3 ms·

Socialism is a broad term that includes two main branches; state communism, which emphasizes a planned economy, and anarchism, which emphasizes fighting any kin

Socialism is a broad term that includes two main branches; state communism, which emphasizes a planned economy, and anarchism, which emphasizes fighting any kind of heirarchy including state power. In an anarchist world all decisions would be made on the local level wherever possible and businesses would be run democratically by their workers. Anarchists see anarchism as the skill of organizing and working without having people simply follow orders, which if you think about your private life you probably do it all the time. But at work you do what you’re told, which is in our view a gross assault on your personal integrity. In the anarchist view if there is a large power differential between two people there is simply no way for them to deal fairly with one another. A legal system is just a band-aid. Hoping for nicer rulers is delusional. The solution is that nobody should have that kind of power in the first place. This extends to male power over women and white supremacy as well. But it’s still considered a branch of socialism, associated with the writings of Bakunin and Kropotkin.

jeffdavis 8y ago
Interesting. It still sounds like you'd need some kind of big state around to constantly hammer down these power dofferentials. And it's not clear how something like that would work in a globalist world. But thank you for a sincere answer. I do have some overlapping views. Basically I think most cities/communities should be run with center-left-democratic policies, the federal government should be run as libertarian, and states would vary between what we now call Democrats and Republicans. In other words, the nature of government should change depending on the scale. What would I call that viewpoint?
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  Libertarian, I suppose. I was libertarian until I got my first corporate job, when I realized that every large corporation internally functions just like a Stalinist state. I mean Brezhnev had nothing on corporate America when it comes to bureaucracy..
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
james_s_tayler 8y ago
How effective do you really think a democratically run business could be? Such companies would be very limited in size and capacity to produce output. If you had a hypothetical Anarchist country with an Anarchist economy where all the companies were run this way, they would all be outcompeted by the capatilist companies of other nations and the local economy would collapse.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Which is why no anarchist (and anarchism necessitates the removal of the state) argues for "anarchism in one country", not only because it's oxymoronic but because it's unworkable for the reasons you mentioned and more.
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  Well that’s just flat wrong. Here’s an example of an association of worker collectives in Spain known as the Mondragon Corporation which employs 75000 people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation I mean in the age of feudalism I’m sure people thought the idea of electing their kings would have sounded equally bizarre.
  - mebassett 8y ago
    I think you are both touching on the question of "if capitalism is so great, why do firms exist?". You might find the work of Ronald Coase interesting in that regard (see https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/09/07/the-man-who-showed-why-firms-exist https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/09/07/the-man-who-sho...). The basic idea is that transaction costs for smaller decisions become too high, so it makes sense to have a figure with authority to make certain transaction decisions by fiat. I think Mondragon still has such authority figures, but it has a more "humanist" corporate structure, composed of co-ops, rather than the shareholder-directors-mgmt-and-workers structure in an american c-corp. corporate structures do matter.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
burfog 8y ago
Ah, well, the nice thing about the current system in the USA is that nobody will stop you from forming a commune. If things were flipped around, with the government being socialist, you couldn't escape that. No, it isn't perfect. In either case there would be a national government demanding taxes and conscription and not assaulting people, but in your case this is a very minor issue because you're wanting the more-shared option. Good luck.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >If things were flipped around, with the government being socialist, you couldn't escape that. I'm curious as to why. >but in your case this is a very minor issue I don't think that's true; the state still has power over you and the power to compel you to pay money and live by its (potentially and actually unjust) laws. That's fundamentally opposed to anarchists' goals. The goals of the anarchists aren't only immediately practical (communal production) but long-term practical as well. If one's goal is to eliminate unjust hierarchy (just as the liberal democrat's goal is to eliminate rights violations) then it won't do to live in a few communes here and there. There must be reform of the whole system.
fallingfrog 8y ago
Hey I’m kind of perplexed, everything I wrote in the parent comment is factual information about what anarchists believe, why the downvotes? If you don’t believe me you can look it up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Downvoting facts just because you don’t like them says more about you than about me, does it not?

jeffdavis 8y ago

Interesting. It still sounds like you'd need some kind of big state around to constantly hammer down these power dofferentials. And it's not clear how something like that would work in a globalist world. But thank you for a sincere answer. I do have some overlapping views. Basically I think most cities/communities should be run with center-left-democratic policies, the federal government should be run as libertarian, and states would vary between what we now call Democrats and Republicans. In other words, the nature of government should change depending on the scale. What would I call that viewpoint?

fallingfrog 8y ago
Libertarian, I suppose. I was libertarian until I got my first corporate job, when I realized that every large corporation internally functions just like a Stalinist state. I mean Brezhnev had nothing on corporate America when it comes to bureaucracy..
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

james_s_tayler 8y ago

How effective do you really think a democratically run business could be? Such companies would be very limited in size and capacity to produce output. If you had a hypothetical Anarchist country with an Anarchist economy where all the companies were run this way, they would all be outcompeted by the capatilist companies of other nations and the local economy would collapse.

claudiawerner 8y ago
Which is why no anarchist (and anarchism necessitates the removal of the state) argues for "anarchism in one country", not only because it's oxymoronic but because it's unworkable for the reasons you mentioned and more.
fallingfrog 8y ago
Well that’s just flat wrong. Here’s an example of an association of worker collectives in Spain known as the Mondragon Corporation which employs 75000 people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation I mean in the age of feudalism I’m sure people thought the idea of electing their kings would have sounded equally bizarre.
- mebassett 8y ago
  I think you are both touching on the question of "if capitalism is so great, why do firms exist?". You might find the work of Ronald Coase interesting in that regard (see https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/09/07/the-man-who-showed-why-firms-exist https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/09/07/the-man-who-sho...). The basic idea is that transaction costs for smaller decisions become too high, so it makes sense to have a figure with authority to make certain transaction decisions by fiat. I think Mondragon still has such authority figures, but it has a more "humanist" corporate structure, composed of co-ops, rather than the shareholder-directors-mgmt-and-workers structure in an american c-corp. corporate structures do matter.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago

burfog 8y ago

Ah, well, the nice thing about the current system in the USA is that nobody will stop you from forming a commune. If things were flipped around, with the government being socialist, you couldn't escape that. No, it isn't perfect. In either case there would be a national government demanding taxes and conscription and not assaulting people, but in your case this is a very minor issue because you're wanting the more-shared option. Good luck.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>If things were flipped around, with the government being socialist, you couldn't escape that. I'm curious as to why. >but in your case this is a very minor issue I don't think that's true; the state still has power over you and the power to compel you to pay money and live by its (potentially and actually unjust) laws. That's fundamentally opposed to anarchists' goals. The goals of the anarchists aren't only immediately practical (communal production) but long-term practical as well. If one's goal is to eliminate unjust hierarchy (just as the liberal democrat's goal is to eliminate rights violations) then it won't do to live in a few communes here and there. There must be reform of the whole system.

fallingfrog 8y ago

Hey I’m kind of perplexed, everything I wrote in the parent comment is factual information about what anarchists believe, why the downvotes? If you don’t believe me you can look it up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Downvoting facts just because you don’t like them says more about you than about me, does it not?