LeftLiberty/Issue One/Responses
From Libertarian Labyrinth
Contents |
"Ponch" @ MySpace
Apr 4, 2008 3:10 PM
- What is "socialism"?
Liberté, égalité, fraternité. An impulse to harmonize an individual's ego evenly with those of society at large.
- What is "individualism"?
The recognition of person's self-ownership, the ability to process information independent of a collective, and the delegation of self-determination in light of those facts.
- What is "solidarity"?
The condition of an individual's ego coming into harmony with that of the collective, possibly as experienced as an outgrowth of natural human empathy.
- What role, if any, do these concepts have in anarchism?
Depends on how you define "anarchism." I prefer to think of it as an impulse our egos and rational minds collectively give us. To paraphrase Rothbard: Socialism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of Socialism. Without acknowledging the role of an individual's ego, true socialism can never take place as it will continue to reassert its repressed self and those delegated authority will be in a position to let it happen. The only course forward is to alter social relationships until they reconcile the ego's desire with our human nature (and our need for solidarity.) When we realize solidarity is human nature and not an artificial construct, whereas hierarchy is not human nature, but is the result of evolution's influence on society (namely one ape clubbing the other over the head) the anarchist ideals will be achieved.
Marja Unrastarjo
first draft
April 4th, 2008, 7:37 PM EST
- What is "socialism"?
"Socialism" is when the members of society lay claim to rights which the rulers of the state had reserved to themselves and their favorites. It is the abolition of privilege.
"Socialism" also describes the socialist movement, which is to say the movement of the workers and of the oppressed or marginalized in general, and the ideas which have prevailed in the movement. At times, most of the movement has supported means which create new privileges and seem to contradict the ends of abolishing privileges.
- What is "individualism"?
"Individualism" is when people judge social structure, social norms, moral theories, etc. by how they benefit individual people. [P.S. I don't often use the term, and don't have any attachment to this definition.]
- What is "solidarity"?
"Solidarity" is the decision not to harm another to benefit oneself, particularly the decisions not to try to win privileges for oneself at the expense of rights for others, and not to accept privileges for oneself in return for abandoning the struggle for rights for others. In other words, not selling out.
- What role, if any, do these concepts have in anarchism?
Socialism in the first sense includes anarchism, and in the second sense overlaps with anarchism. Socialism in the first sense can also include movements which see anarchism as impossible (e.g. classical liberalism) or as only possible after transitional statism (e.g. Marxism).
Not all anarchists are individualists and not all individualists are anarchists. [in the sense above.] An individualist who only concerned herself with the rights of monarchs would naturally oppose anarchism; conversely, a non-individualist who believed in natural rights, without concern for actual people, or a non-individualist who believed in aggregate happiness, without concern for individual people, could still be an anarchist. Nonetheless, individualism is important because it reminds people that every form of state involves authorizing some people to kill, maim, torture or imprison other people. And it reminds people that we can't "respect the office" without respecting the corruption that power creates in each person who holds the office.
Solidarity is a shorthand for the lessons of countless struggles. We can't all get ahead within the system; we have to change the system. If one worker scabs on another worker, they both suffer in the long run. If one person runs for office, they can't change the system from within, but they can draw resources from other projects which could supplant the system given time.
second draft
July 1st, 2008
I still agree with my first definitions, but would like to add another definition:
"Socialism" is workers' control over the conditions of their labor. There are certain inevitable ambiguities over the products. Socialism does not imply control over the products of one's labor; for example, they may be infinitely reproducible, or they may be desperately needed by destitute people, among other cases. In the second case, the definition of socialism is one question, and whether we do or do not have any obligation to help other people is another question.
I have no particular concern with the definition, or non-definition, of "individualism."
Royce Christian
- What is "socialism"? What is "individualism"?
Socialism is a theory that promotes the liberty and collective action of the poor, workers and the exploited under capitalism.
Individualism respects and promotes the liberty and independant action of the individual regardless of race, class, gender, wealth or lineage.
- What is "solidarity"?
Solidarity is the support or supporting relationship between two or more groups or individuals based on mutually benefitial goals and interests.
- What role, if any, do these concepts have in anarchism?
Socialism, Individualism and Solidarity are concepts that have been carried over to Anarchism, taken to their logical conclusion and found to be consistent with the Anarchist desire for freedom. In an Anarchist context, Anarchists who found their ideals in Socialism identify the state as detrimental to the liberty of those they defend. Unlike their statist counterparts, they passionately oppose the existence of the state and all state imposed systems, instead proposing alternative forms of collective organisation without hierarchy or coercion. In contrast, Individualists oppose those that seek to infringe upon the liberty of themselves and others as tyrants, statists and oppressors. This leads Individualists to oppose the existence of the state, capitalism, democracy and communism as institutions of power, coercion and privilege.
The incorporation of Individualism and Socialism in the Anarchist movement emphasises the diverse nature of a decentralised philosophy. However Socialists and Individualists often prefer to build walls and attack each other over terminological differences instead of coming together in solidarity. Both identify the existence and operation of the state as detrimental to liberty. Without solidarity on this premise, Anarchists will remain a squabbling and impotent force in today's world, overlooked, ignored and regularly arrested.
Hogeye Bill
Socialism refers to property systems which favor collective ownership of the means of production over "private" neo-Lockean ownership. Typically, socialism considers only certain types of collectives as valid owners (e.g. syndicates or workers groups may own factories, but not individuals or shareholders), has significant restrictions on transfers of property (e.g. to people who don't work at the factory), and relatively short time periods before a property is deemed abandoned (and subject to rehomesteading.)
Individualism is the belief that a person is self-owned, i.e. that one has a right to live for oneself. A related meaning is that social values and ethics are derived from individual values and ethics, rather than the other way around.
Solidarity is the natural affinity humans have for one another, respecting the mutual ties and "rules" that rational beings implicitly agree to by joining with others in society.
Cuttlefish
The word socialism has been used in so many different ways that it's probably more of a hinderance than a help in current discussions on liberty. That said, so many anarchists still use the word to either describe themselves or to describe everything they oppose that we can't reasonably expect this troublesome word to pass out of usage. Ideally, I think, anyone discussing these issues should spell out what he's trying to communicate with the word, and be willing to accept that others may wish to use the word to communicate an entirely different concept.
What about individualism, then? I prefer this word, and think it can be useful. In the broadest sense, it communicates to me that we're concentrating on the individual rather than on institutions such as nations, classes or markets. It means we understand that the individual is the basic unit of any group, and it is the individual who has preferences and makes choices. Hopefully, most anarchists will find this definition agreeable. Of course, all this does not mean that we should ignore institutions or the social context in which an individual acts. Merely that we should recognise that it is individuals who make up these institutions and social contexts.
Solidarity is co-operation. It is a fact that working with others is often more effective than working alone and trying to get ahead at their expense. A group of people willing to help one another yet not dictate to one another is a formidable force indeed. Unfortunately, many squabbling anarchists seem not to have taken this to heart.
Luiz do Ó
In the broad sense, Socialism may not just refers to the science of society wich may be used for social reform, but also for the critics of current social institutions wich should be changed. In general, socialists tend to focus on the idea that under the current sociopolitical system (State Capitalism - or the siystem of privileges hold in a coercive way), a system in wich workers are separated from de means of production, labour gets to has less value than it would be in a scenario where the privileges sustained by the use of force did not exist. This happens to be, in the socialist analysis, a result of the abundance of a dispossessed labour force and a scarcity of wealth and means of production, wich is hold by a privileged class.
The caracterization of such privileges (and also of the idea of what counts as "coercive means") may vary in the various manifestations of the socialist thought, being some socialists against what they consider unjust property and others opposing the whole idea of private property per se.
In the anarchist tradition, this system of privileges wich socialists condenm has always been seen as a direct or parallel result of State action. The State, wich for anarchists is the social instiution of violence (coercive means), is the major creator and/or suporter of unjust privileges.
[PS: As a non-native speaker, I would be greatful if someone corrected any faul in the text]
Brutum Fulmen
"Socialism" and "individualism" in my view answer differently the following question. To what extent are the obligations applicable to (and, perhaps, enforceable against) me voluntarily assumed/undertaken? A socialist is more inclined to recognize obligations applicable to a person that are not necessarily voluntarily assumed by that person. An individualist is less if at all so inclined.
"Solidarity" I am not sure. Ditto with socialism and individualism at anarchy.
