Repetitious and false

@NR92

#1. This is about America. You're from Afghanistan.

#2If you think it's false, show proof.

#3 No proof....you get an F for the debate.

#4. No reply....you get blocked, reported and removed from all participation.

@slydr68 TY

I did but I got confused as they both are residing on left side of the politics, and both demand equality and social justice

@NR92

I copied and pasted.

The dominant form of anarchism is a form of socialism.
It is an historical tendency in socialism, the libertarian form of socialism.

Socialism is for replacing capitalism with social or collective ownership of the means of production and democratic popular control over social production & social governance.

1. Some socialists advocated using political parties in elections to gain control of the state, and implement socialism through the state. They tended to identify "democratic" with the electoral democracy of states.
2. Other socialists wanted a mass uprising to create a new "proletarian state."
3. Libertarian socialists AKA anarchists tend to identify democracy with direct, participatory democracy, and thus oppose the state, and propose social governance based on direct democracy, such as local assemblies, workplace assemblies and the like.
4. Anarcho-syndicalists proposed building this form of participatory democracy in the form of a grassroots labor movement, to take over the means of production from below.

Collective ownership of the means of production does not require a state. A state is a kind of top-down bureaucratic structure, with a top-down police & military force, without direct control of it by the masses. Thus the anarchist proposal for collective ownership based on popular assemblies in neighborhoods & workplaces, federations of these throughout regions, and a militia force based on direct democratic control, would not constitute a state.

Conclusion.... Anarchism is the extreme form of socialism.

@altschmerz
Just like you do with books and other reading, you sift through different sources and pick the one that makes most sense to you.

@St-Sinner This is a very good explanation. Thanks for posting!.

Good answer

They do resemble at some points that is the reason that made me to ask this question, for instance as I mentioned before both are placed on far left of the political spectrum, and they both demand social justice, equality and are against capitalism. In addition Anarchists aslo participated in France revolution and Russia revolution along side Socialists and Marxists.

@NR92 anarchy does not demand anything, much less social justice, and anarchy can be left OR right. i think you mean revolution, not evolution. if anarchists participated in any revolutions it wasn't for the purpose of establishing anything; it was purely to destroy systems, not add new ones. meanwhile, keep in mind that socialism is not a system of government; it's an economic system. it coexists best with democracy; when it is used in conjunction with other systems of government it tends to be corrupted.

g

@genessa The explanations have to be based on history. The explanation posted by St. Sinner is the most historically accurate explanation of the similarities and differences. This is not a theoretical issue.

@genessa Read about anarchist revolutionary activity in Spain during its Civil War. Both there and in other places, anarchist activity and goals contradict what you are saying.

@Krish55 Anarchists are capable of revolution. That does not contradict what I am saying.

g

@Krish55 Sure, the explanations will be based on whatever something is historically called, which means it's okay for today's republicans to identify with Lincoln even if it's ridiculous lol. (we won't even mention holocaust deniers!) It matters a lot who wrote the history and how they defined their terms -- and how we define ours. Do not assume the ignorance of those who disagree with you. I do not need to be steered back to what I have already read.

g

@Krish55 Who said you offended me? Please do not assume that disagreement is always or even usually a sign of offense. But I still do disagree. I do not think I am incorrect about anarchists and what they want, because if they want to build something they may think they're anarchists but they are not, must as, for example, Jews for Jesus think they're Jewish lol. Sorry, first example that sprang to mind.

g