Can someone explain clear difference between communism and anarchism

[GreenCommunism]

Can someone explain the clear difference, it seems to me to be quite similar except that anarchists are usually more utopian and rejet the end justify the means. was anarchist spain anarchists? (i think some anarcho-communist didn't like it,) it was anarcho-syndicalist i think.

[Widerstand]

I think the most defining feature of anarchists is the rejection of any form of state or government, and for the most part of hierarchy, or, as Chomsky put it (not sure if original thought or not), of unjustified authority. Some (most?) also tend to hold the means as important, if not more important, than the ends, eg they reject the concept of vanguard parties for the reason that an egalitarian society cannot be established through non-egalitarian means. Also, Anarcho-Syndicalists or Anarcho-Collectivists (which appear to be the two major groups besides AnComs) each have certain differences with Anarcho-Communists, mainly regarding how people should be organized, as far as I know. Anarcho-Communists obviously have a lot in common with Communists.

I think Spain was syndicalist / collectivist? I'm not too certain though.

[Muzk]

Anarchism is a revoluationary doctrine with communism as its goal




Unless you're talking about marxism and anarchism. Well, then, anarchists abolish the state during the revolutionary phase and split the nation into communes. Marxists build their own state, the DOP / Democracy / Socialism or whatever you want to call it which then governs the nation instead of the bourgeoise dictatorship.

So I might sum this up in 2 contradicting differences:
Marxists centralize,
anarchists decentralize.



btw chammer missed the point hard

[Zanthorus]

I think the most defining feature of anarchists is the rejection of any form of state or government,

Well then the majority of people on this forum are anarchists.


they reject the concept of vanguard parties

Not all of them (http://libcom.org/3-relations-between-the-masses-and-the-revolutionary-vanguard).

[StoneFrog]

Not all of them (http://libcom.org/3-relations-between-the-masses-and-the-revolutionary-vanguard).

That links about libertarian communism no?

[Widerstand]

btw chammer missed the point hard

Maybe I have, care to clarify?


Well then the majority of people on this forum are anarchists.

Well, I'm coming from a literal translation of the word Anarchist here, and as far as I understand it, a good deal of Communists actually support a government? I could be wrong here.



Not all of them (http://libcom.org/3-relations-between-the-masses-and-the-revolutionary-vanguard).

I never said anything contrary though.

[StoneFrog]

Unless you're talking about marxism and anarchism. Well, then, anarchists abolish the state during the revolutionary phase and split the nation into communes. Marxists build their own state, the DOP / Democracy / Socialism or whatever you want to call it which then governs the nation instead of the bourgeoise dictatorship.

So I might sum this up in 2 contradicting differences:
Marxists centralize,
anarchists decentralize.




Maybe, care to clarify?

Not all communists call for centralization.

[Zanthorus]

That links about libertarian communism no?

He calls himself an anarchist numerous times in the text though.


Well, I'm coming from a literal translation of the word Anarchist here, and as far as I understand it, a good deal of Communists actually support a government? I could be wrong here.

Well how would you interpret statements likes these?


The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery.


And out of this very contradiction between the interest of the individual and that of the community the latter takes an independent form as the State, divorced from the real interests of individual and community, and at the same time as an illusory communal life


The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society.


When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.

[Widerstand]

Well how would you interpret statements likes these?

Hm okay I see your point.

[Stephen Colbert]

Isn't a main difference that anarchism is a social theory based on the relationship to the community and to forms of authority whereas communism is an economic theory based on relations to means of production? Or is that too simplistic to answer the question.

[DaComm]

Anarchists are often times fond of Sontaneous Revolution, whereas anyone who espouses thier ideology with Leninism is an advocate of Vanguardism. Most predominantly however, is the Anarchist idea that a transitional phase preluding Communism with a worker-run state is unecessary, Communists place it as paramount. Now then, I recognize that some Anarchists believe in some variant of Vanguardism and some Communists reject Socialism, but that is the jist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists have put a lot more emphasis on individual liberty and "freedom" as an abstract philosophical concept than Marxists have. Even class-struggle anarchists have had firm held beliefs regarding individual rights, including individual rights against the collective.

Case in point:

(Referring to The Ego and It's Own)


It is the book of a conscious and deliberate insurgent, which reveals no reverence for any authority, however exalted, and therefore impels powerfully to independent thinking.


Communism is not necessarily anarchist, even if it is not "state communism" but the genuine authoritarian form of communism (total state control without having degenerated into absolute power from above, or even governmental dominated socialization).


We are men without God, without Masters & Fatherland, irreconcilable enemies of any despotism, moral or collective, i.e. laws & dictatorships (including that of the proletariat), & impassioned lovers of the culture of oneself.


Nietzsche was not a social theorist but a poet, a rebel and innovator. His aristocracy was neither of birth nor of purse; it was of the spirit. In that respect, Nietzsche was an anarchist, and all true anarchists were aristocrats.

etc.

Other than that, there is such a wide range within anarchist and communist schools about certain topics that it's hard to generalize.

[AK]

Anarchists are against social hierarchy. This means they are against class-based society, the state, sexism/matriarchy/patriarchy, ageism, bureaucracy, slavery, racism and nationalism. They have a slightly different class analysis than Marxists. Anarchists typically favour a gift economy over labour credits and direct democracy over representative democracy. They do believe in government - just not one that is separated from the direct control of the people - and a sort of police force (an accountable, non-hierarchical one that enforces laws made by the people and doesn't beat up strikers and protesters).

Someone in another thread said that there isn't much of a difference between orthodox Marxism and anarchism. They may well have been right.

[AK]

That links about libertarian communism no?
Libertarian communism is another name for anarchism.

[Widerstand]

Interesting, everyone said something slightly related yet also different. This wasn't at all unexpected.

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchists are against social hierarchy. This means they are against class-based society, the state, sexism/matriarchy/patriarchy, ageism, bureaucracy, slavery, racism and nationalism. They have a slightly different class analysis than Marxists.
To be honest, I'm not sure that there is any unified 'anarchist class analysis' which differs from Marx's.


Anarchists typically favour a gift economy over labour credits and direct democracy over representative democracy.
This is only those anarchists referred to as 'anarcho-communists', though; collectivists and such would disagree.


They do believe in government - just not one that is separated from the direct control of the people - and a sort of police force (an accountable, non-hierarchical one that enforces laws made by the people and doesn't beat up strikers and protesters).
"The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?"

"Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune."


Someone in another thread said that there isn't much of a difference between orthodox Marxism and anarchism. They may well have been right.Well, that probably depends on what one means by 'orthodox Marxism'.


Also, Anarcho-Syndicalists or Anarcho-Collectivists (which appear to be the two major groups besides AnComs) each have certain differences with Anarcho-Communists, mainly regarding how people should be organized, as far as I know.Well, when it comes to syndicalists at least, it also has to do with how the revolution is to be carried out. The same applies to Platformists, I believe.


Anarchism is a revoluationary doctrine with communism as its goalThat depends on whether you count mutualism as anarchism, though. If one does, it could be either revolutionary or reformist, and not necessarily with communism as its goal. This is true for most of anarchism, nonetheless.


Unless you're talking about marxism and anarchism. Well, then, anarchists abolish the state during the revolutionary phase and split the nation into communes. Marxists build their own state, the DOP / Democracy / Socialism or whatever you want to call it which then governs the nation instead of the bourgeoise dictatorship.This is inaccurate. The DotP is essentially the enforcement of the expropriation of the expropriators through law, as it were (or rules, if you prefer). That is, the promotion of the interests of the proletariat as the general interest, and as such the coercion of the bourgeoisie (of course, "The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery." It is, rather, the ending of this. Thus, when the revolution ends, there is no proletariat, nor is there is a state). Anarchists are not opposed to this. As regards 'centralization', other than the word having thousands of meanings on the left, it's not entirely clear that anarchists, even in the occasions when they mean the same thing by it, are opposed to it.


In one word, all public functions, even the few ones that would belong to the Central Government, were to be executed by Communal agents, and, therefore, under the control of the Commune. It is one of the absurdities to say that the Central functions, not of governmental authority over the people, but necessitated by the general and common wants of the country, would become impossible. [...] The governmental force of repression and authority over society was thus to be broken in its merely repressive organs, and where it had legitimate functions to fulfil, these functions were not to be exercised by a body superior to the society, but by the responsible agents of society itself.


Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production will gradually be organized in the most effective form. National centralization of the means of production will become the natural basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers consciously acting upon a common and rational plan. Such is the goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Anarchists are the scary ones.

[chegitz guevara]

Communists and anarchists have the same end goal, a stateless, classless society. We both agree that capitalism must be overthrown. We disagree in that anarchists think we can abolish the state immediately, while communists believe that we need to create our own state for a while in order to prevent the owner class from coming back to power. Once they've been finally defeated, the state ceases to exist.

[AK]

Communists and anarchists have the same end goal, a stateless, classless society. We both agree that capitalism must be overthrown. We disagree in that anarchists think we can abolish the state immediately, while communists believe that we need to create our own state for a while in order to prevent the owner class from coming back to power. Once they've been finally defeated, the state ceases to exist.
Anarchists are communists. When you say communist, you mean Marxist. I'm sure Zanthorus will come in sooner or later to correct you on the question of the Marxist state :p

[ContrarianLemming]

mostly piss poor answers here guys, I really wish I had gotten to this first.

The OP is actually asking whats the difference between statist socialism and anti state socialism, or leninism and anarchism.

The difference being that leninism uses a state as a tool to bring about stateless communism, anarchists don't

anarchists are communists.

[Muzk]

well nah, your answer is the piss poor one

[AK]

well nah, your answer is the piss poor one
Sadly true.

Aeon, your answer failed to acknowledge that the OP was not talking about Leninism and Anarchism, but Marxism (what they termed communism) and Anarchism. Learning from Zanthorus, Marxism implies only a 'revolutionary workers' government' - not necessarily a state.

[Widerstand]

Fucking semantics.

[ContrarianLemming]

Sadly true.

Aeon, your answer failed to acknowledge that the OP was not talking about Leninism and Anarchism, but Marxism (what they termed communism) and Anarchism. Learning from Zanthorus, Marxism implies only a 'revolutionary workers' government' - not necessarily a state.

Did he say that he meant Marxism?

in which case, libertarian marxism (which all non leninist marxism's belong) is in practice almost identicle to anarchism, they have a different theory, sometimes a different definition of the state and a different class analysis.

In practice there alike, which can be seen by how the early marxists (non leninists), including marx himself, refered to the Paris Commune as the ideal proletarian worker government and such, while meanwhile anarchists refered to it as an anarchist revolution.

Aeon

PS I assume Leninism because that's how people on revleft almost always mean it.

[NGNM85]

..anarchists are communists.

Negative. Both Anarchists and Communists are socialists, but they are different kinds of socialists.

[Wolf Larson]

if we're talking about the difference between marxists and anarchists then the anarchists want communism without any transitional state phase. it's quite simple. to overthrow the state or take over the state....that is the question.

[Muzk]

Holy fucking shit. This thread is all about everyone defining words in their own way. FFS, we should ALL start using dat encyclopedia (http://marxists.org/glossary/index.htm) before saying "but anarchism is not... communism is anarchism..."

it can at least be used as some kind of proof.

[ContrarianLemming]

Holy fucking shit. This thread is all about everyone defining words in their own way. FFS, we should ALL start using dat encyclopedia (http://marxists.org/glossary/index.htm) before saying "but anarchism is not... communism is anarchism..."

it can at least be used as some kind of proof.

an encylopedia of Marxism
doesnt apply to anarchism
use your noodle!

a communist is someone who supports communism.

(all of us)

[NGNM85]

a communist is someone who supports communism.

(all of us)

Speak for yourself.

[ContrarianLemming]

Speak for yourself.

In which case you belong in opposing ideologies.

[Zapatas Guns]

They are both similar in philosophy and theory. The main differences between anarchism and Marxism, which is the main difference between pretty much all revolutionary lefitists is how they go about achieving their goals. We can have a general idea of how things should end up when it is all said and done. We argue over the best way to go about doing it.

Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but I personally think this is the biggest difference:

Marxists believe that class revolution and a reordering of society are inevitable. Anarchists for the most part don't believe that it is inevitable, just that it is very desireable.

[ContrarianLemming]

They are both similar in philosophy and theory. The main differences between anarchism and Marxism, which is the main difference between pretty much all revolutionary lefitists is how they go about achieving their goals. We can have a general idea of how things should end up when it is all said and done. We argue over the best way to go about doing it.

Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but I personally think this is the biggest difference:

Marxists believe that class revolution and a reordering of society are inevitable. Anarchists for the most part don't believe that it is inevitable, just that it is very desireable.

Marxist determinism.

I happen to believe revolution is inevitable, and I don't think all marxists think it is.
But I only think revolution is inevitable because I think that in an infinite universe, everything is inevitable and predetermined.

So if the difference doesn't apply to all of both camps, then it can't be the most defining.

There is no difference which applies to all, always a bit of an overlap, if we're more liberal with it then it's different means and same ends ( but even that doesn't so left communists justice)

[Guerrilla22]

Both want the same end result, they just disagree on how you get there.

[NGNM85]

In which case you belong in opposing ideologies.

No, I just think you're statement is incorrect. We're all socialists, near as I can figure, but we aren't all communists. I am an Anarchist. I think you are glossing over simple but significant distinctions. I also resent you're making unathorized statements on my behalf. You are not my official representative.

[IllicitPopsicle]

OMFG. Dude. Anarchists want a classless, stateless society. Communists want a classless. Stateless. SOCIETY. The only difference is in how we each get there. As has been said.

Anarchy =/= smash shit up for the hell of it just because we can.

[Sir Comradical]

Anarchists and Marxists of all tendencies (Trots, MLs, LeftComs) have Communism as the goal. That is a global society where the bourgeoisie has been defeated as a class and where production is democratically planned to meet society's prioritised needs/demands.

Anarchists place importance on eliminating all forms of hierarchy. Some Marxists consider this to be of peripheral importance while others consider it to be downright silly/naive. The Marxist methodology for dealing with this question would be to argue that the ability to eliminate, or at least mitigate hierarchical relations hinges on other material conditions that can be considered after capitalism's overthrow. For example to use Chomsky's example, technological progress could be a liberating force that diminishes the need for hierarchical production. I like Chomsky's approach because it follows the materialist logic which is supposed to be essential to both ideologies.

Both Marxists and Anarchists want to eliminate 'the state'. The defining feature of the state is that it exists to protect private/bourgeois property. Then what do we call a region where workers have successfully overthrown the capitalist class and socialised all industry, but still require an army to defend itself from invasions and a bank to purchase foreign goods that cannot be produced locally? Is this still a state that MUST be abolished?

[syndicat]

the reason people here come up with wildly different answers is that "anarchism" has no clear meaning, and "communism" has multiple meanings as well. there isn't really any plausible way to answer a question that is so vague.

in 1918 the Bolsheviks, who were in the process of solidifying a state, changed the party name to "Communist Party" and ever since then the Leninist organizations...in their various forms...have been known as "Communists". in the USA, at any rate, people other than small leftist groups usually use "Communism" to refer to what existed in the various Communist countries...and the kind of politics characteristic of the various forms of Leninism.

in the 19th century "communism" had a different meaning. Marx made no distinction between "socialism" and "communism". communism is understood as a classless society. anarchists also advocate communism in this sense.

but this has little bearing on "Communism" -- the other meaning of the "C" word, which refers to the various statist economies created under Communist Party regimes.

and then you can split the different uses of "communism" down further, depending on how this or that small group or tendency uses the word.

the word "anarchism" has problems because it is defined negatively, as "absence of hierarchy, bosses, top-down forms of rule". opposition to the state is not the defining feature of anarchism. opposition to the state follows from the fact the state is a hierachical institution, a form of top-down rule over the people.

this leads to problems because saying what you are against is consistent with any number of views about what you want to replace it with or how you propose to get there.

the modern socialist anarchist tendency arose in the First International of the 1860s-70s, around Bakunin, Anselmo Lorenzo etc. They did not call themselves "anarchists" initially. Back then the word "anarchy" meant chaos and destruction, just like now. the word "anarchism" came into use over time but libertarian socialism would probably be a better term.

it's not the case, by the way, that all Marxists say they are against the existence of the state in the long run. for example, Milt Fisk's book "Justice and the State," which provides a marxist theory of the state, regards the state is inevitable, but tries to suggest there are ways it could be made subject to worker control...but is hopelessly vague about how.

because self-management can be regarded as the opposite of hierarchy, the immediate structural aim of anarchism in a revolution could be described as generalized self-management, generalized dissolution of forms of oppression, in other words. most marxists historically have either not advocated workers self-management or not made self-management a central aspect of what they aim at.