What is Anarcho-socialism?

[Axulus]

Can anyone provide me the bullet points and/or short paragraph on what it is?

Who would you describe as the thought leaders in this political philosophy?

Which politicians or wanna be politicians (they needn't have successfully won election) do you believe most closely support this philosophy?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a fantasy system, as are all anarcho-<system> ideas.

"Anarchy" means no government but it's proponents don't want no government. Rather, they want a voluntary government--and never have a meaningful system for dealing with the criminal element.

 

[rousseau]

Something that people who smoke a lot of pot and read Foucault think is a good idea.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have no idea but it sounds like a system where there is no government and everyone is free to do whatever the hell they want but there is a central committee that dictates all human activity and forces compliance to their dictates. Maybe one of our resident Anarcho-socialists will chime in and inform us of the tenants of this brilliant concept.

 

[untermensche]

This is some sub-branch of Anarchism I suppose.

I've never heard one person refer to themselves as an Anarcho-socialist in word or print so I don't have any idea what it means.

There are the more common terms Anarcho-syndicalist and Social libertarian. These I do know.

 

[Axulus]

This is some sub-branch of Anarchism I suppose.

I've never heard one person refer to themselves as an Anarcho-socialist in word or print so I don't have any idea what it means.

There are the more common terms Anarcho-syndicalist and Social libertarian. These I do know.

Social libertarian or left anarchist is what I am referring to. AthenaAwakened is a self described anarcho-socialist, so I thought it was the correct term. I'm willing to expand this thread to include additional forms of left anarchism.

 

[SimpleDon]

I always thought that a anarcho-socialist is a person who believes that true individual freedom comes from helping others in strong voluntary entered into social structures. The word "libertarian” in most of the world outside of the US refers to social anarchism, not to the selfish form that it means in the US.

 

[SimpleDon]

Someone who has actually read Mill rather than having heard from a third party that he justified individual freedom as being an excuse to get all that can be squeezed out of others.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism[1]) is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid.[2] Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.[2]
Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private property into the commons while retaining respect for personal property.[3] Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism is generally considered an umbrella term that includes (but is not limited to) collectivist anarchism, anarchist communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and social ecology.
Social anarchism is often used as a term interchangeably with libertarian socialism,[1] left-libertarianism,[4] or left anarchism.[5] The term emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism.[6]


1 Historical currents

1.1 Mutualism
1.2 Collectivist anarchism
1.3 Anarchist communism
1.4 Anarcho-syndicalism​

2 Contemporary currents

2.1 Platformism
2.2 Inclusive Democracy
2.3 Participism
2.4 Social ecology and Communalism​

The Thinkers

William Godwin
Josiah Warren
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Henry David Thoreau
Max Stirner
Mikhail Bakunin
Louise Michel
Peter Kropotkin
Benjamin Tucker
Leo Tolstoy
Johann Most
Errico Malatesta
Lysander Spooner
Gustav Landauer
Emma Goldman
Émile Armand
Nestor Makhno
Rudolf Rocker
Buenaventura Durruti
Diego Abad de Santillán
Alexander Berkman
Ricardo Flores Magón
Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia
Volin
Murray Rothbard
Murray Bookchin
Colin Ward
Noam Chomsky
Alfredo M. Bonanno
John Zerzan

Personally I am most fascinated with ideas of  Participism (primary thinkers of this school are political theorist Michael Albert and radical economist Robin Hahnel, among others)

Here is a video on Paraecon, one of the four spheres of participism.



From what I read, Participism, while utopian and idealistic and a far ways off from being practical on any large scale, the thought of participation in the decision making by the people affected is a powerful idea. I do not agree with everything participism proposes (or with everything within libertarian socialism), but I am intrigued by it and very interested in seeing the outcomes of practical application.

 

[Jayjay]

My gut feeling is that anarcho-socialists vs. anarcho-capitalists are just two different opinions as to the outcome of anarchism. The former think that it'll lead to some sort of partipatory, socialist volunteer sharing society. The latter think it'll be some sort of libertarianism.

In other words, wishful thinking.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It's a fantasy system, as are all <economic-political> ideas.

FIFY.

 

[Bomb#20]

I always thought that a anarcho-socialist is a person who believes that true individual freedom comes from helping others in strong voluntary entered into social structures. The word "libertarian” in most of the world outside of the US refers to social anarchism, not to the selfish form that it means in the US.

An anarcho-socialist is a person who believes true individual freedom comes from helping others into strong voluntarily entered into social structures, at gunpoint.

Oh, Axulus probably meant "What is Anarcho-socialism theoretically?", not "What is Anarcho-socialism historically?". Sorry, my bad.

 

[untermensche]

The Spanish Anarchists had a motto, "No bosses".

That is Anarchism.

When one understands the difference between a boss and a leader one begins to understand Anarchism.

 

[arkirk]

John Rawls had a good take on this issue. There needs to be democratic participation or too many issues get sacrificed for profit of a few dictatorial fellows. That applies to economics. I frankly think that the idea of this idea being anarchism is mistaken. The prize, the gift if you will of living in a society where you have a voice is better management of threatening life situations. A kind of law must exist and it is best if it is not based purely on punititive principles. Democracies must work constantly toward consensus. Mere majority rule must not create outliers with no rights at all. That is what is wrong with our economic and government systems today. They are based on the opinions and ideas of fewer and fewer people. When well over 70% of the people in this country think we should have single payer health insurance for example and we still have Blue Cross and Cigna etc. it is obvious that conditions are not the result of democratic actions. There needs to be a humanistic basis for the existence of these committes and they must be inclusive. Leadership must be gentle, not harsh. This is something we see less and less of in America with every passing day. Whether you call Rawls or GBS just dreamers or not really is a matter of participation...being allowed...and being honored. If you learn to cooperate, you will be better off than if you don't. We do not have in the U.S. the basic structures for democratic governance to work. There are too many people taking too much money and power (far more than their rightful share)for the rest of society to properly coexist.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

My gut feeling is that anarcho-socialists vs. anarcho-capitalists are just two different opinions as to the outcome of anarchism. The former think that it'll lead to some sort of partipatory, socialist volunteer sharing society. The latter think it'll be some sort of libertarianism.

In other words, wishful thinking.

Who said anything about volunteering?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Spanish Anarchists had a motto, "No bosses".

That is Anarchism.

When one understands the difference between a boss and a leader one begins to understand Anarchism.

There is nothing that stops you from forming such a company (one without a "boss"). There are thousands and thousands of partnerships, professional firms, and etc. that follow this.

 

[untermensche]

The Spanish Anarchists had a motto, "No bosses".

That is Anarchism.

When one understands the difference between a boss and a leader one begins to understand Anarchism.

There is nothing that stops you from forming such a company (one without a "boss"). There are thousands and thousands of partnerships, professional firms, and etc. that follow this.

Many Anarchists are pacifists and believe their ideas will slowly win out. They are better ideas after all.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is nothing that stops you from forming such a company (one without a "boss"). There are thousands and thousands of partnerships, professional firms, and etc. that follow this.

Many Anarchists are pacifists and believe their ideas will slowly win out. They are better ideas after all.

They have some good points, but also severe limitations. I started a company years ago that could be considered a company without a boss. There were three of us. We all had equal power. Equal say. We agreed to do 1/3 of the work. We decided everything democratically. Over time, we would delegate certain functions to each member. As we grew, we couldn't find people willing to invest and work the long hours and forgo their pay. We had to hire workers because they wanted the immediate paychecks. We offered some in the beginning ownership positions, but they would have to forgo paychecks. They weren't willing. In the long run, they would have made far more if they could have been owners. But that was their choice.

 

[untermensche]

Many Anarchists are pacifists and believe their ideas will slowly win out. They are better ideas after all.

They have some good points, but also severe limitations. I started a company years ago that could be considered a company without a boss. There were three of us. We all had equal power. Equal say. We agreed to do 1/3 of the work. We decided everything democratically. Over time, we would delegate certain functions to each member. As we grew, we couldn't find people willing to invest and work the long hours and forgo their pay. We had to hire workers because they wanted the immediate paychecks. We offered some in the beginning ownership positions, but they would have to forgo paychecks. They weren't willing. In the long run, they would have made far more if they could have been owners. But that was their choice.

Worker owned companies are starting all the time.

A major grocery chain in Florida, Publix, is worker owned.

It isn't worker run, but that is just one step further.

Anecdotal failures exist in any system. They demonstrate nothing.

 

[Axulus]

They have some good points, but also severe limitations. I started a company years ago that could be considered a company without a boss. There were three of us. We all had equal power. Equal say. We agreed to do 1/3 of the work. We decided everything democratically. Over time, we would delegate certain functions to each member. As we grew, we couldn't find people willing to invest and work the long hours and forgo their pay. We had to hire workers because they wanted the immediate paychecks. We offered some in the beginning ownership positions, but they would have to forgo paychecks. They weren't willing. In the long run, they would have made far more if they could have been owners. But that was their choice.

Worker owned companies are starting all the time.

A major grocery chain in Florida, Publix, is worker owned.

It isn't worker run, but that is just one step further.

Anecdotal failures exist in any system. They demonstrate nothing.

They demonstrate that not everyone wants to be an owner with the downsides that come with that. You always focus on the upsides of ownership but never the downsides. Why is that?