What is the difference between 'Collective Anarchism' and 'Anarcho-Communism'?

[FieldHound]

I understand that collective anarchists often propose some form of currency to compensate workers based on time spent working etc and anarcho-communism complies with 'to each according to his need', but this is as much as I can make sense of, and I don't understand how their concepts of ownership/property differ.

[Zoroaster]

Anarcho collectivists and communists both believe in a form of democratic worker's control of the means of production. However, I believe that anarcho-communists are more focused on community control (I'm not sure, I read "The Comquest of Bread" a while back, and I don't remember much).

[Tim Cornelis]

I would say there is no difference. Collectivist anarchism is the name of anarcho-communism during the First International. They both advocate a moneyless, stateless, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production.

Some believe there is a difference between these supposed ideologies in that anarcho-collectivists advocate labour vouchers while anarcho-communists do not, but this isn't true. Anarcho-communists, like the writers of 'the Platform', argued "The main focus in the construction of the anarchist society does not consist of guaranteeing every individual, right from day one of the revolution, boundless freedom to seek satisfaction of their needs, but in the conquest of the social basis for that society and in establishing the principles of relations between people. The question of the greater or lesser abundance of resources is not a matter of principle but a technical issue."

And similarly, 'anarcho-collectivists' like James Guillaume (whom expanded on Bakunin's ideas) wrote "The problem of property having been resolved, and there being no capitalists placing a tax on the labor of the masses, the question of types of distribution and remuneration become secondary. We should to the greatest possible extent institute and be guided by the principle From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste. In the meantime, each community will decide for itself during the transition period the method they deem best for the distribution of the products of associated labor."

So there is no actual difference between these supposed ideologies. It would also be weird to argue they are two different ideologies purely on the basis of remuneration. Saying collectivist anarchism is not anarcho-communism also suggests that the less advanced or first phase of communism is not communism.

[tuwix]

I understand that collective anarchists often propose some form of currency to compensate workers based on time spent working etc and anarcho-communism complies with 'to each according to his need', but this is as much as I can make sense of, and I don't understand how their concepts of ownership/property differ.

Invented by Bakunin anarcho-collectivism assumes that after a revolution, there are money. It's just what Marx called first phase of socialism although Bakunin and Marx were arguing about role of state there. But anarcho-communism assumes immediate abolition of money. That's the difference IMHO.