> You are very right about the incompatibility of the terms "anarchism" and
> "socialism", and you are right, too, in saying that anarchy is closer to
> libertarianism than socialism; however, I wonder why you use the term
> "anarchy" as if it were something vulgar to begin with.I am sorry if I have given the impression that I look down on anarchism. In fact I agree with many of itÆs ideals. But it seems to me that anarchism has identity problem. Many anarchists believe that anarchism and socialism are synonymous (e.g. MikeÆs reply to you) and try to adopt MarxÆs theories. But socialism that Marx was talking about is just different to what these anarchists have in mind. Marx has talked about the abolition of exploitation of person by person as the ideal stage of the social existence i.e. communism. State, for him, represented a means by which one social class asserts and perpetuates itÆs domination over another. And since in a communist society there will be no exploitative class system, there will be no justification for the existence of such a thing as state. However until we achieve this ideal position, the society will have to go through a transitional period where abolition of private ownership over the social means of production takes place i.e. Socialism. (this is where Fassbinder in his reply to Danielle makes a slight terminological mistake when he says communism is the transitional stage to socialism. ItÆs really the other way wrong). Anyhow, Marx with his first hand knowledge of the plight of the Paris commune movement, which ended in bloodshed predicted that there is a strong possibility that capitalism will resist strongly voluntary relinquishing of the means of production and transition to a society where equality rather than class domination is the norm. So he concluded that an element of coercion MAY be necessary to make the transition to communism.
Although anarchists may share the same dream as socialists, the do not seem to have a viable theory of transition. (see my question to Fassbinder which, by the way, remained unanswered). Some anarchists admit this deficiency. Some try to hide behind Marxists notions, and most just donÆt see any need for theory. Instead they become pure "activists" believing that spontaneous activity will by itself eventually find some way of getting them to their ideal destination. Finally, some anarchists believe going back to small scale capitalist production as a remedy to the existing situation.
I guess until the day I see a coherent approach to anarchism, I will remain skeptical about this movement ever achieving itÆs ideals on the wider social scale. This does not mean that I donÆt enjoy seeing it exist and in fact I have myself been involved with the co-operative movement which some anarchists regard as a step towards full-scale "socialism" and I had great fun too.
> You bring up a few issues: the environment, workers' "rights", "capitalist
> encroachment" on communities, and the police.
> As to the first issue, why do you think that libertarianism is incompatible
> with environmentalism?
I say uncontrolled capitalism is incompatible with environmentalism. Because capitalist production is based on profit maximisation. If it pays to chop down the rain forest to graze animals then they will do it as we can see.
> As to workers' rights and the expansionist trends of big, albeit GREEDY
> corprations, the answer is not govt; the answer is US. BOYCOTT. SPEAK. DO NOT
> PATRONIZE. PROTEST. But, by hell, LEAVE BIG BROTHER OUT OF IT!
But by organising the workers say in trade unions and protesting, we are interfering with capitalism which, according to Mike Bednarz, would be "unconstitutional" (punishable crime?) Look how badly the big businesses react to public protest now.
> As to the police, aside from the FBI and such, they are state, county, city
> and township entities. How policing is handled would be left to the states and
> their citizens.
But Mike Bedarz who, like you, calls himself a Libertarian said that these forces will be privetised within the ideal Libertarian society.
> Freedom WORKS, folks. Think about that word! Freedom! Don't tread on mine!
As long as it is freedom from capitalist exploitation, repressive capitalist laws, money economy, society that is based on class ie. capitalist/working class.
