If this prompt had popped into my email a few weeks ago I would have been thoroughly scratching my head and doing my best Neanderthal impression.
Now however, I’m less like a Neanderthal and more like a slightly bemused child not being able to comprehend how my nose managed to get from my face into some random person’s hands.
Before I knew nothing of them other than Russia dabbled in Communism once and Anarchy is favoured by punks, supposedly. But when I started the Reporting Politics unit at the beginning of the semester our lecturer was kind enough to underline the basics for us.
Don’t get me wrong, my knowledge on this subject is dubious at best, but hopefully with my trusty Essential Public Affairs for Journalists book at my side and the less trusty internet at my fingers I might very well be able to fill in the gaps of my knowledge…..or perhaps make a fool of myself.
From what I understand socialism is about equality and my politics lecturer said it is more of the polar opposite of capitalism than communism is. Under a socialist government everything would be nationalised and taxes would be far greater to pay for all those government-owned assets.
Now, I’m too young to remember, apparently Britain was pretty nationalised before Thatcher came into power. Things like British Gas, Royal Mail and stuff like that. But then Thatcher came in, sold it all off and introduced the more extreme capitalist lifestyle we lead now.
Basically socialism=state ownership.
Communism, well that’s just boring. I think it’s more extreme than socialism. Everything is equal, everyone is equal and everything is boring. You could be a cleaner or you could be a doctor…either way it doesn’t matter you will earn the same wage. Equality is a nice idea but not when it takes away everybody’s identity and not when corruption is rife in humanity.
Both socialism and communism are a result of left wing beliefs.
Anarchy however is a bit odd. In some cases it stands for lawlessness and a nation with no recognised governing body, so in a sense it is chaos, a result of state collapse. Then there those who identify themselves as anarchists, those who don’t follow rules and do whatever the hell they like.
However there’s another facet, in fact this facet is largely at odds with the other connotations of it. It is the theory that one can govern whilst avoiding coercion, violence, force and authority whilst living in a society that can still remain desirable.
It sounds pretty peaceful which is not something I would usually apply to anarchy.
But like I say, I’m no expert, I know only the basics and even they are a little fuzzy. If you notice a gap or a discrepancy in what I’ve said please point it out (peacefully of course) after all I’m a student, and learning is my living.