Free beer, and a question...

So what is socialism exactly? Ask ten people and you will get ten different answers. They can't all be correct, right?

I'm not going to try to tell you what it is, but I want to ask a question. I have been asking this question in a few posts lately, and it has gone completely ignored. Of course the question was asked of a particular group of people, those who claim socialism is a centralised state system. The question is pretty self explanatory, and of course unanswerable from that perspective, as you'll see.

I would like to hear something from the 'socialism is slavery' crowd. How do you address the contradiction of the question? Can you invalidate the question? If you can't then does it make you question your position? If it doesn't, then why?

So to the big question...

How can anarchists be socialists by your definition of socialism?

If you doubt that anarchists are socialists, then we can debate that. I'll open with this...

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

You should know about Adolf as he played a major role in the movement that brought you the eight hour day. We should have an Adolf Fischer day. He was hanged by the state after the Haymarket riots in Chicago. He was convicted of throwing a bomb that killed some cops, after which the cops attacked the strikers starting the riot. The bomb was thrown from a side alley, not from the strikers. He was innocent, but charged along with eight others because of his high ranking in the labour movement.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

Anyway back to my point...

How can anarchists be socialists by your definition of socialism?

Oh yeah sorry, no free beer.

No beer? I'm out

reply to post by zonetripper2065


So you can't, or won't answer the question?

Why?

reply to post by ANOK


Socialism is more of an umbrella term than anything.

In super simple form... one is community based and one is individually based. One still shows authority and some use of government collectively while the other does not. So to answer your question, one can not be the other.

socialism is a "horizontal" social structure.

many popular social structures are "vertical".

anarchists are ambivalent toward social structure. they could be either, both, or neither...depending on the situation. to answer your Q, anarchists are not socialists because they will never conform to the label. but the may, at times, behave as though they were.


did I pass?

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by ANOK

 

Socialism is more of an umbrella term than anything.

Hmm OK, umbrella for what? I would agree to a point. So in the context of my question, Anarchists used it in the same way the Marxists did. It wasn't an umbrella term to them, it had a very specific meaning. It is only an 'umbrella term' in the mainstream common usage, not the true usage of socialists themselves.

I'm enjoying the chat, but the question is really aimed at those who think socialism is a centralised state system, not those that think it's an 'umbrella term'. The question loses it's point on you I'm afraid, I would have to rephrase it somehow.

reply to post by ANOK


A centralized state system can best be compared with Marxism no?

Originally posted by tgidkp
anarchists are not socialists because they will never conform to the label. but the may, at times, behave as though they were.
did I pass?

Nope sorry but anarchists were socialists.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

And again from my OP...

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

So Anarchists were socialists, and are socialists, and socialism is an economic system (not political). Socialist because it's the only way for a society to be free. But I don't won't this to be a debate about what either is, or whether they would work, I want an answer to the question, "how can anarchists be socialists", based on what history shows to be the facts, not peoples opinions based on modern misinterpretations.

Once people understand what socialism is not, then it makes it easier to understand what it is.

I would think anarchists are socialists by way of overlapping goals and methods. Anarchists want no governmental system, Socialists want to eliminate whatever governmental system currently exists, and they promise the anarchists that the State will wither away. Unfortunately, it doesn't. The Anarchists believe it though, because it fits with their goal.

There's nothing so commonplace as a "Socialist Revolution," or a "Worker's Revolt." Both of these are quite up the alley for anarchists. Nobody else seems to be calling for a revolt, and meaning, so once again Socialists and Anarchists find themselves cozying up to each other.

But I'll go so I don't kill the thread before it starts.
Enjoy boyo's

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by ANOK

 

A centralized state system can best be compared with Marxism no?

Marxism is not socialism, it is a political path to socialism, and the period of the centralised state is not socialism, it's the transition period of change from capitalist to socialist economy. Once full socialism is realised the state, according to Marxism, will dissolve.

The anarchists were socialists who did not support the political path to socialism, but wanted direct action and instant change. This is what caused the rift between Marx and Bakunin...

The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

So back to the question...

How can anarchists be socialists if the definition is a centralised system?

reply to post by ANOK

Aaron Swartz might be an example

Originally posted by charles1952
I would think anarchists are socialists by way of overlapping goals and methods. Anarchists want no governmental system, Socialists want to eliminate whatever governmental system currently exists, and they promise the anarchists that the State will wither away. Unfortunately, it doesn't. The Anarchists believe it though, because it fits with their goal.

There's nothing so commonplace as a "Socialist Revolution," or a "Worker's Revolt." Both of these are quite up the alley for anarchists. Nobody else seems to be calling for a revolt, and meaning, so once again Socialists and Anarchists find themselves cozying up to each other.

Nice try but no. I am taking about socialism, not a group of people calling themselves socialists.

Anarchists were socialists, not anarchists hanging with socialists. Socialists always have a political affiliation, whether that be Marxism, Leninism, Anarchism etc.

I am trying to not give my definition of socialism because I don't want the discussion to go in the wrong direction.

I want the focus to be on the question. I have already established that anarchists are socialists. If Bakunin said it then it is so, as he is one of the fathers of anarchism. Not to mention all the other anarchists who say it.

In my view, unless socialism is an integral part of anarchism, then anarchism becomes self-indulgence. Anarchists who aren't socialists might as well just call themselves individualists." (p. 125). So Bookchin claims what is sorely needed is a serious, coherent, organised, revolutionary anarchist left which is well-versed in anarchist socialist theory...

www.thrall.orconhosting.net.nz...

"As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people." 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908

"Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin

"The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these..." Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995

"The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes...." Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995

"The 20th century experienced or witnessed every variety of state socialism, and learned that if its rulers are ruthless enough, they can impose, for a while, the most bizarre regimes and describe them as socialism. As socialism has been grossly misrepresented, so anarchism suffers from the widely held view that it is simply another variety of millenarianism, the belief in the eventual arrival, ‘after the revolution’, of a period of ultimate happiness when all the problems that beset humanity will have been solved, permanently." Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.3 p.31, 1995