Difference between Anarchism and Anarcho-Communism?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Okay, so 2012 is going to end today. I am probably going to enter 2013 confused. Let's do something about that.

Some of you might know, i recently came into discussion with another member about tendencies.

Now, he said that Anarchism is just another way to get to communism.
I argued that most Anarchists only like to abolish the state and not money.
Also i said that Anarcho-Communism wants to abolish both money and state (which i know to be true).
That's when he argued that Anarchists do too.

I realised that i apparently don't know as much as i thought, so hence my question: What is the difference between Anarcho-Communism and 'regular' Anarchism?
Is it the money thing, is it something else? As i said i am confused and i'd like to get some answers. Preferably by someone who knows a lot about either tendencies, as i do not want this thread to end up as a bunch of opinions from anti-anarchists.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The only difference that I really have seen is that anarcho-communist are more sympathetic towards Marx.
However, on theoretical level they both lack on the same subjects and are not really different.

[Ravachol]

I don't see the 'difference'... They're not mutually exclusive as anarcho-communism is a subset of anarchism, ie. not all anarchists are anarcho-communists but all anarcho-communists are anarchists. Though I must say I don't consider mutualists to be anarchists and even most individualist anarchists are anarcho-communists though their approach and conception might differ a bit.

[Leftsolidarity]

"Anarchist" covers a wide variety of anarchists from the pro-capitalist to the anti-capitalist.

Most anarchists are of the anti-capitalist variety and anarcho-communism is one of those tendencies.

Imagine it in the same way someone is a "Communist". There are tons of different strands ranging from Left Communism to Stalinism.

[Comrade #138672]

Is there any difference in the way Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists 'feel' about the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat? Do Anarcho-Communists not think it is necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie in order to reach Communism?

[Let's Get Free]

Is there any difference in the way Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists 'feel' about the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat? Do Anarcho-Communists not think it is necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie in order to reach Communism?

Once expropriated of the means of production, the bourgeois will cease to be the bourgeois.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Is there any difference in the way Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists 'feel' about the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat?

Some consider that, since DotP is done with state, it is against anarchist beliefs.
Some others beleive it can be done without a state, and so does not go against anarchist beliefs.

[Raúl Duke]

As far as I can see, most anarchists are either "anarcho-communist" or "anarcho-syndicalist." Even then, the distinction has blurred of late, I don't think most anarchists state in specific which sub-set of anarchism they're a part of because to them the term "anarchist" means social anarchist: "individualist anarchists"/mutualists are mostly irrelevant are rare and anarcho-capitalists are 1)not real anarchists, 2) ineffective: perceived as an internet phenomena.

There are also insurrectos (insurrectionist anarchists) and some other esoteric sub-sets. But I won't delve into that here.


The difference these days amongst social anarchists have to do mostly with practice: i.e. are unions effective avenues of struggle, what about the Platform, etc.

The end result they desire are mostly similar. Also the means they seek the change follow the same anarchist principles.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

"Anarchist" covers a wide variety of anarchists from the pro-capitalist to the anti-capitalist.

This is false. No anarchist would support capitalism.


http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF

I'm not an anarchist anymore, but I was for about 2-3 years.

[Skyhilist]

Not all anarchists are against abolishing the monetary system, so whoever told you that was wrong. Anarcho-collectivists for example support currency based on the actual amount of work that people put in (which is a somewhat irrational concept if you ask me because it places all work as equal. Just easier to abolish the wage system). Anarcho-mutualists basically believe in capitalism without the bourgeoisie. Anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism because it doesn't eliminate hierarchy in the work force. Anarcho-syndicalism isn't mutually exclusive with most types of anarchism and basically means (this might be oversimplifying it) that the workers collectively control the means of production as non-hierarchical syndicates. It's a strategy for revolution (through general strikes, etc.) and a way to eliminate the bourgeoisie. As Raul said, there are also more obscure forms of anarchism like insurrectionary anarchism and garbage like post-left anarchy. Sorry if I'm digressing, but I took the time to explain all of these because there really is no form of "plain" anarchy, as you were asking about. But anyways anarcho-communism is basically a money-free society where all who contribute get what they need from society (basically if society has a problem they get called out and cut of should they be unwilling to reciprocate within reason. This "within reason" can be judged on a case by case basis within local communities should there ever be a problem). There is governance done by people (collectively), but not by a state. It comes in the form of horizontal federation of worker assemblies, neighborhood assemblies, federations of workers in industries, and regional federations. To simplify it as much as possible, it seeks to rationally put the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" principle into action. Hope this helps.

[Ostrinski]

I think asking what the difference is between anarcho-communism and anarchism is a bit like asking what the difference is between anarcho-communism and communism, no?

[Skyhilist]

I think asking what the difference is between anarcho-communism and anarchism is a bit like asking what the difference is between anarcho-communism and communism, no?

I think what OP was meaning to ask was how anarcho-communists differ from non-communist anarchists specifically. But yeah, you're definitely right, there's no "plain" anarchism or communism to compare it to specifically.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Thanks everyone, for your replies.

From your replies, especcialy from Skybutton's, it turn's out i was right all along.
This really helped a lot.

Thanks guys 'n galls!

[newdayrising]

Now, he said that Anarchism is just another way to get to communism.
I argued that most Anarchists only like to abolish the state and not money.

People who don't want to abolish money are historically irrelevant in the anarchist movement, and are mostly an innovation that comes from a right wing "libertarian" (in the american sense) tradition, but borrowing superficially radical elements from real anarchism. I have the impression that such anarcho-capitalist currents are more popular in the US than anywhere else. It's no coincidence.

Anarcho-Communism is probably the main form of class struggle anarchism, as far as organizations go, along with anarcho-syndicalism. The two however are not incompatible. The term appeared to differentiate anarchists who favored communist economics and the ones who followed mutualism, collectivism, and so on.

[Blake's Baby]

Okay, so 2012 is going to end today. I am probably going to enter 2013 confused. Let's do something about that.

Some of you might know, i recently came into discussion with another member about tendencies.

Now, he said that Anarchism is just another way to get to communism.
I argued that most Anarchists only like to abolish the state and not money.
Also i said that Anarcho-Communism wants to abolish both money and state (which i know to be true).
That's when he argued that Anarchists do too...

Yeah, that was me, and I didn't say that 'Anarchism is another way to get to communism'. I said that I had never considered my interpretation of Anarchism as other than another way to get to communism. It's not the same thing. When I was an Anarchist - or really, when I identified as an Anarchist-Communist - I did so on the basis that though I was a communist, no currents of Marxism seemed to me to offer any feasable way of moving from what we have to a classless communal society. Anarchism did seem to offer that route.

Not all Anarchists are communists though. Anarcho-syndicalism, I don't think is communism, notwithstanding the claims in the Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists, that Anarcho-syndicalism is a tactic to reach Anarchist-communism. I don't think it is, I think it's a coherent political philosophy in its own right.

And of course anyone can claim to be an Anarchist, even if they support capitalism. However, as Anarchism is by its nature opposed to hierarchy, and capitalism is of necessity an hierarchical system, one cannot logically be both an Anarchist and pro-capitalist.

[Skyhilist]

Yeah, that was me, and I didn't say that 'Anarchism is another way to get to communism'. I said that I had never considered my interpretation of Anarchism as other than another way to get to communism. It's not the same thing. When I was an Anarchist - or really, when I identified as an Anarchist-Communist - I did so on the basis that though I was a communist, no currents of Marxism seemed to me to offer any feasable way of moving from what we have to a classless communal society. Anarchism did seem to offer that route.

Not all Anarchists are communists though. Anarcho-syndicalism, I don't think is communism, notwithstanding the claims in the Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists, that Anarcho-syndicalism is a tactic to reach Anarchist-communism. I don't think it is, I think it's a coherent political philosophy in its own right.

And of course anyone can claim to be an Anarchist, even if they support capitalism. However, as Anarchism is by its nature opposed to hierarchy, and capitalism is of necessity an hierarchical system, one cannot logically be both an Anarchist and pro-capitalist.

I wouldn't at all say that anarcho-syndicalism can't also be anarcho-communist. Peter Kropotkin for example was both.

[Blake's Baby]

Really? Can you point me to any text where Kropotkin identified himself as an Anarcho-syndicalist? Not saying I don't believe you, I just don't ever remember having read any.

I'm familiar with Maximov, for instance, who though he called himself an Anarcho-syndicalist, held positions closer to Anarchist-Communism as I understand it - it involved for instance rejecting the unions as the working class's instruments, and instead advocating the workers' councils; Rocker of course (another Anarcho-syndicalist) came to very similar positions. But one problem with Anarchist political practice (at least for those trying to define it) is that one can be as eclectic as one likes - calling oneself an Anarcho-syndicalist while espousing something different from what other Anarcho-syndicalists have said. Malatesta, for another example, rejected 'Anarchist-Communism' as a label, but in terms of where to put him, I'd say he was an Anarchist-Communist.

[Skyhilist]

http://libcom.org/library/syndicalism-anarchism-peter-kropotkin

[Blake's Baby]

Right - just skim-read that and he doesn't identify as an Anarcho-syndicalist as far as I can see. He (rather like Arshinov and Makhno in the Platform) claims Syndicalism is a tactic compatible with Anarchism.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Yeah, that was me, and I didn't say that 'Anarchism is another way to get to communism'. I said that I had never considered my interpretation of Anarchism as other than another way to get to communism. It's not the same thing. When I was an Anarchist - or really, when I identified as an Anarchist-Communist - I did so on the basis that though I was a communist, no currents of Marxism seemed to me to offer any feasable way of moving from what we have to a classless communal society. Anarchism did seem to offer that route.

Not all Anarchists are communists though. Anarcho-syndicalism, I don't think is communism, notwithstanding the claims in the Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists, that Anarcho-syndicalism is a tactic to reach Anarchist-communism. I don't think it is, I think it's a coherent political philosophy in its own right.

And of course anyone can claim to be an Anarchist, even if they support capitalism. However, as Anarchism is by its nature opposed to hierarchy, and capitalism is of necessity an hierarchical system, one cannot logically be both an Anarchist and pro-capitalist.

Sorry man, i got really confused. I meant no harm. Sorry if i misread your words.

Anyway, things got a lot clearer for me now.

Oh, and thanks for some names i must read!

[Skyhilist]

Right - just skim-read that and he doesn't identify as an Anarcho-syndicalist as far as I can see. He (rather like Arshinov and Makhno in the Platform) claims Syndicalism is a tactic compatible with Anarchism.

From the article:

"He also believed that syndicalism was the only movement showing a way out of capitalism."

I've read texts by him also where he mentions himself having syndicalist tendencies, although I don't remember which.

[Blake's Baby]

From the article:

"He also believed that syndicalism was the only movement showing a way out of capitalism."

I've read texts by him also where he mentions himself having syndicalist tendencies, although I don't remember which.

That's not 'from the article' though, it's from the introduction to the article. Kropotkin doesn't identify himself as a Syndicalist, or an Anarcho-syndicalist, as you claimed. He identifies Syndicalism with 'direct action' and regards it as being compatible with Anarchism, as I pointed out earlier. No-where in the article does Kropotkin claim he is either a Syndicalist or an Anarcho-syndicalist; nor does he claim that Syndicalism is identical with Anarchism; nor does he mention Anarcho-syndicalism at all.

[Althusser]

Anarchism is a vague term (at least in America it is) It could mean right libertarian here, it could also mean a whole strand of things. Anarcho-Communism is more specific to leftist, collectivist anarchism. Mikhail Bakunin was a prominent AnCom political theorist. Check him out if you're interested.

[Tim Cornelis]

If anarcho-syndicalism is a distinct ideology in its own right, separate from individualist and communist anarchism, then in what ways would an anarcho-syndicalist society differ from an individualist anarchist or communist society?

[Blake's Baby]

Honestly? I think it would end up as a sort of workerist version of Italian fascism, with co-operatives trading with each other.

[Skyhilist]

Blake, he says that it's the only strategy that he thinks can bring down capitalism. He wants to bring down capitalism, therefore we can, using logic, assume that he supports syndicalism since he views it as the only way to achieve such change. But outside of this article, I've also heard him mention syndicalist tendencies in other writings. I don't remember what I actually read it in though.

[Tim Cornelis]

Honestly? I think it would end up as a sort of workerist version of Italian fascism, with co-operatives trading with each other.

That would be mutualism or individualist anarchism, so then anarcho-syndicalism is not distinct from individualist anarchism and would not be a distinct ideology in its own right.

Most anarcho-syndicalists, in my experience, advocate communism. For instance, the Dutch Anarcho-Syndicalist Union explicitly advocates libertarian communism, as does SolFed.

From Strategy & Struggle (http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century):


Anarcho-syndicalists are libertarian communists. Without this communist perspective, anarcho-syndicalism would amount to little more than democratic trade unionism for a self-managed capitalism. Communists recognise that capitalism is not simply an undemocratic mode of management, but a mode of production. Making it more democratic doesn’t make it any more responsive to human needs so long as money, commodity production and exchange persist. Consequently, against Rudolph Rocker’s classical position quoted earlier in this pamphlet, our notion of revolution is not simply the taking over of production in order to self-manage it democratically, but a simultaneous process of communisation – restructuring social production around human need.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Anarchism is a vague term (at least in America it is) It could mean right libertarian here, it could also mean a whole strand of things. Anarcho-Communism is more specific to leftist, collectivist anarchism. Mikhail Bakunin was a prominent AnCom political theorist. Check him out if you're interested.

I know him. I've read some of his works: "Stateless Socialism: Anarchism" and "Power Corrupts The Best". His writing is easy to read and comprehend.

[Blake's Baby]

That would be mutualism or individualist anarchism, so then anarcho-syndicalism is not distinct from individualist anarchism and would not be a distinct ideology in its own right.

Most anarcho-syndicalists, in my experience, advocate communism. For instance, the Dutch Anarcho-Syndicalist Union explicitly advocates libertarian communism, as does SolFed.

From Strategy & Struggle (http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century):

One problem with Anarchism, as I've already said, is that different Anarchists have different ideas about what it is - one reason I disagreed with Utopist M's claim that I'd claimed 'Anarchism is another route to communism'. I would never, when I identified as an Anarchist-Communist, have made any claim that could be taken as speaking for other Anarchists. And I have never considered myself an Anarcho-syndicalist, because I reject the methodolgy of Anarcho-syndicalism as I understand it. That doesn't mean in practice I think organisations like Sol Fed are terribly wrong, because I don't think they are. But to me, that's in spite of their formal commitment to anarcho-syndicalism rather than because of it.

And, no, I don't think I do mean 'anarcho-mutualism', I mean Anarcho-syndicalism. An ideology which if any revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalists ever attempted to institue would I'm sure lead to a corporatist state and economy - I'd go even further than Sol Fed in condemning it as 'little more than democratic trade unionism for self-managed capitalism' but that is certainly an important part of a critique.

[Skyhilist]

One problem with Anarchism, as I've already said, is that different Anarchists have different ideas about what it is - one reason I disagreed with Utopist M's claim that I'd claimed 'Anarchism is another route to communism'. I would never, when I identified as an Anarchist-Communist, have made any claim that could be taken as speaking for other Anarchists. And I have never considered myself an Anarcho-syndicalist, because I reject the methodolgy of Anarcho-syndicalism as I understand it. That doesn't mean in practice I think organisations like Sol Fed are terribly wrong, because I don't think they are. But to me, that's in spite of their formal commitment to anarcho-syndicalism rather than because of it.

And, no, I don't think I do mean 'anarcho-mutualism', I mean Anarcho-syndicalism. An ideology which if any revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalists ever attempted to institue would I'm sure lead to a corporatist state and economy - I'd go even further than Sol Fed in condemning it as 'little more than democratic trade unionism for self-managed capitalism' but that is certainly an important part of a critique.

Yeah disagreements within the anarchist movement definitely have the potential to cause problems. I think that different forms of anarchy have the ability to coexist though, within reason.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

One problem with Anarchism, as I've already said, is that different Anarchists have different ideas about what it is - one reason I disagreed with Utopist M's claim that I'd claimed 'Anarchism is another route to communism'. I would never, when I identified as an Anarchist-Communist, have made any claim that could be taken as speaking for other Anarchists. And I have never considered myself an Anarcho-syndicalist, because I reject the methodolgy of Anarcho-syndicalism as I understand it. That doesn't mean in practice I think organisations like Sol Fed are terribly wrong, because I don't think they are. But to me, that's in spite of their formal commitment to anarcho-syndicalism rather than because of it.

And, no, I don't think I do mean 'anarcho-mutualism', I mean Anarcho-syndicalism. An ideology which if any revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalists ever attempted to institue would I'm sure lead to a corporatist state and economy - I'd go even further than Sol Fed in condemning it as 'little more than democratic trade unionism for self-managed capitalism' but that is certainly an important part of a critique.

I totally agree with you. Syndicates, however well meant, in general will lead to statism.



Yeah disagreements within the anarchist movement definitely have the potential to cause problems. I think that different forms of anarchy have the ability to coexist though, within reason.

Diagreements are parting the left in general. I believe it is one of the main problems for uniting and actually making a stand. I bet, if we tried, we could easily overthrow capitalism when united. If only...

[Skyhilist]

Could someone please explain to my why anarcho-syndicalism would lead to statism? Maybe I'm missing something here.

[Tim Cornelis]

One problem with Anarchism, as I've already said, is that different Anarchists have different ideas about what it is - one reason I disagreed with Utopist M's claim that I'd claimed 'Anarchism is another route to communism'. I would never, when I identified as an Anarchist-Communist, have made any claim that could be taken as speaking for other Anarchists. And I have never considered myself an Anarcho-syndicalist, because I reject the methodolgy of Anarcho-syndicalism as I understand it. That doesn't mean in practice I think organisations like Sol Fed are terribly wrong, because I don't think they are. But to me, that's in spite of their formal commitment to anarcho-syndicalism rather than because of it.

And, no, I don't think I do mean 'anarcho-mutualism', I mean Anarcho-syndicalism. An ideology which if any revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalists ever attempted to institue would I'm sure lead to a corporatist state and economy - I'd go even further than Sol Fed in condemning it as 'little more than democratic trade unionism for self-managed capitalism' but that is certainly an important part of a critique.

We are not talking about the feasibility of anarcho-syndicalism, but rather to what extent a hypothetical anarcho-syndicalist society would differ from a hypothetical individualist anarchist or hypothetical communist society. You replied by saying you believed anarcho-syndicalism would lead to such and such society, but not what an anarcho-syndicalist society would look like.

Anarcho-syndicalists advocate either communism or market socialism, not a distinct society from both these hypothetical societies; as such it's not a distinct ideology, it's a strategy.


Could someone please explain to my why anarcho-syndicalism would lead to statism? Maybe I'm missing something here.

The idea behind it is, I believe, that if we focus on the economic struggle over the political struggle, it leads to self-managed enterprises where workers start producing for their own immediate interests (namely profits) and thus we will not achieve communism. Consequently, competitive markets will be perpetuated, which results into accumulation of capital, class society, and thus the need for a state.

[Skyhilist]

The idea behind it is, I believe, that if we focus on the economic struggle over the political struggle, it leads to self-managed enterprises where workers start producing for their own immediate interests (namely profits) and thus we will not achieve communism. Consequently, competitive markets will be perpetuated, which results into accumulation of capital, class society, and thus the need for a state.

Well yeah I'd agree, that's a possibility if the monetary system is not abolished. I it is abolished though, this would certainly seem unlikely to happen.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Could someone please explain to my why anarcho-syndicalism would lead to statism? Maybe I'm missing something here.

Bakunin wrote this: Power Corrupts The Best (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1867/power-corrupts.htm).

[Skyhilist]

Bakunin wrote this: Power Corrupts The Best (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1867/power-corrupts.htm).

Well syndicalism is just collective power to the workers to control their own destiny. Even assuming they're corrupted, if there's no wage system and they aren't screwing over society enough to be explicitly singled out, then I don't see much of a real problem here. If syndicates are selfish they receive nothing. But honestly, you've gotta have some form of structuring embedded in society, and within that structuring, there will always be some source of corruption. There is no perfect system; something that we've gotta realize. It really comes down to which one you believe has the least flaws.

I think there's something for everyone in anarchy. Me personally being an anarcho-syndicalist doesn't mean I think that the whole world should be forced into anarcho-syndicalism. Anarchists have gotta stick together and look out for each other, while setting aside our differences. If others want to be collectivist, or primitivist, then whatever, I have no problem with it. As long as anarchist unity and solidarity ensures global organized anarchy in a post-revolutionary society, I could really care less what form best suits different local communities. So long as it's ACTUALLY anarchy and none of that ancap/voluntarist bullshit.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Well syndicalism is just collective power to the workers to control their own destiny. Even assuming they're corrupted, if there's no wage system and they aren't screwing over society enough to be explicitly singled out, then I don't see much of a real problem here. If syndicates are selfish they receive nothing. But honestly, you've gotta have some form of structuring embedded in society, and within that structuring, there will always be some source of corruption. There is no perfect system; something that we've gotta realize. It really comes down to which one you believe has the least flaws.

I think there's something for everyone in anarchy. Me personally being an anarcho-syndicalist doesn't mean I think that the whole world should be forced into anarcho-syndicalism. Anarchists have gotta stick together and look out for each other, while setting aside our differences. If others want to be collectivist, or primitivist, then whatever, I have no problem with it. As long as anarchist unity and solidarity ensures global organized anarchy in a post-revolutionary society, I could really care less what form best suits different local communities. So long as it's ACTUALLY anarchy and none of that ancap/voluntarist bullshit.

First of, i think any from of anarchism is better than what we have now.
After all, syndicalism might not lead to statism. How should i know?
It's however something i distrust.