I still don't get the difference between communism, anarchism and anarcho-communism

I still don't get the difference between communism, anarchism and anarcho-communism

Are they just synonyms?

no, read a book

...

They're just stupid words, use them however you want. Communist is unquestionably the most radical term so I use it the most but I also think of myself as an anarchist-communist even though my political vision would lead to a structure most would call a state. I see communism as the abolition of capital and anarchy as the abolition of control. They're both key to our worldview and honestly I'd think we'd be a lot better off if we all just dropped the silly dogmas and used ancom as a generic label for the broader movement.

I disagree, the majority opinion at least here in burgerland is that communism is at least big gubbermint but will at least provide for its citizens, anarchism to them however is lawless roving bands of murderer-rapist-drugdealers who take what they want and kill everyone in their way

But it's also classless

Go read wikipedia.

Communists think that the state can't be abolished directly, and will wither away when material conditions make it possible.

Every anarchism is anarcho communism tbh

I'm not the most informed leftist but here's what I think.

From what I gather, Anarchism holds that the state and hierarchical authoritarianism is the root of all suffering.

It overlaps with Marxism because Marxism says that porky maintains the contradictions of capitalism through the state's monopoly on violence.

But Marxists aren't against authoritarianism in and of it self, believing that the contradictions of capitalism are at the root of society's problems, and the state is a necessary tool that needs to be captured and who's power used to break capitalism.

Anarchist overlap with Marxist since most of them recognize the issues contradictions in capitalism cause, they just don't believe it's the root issue.

Kind like how Jews believe Jesus existed but don't believe he was the Savior.

They both have good points. It does seem naive to believe you can foster socialism in a capitalist world without authoritarian structures like a military to fight off porky forces. I think the USSR's collapse pretty much proved that any alternative to capitalism will be fought tooth and nail.

On the other hand the stereotype that living in the USSR was a bleak authoritarian landscape has some truth to it.

The USSR did a lot of things right, but when they did things wrong there was little material recourse proles could take to remedy it.

The USSR was imfamous for human rights abuses


They still definitely had gulags, and a ton of people there were dumb peasants not savvy political provocateurs. Give the devil his dues the US' robust checks on state judicial power works.

in terms of the reality of the situation, yes they are the same, although there are types of anarchy that are not communist.

In terms of ideology and strategy they are very different.

there are many definitions:

communism

definition 1

definition 2

definition 3

where anarchism have not any type of democracy, which is considered as a dictatorship of the majority, and thus the means of production are not of public access, but are the property of organized groups of people.

anarcho-communism is the same as communism but with the difference that there isn't democracy of any type, don't ask how that's supposed to work.

Depends on who you ask. Communism is the end goal of all of them, from social democrats to Marxists-Leninist's, everything else is basically a disagreement on how to get there, some poeple say the only way to do that is through a state apparatus like the one we have in a capitalist republic but controlled by the workers.

Anarchism is not always synonymous with communism due to the wide variety of anarchists schools of thought, however the vast majority want that end goal of communism, again their are disagreements as how how to achive this and how to organize while their doing it, the one factor that combines them is they believe the state apparatus cannot achieve communism as its modeled after the old capitalist state.

Anarcho-communism is a specific and most influential anarchist school of thought saying that we don't need a transitional state to achieve communism, again their are variation on how to do this from Anarcho-syndicalists, Platformists, Synthesis's anarchists and others.

The only anarchists who hate democracy are the postleft/bob black fans. Many anarchists would argue that anarchism and communism represents the expansion of democracy.

And what the fuck is syndicalism / anarcho-syndicalism

Communism is a stateless,classless, and moneyless society and anarcho communism is a methodology/ideology for achieving communism.

seems legit, since who told me that was an edgy insurrectional, illegalist punky

This is a joke right? Yes anarchism has voting, thus direct democracy (AKA the only actual type of democracy) the only difference is that a there are no representatives who decide the issues, but sometimes there are "representatives" who hold the commune's needs and wills but without any authority on their part, this was developed so an anarchist commune could send a rep to another anarchist commune requesting supplies, talking about demands etc. without having an elected person decide everything for them. Tho now that we have electronic communication this really isn't needed unless we're in some very remote place.

basically anarchic workplace democracy, no leaders, and also a theory on achieving communism by starting worker co-ops that disregard capitalist mode of production and everntually with so many worker-run factories we can move to communism. inb4 tank/stalinfags "anurkissts hav no theury :DDD"

No. They are different ideologies.

Anarchism is the first and is about destroying state as a means and an endgoal.

Communism is about taking state over and using it to create conditions when you don't need state anymore.

Anarcho-Communism is about understanding that Communism is right, but being too impatient to actually follow it.

Anarcho-syndicalism strategy of organizing unions and using those unions as a agent of revolutionary activity as well as a mean of organizing workers in a pre-communist society. Syndicalist is just saying "we like unions"

no, its not. The destruction of the state is only on of the steps. Its not like anarchists want to destroy the state and leave no other method of organizing society. But what do i expect from a fucking tankie.

Or MAYBE it's about following an ethical theory so we don't end up with another USSR failure.

There's a big overlap between anarchists and communists but they aren't necessarily the same thing

...

Only the most major decisions could feasibly be put to popular vote. It's logically absurd to imply that every detail of exchanges between enterprises could ever be handed in anything resembling a democratic manner. Can't you guys just admit bureaucracy will exist under anarchism already? I'm getting tired of your empty tirades on authority.

BORIS!

Such as?