists, but there ya go. So basically, until the revolution was successful internationally, Marx would call the places in which it has already succeeded and a form of 'mini-socialism' created (that is, a classless society that is not yet international, and thus technically not socialism). So then the Spanish communes would have had a state according to his definition, for example, as they were an enforcement of proletarian class interests over the bourgeoisie's. This does not mean that there would still have to be classes within the communes, merely that, from an internationalist perspective, there are still different classes with different interests. Marx did imply that the proletariat shouldn't be too harsh on the peasant proprietors and such, and instead win them over to the revolution.

Marx, contrary to dreams of him as an authoritarian fuckwit, claimed, "the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune." The FAQ still fights on valiantly, pointing out that Marx implies that there would still be positions of authority. Well, yes, if one would count Marx's example of "the position of manager in a workers' co-operative factory", democratically elected and subject to recall, as being a form of hierarchal, irrational authority. He specifies, "Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character." Interestingly, the fear of the word 'election' that Bakunin had, that Marx was criticizing above, seems to have passed on to modern libertarian socialist movements.

Anyways, just getting the conflict on the 'state' out of the way. Of course, the Anarchist FAQ is still a good resource for research, just ignore any sentences in it that contain the word 'Marx'. So yeah, if you're making something on differences between anarchism and socialism, you're somewhat stuck. ;)

[h0lmes]

All anarchism is socialism, but not all socialism is anarchism.
See, 'socialism' is a synonym for 'communism', that is, an international clasless (and thus stateless) society. Though I suppose that the above statement was something of a simplification, as I would argue that those who only want 'anarchy in one country' aren't exactly socialists (socialism is international), but there are hardly any people like that, hopefully.
However, I'm glad that you don't seem to be associating anarchism with the statist and hierarchal ideology of 'anarcho'-capitalism.
Now that we've got that over with, anarchists seek to abolish hierarchal authority (they generally differentiate between 'having authority' (hierachal/irrational authority) and 'being an authority' (rational authority)), which is not necessarily a condition necessary to be a socialist. Of course, all socialists seek to abolish the major hierarchy of capital (and thus the state), but that's about it. Also, Blanquists (they often call themselves 'Leninists' these days) are generally counted as socialists, and are in no way anarchists. Engels describes them thusly:


However, the 'state' is a term that I generally dislike using. See, many differentiate between Marxists and anarchists based on one wanting to preserve the 'state' after revolution, and the others wanting to get rid of it. Of course, many so-called 'Marxists' also make this fallacy, leading to all kinds of idiocy. Now, the real difference is that Marx had used the term 'state' differently to, say, Bakunin. While the Bakuninists and Blanquists like to portray Marx as a 'lover of the state', in reality the only difference was in terms of definition of the state. See, Marx saw the 'state' as meaning the enforcement of one class' interests over another. So under capitalism, the state was basically an organ of the capitalist class. In a "workers' state", however, it would simply be the enforcement of the interests of the working class over the bourgeoisie. In other words, it is what would exist for as long as the bourgeoisie exist.

While the Anarchist FAQ, among similar silly criticisms of Marx (It's generally a good resource, but not on anything to do with Marx), raises alarm over this, claiming, "OH NOES! THE CAPITALISTS WILL STILL EXIST AFTER A REVOLUTION?!?!", this is then undermined by them promoting the Spanish communes, during which the bourgeoisie did, in fact, still exist, and were funding Franco. Well, of course, the bourgeoisie of the USSR was more busy backstabbing the anarchists, but there ya go. So basically, until the revolution was successful internationally, Marx would call the places in which it has already succeeded and a form of 'mini-socialism' created (that is, a classless society that is not yet international, and thus technically not socialism). So then the Spanish communes would have had a state according to his definition, for example, as they were an enforcement of proletarian class interests over the bourgeoisie's. This does not mean that there would still have to be classes within the communes, merely that, from an internationalist perspective, there are still different classes with different interests. Marx did imply that the proletariat shouldn't be too harsh on the peasant proprietors and such, and instead win them over to the revolution.

Marx, contrary to dreams of him as an authoritarian fuckwit, claimed, "the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune." The FAQ still fights on valiantly, pointing out that Marx implies that there would still be positions of authority. Well, yes, if one would count Marx's example of "the position of manager in a workers' co-operative factory", democratically elected and subject to recall, as being a form of hierarchal, irrational authority. He specifies, "Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character." Interestingly, the fear of the word 'election' that Bakunin had, that Marx was criticizing above, seems to have passed on to modern libertarian socialist movements.

Anyways, just getting the conflict on the 'state' out of the way. Of course, the Anarchist FAQ is still a good resource for research, just ignore any sentences in it that contain the word 'Marx'. So yeah, if you're making something on differences between anarchism and socialism, you're somewhat stuck. ;)

Well instead of comparing anarchism and socialism, say I wanted to take a broad look at anarchism. What sort of things should I focus on?

[#FF0000]

Well instead of comparing anarchism and socialism, say I wanted to take a broad look at anarchism. What sort of things should I focus on?

Here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

That's the Anarchist FAQ. That should help you out tons. :)

And welcome to Revleft.

(PM me if you have any questions!)

[h0lmes]

Thanks for the help guys!