Anarcho-Semanticism

hmm... i'm a *little* bit confused about something in your message. you said:

"I understand the basic philosophy behind Anarcho-syndicalism as well as Anarcho-Commuism - but fail to understand the differences among Anarchists with socialistic principles."

i might be misreading this, but are you saying that Anarcho-syndicalism/communism *arent* socialistic? all Anarcho-syndicalists/communists i've heard of consider themselves socialists too (though for many people, they get confused because for most people out there, "socialism" is used in the same way many Anarchists use the word "Social-Democracy," which is an ideal based around trying to create socialism by electing socialists into the government).

Anarcho-Capitalism, you'll find no supporters here. in fact, probably everyone here will tell you that Anarcho-Capitalism isnt a form of Anarchism at all - it's just a form of Liberalism which decided to affix the "Anarcho" onto the front. and, i'm not sure if you were implying this, but, in case you were... even "Anarcho"-Capitalists would say that their ideology is definitely *not* a form of socialism (which is one of the few things that the Anarchists who hang around here would agree with them on).

anyway, going on, you said: "If the United States government does nothing to interfere with a companies ability to make money, at whatever cost, that wouldn't the United States already be (involuntarily) Anarcho-Capitalist?"

you're *close*, but not quite on. what you described there is actually, basically, what the Libertarian Party of USA is all about - extremely small government which largely restricts itself to defense, allowing much of society to be run by the companies. Anarcho-Capitalism, on the other hand, wants the State to cease to exist altogether, where society is *totally* run by companies - even national defence.

it's not true that the US government, as it exists today, doesnt interfere with companies - there are TONS of ways they restrict and regulate things. the Bush administration was, it's true, a strong push farther away from that, to a greater degree of deregulation and allowing companies to do whatever the hell they wanted (as long as it didnt upset the Bush admin., anyway), but there were still many government controls on business. ... which i cant explain in any great detail, as i dont know many of the details, but i'm sure some of the folks here (particularly those who are Americans - i'm Canadian) could explain better

anyway - welcome to the forum!

ps: this is a nitpick, but a lot of Anarchists dont like the term "Anarcho-Socialism" - that's a term that the Anarcho-Capitalists dubbed for us as an attempt to nudge themselves in as if they were actually some recognized part of the Anarchist movement. *actual* Anarchism is, of course, somewhere around 150 or so years old, and the Capitalists only came along somewhere in the last 50 or so years, completely unattached and uninterested in our movement, calling themselves "Anarchists" nonetheless - and despite that they must've *known* Anarchists would hate their ideology.

hey - thanks for clearing that up uh, and dont worry about it, it's about all *i* can do to manage to string a half-sensible sentence together

it sounds like you've got the right idea about things. if you're wondering about why some Anarchists *specifically* call themselves syndicalists, rather than communists (in case you didnt know) - a lot of it has to do with the criticism of syndicalism as being *just* a means to an end. i dont think most Anarcho-syndicalists support this idea these days, but particularly in the early days of the idea, some supported the idea that the syndicates would basically make the revolution, and the revolutionary society would be organized by the syndicate/s. other Anarchists, however, thought that syndicalism was inherently reformist - that, after a while, even a radical Anarchist-syndicate would become very moderate, unconcerned with (or even hostile to) social revolution, and would simply become interested in making small reforms for workers (basically, they feared that the syndicates would kind of become Social-Democrat). earlier Anarcho-Syndicalists could've dismissed these ideas easily enough as being unrealistic, and not understanding the radicalism inherent in the idea of the syndicate, BUT history has actually lent a lot of weight to the anti-syndicalist side, as, while a lot of these Anarcho-syndicates have started very radical, and some managed to stay very radical for a good number of years, many *did* end up becoming quite reformist over time, or worse (one of the most embarassing examples is in Mexico, during the Mexican Revolution - there was a fairly strong Anarchist-Syndicate in Mexico at the time - forget the name... anyway, the government actually convinced them to send out militias *against* the revolutionaries, promising, in return, some pitiable little concessions - which they didnt even honour in the end anyway!). generally, the Anarcho-Communists tend to think syndicates are *at least* acceptable, workable things (some give much greater support - most pre-WWII Spanish syndicalists also regarded themselves as communists too), but that, due to the inherent danger of conservatism, they ought to be dismantled in the earlier days of a revolution to make way for better forms of social organization.