Socialism through Capitalism???

haha, yes. i'm out myself, but that is coz i needed a small break from the doobie. almost a week now. but i've had plenty beer to comfort me in this summer heat

 

Hey again,

@digit - I'm sorry about my poor english. English is not my first langues. - What i meant by "real" Socialism = Anarchism, or ANARCHISM = SOCIALISM! is firstly; to provocat a little not only the Capitalists but also some Socialists. Many Socialists gets very agitated to be comparied with Anarchists. It's probely because "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. - And secondly because of what is so well explained here...


Are anarchists socialists?


Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation. Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism," pp. 30-34, Man!, M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]

(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" and so on. We just concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and Anarchism," "o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time." [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [Lance Klafta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist banner.

For most socialists, "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example, supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own and control the means of production. The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations or by the commune.

Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" for "either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215-216]

Therefore all anarchists are anti-capitalist ("If labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism" [Alexander Berkman, What is Communist Anarchism?, p. 37]). Benjamin Tucker, for example -- the anarchist most influenced by liberalism - called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced capitalism as a system based upon "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit." Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists will become redundant and exploitation of labour by capital would cease, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural wage, its entire product." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy will be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true free market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so ensuring the latters exploitation via profit, interest and rent. Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its various "spooks," which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property, competition, division of labour, and so forth.

So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a specific kind -- libertarian socialists. As the individualist anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):

"t is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic." [Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not]

Labadie stated on many occasions that "all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists." Therefore, Daniel Guerin's comment that "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man" is echoed throughout the history of the anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings [Anarchism, p. 12]. Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer used almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same fact -- "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist" -- while acknowledging that the movement was "divided into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists." [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 81]

So while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues -- for example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, free market would be the best means of maximising liberty -- they agree that capitalism is to be opposed as exploitative and oppressive and that an anarchist society must, by definition, be based on associated, not wage, labour. Only associated labour will "decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual" during working hours and such self-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of real socialism. This perspective can be seen when Joseph Labadie argued that the trade union was "the exemplification of gaining freedom by association" and that "[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more the slave of his employer than he is with it." [Different Phases of the Labour Question]

However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism" almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals. All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this issue:

"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism." ["Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future", Red and Black Revolution, no. 2]

Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of state Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik regime in Russia.

Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share some ideas with some Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his labour theory of value. Marx himself was heavily influenced by Max Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own, which contains a brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example, Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are very far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the free association of equals.

Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e. state ownership and control). Instead of "central planning," which many people associate with the word "socialism," anarchists advocate free association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism in which "[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage payer." [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 81] Thus anarchist's reject Marxism (what most people think of as "socialism") as just "[t]he idea of the State as Capitalist . . . which the Social-Democratic fraction of the great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism." [Peter Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, p. 31].

It is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce confuse, most anarchists just call themselves "anarchists," as it is taken for granted that anarchists are socialists. However, with the rise of the so-called "libertarian" right in the USA, some pro-capitalists have taken to calling themselves "anarchists" and that is why we have laboured the point somewhat here. Historically, and logically, anarchism implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, which is something, we stress, that all anarchists have agreed upon.

...hope this will help explain it a little!

 

Zylark,

while Nazi Germany was a facist state, its economy was all socialist, and everything was done in the name of the state under Hitler's guidedence, hence National Socolism

 

*sigh*

 

*sigh*

I guess the documentary I watched last night Hiter: Rise of the Tryant. was wrong. Hiter was a tyrant, but he did everything in the name of German society, to keep the Germany society in the top realms of humanity. The 3rd Reich was his created so the German society could florish. Not perish due to the Jewish or the Czech culture. Hiter's work was socolist.

 

i need a bit of my own medicine. inhale..... hold it, count to ten. hold it. exhale. yes, that was good. i'm better now. i won't lash out. really. calma calma. aaaaaahhhhhhhh

argh, fuck it, nonononononono, easy does it

i need some "i'm really a peacefull kinda' dude" karma

 

Godwin's Law

The same applies to Clinton in my opinion.

 

I've acutally been witnessing a debate on another board about if Hitler was a Right-Wing or a Left-Wing. There seems to be a mixed response. Its just my take that even though it was a facist state, it was still performing under sociolism. I'll explain later, just not in the mood right now.

One of the best debates over there is how Hitler is the worst of all, but Stalin is technically the top winner in the murder contest. Stalin tends to be overlooked when dealing with WW2. Probably due to having to deal with the devil as an Ally.

The only real difference between Fascism, Communism, and Socialism is the spelling.

 

I just want to add that during the social revolution in America in the 60s liberals tended to call conservatives facist and conservatives had a habit of calling liberals commies.

In my opinion these stereotypes hold true far more than the notion that communism is like fascism.

And my argument that no single ideology will work was ignored by all you guys. The answer always has been and always will be to simply make a balance.

Once a proper balance between the society and the individual is found we'll move on to the next great debate. This new one will probably cause at least as many wars as socialism and fascism have.

 

you're right about one thing joshy. stalin was a brute, and during his regime more innocent people where killed, incarserated without trial and / or tortured than in germany under hitler.

but then again, stalin was a *dictator*. a very paranoid one at that. when did you last stumble upon a benign dictator?

another thing that is up for discussion, is wether or not soviet under stalin was a communist state. my vote goes towards no, it wasn't. and it does seem as you miss some of the major differences beetween dictatorial communism and democratic socialism, but i will also hazard to guess that you have not studied political philosphy very much, so that's ok. i've already pointed out the difference between fascism and communism / socialism, so i won't repeat myself, only to state that *any* dictatorship is worse than *any* democracy. wether that dictatorship is communist or fascist really doesn't matter much.

 

no, jesus, assuming he ever lived, was a rabid religious nutcase. his insanity even went so far that he claimed to be the son of god. no wonder he got strung up. imagine the herecy to the nomenclature of the time. today we are more humane. we put them into rubber rooms and give them heavy psych-drugs

 

diehard capitalists don't agree with socialism, so yea they would put a stop to it. But I don't see how that could even happen though.

 

We've had pockets of socialism in the US for years...communes, co-op's, etc.....nobody's wanted to distroy them...we've also had social programs that are not supported by the free market in any way (i.e. not capitalist)...therefore I contend (again) that the US system can and does support an ammount of socialist programs because not everything can or should be provided in a free market...unless the socialist efforts are supported by revolution or terrorism, they'll be supported by the gov & the people, because they've come about through the democratic process....



Peace

 

I don't know what it is, whether it is the Nazi Propaganda aspect of National Socialism, but i'm interested in it. How is it that they had such a great economy back then (Germany). I don't know the specifics of how the system worked but, how did such a dictatorship work so well economically, what resources does germany have that made such an economic boom, and how did they have such brilliant scientists devoloping such new technologies. I know they didn't develop radar like the british did, yet germany wasn't* being attacked several times by the air in 1940 to even worry about so many strikes by the british to take the time to analize that. But besides all that, they had rockets, they had jet engines, they were even on the verge of creating a long range stealth bomber(1944) And also don't forget the hydrogen bomb they were about to create with the help of a. einstien which then escaped into the u.s.. Maybe a controlled economy and propaganda can lead us down the same path as the germans... hmm..I'm not too intelligent when it comes to economics and governments to some degree, but does anyone have the answer to why germany was so successful?
Or is the answer what i think it is, the great depression helped out germany, as well as america's neutrality..?