It is worse when you're an anarchist. Best case, they say you're a socialist. Worst case, they say you're an extremist rioter.
Both are not true, but the later couldn't be further from it.
Anarchism would be closer to an extreme libertarianism than socialism. Socialism is usually seen as an overreach of government by those who oppose it, unless they are even further left than that and want more government involvement in the economy. If people can't even wrap their head around your political beliefs, how are you supposed have an intelligent conversation with them?
If socialism is understood as collective/worker ownership of the means of production, which I would argue is a fitting and accurate definition, then anarchism requires socialism in order to end coercive relationships of domination in the workplace. Socialism doesn't necessitate a state and many anarchists/libertarian socialists would argue socialism is impossible with a state
From a Marxist perspective socialism needs a state. Marx defines socialism as a transitional step to move from capitalism to communism. Marx left it open how communism would be achieved but he did believe that state is necessary for that transition. In his mind the state will be abolished once communism has been effectively achieved. This means the existence of a state is important to socialism, according to Marxism.
Marx's definition of what constitutes a state is so nebulous that you could consider the organizational structure that most libertarians propose to be a state. Not to throw shade at libertarian marxists, of which there are a good handful. His framework of the state and power structures is lacking and not very useful for anarchist analysis and theory. Our conceptions for what a state is and how power functions are very different from authoritarian conceptions. Marxism isn't the end all be all of socialist theory, and if that's as far as you've gone in your study of the topic I'd be happy to provide some anarchist theory and analysis.
I want to write more and get into the weeds of it but I keep tripping over myself wanting to pull all the strings together but there's just too much to break down for a comment. I'm happy to talk more about the differences but I think we may need to narrow the scope a bit more, or take it one thing at a time. Theres like 5 different tangents I could go off on lol. Or I could drop some links if you'd rather have it all laid out in one shot haha
I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. I told my cool family members. I just call myself a socialist now around them, it's easier.
Honestly at a certain point labels only help when you share a common definition with your audience.
If I call myself a socialist I need to preface it by defining socialism because everyone above 25 still thinks it means autocratic dictatorial regime where the government owns your underpants.
I just tell people that democracy is better than monarchy so we should expand that to workplaces and give workers a vote on the direction of their workplace. Most people are more amenable to this than dropping the S word or god forbid C word.
I just tell people that democracy is better than monarchy so we should expand that to workplaces and give workers a vote on the direction of their workplace. Most people are more amenable to this than dropping the S word or god forbid C word.
I used to live out in the boonies, surrounded by rednecks, and this approach worked almost every time unless one of them was well-read enough to know I was talking about socialism.
And in my experience the well read ones will either screech about socialism or are themselves a socialist.
"I'm into super democracy. Would you like to argue against democracy as a concept, or just dance around insisting it's somehow different?"
Im also an anarchist and get around that by pulling the ol switcheroo on them. I say a bunch of anarchist shit I know they'll agree with and when the times right go "yeah and thats why I'm an anarchist". Gets them to open up a bit and leaves them with a better impression of what anarchism actually is
Are the shouting matches better or worse than the endless Monty Python quotes?
Silly movies made in the 70s by British comedy troupes are no basis for a political ideology! Realistic political strategies are born from reading theory, not some farcical medieval movie!
Why, if I went around calling myself a Christian nationalist because I watched The Life of Brian they'd put me away!
Anarchism is Socialist. It may not be Marxist, but Anarchism cannot exist when property rights create hierarchy.
It does resemble socialism, but there are differences depending on the school of thought of Anarchism that you prefer It is not completely incompatible with individual property.
How do you have property rights without hierarchy and without a state?
By having the means to defend them
Private Property is hierarchy. You cannot have an employee/Owner relationship without unjust hierarchy. Personal Property is allowable within Socialism, as such Anarchism is only Socialistic, unless you change the very meaning of Anarchism.
Being able to kill anyone that opposes your ownership of Capital also implies a monopoly on violence, and thus a form of State.
There's no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, just Libertarian Capitalist LARPing with Anarchist aesthetics.
It is worse when you're an anarchist. Best case, they say you're a socialist. Worst case, they say you're an extremist rioter.
Both are not true, but the later couldn't be further from it.
Anarchism would be closer to an extreme libertarianism than socialism. Socialism is usually seen as an overreach of government by those who oppose it, unless they are even further left than that and want more government involvement in the economy. If people can't even wrap their head around your political beliefs, how are you supposed have an intelligent conversation with them?
If socialism is understood as collective/worker ownership of the means of production, which I would argue is a fitting and accurate definition, then anarchism requires socialism in order to end coercive relationships of domination in the workplace. Socialism doesn't necessitate a state and many anarchists/libertarian socialists would argue socialism is impossible with a state
From a Marxist perspective socialism needs a state. Marx defines socialism as a transitional step to move from capitalism to communism. Marx left it open how communism would be achieved but he did believe that state is necessary for that transition. In his mind the state will be abolished once communism has been effectively achieved. This means the existence of a state is important to socialism, according to Marxism.
Marx's definition of what constitutes a state is so nebulous that you could consider the organizational structure that most libertarians propose to be a state. Not to throw shade at libertarian marxists, of which there are a good handful. His framework of the state and power structures is lacking and not very useful for anarchist analysis and theory. Our conceptions for what a state is and how power functions are very different from authoritarian conceptions. Marxism isn't the end all be all of socialist theory, and if that's as far as you've gone in your study of the topic I'd be happy to provide some anarchist theory and analysis.
I want to write more and get into the weeds of it but I keep tripping over myself wanting to pull all the strings together but there's just too much to break down for a comment. I'm happy to talk more about the differences but I think we may need to narrow the scope a bit more, or take it one thing at a time. Theres like 5 different tangents I could go off on lol. Or I could drop some links if you'd rather have it all laid out in one shot haha
I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. I told my cool family members. I just call myself a socialist now around them, it's easier.
Honestly at a certain point labels only help when you share a common definition with your audience.
If I call myself a socialist I need to preface it by defining socialism because everyone above 25 still thinks it means autocratic dictatorial regime where the government owns your underpants.
I just tell people that democracy is better than monarchy so we should expand that to workplaces and give workers a vote on the direction of their workplace. Most people are more amenable to this than dropping the S word or god forbid C word.
I used to live out in the boonies, surrounded by rednecks, and this approach worked almost every time unless one of them was well-read enough to know I was talking about socialism.
And in my experience the well read ones will either screech about socialism or are themselves a socialist.
"I'm into super democracy. Would you like to argue against democracy as a concept, or just dance around insisting it's somehow different?"
Im also an anarchist and get around that by pulling the ol switcheroo on them. I say a bunch of anarchist shit I know they'll agree with and when the times right go "yeah and thats why I'm an anarchist". Gets them to open up a bit and leaves them with a better impression of what anarchism actually is
Are the shouting matches better or worse than the endless Monty Python quotes?
Silly movies made in the 70s by British comedy troupes are no basis for a political ideology! Realistic political strategies are born from reading theory, not some farcical medieval movie!
Why, if I went around calling myself a Christian nationalist because I watched The Life of Brian they'd put me away!
Anarchism is Socialist. It may not be Marxist, but Anarchism cannot exist when property rights create hierarchy.
It does resemble socialism, but there are differences depending on the school of thought of Anarchism that you prefer It is not completely incompatible with individual property.
How do you have property rights without hierarchy and without a state?
By having the means to defend them
Private Property is hierarchy. You cannot have an employee/Owner relationship without unjust hierarchy. Personal Property is allowable within Socialism, as such Anarchism is only Socialistic, unless you change the very meaning of Anarchism.
Being able to kill anyone that opposes your ownership of Capital also implies a monopoly on violence, and thus a form of State.
There's no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, just Libertarian Capitalist LARPing with Anarchist aesthetics.
We used to call anarchy "socialism puberty"