Communism and Anarchism:Allies or enemies

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I was wondering what you all felt on there position with each other.It seams like though we have similar goals we continually fight with each other.

[Hyacinth]

Both movements are diverse, and while I would hope (and like to think) that it is the case that we ultimately have the same aim, it depends on which tendencies of each movement one is referring to. I would imagine many anarchists have (a not unjustified given the historical record) distrust of and distaste for the sort of socialist experiments, party structure, etc. attempted in the name of Marxism during the 20th century. Then again, so do many communists. It has always seemed to me, and I do not pretend to be an expert on this, that the difference between anarchists and Marxists (or at least libertarian socialist and left communist currents of Marxism) is not a difference of aims, but a disagreement over means. If this is so I do not see any reason, in principle, as to why the two movements cannot cooperate.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If you mean Marxists, I will say enemies. Ultimately, our agreement on goals can unite us somewhat. On particular issues, we will agree. This makes us allies particularly when it comes to fighting against issues "in the system." We are allies when it comes to reforms.

If we're starting a revolution, why would I ally with Marxists? The Soviet Union is not better than democracy. Cuba is not better than democracy. I'm not risking lives and destroying modern society simply to give the reigns of power to Marxists.

If I was the leader of the Marxist revolution, I might change my mind. After all, I either get a communist society or become a dictator. Either way, I win. If there were a leader so charismatic and great that I believed in him, I might change my mind, but I suspect it would be nothing more than gullibility on my part. I've been inspired to follow individuals. I've never been inspired to submit to them. Maybe I'd fall for it if I was dating the revolutionary leader and we had some kinky master/slavery sexual relations going on, but that's a different issue altogether.

Yeah. Anarchism needs a serious dose of the analytical style of Marxism. It needs a little more depth than a lot of the "everyone will see the truth and just do it" tendency of many anarchist thinkers. However, analytical and systematic philosophies do not need to involve a state. Furthermore, any logical system of progression that is not inherently open to change is fundamentally undesirable in my book.

All that being said, I'm still sympathetic to Marxism because Marx was so brilliant. I just really don't like being told what to do. If you tell me I'm not allowed to kill you, I'd almost want to do it just because I'd be pissed off at you for trying to control my actions. I'll let you live because I want to let you live. Because I think it's the right thing to do. Don't tell me I have to do it. I don't have to do anything. I just hope it stays that way. Totalitarianism with technological elements is scary.

[mikelepore]

The term "anarchism" is too broad to signify anything. Various people apply that term to themselves to indicate any of: opposition to having rulers, opposition to coercive government, , opposition to centralized planning, and/or opposition to revolutionary change through the political ballot process. Since each of those four things is independent, that's sixteen combinations using the same name.

[khad]

LOL. That's all.

[Il Medico]

If you mean Marxists, I will say enemies. Ultimately, our agreement on goals can unite us somewhat. On particular issues, we will agree. This makes us allies particularly when it comes to fighting against issues "in the system." We are allies when it comes to reforms.

If we're starting a revolution, why would I ally with Marxists? The Soviet Union is not better than democracy. Cuba is not better than democracy. I'm not risking lives and destroying modern society simply to give the reigns of power to Marxists.

If I was the leader of the Marxist revolution, I might change my mind. After all, I either get a communist society or become a dictator. Either way, I win. If there were a leader so charismatic and great that I believed in him, I might change my mind, but I suspect it would be nothing more than gullibility on my part. I've been inspired to follow individuals. I've never been inspired to submit to them. Maybe I'd fall for it if I was dating the revolutionary leader and we had some kinky master/slavery sexual relations going on, but that's a different issue altogether.

Yeah. Anarchism needs a serious dose of the analytical style of Marxism. It needs a little more depth than a lot of the "everyone will see the truth and just do it" tendency of many anarchist thinkers. However, analytical and systematic philosophies do not need to involve a state. Furthermore, any logical system of progression that is not inherently open to change is fundamentally undesirable in my book.

All that being said, I'm still sympathetic to Marxism because Marx was so brilliant. I just really don't like being told what to do. If you tell me I'm not allowed to kill you, I'd almost want to do it just because I'd be pissed off at you for trying to control my actions. I'll let you live because I want to let you live. Because I think it's the right thing to do. Don't tell me I have to do it. I don't have to do anything. I just hope it stays that way. Totalitarianism with technological elements is scary.
Listen Comrade, I think you are confusing Marxism and Marxist-Leninism. Marxist-Leninist (Stalinism, Maoism is also based on these ideas) are the ones who support the idea of socialist/communist states. Marxist are international and anti-state.

[F9]

Moved
The question as stated dont means and much, as per most Anarchists are Communists too, so lets not get confusing other people.You may know it and referring to authoritarian communism instead of libertarian Anarchists do, but anw the question can mislead some people that arent too aware on the subject.
On the answers point though, i dont think we can answer clearly as allie's , nutral or enemies.There are lots of different ideologies that each and one of them has a different treat of course bettween each other as how close is to our ideology.I can say that i can find lots of Stalinists-Maoists on the enemy side, but then again, there are some that i dont, the same goes with trots etc.
Enemies are usually been made on the streets though, my enemy is gonna be those who try to silence me, attack me etc.If other leftists try to do that, they are automatically the enemy, if not, we have some kind of acceptance of our differences and dont get in each other feets i cant see why think of them as enemy, and if some people are near us, in lots of happenings, riots etc then those are allies.
There isnt a clear answer, i think its objective.And as i said its not what we want it to be, but what is done and said is what it counts.

Fuserg9:star:

[h9socialist]

I think solidarity among the various factions of the Left is a good thing. Bridges between communists, socialists and anarchists need to be built. Calling others enemies because of disagreements over philosophical fine points is a sure way to guarantee that the revolution will never happen. The capitalists love such divisions on the Left. The only problem with anarchists is that sometimes they forget to disavow private property and turn into "Libertarians."

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

This is a bit of a complicated thing, further complicated because I'm a Maoist who's uh... seeing... an Anarchist at the moment and who has quite a few Anarchist friends, but I do have some thoughts.

I have a deep respect and love for revolutionary Anarchists. In fact, I used to be an Anarchist myself. I admire their enthusiasm, determination, creativity, and ability to have fun with their beliefs. And indeed, they are some of the best people to work with when it comes to radical organizing- oftentimes much better than other trends of Marxism-Leninism!

However, I think this divides into a few things:

1) Communists have a lot to learn from Anarchists and should not shoot them down (literally or figuratively) but instead listen to them, engage them, and win them over through principled debate while at the same time uniting with them in every way we can. That is how I've always approached my Anarchist comrades.

2) Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, I think Anarchists should have the right to organize and take part in the decision-making processes of society, provided they do not take up arms against the state/use violent means of getting their point across. This is something that will take some thought and understanding to achieve, but even as a Leninist I firmly hope that we never have another Kronstadt or a Makhno liquidation (even if those things were necessary to keep revolutionary power coherent in the face of rebuilding after a horrific civil war- but that's another story for another day). And certainly we must NEVER repeat the example of Spain, in which we Communists completely shot ourselves in the foot and sacrificed the chance for revolution in the name of an "anti-fascist alliance" with bourgeois forces.

3) One thing I hope Anarchists and Communists can agree on: PBR is the Proletarian Beer of the Revolution. Hell yeah.

So, essentially: whether or not we are allies or enemies depends on the actions of both sides, and how exactly revolutionary struggle develops and unites or divides us.

[Agrippa]

We're usually allies until the Commies take power....

[Stranger Than Paradise]

We have to unite. Ultimately we both have the same vision of how society should be ran so it would be futile to fight seperately.

[ZeroNowhere]

Many anarchists are communists, so I don't see how this question really makes much sense.

[Nwoye]

Many anarchists are communists, so I don't see how this question really makes much sense.
it could probably be phrased better as "anarchists vs. marxists"

[StrictlyRuddie]

Assuming that your talking about Marxists in the title.(instead of communists that you put, And when speaking of anarchism I'm going to be talking about class struggle anarchism)

Marxists and anarchists are essentially the same, I would even go to say that they need each other to successfully spread revolution world wide. Marxism and anarchism, behind the different terminology, definitions, and the ancient personality quarrels between Marx and Bakunin, are opposed to all oppression and exploitation and are the same!

As Captain Jack noted above the real divisions begin with the Marxist-Leninist 'Mistranslation' of socialism. For M-L, socialism is a period that retains capitalist markets(though under workers control through nationalization) and some socialized things like food and healthcare and retains a state with bureaucracies etc..

Many will argue that the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism is in accordance to Marx's definition(saying that Marx wanted a state after the revolution.) Marx used socialism AND communism interchangeably, both being classless AND stateless(the only difference being that socialism would use Labor credits to maintain the economy until we reach the state of post-scarcity and can guarantee full free access of good and services) Marx said after the Dictatorship of the proletariat(also known as 'Revolution' or the expropriation of the expropriators, which is international) would socialism emerge then Communism when we have reached a post scarcity level of development.

The period of the Dictatorship of the proletariat(revolution) would require a state(the marxist definition of a state:the means of violence of one class against another) and even anarchists agree with this without saying they want a state(again, the mis-use of terminology :/) (they have to suppress the bourgeoisie and spread the revolution..) The revolution isn't over until every nation is liberated of capitalism and then and only then can it be classless and stateless.

Edit: Also forgot to mention that some marxists agree with the anarchist rejection the vanguard party idea of the Marxist-Leninists.

[jake williams]

If we're talking about mainstream modern Marxists and mainstream left anarchists ("social anarchists", "anti-capitalist anarchists", "class strugglist anarchists", whatever you want to call it - general leftist communities have generally come to a basic agreement on what's meant by the term, even if it's "diverse" in a picky sense), are fighting for almost exactly the same societies, and in their day-to-day lives even use basically the same tactics. I see very little difference between the two, frankly. The main differences tend to be either historical and sectarian, or about emphasis.

The notion that the difference is about the role of the state in achieving a class of society isn't a non-issue, but given I've seen a lot of anarchists saying, you know, I don't like the state, but in the reasonable near future our choices are mass suffering or state welfare and regulation, and I prefer the latter... there's a reasonable spectrum of differences, they're important issues to be discussed, but discussed in the context of our all basically fighting for the same things. And also in the context of a very long-term concern that only occasionally directly bears on our day-to-day activities. I basically see, despite all the hype, Marxists and anarchists as very broad, approximate subcategories of a general anti-capitalist Left.

[teenagebricks]

Anarchists and Marxists are perhaps ideological enemies, but nothing more. Anarchists get in the way of Marxists' (especially Marxist-Leninists') goals, and vice versa. Post revolution, it is certainly possible that anarchists and Marxists could become real enemies.

[MAVA]

the only problem we have with each other is Post revolution

[Incendiarism]

I can't imagine why not. Even given the ideological chasms between anarchists and marxists and other assorted communists, it is unfathomable to assume that we'd sooner go after one another's throats then our shared enemies.

i befriend good people who lead me to believe in them through example, and it doesn't matter whether they are marxist or anarchist or whatever...bad seeds situate themselves regardless of trend.

[9]

We can't be allies because our t-shirts are not the same color. Furthermore, [insert statement about the life of Karl Marx] is not compatible with [insert statement about the life of Mikhail Bakunin], which demonstrates [insert supposedly-irreconcilable point of variance here]. Therefore, we must fight 'til the death amongst ourselves to the great delight of capitalists everywhere!

[Agrippa]

We have to unite. Ultimately we both have the same vision of how society should be ran so it would be futile to fight seperately.

Is it enough merely to have a "vision of how society should be ran", even if one does not stand true to that vision once they actually have an opportunity to run society?

I would be more inclined to accept this answer if there was a historical example of Marxist-Leninist methods leading to a society similar to than envisioned by anarchists....

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Like quite a few other people, I'm both an anarchist and a communist, so I'd be in trouble if we were enemies. Whether Marxists and anarchists should be enemies is also tricky, since Marxist covers such a broad spectrum (looking at the left, you could equally well ask if Marxists and Marxists can be allies). Libertarian Marxists and council communists are obviously on the same side as me, but Leninists tend to support the formation of a new ruling class. As anarchists oppose all ruling classes, this causes problems.
There's also the question of working together on a practical day-to-day basis, and what to do when your ideas about tactics differ. Sadly, people who think they're the vanguard tend to not be terribly good at the whole "live and let live" thing.

[Trystan]

Ultimately, enemies. Anarchism cannot be reconciled with Marxist Communism's ideas of state ownership of production, the existence of state-controlled armed forces, police, etc. Communists do want a stateless society, granted. But in any post-revolution society, anarchists and Communists cannot cooperate. Most anarchist will be aware of the history between Marxists, Kronstadt, Spain etc. It's certainly reason for caution . . .

[ZeroNowhere]

Many will argue that the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism is in accordance to Marx's definition(saying that Marx wanted a state after the revolution.) Marx used socialism AND communism interchangeably, both being classless AND stateless(the only difference being that socialism would use Labor credits to maintain the economy until we reach the state of post-scarcity and can guarantee full free access of good and services) Marx said after the Dictatorship of the proletariat(also known as 'Revolution' or the expropriation of the expropriators, which is international) would socialism emerge then Communism when we have reached a post scarcity level of development.Thanks for that. :)
Still, Marx actually did use the words 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably when referring to social systems. The distinction between socialism with labour credits (ie. after the revolution) and 'free access' socialism was actually between what he called the 'initial phase of communism', and the 'higher phase of communism', both 'communist'. The distinction between 'socialism' to describe the initial phase and 'communism' to refer to the higher phase comes from Lenin, or, at least, was popularized by him, though he implies that it was used by other Russian socialists.


The period of the Dictatorship of the proletariat(revolution) would require a state(the marxist definition of a state:the means of violence of one class against another) and even anarchists agree with this without saying they want a state(again, the mis-use of terminology :/) (they have to suppress the bourgeoisie and spread the revolution..)
Well, I'm not sure that 'means of violence' is as appropriate as just 'means of force'. As it is, it involves the use of law to enforce the expropriation of the expropriators (that is, it's the political form taken during revolution). The problem isn't so much 'suppressing the bourgeoisie' as abolishing them, and spreading the revolution doesn't necessarily have a connection with the DotP.


The revolution isn't over until every nation is liberated of capitalism and then and only then can it be classless and stateless.
Well, you could still have a classless and stateless society before capitalism was spread internationally. Of course, there would be pressure from other nations, as well as the necessity for enough nations to have undergone revolution to make the commune self-sustainable. This, however, doesn't prevent the existence of a United States of Anarchy. That is, the bourgeoisie could still be abolished, hence making the area a classless, and hence stateless, society. Even if the neighbors aren't especially thrilled, it doesn't prevent the territory itself from being classless, as every man is a working man, and war with existing capitalist nations wouldn't count as class struggle. Hell, Engels argues that, "communism, social existence and activity based on community of goods, is not only possible but has actually already been realised in many communities in America and in one place in England, with the greatest success, as we shall see."

[Glenn Beck]

Assuming that your talking about Marxists in the title.(instead of communists that you put, And when speaking of anarchism I'm going to be talking about class struggle anarchism)

Marxists and anarchists are essentially the same, I would even go to say that they need each other to successfully spread revolution world wide. Marxism and anarchism, behind the different terminology, definitions, and the ancient personality quarrels between Marx and Bakunin, are opposed to all oppression and exploitation and are the same!

As Captain Jack noted above the real divisions begin with the Marxist-Leninist 'Mistranslation' of socialism. For M-L, socialism is a period that retains capitalist markets(though under workers control through nationalization) and some socialized things like food and healthcare and retains a state with bureaucracies etc..

Many will argue that the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism is in accordance to Marx's definition(saying that Marx wanted a state after the revolution.) Marx used socialism AND communism interchangeably, both being classless AND stateless(the only difference being that socialism would use Labor credits to maintain the economy until we reach the state of post-scarcity and can guarantee full free access of good and services) Marx said after the Dictatorship of the proletariat(also known as 'Revolution' or the expropriation of the expropriators, which is international) would socialism emerge then Communism when we have reached a post scarcity level of development.

The period of the Dictatorship of the proletariat(revolution) would require a state(the marxist definition of a state:the means of violence of one class against another) and even anarchists agree with this without saying they want a state(again, the mis-use of terminology :/) (they have to suppress the bourgeoisie and spread the revolution..) The revolution isn't over until every nation is liberated of capitalism and then and only then can it be classless and stateless.

Edit: Also forgot to mention that some marxists agree with the anarchist rejection the vanguard party idea of the Marxist-Leninists.

So anarchists can be friends with Marxists who are already anarchists :rolleyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

Gonzeau has a point, even if 'communism' is replaced with 'Marxism', the question still doesn't make much sense.

[Dimentio]

If you mean Marxists, I will say enemies. Ultimately, our agreement on goals can unite us somewhat. On particular issues, we will agree. This makes us allies particularly when it comes to fighting against issues "in the system." We are allies when it comes to reforms.

If we're starting a revolution, why would I ally with Marxists? The Soviet Union is not better than democracy. Cuba is not better than democracy. I'm not risking lives and destroying modern society simply to give the reigns of power to Marxists.

If I was the leader of the Marxist revolution, I might change my mind. After all, I either get a communist society or become a dictator. Either way, I win. If there were a leader so charismatic and great that I believed in him, I might change my mind, but I suspect it would be nothing more than gullibility on my part. I've been inspired to follow individuals. I've never been inspired to submit to them. Maybe I'd fall for it if I was dating the revolutionary leader and we had some kinky master/slavery sexual relations going on, but that's a different issue altogether.

Yeah. Anarchism needs a serious dose of the analytical style of Marxism. It needs a little more depth than a lot of the "everyone will see the truth and just do it" tendency of many anarchist thinkers. However, analytical and systematic philosophies do not need to involve a state. Furthermore, any logical system of progression that is not inherently open to change is fundamentally undesirable in my book.

All that being said, I'm still sympathetic to Marxism because Marx was so brilliant. I just really don't like being told what to do. If you tell me I'm not allowed to kill you, I'd almost want to do it just because I'd be pissed off at you for trying to control my actions. I'll let you live because I want to let you live. Because I think it's the right thing to do. Don't tell me I have to do it. I don't have to do anything. I just hope it stays that way. Totalitarianism with technological elements is scary.

I like you.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Since I am both yes, as for Marxists, I'm sure achieving revolution and overthrowing capitalist rule is more important than refusing to work with each other on the basis of petty ideological differences, Anarchism and Marxism ultimately want the same end product anyway, a stateless, classless society and surely this can be achieved without the working class taking control of the state. Anarchists and Marxists could form a revolutionary coalition or something.

[zimmerwald1915]

Both movements are diverse...
Indeed. I chose "other" because alliance is indeed possible between some currents of anarchism and some currents of marxism, and not others.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Listen Comrade, I think you are confusing Marxism and Marxist-Leninism. Marxist-Leninist (Stalinism, Maoism is also based on these ideas) are the ones who support the idea of socialist/communist states. Marxist are international and anti-state.

What exactly is socialism, then, for a Marxist? It's my understanding that Leninism is an interpretation of Marxist philosophy. That the socialist state isn't a modification of Marxism but rather a belief about what Marxism entails.

What exactly is the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat when not interpreted as a state? This is a genuine question. Every other topic I read here has a different interpretation of what Marx meant. Honestly, I could care less what Marx meant. I'm just interested in the interpretations and the arguments behind them.

What exactly makes the dictatorship of the proletariat not a state, and how is it different from anarchism, then?

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I say nuetral because that is what is commonly done between those with a same goal but by different means.

[Manifesto]

If they are both Communist would they not be allies. I do not really see what the big difference is between them. Could someone please explain what the differences are to me?

[BabylonHoruv]

the only problem we have with each other is Post revolution


It would be very unwise for any Anarchists working with Communists to think this is the case. The Communists have shown in Spain and Russia that they are thinking ahead to any potential problems afterwards during the revolution, Anarchists need to do the same thing.

[9]

You responded to the this: "the only problem we have with each other is Post revolution" with this:

It would be very unwise for any Anarchists working with Communists to think this is the case. The Communists have shown in Spain and Russia that they are thinking ahead to any potential problems afterwards during the revolution, Anarchists need to do the same thing.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comment, but it seems that you dismiss the statement to which you are replying as being "unwise" and then proceed to make the exact same statement with slightly different words..:confused:
I try not to make a habit of quoting the "old masters" during debates because its become rather trite... but I can not refrain on this occasion because of the relevance, so.... as Bakunin said, "anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary".
I live in the United States, where a lot of people seem to think Barack Obama is a socialist/communist. Labor unions are almost extinct, riots are a thing of the past, anarchist federations are isolated where they exist and in many states do not exist at all, and if the Left has any voice it all, its virtually never heard by anyone but the Left itself. There are no real revolutionary mass movements... most of the country seems to think liberal Democrats are on the hard Left of the political spectrum...
Look, I have very serious disagreements with Marxism-Leninism just as I'd imagine every other anarchist does. But when the Left has so much work to do simply to make the general population aware of its existence, the idea of choosing sectarianism (and therefore futility) over solidarity with others who align themselves with the revolutionary Left and wish to work toward the abolition of capitalism strikes me as akin to digging our own mass grave and lining up to lie in it.

[BabylonHoruv]

You responded to the this: "the only problem we have with each other is Post revolution" with this:


Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comment, but it seems that you dismiss the statement to which you are replying as being "unwise" and then proceed to make the exact same statement with slightly different words..:confused:
I try not to make a habit of quoting the "old masters" during debates because its become rather trite... but I can not refrain on this occasion because of the relevance, so.... as Bakunin said, "anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary".
I live in the United States, where a lot of people seem to think Barack Obama is a socialist/communist. Labor unions are almost extinct, riots are a thing of the past, anarchist federations are isolated where they exist and in many states do not exist at all, and if the Left has any voice it all, its virtually never heard by anyone but the Left itself. There are no real revolutionary mass movements... most of the country seems to think liberal Democrats are on the hard Left of the political spectrum...
Look, I have very serious disagreements with Marxism-Leninism just as I'd imagine every other anarchist does. But when the Left has so much work to do simply to make the general population aware of its existence, the idea of choosing sectarianism (and therefore futility) over solidarity with others who align themselves with the revolutionary Left and wish to work toward the abolition of capitalism strikes me as akin to digging our own mass grave and lining up to lie in it.

My point was that when working with Communists it is a very good idea to keep a close eye on them and to be very careful about what resources they are given control of. They have shown repeatedly that they will use them against their Anarchist Comrades and that they are perfectly willing to do so before the revolution has been completed.

[Comrade B]

To ever defeat capitalism we have to work together. After revolution, the system may be under debate, and we might be in opposition to each other then, but I quite sure an anarchist would prefer a true Marxist society over a capitalist society as I would prefer a functioning anarchist society.
There are, however, types of communism and anarchists that are enemies, not even all communists are in agreement. Personally, I have little trust for Stalinists.

[Il Medico]

What exactly is socialism, then, for a Marxist? It's my understanding that Leninism is an interpretation of Marxist philosophy. That the socialist state isn't a modification of Marxism but rather a belief about what Marxism entails.

What exactly is the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat when not interpreted as a state? This is a genuine question. Every other topic I read here has a different interpretation of what Marx meant. Honestly, I could care less what Marx meant. I'm just interested in the interpretations and the arguments behind them.

What exactly makes the dictatorship of the proletariat not a state, and how is it different from anarchism, then?
The dictatorship of the proletariat is a single form of government for the entire proletariat (world). It is a direct participatory democracy, (a kinda modified system of Athenian Democracy, see Jacob Ricther's thread in theory) which is based not on appointment or election, but lot. It is a "state' but a temporary one. It is necessary to reach a point when the state can be disbanded. Really the main difference between anarchist and Marxist is that 'Anarchist want no state at all, while Marxist want a temporary state so that we can build up to a point when we can have no state at all'. Marxist-Leninist on the other hand believe in the ability of Nation States to have socialism, and that socialism can only be protected by a strong and developed nation state, that will spread the revolution.

[Manifesto]

Really the main difference between anarchist and Marxist is that 'Anarchist want no state at all, while Marxist want a temporary state so that we can build up to a point when we can have no state at all'.
Really this is the main difference? Well there should be some kind of State in order to organize some things.

[Manifesto]

Just for a little bit though because, things are going to get settled.

[Misanthrope]

Communists and anarchists share the goal of abolishing the state.

[F9]

Communists and anarchists share the goal of abolishing the state.

True, but its the "end goal".Communists(with this of course we are talking about "authoritarians") want to retain state for some period to organize, give orders etc etc and then when they think the "standards" to get on communism are found, they will abolish state.
As said we share lots of same goals, even ideas, with each tendency having more or less "connections".
Anw, allies or enemies are showed in the streets and with their actions and the way they approach-treat you.We cant decide straight away from here the A are enemies with B and allies with C.

Fuserg9:star:

[Il Medico]

A are enemies with B and allies with C.

Fuserg9:star:
This is quite clever fuserg. Anarchist are enemies with the Bourgeois and allies with Communist. Just in case anybody didn't already figure that out. :D

[Old Man Diogenes]

Well there should be some kind of State in order to organize some things.

I think if people are dedicated and have had enough of being told what to do, they could organize themselves without the need of some State that will probably go sour anyway.

[Absolut]

Id very much like it if we could be allies, but if we are to look back at history, this hasnt worked out that well before.