communism inherently is anarchist

[Doomsday970]

I put this in the learning section because I'm kinda unsure about this, but here recently i. have been thinking that communism in inherently anarchist due to the lack of a need for government in a "free access" communism. My logic for this is that at the point true communism is reached wouldnt the people become entirely self sufficient creating no need for a government so the government officials would then become regular workers like everyone else. But then wouldn't there be a need for some sort of oversight by some sort of body in order to prevent someone trying to restore a capitalism or to maintain relationships with other countries?

[Remus Bleys]

There was this really cool Bordiga quote on it but I just can't find it and that sucks cuz it would complement my post so well.

Anyway, I see no reason that society wouldn't be centralized. I don't see a way of dealing with the material inequalities between communities other than centralization

[Sinister Intents]

You are very correct in that communism is inherently anarchist, they seek to achieve the same end result. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. I'd make a better post, but I feel other posters will answer you a lot better.

[IBleedRed]

The difference is that the anarchist tradition lacks an empirical backbone when it comes to historical and economic analysis. If anarchists would become Marxian socialists, we'd all be better off (the Left, that is).

[tuwix]

I put this in the learning section because I'm kinda unsure about this, but here recently i. have been thinking that communism in inherently anarchist due to the lack of a need for government in a "free access" communism. My logic for this is that at the point true communism is reached wouldnt the people become entirely self sufficient creating no need for a government so the government officials would then become regular workers like everyone else.

I agree. And furthermore, this is why stalinism and maoism have nothing to do with communism because they have strengthened a state instead of dismantling it.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

I believe you meant to say communism is inherently anarcho-syndicalist.

Anarchism is rebellion, and the abolishment of government and order. However, there is still chance for someone to gain power (i.e. Anarcho-capitalism). Wheras in anarcho-syndicalism there is no government but everyone still cooperates and works together.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9587/p8n9.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/p8n9.jpg/)
Anarchy: absence of government

Sounds nice, but it could potentially lead to anarcho-capitalism (http://jim.com/anarchy/).

http://imageshack.us/a/img43/8839/ri6n.jpg

Anarcho-Syndicalism: a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers, with no parenting government whatsoever.


http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/5669/ytwt.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/ytwt.png/)

Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the means of production and things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property

[Taters]

I believe you meant to say communism is inherently anarcho-syndicalist.

Anarchism is rebellion, and the abolishment of government and order. However, there is still chance for someone to gain power (i.e. Anarcho-capitalism). Wheras in anarcho-syndicalism there is no government but everyone still cooperates and works together.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9587/p8n9.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/p8n9.jpg/)
Anarchy: absence of government

Sounds nice, but it could potentially lead to anarcho-capitalism (http://jim.com/anarchy/).

http://imageshack.us/a/img43/8839/ri6n.jpg

Anarcho-Syndicalism: a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers, with no parenting government whatsoever.


http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/5669/ytwt.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/ytwt.png/)

Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property


Sorry but this is incredibly mixed-up. There is no government ownership in communism.

Also your comments about anarchism suggest you haven't read a bit about it.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Sorry but this is incredibly mixed-up. There is no government ownership in communism.

Also your comments about anarchism suggest you haven't read a bit about it.

and my comments on anarcho-syndicalism.

[Tim Cornelis]

and my comments on anarcho-syndicalism.

Whether anarcho-syndicalism is an ideology is disputed. Most, I think, including me, would consider it a strategy to reach anarcho-communism (or another anarchist society, mutualism).

[Doomsday970]

Thank you all for pointing out some of the differerences in the two and explaining the sort of concept.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

My logic for this is that at the point true communism is reached wouldnt the people become entirely self sufficient creating no need for a government so the government officials would then become regular workers like everyone else.
Under communism, there would still be a need for administration and coordination, but it wouldn't be a state, or a government in the sense it's understood now as something apart from and above.


But then wouldn't there be a need for some sort of oversight by some sort of body in order to prevent someone trying to restore a capitalism or to maintain relationships with other countries?
Well, if there are other countries, then communism hasn't been achieved. See the entire history of "actually existing socialism."

[Czy]

Anarchism is rebellion, and the abolishment of government and order

Your point? All revolutionaries aim to rebel and abolish the (capitalist) state. The way you refer to 'order' here suggests you think anarchism implies lawlessness, which is blatantly false, as briefly explained here (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexei-borovoy-anarchism-and-law); for a more detailed account of what anarchism's about, since I fear you might not have read up on it before yet you seem eager to comment about it, check out this (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/Petr_Kropotkin___Anarchism__from_the_Encyclopaedia _Britannica.html) short article by Kropotkin.


However, there is still chance for someone to gain power (i.e. Anarcho-capitalism). Wheras in anarcho-syndicalism there is no government but everyone still cooperates and works together.

The whole point of anarchism is cooperation, as evidenced by the numerous anarchist traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought) that all share cooperation, free association and elimination of hierarchy as a goal.

I think it's worth noting that anarcho capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daibhidh-anarcho-hucksters-there-is-nothing-anarchistic-about-capitalism). It is a disillusioned ideology built atop a host of rather disturbing premises, such as a blatant support for plutocracy.


Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property

Your description of 'communism' is the same one taught in schools to discredit the far-left movement. Just consider that for a moment.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

A tow-may-toe is also a tow-mah-toe.

Apologies for being a bit flippant but I think anarchism and communism are terms used to describe means to the same end - classless, stateless society. Whether it's MLs or anarcho syndicalists making the arguement, the end result is the same and even in a 'classless' society, some level of organisation would be required but needn't take the form of a formal government with a head of state and various official institutions with their own stationary and annual budgets etc.

[newdayrising]

or to maintain relationships with other countries?

What do you mean?

[newdayrising]

I don't think "anarchism" is a "system" let alone a mode of production. Like Marxism, it's, at its best, a political tradition that fights for a communist society*.
Nobody wants to live in a "Marxist society" or an "anarchist society" as an ultimate goal. We want a communist society.
Some of us follow the marxist route while some prefer the anarchist route. The difference is anarchism has a problem with the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

*I'm deliberately pretending non-communist anarchism doesn't exist.

[Decolonize The Left]

I put this in the learning section because I'm kinda unsure about this, but here recently i. have been thinking that communism in inherently anarchist due to the lack of a need for government in a "free access" communism. My logic for this is that at the point true communism is reached wouldnt the people become entirely self sufficient creating no need for a government so the government officials would then become regular workers like everyone else. But then wouldn't there be a need for some sort of oversight by some sort of body in order to prevent someone trying to restore a capitalism or to maintain relationships with other countries?

In a nut shell, most anarchists desire a classless, stateless, society. In general, most communists desire the same thing. So, in this general end sense, they are identical. Both want to destroy capitalism and the state. Both want to destroy money as a fiat currency. And both want the working class to possess the means of production (in some form or another).

The differences arise on many levels but the primary difference between (generalized) anarchism and (generalized) communism is the method by which the working class reach that classless, stateless, society. Again, in general, communists advocate a progression such as capitalism - socialism - communism, whereby the structure of the capitalist system is appropriated by the working class for our interests and eventually destroyed. Anarchists, in general, advocate the immediate and total destruction of the capitalist and state systems and the replacement thereof.

It's important to remember that we have no real ability to speak about a classless, stateless, society as it would involve a way of thinking which is completely foreign to us (we have been conditioned from birth to relate to class and state). So the many arguments which take place about which hypothetical society would be better are relatively meaningless in the short and mid term. What matters is strategy and mobilization, not arguments over an ideal future.