You must log in or register to comment.

moonlune wrote

It depends who I'm talking to. I identify as devil's advocate so I happen to be socialist quite often.


veuzi wrote

No, I'm done with making an economic prescription part of my identity. Economic nihilism all the way


CaptainACAB wrote

I'm of the belief that there's no economic system that is compatible with anarchism.

I have respect for certain historical figures that identified as Socialist, but that's as far as it goes.


subrosa wrote

Both the positive and the negative position on socialism yield delicious fruit. In most contexts I'm happy to respond to "socialist", continue with an unapologetic anarchy-oriented socialism in open conflict with every other socialism. Though I'm usually not the one to bring up socialism, and generally find anarchism described as a form of socialism somewhat misleading.


Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

I do like some socialists. Their hearts are in a right place and they do some real good things. They just afraid to dream big and are corrupted by leftist morality.


subrosa wrote

Can you give me an idea of what you consider key characteristics of socialism? Alternatively, an idea of how socialism is simply incapable of escaping democratic rationales?


subrosa wrote (edited )

Socialism is a political and economic theory

Wiki and dictionary definitions even define anarchism as a political and economic theory. And along with "means of production" hold held in common, this characterization really only reflects the Marxist and communist influences (rather than anarchistic ones).

One alternative option is to place socialism back into conflict with individualism, not capitalism. At times those two were considered as undesirable extremes, both in governmental and non-governmental terms. Socialism as a powerful antagonism to individualism (and vice versa), might reveal it to be as indispensable as individualism.

And I guess that's my main issue with anti-socialist anarchism, it can easily resemble communist talking points of anything vaguely individualist (Stirner's influences on anarchism, for example) being counter-revolutionary, bourgeois, capitalist, you name it. There, the rejection of individualism doesn't even address the various reasons why anarchists consider themselves individualists, but rather insists on the more obviously non-anarchistic ideas about it.

Socialism can take the form of polity-based social organization and the Marxian shift in the mode of production. It can be democratic. But there have been plenty anarchists talking of a socialism that isn't. So maybe the task here is to figure out whether or not we can move on without socialism at its most anarchistic. /ramble


lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

I'm happy there is a more nuanced take on socialism as it helps in answering the thing that was puzzling me about it. I started this ask Raddle because when I try to plan out ways to do anarchy with other people the organization is psuedo socialist. and I don't think of any other methods which might be useful or recreate state dynamics.

It's always a concent based program where everyone making concensus based decision downs a equal part. Or are more just all petite burgeous individuals who consensually share whatever capital they have to do X project. Then After X project everyone takes their objects or whatever. And honestly the second one prob will have more hierarchical problems but the fist one is hard to find people who have the money to be partial owners.

So I guess I feel like I don't like socialism but anytime I wanna do a group activity which requires a larger amount of physical objects I always can't find anything better than consensus based socialism.


Majrelende wrote

I am not definitely for or against socialism, but I am relatively sure I would like communistic relations with others around me. I have nothing against bartering especially, though wouldn't want to spend my whole life doing it.


TimothyMcFuck wrote

No. I don't want to share the shit I've EARNED with others.


monday wrote

Discipline, discipline;
obedience, obedience;
slavery and ignorance, pregnant with authority.
A bourgeois body grotesquely fattened by a vulgar christian creature.
A medley of fetishism, sectarianism and cowardice.