It is my opinion, and I am open to debate about this, that anarchists (despite a common origin in the 1800's) not the same, and are fundimentally opposed to each other because of the structure Socialism requires be imposed for its implimentation. Some anarchists I have discussed this with agree, while others disagree. I would like to hear some other opinions.
posted by:
|
Philadelphia
|
-
Re: Anarchists are not Socialists
Sun, April 3, 2005 - 11:33 PManarchy in its essence goes against the complete control and power of socialism/communism, but the two are similar in some respects, of wanting the "best" for the people, and being better usually in theory and in thought than in action, you know what I mean? -
-
Re: Anarchists are not Socialists
Mon, October 31, 2005 - 10:04 PM
when men paraded the streets waving the black flag and the red one
a history lesson for a beautiful spring day.
The movement in favor of the establishment of the eight-hour workday took place on May 1, 1886, and Socialists(communists) and Anarchists learned to hate each other
In reading the newspapers we find the two names mentioned above frequently put side by side. Nay, we And them also associated with the terms communism and nihilism, as though these four "isms" had the closest relation to each other. This is a mistake. Socialism and anarchism are opposites which have nothing in common but their appurtenance to social science. Socialists and anarchists as such are enemies. They pursue contrary aims, and the success of the former will destroy forever the fanatical hopes of the latter.
to quote from a letter written by Uriah S. Stephens August 19, 1879, while he was Grand Master Workman, to a member of the Knights of Labor who had communicated with him on the subject of the interference of socialists,( democrats and liberals.) It reads:
you must not allow the socialists to get control of your Assembly. They are simply disturbers, and only gain entrance to labor societies that they may be in better position to break them up. You cannot fathom them, for they are crafty, cunning and unscrupulous. I detest the name of socialism on account of the actions of the men who profess to believe in it. They rush to every gathering and attempt to man or officer it. Having done that, and having driven all decent men away, they are supremely happy in the delusion that they have spread their ideas still further. I have had an experience with them that you could not possibly have had, and I warn you against having anything to do with them either individually or as a body. They tear down and very seldom ever attempt to build up. They do nothing for the cause of labor, save to do it harm. If the socialists ever gain control of the .....they will kill off the work of years. If they were sincere they would build up their own societies.
What socialists thought of Anarchists;
For the most part the meetings of anarchists are held under the roofs and influences of saloons, and it is only when exhilarated that they ever accomplish anything. There is no instance on record where they have ever done anything in the interest of reform, but in many places they have destroyed the hopes of men who were sorely tried, and who had almost gained what they were contending for when the incendiary speech of some anarchist turned public opinion, often very fickle, in an opposite direction.
Under such circumstances as I have pointed out it is but natural for men to grow desperate and restive. The demonstrations in some of our large cities testify to that fact; but when men parade the streets waving the black flag and the red one, threatening the destruction of property and the lives of other men, it is in no way advances the cause we are engaged in. Such outbursts do no good. If it were possible to get all the workingmen out in martial array, and fit them out for battle, would it not be possible to array them in a calm, rational manner on the side of justice devoid of violence? I would like to see the men who talk of destroying life and property take a practical view or the matter. Suppose that we have a repetition of 1877 on a larger scale. Who will do the fighting? Who will do the killing, and who will be counted among the killed? Only the workingmen. Workingmen will be hired to fight workingmen, and the men against whom the blow is directed will make a tour of some foreign country, and study the best means of suppressing mobs while the unpleasantness lasts, and come back in time to saddle the costs, in the shape of taxes, on the backs of the workingmen who are unfortunate enough to escape being killed.
they learned to loath them in1936 when they betrayed them to the Fascists in Catalan
Anarchy is the antithesis of socialism -
-
Re: Anarchists are not Socialists
Wed, August 22, 2007 - 8:11 PMI think that it is silly to call anarchism the antithesis of socialism. They certainly have their differences: socialists focus primarily on capitalism as the prime cause of social injustice, while anarchists attempt to build a more fluid critique of power relationships generally (anarchists were faster to embrace feminist, queer and critical race movements and theories because of this impulse). Socialists (or people masquerading as socialists if you prefer the more sectarian view) have historically favored centralized national systems that organize economies in planned and heirarchical fashions, while anarchists typically prefer political organization to take place on a local level. But anarchist and socialists share a critique of capitalism that is largely the same. I know someone is going to attack me for this making a robust argument full of textual refrences to show how the anarchist and socialist critique of capitalism is different, and ok fine, but in one will find a description of capitalism in which the major parts are workers producting value, capitalists "owning" that value paying part of that value to workers in the form of a wage and keeping the "surplus value" and reinvesting it in the economy and as such controling the ecnomy for their own (the capitalists') benefit, and finally the state utilizes violence to keep the system going against the threat of worker (or anyone elses) rebelion. Socialists seek to solve this problem by creating a worker's state, and there are a many theories on how to do that in the socialist diaspra. Anarchists seek to solve this problem by abollshing the state and replacing it with a more human polity usually based on voluntary associations, and again there are a many different theories on how to do this in the anarchist diaspra.
That being said if one were to compare the most statist and authoratarian socialist point of view to the most individualistic anarchist point of view. Say comparing Stalinism to the view of a life style Individualist Anarchist you would probably come to the conclusion that beyond discontent with the contemporary world they have nothing in common with eachother. However, one should not allow that to think that Anarchism and Socialism are opposites; it would be helpful to remeber that most socialists reject Stalinism as not really being socialist at all, and most anarchists think that individual life style anarchists are bourgeoisie posers. Take for another example the contemporary school of anarchists (one of the more influential) called Libertarian Municipalism, they consider themselves communists, anti-authoritarian communists. You would have a hard time convincing Bookchin that socialism is the antithesis of anarchism considering he afirms both. Or take for example socialists that favor worker self management and decentralized ecnomic planning (ie take hierarchy and power seriously) again you would have trouble convincing these people of their own internal contradiction. -
-
Re: Anarchists are not Socialists
Thu, August 30, 2007 - 7:47 PMI think in many ways socialism has nothing to do with the state. Socialism is a term that was stolen by non-capitalist statist for there own purpose.
-
-
-
-
Re: Anarchists are not Socialists
Thu, July 3, 2008 - 1:00 AMAnarchy has nothing to do with what ideology you claim really. Yes, Virginia, you can have a market anarchist and a socialist anarchist. And here is why:
Anarchy, from the Greek word anarchia, meaning "without rulers." All anarchist agree, whether you're a socialist, communist or market anarchist, that the basic underlying principle for anarchy is that no man has the right to rule over another. No man has the right to initiate force or fraud against another. No man has the right to violate the property of another. None of that can be done unless it is for legitimate self-defense. You can have one city that is organized around market anarchist principles. You can have another that is organized around socialist ideas. But the trick to making it work is that both of these places must exist in a state of voluntary cooperation. That is, you cannot force someone to be a socialist nor can you force someone to be a capitalist. I personally disagree with socialism but if someone wanted to live in a society of socialist there is nothing wrong with that. But that person must be free to withdraw whenever he wishes, he cannot be forced to give up any of his property unless he wants to. I don't think socialism and anarchy can work because it will eventually break down in a system of private property and market transactions. The social element will disappear simply because socialism requires force for it to work. But if people want to try it they can but they can't force others to be socialist. -
-
Re: Anarchists are not Socialists
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 5:05 AMWell said, Mitchell.
Nice exchange of views here.
-
