On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:10:03 -0700 (PDT) chuck at mutualaid.org writes:
> > On 4/24/06, Chuck wrote:
>
> > aren't most anarchists within the broad scope of the "socialist"
> > movement? Mike Ballard quoted Parsons as saying this. So it seems a
> > bit academic to argue so vociferously over the application and the
> > specific meaning of terms.
>
> No, of course not. Not any more than anarchists are part of the
> "liberal
> movement" or the "libertarian movement." Yes, anarchists do advocate
> economic ideas that are socialism in many ways, but that doesn't
> make us
> socialists.
>
> Wouldn't you think that we anarchists would simply call ourselves
> "socialists" if that's what we were.
Apparently, Albert Parsons was willing to accept the socialist label, just as he was willing to accept the anarchist label, if we are to believe the quotes that Mike Ballard provided. I don't think that most people in his day, drew the fine distinctions that you draw between anarchists and socialists. I get the impression that you are trying to project back in an 1870s context, concerns that people back then did not necessarily share. To be sure there were clashes between Marxists and anarchists (i.e. Marx vs. Proudhon, and later Marx vs. Bakunin) but those were generally seen as conflicts within the broader socialist movement.
>
> There are many differences, many of which go back to the 19th
> century.
>
> I'm not a socialist nor a leftist. I am an anarchist.
>
> Chuck0
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>