Anarchism & Communism.

[Overcome]

Greetings.

Would anybody be able to clear up an issue for me?

From the (limited) research I have done it seems to me that Anarchism and Communism are essentially the same end, differing predominately in the means by which that are to be achieved.

Both envision a classless, stateless, society based on common or societal ownership of the means of production.

Is that a fair statement to make or have I missed and glaring differences or subtle nuances?

If so could you guide me to any literature on this topic?

Many thanks for you help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Red_Banner]

Yes it is fair.

It is the same way I view it.

[Skyhilist]

Anarchists and communists have the same goal: Full (stateless) communism.

Anarchists are a specific type of communists. There are other communists who are not anarchists. These people believe that a state is necessary to facilitate the transition from capitalism to global communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists are not a specific type of communist. There are plenty of anarchists who are not also communists, such as the people who first defined anarchism.

[Tim Cornelis]

"full communism"
I'm not sure but I believe this is original research posted on wikipedia and it's been permeating into the e-communist movement. The same with so-called "pure communism." There's communism and there's not communism, but there's no impure communism, or half full communism.
Full communism should stay a shitty meme.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the reference is to the idea of the 'lower' and 'higher' stages. If society is not yet capable of producing for all human needs, but classes and property and states have been destroyed, is it 'communism'? It's not a society of abundance, but it's not a class society either.

To the OP: no, Anarchism and Communism aren't different routes to the same goal; Anarchism and Marxism are different theories of the route to the goal, which is Communism (though there are some people who claim to be Anarchists who would dispute that, generally here you'll find 'class struggle Anarchists' who would say that they are communists).

[d3crypt]

I consider myself an anarchist who accepts almost all of marxist theory, other than the need for a state transition. Marxist Anarchism FTW!

[Remus Bleys]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm

[tuwix]

There are plenty of anarchists who are not also communists, such as the people who first defined anarchism.

The first one who defined an anarchism was Proudhion. And his "What is property?" means the same for anarchists as "The Capital" for marxists. And "What is property?" is harsh critics of private and state property. And world without private and state property is just communism.

[d3crypt]

The first one who defined an anarchism was Proudhion. And his "What is property?" means the same for anarchists as "The Capital" for marxists. And "What is property?" is harsh critics of private and state property. And world without private and state property is just communism.

He was actually a mutualist. So no, he wasn't a communist.

[bcbm]

The first one who defined an anarchism was Proudhion. And his "What is property?" means the same for anarchists as "The Capital" for marxists. And "What is property?" is harsh critics of private and state property. And world without private and state property is just communism.

bakunin is the equivalent 'father' of anarchism to marx. proudhon sucks hard.

[tuwix]

He was actually a mutualist. So no, he wasn't a communist.

When one reads "What is property?", he impressed that actually he was. In fact, Proudhon was one of first modern critics of private property, but he didn't what to do with that critics.



bakunin is the equivalent 'father' of anarchism to marx.

Actually, Bakunin was less radical comparing to that what is written in the "What is property?" book. Bakunin has created a plan for transition period. As well, as Proudhon to be honest. The difrences between those plans were slight. The orogin was different. Proudhon wnated to do something with his critics of property, but Bakunin was ciritisizing Marx. The objective both of them was to abolish an exploitaition.
Nonetheless, critics of property contained in "What is Property?" was a base for them, as well, as for Marx's further considerations of property IMHO.