4 ms·

You can also be an anarcho-socialist. It’s just authoritarian socialism that’s most often described as socialism. Socialism just describes the idea that the me

You can also be an anarcho-socialist. It’s just authoritarian socialism that’s most often described as socialism. Socialism just describes the idea that the means of production is owned in common (by the government for authoritarian socialism, or by the workers themselves for libertarian socialism) rather than capital investors, and distributing the profits of labour among the workers who produced it rather than to the capital owners.

dnautics 7y ago
I don't think that early american socialists like spooner and tucker held that the means of production is owned in common by the laborers, that, in particular is an outcome of marxist theory, which is a late 19th century socialist development.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  The idea of MoP in common is not an originally Marxist idea; both socialsits who predated Marx and his contemporaries held the idea in various forms - some forms which Marx opposed (such as in his criticism of the Gotha program). When Marx came into contact with secret Prussian communist groups, they already had this idea, but it was Marx who gave it a proper basis. In general, socialism is, if nothing else, about the distribution of productive capacity in society, and the results that flow from that. SEP has a good article[0] on it. Tucker et al. fit much more neatly into the individualist anarchist spectrum than they do into socialism, in a similar way to both Proudhon and Stirner. But in contrast to Stirner, market socialism was proposed[1]. Thus, it has more in common with Proudhon than Stirner. However, Marx's criticism of the ideas which prefigured Tucker in Proudhon laid the groundwork for the socialists who reject both the legitimacy of the state and markets - in general, modern left-anarchists and "libertarian Marxists". [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gary-elkin-benjamin-tucker-anarchist-or-capitalist https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gary-elkin-benjamin-...
  - dnautics 7y ago
    If you look at Tucker he proudly called himself a socialist in the Prouhdon tradition. The socialist community, however, diverged from the Tuckerite path, even during his lifetime (by the end Tucker was vehemently criticizing socialism, which was by then understood to mean implicitly state socialism)

dnautics 7y ago

I don't think that early american socialists like spooner and tucker held that the means of production is owned in common by the laborers, that, in particular is an outcome of marxist theory, which is a late 19th century socialist development.

claudiawerner 7y ago
The idea of MoP in common is not an originally Marxist idea; both socialsits who predated Marx and his contemporaries held the idea in various forms - some forms which Marx opposed (such as in his criticism of the Gotha program). When Marx came into contact with secret Prussian communist groups, they already had this idea, but it was Marx who gave it a proper basis. In general, socialism is, if nothing else, about the distribution of productive capacity in society, and the results that flow from that. SEP has a good article[0] on it. Tucker et al. fit much more neatly into the individualist anarchist spectrum than they do into socialism, in a similar way to both Proudhon and Stirner. But in contrast to Stirner, market socialism was proposed[1]. Thus, it has more in common with Proudhon than Stirner. However, Marx's criticism of the ideas which prefigured Tucker in Proudhon laid the groundwork for the socialists who reject both the legitimacy of the state and markets - in general, modern left-anarchists and "libertarian Marxists". [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gary-elkin-benjamin-tucker-anarchist-or-capitalist https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gary-elkin-benjamin-...
- dnautics 7y ago
  If you look at Tucker he proudly called himself a socialist in the Prouhdon tradition. The socialist community, however, diverged from the Tuckerite path, even during his lifetime (by the end Tucker was vehemently criticizing socialism, which was by then understood to mean implicitly state socialism)