Anarchy vs communism who will win ?

except communists wouldn't want an anarchist society and anarchists don't want a communist society but sure, we'll all be happy somehow, even though we still don't get along with common enemies

Huh? Communism is the end goal of so9cialism and the abolishment of the state as classes organize themselves. It's just Marxists believe a state is necessary to reach it.

Good thing that's not what I did then. I don't think that the truth is "somewhere in the middle", I have strong beliefs of my own. But I'm not a retard who throws a fit if my exact ideology wins out, anarchists are close enough to me ideologically that I'd be more than satisfied if society were run along those lines.

If communists don't want an anarchist society (i.e. communism) then they aren't really communists imo. I can see why anarchists take issue with some of Marxist theory, but I tend to be sympathetic to their criticisms of Marxists anyways, so w/e

...

communism is a stateless society. go back to Holla Forums

This is the worst take I've ever seen on this website. Please stop perpetuating the myth that anarchists don't read, you're making the rest of us look bad.

this is my point. communists ultimaly want anarchy but anarchists don't ultimately want communism

Marx belived the socialist state would dissolve once it became redundant and would give way to stateless communism. This is an absurd fantasy.

Marxists should listen when anarchists point out the worst parts of Marxism. Our ideology shouldn't be above criticism, the only thing that we require from anarchists is solidarity. We agree on ~90% of things anyways. Tbh I think it's our similarity that causes so many issues, it's easier to fight with someone you mostly agree with than it is with someone you completely disagree with

Marx didn't believe that the state would just magically wither away, he proposed forms of organization that would allow for it to wither away once it became redundant.

well you won't get it which, again, is my main point here. your goals are not our goals, even though we have large sections of overlap. the communists and nazis once united to fight a common enemy, but that doesn't make them bound in solidarity. they just used each other up to protect themselves, then proceeded to tear each other apart. I know some anarchists are willing to tow the line for communism, but in the long term, you definitely don't want to count on them when you're setting up your state to destroy the state.

I'm well aware of his proposed mechanisms for dissembling the socialist state. That's why I call them absurd fantasies.

And that's what I would call "Not an argument".

It is literally not an argument, just my opinion.

Justify your opinion, faggot.

...

This.

A confederation communes governed by direct democracy and a limited central government with either a syndicalist or councilist economy or some mixture of the two.

...

??

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-democracy-and-anarchy

Both win, remember the proletarian "state" is not suppossed to be a bureaucratic piece of shit like we've seen before, i really dont give a fuck

Sounds delicious

Communism because its more organized. A few big commie gangs will take out all the tiny anarchists groups.

Communism is a form of anarchy

...

...

Agreed

TOP WEW

I believe he's talking about bourgeois and statist 'democracies', not rejecting democratic decision making on principle.

Tbh from what I can tell from the Bread Book, anarchy in practical terms simply means the elimination of any distinction or separation between the decision making/governance of a society and the people themselves. So it seems to me that direct democracy would be as close to anarchy as possible.

take that black off your flag

From what I can tell, anarchy means the abolition of physical coercion of others. What does the 51% do if the 49% don't agree? If a decision is to be made in a majority-take-all fashion, you are reinstating tyranny over the minority all over again. Democracy is only useful in anarchy if there is 100% agreement;

Then how do you get anything done? Most of the time there isn't going to be total consensus. This is the main flaw I keep coming back to while reading Kropotkin. What do you do when somebody rejects the principles upon which an anarchist society is based?

For example in an AnCom society, what do you do when a group of workers takes over their factory and then refuses the principle of mutual aid? What exactly is there to motivate people to adhere to this principle, to work effectively and efficiently, to share their products with the common stock, etc.

Kropotkin's main counter to this appears to be that the idea of collective benefit of everybody doing their part will motivate people to adhere to the mutual aid principle, but he fails to state what the anarchist society would do if somebody does not.

That's very well put, yea I'd say that's largely anarchism to me

What is justified force/hierarchy?

Can complete consensus ever be reached, or is it idealism?
I personally don't think it's necessary within anarchy. Kropotkin lays out a scenario in the bread book where he states communities can decide certain conditions or rules if you will in regard to work/life within a municipality, such that you must consent or find another place to live. Majority rule is ok with anarchism so long as people have the ability to opt out if they do choose.
The scenario you describe makes me question whether or not human organization would be possible under such a form of anarchism

Well in such a scenario, consider the division of labor. Let's presume the factory in question makes steel. Since organization is central to anarchism, the community at large can cut them off, as they can't eat steel. They can't wear steel, they can't even necessarily do anything with that steel. So I think they'd realize pretty damn quick they are completely useless without the society at large

This is where we agree. Everyone has to agree, or at least be willing to live with the groups choice. Anarchy is fundamentally about free choice so people are technically free to act as slaves if they want in an anarchist system. I often question whether human organization is possible under pretty much any form of governance (or lack thereof)

But that would just be another form of coercion wouldn't it? I don't have a problem with that since I'm not an anarchist, but Kropotkin specifically states that even parasites would have a right to basic necessities. It seems that social pressure and stigma would be the main tools to discourage such behaviour. While I think that this could be effective for the most part given how social pressure can make people do all kinds of crazy shit, I don't think it would be enough to solve the problem entirely. I mean even if everybody universally despises and shuns parasites there will always be some people who just don't give a shit.

While social consciousness, ideology, etc are the main tools that hold society together, coercion has always been a tool needed to contain outliers and elements that refuse to accept the values and rules of society. Even in what could be called primitive communist societies they had such practices, for example the Inuit used to punish serious crimes with marooning. I just can't see a society existing entirely without coercion.

In addition, while I think the social consciousness Kropotkin envisions could one day become a reality, it can't be done overnight or through revolutionary change. I'm more on board with Marx here, I think a lower stage of socialism would be necessary first to forge a socialist consciousness, followed by the gradual abolition of money/labour vouchers.

what is diplomacy?

Idk then maybe I'm not a pure anarchist because I agree with this. I personally don't think this should be carried out by the state, but the community as a collective of individuals , I don't see "coercion" as inherently incongruent with anarchism.
This gets tough tho because it raises the question of what is the state, and i see states as bodies that exist somewhat externally from society at large, yet making directives over it. If the community itself is the genesis of these directives (through directly democratic means), I think this represents the most realistic means of organizing society in a manner that reflects the collective will of the people

That's fair, in personally more neutral and undecided but given that you clearly have a good understanding of the pros and cons, I must say I respect your opinion. I'm personally still in the process of forming my own (although leaninig anarchist currently)

And to clarify I recognize this could fit the definition of a DotP, my concern is without oversight a DotP could centralize into something quite external from the working class

I think we're on the same page. I think Anarchist principles are what society ought to aim for by any way I think of putting them into practice usually ends up looking like a state. An extremely decentralized and democratic state, but a state nonetheless, which is why I often feel like I don't entirely fit into either Anarchist or Marxist camps. I suppose the political model that most closely aligns with my ideas is communalism.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-revolutionary-catechism.pdf
I figure you guys would find old Bakunin a little interesting here.

We really need to consider practices of both. On hindsight, Marx's infamous "State withering away" was not only naïve, but moronic. Reification aside, a power structure like that just plain isn't allowing itself to be dismantled. Marxism must either concede that it's impossible and embrace a socialist, democratic, popular etc State of indefinite duration, or come up with the practical method to make the damn thing wither away before things get started. I doubt the latter is even possible. To say nothing of other problems like the one-party State itself and the fully centralized economy's logitics.

I'm not going after communists.

he's rejecting tyranny of the majority entirely. that's all democracy is and that's all that it means.

He offers literally nothing as a means of how to govern, and Maletesta does not speak for all anarchists.

Look, there is no society in the world without collective action, in fact you might say that collective action is the definition of society. Where there is collective action there must also be collective decision making, and there will never be unanimous agreement in all situations, meaning at some point you will have to make a decision that will displease somebody. Either this decision will be palatable to a majority, or it will be palatable to a minority. In other words, the only alternative to majority rule is minority rule. While democracy ought to surely have limits protecting the majority from attacking the fundamental freedoms of the minority, it is the only mechanism in which every individual has a chance to voice their opinion and influence the outcome. In my view this makes it the only system compatible with individual freedoms that are the goal of both anarchism and communism.

do you see the contradiction in your statements? Democracy and Liberalism are polar opposites, they always will be.
you will have to sacrifice a bit of some to make room for the other.

Are you retarded?

what are they then? I can guarantee your response will be exactly what you greentexted but reworded.

Here's the reality:
You sacrifice individual freedoms for the sake of just living in society with other people. As soon as you choose to live in a society, you are going to have to accede to some form of social governance. You sacrifice your individual freedoms just by existing in a similar location and continuously interacting with other people. If you actually want to have individual freedoms, you're going to have to effectively be a hermit.

Democracy is the system that asks people to sacrifice as little as possible, that you only come to agree with your neighbors on what to do.

If you actually are going to utterly reject every form of social ordering, I hope you're ready to leave society.

Read Bordiga

FUCK♂️YOU

First communism will win, then social anarchy.

Anarchy vs communism is a false dichotomy. You can't have anarchism without communism, or communism without anarchism.
-Kropotkin

Well the end goal is the same isn't it?
As long as we have a global revolution, I don't care too much about which one is dominant (assuming tankies don't derail it).

commbulism will win

capitalism

As long as nobody brings the vanguard party bullshit.

whoever wins, capitalism fails

It was never supposed to be a "bureaucratic piece of shit". Nobody (including Lenin and Stalin) wanted a "bureaucratic piece of shit". The question is, how do you avoid a "bureaucratic piece of shit" from establishing itself when you're trying to build a state that's radically different from anything that's ever existed before, under incredibly harsh conditions (literally while fighting a civil war)? If there's ever a communist revolution again, it will have to deal with many of the same old problems, and a lot of completely new problems. The fact that a proletarian state is not "supposed" to be bureaucratic doesn't mean shit if you don't have any real ideas for how to avoid bureaucracy. Talking about what the proletarian state is "supposed" to be like without talking about the material conditions which it emerges from is pure utopianism tbqh fam.

Read my post.