From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 08:45:52 MDT
Well, as an anarchist, I'll try to offer up a working definition of
socialism. It has been said by many a person that all anarchists are first
socialists. It has also been said, actually, by others, that all socialists
are first anarchists. I tend to agree in a loose way with both concepts.
Socialism, as far as I can see, was supposedly a classless society.
Descisions were to be made, in some specific ideas, by an elected council.
This was not an attempt at creating tyranny from the council, rather it was
seen as the only way that decisions could be made. But is it? I don't think
so, and I think that if they were, then what would happen is indeed tyranny
by council-- that much centralized power should simply not exist. But that
would mean that the council would turn into a high class--and the system
would not be socialistic, because it would not be classless.
Rather, in any sort of real socialism, as far as I can see, decisions must
be made at the bottom, by individuals, who may organize or not organize as
they wish, in a free, uncoerced manner. There would be no monstrous, inhuman
bureaucracy surrounding a council of great power.
Just because a society calls itself a name, that does not mean that its
character actually fit the name. Remember, China and the USSR called
themselves republics. Is republicanism really that bad?
_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:47 MST