Communism vs. Anarchism?

[Soomie]

What exactly is the difference? I know that on some of the threads people have said they are essentially the same thing, but there must be some difference between them or else there wouldn't be two words to set them apart. Is Anarchism a form of Communism? Could someone provide similarities and differences between the two, please.

[Blake's Baby]

Basically - yes Anarchism is a school of socialism/communism, that is distinguished from Marxist socialism/communism by a rejection of the necessity for the proletarian party and a rejection of the stage of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Roughly.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What exactly is the difference? I know that on some of the threads people have said they are essentially the same thing, but there must be some difference between them or else there wouldn't be two words to set them apart. Is Anarchism a form of Communism? Could someone provide similarities and differences between the two, please.

If by Communism, you mean, Marxism, then no. There are some distinct philosophical differences between the two camps hence the break up of then First Internationale.

[Raúl Duke]

I feel in recent years, although maybe I'm wrong and it infact goes back to the italian anarcho-communists, certain strains of modern anarchism has adopted a few things from the Marxists but reject a centralized state (than again, Marx was seemingly vague in what he entailed as a "socialist state") and are explicitly anti-Leninist and have rejected Blanqui.

[Let's Get Free]

Communism and anarchism overlap, and to some people are exactly the same thing. Depending on your interpretation of the word. Of course, various tendencies will have various interpretations. Anarchist-Communism, Luxemburgism, Council Communism, etc are all forms of Libertarian Communism, for example. So in these cases Communism is anarchism.

I think what you wanted to ask was, what's the difference between "libertarian-socialism" and "authoritarian communism."

"The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them- for it is dialectic." Joseph Dietzgen

[MarxSchmarx]

Here's how I see it:

Similarities:
- Stateless
- Some form of social ownership of production
- Classless societies

Differences - mostly historical:
- those calling themselves "communists" tend to support statist means, those calling themselves "anarchists" tend to be strongly opposed to statist practice
- Anarchists favor a more grassroots transformation "from the bottom-up" and see less use for a prolonged transition stage between capitalism and communism
- The communist generally believes the oppressive nature of the state stems from the fact that it is a reflection of the capitalist order; the anarchist believes the state has its own dynamics of repression

It is true that there are anarcho-communists and anti-statist Marxists, as well as miscelaneous sects that fit neither category. However, these are really rather minor exceptions that represent a slither of the historical movement, although I think they have tremendous potential for the future.

Nevertheless, historically, the term "communist" has by and large been reserved for Leninism and its offshoots, which is quite authoritarian and has if anything a more social democratic heritage. Anarchism has been a largely independent development that has categorically rejected Leninism and social democracy.

[Ostrinski]

Anarchism is actually a pretty general term that refers to many different counteractive movements, the largest and most relevant current of which are communists. I could be wrong but I think since the mid-late 19th century many anarchists started considering themselves communists in accordance with the rising popularity of the term. The distinction goes back to the First International where the differences and disagreements between Marxists and anarchists started to become apparent.

Marxists and anarchists as I'm sure you know disagree on a few things, mainly the conception of the state, what it is, its role and function in society, and what the radical position toward this entity should be, the debates of which have been numerous. Obviously this distinction was inflamed with the surfacing of Bolshevism and the conflicts between the Bolsheviks and anarchists in Russia.

In essence we are all socialists who are fighting for a society of free producers and voluntary association. Our differences lie in our strategical approaches and our analytical methods, both of which of course have created differences within Marxism and anarchism as well as between one another.

[Yuppie Grinder]

False dichotomy. The vast majority of self-described anarchists are communists, the rest are idiots. Marxism and Anarchism split for good after Bakunin and his buddies were expelled from the first international in the aftermath of the Paris Commune. Marx and Engles drew the conclusion from the experience of the Paris Commune that a worker's state was necessary, while the anarchists saw the events of the Paris Commune as proof of the revolutionary proletariat's rejection of that idea.

[ClassLiberator]

Communists aim to create a stateless and classless society so their ultimate goal is that of anarchists. The key difference is how they want to create this social order in contrast to how anarchists want to create it. When people use the word "communist," they usually mean Marxist. Marxists believe that it is necessary to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, a state taken control of by the workers whom are the backbone of our society in that they create all goods which are used or sold. Under a proletarian dictatorship, the state would be used by communists to repress their adversaries and create a strong proletarian class so that they can function without being eliminated by the bourgeoisie. Anarchists believe that the state is an inherently coercive institution which must be abolished immediately. Anarchists believe that it is not possible for a proletarian state to exist because states are governed by a minority and the proletariat is the majority. Furthermore, anarchists believe that creating a single-party state increases class alienation because it gives absolute power to a small group of people thus creating an even greater elite class.

[Soomie]

What is the "First Internationale," and where can I read more about it?

[Ostrinski]

It was the first international congress of communist groups and organizations aimed at coordinating political struggle abroad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association

[ind_com]

What exactly is the difference? I know that on some of the threads people have said they are essentially the same thing, but there must be some difference between them or else there wouldn't be two words to set them apart. Is Anarchism a form of Communism? Could someone provide similarities and differences between the two, please.

Others have outlined the similarities and the differences quite well. I will add to it, that, though in some places anarchists have cooperated with communists in mass-movements, they usually lack conceptions of revolutionary warfare and military defence of the revolution. For this reason, Marxists, particularly Bolsheviks, have a lot of friction with anarchists wherever revolutionary war develops. Emma Goldman's 'My Disillusionment in Russia' (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/index.htm) quite accurately portrays the opinion of the average anarchist if he/she were to work in an area experiencing a communist revolution.

[GoddessCleoLover]

There a a number of schools of anarchist thought. For example, was Buenaventura Durruti an anarchist or an anarcho-communist?

[Luc]

There a a number of schools of anarchist thought. For example, was Buenaventura Durruti an anarchist or an anarcho-communist?


He was an anarcho-syndicalist i think but he didnt write much, however anarcho-syndicalists arent that different from an-communists as syndicalism is seen as the way to communism

on that note an original difference from the First Int. was that anarchists tended towards syndicalism and independant revolutionary union struggle while "marxists" were all about revolutionary mass parties (some with subordinated unions). This resulted in sometimes refering to them as "Political Socialists" and anarchists as anti-political.

of course later there were cross overs and mixs like not many folks would call Connolly and DeLeon Anarchists but they were certainly union focused and some anarchists rejected syndicalism such as insurrectionist anarchists but also some kinds of Platformists who reject work-place and economic struggle completely

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps he was all three? The Spanish phrase was, IIRC comunism libertario.

[Luc]

Perhaps he was all three? The Spanish phrase was, IIRC comunism libertario.

definitely, there isnt really a difference based in Syndicalism vs. Communism or just "anarchist" (aswell, the differences present aren't adequatly expressed by saying "communist", "syndicalist" etc.) and should be done away with.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

"Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite"

-Otto Von Bismarck

[Luc]

"Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite"

-Otto Von Bismarck

Bismarck clearly knows shit about the internal debates of the left if he thinks they are over nothing and we can just "unite" :rolleyes:

i dunno whats worse, the impotence of non-sectarianism or the idealism and utopianism of sectarianism

[Caj]

I presume you mean Marxist communism, as anarchism is inherently communist in the sense that it advocates a classless society (communism). The typical distinction one will hear made between anarchists and Marxist communists is that the former are opposed to the establishment of a transitional proletarian dictatorship, while the latter are in favor of it, and that both favor the same "end goal" (a classless, stateless society, communism). I do not, however, think this is a very good or accurate distinction for two reasons.

Firstly, class struggle anarchists do support the establishment of a transitional proletarian dictatorship, regardless of whether or not they use such terminology. From the Marxian standpoint, the state is understood to be an organ of class rule, i.e., the means by which a particular class maintains its supremacy. The proletarian state, by establishing proletarian supremacy, is the means by which the proletariat abolishes capitalist society and the capitalist mode of production and establishes communism. Anarchists advocate the same thing: the use of apparati of force and power by the proletariat with the purpose of eliminating classes. In fact, even by many anarchist conceptions of the state, anarchists are still (transitory) statists. The anarchist Alexander Berkman, for example, in his What is Anarchism?, defined the state as "organized violence." Excluding anarcho-pacifists (if they can really be considered part of the anarchist movement), all anarchists advocate the use of organized violence. So, in short, both Marxist communists and anarchists support the establishment of a transitional proletarian dictatorship.

This does not mean, however, that there is no difference in views between anarchists and Marxist communists regarding the state; there is. This difference stems from the organizational question of the state, i.e., how the transitional proletarian dictatorship should be structured organizationally. While anarchists favor decentralization of authority, Marxists generally tend to favor centralization of authority.

My second problem with the distinction typically made between anarchists and Marxist communists is that, apart from merely supporting a classless, stateless society, they do not agree on an "end goal." The distinction between anarchists and Marxist communists regarding communism concerns production and distribution. Again, anarchists advocate decentralization, while Marxists favor centralization. While anarchists support the creation of a decentralized network of autonomous communes or collectives freely producing and exchanging with one another, Marxist communists support the centralization of production and the creation of a planned economy wherein resources and produce will be distributed in accordance with labour expended (under the lower phase of communism) and/or need (under the higher phase if communism, when a state of post-scarcity has been achieved).


Perhaps he was all three? The Spanish phrase was, IIRC comunism libertario.

He was an anarchist, specifically an anarcho-syndicalist. In the modern sense of the term, he was also an anarchist communist, but historically anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism have denoted two separate currents within the anarchist movement (anarchist communism being the more individualistic, terroristic, and utopian current of anarchist ideology that was dominant for several decades following the expulsion of the anarchists from the First International and anarcho-syndicalism being the more proletarian, union-oriented current that emerged in 1930s Spain).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I presume you mean Marxist communism, as anarchism is inherently communist in the sense that it advocates a classless society (communism). The typical distinction one will hear made between anarchists and Marxist communists is that the former are opposed to the establishment of a transitional proletarian dictatorship, while the latter are in favor of it, and that both favor the same "end goal" (a classless, stateless society, communism). I do not, however, think this is a very good or accurate distinction for two reasons.

Firstly, class struggle anarchists do support the establishment of a transitional proletarian dictatorship, regardless of whether or not they use such terminology. From the Marxian standpoint, the state is understood to be an organ of class rule, i.e., the means by which a particular class maintains its supremacy. The proletarian state, by establishing proletarian supremacy, is the means by which the proletariat abolishes capitalist society and the capitalist mode of production and establishes communism. Anarchists advocate the same thing: the use of apparati of force and power by the proletariat to eliminate classes. In fact, even by many anarchist conceptions of the state, anarchists are still (transitory) statists. The anarchist Alexander Berkman, in his What is Anarchism?, defined the state as With "organized violence." Excluding anarcho-pacifists (if they can really be considered part of the anarchist movement), all anarchists advocate the use of organized violence. So, in short, both Marxist communists and anarchists support the establishment of a transitional proletarian dictatorship.

This does not mean, however, that there is no difference in views between anarchists and Marxist communists regarding the state; there is. This difference stems over the organizational issue of the state, i.e., how the transitional proletarian dictatorship should be structured organizationally. While anarchists favor decentralization of authority, Marxists generally tend to favor centralization of authority.

My second problem with the typical distinction between anarchists and Marxist communists is that, apart from merely supporting a classless, stateless society, they do not agree on the "end goal." The distinction between anarchists and Marxist communists on communism concerns production. Again, anarchists advocate decentralization, the creation of a network of autonomous communes or collectives freely producing and exchanging with one another. Marxist communists, on the other hand, support the centralization of production under communism and the creation of a planned economy wherein resources and produce will be distributed in accordance with labour expended (under the lower phase of communism) or need (under the higher phase if communism, when a state of post-scarcity has been achieved).



He was an anarchist, specifically an anarcho-syndicalist. In the modern sense of the term, he was also an anarchist communist, but historically anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism have denoted two separate currents within the anarchist movement (anarchist communism being the more individualistic, terroristic, and utopian current of anarchist ideology that was dominant for several decades following the expulsion of the anarchists from the First International and anarcho-syndicalism being the more proletarian , union-oriented current emerging in 1930s Spain).

:thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

[GoddessCleoLover]

I have long been troubled by the centralizing aspect of the Marxian concept of the mode of production. How can one have a centralized means of production without also creating a centralized polity, and isn't there a grave risk that this centralized politico-economic structure would fall into the hands of those who have a vested interested in preventing it from "withering away"? Does this mean that I am a heretic Marxist?:D

[Blake's Baby]

What do you mean 'a centralized means of production'?

[hatzel]

It might be worth pointing out that - if the debate around 'Black Flame,' for example, is anything to go by - it's difficult enough to reach an agreement on the definition of anarchism, so trying to explain how exactly this as-get-undefined anarchism differs from other radical currents would be nigh-on impossible (particularly given the fact that these currents have all developed under the influence of one another, so there is certainly crossover between them). At present the best answer seems to be 'the difference is that anarchism feels like anarchism - you know it when you see it,' but that's an absolutely useless statement, clearly...

[GoddessCleoLover]

What do you mean 'a centralized means of production'?

Something like GOSPLAN or its equivalent planning agencies in other "socialist" countries. I know that these revolutions did not creat anything that you or I would recognize as the DotP, but many Marxists do, even Trotsky approved of GOSPLAN when it was first implemented.

[Blake's Baby]

Something like GOSPLAN or its equivalent planning agencies in other "socialist" countries. I know that these revolutions did not creat anything that you or I would recognize as the DotP, but many Marxists do, even Trotsky approved of GOSPLAN when it was first implemented.

What, you're realising that a centralised party-state machine is a bad idea?

That doesn't make you an 'heretical Marxist', it means you're possibly a Marxist. Probably not a Leninist though.

Even Trotsky was wrong sometimes.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Back in the 70s I was a Leninist, but by 1980 or so I had come to appreciate Rosa Luxemberg's critique of Lenin and Trotsky. IMO had Rosa not been murdered she would have opposed Trotsky's pretensions to be the leader of the world revolution, and certainly would have opposed the Stalin/Bukharin alliance. I am quite confident that if Stalin had ever gotten his hands on Rosa Luxemburg she would have either been shot or sent to GULAG.

[Caj]

What, you're realising that a centralised party-state machine is a bad idea?

That doesn't make you an 'heretical Marxist', it means you're possibly a Marxist.

I'd say centralization, the party, and the (transitional proletarian) state are all pretty fundamental to Marxist communism. Perhaps by "a centralised party-state machine" you are referring to the kind of political systems that existed under the Stalinist regimes, but I don't think we as communists should condemn such regimes because they were "centralised party state machines[s]" but on the basis of their class nature. As Bordiga said in his "Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/violence.htm):

Our condemnation of the Stalinist orientation is not based on the abstract, scholastic, and constitutionalist accusation that it committed the sinful acts of abusing bureaucratism, state intervention, and despotic authority. It is based instead on quite different evaluations, i.e. the economic, social, and political development of Russia and the world, of which the monstrous swelling of the state machine is not the sinful cause but the inevitable consequence.

[Blake's Baby]

I'd say centralization, the party, and the (transitional proletarian) state are all pretty fundamental to Marxist communism...

Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon are fundamental to alcohol, that doesn't mean a horse is a bottle of Scotch.


... Perhaps by "a centralised party-state machine" you are referring to the kind of political systems that existed under the Stalinist regimes, but I don't think we as communists should condemn such regimes because they were "centralised party state machines[s]" but on the basis of their class nature. As Bordiga said in his "Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/violence.htm)...

I disagree, I think one of the fundamental questions that the period 1917-27 resolved was 'does the Party take power on behalf of the working class?' and the answer, in my opinion, was a resounding 'no'. And I don't think that's in fundamental contradiction to Marxism, on the contrary I'm a Marxist and firmly hold the view that the working class should not surrendur its power to the Party. Quoting Bordiga, the 'more Leninist than Lenin' Left-Comm, doesn't in my view negate the point. Like Trotsky, even Bordiga was wrong sometimes.

He was of course right that the class nature of the Soviet Union is paramount - but wrong to think that it is possible for the working class to excercise power through such a party-state machine (exactly the same mistake Trotsky made, in my estimation, and indeed Lenin, though to be fair to Lenin, Trotsky and Bordiga both lived to see the consequences, while Lenin died in the process and can perhaps be excused somewhat for not coming to a negative conclusion).

The working class must take over the running of society, not the Party. The fusion of the Party and the state (the creation of a 'centralised party-state machine') is a grave mistake.

[Grenzer]

I'd say centralization, the party, and the (transitional proletarian) state are all pretty fundamental to Marxist communism. Perhaps by "a centralised party-state machine" you are referring to the kind of political systems that existed under the Stalinist regimes, but I don't think we as communists should condemn such regimes because they were "centralised party state machines[s]" but on the basis of their class nature. As Bordiga said in his "Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/violence.htm):

I think you are missing the thrust of what Blake is trying to get at.

When the party becomes fused with the state, it essentially becomes unable to really remain independent from it and advocate the proletariat's class interests. It loses its political character and can no longer be defined as a party at all, but as an administrative body. In essence, you don't have a one-party state, but a state that has an organ that calls itself a party but is really just a bureaucratic administrative unit.

It's possible to have a one-party state, but the party would have to remain independent and unattached to the actual state machinery. It is the proletariat's role to exercise the dictatorship, not the party's, which as you yourself said is probably always going to be only a minority of the class. Class dictatorship can only be exercised by the class itself, not a section of it claiming to speak for the whole thing.

So the problem with the Soviet Union was not only its class nature, but that its actual structure was fundamentally incompatible with the functioning of proletarian dictatorship.

[Ostrinski]

Working class emancipation must be the self emancipation of the working class. Only through the direct participation in their liberation can the working class maintain the dotp without usurpation.

This idea of a minority of class militants representing the whole of the class even when they don't consent to it is a corpse that should stay buried.

[hetz]

This idea of a minority of class militants representing the whole of the class even when they don't consent to it is a corpse that should stay buried.
It's impossible to opress the whole class if at least some elements of it don't agree with it.
I guess you see what I'm hinting at. Just who are "they"? Is that a question of numbers or something else?
For example we could say that the Bolsheviks opressed the working class in Russia, but then the majority of that class still stayed with the Bolsheviks.

[GoddessCleoLover]

This idea of a minority of class militants representing the whole of the class even when they don't consent to it is a corpse that should stay buried.

Those of us old enough to remember the shambling zombie that was the Soviet Union, China (both Mao and post-Mao), eastern Europe (including that lovely little redoubt of anti-revisionism on the Adriatic), Democratic Kampuchea, Mengistu-era Ethiopia and any similar "socialist" country I have overlooked hope that corpse never stirs. Those who are younger just have to look at the dynasty of the Kims in Juche-land or Presidente Generalissimo Raul's privatization experiments in Cuba to the last of the zombies pretending to be socialistic.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:


:thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

I know you have good intentions and I really hate to do this, but I'm going to have to warn you for this one. Please don't make posts that consist only of smilies. If you just want to big up somebody's post because you agree with it, use the rep system or use the thanks system. But a post that consists only of smilies here in Learning constitutes spam.

Try not to do it again.

This constitutes a warning to Brosa Luxemburg.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What exactly is the difference?
It's complicated by the fact that there aren't single unifying definitions of anarchism or communism.

[Blake's Baby]

It's impossible to opress the whole class if at least some elements of it don't agree with it.
I guess you see what I'm hinting at. Just who are "they"? Is that a question of numbers or something else?
For example we could say that the capitalists opressed the working class in the West, but then the majority of that class still stayed with the capitalists.

I fixed your quote.

Do you agree with my fixing? If you don't, where did I differ from your method?

Not being a dick, genuinley interested to see where you want to go with this line of argument.