Anarcho-Communism vs. Communism

[Winter]

I read the definition of Anarcho-Communism and it seems exactly like normal Communism. What exactly is the difference? Are they just two labels that mean the same thing?
~ Winter

[violencia.Proletariat]

Anarchist communists want communism, they just feel anarchism is the way to get there. As opposed to many marxists (while not all) who feel we need to use the state to help us with the transition.

[Goatse]

Although the final stage would be the same.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:22 PM
Although the final stage would be the same.
Communism doesn't really apply any specific process. Anarchist-Communism does. so does marxism etc.

There's not really any difference between the two, although a lot of people who call themselves communist are Marxists, and agree with a socialist transition.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:40 PM
Anarchist communists want communism, they just feel anarchism is the way to get there. As opposed to many marxists (while not all) who feel we need to use the state to help us with the transition.
All Marxists know that the state will be involved in the transition to communism (ie socialism). The state is a product of class struggle, nothing more and nothing less.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Mar 6 2006, 02:54 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Mar 6 2006, 02:54 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 05:40 PM
Anarchist communists want communism, they just feel anarchism is the way to get there. As opposed to many marxists (while not all) who feel we need to use the state to help us with the transition.
All Marxists know that the state will be involved in the transition to communism (ie socialism). The state is a product of class struggle, nothing more and nothing less. [/b]
Not necessarily. Some people wouldnt consider a "Paris commune" governemnt, a state.

[Winter]

Very helpful, thank you my friends.
~ Winter

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:16 PM
Not necessarily. Some people wouldnt consider a "Paris commune" governemnt, a state.
Then those people are wrong. The Paris Commune had an elected state. It was a relatively democratic and open, though by no means socialist, state structure.

Try and divorce the concept of Leninist dictatorships with that of the state. The state is the government, the courts, the military... everything required to maintain the social infrastructure. It may take many forms but will exist as long as there are conflicting classes.

As with everything else the state in socialism depends heavily on the material conditions of society. The revolution in Russia, which took place in generally hostile and backward conditions, required a powerful centralised government merely to survive. Its very unlikely that a similar state will be required in the West.

[enigma2517]

Try and divorce the concept of Leninist dictatorships with that of the state.

Ok, I normally don't agree with that but for now you have my suspension of disbelief.


The state is the government, the courts, the military... everything required to maintain the social infrastructure.

It seems this is where most of the argument occurs...semanitcs!

What is THE STATE?

It seems that topless anarchist federations could grow to resemble something of that nature.

Hierarchy seems to be the issue. How would these courts and armies be organized? If they are run by a small elite as they are today, then no thank you. On the other hand, could something like worker's militias be considered a "military"?

Basically, when I think of state I think of permanent, non-democratic hierarchy.

It's easy to see why libertarian marxists and anarchists are often divorced because they see the State as two different things, when really, a highly transparent apperatus with elected, mandated, and recallable positions could really apply to both.

There still key differences I'm sure, but I think its important to actually define state before we start debating it. I've seen it happen way too many times on here already, people just arguing over a concept they haven't even agreed on yet.

As long as we stay away from democratic centralism, we's good :)

[violencia.Proletariat]

though by no means socialist, state structure.

:( Tell that to Marx


The state is the government, the courts, the military... everything required to maintain the social infrastructure. It may take many forms but will exist as long as there are conflicting classes.

I know what the state is and I disagree with you.

[Punk Rocker]

I'm tired of this shit, we need to unite if we're going to win the revolution.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Punk [email protected] 7 2006, 09:38 PM
I'm tired of this shit, we need to unite if we're going to win the revolution.
It's hard to unite when you want TWO SEPERATE THINGS. Since we havent had a succesful revolution, I cant say for sure whether we will need a Paris commune style government. If thats the case then I'm fine with that, as long as independent groups can closely monitor the bureacracy at all times. But I dont feel a state is necessary and I feel the commune style government is one of least oppressive ones in history, some dont even feel it was a state.

[Everyday Anarchy]

In a country such as the United States, I propose something like this:

We unite to win the revolution. Now we can seperate the country into regions.
Northern Region can be given to the Marxists who wish for socialism.
Southern Region can be given to the Anarchists who wish for freedom.
etc, etc.


Only problems I can see with this are
a) 'imperialism' - one region uses force to take over the others
b) one region may refuse to trade with the others

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 12:10 AM
:( Tell that to Marx


After twenty odd years of agitating and pushing his theories I can well imagine that Marx was extremely relieved when the Commune appeared to show that he was on the right track. Given the circumstances I think he can be forgiven for glossing over the more liberal elements of the Commune to emphasise its progressive nature.


I know what the state is and I disagree with you.
You know what the state is and yet you contend that the Commune did not possess one? Or do you disagree with Marx on the nature of the state?