| Vincoletto said: Im quoting here the whole two socialism you mention, just not quoting everything to save space. So basically what you are saying is that there are actually two socialism, the ones implemented throughout 20th century are state socialism and the other is anarch-socialism or whatever the name. The description of anarch-socialism (for the lack of a better word) remembers me a lot the concepts explained by Dominic Frisby in his book "Life after the state" which I agree on a lot of things, but consider a lot of them very utopic. But its a really good bock, although he defines himself as an anarchist-capitalist. So when socialists mention that "real socialism never existed" they are referring to this anarch-socialism? Im really curious to know because, based on what I see on tv and newspapers and political speeches, what all socialists in latin america defend is state socialism. Also if socialists actually really want is anarch-socialism (again for the the lack of a better word) why them all loves cuba and ussr so much which is the opposite of anarch socialism? Why would they praise it and try to transform other countries in it? Btw the "poem" was really really good in explaining the differences, much better than all the philosophical speech that usually plagues discussions like this. But its totally utopic for me anyway. |
Generally, yes, but even within these two categories there is variation. Tucker was generalizing a bit.
I'll have to read Dominic Frisby's stuff then. I am a former anarcho-capitalist so I've read Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, etc, and can appreciate much of their stuff even now even if they are wrong about property (although Rothbard was more wrong than Friedman.) 
Some socialists are referring to anarchism when they are talking about "real socialism", but what is generally meant is that in these totalitarian socialist countries power and control of the means of production wasn't given to the workers directly, instead it was centralized into the state which often emulated capitalism in order to sustain the economy. This is the basis for their claim that these countries were "state capitalist." I personally think that the totalitarian states which came to exist are an inevitable end-product of state socialism, and it's a fool's dream to think that the state can achieve socialism (worker's control of the means of production.)
Some of the people who like Cuba and the USSR are in denial. Others are just LARPing. State-socialists actually exist and advocate for state socialism, ther's no denying that, but socialism doesn't necessarily have to be state socialism. Of course people who sympathize with Cuba and the USSR are in decline. They're called "tankies".
Utopian means something very specific, a person who wishes to achieve a perfect society. What you probably meant is "idealistic" although utopian has shifted in the modern sense to be a synonym of idealistic. There is much wrong with utopianism, but not much wrong with idealism. Ideas are necessary pre-requisites for change and betterment. Benjamin Tucker wasn't a utopian, he didn't think anarchism would achieve a perfect society (merely the least imperfect), but could be called an idealist because he believed anarchism would be a vastly better way to do things than what existed in his (and our) time.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 01 February 2018
