Mass Communist Eruption in April?

Originally posted by METACOMET
Wrong!

#1 Anarchism is not a form of socialism.
#2 Anarchism is not stateless socialism.
#3 Socialism is not simply an economic system, it certainly does require a government.
#4 government ownership is statism.

There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism.

Communism and Marxism

Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. It can not be because anarchism was an answer to private property, it originated from Proudhon's 'What is Property'.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Anarchism came about in opposition to Marxism.
The socialists who disagreed with the state-system started calling themselves anarchists, then later libertarians, libertarian-socialists etc. They were still socialists.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin

Anarcho-capitalism is a modern bastardization of what anarchism traditionally is. The term anarchism is used to simply mean 'no-government', whereby traditional anarchism is a political system not just no government. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Anarcho-capitalists used the term to mean 'free-markets' which capitalism is not. Argue the 'private ownership' problem with them and they are lost. Private ownership is a hierarchical system, it is an authority, thus can not be anarchist.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (pronounced [ˈpruːd ɒn] in BrE, [pʁu dɔ̃] in French) (15 January, 1809 – 19 January, 1865) was a French economist and socialist philosopher who was the first individual to call himself an "anarchist" and is considered among the first anarchist thinkers. Proudhon is most famous for his assertion of "Property is theft!", in his missive What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right of Government with the original title: Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement, which was his first major work, published in 1840...

...In his earliest works, Proudhon analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to contemporary socialists who idolized association. In series of commentaries, from What is Property? (1840) through the posthumously-published Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1863-64), he declared that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". The apparent contradiction is resolved when it is realized that, in "property is theft", he was using the word to mean the type of property which created exploitative conditions. Specifically, he was referring to the means of production which labourers did not own themselves, and the system of wage labour...

...On the other hand, in asserting that property is essential for liberty, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisans home and tools of his trade. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is his property and anything beyond that is not. He can be considered a libertarian socialist, since he advocated worker self-management and argued against capitalist ownership of the means of production.

eng.anarchopedia.org...

Government ownership is not stateism. The state is a collection of institutions, including government, the military, the school system etc., that allows one class of people to rule over another. It comes along with capitalism. The state being all powerful is a part of fascism, a far right wing system.

Socialism, capitalism are economic systems, anarchism, Marxism, fascism are political systems.

Both anarchists and state-socialists ultimately wanted 'free association', the anarchists wanted instant abolition of the state, and the state-socialists wanted an intermediate stage before free association in order to increase production, a temporary state system.

reply to post by FailedProphet

thats a long stretch of the imagination my friend. if theres any thing in it perhaps its down this rabbit hole;
www.youtube.com...
www.canvasopedia.org...

Originally posted by ANOK

Government ownership is not stateism. The state is a collection of institutions, including government, the military, the school system etc., that allows one class of people to rule over another. It comes along with capitalism. The state being all powerful is a part of fascism, a far right wing system.

Socialism, capitalism are economic systems, anarchism, Marxism, fascism are political systems.

All political systems, all forms of governance, all systemic constructs are fascist. Political systems and economic systems are not mutually exclusive! The one relies on the other for it's very existence! The other requires the veneer of moral authority, ie regulation, to obscure it's true nature.

I like the occupy movement, it is a first step toward egalitarian action by the individual that does not require leadership, organisation, control. I used to think that if only more people evolved to the point where there is no longer any perceived requirement for an overarching construct to organise the means of survival.

Along with other global movements, including the mass resignations and most inspiringly, the defections of the Free Syria Army, Occupy is encouraging. Occupy has and needs no leader because action is personal and to my mind, indicative of a growing awareness of systemic injustice and the willingness to take personal responsibility for bringing about positive change.

edit on 3/17/2012 by ANOK because: It's a commie takeover Harry

Originally posted by teapot
All political systems, all forms of governance, all systemic constructs are fascist. Political systems and economic systems are not mutually exclusive! The one relies on the other for it's very existence! The other requires the veneer of moral authority, ie regulation, to obscure it's true nature.

All political systems are not fascist. Fascism is the extreme of the right, ultimate state authority. None-authority political systems like anarchism are obvioulsy not fascist.

Capitalism is an economic system, but it can not survive without government. Neither capitalists nor the workers would want capitalism without government. The workers need it to protect them from the capitalists, and capitalists need it to protect their capital. Without government there would be nothing stopping the workers simply taking the means of production and throwing the private owner out. Or alternatively nothing stopping the capitalists from paying crap wages and not providing safe working conditions, other than the workers demanding it.

Socialism, as an economic system, needs no government because workers would organize themselves through their own directly democratic collective organizations. Socialism simply means the workers own the means of production, the basis of the economy. It would be an economy based on producing for our needs, rather than to simply make profit for the minority capitalist class.

I like the occupy movement, it is a first step toward egalitarian action by the individual that does not require leadership, organisation, control. I used to think that if only more people evolved to the point where there is no longer any perceived requirement for an overarching construct to organise the means of survival.

Along with other global movements, including the mass resignations and most inspiringly, the defections of the Free Syria Army, Occupy is encouraging. Occupy has and needs no leader because action is personal and to my mind, indicative of a growing awareness of systemic injustice and the willingness to take personal responsibility for bringing about positive change.

I have no affiliation with Occupy but I agree, apathy changes nothing.