|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 27, 2011 3:29:07 GMT -5
Much like a lot of Swedes believe their system is socialism too, except it's not, just regulated capitalism. Except that anarchy is actually socialism, of the non-capitalist kind. You can trace the anarcho-socialist theory to well before Marx, with your Proudhons and such. Their means of getting to a non-state, no-inequality paradise was different to Marx's, but it's still socialist. ...The fuck are you talking about? One of the central tenants of socialism is a government that directly runs the economy. Anarchy is the complete opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 3:30:50 GMT -5
Except that anarchy is actually socialism, of the non-capitalist kind. You can trace the anarcho-socialist theory to well before Marx, with your Proudhons and such. Their means of getting to a non-state, no-inequality paradise was different to Marx's, but it's still socialist. ...The fuck are you talking about? One of the central tenants of socialism is a government that directly runs the economy. Anarchy is the complete opposite. I would point out the similarity between this and Phillip Adams' inane Stalinist drivel again, but what's the point? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 3:47:30 GMT -5
Except that anarchy is actually socialism, of the non-capitalist kind. You can trace the anarcho-socialist theory to well before Marx, with your Proudhons and such. Their means of getting to a non-state, no-inequality paradise was different to Marx's, but it's still socialist. ...The fuck are you talking about? One of the central tenants of socialism is a government that directly runs the economy. Anarchy is the complete opposite. The objective of all socialist beliefs is 'communism': a world without government, classes or capitalism. Marxists want to achieve this by blowing away capitalism with a dictatorship of the proletariat and then letting it 'wither away' as it is no longer needed. Anarchists disagree, saying that a dictator is just as bad as capitalism, and a dictatorship cannot be 'of the proletariat'. But they're both still socialism because they share the ultimate goal of communism. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 3:48:55 GMT -5
...The fuck are you talking about? One of the central tenants of socialism is a government that directly runs the economy. Anarchy is the complete opposite. I would point out the similarity between this and Phillip Adams' inane Stalinist drivel again, but what's the point? Bizarro universe reverse Phil Adams, sure. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 3:51:28 GMT -5
And ltfred's contributions to the fundie dictionary project go on...
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 27, 2011 3:54:07 GMT -5
...The fuck are you talking about? One of the central tenants of socialism is a government that directly runs the economy. Anarchy is the complete opposite. The objective of all socialist beliefs is 'communism': a world without government, classes or capitalism. Marxists want to achieve this by blowing away capitalism with a dictatorship of the proletariat and then letting it 'wither away' as it is no longer needed. Anarchists disagree, saying that a dictator is just as bad as capitalism, and a dictatorship cannot be 'of the proletariat'. But they're both still socialism because they share the ultimate goal of communism. Whether or not they believe it'll lead to an idealised communist utopia is irrelevant, the point remains that a core ideal of socialism is a completely government controlled economy whereas anarchists go for no government whatsoever. They're diametrically opposed ideologies. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 27, 2011 3:56:47 GMT -5
ltfred, you can't just go and redefine words as you please... -_-
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 3:59:24 GMT -5
The objective of all socialist beliefs is 'communism': a world without government, classes or capitalism. Marxists want to achieve this by blowing away capitalism with a dictatorship of the proletariat and then letting it 'wither away' as it is no longer needed. Anarchists disagree, saying that a dictator is just as bad as capitalism, and a dictatorship cannot be 'of the proletariat'. But they're both still socialism because they share the ultimate goal of communism. Whether or not they believe it'll lead to an idealised communist utopia is irrelevant, the point remains that a core ideal of socialism is a completely government controlled economy whereas anarchists go for no government whatsoever. They're diametrically opposed ideologies. Nevertheless, they've been regarded by both parties as part of the same group of ideologies since the First socialist International- which included both Marxist socialists and anarchist socialists. The international felt that, since they had the same long-term goal, they should work together to achieve it. But Marx was a bit of a dick. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Internationalltfred, you can't just go and redefine words as you please... -_- Nor can anyone else. That's why I agree with the definition as agreed to by the people who began the ideology, not some bullshit redefinition by people out to slander run-of-the-mill liberals. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 27, 2011 4:04:59 GMT -5
/facepalm
We've been over this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 27, 2011 4:49:27 GMT -5
...Err... The First International was not socialist, they were a bunch of otherwise unrelated left-wing pro-working class groups (as it says in the very first sentence of the article you linked to). For someone so opinionated in politics it's rather surprising that you don't seem to realise that pro-working class =/= left wing =/= socialist.
Furthermore, you say we should stick to definitions of ideologies as defined by the founders. Then why the fuck are you trying to equate anarchy and socialism when Marx (founder of socialism) when not only did Marx purposely distance his movement from anarchism, but trying to cite the very event in which this happened to prove your point?! That's like Skyfire levels of stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 27, 2011 7:11:42 GMT -5
Except that anarchy is actually socialism, of the non-capitalist kind. You can trace the anarcho-socialist theory to well before Marx, with your Proudhons and such. Their means of getting to a non-state, no-inequality paradise was different to Marx's, but it's still socialist. ...The fuck are you talking about? One of the central tenants of socialism is a government that directly runs the economy. Anarchy is the complete opposite. Marx and Engels would have disagreed, "primitive communism" was the term they used to describe the sort of communal ownership that exists in hunter-gatherer societies. I don't know if modern anthropology would have been entirely in agreement but still, it does describe communal ownership without what we would recognize as a government. Anarcho-Primititivists are anarchists who believe that this was an early form of egalitarian stateless socialism. Of course the relationship between what urban anarcho-primativists think of hunter gatherer societies and the way that hunter gatherer societies actually work is another matter entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Sept 27, 2011 7:51:56 GMT -5
Big government=/=socialism. Well actually one of the core policies of socialism is no private enterprise. So yes, big government kind of comes with the territory. ...The fuck are you talking about? One of the central tenants of socialism is a government that directly runs the economy. Anarchy is the complete opposite. No, socialism is the transition period between capitalism and communism and is about workers taking direct control of the means of production. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not necessarily mean a literal dictatorship, it means that the proletariat will take control of the economy. The lack of private enterprise does not mean the government takes over everything. Obviously, some socialists do want a large government taking control (Stalinists), but most other tendencies are for a more decentralised system run by worker's councils. Anarchists and socialists did think they should work together because they both want the same thing in the end, the split within the left is how to get there. |
|
