What's The Difference?

Stop this meme.

O shit you got me there

Authoritarian socialists are nothing but spooked motherfuckers, a dogma has been ingrained in them, they refuse to believe that anything but the leninist hurr durr opress workers to build socialism thing must be done because "muh dialectic".

Anarchists on the other hand, are not dogmatic, they are merely looking for ways to achieve socialism, and in a time where prying economic control from private industry is a thing that must happen, anarchists are interested in ideas like mutualism and syndicalism, or even less anarchist but similiar ideas like democratic confederationalism

A vanguard party would claim to have worker control of the workplace too. Besides, how will it be organised? Co-ops? Trade unions? Syndicates? Direct democracy or representative democracy?

no, because then the vanguard party would be the owner

Lenin aka "Lelnin" is not my comrade, WORKERS OWNERSHIP and ANARCHISM not STATE OWNERSHIP and STAE CAPITALISM ok??

praise Makhno

I personally advocate for unions of co-ops with direct democracy in a reverse-heirachal federation format, where individual co-ops have more power than the unions that represent them which have more power than the unions of the unions and so on.

The format of unions of co-ops is utilized because of the concept of union dues, which can be used to collectivize funding for public projects such as funding new co-ops, aiding workers in strikes, lobbying, and so on. Unions also serve as a very tangible legal entity so that co-ops can protect their technologies with copyleft licenses that only allow the products to be made by co-ops. If a sufficient ammount of technology can be copylefted, business will be forced to shift to the co-op method, thus killing private industry.

tl;dr anarchists have more theory than tankies

Genuine question for the Leninists: How does the state avoid becoming a bureaucracy? If the party is an alienated power, how can it be assured to represent their interests for decades, if not centuries?

Only if you buy into the narrative that the vanguard party and the state it controls is the absolute and infallible representative of the workers and their interests. However, logic would dictate that such reliance on infallibility and benevolence among a ruling elite is idealistic at best, and history seems to have largely made similar conclusions.
Any of the above things you listed really. Probably not representative democracy (at least in the current sense), as that robs agency from the individual worker. A liquid democracy would probably be more-so the analog for representative democracy if that were to occur.

from an anarchist perspective, yeah. from a marxist perspective, no.

My god, I've never seen a more beautiful picture in all my life. 11/10 VaporSoc

Communists want to seize the state
Anarchists want to destroy the state

ancoms have a specific tradition behind them. Communism is the end goal of a lot of groups, however ancoms approach communism in a specific way. Their position on philosophy, history, economics, what communism means etc. is also significant in that it may differ from your average marxist for example.

Outdated bs.
Its not about destroying anymore, anarchists do not destroy or smash.
They build freedom, and create co-ops.

We live in an era of global capitalism, and we cant smash the iron giant with our bare fists any longer. Anarchists of today must build a giant of their own, a giant likewise powered by the engine of economics, it will be the base and wherever the base threads the superstructure trembles, leaving a footprint and culture of freedom and worker controlled industry behind.

Build, Robot Fight, Freedom.

take off that flag u cuck. you're not a real communist

really causes pondering

Anarchists think they can do away with hierarchy and state apparatus. Communists realize that this will always exist in one form or another.

hmmmm

Communist larp with uniforms and ushankas
Anarchist larp with barricades and bad spanish

la baricadas es liberacion, viva la rev~!

barricadas son*

This is not human nature. It's the nature of human interaction and society, otherwise there is no reason why we couldn't make capitalism work, as it, too, would have no natural tendencies.

Bucko that's what marxism already advocates. Please for the love of god read some theory.

that literally lacks any sense

No, it doesn't. Just because you're too stupid to understand something doesn't mean it isn't true. State apparatus will always exist in one way or another, therefore even the least necessary hierarchy that we can have will include state-like institutions.

No, I know tankies think it should be gradual too, I mean, that's obvious seeing as they are delusional enough to think a period of capitalism is necessary. The point of me saying that was to explain that anarchists do not want it "to just happen overnight", thats blatant tankie misinformation. I also stand by saying that tankies want a magical "muh rope day", thats right, the first step of their process requires an arbitrary overthrowing of the current system, it's absolutely ludicrous.

Anarchists are more reasonable, in that they have plans to gradually but radically transition starting right now, with no mystical muh rope day

lel

where are the proofs?
How is this any different from "people will be lazy without being exploited, it's just human nature"

How do anarchists answer the charge that their societies can never survive for very long? A few years at best.

Not all Marxists are tankies. Read theory.

What theory would you recommend for action and working towards transition?

Well let's see:

It's basic logic, really. If we take the fact that the current state will be supplanted by socialist organizations of workers, then it only follows that the necessary functions of the state will to in one way or another. So for example, you will still have a police force or vigilantes. In either case, they must be able to exercise some form of authority to punish criminals. You will still have an army, or worker militias to protect yourself from counter-revolutionaries, and so on and so on. We can also see that the economic calculation problem means that organizations run by workers will need a way to communicate without taking advantage of one another, therefore there must be some kind of central nexus or system to share information. This may be a computer, but even if this were the case, we could see that as state apparatus. The same goes for scientific development, infrastructure, and so on.

But the October Revolution faced sabotage from Tsarists and the Allies, and then 20 years later they had to face a full blown invasion from Nazi Germany. And yet the USSR lasted into the 1990s

LEL

We're not stupid, we're just not willing to succumb to the browbeating society screams at us to accept. We know there will always be statists, and that even should we eradicate them all, they would rise back up in some form of hipster revolutionaries.

But the difference between you and us is that we refuse to accept them and their authority. Even if we live within a state, we will be free because we won't let them control us or take anything away from us.

no offense but do you pay taxes? not a fed

You can have state-like functions without a state. It seems you are stupid.

This is a pretty good analysis of anarcho-syndicalist movements throughout history and talks about where anarcho-syndicalism seems to be heading today
libcom.org/library/union-makes-us-strong

This explains anarchist organization strategies pretty well, but its from a real old debate so its kinda dated:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-anarchy-and-organization-the-debate-at-the-1907-international-anarchist-congres

I also recommend reading about the FOSS movement and about copyrights in general, and read the manifestos of various co-ops

but I am an anarchist

I'm certain there will be armed conflict between anarchists and the false conscious prole/robot armies of the bourgeoisie, but that won't happen till the economic system anarchists and their co-ops/unions seek to impose becomes a threat to porky. Right now porky's arrogance will be their downfall, we shall organize and build a huge network of unionized co-ops and it will already be too late for porky when porky realizes.

Marxists tend to have better theory. Anarchists tend to have better practice. Notice I used the word tend.

Why isn't good ol' Noam in the pic?

Nope, too poor to

As long as it comes from horizontal direct democracy and not authoritarian bureacracy

Sorry matey I didn't mean to quote you

because tankies pretend that noam is a liberal and use it against anarchists even though its an obvious fallacy. Tankies dont care if they use fallacies though, they're charmed, not informed.

I love how tankies just keep spouting "muh theory", and then are btfo by logical arguments in every encounter with a well-read anarchist. More writers != correct

There is also the big issue of anarchist theory being largely contemporary and published informally or electronically only. Tankies think older = better. Reactionary, sad.

I know anarchists that think he's liberal. The dude comes out every election and shills for the Democrats on some lesser of two evils shit. He's got a great analysis of media, foreign policy and the west's role in the world but his politics can be a bit iffy. Especially as he's gotten older.

That's the point, now, isn't it? The transitional period will, of course, be more hierarchical, but that's simply a consequence of building socialism and then communism. Anarchists like to think they oppose all hierarchies, but some are simply here to stay. You will have your worker's paradise, and state apparatus with it. Your only problem is that you refuse to acknowledge it as such. If that's our only difference, then fine, I'm content with using your terminology.

any tankies here?, me and my ancom friend want to kick your asses

I think Noam's perspective is that liberals have a slim chance of not restricting organizational abilities when a large union of co-ops does form in the united states

this tbh

Well, I want to own a tank. Does that make me a tankie?

Kek.

The Dems have been union busting since the 70's and love free trade. He's delusional.

Smashies pls

No

Pics?

Some hierarchies are necessary. In the military, for example, you cannot have privates ignoring their TL and SL, and you cannot have PLs ignoring the captain, and so on. I thought anarchist opposed all unnecessary hierarchies. Am I wrong?

fam, havn't I made it clear? Build the giant robot consisting of co-ops and worker solidarity, and then smash the giant robot of global capitalism with it.
Build, robot fight, freedom. No smash. Except for giant robots.

Don't have one yet. I want to own one, though.

The suppression of bourgeois class interests will involve some form of hierarchy. It requires an active suppression of one groups interests over another. Whether the structures are horizontal or not the transitional society will be putting the worker over the bourgeoisie.

Yes. The ypg uses non-hierarchal squads that each do their own thing, and they are doing fantastic.

I personally don't think that an anarchist uprising should be in the form of military warfare, i am not sure the military itself could work like that, maybe in a guerrilla environment

pls

By eliminating the economic base that allows the bourgeoisie to exist (any type of economic hierarchy, capitalism, state capitalism, etc), the culture for them will die and it will be hard for that culture to gather enough support to change the base.

not true tbh

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_autonomous_zone

In some situations a hierarchy can be justified. Like master/apprentice, parent/child, doctor/patient, teacher/student.

Ok, fine. That and lead project designers can stay, but that's a hierarchy of expertise and planning, not of authority. If people don't want to follow their instructions, they will be allowed to leave. Under statism, however, the freedom to desert is nonexistent, so the authority of the hierarchy is greatly lessened.

it is rather the opposite, remember the superstructure mantains the base, you can see that with proles that defend capitalism againts their sel-finterest

Those are spooks lad. Society does not need any of those things, and by encouraging those things you are actually preventing the economic base from shifting. Once we've transitioned away from markets and private industry for instance, material conditions may not favor those bullshit spooks you just described, so the culture will change to not have those concepts, or have a different form of those concepts.

Culture doesn't change overnight. Counter-revolutionary forces have been a constant in every revolution.

Comrade, the way it works is the superstructure vehemently tries to defend the base, but if the base is changed in a way that the superstructure cannot prevent, such as gradual economic change, then the superstructure will shift to meet the new material conditions. In other words, the more co-ops are made, the more culture will shift to favor co-ops, untill it reaches the tipping point where the culture favors co-ops more than private industry and begins to violently suppress private industry, that is the period known as revolution. It's a long path to revolution.

What other kind is there? Insurgency? Even that requires coordination and cooperation. Small unit tactics require fast actions and coordination, so you will not get rid of hierarchy there without risking friendly fire or other disasters, or simply being ineffective. Combat is the ultimate team sport, so you better act as one.

So when learning how to self a student shouldn't listen to the training a master welder is giving him? A cancer patient should ignore a doctor's advice?

I love seeing monkeys fighting tbh.
Why it feels so good being a leftcom

Lmao take this liberal shit back to reddit.

Bordiga was a tankie

A significant part of the divide is little more than a matter of bickering over terminology. Once I realized there was no objective definition for a "state" I started calling myself an anarchist-communist despite my support for a communist party to lead the revolution. I still want to abolish control, the fact some political organs of violence will temporarily survive is just a detail to that end.

FITY

No. He wasn't. He hated Stalin and only defended the early Bolshevik period.

What the fuck is a leftcom supposed to be anyways?

Leftcoms shout about how everyone else is wrong and how doing anything but waiting for the terracotta proletarian army to rise is opportunism. Basically trots without groups to split from or newspapers.

go accomplish nothing somewhere else

but the only way to make a global cooperative movement is by making proles agree with the co-op movement, I mean I can see it simply working on a cafeteria and other minor industries a small effort, but how are we going to be able to administrate a nuclear plant in a co-op movement, for example? we not only have to make people understand how is it that capitalism doesn't care about externalities of the current energy production, but we also have to make them understand it is possible to administer a better solution in a co-op manner,
it's not that we can form a co-op and stablish a nuclear plant, we simply cannot do that

take your central planning faggotry back to /marx/

Under certain circumstances, the desire to leave when a large danger comes is so great that leadership must ensure compliance. Ideally this is done by explaining the situation and how they face annihilation by not sticking together. However, if that doesn't work, the first deserter to get caught must be made an example to maintain military discipline. That doesn't mean you have to be executed, thought that is possible, but sometimes just hard labor will do the job. Sometimes in war, you will be ordered to do things that will kill you. This is something a soldier must accept.

I don't think you have the freedom to desert once you've agreed to fight. If you decide to volunteer for military service, you should do it knowing that this is possibly the way you die, and you must be willing to accept that. When I was a private, my DS told me that the best way to deal with fear when I deploy was to think of it like terminal cancer. This is a way to let go. Of course, you can always quit before you are in a combat zone, but once in, you are putting the lives of others at risk by robbing them of manpower that they could have had if only you were not there and someone of greater conviction was. You owe your unit service until you are due back home. You an quit then if you want, but not before.

Some hierarchies are a material necessity. You cannot teach a student that will not learn, and you cannot treat a patient that does not want to be treated. You can also never lead a soldier that does not want to obey. These hierarchies are necessary.

Don't kid yourself. Left-communism is just another one of the countless silly dogmas holding the movement back.

The actual programs and philosophies comprising it are pretty diverse. In effect to call yourself a leftcom is little more than a statement that you label everything outside of your small sect "not socialism" and generally alienate everyone from your movement.

Yes clearly, but unfortunately, to get them to agree, there must be visible examples of success already. There are plenty of existent co-ops the success of which a co-op movement can piggy-back off of to start yet more co-ops and start a union of co-ops. After that is said and done, the success of the unionization of the co-ops can be pointed at to show workers that "hey, co-ops and revolutionary unions have a lot of potential", and then hopefully even more co-ops will spring up, and someday the movement might be successful enough for worker controlled infrastructure such as power plants and legal institutions to exist.

Tbh, the most difficult part of this whole thing is coming up with a reasonable plan for building up support from where the movement is now to where it needs to be. It might be a good idea to get a group of ancoms on leftypol to organize and compile enough theory to publish a small pamphlet with these ideas or something. We can get crimethinc or some other anarchist publisher to publish the pamphlets and distribute them

Most anarchists are okay with the concept of voluntary hierarchies.

Hierarchy doesn't fix any of those problems. They don't cause disobedience to vanish.

(checked)

but there are already visible examples of succes, the problem now is to get people to engage in such practices, co-ops have been a thing since forever, since cavemen themselves hunting or farming together

The only way I can think of effectively making co-ops more visible is by creating more of them. Perhaps what must be done is focusing on creating a union of co-ops as soon as possible so it will become possible sooner to fund the development of more co-ops. It also might be possible to get an influential political candidate like JIll Stein to officially endorse such a thing.

No i want to end production and the existence of capital. Communists want to collectivize production and capital.

They are diametrically opposed beliefs

Comrade, I don't think this is a common sentiment among anarchists

No its not. Most anarchists are just would-be bandits or autocrats.

Anarcho-primitivists, however do want to end production

and here we see the dialetical motion, let's agree that there will be a different necessity, some people might have to be educated ideologically and others will have to be aproached from a positivist form

it is true there is no universality after all

This.
Communism will arrive via Atlas Shrugged-type means. We'll have to build/steal our own businesses and states (ie revolution). The Fabian approach might also work but the party in power would have to immediately cripple the country's military and police forces so authoritarians (both friend and foe) can't seize control. It's not going to arrive with a Bernie Sanders or Lenin type individual purging all the capitalists or anarchists successfully toppling government and not replacing it, for the same reason- because there won't be the infrastructure to support it. We saw this in the Russian Revolution and a handful of anarchy attempts as well like the Paris Commune.

This brings up an interesting idea. What if anarchists support a general leftist "muh rope day" type of revolution with the intention of disrupting it at the very end and destroying the material conditions for hierarchy? It could be an effective solution to the hierarchy problem, but with added convenience of violent revolution.

Say what you want about tankies (because I know that's what you meant) but they're definitely not reformists.

I've actually thought about contributing to a pamphlet myself. I could translate to Spanish, Latin and German (with some difficulty for the last two). I feel like ABCs of Socialism doesn't answer the right questions. It tries to assure people that communism can work and isn't Soviet nonsense but doesn't go into why it's needed and why capitalism is bad.

Is ABCs public domain? We could just poach parts of it and add what I mentioned that it's missing.

Ah, so literal retardation

What, so the fucking monks can read it or some shit?

It's called an international auxiliary language for people who don't speak any of the other languages like Slavs. I don't know Esperanto or Interlingua.

Internet and decentralized big data (Urbit) and social media are dissolving the power of the state as we speak. Imagine the power revolutionaries would have in 30 years

This is literally on the same level of thinking as Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom going on about how communists became nazis and nazis became communists but liberals were perfect angels who everyone should have listened to.

Yeah, Latin is nowhere near that. Nobody fucking knows it. English is far more common, as evidenced by a faggot Puerto Rican typing it on the interbutts to talk about gommunism.

...

Remove mention of Kurdish Oil gangsterism and muh democracy and this is golden

It's called not being an idiot.

...

The thing literally written by Mencius Moldbug, which he calls "digital feudalism"?

Feudalism undermines the power of the state immensely. The state is safest under absolute monarchy or totalitarian centralized dictatorship (Nazi, Soviet, CCP)

my favorite post i've read on this board. It's a pity many of the left libertarians don't see it from this perspective, communes can already be made, we can cut out the big corporations in the chain and create a way of living which is closer to anarchy ourselvies by using communes and co-ops which are markets not regulated by wallmart and friends.

Anarchism is a dumb pipedream. You need a state to crush the opposition.

The idea of an anarchist military force makes me chuckle tbh.

All thanks to NATO airstrikes and SAA

Also, YPG is the armed forces of PYD, which is part of KCK, which is strictly hierarchical.

I'm mutualist now

prove it

The true revolution will never happen until the perfect synthesis of the Marxist and anarchist schools of thought hasn't been found.

so it will happen after the marxist and anarchist schools have not found a perfect synthesis
thanks

damn sorry ;_;

Anarcho positives:
oxymoron
How is this positive in a transitory stage?
Wew
who gives a fuck you idiotic teen
Liberal pipedream, go join the green party.
… of what?
As opposed to? Collective?
Free? In what sense?
Ok.

Marxist negatives:
kek. The ruling class will give up its lands and properties if we wait long enough, guys!
literally capitalist propaganda
The state is a state.
Yeah, because collectivism is slavery! Atta boy!
literally nothing wrong with it

B-but guys, we are totally serial!

Shit thread with 2-3 anarchists pretending to be tankies and "BTFO'ing" them, exchanging SRS tactics about their wonderland. SAD

it's ease op
the former draw stars on walls and write stuff like ANTIFA 2001
while the others sit at home and write MUH COMMIES MUH PIGGIES on the internet

Nah fuck that we need both or we're just going to be spinning our tires doing jack shit.

So where are those states in that webm now?

Except we don't.

Read a book comrades

Anarchists don't want everyone to be equal retard. They want freedom, you want shit to be given to you.

wut

dont tell me wat 2 do fag

Direct democracy gives a say in what to do tho?

communism, marxism, and all its derivatives are spook ideologies.

anarchy = freedom = maturity = bitch I do what I want = I can take care of myself = fuck you commies all you get is my boot in your face on my march towards freedom from spooks

All Things Are Nothing To Me

nobody cares about you and shouldn't because only I matter

deal with it

tyranny of majority u fag

dont tell me wat 2 do again

Communists are stupid, evil, collectivist, and hate freedom.

Anarchists are intelligent, enlightened, can rely on themselves, and love freedom more than anyone else.

Combat has proven it. There's a funny thing about war. Things that work, seem to stay, and those that don't go away. A plan is always worked at higher (with more information) and handed lower (with less information). It's inefficient, and probably impossible to inform everyone the same at every level. The fact is that as you go down in the chain of command, it isn't the entire plan that needs to be known from top to bottom, but the commander's intent. There are decisions that need to be taken by the individual that are never factored in by the group. War works this way. You cannot have a soldier deciding what to do on his own because he simply does not know enough and can never know enough. It's a team sport. You need to follow leaders who are there to make use of you as you use them to connect to the rest. I don't need to talk to a machine gunner from 2nd platoon. The NCOs and officers of my company work as nodes for that interaction, and they try to keep me from shooting them and me from getting shot by them. I simply have no way to do that on my own.

I guess you want freedom from basic grammar as well. :^)

What was grammatically wrong with that?

Comma splice

Uphold Sandersism-Uygurism

Isn't anarchism a subset of communism?
I'm pretty sure the OP means marxism instead of communism.

Where was Catalonia after 2 years? ::::DDDDD:D

...

Title: What Is Communist Anarchism?
Author: Alexander Berkman
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism

All anarchist are communist
Not all communists are anarchist

Closer to socialism than any of the aforementioned states, that's for sure.

Yes, but where are those states now? Is their collapse into reactionary capitalist states better than the failure of Catalonia because it managed to hold out longer before failing miserably?

Why do Americans love Anarchism so much? Almost all our left (and even right) philosophers were Anarchists.

Why? Is it the superstructure's condemnation of "big government" that crawls into the heads of even the most left-minded people.

That's completely retarded.

Anarchy has no rules beyond no state and no rules and laws.

The goal is NOT a shitty commune.

The goal is simply freedom in its purest form.

Nothing else.

America is a country that was founded on frontier principles. The federal government's overreach was close to nothing in the earliest days, and a man could live on the peripheries of civilization without meeting a single government official for his entire life. American anarchism started there.

But those days are long over… why can't people understand that

only out west from the original colonies where the law was weak to nonexistent and it was wild. well, the wild west was a myth but dont tell liberals that because theyre idiots.

Holy shit this tread is cancer. Anarchists have, with all respect, never achomplished anything of note, and will probably never do anything either. However, if the ruling class either collapses to the point where anarchists could take the power, an ancom rebellion should certanly be supported. However, most communits suck at learning from their mistakes. I am not trying to descredit earlier socialist attempts, but one must relize that obviously, something went wrong along the way. If we ignore the bumps behind us, we will never get to the end of the road.

fucking shitpost flag

Communism is a science, so you are right that we must look at what didn't work and fix it. Nobody debates this. However, some things are constant across the board. Anarkiddies are fucking faggots is the first principle of the left.

...

transfer the means of production to the working class as soon as possible, without this class antagonism to uphold the state will quickly become utterly pointless. The vanguard party only needs to serve as a sort of consulting party to the workers councils while they learn how to run their work places efficiently. honestly I can't see Leninism working anywhere except developing nations or insanely backwards nations like the US where the most assistance is needed in building socialism. Leninism isn't even a long term ideology it's merely a single step on the road to communism that ends over the course of a generation if not a few decades.

Also so long as the material conditions of the vanguard party are no different from that of the average workers I don't think there will be much threat of alienation.

Wrong, they try to avoid silly honorifics but they have clear command structures with appointed commanders.

Oh yeah socialism is when you democratically exploit yourself right? Besides if you use an anarcho-"communist" flag I would expect you to at least pretend to want communism. cuck.

Last I checked YPG had commanders, SLs, and TLs. You do not get through combat without leadership. You clearly don't understand combat and are trying to put ideology before reality.

c4ss.org/content/45925
wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Phyles

...