NationStates Jolt Archive

I just heard that phrase. Is that possible? The very principle of socialisim is that things should be fair and equal, and people aren't going to do that on their own, so therefore a fairly large state is needed.

So couls somone explain the views of an anarcho-socialist?

I just heard that phrase. Is that possible? The very principle of socialisim is that things should be fair and equal, and people aren't going to do that on their own, so therefore a fairly large state is needed.

So couls somone explain the views of an anarcho-socialist?
Well, my personal views on the matter is that I would use direct democracy. Direct democracy is entirely within the realm of anarchism.

Being an anarcho-socialist myself, I believe that "true" socialism can only be achieved with direct democracy, possibly with use of the Internet in large states. That would require a government consisting of all of the citizens, which in some sense is no government at all.

Ahh...My misunderstanding was in the definition of anarchisim. Thanks.

Ahh...My misunderstanding was in the definition of anarchisim. Thanks.
You probably confused it with chaos and disorder. Don't worry, such things are commonplace.
To give a simple definition, anarchism is "no rulers, not 'no rules'".

Yeah, I assumed that anarchy could only by anarcho-capitalisim, where money rules what people do, and there is almost no government.

But this is no centralised government.

Yeah, I assumed that anarchy could only by anarcho-capitalisim, where money rules what people do, and there is almost no government.

But this is no centralised government.
Most anarchists would argue that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, since capitalism has an established hierarchy, which is a clear violation of anarchist principles.

Most anarchists would argue that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, since capitalism has an established hierarchy, which is a clear violation of anarchist principles.

True. (I assme you mean, rich/poor hierachy?)

I would say no, that doesn't make sense. Anarcho communist I could understand as in communism there is no state. But in socialism there always is a state, so how that can be related to the principle of being 'Against all authority' I have no fucking clue

I would say no, that doesn't make sense. Anarcho communist I could understand as in communism there is no state. But in socialism there always is a state, so how that can be related to the principle of being 'Against all authority' I have no fucking cluePeople often use them interchangeably. For instance, in U.S. terms, Communism is viewed as authoritarian, whereas socialism is the libertarian form.

People often use them interchangeably. For instance, in U.S. terms, Communism is viewed as authoritarian, whereas socialism is the libertarian form.

I know, Im just saying that the true definitions of the two words cannot be reconciled.

People often use them interchangeably. For instance, in U.S. terms, Communism is viewed as authoritarian, whereas socialism is the libertarian form.

Thats a bit wierd.

I believe that Anarcho-Socialist could be summed up like this. They don't want anybody telling them what to do, they don't want anybody to answer to, they dont want to pay taxes, and they dont want a boss, but they still want you to pay for their healthcare.

I know, Im just saying that the true definitions of the two words cannot be reconciled.If socialism is viewed as being libertarian, then it can be reconciled, since libertarian is often replaced with "anarchist."

I know, Im just saying that the true definitions of the two words cannot be reconciled.
I kind of disagree with you there.

Anarchism is socialist overall. You can't have anarchy if you have people with power over others and this includes bosses.

I kind of disagree with you there.
Okay, boiled down to their basic definitions-
socialism: state ownership of the means of production
anarchism: no state

Do you not see the clash here?

I believe that Anarcho-Socialist could be summed up like this. They don't want anybody telling them what to do, they don't want anybody to answer to, they dont want to pay taxes, and they dont want a boss, but they still want you to pay for their healthcare.

...

Okay, boiled down to their basic definitions-
socialism: state ownership of the means of production
anarchism: no state

Do you not see the clash here?
Compromise then. Let's say the people are the state. There is no state per se, but the people own the means of production. I see no clash here, unless you try to have a socialist dictatorship, which I'm not advocating.

Let me throw in a bit of the anarcho-capitalism ideology because in reality in can be exactly the same as anarcho-socialism. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, but it is possible that with a completely privatized society, the citizens can own the shares in all corporations, and therefore have direct control of the market. While the owners guide some of the choices as to where the corporation is headed, since it is funded by the people (who control the shares), the interests in the people is genuine. Just an interesting idea. Anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism could coexist in one society.

Compromise then. Let's say the people are the state. There is no state per se, but the people own the means of production. I see no clash here, unless you try to have a socialist dictatorship, which I'm not advocating.

What is a state though but a means for one group oppressing another?
If there is no state then you have reached communism and are no longer in socialism.

Let me throw in a bit of the anarcho-capitalism ideology because in reality in can be exactly the same as anarcho-socialism. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, but it is possible that with a completely privatized society, the citizens can own the shares in all corporations, and therefore have direct control of the market. While the owners guide some of the choices as to where the corporation is headed, since it is funded by the people (who control the shares), the interests in the people is genuine. Just an interesting idea. Anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism could coexist in one society.

Yes, that's true. A better idea is Anarcho-Communism, which is an evolution of this. It doesn't have any money... It's very complicated to explain. It does require the Capitalist stage of development, just like any real Communism.

Without the Capitalism stage, the society will fall, just as with the USSR.

Crap! This is the first really interesting thread I've seen here since I joined.. And I don't have any comments! Ack!

Anyway, political idologies are bastardised all the time. Socialism - to most people - means bleeding hreat hippie fuckers looking out for the common good. It's not something generally percieved to have anything to do with government.

I think that's how the anachro-socialism got started. Anarchism to most people, means chaos & disorder. So it's quite natural to combine the two in order to end up with the original idea of anarchism.

How would anarcho-socialism deal with resource and labor distribution?

Compromise then. Let's say the people are the state. There is no state per se, but the people own the means of production. I see no clash here, unless you try to have a socialist dictatorship, which I'm not advocating.

All forms of government are hierarichal. Democracy is no different from monarchy in works, it just represents the will of more people, and less people gets screwed.

How would anarcho-socialism deal with resource and labor distribution?
There are several ideas. I think the most easily implemented one I've heard is a heavily modified capitalistic model. One where investment money is publicly controlled & companies are common peoperty of the people involved.

How would anarcho-socialism deal with resource and labor distribution?
I think the idea is everyone works together for the community. (or is that anarcho-communism or are those 2 the same *confusylled*

There are several ideas. I think the most easily implemented one I've heard is a heavily modified capitalistic model. One where investment money is publicly controlled & companies are common peoperty of the people involved.

So the businesses are governed by markets the same way they are now, just with the workers being the owners? What stops the workers from behaving like shareholders and hiring unscrupulous managers who try to optimize profit?

I think the idea is everyone works together for the community. (or is that anarcho-communism or are those 2 the same *confusylled*
AFAIK, anachro-socialism is not quite as well defined as anachro-communism. Ignoring anachro-capitalism for a moment, all anarchist idologies are about people working together to achieve common goals. So you describe both.

However, a lot of proponents for the various versions have radically different ideas of how they should be working together, and what tools they should use in the process.

As already mentioned, one of the simplest ideas is a competitive collectivist society based on a heavily controlled capitalistic model. There several other approaches ranging from different takes on the same thing to variations of planned economy or participatory economics. Personally I favour the latter.

So the businesses are governed by markets the same way they are now, just with the workers being the owners? What stops the workers from behaving like shareholders and hiring unscrupulous managers who try to optimize profit?

Uhh...because they work there?

So the businesses are governed by markets the same way they are now, just with the workers being the owners? What stops the workers from behaving like shareholders and hiring unscrupulous managers who try to optimize profit?
Good question. I wish I could answer, 'cos there is an answer. But it's been too long since I've bothered with this particular idea. I simply can't remember all the details. As you may be able to guess, it's not a solution I ever agreed with.

I'm almost certain you can find something about it on wikipedia or one of the anarchist FAQ sites.

Uhh...because they work there?

They can still work to form monopolies and force out other competition, they can still be harmful to the environment. There will still be great inequities in wealth, and people who aren't working.

They can still work to form monopolies and force out other competition, they can still be harmful to the environment. There will still be great inequities in wealth, and people who aren't working.

Cant argue with that. With no Government of any kind, there is no way those things will ever be paid attention.

They can still work to form monopolies and force out other competition, they can still be harmful to the environment. There will still be great inequities in wealth, and people who aren't working.
Actually, I think I may remember some general ideas about this after all. I haven't browsed, so it's probably not completely accurate.

The idea is that worker communities can manage the distribution of their goods if they so desire, thus it's in everyone's best interest to work for everyones best interest. Individual syndicates depend on others for various things after all. Imagine if the guys who're creating communication infrastructure suddenly get the nice idea of taking over the entire market.
The copper industry (or fiber optics or whatever, insert nerd knowledge where applicable) would suddenly risk having fewer costumers, and thus risk their profit. The natural reaction for them would be to either support or merge with the competition, or simply to refuse to supply the greedy company.

There's also something about having worker or work manifestos I think, but.. Sorry, my mind is but a siv in disguise.

There are several ideas. I think the most easily implemented one I've heard is a heavily modified capitalistic model. One where investment money is publicly controlled & companies are common peoperty of the people involved.Isn't that anarcho-syndicalism?

Isn't that anarcho-syndicalism?
Know what? I'm gonna look it up.

It's starting to bother me I can't keep track of all the silly & not-so-silly ideas anymore. Don't get me wrong, ideas are great & the more the better... But it's a fucking jungle :p

The decisions of an anarcho-socialist direct democracy would have to be enforced by the use of arms just like any other decisions. Someone would have to be the one to wield those arms. Someone needs to be there to execute the decisions. Someone has to plan the economy just to maintain economic equality.

Let's assume the collective decides that the minority I'm a part of is to do things XYZ. The people - that is, the majority - have spoken. I believe this decision is absurd... and completely refuse. Let's assume I turn instead to usury for profit and creature comforts.

What do people do to force my hand? Who does the forcing? What right can they have if there are no law and no rulers? If nothing happens, what's the point of having direct democracy if its decisions aren't enforceable?

The decisions of an anarcho-socialist direct democracy would have to be enforced by the use of arms just like any other decisions. Someone would have to be the one to wield those arms. Someone needs to be there to execute the decisions. Someone has to plan the economy just to maintain economic equality.

Let's assume the collective decides that the minority I'm a part of is to do things XYZ. The people - that is, the majority - have spoken. I believe this decision is absurd... and completely refuse. Let's assume I turn instead to usury for profit and creature comforts.

What do people do to force my hand? Who does the forcing? What right can they have if there are no law and no rulers? If nothing happens, what's the point of having direct democracy if its decisions aren't enforceable?
If they are democracy they still could send the police for you.

If they are anarchists they'll (depending on how much good you do) either let you do what you want or just ignore you. If some ignore you but you don't change your mind, but get along without them, then you have formed a new little society. Anarchist society is not a monolith, you are free to associate with those you care about and not with others.

What do people do to force my hand? Who does the forcing? What right can they have if there are no law and no rulers? If nothing happens, what's the point of having direct democracy if its decisions aren't enforceable?
You ask the wrong question. Those people you talk about wouldn't have to do a damn thing.
The real question is: what would you do? Accept that you have to compromise to be part of a community based on voluntary actions, or leave the community & do things by yourself?

They can still work to form monopolies and force out other competition, they can still be harmful to the environment. There will still be great inequities in wealth, and people who aren't working.
Is that how you expect free people to act?

The idea that things get better because you are forced to do them does great harm in democratic states. To remove the possibilities of some groups (also majorities) to force their ways on everyone is a good thing not a problem.

I would say no, that doesn't make sense. Anarcho communist I could understand as in communism there is no state. But in socialism there always is a state, so how that can be related to the principle of being 'Against all authority' I have no fucking clue

It depends. Socialism doesn't just have one term. It can also be used as an umbrella term for different school's of thought, as well as a discrete form of government in its own right and as well as an economic theory

I know, Im just saying that the true definitions of the two words cannot be reconciled.

There is no such thing as a [b]true definition[/i] of socialism

Okay, boiled down to their basic definitions-
socialism: state ownership of the means of production
anarchism: no state


Could not another definition of socialism be "Worker ownership of the means of production?"

Compromise then. Let's say the people are the state. There is no state per se, but the people own the means of production. I see no clash here, unless you try to have a socialist dictatorship, which I'm not advocating.

Surely it is more accurate to say the people are the government and the government own the means of production.

I have seen anarchism occasionally described as stateless government (government without a state) by, among others, Colin Ward.

What is a state though but a means for one group oppressing another?

A geopolitical entity that claims sovereignty and rule through its institutions?


If there is no state then you have reached communism and are no longer in socialism.

You make it sound like Marxism is the only "socialist" (in the umbrella sense) political theory.

You fail to take into account the very broad nature of the socialist movement.

How would anarcho-socialism deal with resource and labor distribution?

Depends on the type you are talking about. Anarcho-socialism is a vague term that almost any no-state socialist theory could be covered by.

So the businesses are governed by markets the same way they are now, just with the workers being the owners? What stops the workers from behaving like shareholders and hiring unscrupulous managers who try to optimize profit?

A lack of money?

Though basically you are asking, what stops the workers from chosing people to screw the workers over.

Isn't that anarcho-syndicalism?

That is a form of anarcho-socialism, no?

The decisions of an anarcho-socialist direct democracy would have to be enforced by the use of arms just like any other decisions. Someone would have to be the one to wield those arms. Someone needs to be there to execute the decisions. Someone has to plan the economy just to maintain economic equality.

Only if there is simple "majority rules" rule making, rather then compramise (NB: I don't advocate this, so I'm not the best to answer it).

Also, absolute economic equality is not always demanded by anarchists, and there are other ways to maintain it without planning, such as collective ownership.

Let's assume the collective decides that the minority I'm a part of is to do things XYZ. The people - that is, the majority - have spoken. I believe this decision is absurd... and completely refuse.

That would be a violation of a strong, commonly held anarchist principle, that a person or group cannot coerce another person or group to do what they want.

Anyway, The Similized World seems to have answered it better than I.

If they are democracy they still could send the police for you.

If they are anarchists they'll (depending on how much good you do) either let you do what you want or just ignore you. If some ignore you but you don't change your mind, but get along without them, then you have formed a new little society. Anarchist society is not a monolith, you are free to associate with those you care about and not with others.

You ask the wrong question. Those people you talk about wouldn't have to do a damn thing.
The real question is: what would you do? Accept that you have to compromise to be part of a community based on voluntary actions, or leave the community & do things by yourself?

An accepted system of police would entail a violence engine - a state, if you will. This sort of system of government would not, I think, constitute a classless society. Two classes, the managers and the police, would have to exist and they would have comparatively more power than others.

As for free association, that is an excellent point. Of course - and to repeat myself shamelessly a bit - this happening on a wider scale would likely lead to the rise of capitalist or proto-capitalist contract-compensation economies where people like me could keep a hold of all of their relative economic input and trade it quid pro quo for goods and services. Anarcho-socialism would inevitably have to deal with a kind of anarcho-capitalism existing side by side with it.

An accepted system of police would entail a violence engine - a state, if you will. This sort of system of government would not, I think, constitute a classless society. Two classes, the managers and the police, would have to exist and they would have comparatively more power than others.
Eh.. Where'd you dig up these two classes?

As for free association, that is an excellent point. Of course - and to repeat myself shamelessly a bit - this happening on a wider scale would likely lead to the rise of capitalist or proto-capitalist contract-compensation economies where people like me could keep a hold of all of their relative economic input and trade it quid pro quo for goods and services. Anarcho-socialism would inevitably have to deal with a kind of anarcho-capitalism existing side by side with it.
Why would such behaviour be desirable to you?

You make it sound like Marxism is the only "socialist" (in the umbrella sense) political theory.

Nope, just the only good one, but thats not the point.
The word socialist implies that there you believe there needs to be a state (at least for a set period). The word anarchist implies that you hate the very concept of a state and so would never set one up.
Two ideas, irreconcilable

Know what? I'm gonna look it up.

It's starting to bother me I can't keep track of all the silly & not-so-silly ideas anymore. Don't get me wrong, ideas are great & the more the better... But it's a fucking jungle :p
I'm not sure, but I do know that that idea is similar to Syndicalism [Used in the Fascist system.]

y'know I'm sure some of the most important figure in anarchist thought like Proudhon refered to it occasionally as Libertarian Socialism.. I mean, he wrote books on it and everything..

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

the anarchist faq...

Nope, just the only good one, but thats not the point.
The word socialist implies that there you believe there needs to be a state (at least for a set period). The word anarchist implies that you hate the very concept of a state and so would never set one up.
Two ideas, irreconcilable

so bakunin was just confused when he wrote "stateless socialism: anarchism"? and the whole lot of the early anarchists were confused for taking part in the socialist movement? is it wrong for people to claim that proudhon was one of the most important writers and thinkers of the socialist movement (a position held by marx himself, at least at the start)?

socialism was and is a broad church, right from the beginning.

y'know I'm sure some of the most important figure in anarchist thought like Proudhon refered to it occasionally as Libertarian Socialism.. I mean, he wrote books on it and everything..

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

the anarchist faq...
Ah, thanks. The very thing I've been referring to :)

Anyway, I'm surprised people haven't started attacking anarchists for being anti-religious yet.

Ah, thanks. The very thing I've been referring to :)

Anyway, I'm surprised people haven't started attacking anarchists for being anti-religious yet.
Have you read it? My god is it boring! And Long! And what's with all the quotations!? They're very distracting..

Being an anarcho-socialist myself, I believe that "true" socialism can only be achieved with direct democracy, possibly with use of the Internet in large states. That would require a government consisting of all of the citizens, which in some sense is no government at all.
why on earth aren't you more active in the UDCP man?? i didn't know you shared our ideas exactly:cool:


but anarcho-socialism/communism isn't just about the system of governance. once a system has been set up by a large state to allow people to live without a state (with direct democracy as one of its functions), then it is possible.
it also requires a change in human nature, as concurrent with many socialist theories. greedy people, brought up in capitalism won't be able to live equally (or even peacefully imo) without a large, controlling state. but change human nature a little towards altruism and it suddenly becomes possible

and they say socialism is idealist :p ;)

so bakunin was just confused when he wrote "stateless socialism: anarchism"? and the whole lot of the early anarchists were confused for taking part in the socialist movement? is it wrong for people to claim that proudhon was one of the most important writers and thinkers of the socialist movement (a position held by marx himself, at least at the start)?

socialism was and is a broad church, right from the beginning.
Socialist in bakhunins case was a poorly defined word. He implied a communist economic system. This is quite different from socialism wherein there will be less freedom (and therefore not be supported by anarchists).

These days socialism is not the same as communism (lower case 'c'), the two words have been seperated and defined

but anarcho-socialism/communism isn't just about the system of governance. once a system has been set up by a large state to allow people to live without a state (with direct democracy as one of its functions), then it is possible.

If direct democracy results in government policy, guess what? Not anarchism. Direct democracy is not anarchic because it creates hierarchy based upon demographics.

it also requires a change in human nature, as concurrent with many socialist theories. greedy people, brought up in capitalism won't be able to live equally (or even peacefully imo) without a large, controlling state. but change human nature a little towards altruism and it suddenly becomes possible

This is true, but the problem is that it takes one capitalist to begin eating away at a socialist society. One man with a great deal of labor, like an Edison, or a Gates, who realizes that they offer much more to society than they are getting in return and don't like it, will begin selling or trading their labor on the market.

Have you read it? My god is it boring! And Long! And what's with all the quotations!? They're very distracting..
Yes, but only once, and not recently. I'm almost ashamed to admit that I've read most of the sources for the quotes in it as well. On the up side, that made it a bit less distracting for me.

Around two years ago I was heavily involved in some anarchist debates (yet again). The FAQ is extremely handy if you aren't talking to people with photographic memories. Much of what's been written about anarchy is very lenghty & quite disorganised, & the FAQ is much more easily manuverable.

But I haven't read it in full since around the time it was made.

Eh.. Where'd you dig up these two classes?
Why would such behaviour be desirable to you?

Specialisation of labour, basically. In any system sophisticated enough, there will be people with special proficiencies like teachers, engineers, technicians and specialists. Someone can make bricks while another person makes shoes, et cetera, blah blah blah. It's all old hat, I'm sure. Anyhoo, economic planning and economic co-ordination is a very desirable skill. A hospital, airport or factory needs to be rationally coordinated to be able to actually produce the relevant goods and services. Decisions need to be abjudicated. Resources need to be allocated. Priorities need to be settled. A Polish Parliament system would most likely be profoundly impractical - a contractual system involving some sort of willing temporary obedience to a co-ordinating faction could have to be used.

That's pretty much a capitalist planning class without the money being involved.

The police are roughly speaking the same thing, except bigger, burlier and proficient in making troublemakers, err, not kill people. Barring some sort of lynch mob system or a magical moral awakening of all humanity into agreeing with each other about everything, maintaining law and order would still have to rely on someone doing the dirty job.

That would be a violation of a strong, commonly held anarchist principle, that a person or group cannot coerce another person or group to do what they want.

I want to be able to hold on to a great variety of material goods and perhaps accumulate them to build grander things - systems of producing goods and services - according to my direction. My motive is profit. My preferred method is to negotiate some sort of compromise with my fellow men whereby I give them a part of the material goods I'm holding onto in exchange for their labour. This is to say, I'm a free marketer. Surely, collective ownership runs against this goal and such a system of social organisation would have to coerce me by peer pressure - or force if necessary - to cease and desist.

Anyhoo, I'm going to quietly withdraw from the thread now before you guys get tired of my right-wing ramblings. (Though I'll let you have the last word, because I'm polite like that! Who knows, maybe I'll convert! :D)