Anarcho-Communism?

[Malesori]

Can someone elbaorate on anarcho-communism for me please?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Can someone elbaorate on anarcho-communism for me please?

What specifically would you like to know? Pretty open ended question.

[Sabot Cat]

Anarcho-Communism is essentially a redundant way of saying communism, because communists are by definition opposed to a state. Nonetheless, Anarcho-Communism may be a means by which to emphasize that you are a communist and not a state capitalist that calls themselves a "Communist" (as in the Soviet Union or People's Republic of China).

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarcho-Communism is essentially a redundant way of saying communism, because communists are by definition opposed to a state. Nonetheless, Anarcho-Communism may be a means by which to emphasize that you are a communist and not a state capitalist that calls themselves a "Communist" (as in the Soviet Union or People's Republic of China).

No it's not redundant. The anarcho in anarcho-communism refers to the means of achieving communism. Otherwise, orthodox Marxists and left communists and such would be 'anarcho-communists'.

[motion denied]

People usually recommend this: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism

I hope it is helpful.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not entirely no.

Anarcho-communism is that branch of communism which sees the abolition of the state as absolutely necessary to reach communism and rejects the notion of a vanguard party and the DOTP as a transitional state phase (as in ML) it favors horizontal voluntary structures to enable production and the distribution of wealth.

[Sabot Cat]

No it's not redundant. The anarcho in anarcho-communism refers to the means of achieving communism. Otherwise, orthodox Marxists and left communists and such would be 'anarcho-communists'.

Abolishing the state is one of the aims of all iterations of communism, at least those that accord to its traditional definition. It's a matter of emphasis, and self-description; this factors into what comrades one is trying to organize with, what authors one admires, and what immediate actions one believes should be taken. Nonetheless, I maintain that communism is intrinsically anarchist.

[Queen Mab]

Anarcho-communism is a different (but related) intellectual tradition to Marxist communism. I think there's a pretty important distinction.

[PhoenixAsh]

Abolishing the state is one of the aims of all iterations of communism, at least those that accord to its traditional definition. It's a matter of emphasis, and self-description; this factors into what comrades one is trying to organize with, what authors one admires, and what immediate actions one believes should be taken. Nonetheless, I maintain that communism is intrinsically anarchist.

It isn't just what comrades you try to organize with. It is how you organize, how the revolution takes shape, what happens after the revolution and how society is shaped.

Really....the distinction between anarchists and left-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, marxists, marxist-leninist is there.

We may strife to see the same end goal. But most definitely we have different ideas on how to get there.

[Tim Cornelis]

Abolishing the state is one of the aims of all iterations of communism, at least those that accord to its traditional definition. It's a matter of emphasis, and self-description; this factors into what comrades one is trying to organize with, what authors one admires, and what immediate actions one believes should be taken. Nonetheless, I maintain that communism is intrinsically anarchist.

Which means you're redefining anarchism, communism, or both.

[Bala Perdida]

Anarcho-Communism is a very libertarian form of communism. It favors a more or less direct path to Communism, as opposed to the stages in Marxism. The anarchist combination means that there is no room for authority in this tendency. Some notable Anarcho-Communists involve Nestor Makhno, Flores Magon, and several of those involved in the FAI/CNT in the Spanish civil war. Of course I have to mention Peter Kropotkin who was crucial to developing the philosophy, and is often called it's father. Anarcho-Communism is usually attempted to be reached by tactics such as Anarcho-Syndaclism and Insurrectionary Anarchism. Hope this helps.

[The Feral Underclass]

Abolishing the state is one of the aims of all iterations of communism, at least those that accord to its traditional definition. It's a matter of emphasis, and self-description; this factors into what comrades one is trying to organize with, what authors one admires, and what immediate actions one believes should be taken. Nonetheless, I maintain that communism is intrinsically anarchist.

But anarchism isn't just about abolishing the state, it also provides a critique of it, a critique of authority and a unique methodology. Anarchist communism has a huge history and tradition, I think it's churlish to dismiss it in this way.

You may maintain that communism is "intrinsically anarchist" but that ignores the fundamental practical differences that anarchists have with most of the communist milieu.

[AnaRchic]

Anarcho-communism is the synthesis of Anarchism and communism. An-archy, means without rulers. So Anarchism, most succinctly, is a philosophy/movement advocating the abolition of social hierarchy and coercive authority in favor of individual freedom and voluntary cooperation.

Communism is a form of society without classes and without a state, characterized by common ownership of productive capital, the abolition of money, and the predominance of a gift economy all based on a social ethic of reciprocity and mutual aid.

So Anarcho-Communists favor a society without social hierarchy, rooted in individual freedom and voluntary cooperation, characterized by common ownership of productive capital, the absence of money, and the predominance of a gift economy. Basically, anarcho-communists seek to bring about the freest possible form of human society.

[PhoenixAsh]

Anarcho-communism is the synthesis of Anarchism and communism. An-archy, means without rulers. So Anarchism, most succinctly, is a philosophy/movement advocating the abolition of social hierarchy and coercive authority in favor of individual freedom and voluntary cooperation.

Communism is a form of society without classes and without a state, characterized by common ownership of productive capital, the abolition of money, and the predominance of a gift economy all based on a social ethic of reciprocity and mutual aid.

So Anarcho-Communists favor a society without social hierarchy, rooted in individual freedom and voluntary cooperation, characterized by common ownership of productive capital, the absence of money, and the predominance of a gift economy. Basically, anarcho-communists seek to bring about the freest possible form of human society.


^^ this is the best answer yet. Although you forgot that the basis for ancom's is also mutual aid.

Thanx!

[Illegalitarian]

Read Kropotkin, then read Marx. Then it becomes clear.

[ThatGuy]

I have a question related to anarcho-communism and didn't want to open a new thread for it.

As I understand, some people(not sure if anarcho-communists or plain communists, because I have talked with people who described themselves as communists who believed that the state should persist indefinitely) wish to increase the power of the state to dictate how everything in society works, and when things work like they're supposed to, the state lets go. Now in this scenario, what happens when things stop going according to plan? Does the state come back, or does society spontaneously interject? Is this even a political belief or did I get it wrong?

[argeiphontes]

You're probably thinking of Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a transitional stage between capitalism and full communism when things will be established. Then the state is supposed to dissolve or abolish itself or whatever. Anarchists are skeptical of this for obvious reasons, that power tends to multiply itself and not dissolve.

An anarchist society isn't just free-form chaos. As long as institutions are democratic and freely constituted by the participants, they are anarchic. If they are imposed from the outside, they are archic. (Which is why I'm skeptical of any claims of 'society' or 'community' against the individual, but that's another thread as well.)

In any case, it's still possible to have organization and engage in rule enforcement in an anarchist society, among those who freely participate and agree to abide by these rules or plans.

[ThatGuy]

An anarchist society isn't just free-form chaos. As long as institutions are democratic and freely constituted by the participants, they are anarchic. If they are imposed from the outside, they are archic. (Which is why I'm skeptical of any claims of 'society' or 'community' against the individual, but that's another thread as well.)

If institutions are imposed I completely agree they are archic, but I don't think that democratic organization is really necessary for institutions to be anarchic. As I see it, rulers are people who coerce you into obeying them and that can happen in any form of organization, democratic, oligarchic and monarchic.


In any case, it's still possible to have organization and engage in rule enforcement in an anarchist society, among those who freely participate and agree to abide by these rules or plans.

Well, but what happens when somebody doesn't agree with the rules? If someone stabs you, and doesn't agree, that stabbing is wrong, what then? Unfortunately, I believe that some rules must be forced even on those that don't agree with them.

[argeiphontes]

If institutions are imposed I completely agree they are archic, but I don't think that democratic organization is really necessary for institutions to be anarchic. As I see it, rulers are people who coerce you into obeying them and that can happen in any form of organization, democratic, oligarchic and monarchic.


Yeah, I agree.



Well, but what happens when somebody doesn't agree with the rules? If someone stabs you, and doesn't agree, that stabbing is wrong, what then? Unfortunately, I believe that some rules must be forced even on those that don't agree with them.

I don't know. Today I'm just a market socialist not a mutualist so today I agree. ;) In the stabbing case, though, you have an absolute right to defend yourself, that's not imposing on anybody. Somebody is trying to take your life, the ultimate limitation of your freedom, so you have every right to stop them.

In general, I think the idea is that if you voluntarily join a society, you are agreeing to its rules but expecting to participate in the benefits and protections it affords. You can not participate, of course, but then shouldn't expect any of the benefits of the mutual association.