Anarchism and Communism

[Y2A]

Anyone know what is the difference between these two terms??? An "ideal" communist society is stateless so by definition aren't Anarchism and Communism basically the same thing???

[Fidel Castro]

I think I am right in saying that the difference is that Communists believe that it is a progressive thing, a state that will come into being eventually.

Anarchists on the other hand believe in skipping all the gradual decline of control and state. They believe that we have the capacity to bring about an equil society now.

This is the general impression I got, don't be surprised if I am corrected though.

[BOZG]

Both see the classless, stateless society as the end goal and aim of struggles, it's the methods that differ. Both view the state as an institution used in a class society, for the suppression of one class by the other but communists believe that the state can be used, to some extent to create a classless society and afterwards that it will wither away. By proleterian control of the state, the bourgeoisie can be suppressed and crushed. The anarchists on the other hand, see the state as an oppressive structure (like communists) but they believe that the state can never wither away of itself and will always centralise power and authority into the hands of a few creating a new class and continuing on the class society.

[Don't Change Your Name]

An Anarchist rejects the idea of the state as a useful, efficient and nice thing.
A Communist thinks that the state isn't a good thing but claims that the only way to reach a fair society is through it.
..and that for some unexplainable reason it will suddenly dissapear, which is some kind of fairytale, but that goes away from what's been asked

[Saint-Just]

Anarchism is not necessarily socialist. And when it is it is not necessarily the same as communism, e.g. anarcho-syndicalism (society made up of trade unions) or anarcho-capitalism. The collectivist type of anarchism is the same as communism.

[SittingBull47]

I would anarchism is on a higher level of thinking than communism, but both require very liberal, like-minded people in order for them to work. Plus, isn't socialism mainly a transitive phase between a current system and communism? I always thought that socialism sort of leads into communism.

[Guest1]

There is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism. All Anarchism is Socialist in nature, because you cannot eliminate hierarchy while keeping Capitalism.

Some extreme "small government" Capitalists have attempted to co-opt the Anarchist cause, and tried to pass themselves off as defenders of individual freedom. They are as Anarchist as National Socialists are Socialist.

To quote Comrade James's Anarchism For Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421) thread:

Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation. Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism," pp. 30-34, Man!, M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]

(It must stressed that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" and so on.).

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker, along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and Anarchism," "so long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time." [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [Lance Klafta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34]

However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism" almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals.

[Morpheus]

Che Y Marijuana is right, anarchists are socialists. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, like anarcho-fascism. Some anarchists are also communists (like myself), others are not. All anarchists believe in the abolition of hierarchy (not only the state, but also other forms of hierarchy like class, race & patriarchy) and reject the idea of using a transitional dictatorship to achieve a classless society. However, not all anarchists agree on what a society without hierarchy would look like. Communist-Anarchists believe in a non-hierarchical communist society, organized without money or markets along the lines of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." Not all anarchists advocate that system, not all want to abolish money. This is from my essay basic principles of anarchism (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html):


Economics
There have been many different economic systems envisioned by anarchists. These different visions are not necessarily incompatable with each other and could probably co-exist within the same society. The main ones are:

Mutualism In mutualism people would be either self-employed or part of a worker-controlled cooperative (individual cooperatives would be run by worker assemblies as described above). They would produce goods and trade them on a market. Although mutualism uses markets to coordinate production it is not capitalist because wage labor would be abolished. No one would sell their labor to others but would instead work in cooperatives or for themselves.

Collectivism In Collectivism markets would be abolished. Instead of using markets to coordinate production they would set up workers councils, as described above, to coordinate production. Each workplace would be run by it's own worker assembly and each assembly would federate with other workplace assemblies in the area, forming a local workers council. The workers councils would federate with each other (forming more councils) as needed on many levels. Money would be kept and people paid on the basis of how much they work. Most collectivists believe that collectivism would eventually evolve into a gift economy.

Participatory Economics Also called Parecon. This is similar to collectivism; the biggest difference is that there are consumer assemblies in addition to worker assemblies. The underlying values parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main institutions to attain these ends are council self management, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning. Consumers and workers directly democratically and cooperatively negotiate their production and consumption on an individual basis and via worker and consumer councils and federations of councils. Balanced job complexes share quality of work and empowering work equitably throughout the workplace and the entire economy. Workers are remunerated for effort and sacrifice, so in tandem with balanced job complexes consumption bundles are roughly equal, with minor discrepancies due to people's chosen working hours and intensity.

Gift Economy Also called anarcho-communism or libertarian communism. A gift economy would abolish money and trading all together. Production and distribution would be done purely on the basis of need through a confederation of free communes. The economy would be organized along the lines of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." The "communism" in anarcho-communism has nothing to do with the countries which some erroneously call "Communist" (USSR, China, etc.). None of those countries actually claimed to be communist; they claimed to be in a transition to communism. Anarcho-communists opposed these dictatorships from the very beginning and have participated in many rebellions against them. Anarcho-communists would do away with money, central planning and the state - all of which were present in the USSR, China, etc.

Primitivism Primitivists would abolish industry, civilization and most forms of technology. Instead anarcho-primitivists advocate a low-tech green society. This would be either an agrarian or hunter-gatherer society. Primitivists are split on the question of agriculture: some want to do away with it all together and others would keep some forms of primitive agriculture.

There are also non-anarchist communists. They believe a transitional dictatorship is necessary to achieve communism and/or believe that some hierarchies should not be abolished. This differs from Communist-Anarchists in that we reject transitional dictatorships and call for the abolition of all hierarchy. There are also many different types of non-anarchist Communism: orthodox Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, and others

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:10 PM
Both view the state as an institution used in a class society, for the suppression of one class by the other but communists believe that the state can be used, to some extent to create a classless society and afterwards that it will wither away. By proleterian control of the state, the bourgeoisie can be suppressed and crushed. The anarchists on the other hand, see the state as an oppressive structure (like communists) but they believe that the state can never wither away of itself and will always centralise power and authority into the hands of a few creating a new class and continuing on the class society.
The state and workers liberation contradict each other on a fundamental way. Something which Marx and Lenin seem to have over looked. The state can not wither away because the very nature of a state is to perpetrate itself. Just like HIV. It is designed to perpetrate its own existence. The design and structure of a state is so it can maintain itself and allow a ruling class to remain in power. This will happen regardless of who is in power of it and the only way to get rid of it is to smash it entirly.

Leninists argue that the state will loose function but that can not happen, because in order for the revolution to survive the state has to maintain itself and as was seen in ever Leninist country the state had to expand in order for that to happen. It's a huge contradiction that just leads to tyranny and eventaully capitalism. The state is like a frizbee. It starts of somewhere then you move and change it and throw it around, but eventually it always finds its way back. You simply can not achieve workers liberation through a state. It is materially impossible and anyone who thinks it is living in a fantasy world.

[Saint-Just]

There is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism. All Anarchism is Socialist in nature, because you cannot eliminate hierarchy while keeping Capitalism.

You may have some kind of heirarchical structure in terms of workers and heir bosses, however capitalism can exist without the state. Most anarchism is socialist in nature since if one sees the state as oppressive they are likely to see capitalism as oppressive. However, some capitalists see the state as restrictive on the free market in whataver role the state plays.

There are very few anarcho-capitalists, it is hardly worth mentioning I suppose. In which case there is no notable difference between any anarchist society and a communist society.

[Hoppe]

However, some capitalists see the state as restrictive on the free market in whataver role the state plays.

No, the anarcho-capitalist sees the state as an oppressor of the individual, not of the free-market.


There are very few anarcho-capitalists, it is hardly worth mentioning I suppose

Ah, not really. Most of them, like myself, are in disguise because it's logical to denounce the state entirely but have problems with the difficulties that may arise in practice in an anarchy.

[Hiero]

So you anarcho-capitalist Hoppe

[Hoppe]

No, I am an anarcho-pluralist. Different societies should exist next to eachother based on freedom of association.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:52 AM
No, the anarcho-capitalist sees the state as

Ah, not really. Most of them, like myself, are in disguise because it's logical to denounce the state entirely but have problems with the difficulties that may arise in practice in an anarchy.

No, the anarcho-capitalist sees the state as an oppressor of the individual, not of the free-market.

I was considering writing, the individual, however I thought that this is not the case. I stand by that. Oppression of the individual is essentially intervention into the free market since for a free market to exist the individual must have complete freedom. The free market is the model of society that facilitates freedom.


Ah, not really. Most of them, like myself, are in disguise because it's logical to denounce the state entirely but have problems with the difficulties that may arise in practice in an anarchy.

Do you mean its not logical to denounce the state entirely.

[Hoppe]

I was considering writing, the individual, however I thought that this is not the case. I stand by that. Oppression of the individual is essentially intervention into the free market since for a free market to exist the individual must have complete freedom. The free market is the model of society that facilitates freedom.

Ok. But the anarcho-capitalists aren't primarily interested in the economic side of the medal.


Do you mean its not logical to denounce the state entirely

Yes and no. It's logical to denounce the state entirely based on the underlying premisses (from a libertarian point of view), but from a practical point of view it's difficult to see the total absence of a state (in the minarchist point of view). That's why anarcho-pluralism. An individual is free to live in the society that suits him best, whether this one is communist, stalinist, social-democratic or minarchist.

[Guest1]

Minimalist government Capitalists already stole the term Libertarian, not gonna be part of the usurption of Anarchism too.

There is no Anarcho-Capitalism, because in order for the market to exist, there have to be laws to protect the ownership of the means of production by the elite.

It is hierarchy. Not Anarchy. There are "Libertarian Capitalists", but there simply are no "Anarcho-Capitalists".

[Som]

You may have some kind of heirarchical structure in terms of workers and heir bosses, however capitalism can exist without the state. Most anarchism is socialist in nature since if one sees the state as oppressive they are likely to see capitalism as oppressive. However, some capitalists see the state as restrictive on the free market in whataver role the state plays.

Anarchism is not just against the state, its against all authority. So while the anarcho-capitalists might be just as against the state as anyone, they are not anarchists.

Not in any accurate use of the word anyway, in the whole ideological sense of it.

Anarchists are just really protective of their words, theyre stubborn enough to use a word most people associate it with chaos, and damn well a pain to have those guys mucking things up even more.

[Morpheus]

capitalism can exist without the state.

No it can't. You need a state to enforce property rights. The visions of so-called "anarcho"capitalists don't really abolish the state, they just privatize it. Privately owned states ("private protection agencies") would enforce property rights. I would go further and argue no form of class society is possible without a state, because otherwise there is nothing to stop the poor from expropriating the rich.

[Guest1]

Anarchists are just really protective of their words, theyre stubborn enough to use a word most people associate it with chaos

Actually, the word Democracy held just as much of an association with chaos back when that was a radical idea. The word Anarchy only holds that meaning because of the political connotations involved.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:09 PM
Anarchism is not just against the state, its against all authority.
How do you actually define authority? Grabbing your child and pulling them away from a moving vehicle is authority? Killing a Nazi or a capitalist is authority? The will of a majority is authority?

Some forms of authority are justifiable. In the case of people who enjoy to murder young children. There is nothing to prove, unless this kind of thing is a by product of capitalism that it will not happen in an anarchist society. Assume that it would, how do you stop it. Is it or is it not justifiable to assert the authority of a collective over this individual, to stop them from commiting the act of murdering a child. Regardless of ideology or theory to stop a person from murdering a child is morally righteous.

Authority of a state or of capitalism however are unjustifiable and any such form of authority should be dismantled. To simply reject all forms of authority, or at least the possibility of, is an idealistic whim. Some forms of domination are justifiable and even necessary.

[Guest1]

It rejects hierarchy, and the authority of elites and capital. It rejects the authority that is forced upon us at birth: too young to smoke that, you're male and you like women, cut that hair young man, get off that hemp, why don't you find a nice white girl instead?

That's the kind of authority it stands against. Not the authority of the collective, when they kick you out of town cause you've been driving wage-slaves or beating your wife.

[Som]

Authority of a state or of capitalism however are unjustifiable and any such form of authority should be dismantled.

That is what I meant by authority, generally how its written by a lot of the anarchist thinkers too.

We can't be perfectly accurate in everything we say everytime all the time.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:39 PM

We can't be perfectly accurate in everything we say everytime all the time.
I can...

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:23 AM


Yes and no. It's logical to denounce the state entirely based on the underlying premisses (from a libertarian point of view), but from a practical point of view it's difficult to see the total absence of a state (in the minarchist point of view). That's why anarcho-pluralism. An individual is free to live in the society that suits him best, whether this one is communist, stalinist, social-democratic or minarchist.

Ok. But the anarcho-capitalists aren't primarily interested in the economic side of the medal.

Yes, you are right. When I was thinking about it I thought that a totally free market negates prescribes the absence of any state structure. Since the state provides things, law, military or anything it is intervening in the market. And freedom is not about freedom of the individual to an anarcho-capitalist, an individual is free if the market is entirely free and he is oppressed if the market is not free. Anyway, I see your point.


It's logical to denounce the state entirely based on the underlying premisses (from a libertarian point of view), but from a practical point of view it's difficult to see the total absence of a state (in the minarchist point of view). That's why anarcho-pluralism. An individual is free to live in the society that suits him best, whether this one is communist, stalinist, social-democratic or minarchist.

This would mean individuals choosing which society to live in. Practically, it would be difficult to have two kinds of societies in one nation. I think the most extreme capitalists see that a state must provide law, currency and defence (and something else which I forget), so most don't go to the lengths of asking that the state disappear entirely.

[Hoppe]

Practically, it would be difficult to have two kinds of societies in one nation.

I think it is a much easier solution. Any honest libertarian cannot deny individuals on this board to start their own workers paradise. On the other hand most capitalists don't want to be executed during a revolution or be forced to do something against there own will.


I think the most extreme capitalists see that a state must provide law, currency and defence (and something else which I forget), so most don't go to the lengths of asking that the state disappear entirely.

Certainly not a currency. But law, police and defence.

But from a practical point of view the minimal-state proponents and certainly the objectivists, have to answer the question how they are going to make sure people are not going to start asking favours from the governments, as US history so clearly has showed. Similarly you have to answer how to make sure a revolution doesn't end in something worse.

Maybe you have to start something like the libertarian free state project in New Hampshire only then for your lot. Progression is much easier with willing individuals.

[Saint-Just]

Its not to my liking as a Marxist-Leninist, but interesting ideas anyway. A lot of movements are made up of people who want to impose their will on many people. Everyone would have to hold some values in common so that they did not come into conflict in the world that you describe.