Please help me: anarchism vs socialism, a dilemma

[Shuos Jedao]

I'm venturing out of SF to potentially detonate a political bomb...but...I just had an interaction that really confused me, and I was wondering what the greater world outside my local activist community thought of it.

First: Background.
My city (Portland, Oregon) usually has fairly mild winter weather, so we get a huge influx of houseless folks from October to March or so. Usually the city's resources are able to meet the need (because we're used to it) but this year two things have interfered: A) our new mayor's draconian anti-homeless actions, and B) an extremely unusual cold snap. People are literally dying on our streets because our shelters lack the resources -either due to mayoral action or unexpected weather- to help them.

Enter two of my friends. They managed to single-handedly organize a HUGE drive for warm clothing, food, and drinks for the homeless that were denied assistance by the shelters. It has been monumentally successful, and it spread purely by word of mouth. They are literally saving lives, and it is completely awe-inspiring.

What does this have to do with anarchism and socialism?

According to my understanding, what happened with that drive was socialism- we each donated according to ability, and it was gathered up and redistributed by a central control hub, according to the need of those who came to them for assistance. I got the impression that this is how many people viewed it.

Well...another person I know said the drive was a great example of successful anarchy. I suppose I can understand where he got the idea- the entire thing was arranged without government assistance (in fact, it happened despite government interference). However, my experience with local anarchists dictates that the fact that the effort was directly led by a specific individual means that while they might agree it had good results, they would never claim it as a successful *anarchist* action.

I've been under the impression that socialism and anarchy are mutually exclusive. You can't have socialism without having some kind of leadership group that collects and redistributes whatever commodity we're talking about. You can't have anarchy if that leadership group exists.

So....can they exist together? If so, how? If so, why do all the anarchists I know treat socialists with such incredible disdain? If not....how can two opposing political ideologies use the EXACT SAME METHOD to achieve the EXACT SAME RESULT without being able to co-exist?

How much of my confusion is caused by local activists not knowing what they're talking about? How much is caused by ME not knowing what *I* am talking about?

Iyiyiyiyi....


tl;dr: You're in ED. Read the post. rofl

[Wendigo]

Anarcho-syndicalism. There, done and dusted.

[God Emperor Baldur]

The answer is simple, anarchy never worked.

[Project 429]

To the intelligentsia, political action should inform language not the other way around.

Ask yourself what purpose the label serves. The two ******** above me have given you a very big hint.

[Wendigo]

Project 429

To the intelligentsia, political action should inform language not the other way around.

Ask yourself what purpose the label serves. The two ******** above me have given you a very big hint.

Go starve a baby, aren't you a "voluntarist" or something?

[Project 429]

Wendigo

Project 429

To the intelligentsia, political action should inform language not the other way around.

Ask yourself what purpose the label serves. The two ******** above me have given you a very big hint.

Go starve a baby, aren't you a "voluntarist" or something?

I believe in ____, therefore I am a _____.
I am a _____, therefore I believe in _____.

Do you see the difference?

[Wendigo]

Project 429

I believe in ____, therefore I am a _____.
I am a _____, therefore I believe in _____.

Do you see the difference?

When we're talking about political movements, that is often an academic difference. As you, for example, clearly imbibe a lot of Rothbard, which you would not do to such a degree if you were not an adherent of a common movement/ideology.

[Shuos Jedao]

How can discussion be "Extended" if responses are one sentence in length?

None of you have actually addressed my questions. *sigh*

Please note I haven't shared my own political views, because they bear no relevance. I'm just trying to sort out a confusing case of conflicting viewpoints claiming the same action. :

[Project 429]

Wendigo

Project 429

I believe in ____, therefore I am a _____.
I am a _____, therefore I believe in _____.

Do you see the difference?

When we're talking about political movements, that is often an academic difference.

Thank you for that nugget of wisdom. I'm now going to kill myself.

Jeseia Moretia

How can discussion be "Extended" if responses are one sentence in length?

None of you have actually addressed my questions. *sigh*

Please note I haven't shared my own political views, because they bear no relevance. I'm just trying to sort out a confusing case of conflicting viewpoints claiming the same action. :

I did address your question. Most socialists want nationalization of industries. This is the common denominator with self-described socialists and therefore what you encountered was not socialism but certain (adjective)-socialists would disagree. You're getting way, way too hung up on the labels.

[Wendigo]

Project 429

Thank you for that nugget of wisdom. I'm now going to kill myself.

von Mises and von Hayek too, would be my guess.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Leadership and rule are two very different things:
One can be a leader, setting an example for others to follow or coordinating actions on a high level, without being a ruler.
A ruler is someone who leads through forceful action, who delivers orders, which you have an obligation to follow.

I would say it's an example of successful leadership, and political philosophy need not enter the equation at all. Naturally, everyone will just want to attribute it to their favorite political philosophy, as you can see from the idiots in this topic.

[Wendigo]

Je Nique vos Merdiers

I would say it's an example of successful leadership, and political philosophy need not enter the equation at all. Naturally, everyone will just want to attribute it to their favorite political philosophy, as you can see from the idiots in this topic.

Not that I feel like identifying myself as one of your idiots (although it's clear enough you think that appellation worthy of most anybody around), but I am not an adherent of anarchy, socialism, or anarcho-syndicalism, all I did was answer a question about what you call something that was neither ideally anarchist nor ideally socialist as generally conceived. If you choose to identify it otherwise, that's your problem, chump.

[That Cursed Number]

A temporary organization with a specific goal and limited scope is so close to the bottom of the authoritarianism scale it might as well be anarchy. You wouldn't really call Pinochet a liberal because his tariff policies weren't as strict as Hitler's (unless you're Hayek himself.) As for socialism, well in the anarchic sense you could argue that charity is a form of socialism, that in lieu of the state you have organized a rally where some chip in and others receive. But strictly speaking, the means of production does not change hands in this transaction, so it is politically neutral on the economic scale. Even Ayn Rand favored charity as the only acceptable (although disgusting) act of redistribution in her works - so I guess we can say no one is truly against it, save a few antisocial scrooges.

[Wraith of Azrael]

Socialism, at least the most basic of basic definitions is collective ownership of the means of production.

Anarchy, at least as it's practice (to my understanding) is the case where the people are directly the government, so there is no government as an entity (since the people are in fact the government) but that's just my thought on it.

You can technically have Anarcho-Socialism kinda like you can have Anarcho-Capitalism.

There is also State-Socialism, the kind that most people know about where the means of production are owned by the state.

[Project 429]

Wendigo

Je Nique vos Merdiers

I would say it's an example of successful leadership, and political philosophy need not enter the equation at all. Naturally, everyone will just want to attribute it to their favorite political philosophy, as you can see from the idiots in this topic.

Not that I feel like identifying myself as one of your idiots (although it's clear enough you think that appellation worthy of most anybody around), but I am not an adherent of anarchy, socialism, or anarcho-syndicalism, all I did was answer a question about what you call something that was neither ideally anarchist nor ideally socialist as generally conceived. If you choose to identify it otherwise, that's your problem, chump.

based hayek

Wraith of Azrael

Socialism, at least the most basic of basic definitions is collective ownership of the means of production.

Anarchy, at least as it's practice (to my understanding) is the case where the people are directly the government, so there is no government as an entity (since the people are in fact the government) but that's just my thought on it.

You can technically have Anarcho-Socialism kinda like you can have Anarcho-Capitalism.

There is also State-Socialism, the kind that most people know about where the means of production are owned by the state.

Most anarchists will say that anarchocapitalism isn't really anarchy and even Rothbard himself called the ancap label something of a misnomer because you have laws, courts, police and even de facto nations.