Anarchy And Comunism

[Ultra-Violence]

Seriosly i see no diff expect when it come time for revolution anarchist wanna go directly to a stateles society and us communist wanna go through socailsim first and then the state will wither away so why dont us communist and anarchist work together "UNTILL" revolution time.

and i am posting this becuase i have many anarchist freinds and they all call me a facist.


WHY CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG! :hammer:

[Clarksist]

The difference between Anarchism and Communism is mostly just the attitude.

Many Anarchists have a more individualistic ideal about a stateless society, while Communists have a more altruistic ideal about a stateless society. Anarcho-Communism is a combination of the two, and is NOT just Anarchism/Communism as many people would have you believe.

Most of the esoteric circles of Anarchists actually don't know the difference, as it really comes down to the attitude of post-state social organization.

Hope that helped out.

Oh, and if Anarchists call you a fascist, call them conformists for adopted a set in stone ideology.

[TheReadMenace]

From a lot of the anarchists and communists I've talked to, the major difference that I've seen is that anarchists don't agree with the vanguard party or seizing state power, whereas several communists adopt the vanguard party, and all support the seizure of state power.

*shrug*

Andrew

[workersunity]

I am also not willing to do all this work for a revolution, to not have a workers state, and on that is based on altruism, the individualistic approach of many anarchists is quite shallow and selfish, i am not willing to work with them on this issue, on other issues i am though, like current struggles against globalization, poverty, etc..., and i choose to have a scientific approach while the anarchists rely on their idealism and think it will just all go perfectly without much thought, if they call you a fascist they are really misguided, and dont understand communism, and are really dogmatic

[Ultra-Violence]

also about my anarchist freinds they think socialismmis slavery and that marx siad that one person has to be in power what i believe is that they mis-interpret dictatorship of the proletariat?

[bombeverything]

Anarchists are not willing to live under a workers state.

I, as a communist, am not willing to put my life on the line (and more importantly the lives of millions of others that will be on the line) to seize power, only to through it all away by not organizing into a new workers state.

Your right. We are not. We are simply uninterested in replacing one set of tryants with another.

[FleasTheLemur]

Bah. It's simple. Just give the anarchrists some land and let them run it with no interferene from the Socialist nation. A stateless state within the nation. Anarchists could get Arkansa and it could jokingly be called Anarakansa.

[Clarksist]

I, as a communist, am not willing to put my life on the line (and more importantly the lives of millions of others that will be on the line) to seize power, only to through it all away by not organizing into a new workers state.


I thought he was asking about the differences between an Anarchist society and a Communist society. Once Communism is stateless and classless, how does it differ from Anarchism?

At least that's how I interpreted it.

[bombeverything]

I thought he was asking about the differences between an Anarchist society and a Communist society. Once Communism is stateless and classless, how does it differ from Anarchism?

I believe you are right here. And then he/she was bascially arguing that we should all work together. I guess the question is then what they actually mean by working together. That is, to what extent should we put aside our differences.

[OleMarxco]

Let's get down with it ;)
First of all, Anarchism and Communism -IS- the same...and different at the same time. For example, it is presented differently, and has a differen process, but the goal will be more or less the same, except in "layout", perhaps.

F.eg an diehard Anarchist would say; "Let's revolute this society and end it's burgerouise up-building! We need to free ourselves from the state's oppression of us, if not their beurocratic boundaries."
Whereas a so-calledly 'pure' Communist would go like: "No, let's revolute for the better of the worker's. The state is not so important aslong as we throw off the capitalist's and their excessive properity, which the regular proletar will get!"

What you don't see from reading this is obvious; The result is the same, procedure is different.
Whereas a dogmatic Marxist - Communist - Would love nothing but go trough a transistionary period of Socialism, the Anarchists loathes it and want to get rid of it, sayin' it to be "State-Capitalism".

Now here's he's surely right; However, the Anarchist is wrong, because you can't just remove borders - and maybe the state - just right away, as the revolutionary land would have it's enemies...of reactionary, and a government is perhaps required to be in place to keep enemies in check, to guide the military. Or perhaps, guide themselves. Or atleast a state with workers. This part is utterly and unnessecarry detail's as far I'm concerned....

However, the Anarchist is right, but it's view of "self-independant communes withouth central leading" is compatible with the Communist, which is also right. As I said, the goal is alike....but how to get there? Another story. Myself - I am both. The struggle within us, and our movement - do not exist! :D

[Forward Union]

Anarchism - Statless Classless society

Communism - Statless Classless society

[Donnie]

Bah. It's simple. Just give the anarchrists some land and let them run it with no interferene from the Socialist nation. A stateless state within the nation. Anarchists could get Arkansa and it could jokingly be called Anarakansa.
That’s dangerously lifestyle anarchism and I don't touch Lifestyle anarchism with a ten foot barge pole.

Social Anarchism is an ideology for the oppressed mass's by giving us a bit of land and living on it while you all live in State Socialism is well...wrong. We want the emancipation of our class and where not about to go hoping off onto some Island and just get along with the people who want to go about the Anarchist way. By giving up most of the workers to go and live in a commune is not right and is contradictory to the ideology of social anarchism.

I'm going to work with my working class communities to build up resistance with the idea’s of Anarcho-communism.

[Noah]

If communists and anarchists, worked together and came to some sort of agreement they would be much more stronger, then there would be more chance of overthrowing capitalism?

[bombeverything]

Yes but we are concerned about what will happen after this stage. The issue of authority must be discussed before the revolution as we do not want a repeat of the past.

[closetcommie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 03:56 PM

I thought he was asking about the differences between an Anarchist society and a Communist society. Once Communism is stateless and classless, how does it differ from Anarchism?

I believe you are right here. And then he/she was bascially arguing that we should all work together. I guess the question is then what they actually mean by working together. That is, to what extent should we put aside our differences.

I believe you are right here. And then he/she was bascially arguing that we should all work together. I guess the question is then what they actually mean by working together. That is, to what extent should we put aside our differences.

New dude here. Isn't this a problem, though, with all left-leaning activism? That it's become so rigidly sectarian that it's impossible to impact society at large? Look at the situation here in the U.S. -- you have neo-cons, old-style conservatives, Jesus freaks, and libertarians all working together to project their similarities onto society through the republican party, while the Democrats refuse to work with anyone left of Howard Dean (and how left is he really?), and the true left is split up into a thousand splinters, each preaching the gospel of their minute differences.

We could accomplish a lot if we worked toward making society more socialist -- pushing it way from the fascist quagmire the US and Europe seemed hell-bent on moving toward -- but, I suspect we won't.

Socialism will succeed, eventually -- when the middle-classes of the US and Europe no longer exist d/t globalization. Instead of emerging through unity, the masses will drift toward the most charismatic figures that emerge out of desperation, and toward the groups they represent, and they won't give a damn about theory.

We could all get along and work together, but "being right" seems to the priority among the organized leftist groups that I'm aware of.

[Black Dagger]

Look at the situation here in the U.S. -- you have neo-cons, old-style conservatives, Jesus freaks, and libertarians all working together to project their similarities onto society through the republican party, while the Democrats refuse to work with anyone left of Howard Dean (and how left is he really?), and the true left is split up into a thousand splinters, each preaching the gospel of their minute differences.

Is your implication that meaningful steps towards revolution could occur if the 'left' was 'united' behin the Democrats?


We could accomplish a lot if we worked toward making society more socialist -- pushing it way from the fascist quagmire the US and Europe seemed hell-bent on moving toward -- but, I suspect we won't.

By supporting socialist parties and other bourgeois bureaucrats?
Trying to make a socialist society (via bourgeois election) does not 'make' progress towards communism 'easier', you're legitimisng a pro-capitalist, pro-state, anti-revolutionary process.

[closetcommie]

Is your implication that meaningful steps towards revolution could occur if the 'left' was 'united' behin the Democrats?

By supporting socialist parties and other bourgeois bureaucrats?
Trying to make a socialist society (via bourgeois election) does not 'make' progress towards communism 'easier', you're legitimisng a pro-capitalist, pro-state, anti-revolutionary process.

The Democrats are a lost cause, they are the GOP mini-me. Aside from that, there are two communist parties in the US, 2 or 3 socialist parties, a "green" party, etc. I haven't researched the anarchist movement here in the US, so I can't comment about that. But couldn't we accomplish something better, something actually socialist, more united -- than working solo in umpteen different directions? Some of these factions actually consider each other the enemy -- while capitalist society is the real enemy, or at least that's what I'd presume.

I'm not "inside" the movement right now, so I'm sure there's reason for some of the bad blood between similar groups -- but to me, that would seem to distract from the main goal -- but I could be wrong. Perhaps there could be 14 different socialist, communist, and anarchist revolutions all at once -- each simultaneously becoming victorious over capitalism and becoming the dominant socio-political movement.

I frankly don't know what could accomplish what. Perhaps you could enlighten me on your personal experience with communist success.

About me: I'm new here, and this is the first time I've bounced "communist" ideas around with other people. For the record, I abhor capitalism, and I do understand that communism will never be a successful "electorally." The money wouldn't allow it. My question was, perhaps a bit naive, out of my own personal interest -- I really don't know why many Marxist groups hate each other, and why they can't "all . . . just get along."

[Black Dagger]

But couldn't we accomplish something better, something actually socialist, more united -- than working solo in umpteen different directions? Some of these factions actually consider each other the enemy -- while capitalist society is the real enemy, or at least that's what I'd presume.

That's a problem though, not everyone wants a 'socialist' solution. I want a communist one! Which means the 'common ground' i share with socialists, social-democrats and other pro-capitalist 'leftists' is not that large. The same could be said for anarchist and marxist-leninist groups, except in the case of those two its' less about not sharing the same end-goal, and more about having vastly different opinions about how to get there.


My question was, perhaps a bit naive, out of my own personal interest -- I really don't know why many Marxist groups hate each other, and why they can't "all . . . just get along."

It's rarely that the 'many Marxist groups' 'hate' each other, and more that some marxist groups (predominantly marxist-leninist) hate anarchist groups and vice-versa, marxists and anarchists 'hate' reformists and pro-capitalists, social-democrats, socialists, and so forth.