the socialism of anarchism

[djAdvocate]

i just had a really strange insight about why anarchism is often classified as socialism.

in a discussion with Paul i pointed out that leaving people to their own devices without government oversight will result in certain costs being "socialized".  ie, if we say that we don't want people to die because they have no insurance, then we are making the decision to socialize the cost of that idea.  if, on the other hand, we require people to have insurance, and penalize them for not having it (because, invariably, they will end up seeking medical care without it if we don't), that is the OPPOSITE of socializing.  we are creating a bureaucracy for dealing with it to AVOID socializing the cost.  and yet, the ACA is called socialism, yet what Reagan did is not.

it seems like nobody really understands the meaning of that term.  the ACA is LESS socialism than what Reagan did.

[Deleted]

I try to tell one friend that her description of freedom under anarchy is eerily similar to Marx.

She doesn't appreciate it

[djAdvocate]

Nov 4, 2014 17:34:44 GMT -5 oped said:

I try to tell one friend that her description of freedom under anarchy is eerily similar to Marx.

She doesn't appreciate it

i would imagine- but i can see some parallels, honestly.  what Marx envisioned was a society that was liberated from "capital"- but government, in the Western vision, is about as capital forming as it gets.  everything it DOES revolves around capital.  so if there is something approaching the Marxist ideal, it is surely nothing like a modern Republic- socialist or democratic. 

i am starting to see why trading guilds and anarcho syndicalism are inherently socialist- they eschew government, which results in a totally non-egalitarian distribution of necessary labor and cost, if you think about it.  the ONLY thing which restricts it is the presence of government, which is the opposite of anarchism.

[fairlycrazy23]

Nov 4, 2014 17:24:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i just had a really strange insight about why anarchism is often classified as socialism.

in a discussion with Paul i pointed out that leaving people to their own devices without government oversight will result in certain costs being "socialized".  ie, if we say that we don't want people to die because they have no insurance, then we are making the decision to socialize the cost of that idea.  if, on the other hand, we require people to have insurance, and penalize them for not having it (because, invariably, they will end up seeking medical care without it if we don't), that is the OPPOSITE of socializing.  we are creating a bureaucracy for dealing with it to AVOID socializing the cost.  and yet, the ACA is called socialism, yet what Reagan did is not.

it seems like nobody really understands the meaning of that term.  the ACA is LESS socialism than what Reagan did.

I do not know if the ACA is 'less' socialism than what Reagan did, but it is certainly socialism since for some people the costs of there insurance is being paid for by others.

[Deleted]

Yes, funneling public money to private industry is the tenet of socialism...  

[djAdvocate]

Nov 4, 2014 20:43:33 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Nov 4, 2014 17:24:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i just had a really strange insight about why anarchism is often classified as socialism.

in a discussion with Paul i pointed out that leaving people to their own devices without government oversight will result in certain costs being "socialized".  ie, if we say that we don't want people to die because they have no insurance, then we are making the decision to socialize the cost of that idea.  if, on the other hand, we require people to have insurance, and penalize them for not having it (because, invariably, they will end up seeking medical care without it if we don't), that is the OPPOSITE of socializing.  we are creating a bureaucracy for dealing with it to AVOID socializing the cost.  and yet, the ACA is called socialism, yet what Reagan did is not.

it seems like nobody really understands the meaning of that term.  the ACA is LESS socialism than what Reagan did.

I do not know if the ACA is 'less' socialism than what Reagan did, but it is certainly socialism since for some people the costs of there insurance is being paid for by others.

before the ACA, 100% of the cost of insurance was paid by those with insurance, and 0% was paid by the uninsured.  that is true socialism- the cost of the uninsured was SOCIALIZED among those that had policies.
what we have now is people either buy insurance, or they pay a fine, which SUBSIDIZES the ACA.  that is not a true socialist system, because the burden is being distributed among all participants.  it is a "mixed" system, just like other subsidies.

[EVT1]

I'd classify anarchism as the point where the extreme left meets the extreme right.   Different reasons of course, but the same place.