h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Social Libritinarism (or Anarchism) is the only true form of Socialism. In an Anarchistic sociaty no one person or groops of
people lord over others.

Hello Outofpaper,

Marx desrcibed the dynamics of Capitalism with disturbing accuracy, and predicted the advent of a kind of socialism. Lenin summed up the world we live in now by presenting the choice of "socialism or barbarism".

Marxist theory foretells the end of capitalism but is deliberately coy about what comes after.

To my mind, we must choose between socialism and barbarism, and true socialism implies anarchism. For what its worth, I think Marx's dialectic ends in a society which is both socialist and libertarian.

So, you're right, socialism can only be anarchist, but further to that, we can have libertarian socialism or we can have Hobbes' state of nature. There are no other options.

Yours in struggle,

Stella X.

Hi Stella x,

I would be interested to see more discussion of the connection between socialism and liberatarianism or anarchism. I know Marx believed that eventually government would no longer be needed, but I've never really been clear on what would maintain social order in its place. In other words, I'm not clear what keeps a liberatarian socialist society from reverting to a state of nature.
Speaking of which, I must disagree when you say "we can have liberatarian socialism or we can have Hobbes' state of nature. There are no other options." Human history has provided us with numerous other examples from tribal to totalitarian. Furhtermore, neither Hobbes' state of nature nor liberatarian socialism (at least on a large scale for a sustained time) have ever acutally occured.

Anyway, I hope someone can work out the mechanics on this one, because I am convinced that socialism and anarchism have much to contribute to human advancement.

Marx's arch nemesis (within the left...just) was the grand daddy of modern anarchists. How does this fit in with modern anarchists claiming Marx as their own?

I mean he did not talk much about future society but he did join the WMA, who were for a pro-active working class struggle. I think anarchists fail to take into account that one class does not hand over power without a struggle and that another class must always takes it place. Communists are for the Proletariat and in some cases rural peasantry.

How does anarchism propose to get rid of the ruling class and then how does it propose to keep them out? Also, how does anarchist economy work? Self suffeciency is simply not an option because it would mean a retrograde step in terms of economy and means of production...

Just some thoughts.

Personally, I have encountered a good deal of anarchists, and was once one myself. All of the ones I know thought that some sort of violent, explosion-ridden revolution was coming, and out of the ashes would emerge a peaceful anarchist society. They all seemed to share some of the grivences against modern society as socailists, but favored a form of no restrictions on anything whatsoever, with everyone fending for themselves. If you have seen or read "Fight Club" by Chuck Palahniuk you know the sort of philosiphy I mean.
In short, they thought that a reversion back to a hunter-gatherer tyoe society was needed. That does not seem to go with Marx's view at all. Marx said that there would be no need for government, meaning that society would keep itself peaceful and orderly, with no need for any established authority figures. There should be a distinction between Socailist Anarchy (the type being discussed here, and the sort that Marx ment) and Nhilist Anarchy (the kind I mentioned). This would help avoid confusion.

The eventual aims of the Communist society and libertarian Socialism (or anarcho-Communism) are the same. The main difference is over the need for an interem Socialist 'state' before Communist 'society'.