Difference Between Communism and Anarchism

[AK]

Sorry to sound so ignorant but could some of my comrades differentiate between Communism/Marxism and Anarchism. As far as I know they both advocate the creation of a stateless, classless society but Anarchists feel that a state socialist period is not needed. Are there any more differences?

EDIT: While we're at it, could someone explain just what Anarcho-Communism is?

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, if one is to count Proudhon and such as anarchists, then the difference is that anarchists do not necessarily wish to abolish capitalism, but can simply advocate reforming it. Of course, they can advocate its abolition, in which case they are also communist. Whereas communists can advocate, say, hierarchical schooling systems and such (well, depending on the details), and be communist but not anarchist. Anarchists often include method as an important part of anarchism, so that the method cannot be hierarchical in the sense of, say, Blanquism, with minority rule as a way to bring about socialism (which is a term interchangeable with communism). So in that case, some but not all communists are anarchists, and vice versa. On the other hand, I believe some anarchists (I haven't read it, but I believe that 'Black Flame', a recent publication, excluded Proudhon from anarchism, though I can't be entirely sure) would differ as regards the first sentence here, and may well have a point.

Edit:
EDIT: While we're at it, could someone explain just what Anarcho-Communism is?I think I'll leave this to the anarcho-commies.

[AK]

Well, if one is to count Proudhon and such as anarchists, then the difference is that anarchists do not necessarily wish to abolish capitalism, but can simply advocate reforming it.
This must be the case with Anarcho-Capitalism then.

[ZeroNowhere]

Regarding anarcho-capitalism, it's generally not considered anarchism, as it has no problem with hierarchical relations within businesses (eg. bosses and so on). While one could call Proudhon's ideas anarcho-capitalism, it's usually used differently. Generally, the distinction seems to be between people who advocate the maintenance of capitalism with the traditional business structure ('anarcho-capitalists'), and advocate the majority or entirety of the economy being made up of co-ops while maintaining capitalism (which was a target of Marx's investigation into the laws of motion of capitalist society). Another distinction here is between anarcho-capitalists disregarding the law of value, whereas anarchists who wish to maintain capitalism will often treat it as something that ought to be true, but isn't (which was one of Marx's critiques of Proudhon in 'The Poverty of Philosophy', because it actually is true), though this isn't a necessary difference.

Also, on the 'socialist state' (Marx, Engels, De Leon and so on used 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communism' when it came to societies), I wrote a bit about the dictatorship of the proletariat here (http://theinnermountingflame.blogspot.com/2009/09/dictatorship-of-proleteriat.html), which is, I suppose, what was meant. I don't think many anarchists would reject it, given that most fall into the revolutionary sector rather than being Proudhonist, etc.

[AK]

So anarcho-capitalism is in essence true Laissez-Faire capitalism, then?

[ZeroNowhere]

More or less, yes. Hell, I believe even some Proudhonists and such have tried retaking the term 'free market' from 'anarcho-capitalists' (I think they both deserve it equally).

[revolution inaction]

Well, if one is to count Proudhon and such as anarchists, then the difference is that anarchists do not necessarily wish to abolish capitalism, but can simply advocate reforming it.

thats not true, as far as i understand proudhon wanted to abolish capitalism but thought this could be done gradual.
And this wouldn't bea diffrence between anarchists and maxists anyway, only a diffrence between some anarchists and some marxists.




Edit:I think I'll leave this to the anarcho-commies.

that would be a good idea

[ZeroNowhere]

And this wouldn't bea diffrence between anarchists and maxists anyway, only a diffrence between some anarchists and some marxists.Yes, that's what I said...? And it would be a difference between a minority of anarchists and communists in general, including communists who are anarchist (which is not synonymous with 'anarcho-communists' as the term is generally used). Though I didn't see much reason to specify Marxists.

[revolution inaction]

Sorry to sound so ignorant but could some of my comrades differentiate between Communism/Marxism and Anarchism. As far as I know they both advocate the creation of a stateless, classless society but Anarchists feel that a state socialist period is not needed. Are there any more differences?

this question dosn't make a lot of sense since a lot/most anarchists are anarchist communists.




EDIT: While we're at it, could someone explain just what Anarcho-Communism is?

a form of anarchism that advocates "from each according to ability, to each according to need" rather than linking consumption to work like mutalists, collectivists and what some maxists call socialism, or the lower state of communism, or to effort like paracon.

Try this short artical http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction

[AK]

this question dosn't make a lot of sense since a lot/most anarchists are anarchist communists.

It does make sense if you're talking about pure anarchism, not anarcho-communism or the like.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think his point was that they are not incompatible, so they can't have a difference in the same way as communism and liberalism, rather any difference must be only between their scopes, that is, what they encompass. That is, one couldn't point out a difference by pointing out a characteristic of communism that anarchism necessarily lacks, or vice versa. Given that the 'difference between anarchism and communism' is generally meant to mean something that differentiates them in the sense of making them two separate and mutually exclusive entities, I think he did perhaps have a point, though the question did make sense if you were asking about what the differences between how the terms are used (as if a lot/most anarchists are communists, but not all, then there would be a difference in what 'anarchism' and 'communism' mean).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Sorry to sound so ignorant but could some of my comrades differentiate between Communism/Marxism and Anarchism. As far as I know they both advocate the creation of a stateless, classless society but Anarchists feel that a state socialist period is not needed. Are there any more differences?

EDIT: While we're at it, could someone explain just what Anarcho-Communism is?

A lot of 'straight-forward' anarchists tend to be more towards the immediate elimination of the state instead of a gradual elimination like most anarchist-communists support. In a way, communists are anarchists, but just have a more patient belief on how to end the state. But really, anarchist-theory is not 'straight-forward anarchism', nor is it 'communist-anarchism', but rather just the theory of ending the state. The theory doesn't propose a certain timeline of when this would need to be achieved nor how long it should take. So again, the only difference between anarchists & communists is their belief in when exactly the state must end.

[syndicat]

the word "Communism," at least here in the USA, is usually used to refer to the various forms of Marxism-Leninism (Maoists, Trotskyists etc). Their view is that the mass movement needs to be organized behind the leadership of a vanguard party which aims to dismantle the existing state and replace it with a new state. Usually they envision the state instituting some system of centralized control of the economy, tho there are some Leninists nowadays who are market socialists. Originally the Leninists followed Marx in the claim that the state would wither away, but there are numerous Leninists who no longer hold that or hold that something like that could happen only after maybe generations.

Proudhon had nothing to do with the main anarchist tradition which derives from the libertarian socialist tendency in the First International. We can thus distinguish, I suppose, between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. The main body of anarchism historically is social anarchism. This advocates mass movements, rooted in the working class, as the means to eliminate capitalism and the state, and thus seems to agree with many Leninists in this regard. But social anarchism is anti-partyist. That is, they do not believe that a party is the vehicle of the transition to socialism, but that it is the mass social movements, such as mass labor organizations controlled by their members, that are the means to this. Social anarchism takes literally the slogan "The emanciipatio of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." Thus altho they often do advocate formation of revolutionary political organizations, they typically distinguish this role from the mass organizations, and advocate for the autonomy of the mass movements.

Historically many anarchist writers have said ambiguous and conflicting things about what happens in terms of power in a social revolution. Nowadays many hold that the working masses, the oppressed and exploited, take social power in a revolution and need to consolidate this in terms of a unified political control over society, but that this is to be done not thru construction of a hierarchical state, as advocated by the Leninists, but through horizontal organs of popular power...assemblies, congresses of delegates from the assemblies, a popular militia controlled by the assemblies, etc.

Libertarian communism can be distinguished from earlier 19th century forms of market socialism advocated by some anarchists in that all the land and means of production would be owned in common by the whole society, or in other words, private property in means of production would be abolished. Workers would manage production directly but the society through its means of direct democracy would decide on how to distribute the products of labor, with at least a sizeable free sector that goes to provide for general needs.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Sorry to sound so ignorant but could some of my comrades differentiate between Communism/Marxism and Anarchism. As far as I know they both advocate the creation of a stateless, classless society but Anarchists feel that a state socialist period is not needed. Are there any more differences?

Almost all contemporary Marxists are Leninists, who believe in the creation of a hierarchically structured vanguard party to "lead" the revolution. That's the other major one. Also Marxists disagree on a great number of issues, so anarcho-communists agree with council communists on most things, but disagree with Stalinists on a lot.

It does make sense if you're talking about pure anarchism, not anarcho-communism or the like.
Define "pure anarchism". I think anarcho-communism is as pure as any other kind.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Almost all contemporary Marxists are Leninists, who believe in the creation of a hierarchically structured vanguard party to "lead" the revolution. That's the other major one. Also Marxists disagree on a great number of issues, so anarcho-communists agree with council communists on most things, but disagree with Stalinists on a lot.

Define "pure anarchism". I think anarcho-communism is as pure as any other kind.

Well, anarcho-communists, for those that I've met as I am one too, tend to be more towards the idea of gradually ending the state, which is a marxist view-point, but communist nonetheless. I'm sure when he means 'pure anarchism' he's meaning the anarchists that want nothing to do with the state to such an extent that they wish to end it immediately.

[ls]

A lot of 'straight-forward' anarchists tend to be more towards the immediate elimination of the state instead of a gradual elimination like most anarchist-communists support.

Nope, that's not correct at all, if you think most anarcho-communists support things like electoral socialism, national liberation or stuff like that, it's simply incorrect both historically and now.

In a way, insurrectionists ("straightforward anarchists") are more slow in their thinking than anarcho-communists, who do indeed tend to push for the immediate end of the state, as most insurrectionists are fine with taking over space gradually, getting more and more and making it 'autonomous'.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Nope, that's not correct at all, if you think most anarcho-communists support things like electoral socialism, national liberation or stuff like that, it's simply incorrect both historically and now.

In a way, insurrectionists ("straightforward anarchists") are more slow in their thinking than anarcho-communists, who do indeed tend to push for the immediate end of the state, as most insurrectionists are fine with taking over space gradually, getting more and more and making it 'autonomous'.

I wasn't talking about there only being electoral socialism. I'm talking about a worker's state & withering the state away gradually. Violent revolution should be the main focus in bringing the workers to power.

[Muzk]

Communists see the dictatorship of the proletariat(socialist state) as a neccessary way of achieving communism, which will, once it's no longer needed, vanish.

Anarchists object to this, thinking that this socialist state won't simply vanish.


;D

[revolution inaction]

I wasn't talking about there only being electoral socialism. I'm talking about a worker's state & withering the state away gradually. Violent revolution should be the main focus in bringing the workers to power.

what do you mean here? no anarchists support a "workers state" or belive that any state whether it claims to be the workers or not would "wither away gradually"

[AK]

Communists see the dictatorship of the proletariat(socialist state) as a neccessary way of achieving communism, which will, once it's no longer needed, vanish.

Anarchists object to this, thinking that this socialist state won't simply vanish.


;D
I myself see this problem, it seems almost imossible for the state to vanish if all the state institutions (such as government, military and perhaps police) are still there during the attempted transition to a stateless, classless society.

[Tiktaalik]

In a way, insurrectionists ("straightforward anarchists") are more slow in their thinking than anarcho-communists, who do indeed tend to push for the immediate end of the state, as most insurrectionists are fine with taking over space gradually, getting more and more and making it 'autonomous'.

As an insurrectionary anarchist, I would describe myself as an anarcho-communist as well. Insurrectionary anarchism historically has been rooted in anarcho-communism, check out Errico Malatesta for example. Nowadays Situationist, post-Marxist and some degrees of primitivism defines insurrectionary praxis. The main difference is that insurrectionists place a greater emphasis on promoting conflicting situations to highlight the contradictions and conflicts within society to highten class consciousness whereas other anarchists place greater emphasis on longer term projects; that isn't to say that other anarchists are against insurrections/riots/rebellions or insurrectionists are against long-term projects.

The difference between Marxists and anarchists is that Marxists see the contradictions in society between two opposing classes will inevitably lead to conflict that will eventually result in communism and abolishment of class society. Classical Marxist theory as I know it sees society as going through a linear development of society following a dialectic. Anarchists are opposed to social hierarchies in any form whether it's capitalism, statism, sexism, racism, nationalism, speciesism, queerphobia, ageism, ableism, etc. That's not to say that Marxists aren't opposed to these things but in most Marxist analyses that I've heard or read, these issues are always dealt as part of capitalism; anarchists would tend to agree but they also recognize them as unique oppressions in their own light that can exist with or without capitalism.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Sorry to sound so ignorant but could some of my comrades differentiate between Communism/Marxism and Anarchism. As far as I know they both advocate the creation of a stateless, classless society but Anarchists feel that a state socialist period is not needed. Are there any more differences?

EDIT: While we're at it, could someone explain just what Anarcho-Communism is?


Anarchist-Communism developed as a libertarian oposition to marxism. There are many things Anarchists and Marxists disagree on, the primary issue is the state. We dont believe that the state will just wither away as leninists do. We also dont support the creation of a Vanguard party, as they are higherarchical, and also in a revolutionary event, there is the potential for the party to sieze control of the bourgeois state and take power for itself and the party bureaucracy.

Other Disagrements between Anarchist-Communists and marxists are; the role of trade unions, and also National Liberation Struggles. Anarchists do not support NL because we are internationalists, we show solidarity with the working class of the world. NL means that the working class of one nation has more in common with the national bourgeoisie than other workers.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The biggest difference is that anarchists focus more upon the individual while communists focus more on the community.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The biggest difference is that anarchists focus more upon the individual while communists focus more on the community.
I don't think that's a helpful way of putting it. I think individualism/communalism is a totally false dichotomy.

[Agnapostate]

Well, if one is to count Proudhon and such as anarchists, then the difference is that anarchists do not necessarily wish to abolish capitalism, but can simply advocate reforming it.

That is not true; market socialism is not "reform" of capitalism in that it entails a sufficiently egalitarian distribution of resources to constitute public ownership of the means of production. The "market = capitalism" fallacy is as objectionable as the "government = socialism" fallacy in many ways.

As for this thread, anarchism is a social ("political"/"economic") ideology that involves opposition to hierarchical organization so as to bring about "anarchy," an arrangement "without leaders." Communism is a social ("political"/"economic") ideology that involves the elimination of money, markets, and the state, but detached from anarchism, does not necessitate the elimination of all social hierarchies, meaning that the understanding of anarchists and Marxist and Leninist communists having the "same ultimate goal but different means" is probably false.

[CELMX]

My understanding of anarchism is basically "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." However, Anarchists believe in a social revolution, rather than a political one advocated by some communists, to achieve a communistic society.

Both Anarchists and Communists have the same goal of achieving, again, a communist society. However, Anarchists don't think you can bring down government with government (or some higher party), while Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, etc. think a vanguard party is necessary to lead proletarians in a revolution. Another understanding I had is that communists (actually, proletariat, whatever) want to seize the means of production, while Anarchists seeks collectivization.
Also, anarchists oppose any socialist phase between capitalism and a post-revolutionary society.

Could someone please post a work of literature that would explain the difference between communism and anarchism? Or maybe the similarities? I think it would be much easier to read specific works than to base knowledge on some internet ppls opinions.

[h9socialist]

Martin Buber defined "socialism" as "substituting society for the state, without it becoming a state." I am a socialist because I have a very hard time envisioning a situation in which political power is unnecessary. So we should try to make it's apparatus and outcome as participatory and humane as possible. While I can sympathize with Emma Goldmann, I tend to think that Gene Debs was a bit more realistic.

[gorillafuck]

We also dont support the creation of a Vanguard party, as they are higherarchical, and also in a revolutionary event, there is the potential for the party to sieze control of the bourgeois state and take power for itself and the party bureaucracy.
I really, really doubt that if there was an anarchist revolution, certain people wouldn't come out as leaders and give orders to people who are informally below them.

[CELMX]

I really, really doubt that if there was an anarchist revolution, certain people wouldn't come out as leaders and give orders to people who are informally below them.

What the hell do you mean "below" ? There might be intellectuals, but that doesn't mean they "lead" everyone. They just advise, and people work together with that advise. You wouldn't call these prominent people leaders, I think a more appropriate term is, well, prominent contributors/people.
No one gives orders. In an anarchist revolution, the masses will work TOGETHER to overthrow the state.

[revolution inaction]

I really, really doubt that if there was an anarchist revolution, certain people wouldn't come out as leaders and give orders to people who are informally below them.

one of the reasons that anarchists with decent politics support formal organisation is that, when done properly, it helps to prevent the formation of informal hierarchies, so avoiding the situation described.

[gorillafuck]

What the hell do you mean "below"? There might be intellectuals, but that doesn't mean they "lead" everyone. They just advise, and people work together with that advise. You wouldn't call these prominent people leaders, I think a more appropriate term is, well, prominent contributors/people.
No one gives orders. In an anarchist revolution, the masses will work TOGETHER to overthrow the state.
By "below" I mean "this person knows more about military strategy and has a better understanding of the situation therefore s/he should lead us".