Communists & Anarchists

What's the difference?

Other urls found in this thread:

isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml
libcom.org/files/Alexander R.J. The anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. V.1.pdf
libcom.org/files/WorkersAgainstWork-Seidman_0.pdf
anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/caplan.html
books.google.nl/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&redir_esc=y
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the biggest difference

Protip: just because Holla Forums says it doesn't mean it's true. And the obvious difference is that for Marxist communists state power is a temporary tool.

The difference is post-scarcity. Anarchists recognize that the use of a state to bring about communism is a shortcut that ultimately undermines the goal. Staging a revolution to put a "socialist" state in power means you'll need a whole other revolution to eventually overthrow that. It's easier to do and to maintain than an anarchist model, but doomed to failure by it's own inherent contradictions. (Sound familiar?)

Anarchism has less fruitful historical examples to draw from, more stigma, and is harder to implement. That's why there's so many separate strings of anarchist thought, because we've yet to develop a surefire way to get it working. The problem is identified, and now we need a concrete solution.

Other than that, there isn't much difference. Anarchism isn't communism yet, but communism must be anarchistic.

Then there's no point to it.

Political cliques have a tendency to devolve into petty rivalry between two generally similar ideological groups, shutting out other points of view, even more extreme ones.

Anarchists have practically no sense of pragmatism or guidance because they are naive children that impulsively rebel against anything vaguely resembling some kind of restriction against them or anyone else to the point where they are incapable of making cogent decisions about current day politics. The state needs to go, but they don't know much more than that. It'll just happen somehow. This vagueness has caused anarchism in general to be flooded with buttloads of tinfoil hats, one-issue obsessives and identity narcissists that see state abolition as a magical one-step solution to their problems: feminists that hate men and see government itself as duh patriarchy (analogous to reactionary lolberts that see government as how the ebul browns take their hard earned trust funds), eco hippies that hate science and modern convenience, and other gross undesirables; this in turn leads one to wonder if anarchism is even anarchistic anymore, as these people seem to act like typical liberals and socdems, even advocating the expansion of social safety nets that will make transitioning to stateless society an undesirable process for many people. Now the only thing radical about them is their penchant for starting public fist fights with xenophobic skinheads, pretending they're doing wet work as if they aren't enjoying it like football hooligans.

Marxists, in the strict sense past the 19th century, have always been so extraordinarily arrogant that they consider their political ideology to be some kind of premonition instead of the best path to the future. Many people, especially liberal pussies, like to compare them to the obviously worse fascists with some "horseshoe theory" nonsense, but they do not even deny most of the atrocities committed by authoritarian states like the Soviet Union. If you have a problem with these millions of people dead because agrarian farmers were forced to make shitty steal in their back yards, you just haven't read any theory, even though the biggest "communist" states of all time outright abandoned Marxist thought because morons in the 20th century thought "dictatorship of the proletariat" was supposed to be literal, and dictators are mostly egotistical pricks that think of themselves as infallible god-kings, making Bolsheviks and the like no different from monarchists. They have managed to turn Marx's legacy into another opium of the people and made it impossibly difficult to advocate for post-capitalism in the neoliberal nations where Marx's critique of capitalism are direly needed.

The problem is not necessarily ideological in itself as much as it demonstrates how the left has become a circlejerk apathetic to the struggles of the common man.

Pretty much this. In general, both tendencies are fucked and feel the need to argue over meaningless bullshit. Generally with Anarchists conflating Marxists with Stalinists and Marxists conflating Anarchists with the punks they knew in high school. Part of the problem is the fact no one on this board actually reads theory, or if they do they only read theory relevant to their tendency while ignoring everything else. There is also some attempt to divide and conquer by making Marxists and Anarchists hate eachother.

Wew you fucked up and the fact that it's take 5 posts to point this out to you shows how far this board has fallen

Marxism=/=Communism=Anarchism

I recommend suicide as a treatment for your terminal being a dumb cunt.

Communists want a transitional state, while anarchists think people will just magically all become class conscious and establish communism in 2 days

Marxists don't actually want to be stateless. The withering away of the state is just a meme.