Anarachism vs Communism

[DS930]

What are the main differences between the two?

[Morpheus]

The two philosophies overlap. Anarchism is the belief in the abolition of hierarchical authority. Communism is the belief in a moneyless society organized along the lines "from each according to ability, to each according to need." Some anarchists, like me, are also communists - wer'e called anarcho-communists. We want a non-hierarchical society without money organized along the lines "from each according to ability, to each according to need." Non-communist anarchists want a different kind of non-hierarchical society (for example, some want to keep money around). Non-anarchist communists want to keep some form of hierarchy - usually the state - although some claim the state would eventually "wither away". Some also want to have a long transition period in which money, wage slavery and other nasty things are kept around until an eventually transition to communism. The most popular form of non-anarchism communism, leninism, claims that the revolution must first establish a dictatorship which will gradually transition society into communism, and that once this is done that dictatorship will gradually "wither away." Anarchists, on the other hand, are opposed to seizing state power on the grounds that the state is bad no matter who controls it and that power will corrupt whoever controls it. Revolutionary anarchists argue that the revolution should abolish the state as well as capitalism and, for anarcho-communists, immediately transition to communism without a long transition period (for non-communist anarchists we would quickly transition to some non-communist form of anarchism).

[ComradeChris]

There's so many forms of Anarchism, and so many different forms of Communism, and there are still many more ideologies that fall under those two terms; even more than what Morpheus listed, but he did a good job summing up some of the most common ones. The most common form of communism seems to be Marxism. The transition stage would slowly ween the masses from the materialistic lifestyle and I personally don't feel it is as bad as, lets say, a credit system (which is essentially what money is) that I have been told would likely be in place in an Anarchist society. This would allow for a greater participation in a society that essentially has the same leftist result. But seeing both have the same end result I'm now pretty open to both, or an amalgamation of the both: hence Anarcho-Syndiclist Communes. I personally like the idea of Rural communism, feeling that industry is a luxury that leads to material posessions through the mass production of them.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Most Social-Anarchists do not want to have a "creditsystem" of some sort. Most want money to be abolished and "From Each According to His Ability. To Each According to His Need" in place. Destruction of Capital, Church and State is deemed necessary.

[Livetrueordie]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33156

[Abstrakt]

I was wondering the same thing. Thank you.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 9 2005, 12:52 PM
Most Social-Anarchists do not want to have a "creditsystem" of some sort. Most want money to be abolished and "From Each According to His Ability. To Each According to His Need" in place. Destruction of Capital, Church and State is deemed necessary.
Maybe credit system is the wrong term. Here, it's better I just post the link as to what I'm referring too:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=29512&st=60 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=29512&st=60)

It just seems like some sort of credit system. Not that there's anything wrong with that so long as everyone has equal credits.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:14 AM
What are the main differences between the two?
Anarchists believe that the class antagonisms will dissaper when the state dissapers (right?).

Communists believe that the state will dissaper when class antagonisms dissaper.

Anarchists want the workers to "smash the state" and set up a stateless society almost "overnight" compared to the Communist method. Anarchism would be the most libertarian of the Socialist ideologies.


Communists on the otherhand, want the workers to seize control of the state and bring about the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Since the state is a tool of class oppression, Communists (like me!) reason that the working class can use the state to oppress the former ruling class, the burgeoise, until that class dissapers, making one class, or in sense, no classes. In effect, making the state unessecary and no longer needed.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Feb 10 2005, 02:58 AM--> (ComradeChris @ Feb 10 2005, 02:58 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 9 2005, 12:52 PM
Most Social-Anarchists do not want to have a "creditsystem" of some sort. Most want money to be abolished and "From Each According to His Ability. To Each According to His Need" in place. Destruction of Capital, Church and State is deemed necessary.
Maybe credit system is the wrong term. Here, it's better I just post the link as to what I'm referring too:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=29512&st=60 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=29512&st=60)

It just seems like some sort of credit system. Not that there's anything wrong with that so long as everyone has equal credits. [/b]
I don't understand exactly to what you want me to look. But I am guessing this "creditsystem" of you is: parecon?

Equally distributing wealth, thus credits is useless, since not everyone's need is the same. And it really undermines "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." Even though this forms an essential of Communist society.

Furthermore, it creates the need for a massive bureacratic system. Pretty useless.

[prettyred]

surely sum communists dont want to keep states. Thats the whole idea isnt it.

[Domingo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:16 PM
surely sum communists dont want to keep states. Thats the whole idea isnt it.
Some what, different Communist have different perspectives. I guess that's part of the idea.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:16 PM
surely sum communists dont want to keep states. Thats the whole idea isnt it.
Indeed! Many "Left-Communists," "Libertarian Marxists," "Council Communists," and so on believe that Working-Class authority is best exercized directly and democraticly through workers councils co-ordinating through larger federations, rather than by a "state" as commonly understood. :)

[prettyred]

cool cheers, would marxists believe in dictation of the working class or again is it seperate groups.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:44 PM
cool cheers, would marxists believe in dictation of the working class or again is it seperate groups.
Really depends how to you interpret the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", to me, it means direct rule of the working class like in Council Communism.

Leninists, Maoists and Stalinists believe it means A dictatorship "in the name of the proletariat.".

[prettyred]

so believers in the state

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:57 PM
so believers in the state
The shorthand is "jerk-wad-red-fascists". :P

(Kidding. Really.)

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+Feb 10 2005, 11:56 AM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ Feb 10 2005, 11:56 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:58 AM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 9 2005, 12:52 PM
Most Social-Anarchists do not want to have a "creditsystem" of some sort. Most want money to be abolished and "From Each According to His Ability. To Each According to His Need" in place. Destruction of Capital, Church and State is deemed necessary.
Maybe credit system is the wrong term. Here, it's better I just post the link as to what I'm referring too:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=29512&st=60 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=29512&st=60)

It just seems like some sort of credit system. Not that there's anything wrong with that so long as everyone has equal credits.
I don't understand exactly to what you want me to look. But I am guessing this "creditsystem" of you is: parecon?

Equally distributing wealth, thus credits is useless, since not everyone's need is the same. And it really undermines "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." Even though this forms an essential of Communist society.

Furthermore, it creates the need for a massive bureacratic system. Pretty useless. [/b]
Well it's a swipe type card (sounds like a credit card :o ). I'm new to this ideology of Anarchism (although one of my professors pretty much described some history behind it in my French History class) and am only going on what other people tell me.

Look at what one of the Mods/Admins told me...I can't remember who it was now.

I still find it interesting that the "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need," is straight from the Bible (minus maybe translational changes).

And how does it create anymore bureaucracy than say redistributing goods?

Man I make way too many typos after being up for 32 hours :blink: .

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Because you need to register and process data on how much credit someone has used. Track, register all goods. Create a bureacratic force to do this. Control that bureacratic force, so that they don't abuse their power of distribution. Secure facilities where resources are stored to prevent theft.

Furthermore, I assume that there will be exceptions for special cases such as invalids etc. This all pounds in very heavy.

The bureacracy needed would be bigger then our present one. Because the capitalist-system is to a certain extent self-regulating and yours isn't. It would even require a central power, to regulate "fair" flow. Parecon is crap.

[Morpheus]

The bureacracy needed would be bigger then our present one

Not if you count the corporate hierarchy as a bureaucracy.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 11 2005, 05:07 PM
Because you need to register and process data on how much credit someone has used. Track, register all goods. Create a bureacratic force to do this. Control that bureacratic force, so that they don't abuse their power of distribution. Secure facilities where resources are stored to prevent theft.

Furthermore, I assume that there will be exceptions for special cases such as invalids etc. This all pounds in very heavy.

The bureacracy needed would be bigger then our present one. Because the capitalist-system is to a certain extent self-regulating and yours isn't. It would even require a central power, to regulate "fair" flow. Parecon is crap.
If it's all done by computers...give everyone an equal amount of credit then when they are approaching 0, give them a warning, and wen they hit 0 the card will close until new credits are redistributed...probably weekly. You're making up bureaucracy that doesn't need to be there. Now if you redistribute good...you need people to collect, people to sort, people to organize, people to redistribute, people to double check to make sure there's no corruption, people to handle errors upon dilivery, and probably more I can't think of right now. Most of that can't be done by machine because as you said, "to each according to [their] need," which of course what I would be aiming for as well. But there's no more bureaucracy in the "credit" system. You need people to set up and maintain the system, and that is about it.

[Iepilei]

This is the way I always saw it:

Anarchists simply want the eradication of the state and class antagonisms through means of "group-think." Everyone has to be on the same page and recognise the same notions in society before they can achieve their own form of "class conciousness." I think this idea is quaint, rather unrefined and idealistic.

Communists, which are socialists with international intents, want the unification of the world under a socialist system. Federations would be intact, however movement between them would be unrestricted. This would allow for historical-cultural identification. In time, it's stated, that the need for the state would slowly eradicate. However, with the technological progress we're making to expand ourselves to regions beyond this planet; I think the state shall always remain in some form.

As far as currency is concerned, I think many of you are getting "capital" and "currency" mixed up. Capital is the means which to produce, distribute, and exploit. Currency is merely a measure of trade. Personally, I think we should maintain a form of currency in the form of eTrading. All debit/credit, maintained by a series of computer systems all linked up to a central bank. Workers would be paid directly to their accounts, and the state would allocate a specific amount of "necessity credits" for each family unit based upon need.

That way, even if a person is working low hours, they are still given enough by the state to secure their necessities.

My theory of credit system is dual. I believe there should be "necessity credits" and "luxury credits." Luxury credits could be transferred to necessity credits, but not vice versa. Each worker should be able to set the ratio to which they earn their credits; for example for every 5 necessity credits earned, the next would be a luxury credit.

It sounds complicated, but in the way that we're progressing in the electronic sector it won't be too difficult in the near future.

[demonedge]

I've been toying with the idea of a credit based currency myself, the only problem being we don't get the pretty pictures on the money :D , I mean where are we gonna have the pictures of great revoloutionary heros (for those that think i'm serious, well i'm joking)? However your idea of a necessity/luxury system is ingenious. One problem with an electronic system with currency is , one could potentialy hack the system using various back entrances and depositing the credits to various "fake" accounts. Another would be defining what is necessary, or luxury, is not entertainment in some form a necessity?

[Iepilei]

Entertainment can be achieved through many means; the most basic of which is intrapersonal communication. Defining what is important and what isn't is not really too difficult.

If you can buy it at a grocery store in modern society, you should be able to get it with necessity credits. However, expanded living areas, more efficient automobiles (I like to stress the idea of mass-transit), and the like should be something that would require luxury credits.

It would take a bit, but it wouldn't be too difficult.

[ComradeChris]

I honestly think a system will work better without credits. And I've been thinking abuot the "luxery" aspect of the whole thing and how people could abuse it. To me the primary concern would be the environment. However, I would promote only hydrogen cars, and potentially hybrids that are solar powered (at least this would be my ideal). Therefore, it wouldn't matter how often people drove because hydrogen is abundant, solar cars are environmentally friendly. I was thinking about concerts too. And if you had the society divided into districts, only people from the district where the concert is, would be able to attend it. To avoid some people never being able to go to concerts, and some always going. Amusements parks would be free (obviously). The only thing that concerns me would be the amount of water being used in water parks...but hopefully water purification will be more efficient by the time a communist society has evolved. Other than that, I energy isn't a concern. I would opt for solar, wind and hydro over other forms of energy (although not completely opposed to them; the only setback to nuclear energy is the disposal). Those are a few of the major luxery issues that come to mind. Other than that, the essentials would obviously be dilivered upon necessitation.

[Iepilei]

Current technology they're looking into for nuclear reactors for jets is much more eco-friendly than the current. The half-life of the new material is only about 50 years, or so.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:17 AM
Current technology they're looking into for nuclear reactors for jets is much more eco-friendly than the current. The half-life of the new material is only about 50 years, or so.
Can't they use hydrogen for jets too? It's essentially rocket fuel. 2 parts Hydrogen +1 part Oxygen.

[Domingo]

Hydrogen could be used for jets if it were made stable for it. Current tech. can barely even do cars right now.

Jets travel fast and do alot more moving than cars. If the Hydrogen is unstable, it will be a bad day for the pilots.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:49 PM
Hydrogen could be used for jets if it were made stable for it. Current tech. can barely even do cars right now.

Jets travel fast and do alot more moving than cars. If the Hydrogen is unstable, it will be a bad day for the pilots.
I mean it's already in rockets, I don't see how the propeling of somewhat similar systems is that different. But regardless...it's not nuclear energy that is environmentally unfriendly, it's the disposal of it.