Is anarchism closer to socialism or liberalism?
916194
It's not very close to either, Albert.
1152496
Cut the socialist PC crap.  From the horses mouth.\n\n"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."\n\nRoger Baldwin \nFounder of the ACLU
547331
socialism deals with collective ownership  for example every worker in a restaurant owns the restaurant and split the profit\n\ncapitalism deals with private ownership for example only one person owns a restaurant
935423
I can't help wondering why you ask.\n\nDo you know what these two terms mean?\n\nOne's belief that we'd be better off without government has little if anything to do with their beliefs on "mercy killing."\n\nTherefore, I strongly suspect that some anarchists do and some don't.\n\nThis anarchist does, if that's any help.
37896
The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS." \n\nSocialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It builds upon the previous system (Capitalism) by nationalizing the "means of production" (i.e. corporations, resources, banks, etc.), but not by making everyone equal. In other words, people will be paid wages based on several factors (social need, difficulty, amount of schooling required, etc.), so not everyone will make the same wage -- as is often a misinterpretation of Socialism. \n\nCommunism is the point where the state "withers away." In other words, it's quite a few years in the future. If I had to guess, I'd say at least 10 generations of established Socialism has to occur before people evolve enough to realize that hurting others or the system ends up hurting themselves. \n\nAs Communists we advocate Socialism because it is the next necessary step to get to Communism. In other words, it's not that we've given up on building a house, we just realize there is a need for a sturdy foundation first. \n\nCommunists believe in human evolution. We evolve in accordance to the system we live within. Capitalism has allowed us to evolve out of our feudalistic ways (for the most part), and slavery does not exist in our country anymore (for the most part). But Capitalism, which is driven by the need to always increase profits, founders a "dog eat dog" mentality. This is not a sustainable system, either for humankind or for the environment. \n\nUnder Socialism people will evolve to the point where they care about each other regardless of their location or race or whatever. If we are to survive as a species, we need to evolve. That's one of the many reasons I'm a Communist. \n\nFinally, one misconception people often have about Communism is that we are looking to make everyone poor. On the contrary, we want everyone to enjoy as much as possible the fruits of our vast wealth.
1177470
to the poster above me, communism and liberalism are polar opposites in the economic and political spectrum. Liberalism is supported by free market capitalism. Communism, as defined by Marx, is the successful outcome of Marxism when the need for the State ends and the state is destroyed.\n\nTo answer your question, they seem to come from all walks of life. They're not fascists, at least not all of them. They are for the most part followers and will never act on their own. This explains their need for rightwing pundits to tell them what to do and what to think.
577751
First of all, Communism has never truly been achieved.  Communism is Karl Marx's idea on how to control the masses which he wrote about in his book "Communist Manifesto".  It involves everybody working for everybody, no religion, and an overall unified society.  Socialism is what was seen in the Former Soviet Union, in China now.  It involves ideas of everybody working for the whole, but is a very far cry from Communism.  To Compare to the United States: liberals and extreme leftists are socialists.
1028838
Modern liberalism in America isn't communism, it's more like socialism. They just think they can fool people by not using the word "socialism". Unfortunately a lot of people are fooled. Fortunately most liberals are either too baked or too busy protesting something on election day.
411992
political viewpoints tend to get divided. i am an economic liberal which comes awfully close to communism because i believe in sharing the wealth and helping out your neighbor. However i am a moral conservative because i am against things like gay rights, immigration, and lots of other political questions that fall on the moral side.
663976
ugh, i just answered this to find you removed it, here I go again.\n\nActually the word 'socialist' better describes todays 'democrats'.  People can still have liberal ideals without having them freakishly to the left of reality.\n\nLiberals are basically the ones who think a world wide utopia is possible if they 'live and let live'.  They are unable to mentally comprehend the fact that there are others in this world who do not tolerate views different than theirs.  Liberals, for some reason, are hypocritical in most of their thinking.  For instance, since they don't like George W. Bush, they think that a man who gassed to death over 30 thousand of his countries innocent people should be left in power, and defend the lives of people on death row, who were convicted of the most heinous crimes known to man.  Yet liberals for some reason think it is OK for a mother to kill a child.  \n\nLiberals also say it is wrong to discriminate by race/ religion (as do conservatives), but then the liberals turn around and make laws that give benifits to some, and not all, such as 'affirmative action'.  If that is not hypocrocy, what is?\n\nBasically Socialists, Liberals, Democrats, all stand for the same things.  They want to take businesses away from the ones who built them, and give them to the government to run, and give out free stuff to everyone.  What they fail to realize is that over time, the few who are working to support everyone else, will get tired of doing all the work, and the work will gradually decline, thus leading less to distribute.  Eventually we will be sitting in bread lines, waiting for our government rations, because it doesn't matter how hard you work, you will get the same amount of bread as the lazy democrat in line next to you.
178148
A social "safety net" , such as welfare, is not socialism. Socialism is the ownership of all assets and wealth by the state.  welfare is more appropriatly described as a redistribution of wealth. The source of the wealth is taxation of other individuals, the state is only a middle man, not the source of the wealth.
290455
capitalism was not part of the constitution? Neither was socialism. Whats your point?\n\nI think to be considered a liberal you have to lead with your heart. Everything is emotional for you. You cry when you see starving kids on tv and raise your fist in anger that nothing is being done to help them, yet you are oblivious to the fact that if every child born into this world survived that human population would simply explode. \n\nYou see a tree being cut down and you shed a tear that its no longer this beautiful tree but will soon be used to make a house or a table or a chair...all of which are things you yourself own.
389774
Yes. Relativism is a dead end street and has only come about because of the need for individualism to be asserted as a concept in the light of free market democratic politics. I think it is nearing its end. Belief in an ultimate truth beats relativism every time. It drives people rather than making them lifeless workers in the capitalist society. I think the two coming to a head is what the whole war on terror is about.
1179850
Liberal is left wing\n\nConservative is right wing\n\nThink of it as a line with 0 as the center and 1 thru ten going in each direction. People land somewhere on that scale based on their politics.
489643
How much order do you want? We are not in an Anarchic society, in fact we are probably more controlled than any population in the past. Have you tried having a ciggareete in an airport, parking your car where you need to park or try to affect any government policy (National or local). You will soon realise that we are far, far away from Anarchy.Let the Individual do what he wants unless it hurts others.
1186813
I'm sorry but i no what a socialist and communist are and liberals are communists and socialists.....my really really liberal teacher called me a bigot and i asked if she knew what it was and she couldn't answer me....these types of remarks show just how clueless liberal really are!
768954
An Anarchist writes her own definition of Anarchism: \nThe philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."\n\n"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property: liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. \n\nAs wikipedia states...\n\nAnarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and hierarchical authority.\n\nThe term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.\n\nThere are a variety of types and traditions of anarchism with various points of difference. Other than being opposed to the state, there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance. \nPreferred economic arrangements are one of the many areas of disagreement for anarchists.\n\n ******\nSince anarchist generally disagree with the forming and maintaining of nations and borders, often as well as property ownership in general, they disagree with one of the fundamental reasons for war as we know it.  They often disagree with organized religion and always with class so they are opposing the other two most common sources for war. Though this should not lead to the assumption that anarchist are pacifist. Some are, some are not.\n\nAlso anarchism should not be confused with chaos. Chaos and order are found mutually within nature. The kind of chaos that implies violence and hysteria is often attached to a derogatory second definition of anarchism. Ironically a definition written and perpetuated by its opponents.\n\nTo make large scale decisions often they use the consensus based model of decision making. Sometimes they vote. It depends. They even sometimes follow rules if each participant agrees ahead of time on what rules and all have an equal voice. The main point is if someone yells run, an anarchist may follow their lead, but by choice.\n\nAnarchism as a social "system" has been summed up to me in the great dishes conundrum as people who feel everyone should do their own dishes, instead of electing a leader to decide who does them and when.\n\nHope that helps