CHCl3

I'm sure Anarcho-Capitalists would love a socialist future. Also Left Anarchists are already socialists.

Also can you define free? I'm not trying to be an ******* but that word is surprisingly subjective. Libertarians and Marxists both believe in freedom but disagree vehemently.

Mr November

I was pretty vague on purpose... I'd rather explain in readable responses than a book that will only get tl:dr.


I define freedom as the ability to do "things". The more things you are allowed to do, the more free you are. Ideally, everyone should be equally free, because there is a balance of freedom. You can only become more free, by infringing on the freedoms of others. Socialism allows the average component of a society, the prospect to do "more things" through taxation of those who already have more freedom than the rest.

Successful socialism acts to protect against tyranny, and dictatorships of all kinds. In the United States, the systems in place have produced many inequalities. It is my opinion, that this is a result of a lack of socialism. And for various reasons (education, economic, and political inequality to name a few), the United States does not offer freedom (even if it offers incredibly more freedom than many other countries).

We should be absolutely free to do whatever we want, so long as it does not infringe upon the freedoms of others. Socialism has the potential to draw that line.

Thom Yorke

I am an anarchist.
Don't know what I want, but I know how to get it.

One of my favourite lyrics.

Wayfarer

I'm not sure I'm really an 'anarchist'. Those types of political tags can be so misleading and confining. Just skimming through this thread, nearly everyone seems to have a different idea as to what constitutes "anarchism" and what doesn't. The one thing I can say is that I'm certainly an anti-capitalist. It's strange that so many people assume that, under 'socialism'/'anarchism', we'd all just rape and pillage one another, completely ignoring that, under 'socialism' (to be clear, 'socialism' in the Noam Chomsky sense, not the Joseph Stalin sense), the root cause of much of the crime and violence in the world (poverty and its psychological effects) would be almost entirely eliminated.

CHCl3

That is not an equal society. There would be two classes in that sort of a system. There would be the government who would be lording over deciding what freedoms to tax and what freedoms not to tax. Then there would be everyone else at the mercy of that government.

If there was a socialist system I would rather prefer the Left-Wing Anarchist vision a lot better. I still wouldn't be a big fan though.

Mr November

That really depends on the checks and balances that would exist it said government.

CHCl3

Even if the government had checks and balances that you deemed to be satisfactory it would still be a 2 class system. The government would still have the power to create laws and taxes while using the police and army to enforce them.

Besides no matter how good we may think the limitations on a government are they can still be exploited. For example: The United States Constitution is a very good document considering the time it was written in. It grants American citizens many vital freedoms that can be enjoyed and exercised at will. However wealthy transnational business interests have pretty much hijacked the American government which the founding fathers couldn't have predicted over 300 years ago.

Howard the Duck

i love anarchomedy, though, like Bottom

levio_sah

A. Many anarchists are socialists.
WRONG. I am a Chumash Indian and I know for a fact that MY people never colonized anybody else. That simple. Neither did the Bushmen of Africa, who evolved in place, and numerous other peoples.
It is very possible to have a long-term society without conquering others. Many are doing it, many have done it.

Dotoar

That's simply not true.

Iceland lasted 300 years without a government, for instance. That's longer than most democracies.

__________________