anarchism and communism???

[what's left?]

I was reading the thread on anarchism at the bottom of the page and I had some follow up questions regarding the discussion of anarchism, free markets, communism etc…

If we all can agree on the general definition that anarchism means ‘anti-statist’ then my question is: how can a stateless society be compatible with communism/socialism…

If private property is abolished under communism and made public how do we allocated resources efficiently throughout society? Certainly either a group or an individual leader would arise with the hopes of undertaking such a task…maybe the communes, the trade unions, etc…

Either way an imposed collectivist system would inevitably result in a state thus contradicting the anarchist definition…

To the contrary under a free market/private property society individuals can freely exchange commodities without the creation of the state and form some sort of natural law in which their property is protected..

so in conclusion, in order for private property to be abolished it must be taken away from the owners usually by force through the use of the STATE….infringing on my individual right to own private property and freely trade it…so communism/socialism is not compatible with anarchism…

thoughts??

[Sensible Socialist]

in order for private property to be abolished it must be taken away from the owners usually by force through the use of the STATE…
Are you doubting the power of workers to rise up and take the means of production into their own hands?

[Broletariat]

If we all can agree on the general definition that anarchism means ‘anti-statist’ then my question is: how can a stateless society be compatible with communism/socialism…

I wouldn't say this is a good definition of Anarchism. Communism calls for a stateless classless society, the same as Anarchism. Socialism is just another word for Communism, Marx never distinguished between the two.


If private property is abolished under communism and made public how do we allocated resources efficiently throughout society? Certainly either a group or an individual leader would arise with the hopes of undertaking such a task…maybe the communes, the trade unions, etc…

It could be as simple as polling each region as to what they want/need and balance that against production.


Either way an imposed collectivist system would inevitably result in a state thus contradicting the anarchist definition…

It will inevitably result in a government, but no one here wants to do away with government, just the State.


To the contrary under a free market/private property society individuals can freely exchange commodities without the creation of the state and form some sort of natural law in which their property is protected..

On the contrary, individuals can only exchange commodities under the mediation of a State. You need a State to back currency, to support private property etc.


so in conclusion, in order for private property to be abolished it must be taken away from the owners usually by force through the use of the STATE….infringing on my individual right to own private property and freely trade it…so communism/socialism is not compatible with anarchism…

thoughts??

The State is hardly the tool that is solely capable of taking private property. Your "individual right" language is a load of idealist bollocks. Who gave you these "rights"? Are they universal? No, they change based on what type of society we're living under. They are not universal or inalienable, to use the word "right" is to obfuscate what is actually going on here. The social arrangement agrees that allowing individuals to own property is what we should do. Our task is to change the social arrangement.

[revolution inaction]

these may help

http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?t=150261&goto=nextoldest)

http://libcom.org/library/introduction-anarchist-communism-anarchist-federation

[hatzel]

I wouldn't say this is a good definition of Anarchism. Communism calls for a stateless classless society, the same as Anarchism. Socialism is just another word for Communism, Marx never distinguished between the two.

You should, of course, point out that there have been a good few anarchists and socialists through time who have claimed that anarchism and socialism are the same. As in, socialism cannot exist without anarchism, and anarchism cannot exist without socialism. So it might be more accurate to claim that communism and socialism are the same thing, and anarchism and socialism are the same thing, but anarchism and communism are two very different things :)

[Widerstand]

You should, of course, point out that there have been a good few anarchists and socialists through time who have claimed that anarchism and socialism are the same. As in, socialism cannot exist without anarchism, and anarchism cannot exist without socialism. So it might be more accurate to claim that communism and socialism are the same thing, and anarchism and socialism are the same thing, but anarchism and communism are two very different things :)

The only meaningful distinction between communism and socialism is the one were socialism because the phase before communism, in which the state and certain features of class society still exist. Looking at your post from this PoV, it doesn't make any sense. Are you getting confused by the fact that Anarchists have historically called themselves Libertarian Socialists, in the time when Socialism still meant what Communism means now?

[hatzel]

That's exactly what I meant, yes :) I don't let social democrats totally ruin my definition of socialism by hijacking it for their crazy reformist capitalist agenda :laugh: Perhaps we should say pure socialism, in its fullest and most complete form...which can only exist in an an-archistic society, something that communists and anarchists alike would (hopefully) agree on...

[PhoenixAsh]

these may help

http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?t=150261&goto=nextoldest)

http://libcom.org/library/introduction-anarchist-communism-anarchist-federation

1st one 404-ed

[hatzel]

1st one 404-ed

The link was linking to some (non-existent) internal thread. The real link is as it's written, here: http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction :) It might be good if RI could modify the link so that the link destination is the same as what he wrote

[Tablo]

I'm sure someone else may have addressed all of these adequately, but I feel like throwing some of my own thoughts out there.


I was reading the thread on anarchism at the bottom of the page and I had some follow up questions regarding the discussion of anarchism, free markets, communism etc…
Okay.


If we all can agree on the general definition that anarchism means ‘anti-statist’ then my question is: how can a stateless society be compatible with communism/socialism…
Anarchism means more than anti-state. Anarchism ultimately means lack of social hierarchy. That's why anarchism oppose the state, the church, and capitalism.


If private property is abolished under communism and made public how do we allocated resources efficiently throughout society? Certainly either a group or an individual leader would arise with the hopes of undertaking such a task…maybe the communes, the trade unions, etc…
Resource allocation and production would be operated democratically by the community.


Either way an imposed collectivist system would inevitably result in a state thus contradicting the anarchist definition…
No, that is not true. The system isn't forced, it is voluntary. If some group doesn't like the collectivized society they live in, they can go in the woods and trade pebbles and sticks with each other. Seriously though, they have all right in the world to go off and do their own thing. Can't imagine why they would want to though.



To the contrary under a free market/private property society individuals can freely exchange commodities without the creation of the state and form some sort of natural law in which their property is protected..
Communism itself lacks a state. The "free-market" allows for economic exploitation of others and operates under an economic set up lacking in democratic control. Under capitalism the person with the most influence in the operation of the economy is the one with the most money.


so in conclusion, in order for private property to be abolished it must be taken away from the owners usually by force through the use of the STATE….infringing on my individual right to own private property and freely trade it…so communism/socialism is not compatible with anarchism…
The state is not necessary, at least in the opinion of anarchists. The revolution is supposed to be a mass workers movement so the only people have property taken will be capitalists and perhaps some class traitors. Capitalism and Anarchism are the incompatible pair since capitalism requires social hierarchy to begin with.


thoughts??
Just some random stuff to let you know.. All anarchists are socialists in some form. A very large portion of anarchists are communists, but there are also collectivists an mutualists(some disagree they are really anarchist due to their support for a market-socialist economy). Communism itself is stateless and classless. It is not true that the USSR, PRC, DPRK, or any of the other "communist" countries are actually Communist. They never claimed to be communist. They actually claimed to uphold socialism. Anarchists and many Marxists argue they aren't even socialist. Socialism, to Anarchists and, I believe, some Marxists, entails democratic control of the economy and the workplace.

[Victus Mortuum]

Most of your questions have already been sufficiently answered, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.


If we all can agree on the general definition that anarchism means ‘anti-statist’ then my question is: how can a stateless society be compatible with communism/socialism…

Anarchism is anti-hierarchy, not anti-state. So it opposes the state, capitalism and property, the church, and any social discrimination and oppression.


If private property is abolished under communism and made public how do we allocated resources efficiently throughout society? Certainly either a group or an individual leader would arise with the hopes of undertaking such a task…maybe the communes, the trade unions, etc…

You should check out the link in my sig that says Socialism 101 to get a good understanding of the concepts that all socialists hold.


Either way an imposed collectivist system would inevitably result in a state thus contradicting the anarchist definition…

Nobody here, other than perhaps stalinists (who I personally think aren't deserving of the title socialism), advocates an 'imposed collectivist system' by a state/minority.


To the contrary under a free market/private property society individuals can freely exchange commodities without the creation of the state and form some sort of natural law in which their property is protected..

Check out the link in my sig, as mentioned above.


so in conclusion, in order for private property to be abolished it must be taken away from the owners usually by force through the use of the STATE….infringing on my individual right to own private property and freely trade it…so communism/socialism is not compatible with anarchism…

No, you don't necessarily need a state (a professional body of armed and trained individuals and a massive body of executive bureaucrats whose job is to coerce society into accepting capitalist property rules). You do however have to fight against the state if it tries to stop you and your co-workers from, say, using your factory and managing yourselves.

Oh, and since you don't seem to have a firm grip on anarchism, here is a great piece to start with:

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

[SamV]

Anarchism is a society without hierarchy. Having said that, corporations are also hierarchies and therefore currency must be abolished.

[Tablo]

Anarchist is an anachronism that bears no relevance to the way human beings interact or the way organisation has to be constructed. Being in a meeting run by anarchists is like going to the dentist and having your teeth pulled out one by one. There is no focus or coherency, which makes sense since neither does their ideology.
Are you just trying to start trouble?

[Victus Mortuum]

Anarchist is an anachronism that bears no relevance to the way human beings interact or the way organisation has to be constructed. Being in a meeting run by anarchists is like going to the dentist and having your teeth pulled out one by one. There is no focus or coherency, which makes sense since neither does their ideology.

You realize that anarchism differs very little from marxism, right?

Perhaps you should try to at least learn your allies?:
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

[Savage]

Marx was anti-statist, any form of communism is anti-statist. Even the proponents of state socialism should realize that Leninism is inherently anti-statist,


While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.-Lenin

[Magón]

No, I'm point out a fact.

Opinion. You mean to say, you're pointing out your opinion.

[Delirium]

Anarchists are against authority and hierarchy. Any system with power inequality and economic exploitation is opposed. That of course includes capitalism and the nation-state.

Anarchists seek to create a non hierarchical society, which will have some sort of "government". But only composed of legitimate authority, without coercion.

[Magón]

If you think what I have said is not a fact, why not explain that? I'd be interested to hear your views.

I think Anarchism/Anarchist have stated time and time again on here and out in the real world, their views and where they stand on what, and how they think they should go about doing it. There's really no reason to explain it since you can just look via the search function on here and the rest of the internet, and read up on Anarchist positions.

But I'll play along with you for a moment since I've got time to kill anyway.


Anarchist is an anachronism that bears no relevance to the way human beings interact or the way organisation has to be constructed.

For starters, what are you saying here? That Anarchists expect the average human beings to interact and organize the way we see, with how they live currently? (Or how they lived 50-80 years ago?) That's sort of silly because nobody in the Radical Left (Anarchist or Marxist) see's human beings acting in ways they'd like, or wants people to regress. That's why our job is to educate the masses, and over throw bosses, politicians, etc. so then we can get the people on the right track.

If you're trying to say that the way Anarchists would like to go about creating revolution, or educating the people, that's once again just your opinion on the theory and actions of Anarchism. The same could be said for those who like to counter Marxist theories, they're just opinions of different groups.


Being in a meeting run by anarchists is like going to the dentist and having your teeth pulled out one by one. There is no focus or coherency, which makes sense since neither does their ideology.

This is definitely opinion because I've been to countless group meetings of Anarchists, and some were fun, others were boring and bland. I've been to Marxist meetings, and they were just the same. Fun sometimes, boring another.

[syndicat]

so in conclusion, in order for private property to be abolished it must be taken away from the owners usually by force through the use of the STATE….infringing on my individual right to own private property and freely trade it…so communism/socialism is not compatible with anarchism…



from a social anarchist point of view, socialism is to be achieved through the direct self-activity of the working class and oppressed, taking over directly the management of the places where they work, and replacing the state hierarchy with a new governance system based on the direct democracy of the assemblies in neighborhoods and workplaces.

this doesn't infringe on the "rights" of the owners because their ownership is morally illegitimate since it is based on forcing people to work for them and exploit them, sucking out profit off their labor, and dominating them in production. no body has a moral right to dominate and exploit other humans.