Difference between communism and ancom?

Prove it.
When I eat dinner with other people I don't compete for more potatoes if there are enough potatoes to fill my belly.

Says the guy who wants to murder every untermensch

Pretty sure most of leftypol actually worked. Unlike the socially retarded Holla Forumsyps that are too afraid to go outside.

I think it's just as outdated or at least suffers from the same conceptions Marxist communism has for the most part until today had. Of course both make accurate analysises that we can still use today, but unless we really inquire into them theoretically and see where their conclusions and proposed solutions are no longer as apt as they used to be, they are mere artifacts; products of their time.

We both need not "modernize" or discard them, that is to say conclude that they do not at the base give us historically invariant angles and methods of analysis, no. We need to take all that is useful in them and take another critical look at what has happened since then with them, and especially at how things are today. While there are two noticeable wings in contemporary communization theory, one more Marxist and the other more anarchist, they both borrow from each other and give us hot new takes and proposed avenues of where to go.

And I think that, while Marx already used the term "communizing" to refer to the immediate transformation of exchange values towards freely accessible use values, it was in fact the anarchist thinkers who put more emphasis on this. Today's communist movement needs the historical materialism and critique of political economy from Marxism and the principles and "spirit" of anarchism.

I made a post in a theory thread explaining what this new angle would entail and what really "communization" roughly signifies:

Sadly nobody responded further afterwards, but I want to make that thread live.

...

Why hasn't Jews been filtered into Bourgeois yet?

I think this is definitely something I agree with. I'd still call myself an ancom, but there's a lot of value in Marx's work that I can't ignore because I disagree on the state.

Would you say the historical failure of communist movements has been a lack of emphasis on organic communisation from the bottom-up in favour of "safer" non-communist measures taken to preserve the revolution and "build towards" a sort of full communism at some point in the future(NEP etc)?

I'm still trying to form my position on things like this and I've taken in a lot of theory over the past few days that I'm still digesting, so my understanding is likely lacking.

What exactly is your problem with Marx and the State here? Marx also wanted the destruction of the State, but recognized that this cannot be actualized before first abolishing its pillars; its reason of being (historically, and reproductively).

Read this: marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html.

More or less. It's much more nuanced than that and there are some things here which I'm not sure you understand the same way I do, but yeah.

It is, but that's fine. I can help you out with good texts or by answering you to the best of my ability directly wherever a longer text is not mandatory or more desirable.

communism is a stateless, classless society. Anarchist Communism is a method of getting to that society. The other two main types of communist philosophy are Marxism and some types of Market Socialism

After some reading, I guess I made the mistake of attributing Lenin's focus on the vanguard and state to Marx. If Marx's position was that the state can only be abolished by the destruction of the relations that sustain it then I don't really disagree.

There's also the issue of the different definitions of state that different anarchist theorists have used at different times vs. the Marxist definition confusing things a little on my end. I think I need to take some time to get my own positions sorted out, heh.

Shitposting flag, fuck

Nothing. Anarcho-communism is the final stage of communism.

As a ML I agree with this, although ,anarcho-communism has not been put in practice yet ( I don't think Catalonia was Communism in practice, and I don't now were to even start with Maknho)

Communists have a secretary named Lincoln and Anarcho-communists have a secretary named Kennedy.

Method really. As a Leninist, I would actually recommend reading anarchist works first.

shit, didn't meant to have that "you". Meant for op.

I think classical Marxism and Ancom are largely congruent. It's likely a major issue of contention arises of semantics around the word "state" and what that entails.
For the most part, those of the anarchist tendency don't have any issue with organization, so long as any power that organization holds is justified and it's democratically controlled.
From my own experience I have a tendency to attribute ML theory on a strong centralized vanguard to classical Marxism, though that is incorrect

In the Marxist vision of communism, production is still centralized. Anarchists envision a federation of communes.

Centralism is essential to Marxism, not the vanguard though.

I see. Can that centeralism be carried out in a reprentative way, such as in a manner similiar to that of Bookchin's democratic confederalism? Cuz once again I think that could be congruent with little libertarian socialism, at the very least

Well, yeah, but also no. See, vanguardism is a critical take or form on what Marx already thought: that the communist movement against capital necessarily starts out small because materialism works that way (ruling ideas of an epoch, e.g. liberalism or fascism, are the product of the condition within which a mode of production finds itself, in this case capitalism), and that it would at first necessarily have a despotic character, then conditionally more or less despotic or democratic depending on what the situation tells this despotic movement it can allow or cannot. Vanguardism is thus a historical, at first Russian take on this Marxist conclusion. Before vanguardism, Bakunin's invisible committee of anarchists leading anarchism mirrorred this notion by Marx, as just an example of how this conclusion is quickly taken when we ponder the revolutionary question seriously.

Well, and this is likely to surprise you, also what Leninism posits. The difference is that Leninism doesn't just think that the State is only truly done away with when what it represents and summons is done away with, but that this process needs to be vanguardistic, i.e. necessarily despotic by principle, and that democracy can only lend itself towards an organ decentralized of the greater mass of revolutionary workers into its own centrality (the vanguard).

I think this debate between Marxists and anarchist has quite ironically always been semantic and spiritual. For example, when Kropotkin opposes the Marxist notion of centralization, what really bothers Kropotkin here is that centralization appears to imply under some type of rigid hierarchy, when in fact in Marxism and for Marx himself, centralization simply means fully in the hands of internationalized society itself; in the subjects once proletariat now become individuals no longer subjects, no longer classes. Of course there are some differences, but I mostly believe these are superfluous when it really gets down to it.

I… think so too, but then again not really. If you're an anarchist and are familiar with anarchism, like I said above, the argument is mostly historical and semantic. What really changes is the tactical and revolutionary notions' sides of things.

For two years. Then everyone dies.