If communism is a stateless society, does that make all communists anarchists?

If communism is a stateless society, does that make all communists anarchists?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/qyFMKiHFZXg
marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Communism is an utopian idea.
Anarchism is also utopian, there's no way you can be free under current goverment, there would need to be mass revolt.
The best we could do is to push for socialism, bit by bit. It's supposed to lead us to communisam, eventually.

Yes.


Kill yourself.

not an argument

Yes, thats why MLs aren't communists

Anti Anarchism is codeword for anti communism.

Communism is stateless, but not without government. The state is a tool used by the ruling class to control and oppress the proletariat, led by the bourgeois. You can have a government without a state.

Communists view the state as necessary to put the cannon to the ruling class. Once we have purged all the capitalists then we have a stateless society.

It makes all anarchists communists.

Technically yes. But the distinction comes from the split between Anarchists and other communists, with the former arguing that the state must be abolished immediately, and the latter arguing that a transitory period of socialism is necessary to abolish the state.

You don't know what you're talking about

Also as a pro-tip: "utopian" in the English language implies that it's not achievable – not just that it's an ideal.

Basically this

Anarchists want an end to states and state apparatus. Communists are fine with state apparatus, but not a formal state.

Are you stupid?

/thread

No. For anarchists the abolition of the state is the alpha and omega of political necessity, basically an end in itself. They believe it first has to be abolished so the other aspects of society can be rearranged without its intervention.

For communists, which follow the Marxist method, the state is a superstructural entity devoid of inherent value which has a position in society according to historical necessity. If you have a class society you need the state because it's an instrument of cohesion and of organization, so essential to both class rule and for the management of the economic activities that made it possible.

When the material basis change towards a system of common ownership and post-scarcity, things like classes will be unfeasible, institutions like the market will be made superfluous by abundance, money will no longer exist, and the state as we know will no longer serve a purpose because it has no class to represent and no economic activity to help regulate and expand. But that doesn't mean we want any of these things to be done out of principle, only out of necessity when the time comes.

This difference may seem useless, but if you're a Marxist you acknowledge the historical role of many forms of government and economic activity that have existed as well. If Communism has no state, that doesn't make us anarchists any more than the belief that Socialism needs an advanced stage of Capitalism makes us capitalists for example.

it is not

Hey, if you get to rename the state and call it a private corporation, communists should be allowed to rename the state and call it something else too.

it is

No.

Anarchists think they can go straight to Communism.

Communists (Marxists) think they need transition phase (aka Socialism) during which they upgrade industry to Communist standard, before they can have Luxury Communism.

That's the difference.

im not a heathian anarchist

...

...

This kind of, but we must note this as a split between Orthodox Marxism and Anarcho-Communism. Recent scholarship on Marx more and more shows that he likely meant the "transitional phase" in terms of months, rather than decades as the 2nd and 3rd International came to imagine it. This idea is also found among one of (if not the) first anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque (Who also invented the term libertairan, in a work titled "Down with Bosses", the irony huh?).

A short (first 40 min or so) talk on it by Andrew Kliman: youtu.be/qyFMKiHFZXg

Honestly, the divide really has more to do with personal animosity between Marx and Bakunin, due to their different theories of organization prior to revolution, and what is the source of inequality: marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm

So yeah, anarchists and Marxists hate each other bc of the squabbles of dead men.

Yes


This makes plenty of sense as he also envisioned the transition to happen more or less simultaneously internationally.
Then this reduces the whole debate of the transitional state to hair-splitting. Of course resources will need to be allocated and we will have to re-adapt ourselves to post-capitalism but the idea that an authoritarian state, representation, or politics, are necessary is a deviation.

...