You must log in or register to comment.

tnstaec wrote (edited )

Personally I identify with anarchism and not with socialism. One reason is the semantics of it. I find "socialism" and "communism" to be pretty ambiguous terms with a lot of authoritarian connotations. Anarchism is unambiguously anti-state, anti-caplital and anti all other forms of domination.


zorblax wrote (edited )

There's no all-encompassing plan. There's not even an agreed-upon theory.

And there really shouldn't be. Make your own judgements, do what you think will help. If people agree they will do the same. The worst possible thing for anarchists to do is become homogeneous -- which unfortunately, some are really working towards.


zod wrote

Humans are perfectly capable of managing ourselves without needing a state to give us 'socialism', which really just means people working together to help each other.

When you remove the state, mutual aid takes over. Instead of looking to an authority, we look to each other.

States stand in the way of socialism by drowning it in bureaucracy and corruption. Every state that aimed to be communist eventually reverted back to capitalism because concentrated power always, always, always leads to disaster.


Lenny wrote (edited )

A state would force everyone in every community to operate the exact same way (whichever way is dictated by the party leaders or at least the majority of voters). This would ignore the distinct needs of people from very different communities that have different climates, cultures, infrastructure, etc. If each community manages itself using direct democracy, each community can operate in whatever way best suits that community rather than be dictated to by a central government that can't hope to understand the needs of people hundreds of miles away.