Brosa Luxemburg

"This right here shows why I am against the terms. They take on a subjective, rather than objective meaning. To us, the confiscation of capitalist property would be a libertarian act, but to the capitalists whom we are confiscating property from, it would seem very authoritarian to them. Subjective facts (something true to an individual) are not objective facts (something that is true in reality). An act that is libertarian can easily be, at the same time, and act of the most harsh authority."

That is why the terms are used in the point of view of a democratic majority.

"As for the whole "majority" thing, I saw Caj discussing this with you so I will leave that to that user."

The majority is a democratic majority.

"Yes, but the way that anarchism historically developed makes it a tendency of socialism."

Yet, anarchism has tendencies as well.

"in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression."

"Rudolf Rocker is showing that anarchism exists within the socialist movement."

He is saying that social opression and capitalism are hand-in-hand, this means if one wants to take down one, one needs to take down the other.

It does not say anarchism is within socialism, it says socialism is within anarchism.

"For the whole "authoritarian" thing, I need a more specific example and not such an abstract one. Would you consider the confiscation of capitalist property "authoritarian" or "libertarian"?"

If a revolution with a predominatly socialist character were to occur, it would be libertarian, but if it were an individualist revolution (??) it would be authoritarian.

It is all about what the opinion of the majority is.

"The problem is that this synthesis theory of yours has no validation in the historical developments of both anarchism and socialism."

The fact that the first modern anarchist was a socialist does not mean anarchism is a tendency of socialism.

"all anarchist thinkers considered anarchism a tendency of socialism."

Can you find me that written some where, exactly that?

"What specific actions or policies would you say are "authoritarian"."

Those that are not decided thorugh direct democracy.

"while (somewhat) logical, has absolutely no basis in historical and empirical realities."

The synthesis theory is based upon analysis of anarchist and socialist theory.

"Anarchism, the theory we know today, came from the 1840's and during the creation of the first international."

That we can both accept.

"The first self-described anarchist, who was apart of the socialist movement, was Proudhon who wrote against private property. While I would say that Proudhon wasn't a socialist for various things, he was apart of the socialist movement and his writing against private property inspired Marx. Bakunin was apart of the 1st international and translated Capital. Kropotkin always considered himself a communist"

All this is right,

"All of these anarchists considered anarchism a tendency of socialism."

but this is not, that would mean that anarchism originated from an interpretation of socialism, it did not, my argument (synthesis) still stands.

"What did you have, or did you just have a fever?"

Just a fever 38ºc, enough to make me not touch the computer.

"Okay, well you really made it sound like you only read material that doesn't contradict your views in earlier posts."

You know the "only source of information I trust, etc.." was a joke right?

"I'll take a different approach to this. What do you think constitutes an "authoritarian" society? Specifically, what relations have to exist? "

It is authoritarian when it is not decided by a majority through direct democracy.