Anarcho-Communism vs Communism

Question is how can there be Anarcho-Communists when true Communism is a state less form. Is people saying Anarchy-Communist just admitting that Communism is authoritarian in practice based off of recent examples? I mean it seems Arther dumb, Anarcho-Communist but Communism is in a sense Marxism and left Marxism is a type of Anarchy.

Other urls found in this thread:

Anarcho-Communism is Communism for people who haven't read Marx


But your not even answer my questions? Are people just adding the anarchy to it because communism is authoritarian and plus (repast what I typed) I mean it seems rather dumb, Anarcho-Communist but Communism is in a sense Marxism and left Marxism is a type of Anarchy.

Ancoms say Communism now, Marxists say Communism later.
The distinction existed before the USSR.
If you're referring to stuff like council communism, they existed after anarchism was coined.

Please list Marx's significant works on Communism and the state. If you're going to be pretentious and snarky at least mention the correct author.

Also read the anarchist faq.

On the point though, ancoms believe you can go straight to post-scarcity economy and skip the lower forms of communism (aka socialism) and communists believe that society transition from capitalism to socialism to communism

Thanks user, I know see what is what.

Yeah I heard about mutualism awhile back and it just made sense to me but I'm not that well read on it as it is though. And also thanks for the info in that case I feel regular communism would be best because I honestly believe people aren't ready to be thrown into such a different system. I strongly believe in easing people into things gradually.

I didn't realize how long that FAQ was until now. The entire thing comes out to thousands of 8.5 x 11 pages, which makes it much longer than the entirety of Capital.


Communism is the stateless society all sects of the left aim for or muh real movement, AnCom is a specfic tendency.
You're not making much sense fam. While communism is stateless, Anarchism and Marxism refer to groups of ideologies. This can be a loose distinction, such as communization leftcoms and council communists being pretentious anarchists in denial and crypto-ansyns respectively, but it is still a valuable distinction to make. Honestly you're best off reading the works yourself, Holla Forums has too many retards with no idea of what they're talking about.

There's a lot of dumb questions to answer.

The short answer is that Anarchists want to organize a decentralized revolutionary force, and Marxists or "authoritarian communists" believe that some level of centralism is necessary for a revolution. The ultimate goal of anarchism is identical to the ultimate goal of communism. The disagreement is over how we get there.

Bitter the communist's journey, and lonely the communist's grave.

The thread is about what the difference is, not which one is right you dunce.

Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

This is a great mistake.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.

The object of our articles is to place these two opposite principles side by side, to compare Marxism with anarchism, and thereby throw light on their respective virtues and defects. At this point we think it necessary to acquaint the reader with the plan of these articles.

We shall begin with a description of Marxism, deal, in passing, with the Anarchists' views on Marxism, and then proceed to criticise anarchism itself. Namely: we shall expound the dialectical method, the Anarchists' views on this method, and our criticism; the materialist theory, the Anarchists' views and our criticism (here, too, we shall discuss the socialist revolution, the socialist dictatorship, the minimum programme, and tactics generally); the philosophy of the Anarchists and our criticism; the socialism of the Anarchists and our criticism; anarchist tactics and organisation — and, in conclusion, we shall give our deductions.

We shall try to prove that, as advocates of small community socialism, the Anarchists are not genuine Socialists.

We shall also try to prove that, in so far as they repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Anarchists are also not genuine revolutionaries.

Anarchists make the mistake of thinking that creating power vacuums is good praxis, or that they won't be co-opted by liberals, then marginalized and Rosa'd.

ML's make the mistake of thinking they aren't on the clock until opportunistic right-wing scum snakes its way into the vanguard and subverts the entire system by introducing fucking market reforms. Or thinking that they will ever attain power in a position that will put them at even odds against the global bourgeoisie. So they can either start a futile war, or play the waiting game which they will lose.

Leftcoms make the mistake thinking that the bourg wouldn't rather destroy the world than risk losing it, so by the time the people achieve full consciousness and start seeking their interests, we'll all be dead.

i don't see your criticism on MLs as legit, Stalin warned repeatedly throughout his entire time to the very end about revisionists. there's a reason why he wanted a textbook on political economy done timely just before he stepped down.

Transparency in the government and formalization of state policy might buy some time.

I haven't liked anarchists for some time now but I've recently decided that they're actively holding leftism and should probably be killed tbh.

Nothing personal.







Whilem communism is stateless, anarcho-communism implies the transition to communism can be made directly or can be done without a state, unlike Marxist communism. It's also important to mention that the definition of state in anarchism and in Marxism are different.

Power vacuums only exist when the leadership of an institution isn't filled or an institution is destroyed with nothing to take its place. Anarchists don't think "lol just destroy the state and everything is just fine". They know something will have to take the place of its functions; one idea is a genuinely democratic federation of soviets, which is what Makhno instituted.

Then why the fuck did the second he die revisionism started snaking in? It's because the very structure of the party and state allowed and encouraged it.

List a fucking work addressing these topics. This kind of comment adds nothing to the discussion.

I think the main point of anarcho-communism is to take communist and decouple it from the authoritarian, Statist cyclops it had become. Which I can fully agree with. Maybe next time power will actually go to the soviets.

Anarcho-communism came about because they viewed Marxist communism as authoritarian. They think that the road to communism should be done in a direct democratic and horizontal fashion, and that they don't think a top-down authoritarian state is necessary or beneficial to socialism.

I am too bored to feed trolls.

You seem to be uneducated. Revisionism was always "snaking in" - since the 19th century. That's how politics works.

You also seem to be dumb. How do you imagine a "structure" that could prevent Revisionism? Such a thing is equivalent to preventing any change whatsoever.


Marx saw an anarchist revolution fail within his lifetime.

as did every single state socialist rev

I thought that he overall supported the Paris Commune. Everyone can agree that the problem with it was that they weren't nearly powerful or equiped enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie

Why not just take the natural synthesis between the two?

Why not just go DemCon?

Why not abolish the nation state and the hierarchical society present in all countries?

Apo is waiting comrades.

He supported Paris Commune as DotP, not as an example of how to do revolution.

They had more than enough power. They simply sat on their asses and did nothing other than debate on how to be good.

1) no proper army - which is why resistance was poorly organized
2) no nationalization of banks - which is how Paris Commune effectively financed Thiers to murder them
3) no commitment to pursue Revolution - which is how Revolution did not spread and Thiers could safely prepare in Versailles.

It was suicide by Anarchism.

The FAQ is actually shit though.
I mean, Jesus, read Zizek and acquire some modicum of self-awareness.

No it isn't.

Anarchy has no communes

Come on.

334 pages of anti-statist propaganda. Can't even explain why Stalinism was bad.

Fuck off falseflagger

A commune has rules, anarchy has no rules

go back to liberty

Don't tell me what to do

Go back to >>>/reddit/ and stay there until you stop being a retard and read Kropotkin.

Yeah I'm aware that the time and place of the first successful socialist revolution were just about the worst possible, and everything that could go wrong, did. I wasn't chastising Lenin for swindling power away from the soviets, because given the catastrophic situation, that was probably a necessary evil. Still, I hope the second try will actually allow the ersatz soviets to retain power. But that's up to the fates, really.

Liberty does not grow in a castle under siege. And while socialism can endure in a one country, communism has no ability to resist outside aggression, that isn't to revert to socialism, anyway.

I do admit that overly authoritarian approach provoked the libertarian-minded socialists. So we need more transparency and less police state, if only to prevent the libsocs from being co-opted by opportunistic liberals and ruining the whole socialism deal for everybody, like they did already.

I agree with you in principle, but wouldn't Attica be a counter-example? But then again, they weren't in an actual war situation.

No? Not the liberals, not the reactionary policy state? Its the anarchists
Nigga you consistently post trash on this board. Fucking cancer


How the hell is communism anarchy if the state literally runs,controls and owns everything?
It’s completely two opposite beliefs… anarchy is the wildwest - do whatever u want…Literally be able to take someones belongings and suffer no consequences.
Communism is the state doing whatever it wants - the people dont get their anarchy.
Maybe anarchy happens after communism collapses and fucks everything up.
The final stage of communism is anarchy/the end times.
Who drank the koolaid?
What are you poeple on?

thanks for your middle-school tier analysis

Haha no prob.
I got yah -its a broad spectrum.
But wouldn't that make it even harder for it to ever work? Has it ever worked?

I think it's less that he posts trash. Just he posts the same trash polemic over and over again.

It's an essay, and thats being respectful as far as what you could call it

Anarcho-communists typically believe a direct transition from capitalism to communism is possible.

Yeeeeeeeeeah, nah.





Anarchism is a complete fucking waste of my time. All they do is whine about states while never indicating that they intend to build anything without a state themselves.

Oooh, someone has slightly more power and authority than somebody else. Big deal. Am I supposed to blow my brains out because I happened to be born with more neurons and synapses than anarkiddos and have an actual functioning neocortex? Who gives a shit. I care about unearned power and authority through wealth accumulation, not natural aptitude.


If you're actually in a position of power it makes sense for you to guard it. The point of anarchism is to always be in a state of insurgency against those of power. This way it discourages people from wanting power and makes life better for everyone.

anarchism was debunked before it was born, Hobbes provided a clear consensus on why we needed a state to ensure social contracts were upheld, and how a lack of a good state will see trust evaporate from society and in it's place would return a state of lawless nature (literally called the state of nature). Steiner said that the state has a monopoly on violence, and they do but for good reason, the state is their to ensure that some level of enforcement in society in order to guarantee it's protection. Yes under a state you do not have total freedom, but that also means that the asshole with a gun and his eyes on your property can't just shoot you and take it either

Literally the same level of argument that capitalistcucks use and still wrong.

Are we being flooded with retarded illiterate redditors?
God damn this place has gone to shit. This sort of shit would have been ridiculed to death just a year ago.


imagine my shock

Imagine being this much of a bootlicker. Have you seen the world today? Only 14 days in 2017 where the cops didn't kill somebody in the US. You call this civilized?

I didn't call you a capitalist, illiterate.

Do you even recognize what the argument against the state form of governance is and how the state is not a synonym for a government?

far more civilized then the alternative, i don't plan on justifying police shooting random people on the street, but the point is that the effect of an overbloated and under trained national police force, and not an issue of the state. China is a perfect example, of where police killings are so rare they are usually headlines, that despite a population three times of the US

Or the more likely reason is that China underwent revolution relatively recently in the past and their state still feels compelled to not overstep their bounds. Meanwhile America feels no threat from its population and so will do whatever it damn well pleases to its citizens.

It's been ongoing for months and it's driven the board down the shitter.

Has to be sarcasm.

Obvious bait is obvious.

Communism is, by definition, anarchic in nature.
Communism is the lack of state and lack of nation, and anarchy is exactly that.

You make two cardinal sins creating this thread: not knowing the end game of communism, and thinking anarchy means Mad Max larping.