What Is Communism?

[Sonnie]

http://www.che-lives.com/home/modules.php?...article&sid=210 (http://www.che-lives.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=210)

After reading this artical, I'm a bit confused. It tells me that communism is a society with no class, no leaders or boss.

Would that not be anarchy?

[Sentinel]

To make a long story very short, communism is indeed a classless and stateless society. Anarchism is characterised by an ambition to build that kind of a society without the socialist transition Marxist-Leninists and other groups, traditionally more associated with the label 'communist', believe is necessary. But the end goal is the same, yes.

[anti-authoritarian]

In a nutshell

Communism: Capitalism > Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Socialism) > Stateless Society

Anarchism: Capitalism > Stateless Society

So Anarchism basically cuts the interim stage out of the picture. Please note this is a very simplistic view but it's the best way to describe it.

[( R )evolution]

As others have said, anarchism is pretty much communism but w/o the socialist transation but this is very simplicty answer. It is more indepth.

[Nemichka]

Hmmm... that is interesting, and now I'm confused!
So... anarchy and communism are similar, except that anarchy goes to basically a free society immediately, instead of having steps in between?
Can someone explain this in a little more detail?

[LSD]

Hmmm... that is interesting, and now I'm confused!
So... anarchy and communism are similar, except that anarchy goes to basically a free society immediately, instead of having steps in between?

Yes.

The difference between Marxism and anarchism is method, not ideology.

Both developed out of Marx's analysis of capitalism and economics and so both aim to create a state-less classless society, the disagreement is in how best to attain it.

Classical communists (Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists) believe that in order to achieve a communist society, a transitional "socialist" state is required first. This state will serve as an intermediate period durring which the society can transition to a more communal way of working, thinking, and operating.

Theoretically, this state is supposed to operate on the principle of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", meaning that, ideally, all workers, and eventually all people will participate in decision making in the transitional state. Unfortunately, every time this has been attempted this transitional state has been run by authoritarian party establishments that largely ignore the wishes of the general population.

Anarchism, by contrast, contends that a classless, stateless society can be created immediately following the revolution without the need for a transitional state. Anarchists do not claim that this change will be instantaneous but that while some adjustment time will no doubt be needed, our intention from the begining must the elimination of all coercive state and class institutions, not, as classical communists would propose, to use them for our purpose.

Anarchists believe that the institution of the state, ultimately, is reactionary in and of itself and cannot be used to further progressive means. It must, rather, be destroyed alltogether at the earliest possible time.

Within Anarchism are subsets such as Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Collectivism which generally agree on the final goal but disagree as to the best method of achieving it. Personally, I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist, but many on this board are Anarcho-Communists.

There are also various non-Marxist and even non-class-war strains of Anarchism, but those are aberrations and not a significant part of the mainstream Anarchist movement.

Generally Anarchists tend to agree with each other on all but minor issues and almost universally work with one another for common goals.

Marxism, and especialy Leninism, meanwhile has a much greater history of division, fractionalization, and even intersectional violence.

That's not to say that Anarachists can't be violent, but Leninism has far more blood on its hand. Again, that's largely because as a fundamentally statist ideology, it nescessitates the centralization of power and the crushing of dissent.

So while, at its core, the ideological difference between Anarchism and Marxism (Leninism) is one of method, the practical manifestation of that difference can be incredibly significant.

There's a reason, after all, that Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot all emerged from the Leninist school of Marxism. The fundamental danger of any centralizing power is that it rellies on the good intentions of those in the centre.

Anarchists aren't that trusting.

[JKP]

Anarchists do in fact advocate a transitionary period, albeit a stateless one using labor vouchers to transition into a full gift economy. I believe it was Bakunin that coined "collectivism" to describe the transition.

[working class revolutionary]

Marxists and Anarchists both have the same future vision, the end of the state. Anarchists see that future society being more in tune with the ultimate and necessary goal of any socialist movement, while Marxists see a transitional state and such as the necessary step, like others have said. Anarchists believe though, that the transitional socialist state would lead to just another group of leaders dictating the masses in the long run.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I think instead of steresing the differences between anarchism and marxism we should be focusing on the similaritys in an atempt to unify the left under on red flag. we must look at the past (spanish civil war) nad see the need for unity between trots, stalinist,M.l's and anarchist and form (as impossible as it seems) a mutual group of prople who want freedom!

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 07, 2007 11:06 am
I think instead of steresing the differences between anarchism and marxism we should be focusing on the similaritys in an atempt to unify the left under on red flag. we must look at the past (spanish civil war) nad see the need for unity between trots, stalinist,M.l's and anarchist and form (as impossible as it seems) a mutual group of prople who want freedom!
I agree, but this should result in a practical unity. Not ideological. I think it is good that there is some pluralism in the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I think in a time of revolution a political party is needed, but also a revolutionary army. A bit like Hezbollah (spelt right???). But this must be a united movement, maybe once coming to power giving the anarchist a few communities and communists a few as well???But NO INFIGHTING

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:35 pm
Both developed out of Marx's analysis of capitalism and economics and so both aim to create a state-less classless society, the disagreement is in how best to attain it.

Sort of.

Modern Anarchism became defined as a movement after Bakunin was kicked out of the 1st international for his objections to marx and what would be called marxism. "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself." - Bakunin. So they formed the International Workers Movement.

Despite how we may wish to talk of solidarity, and praise our similarities, the reality is that In every single manifestation of Anarchism (Libertarian communism) parallel to (Authoritarian) Communism, the two camps have fought tooth and nail against each other. And every time the Authoritarian communists take power, we, as a movement face obliteration, imprisonment, torture and execution.

The division now is based on more than a disagreement in method. It's based on the tradition of hostilities, and vast military engagements between the two movements.

That's not to say I support sectarianism today, if I did, I wouldn't be here. But if I were to find myself in the situation of the Kronstadt sailors, the Makhnovists, the Russian Syndicalists etc, I would not hesitate to fight back with the same determination as I do against capitalism. :angry:

[Patchd]

Aint been on here for long, anyways, I dont wanna start a new topic on this. But every time I read a political text which mentions "the state" quite frequently I get confused. Because I have always seen the state as say, the gov't, armed forces, bureaucracy etc... Can anyone tell me what the meaning of "the state" is please?

[LSD]

The simplest, and most common, definition of the state is simply, "an organized political community, occupying a territory, and possessing internal and external sovereignty, that enforces a monopoly on the use of force". In a more Marxist sense, a state is the body which is created by and which serves to perpetuate the rulling beneficiary of the subsistant class dynamic.

In really really simple terms, therefore, a state is nothing more than the institutional body which creates, maintains, and enforces power within a dilineated area.

So, for instance,"state" of the United State of America is not the landmass occupied by the American government but the American government itself.

It's the institutionalized government, the distinct set of "leaders" and "law-makers" who rule over the general population, that constitutes the "state". The rest of us are merely "subjects" therein.

State government, therefore, is a form of governance, specifically a highly hierarchical and elitist one. Similarly, democracy is a form of government, but one which does not rely upon such structural elites.

The reason that there cannot be a "communist state" is simply that communism is, by definition, a stateless society. That is, there is no political or economic community with an institutional monopoly on force. Rather that monopoly is dispersed to the entire society at large.

"Communist state" is a fundamental contradiction in language. It's like saying a "democratic dictatorship"; the terms are simply inherently dichotomous.

And while Marxists believe that stateless communism should be our goal, they see a transitional "socialist" state as the way to get there. Durring that "transitional" period, there will be, as you say, "gov't, armed forces, bureaucracy", and all the rest. They're just all supposed to work "for" the proletariat rather than against it.

Obviously that particular theory is yet to be realized and every time it's been attempted, we've gotten nothing but oppression and tyranny.

The simple explanation for that phenomenon is that regardless of who's running it, centralized power is always corrosive to democracy and freedom.

That's why, again, Anarchists oppose any state, no matter how "revolutionary" those who set it up may consider themselves.

[Patchd]

I knew the second part, but cheers for the explanation LSD ;)

[Nusocialist]

Both developed out of Marx's analysis of capitalism and economics and so both aim to create a state-less classless society, the disagreement is in how best to attain it.
This is not really correct anarchist critiques of capitalism and economics are not based really on Marx,they are based on the works of anarchist and socialist thinkers predating and/or living at the same time but independant of Marx and some later but really independant works.
Contrary to the claims of many Marxists and anti-socialists,Marx did not invent most of the theories and critiques of capitalism,certainly not the anarchists ones.

[Nusocialist]

In a nutshell

Communism: Capitalism > Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Socialism) > Stateless Society

Anarchism: Capitalism > Stateless Society

So Anarchism basically cuts the interim stage out of the picture. Please note this is a very simplistic view but it's the best way to describe it.
This is correct only to anarcho-communists and those anarcho-syndaclists and anarcho-collectivists who want to ultimately end up with communism,not all anarchists are communists or want to end up with communism.
Also there is alot more differences between marxists,at least the non-libertarian ones, and anarchists,revolving around individual liberty,authority and other stuff.

[ComradeR]

The only flaw in Anarchism is the fact that it basicly ignores the condition a nation well be in post-revolution. Let me see if i can explain it, the very nature of a revolution is the sudden (and often violent) overthrow of the old order, this destabilizes the country and creates a power vacuum that must be filled with a strong and disciplined force (a vanguard) in order to bring back stability and security to the country. The reason a vanguard is necessary durring the immediate post-revolution is because there are three major threats that will arise during this post-revolutionary period, the remnants of the old order that will attempt to crush the revolution, right-wing militias that will arise and attempt to seize power, and rampant crime. And unless there is a strong disciplined vanguard present to pacify these threats you will ether end up with a situation like the Paris Commune or like Somalia in the 90s.

But the problem Marxist-Leninists must answer is how do we keep a democratic counterweight to this centralization of political and economic power. Somewhere both Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists must come up with some sort of middle road in order to deal with these problems.

[Morpheus]

If we have a vanguard or any other sort of state after the revolution, it will just make itself a new ruling class as it did in the USSR, etc. There have been hundreds of attempts at creating states that aren't instruments of elite rule yet all have become forms of elite rule as predicted by anarchist theory. Violent counter-revolutionaries (right-wing militias or whatever) can be countered through the use of direct action, arming the people and/or fighting a guerilla war against them. As for crime, see http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci58

[ComradeR]

Violent counter-revolutionaries (right-wing militias or whatever) can be countered through the use of direct action, arming the people and/or fighting a guerilla war against them.

As i said before this would lead to ether a situation like the Paris Commune (in the case of the old regime coming in to crush the revolution) or like Somalia in the 90s (in the case of militias fighting militias). This is why a vanguard needs to be in place in order to defend the gains of the revolution from the violent counter-revolutionaries durring the immediate post-revolutionary period.
There is a reason that all the attempts at a Anarchist revolution have ether failed, or have been crushed after a short time.


As for crime, see http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci58

I was referring to looting etc that always follows the collapse of the old regime.


If we have a vanguard or any other sort of state after the revolution, it will just make itself a new ruling class as it did in the USSR, etc. There have been hundreds of attempts at creating states that aren't instruments of elite rule yet all have become forms of elite rule as predicted by anarchist theory.

This is true which is why there needs to be a democratic control over the state, which will actually be easier to maintain now in the information age.
The workers state itself is a necessary evil durring the immediate post-revolution in order to both stabilize and bring security back to the country.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:47 pm
As i said before this would lead to ether a situation like the Paris Commune (in the case of the old regime coming in to crush the revolution) or like Somalia in the 90s (in the case of militias fighting militias).
Why?

The Paris Commune was limited to a single city (and was neither anarchist nor Marxist), so its not a good example of the revolutionary scenario wer'e talking about. A vanguard would not have made a difference, because its very difficult for a single city to defeat the national government. If the majority of France had rebelled with the Commune then things may have been different, but the presence or absence of a vanguard was irrelevant to its defeat.

The war in Somalia was the result of an attempt to make a democratic state; a pro-democracy rebellion against a US-backed dictator. One of the main ways the dictatorship maintained power was by playing different groups against each other, once it was overthrown those groups went to war with one another. There was nothing even remotely resembling an anarchist or communist revolution. It's true that capitalists may attempt to start a civil war after the revolution - "militias fighting militias" - but that doesn't mean workers cannot prevail over the counter-revolutionary militias or that the civil war will last forever. State socialist revolutions frequently involved civil wars - "militias fighting militias" - but those did not last forever nor did the counter-revolutionaries automatically win (although sometimes they did). A civil war occuring in the wake of an anarchist revolution is no different.


There is a reason that all the attempts at a Anarchist revolution have ether failed, or have been crushed after a short time.

Yes, it's because wev'e been too trusting of authoritarian leftists. Look at the results:

Ukraine: Anarchist militiais sucessfully defeated multiple counter-revolutionary armies, disproving your claim that a vanguard is necessary to defeat them. Then the vanguard that ruled Russia, which the anarchists mistakenly allied with, stabbed them in the back by invading and suppressing the revolution. The anarchists' mistake? Allying with the bolsheviks.

Manchuria: Anarchist militias sucessfully liberate Shinmin province from the Japanese, but are stabbed in the back by their Soviet-backed Stalinist guerilla "allies." Again, anarchists made the mistake of allying with the authoritarian left.

Spain: Anarchists, allied with Socialists, defeat the fascist coup in 2/3rds of Spain and organize militias to fight against them in the remaining 1/3rd. The anarchists seek to forge a broad anti-fascist alliance and so ally themselves with the authoritarian left and help restore the state. The Communist party leads a charge to stregthen the state, reverse collectivizaion and other parts of the revolution and violently suppress dissidents, including the anarchist movement. This leads to a near-civil war within anti-fascist ranks and the demoralizaiton of the anti-fascist forces as the Stalinists seize power. Once against, anarchists made a mistake by allying with the authoritarian left and thereby allowing them to stab us in the back. Spain also further refutes your claim since the anti-fascists were winning the war in its early anarchist phase but lost once the vanguard took over.


I was referring to looting etc that always follows the collapse of the old regime.

Looting doesn't always follow the collapse of old regimes and when it does its often a good thing. Its redistribution of wealth from the ruling class to the lower class(es).


This is true which is why there needs to be a democratic control over the state

And how do you intend to achieve that?

[Janus]

Manchuria: Anarchist militias sucessfully liberate Shinmin province from the Japanese, but are stabbed in the back by their Soviet-backed Stalinist guerilla "allies."
Where is Shinmin province? In Manchuria, there are three provinces: Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning (formerly Fengtian).

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:13 pm
The only flaw in Anarchism is the fact that it basicly ignores the condition a nation well be in post-revolution. Let me see if i can explain it, the very nature of a revolution is the sudden (and often violent) overthrow of the old order, this destabilizes the country and creates a power vacuum that must be filled with a strong and disciplined force (a vanguard) in order to bring back stability and security to the country. The reason a vanguard is necessary durring the immediate post-revolution is because there are three major threats that will arise during this post-revolutionary period, the remnants of the old order that will attempt to crush the revolution, right-wing militias that will arise and attempt to seize power, and rampant crime. And unless there is a strong disciplined vanguard present to pacify these threats you will ether end up with a situation like the Paris Commune or like Somalia in the 90s.

But the problem Marxist-Leninists must answer is how do we keep a democratic counterweight to this centralization of political and economic power. Somewhere both Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists must come up with some sort of middle road in order to deal with these problems.
I understand completely your point about anarchism,our autonomous,libertarian organisation habits which cannot be changed without being unanarchist are a great hinderance in a revolution,but the centralisation of MLism makes any social revolution impossible,you cannot counterbalance it,no real other way except the very libertarian is likely to succeed, because as we anarchists realise the means used shape the ends.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:34 pm



The Paris Commune was limited to a single city (and was neither anarchist nor Marxist),
The Paris commune was mainly influenced and lead by anarchists of the mutualist variety I believe.

[rouchambeau]

It should be noted that communism and anarchism are not only about the creation of a stateless, classless society, but are also about restructuring human relations to create a human community and eliminate commodification.

The problem with saying that communism and anarchism are only about getting rid of classes and the state is that it still leaves room for the existence wage labor and exchange.

[apathy maybe]

I don't think it has been properly spelt out, so I'm going to reserect this thread so that I can attempt to spell it out.

Communism is a class-less state-less society, yes. Economically it is organised on the principle of communal ownership, i.e. everyone has "ownership" over all "property". Often the phrase "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is used, though often now it is not used.

Anarchism is a broad super-set of ideologies that are class-less and state-less. Hierarchy-less. Economically there are a variety of possibilities, including communism. Some anarchists put forward the idea of a "socialist market". Other differences include "how to get there" (LSD did mention this), in my opinion "lifestylism" has had as much success as "class war" has, though I still think that class war is more likely to create a successful anarchy.

The real question should be, the differences between Marxism and anarchist-communism. Both want communism as an end result, but have a different way to get there. This is the question which seems to have been answer above.