the question is not really answerable since it is not even applicable to the real world.
The way it is presented does so without any of the necessary entanglements a person would go through to even clarify and define his political
ideologies and personal ethos.
Let me explain.
If I am an anarchist and I OWN a business where I dont believe in MY right of sole direction of the business and then turn to the workers to make them
equal partners, then YES, I could be an anarchist as well as a socialist.
If you want to define socialism as a workers owned business free of ANY centralized regulation and profit distribution, you would have to define the
owner that makes such a situation as being an anarchist and surrendering HIS work (business) to those that he employs. In such a situation the HEAD
worker who may happen to be an anarchist, the business owner who worked and saved to open his business, would have to trade his role as owner and lead
manager to a uniform role like that of his employees. He would have to make them equal partners in order to be an anarchist as well as a socialist
since a true anarchist wouldnt even ascribe to the authority of fellow workers over him.
One is personal and the other is community based. The individual anarchist would have to compromise and surrender his personal autonomy to a group
collective. While anarchists can live in groups, they are free to defy the group, in fact defiance is not defiance, it is simply non compliance which
is acceptable in anarchism. A socialist community of workers would be able to establish rules for everyone which the former pure form anarchist would
then have to adhere to. He would not be able to defy those rules by noncompliance, he would be in an act of defiance when he refuses to comply. Rules
usually have consequences for their non adherence. A pure form anarchist would prefer his PERSONAL freedom and autonomy over one he only has a small
share or voice in.
In essence it is not compatible. A true form anarchist would call a former anarchist that establishes a group authority over himself to not be an
anarchist at all. So that point is as mute as you saying that Communism has not been tried yet.
I want to throw this in here, answer if you like, or ignore at your own discretion.
Socialism requires a state presence at some point. While it may not have voice or vote in the production and employment of the people, it would have a
territorial authority where such a community would exist.
The armed forces or other security force for example would have to defend the pockets of little communities from aggression. Who would decide the
order and operation of the chain of command in a purely socialist country? If people working own their employment, how then could any military action
be coordinated, by vote? What of police and other social services? How would they operate if they are owned by the people they employ as well?
How would taxes be levied for their continued existence? Would it be a personal tax on everyone working or just one applied to everyone regardless. If
you do not pay for the services do you get coverage? In a socialist workers collective those who do not work do not get their share of profit. So
nationally those not "producing" would not OWN the countries services. They would not be entitled to fire protection of police security. IF they were
covered while not working to pay their share, they would then be EXPLOITING everyone else who is. They would get the benefits of the work of others.
That is not acceptable in socialism. You dont work?, you dont get pay. It sounds nice when you are talking about the owners profits, but sounds crappy
when you are talking about a poor guys right to anything if he doesnt produce.
Also, in a socialist state, would some one NOT working in government have a vote over how much a government employee gets paid? They are workers too.
They go into their places of employment and work many hours a day for pay. Do government workers get to decide their work conditions and how much is
their fair share of public money when handing out their pay checks? what else do they decide if they WORK for the government? Do they OWN the
Why would they have less of a vote or say over their employment over that of a factory worker for example?
Police, soldiers, fire fighters, civil engineers, city hall clerks, ect....millions of people working who would have the right to decide how their
place of business operates and more importantly how much their fair share of pay is and what their responsibilities are.
You can not say these services are not necessary in a modern society or even a quasi primitive one. How would a workers paradise justify exploiting
government workers and civil servants as well as others with rules over their employment they dont get a voice or vote on?
edit on 16-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)