**Q: But aren't Anarchists just socialists?**

A: In a greater sense, yes. Anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon were both Anarchists and socialists. Today, however, when one hears another refer to himself as a "socialist," what the other person usually means is, "state-socialist." Though the difference seems to be lost in translation between Anarchists, socialists, and outsiders, it remains an important one to distinguish.

As Ernest Lesigne, a French Anarchist of the 19th century, [[http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2007/01/ernest-lesigne-on-two-socialisms.html|put it]],

>There are two Socialisms.
>One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
>One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
>One is metaphysical, the other positive.
>One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
>One is emotional, the other reflective.
>One is destructive, the other constructive.
>Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
>One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
>The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of >and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association >like any other, generally managed worse than others.
>The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
>One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
>One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
>Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
>The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns >evolutions into revolution.
>The first has faith in a cataclysm.
>The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
>Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
>One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
>The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
>The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
>The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
>The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
>The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
>The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
>The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
>The former threatens with despotism.
>The latter promises liberty.
>The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
>The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
>One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
>The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
>The first has confidence in social war.
>The other believes only in the works of peace.
>One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
>The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
>One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
>The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
>The first will fail; the other will succeed.
>Both desire equality.
>One by lowering heads that are too high.
>The other by raising heads that are too low.
>One sees equality under a common yoke.
>The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
>One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
>One frightens, the other reassures.
>The first wishes to instruct everybody.
>The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
>The first wishes to support everybody.
>The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
>One says:
>The land to the State.
>The mine to the State.
>The tool to the State.
>The product to the State.
>The other says:
>The land to the cultivator.
>The mine to the miner.
>The tool to the laborer.
>The product to the producer.
>There are only these two Socialisms.
>One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
>One is already the past; the other is the future.
>One will give place to the other.
>Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.


For more on the differences between Anarchist socialists that would certainly connect with Agorism and state-socialists who resound the philosophy of Marx, see Benjamin Tucker's [[http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm|State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they differ and wherein they disagree.]]