Socialism was broken off from the main body of anarchism pretty early on.
The fact that you will recognize one of the personalities involved is a clue, imo.
Socialism wants to grab power and then give it away later.
That isn't how power works.
For somebody that has had a taste of it to give it up is somewhat rare, and a struggle with one's self for their character.
But, no matter what labels we agree to assign, the basic principle falls to rule by force or freedom.
If the 'utopia' requires armed thugs to persist, it sucks.
At some point those that still know freedom enough to love it will rise up, put things right, and the cycle will begin again.
Lol, none of the above.
I am an-com, as explained in these books:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarchist-communism-its-basis-and-principles
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
I'm not dogmatic, just not capable of plowing the ground near as well as what these professional authors have done.
Socialism was broken off from the main body of anarchism pretty early on.
The fact that you will recognize one of the personalities involved is a clue, imo.
Socialism wants to grab power and then give it away later.
That isn't how power works.
For somebody that has had a taste of it to give it up is somewhat rare, and a struggle with one's self for their character.
But, no matter what labels we agree to assign, the basic principle falls to rule by force or freedom.
If the 'utopia' requires armed thugs to persist, it sucks.
At some point those that still know freedom enough to love it will rise up, put things right, and the cycle will begin again.
Emma Goldman
Voltairine