Can someone explain what is the difference between Anarchism, Socialism and Marxism?

[hellheaven1987]

I am reading Antony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936–39"; the first chapter gives a good idea about left-wing movement in Spain during 19th Century and early 20th Century, but I am confused - what is the difference between Anarchism, Socialism and Marxism? Beevor explains that Marxism believed "socialism with authority" while Anarchism dislike "authority of any kind", hence Marxists and Anarchists distrust eachothers (note CNT already existed in Spain since mid-19th Century, and was first and oldest left-wing movement in Spain) and somehow leaded to the tragedy when both sides condemned each others as traitor during Spanish Civil War. But wait, I thought in Marxist state everyone is equal? So if there is authority how can that be equal?? Similarly, CNT somehow also believe in organization such as worker union, then how can they say the leaders of those unions are equal as others?? I don't know, I feel... so confused now... That probably explains why George Orwell just gave everyone a middle finger in the end.

[Gaidin]

Sounds like you're just trying to mock something and understand it perfectly well. Move along.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

Simply put

Anarchism: No government

Socialism: A lot of government, still some freedom

Communism: Government runs your life

[Quatto]

Simply put

Anarchism: No government

Socialism: A lot of government, still some freedom

Communism: Government runs your life

Anarchism is not just the absence of a government, but the absence of authority (Bakunin), which are two very different things.

Socialism is a political concept that derives from marxists theories (which are, of course, philosophical theories, hence marxism has nothing to do with political communism).
In Socialism the capitalist monopol on production goods is abolished. That means they are in the hands of the workers, who distribute the outcome equally among themselves. This is of course the "Idea" of socialism, it comes without saying that the "socialist" dictatorships that history has seen are not socialist in the original meaning.

Marxism, as i mentioned, is a philosophy that includes materialistic views on history and society as well as a theory of freedom from power and system compulsion.
Marx calls the end-society, that has abolished class, capital and authority communism. On the way to overthrow the system, socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat are just step-stones to the free society.

The question HOW this society should look like does not concern Marx, because he is an analyst of the now, instead of a prophet.

(sorry for my bad english)

[Wulfburk]

I always thought Socialism was supposed to be: People's government (full non representative democracy) while communism is basically state capitalism? (if it is then i guess its very smilar to for example Nazi germany?)

[Sir Adrian]

I always thought Socialism was supposed to be: People's government (full non representative democracy) while communism is basically state capitalism? (if it is then i guess its very smilar to for example Nazi germany?)

Communism is people's government while socialism is basically the state holding a safety net under you in case you fall.

[Knight of Heaven]

In ideal world there is no state or goverment in comunism though... hence the anarchism movements at least in its genesis.
The comunism you got is simply a perversion and aberration of what was intended... mainly because is utopian in its nature, otherwise, would be the perfect political economic system. And who knows maybe trough scientific and technologic means maybe human kind would get that, or some form of socialism, in wich there is abundance of resources for the individual, not equality, but a equitable world.
Karl Marx theorized as well that the current capitalistic democracies would be a path way to this socialistic dream, in other words capitalism isnt the end game nor it should, but a tool to get there.
Looking at modern western democracies, deep down we can see that there is a strugle where capitalism tends to forget the individual and social phenomenas in favor of profits and economic survivilism, currently i think this is very obvious when you have a social democracy pillars ( often branded of socialism ironicaly) being slowly destroyed in the name of liberal economy, howver i belive this to happen in cycles, where the powers at be find that the great capital if not is made to serve society and its dignified needs, in the end accounts for litle in the pushes of progress. And Progress aint nothing more then realization of Utopias.

[Denny Crane!]

From a libertarian socialism blog that I favour for some points of view:

This blog is based on the vision of a society without hierarchies (a hierarchy is defined as a system where control is systemic and directed). This is closely related to the Prime Directive (do not impose harm): everywhere we see imposed harm, we see hierarchies directing that harm, from poverty to crime to war and starvation.

The apparatus of society should not serve the interests of the elite, but rather the interests of every individual. Equality and freedom should be our guiding principles. Based on this, the institutions in such a society should follow the values and principles of consent, cooperation, liberty, human rights, justice, well-being, and respect of human nature.

Here are some examples of how this vision is instantiated:

->Instead of government, local self-determination.

->Instead of the country, small nested geo-political units.

->Instead of the city, socialized land use.

->Instead of capitalism, libertarian socialism.

->Instead of law enforcement, enforcement of rules that protect everyone.

->Instead of revenge, restitution and the elimination of the causes of crime.

->Instead of organized religion, non-doctrinal religions.

->Instead of schooling, cooperative egalitarian learning (see anarchist free schools).

->Instead of the patriarchy, the elimination of gender.

->Instead of parenting, communal child-raising that respects the human rights of children.

->Instead of natalism, the recognition that children are entitled to the highest possible standard of health and love.

A vision inflames the imagination not just by rhetoric but by examples, either real or fictional. Real examples of egalitarian societies include the Zapatista and Freetown Christiania (both in present time), as well as the Spanish Revolution, the French Revolution of 1968, the Free Territory, and the Aymara people, amongst the most prominent examples. Fictional egalitarian utopias that are worth reading include The Dispossessed, by Ursula LeGuin, Woman on the Edge of Time, by Marge Piercy, and The Fifth Sacred Thing, by Starhawk.

[Treize]

All three are a bunch of idiots, that's all I know.

[Roma_Victrix]

Let me make it very clear to you, Hellheaven1987.

This is anarchism:



This is socialism:



And this is communism:



This thread may now be closed.

[Gaidin]

Ok so Roma is the only one that noticed the vague but still slightly and purposely correct definitions in the OP, the rip on Orwell, as well as the smiley and didn't let him troll, but instead trolled back. Good job. Too bad for everyone else.

[Denny Crane!]

Ok so Roma is the only one that noticed the vague but still slightly and purposely correct definitions in the OP, the rip on Orwell, as well as the smiley and didn't let him troll, but instead trolled back. Good job. Too bad for everyone else.

OPs dont own the thread and the second, your own post made it quite clear it was not a sincere question. But threads live on beyond the opening posters intent so I think everyone is OK thanks for the concern though.

[Gaidin]

OPs dont own the thread and the second, your own post made it quite clear it was not a sincere question. But threads live on beyond the opening posters intent so I think everyone is OK thanks for the concern though.

As if you've never called anybody or a group of people out before.

[Denny Crane!]

As if you've never called anybody or a group of people out before.

I have but I do not assume I own threads.

[Mayer]

Communism is people's government while socialism is basically the state holding a safety net under you in case you fall.

I think you talk about the one-party state ruled by a communist (marxist-leninist) party which called itself a socialist state

Communism is (at least in theory) an anarchic society. The marxists believe in the need to establish a socialist state as intermediate step whereas the spanish anarchists wanted to go immediatly to communism. Also in the spanish civil war the moscow loyal communists were just stooges of Stalin, murdering anarchists and opposition to get full control of the country.

[hellheaven1987]

Ok so Roma is the only one that noticed the vague but still slightly and purposely correct definitions in the OP, the rip on Orwell, as well as the smiley and didn't let him troll, but instead trolled back. Good job. Too bad for everyone else.

Woah, so it is not allowed to ask a question in relaxed tone nowadays in TWC? Not to mention my comment on George Orwell is true anyway.

[Kizzang]

Depends on who you ask.. Could be no difference. Generally when people say Marxist, they seem to actually mean Leninist. "The bourgeois state without the bourgeois." The transitory purgatory before "complete communism." "Complete communism" being stateless. "Remnants of the old, surviving in the new." etc. Lenin.
Quatto & Mayer in the thread have given good general definitions. Anarchy is easy. No gods, no masters.

Anarchy is not opposed to organization. And the CNT were certainly not all anarchists. The FAI came about to defend the integrity of anarchist doctrines in the face of the reformist tendency within the CNT.

At the International Anarchist Congress of 1907 trade unionism was debated, and the congress adopted a compromise resolution which opened with the following statement of principle: "This International Anarchist Congress sees the trade unions both as combat units in the class struggle for better working conditions, and as associations of producers which can serve to transform capitalist society into an anarcho-communist society." The CNT was founded in 1910.

edit

When I said the CNT were not all anarchists.. I meant there were anarchists other than the CNT.. A lot of which did certainly disagree about the unions. Go back to that debate at the International Congress.. "In the industrial movement the official is a danger comparable only to parliamentarianism. Any anarchist who has agreed to become a permanent and salaried official of a trade union is lost to anarchism." Errico Malatesta

[Ima Farmathar]

There are right wing Marxists, I know a few, they are people who accept the general theoretical insights of Marxism but maintain a class consciousness antagonic to the proletariat.

There are 2 kinds of general conclusions,

1.- that machines are evil and the imminent collapse of capitalism is going to rid them of their privileges.

2.- That some reforms are needed according to Marx’s insights in order to save the system, amongst the proposed are often increase in surplus rates, and better education, to lower unemployment amongst the least educated.


The above is particularly interesting once you notice that some of the first opponents to the industrial revolution were land owners, and some of the complaints they had on the moral effect of machinery were used and quoted by Marx.



Likewise, most modern socialist would base their proposals on less outdated theories than those of Marx; in fact most modern Socialists are theoretically opposed to Marxism preferring a theoretical framework of the neo-Malthusian sort. They reject Says law, favor wage control to increase aggregate demand, and have environmental consciousness. All of those are amongst Malthus’s believes.

This is hilarious when you think of it in a Marxian framework.


As for anarchists they are a varied sort, ranging from Anarcho-monarchists (Salvador Dali), and Anarcho-capitalists(like David Friedman), to Anarcho-comunists(I’m guessing some varieties of the common Hippy fit into this, but I’m unssure), Anarcho sindicalists(the one in Monthy Python and the holly grail), and Anacho-Hordists(apparently anarchists of the Mad max variety),

[Kizzang]

As for anarchists they are a varied sort, ranging from Anarcho-monarchists (Salvador Dali), and Anarcho-capitalists(like David Friedman), to Anarcho-comunists(I’m guessing some varieties of the common Hippy fit into this, but I’m unssure), Anarcho sindicalists(the one in Monthy Python and the holly grail), and Anacho-Hordists(apparently anarchists of the Mad max variety),

Anarchists are a varied sort, but not that varied. Anarchy IS anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchical. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist. An oxymoron like anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy. It is simply anti-statism. The other two might as well not exist. I have never heard of anarcho-hordist. Nor could I find it by a Google search. If it doesn't exist on the internet.. I couldn't imagine the five people that might claim to be anarcho-monarchist are actually serious.

[Ima Farmathar]

Anarchists are a varied sort, but not that varied. Anarchy IS anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchical. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist. An oxymoron like anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy. .

I don’t think anarcho-capitalists would agree with you. I do however, since I always thought the application of their ideology and policy would result in feudalism rather than anarchy. Then again, they could claim etc. and thus the only true anarchism is the only true anarchism.
It remains that they stile themselves anarchists and are anti-authoritarian as you said.

The other two might as well not exist. .

Interesting…

I have never heard of anarcho-hordist. Nor could I find it by a Google search. If it doesn't exist on the internet.. .

Sorry man English is not my first language and I might have miss translated. I will try to find a better translation later.
But any way


the anarchistic tribes

They are even more varied than I make them to be, there are for example Anarcho-primitivists, that hate technology and then there are anarchists like Dr. Kaczynski that want the same thing but hate the Anarcho-primitivist tribe on aesthetic reason. He claims they are over socialized and have a delusional idea of primitive life see, “critic of anarcho-primitivism” by ted Kaczynski.

I couldn't imagine the five people that might claim to be anarcho-monarchist are actually serious.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu...ho-monarchism#

This seems sufficiently serious, especially when you considering that all of this are fringe views.
And it’s not a surprise when you remember that prominent contemporary anarchists tend to have reactionary views both on the left, and on the right for example, we have Mr. Hoppe:





I think that your reaction to my previous post exemplifies one of the reasons why there are so many anarchist tribes. They are too serious about their positions without realizing how radical they are, antagonizing each other. Akin to the atitudes presented in that classic Monthy Python sketch.





Another reason would be the propensity of radical views in different spectrums to be similar to each other in a practical sense. This is called the horseshoe theory and can also be appreciated on the totalitarian side of things.