autonomous alternatives to the statist quo | a collection of Anarchist blogs
Socialism
Friday 10th May. Kinning Park Complex Discussion 6.30-8.30. Social 8-30 onwards. Author of ‘Rebel Alliances: The Means and Ends of Contemporary British Anarchisms’ (2006), Benjamin Franks will be present to discuss his recent work, ‘Between Anarchism and Marxism: the beginnings … Continue reading 
My response to my friend on Facebook’s post: Do you avoid walking down the street at night for fear of being raped? Do you see pictures of people of the beauty ideal of your gender plastered on billboards, TV, and magazines, to an extent that you cannot escape from them? Do you get tired of [...]
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.Read the full article HERE:
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Eugene V. Debs, November 5, 1855 - October 20, 1926."While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
Here’s a short article from Mary Hansen on socialism and the idea of social organism.
This is from the issue for Sunday, February 23, 1902 (Vol. IX, No. 8, Whole No. 350), right-hand column of p. 3.
Social Organism Again.
That he who uses the social organism analogy does not see clearly, seems plain to me at least. A few weeks ago a prominent Socialist stood before an audience, and by way of proving social interdependence asked:
Now if I were to cut off or injure these fingers would not my whole body suffer?” Yes! and following the same line of reasoning, if you injure half your organism the rest would suffer, and this under any circumstances. Now, if society were an organism, the same would be true of it, yet we do not find it so, since the injury done at present to the greater half of society only serves to increase the luxury of the other.The more workers there are willing to starve on small wages and accept any injury, peaceably, that is caused by the avarice of their employers, the greater the profit and comfort of said employers, and the government officials, who could grow fat at leasure. Surely it would be difficult to show where the injury to society touches them.
Mary Hansen
Hansen was a Danish-American Anarchist who was (along with Voltairine de Cleyre, Natasha Notkin, and others) a regular participant in the Philadelphia Social Science Club and the principal author of the Club’s classic pamphlet A Catechism of Anarchy. Free Society was published in Chicago but became a major venue for many of the Philadelphia Anarchists.
Recently I was accused of being a unionist. The reason for this was due my refusal to set aside criticisms of the radical independence conference (ric) and get behind the local campaigns of the Leninist, Trotskyist and state socialist left … Continue reading 
Here’s an exchange from Free Society on liberty, trusts, and state socialism, from February 1902, between G. E. Lind and R. W. (presumably Ross Winn). The exchange appears in Free Society Vol. IX, No. 7, p. 3.
Anarchism Exploded.When the economic development had transformed the social relations of the past into a state of society in which the
material interestsof one class of individuals became diametrically opposed to the material interests of the other class or classes of individuals, there naturally appeared variouseconomic classeswhich in order to preserve themselves they were compelled to avail themselves of every opportunity in thestruggle for supremacywhich ensued. Therefore it was but natural that the class which had securedeconomic supremacyshould make some claim todivine authorityand the right togovernthe economically inferior, while at the same time claiming to protect society. All this was done in order that the class which had attainedeconomic supremacymight perpetuate its existence asrulersand exploit theeconomically inferiormore successfully, hence the appearance of the State or government, which the Anarchists talk so much about, but understand so little.(1) Then the State is simply an effect instead of a cause, hence the absurdity of advocating the “abolition of the State without abolishing theclass strugglewhich is the cause of the State.(2) Anarchism declares war on the State, which is just as nonsensical as the Democratssmashing the trusts,etc. Socialism would not smash the trusts or declare war on the State, but will absorb the State, and by so doing will absorb the trusts(3) and all the instruments of production and distribution, the result of which would be the abolition of economic classes and consequently the abolition of the oppressive capitalistic State, and the inauguration of the cooperative commonwealth.G. E. Lind.
Comment
But it was the Anarchists who first traced the origin of the State to the existence of a privileged class, and demonstrated that the perpetuation of the privileged class is the inevitable result of the State—its raison d’etre. We prove that privilege is only possible thru the support of the State, and that the abolition of the State is necessary to eliminate privilege.
If, as you contend, the class struggle is the cause of the State’s existence, and you wish to abolish the
class struggle,you are simply taking another line of reasoning to reach the same objective point—viz., the abolition of the State, which you say is impossible. You appear to be slightly mixed—not an uncommon phenomenon with State Socialists.By establishing the most gigantic trust conceivable—a State monopoly. It is not the forms of monopoly that are evil; but its essence—the principle that abrogates liberty—that sets bounds upon the play of social activity.
But your cooperative commonwealth, administered by State officials, will have society divided into two classes—the workers and the governmental directors of industries. The State
bosswith unlimited power, will constitute a class, and consequently the cooperative commonwealth will not abolishthe class struggle.You seem to be in a fair way toexplodethe fallacies of your own philosophy.R.W.
—Free Society: A Periodical of Anarchist Work, Thought, and Literature, Vol. IX, No. 7, Whole No. 349 (February 16, 1902). Chicago: A. Isaak, publisher. 3.
No time, no time. Everybody is waiting downstairs to leave for the Mondiali, I said I had to go to do something very important. 
These beauties just arrived this morning, right in time for us to take them with us for our weekend of sun and futbol… Sun, Sea, and Socialism in summer tones!
Ah, yes. The United States of America. The Greatest Country on Earth. Bastion of Freedom and Liberty (both); Great Land of Freedom of Speech™. And Cuba. One of the most horrible, wretched countries in the world. All citizens are trapped, and are in poverty. The Evil Devil Dictator (AKA Fidel Castro) stole the wealth from [...]
This is a letter from the labor organizer and Socialist Party of America leader Eugene V. Debs to his fellow organizer, the individualist anarchist Joseph A. Labadie, in reply to an earlier letter from Labadie about misrepresentations of Anarchism coming in from Socialist Party members. The letter also refers to Debs’s correspondence with Voltairine de Cleyre. At the time, Debs was running for President of the United States on the SP ticket.
May 5, 1908
Girard, KansasMy dear Joe:—
Some days ago a letter came from you which I had but time to glance at and meant to answer later, but to my regret I am now unable to find it. In the thousand or more letters which pour in here daily yours seems to have gone astray. I remember, I think, the substance of your letter and regret you felt that ytou had cause for writing it. It is quite probable that there is good ground for your complaint. I do not justify nor attempt to justify any misrepresentation of anarchism or anarchists. But this sort of thing has been engaged in on both sides. At Chicago and some other places there are those who call themselves anarchists who are to be found in every election with the money of capitalist politicians in their pockets and doing the service of ward-heeling politicians, denouncing Socialists and visiting their wrath on the Appeal to Reason and other Socialist papers. Between elections of course, they have no use for politics and denounce all politics as corrupt but when there is an opening to make a few dirty dollars they are in the thick of the vilest kind of politics. But I know you do not defend this and I am simply mentioning it to show that there are those on both sides who are engaged in the reprehensible work which you and I both condemn.
I have a letter from Voltairine de Cleyre on the same subject and have just answered her. Of course you know that I am not an anarchist and do not agree to the anarchist philosophy, but I can none the less admire such a comrade as Voltairine de Cleyre, in whose letter which lies before me there is everything that is commendable and not one word to which any fair and decent person could take exception.
I have often defended anarchists and I think no one more fully appreciates the moral heroism of the Chicago anarchists who were legally murdered than I. Certain anarchists have at times treated me unfairly but I have rarely paid any attention to them for the very reason that I do not wish any personal controversy with those who are opposed to capitalism. So far as we can work together well and good. Where we cannot do this we can each pursue his own course with all due respect for the other. I number some anarchists among my warmest personal friends and the only change I could wish in them is that they were Socialists.
I appreciate the kindly spirit in which you have written me and you may rely upon me to do what I can to prevent any misrepresentation of anarchism on the part of Socialists.
I am glad your mail has been held up by the government. This gives you fresh credentials and increases, if possible, my personal regard for you. In any such fight, if it became serious, I need not assure you that you could count on me without fear of disappointment.
I hope you are well and cheerful, and with all good wishes, remain as ever,
Yours faithfully,
E. V. Debs
The letter is printed in Letters of Eugene V. Debs, Vol. 1, ed. J. Robert Constantine (University of Illinois Press, 1990), pp. 264-266. It is preserved in the Labadie Collection at the University of Michigan.
