Let's start with anarchism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism
From that definition, what do you think the answers are for your other questions?
We'll be glad to comment on your answers.
Can anybody help answer one or all of these questions? I'm dying here.
Even though the First International died out by 1872, what lessons were learned with regards to workers' liberalsm? What is anarchism? Who were their greatest supporters? How were anarchists different in philosophy and practice from the Marxists and other socialists of the late 19th century? Does anarchism offer useful components to be integrated in modern European politics?
6 answers
I'm really struggling on the first question.
I searched but I'm not sure if what I'm finding is even close to the answer. But I think anarchism may be different from Marxism and such in the fact that Marx and Engels had socialist ideals in which government was obsolete and property was dispersed equally but they didn't exactly use violence to bring about there cause which, from that definition, it seems that's what anarchism implies.
I searched but I'm not sure if what I'm finding is even close to the answer. But I think anarchism may be different from Marxism and such in the fact that Marx and Engels had socialist ideals in which government was obsolete and property was dispersed equally but they didn't exactly use violence to bring about there cause which, from that definition, it seems that's what anarchism implies.
The First International believed that if the workers owned the means of production, that they'd receive fair wages and decent treatment and hours. Before then, workers were treated as just so many cogs in the machine to produce for the owners' benefits. In that sense, the early Marxists were anarchists. They wanted to overthrow the government and let the workers rule.
However their idealistic notions were not practical. No community has ever been successful or even possible with NO government. The essence of anarchism is no government.
The socialist ideal is one in which committees of workers form the government and distribute goods according to the workers' needs.
However their idealistic notions were not practical. No community has ever been successful or even possible with NO government. The essence of anarchism is no government.
The socialist ideal is one in which committees of workers form the government and distribute goods according to the workers' needs.
so then the final question is no?
because anarchism cannot really offer usefullness to present day European politics because they desire no government whatsoever?
because anarchism cannot really offer usefullness to present day European politics because they desire no government whatsoever?
I agree. I don't see how anarchism is useful in today's European government.
Thank you :) you're such a big help.
i've been struggling on this question for like a week now, no lie. i went on vacation and missed a bunch of school so it was really hard to catch up.
i've been struggling on this question for like a week now, no lie. i went on vacation and missed a bunch of school so it was really hard to catch up.
1 answer