Difference?

[AGITprop]

So can someone please xplain to me the difference between anarchism and communism. I'm pretty sure that they are similar but people claim to be communists and not anarchists. Please xplain. im quite confused. Do anarchists believe in private property?

[spartan]

Ender:
So can someone please xplain to me the difference between anarchism and communism. I'm pretty sure that they are similar but people claim to be communists and not anarchists. Please xplain. im quite confused. Do anarchists believe in private property?
We Anarchists do not believe in private property! Where did you get that idea from? A simple difference between most Anarchists and Communists is that Anarchism is Libertarian in outlook (As oppossed to most forms of Communism and Marxism which are authoritarian in outlook. Though it should be noted that some forms of Communism are Libertarian in outlook like Anarchism) meaning it does not believe in foolish concepts such as the revolutionary party and vanguard which will lead the revolution and the society after the revolution. As history has shown that this concept of party and vanguard simply transforms itself into a new hierarchy/ruling class as once they are in power they are blinded by it and can not let go! To quote Mikhail Bakunin (Who was an Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist by the way) "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself.". And history proves good old Mikhail right on that. Being a Libertarian Anarchist/Communist/Socialist means that you believe in a global worldwide Proletariat revolution which will do away (And not preserve like authoritarians do) with all forms of Governments/hierarchies, money, nations, races (The concept/idea of) and Religions etc. Whilst authoritarians and the various Marxists believe in a strong centralized state and government which will gradually introduce Communism (Though history has shown that all attempts at this have so far failed as these so called "Socialist" states have simply transformed themselves into Fascist military dictatorships with a liking for civilian suffering).

[bootleg42]

Anarchist = revolution -----> the next day we wake up to classless, stateless society!!!

Communist = revolution -----> a period where the state is controlled by workers and a transition to socialism begins...........with time when socialism is achieved, the movement to the classless, stateless society begins----->then after the bourgeoisie is eliminated in time..........we get our classless stateless society.

OF COURSE it's not as simple as this^^^^ but I tried to more or less get you started.

[AGITprop]

kk i got it..but in rsponse to spartan..there is anarchist theory that does believe in private property...dont generalize all anarchists...

[spartan]

Anarchists who believe in private property are not true Anarchists as it is opposite the beliefs of real Anarchism! Indeed these "Anarchists" who believe in private property are probably just using the name of Anarchism as it sounds "cool".

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:41 pm
Anarchists who believe in private property are not true Anarchists as it is opposite the beliefs of real Anarchism! Indeed these "Anarchists" who believe in private property are probably just using the name of Anarchism as it sounds "cool".
definitely not...anarchism does not require the abolition of private property...anarchism requires the abolition of a sovereign or state. there is difference...no private property is communism....

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:23 am
Anarchist = revolution -----> the next day we wake up to classless, stateless society!!!

Communist = revolution -----> a period where the state is controlled by workers and a transition to socialism begins...........with time when socialism is achieved, the movement to the classless, stateless society begins----->then after the bourgeoisie is eliminated in time..........we get our classless stateless society.

OF COURSE it's not as simple as this^^^^ but I tried to more or less get you started.
Wow, thanks for painting us so simplistically, really appreciate that.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Ender+September 28, 2007 11:18 pm--> (Ender @ September 28, 2007 11:18 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 10:41 pm
Anarchists who believe in private property are not true Anarchists as it is opposite the beliefs of real Anarchism! Indeed these "Anarchists" who believe in private property are probably just using the name of Anarchism as it sounds "cool".
definitely not...anarchism does not require the abolition of private property...anarchism requires the abolition of a sovereign or state. there is difference...no private property is communism.... [/b]
That's horse shit.
Anarchism is more than just the abolishment of the state.
Anarchists advocate the abolishment of private property. Always have, always will.
Anarchism is as much about the abolishment of the state as it is about the abolishment of capitalism.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+September 28, 2007 01:23 pm--> (Tierra y Libertad @ September 28, 2007 01:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:18 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 10:41 pm
Anarchists who believe in private property are not true Anarchists as it is opposite the beliefs of real Anarchism! Indeed these "Anarchists" who believe in private property are probably just using the name of Anarchism as it sounds "cool".
definitely not...anarchism does not require the abolition of private property...anarchism requires the abolition of a sovereign or state. there is difference...no private property is communism....
That's horse shit.
Anarchism is more than just the abolishment of the state.
Anarchists advocate the abolishment of private property. Always have, always will.
Anarchism is as much about the abolishment of the state as it is about the abolishment of capitalism. [/b]
alright... sorry guys...dont hang me lol

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Communism and anarchism share basically the same attitude towards private property. They differ, however, in their attitude towards the state.

Anarchists believe that the state cannot be separated from a stratified class society. They argue that any class society will generate a state and that any state will generate a class society. Thus, anarchists believe that if we wish to abolish class differences and private property, it is necessary to abolish the state at the same time.

Communists only support the first part of the argument above. Yes, they believe that the state was generated by the existence of separate social classes, but they do not believe that the mere existence of a state is sufficient to inevitably generate new class antagonisms. Communists argue that the state is merely a tool for enforcing a certain social order - a tool that can be used by the working class just as well as it is currently used by the bourgeoisie. Therefore, communists are not in a hurry to abolish the state; they aim to do so eventually, but they believe that, in the mean time, we need a state in order to transform society from capitalism to socialism and in order to fight off external capitalist aggression.

Anarchists like to call the communist approach "authoritarian". I call it realistic.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:23 am
Communist = revolution -----> a period where the state is controlled by workers and a transition to socialism begins...........with time when socialism is achieved, the movement to the classless, stateless society begins----->then after the bourgeoisie is eliminated in time..........we get our classless stateless society.

That is more of a leninist revolution I would say, I am a marxist and don't belive in socialism as a transitionary period.

[Forward Union]

This question is, to my mind, impossible to answer, because the two arent meaningfully comparable. One is a process and the other is the end result.

The real distinction to be made is between Libertarian communism, which includes Anarchist-communism, Council Communism, Anarcho-syndicalism etc, and Authorotarian Communism (or state communism), which includes ideas such as leninism, stalinism and trotskyism.

One believes in the centralisation of power in the hands of a state that intends to operate in the interests of the workers. The other believes that economic, and social policy be decided by a federative system of free workers soviets.

Simple!

This idea that anarchists believe the revolution will be over in a day is nonsense. We fully recognise the long drawn out conflict that results, the need for military, prisons, etc. It simply proposes a different form of societal organisation, in which the workers, (not a workers party) has power.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 28, 2007 09:17 pm
The real distinction to be made is between Libertarian communism, which includes Anarchist-communism, Council Communism, Anarcho-syndicalism etc, and Authorotarian Communism (or state communism), which includes ideas such as leninism, stalinism and trotskyism.

It is really strange how often anarchists repeat that council communism is a form of 'Libertarian communism'. I have never heard a council communist describe it like that themselves.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:23 pm
It is really strange how often anarchists repeat that council communism is a form of 'Libertarian communism'. I have never heard a council communist describe it like that themselves.

Devrim
According to wikipedia;

"The core principle of council communism is that the government and the economy should be managed by workers' councils composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run "bureaucratic collectivism". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers' democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers' councils."

Democtaric control through a federation of workers councils, is exactly what I want, and I am an Anarchist! :lol:

Depending on semantics surrounding the term "government" I think council communism is one of those ideologies that could probably be catagoried in either. Depending on the individual council communist in question. Their preferance of decentralisation, democratic workers councils, and objection to a vanguard party definetly push them much closer to libertarianism that authorotarianism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 28, 2007 09:36 pm
According to wikipedia;

"The core principle of council communism is that the government and the economy should be managed by workers' councils composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run "bureaucratic collectivism". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers' democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers' councils."


I use Wiki a lot, but we have to recognise that it isn't 100% reliable. Not all council communists oppose the idea of a revolutionary party. In fact the KAPD, which was the first council communist organisation saw itself as a vanguard party. The term 'federation' is ambiguous here. The council communists,however, argued for centralism.


Depending on semantics surrounding the term "government" I think council communism is one of those ideologies that could probably be catagoried in either. Depending on the individual council communist in question. Their preferance of decentralisation, democratic workers councils, and objection to a vanguard party definetly push them much closer to libertarianism that authorotarianism.

In some ways the problem here is that you have anarchism using its own definitions to fit council communism into some 'Libertarian' tradition. Council communism didn't have a preference for decentralisation, and nor did all of it object to a vanguard party. More to the point, it was a Marxist current, saw itself as such, and would never have defined itself as 'Libertarian'.


Depending on the individual council communist in question.

It doesn't depend on the individual council communist in question, it depends upon the council communist organisations as political expressions of the working class.


Democtaric control through a federation of workers councils, is exactly what I want, and I am an Anarchist! :lol:

I think for anarchism to try to portray council communism as part of its tradition is fundamentally dishonest. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the anarchist drawing on council communism as part of the lessons of the class struggle in general, but to ignore its basic points, dress it up in anarchist clothes, and then try to sell it as a part of the libertarian tradition to me smells of grave robbing.

Devrim

[Djehuti]

Here in Sweden, the council communist influenced group "Peoples Power" published a lampoon called "Breaking with libertarianism" that was aimed at the anarchist movment. "Peoples Power" was a quite small group but held a lot of influence and largely managed to draw the anarchist movment away from libertarianism (individualist tendancies, "living outside society"-tendencies, subcultural dominance, non-class struggle related questions, concensus decisionmaking, oppression-observers, etc). But thats just what libertarianism has been associated with over here, it might not be the same in the states for example.

However, anarchist-communist and council communists etc. do stand closer to eachother than marxist-leninists for example, and they tend to cooperate well...


Btw. Council communists does not necessarily advocate councils, they advocate the independent organisation of the working class (which often has taken the form of councilbased organisation).

And as said, they do not oppose the idea of a vanguard party, just not in a leninist fashion. Council communists often advocate a vanguard party that is about spreading propaganda, actions, information etc. making it easier for the class to coordinate it's struggles.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:18 am
In some ways the problem here is that you have anarchism using its own definitions to fit council communism into some 'Libertarian' tradition. Council communism didn't have a preference for decentralisation, and nor did all of it object to a vanguard party. More to the point, it was a Marxist current, saw itself as such, and would never have defined itself as 'Libertarian'.

Well, I have met council communists who consider themselves part of the Libertarian tradition. For example, if you go over to ThePhora, the user Autotreduction considers himself both a Libertarian-communist and a council communist.

Though he is part of a trotskyist organisation at the moment.

What would you say of this (http://libcom.org/thought/council-communism-an-introduction) article about Council Communism on Libcom?


Peoples Power" was a quite small group but held a lot of influence and largely managed to draw the anarchist movment away from libertarianism (individualist tendancies, "living outside society"-tendencies, subcultural dominance, non-class struggle related questions, concensus decisionmaking, oppression-observers, etc). But thats just what libertarianism has been associated with over here, it might not be the same in the states for example.


I'd say that was Liberalism. But if they helped draw class-struggle anarchists away from that shit then I'd buy them a pint any day!

[RNK]

Perhaps Ender is confusing what private property actually means?

It doesn't mean that your computer, toothbrush, kitchen sink etc will belong to the 'state'. Personal items which you make yourself or aquire through your own labour will be yours. "Property" in communist sense is more about land and factory ownership, ownership of the means of production, etc -- when a rich person owns some agricultural land, or owns a factory, and thereby owns the means of the production of whatever commodity is produced (by wage-workers) on that land or in that factory, this is mainly (but now wholly) what we mean by "property ownership". It can also mean ownership of intellectual property, ie, ownership of some technology or technique dealing with commodity production which the owner monopolizes to create personal surplus capital.

There are people who sometimes call themselves "anarchists" who support, atleast in part, this kind of "property". But they are the exception. For the most part, anarchist and communist ideas about a classless society are pretty much the same (atleast in essence). The difference between the two comes in how that classless society is attained. Like bootleg generically put it, anarchists generally do not believe in a transitional phase that will transform modern capitalist society into a socialist society and into classless society.

It's a generalization, but a (mostly) correct one.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Ender+September 28, 2007 11:30 pm--> (Ender @ September 28, 2007 11:30 pm)
Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 28, 2007 01:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:18 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 10:41 pm
Anarchists who believe in private property are not true Anarchists as it is opposite the beliefs of real Anarchism! Indeed these "Anarchists" who believe in private property are probably just using the name of Anarchism as it sounds "cool".
definitely not...anarchism does not require the abolition of private property...anarchism requires the abolition of a sovereign or state. there is difference...no private property is communism....
That's horse shit.
Anarchism is more than just the abolishment of the state.
Anarchists advocate the abolishment of private property. Always have, always will.
Anarchism is as much about the abolishment of the state as it is about the abolishment of capitalism.
alright... sorry guys...dont hang me lol [/b]
Is okay, I still I love ya ;)

[RedKnight]

Indivisual anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism) support certain forms of private property. Not all anarchists have been collectivists historicly. While there may be some doubt as to whether or not anarcho-capitalists can be rightfuly considered to be a form of indivisualist anarchism, mutualists have always been regarded as being a part of the same political philosophy.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 29, 2007 11:42 am
Well, I have met council communists who consider themselves part of the Libertarian tradition. For example, if you go over to ThePhora, the user Autotreduction considers himself both a Libertarian-communist and a council communist.

Though he is part of a trotskyist organisation at the moment.

Confused, or what?

My question would be; is he a part of a council communist organisation? The obvious answer is no.

On another thread on this board at the moment, I am defending 'anarchism' against the accusation that it is a bunch of clueless teenagers against some Trotskyist. Surely the anarchist organisations define what anarchism is, not individuals.

I think that anarchism has many faults, but if one wants to criticise it, it should be done on what it is, not what it isn't.


What would you say of this article about Council Communism on Libcom?

I would say they are very wrong. I am going to raise it on there now.

Devrim

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by devrim
Surely the anarchist organisations define what anarchism is, not individuals.

I've met many anarchists who would say it's the other way around.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+September 29, 2007 06:43 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ September 29, 2007 06:43 pm)
devrim
Surely the anarchist organisations define what anarchism is, not individuals.

I've met many anarchists who would say it's the other way around. [/b]
It is an interesting question, theoretically. Are they, or are they not anarchists?

I think that many anarchists are annoyed by the individualist scum who claim their label.

To me anarchism is a part of the workers movement, or it is nothing.

With that in mind, I will continue to try to keep open a dialogue with militant anarchist workers, and not insult them by abusing the proud history of anarchism within the workers' struggle by associating it with all sorts of rubbish.

As I stated before, if there is to be a criticism of anarchism, let it be for what it is, not for something it is not.

Devrim

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by devrim
It is an interesting question, theoretically. Are they, or are they not anarchists?

I think that many anarchists are annoyed by the individualist scum who claim their label.

To me anarchism is a part of the workers movement, or it is nothing.

Acutally some of the anarchists I encounter may fit in to the CrimethInc/lifestyle anarchist archetype. It was their ardent individualism that ultimately turned me towards Communism.

[syndicat]

individualist tendancies, "living outside society"-tendencies, subcultural dominance, non-class struggle related questions, concensus decisionmaking, oppression-observers, etc

there's a lot of that in the U.S. there isn'a strong or very visible tradition of anarchist organizations in the U.S., so this doesn't act as necesarily the anchor on what "anarchism" means for people as it might in countries where there is such a tradition.

there is in the U.S. a variety of primitivists, "post-lefts", and crimethinc types who call themselves anarchists, and have little if any connection to the class struggle oriented anarchism.

"anarchism" doesn't really have a very definate meaning. It's a vague term because there is no single organization or writer or theory that it is defined in relation to. In this respect it's a bit vaguer than "Marxism".

it's because of the anti-organizational, individualist, and non-working class struggle orientation of some anarchists that i tend to avoid the term "anarchism".

however, it is possible to have a coherent libertarian Left politics. It's just that the tag "anarchism" doesn't define it.

[Janus]

So can someone please xplain to me the difference between anarchism and communism.
I think what you really mean to ask is what the differences between anarchists and Marxists are.

Please refer to this thread for links to previous answers:
Frequent topics of discussion (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69203)

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:44 pm
Perhaps Ender is confusing what private property actually means?

It doesn't mean that your computer, toothbrush, kitchen sink etc will belong to the 'state'. Personal items which you make yourself or aquire through your own labour will be yours. "Property" in communist sense is more about land and factory ownership, ownership of the means of production, etc -- when a rich person owns some agricultural land, or owns a factory, and thereby owns the means of the production of whatever commodity is produced (by wage-workers) on that land or in that factory, this is mainly (but now wholly) what we mean by "property ownership". It can also mean ownership of intellectual property, ie, ownership of some technology or technique dealing with commodity production which the owner monopolizes to create personal surplus capital.

There are people who sometimes call themselves "anarchists" who support, atleast in part, this kind of "property". But they are the exception. For the most part, anarchist and communist ideas about a classless society are pretty much the same (atleast in essence). The difference between the two comes in how that classless society is attained. Like bootleg generically put it, anarchists generally do not believe in a transitional phase that will transform modern capitalist society into a socialist society and into classless society.

It's a generalization, but a (mostly) correct one.
i understand now././and i did mean the abolition on private property as in land.....not as in toothbrushes..lol...

Mom: Stewie! dont forget to brush ur teeth

Stewie: sorry mom i cant...the president has it...he said its for a top secret mission...the state owns everything!!

[Killer Enigma]

Mom: Stewie! dont forget to brush ur teeth

Stewie: sorry mom i cant...the president has it...he said its for a top secret mission...the state owns everything!!
Oh, the wit..

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 01, 2007 09:23 pm

Mom: Stewie! dont forget to brush ur teeth

Stewie: sorry mom i cant...the president has it...he said its for a top secret mission...the state owns everything!!
Oh, the wit..
yea i know...it sucke.d.but u can shove ur sarcasm up where the sun dont shine..lol

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Ender+October 03, 2007 07:11 pm--> (Ender @ October 03, 2007 07:11 pm)
Killer [email protected] 01, 2007 09:23 pm

Mom: Stewie! dont forget to brush ur teeth

Stewie: sorry mom i cant...the president has it...he said its for a top secret mission...the state owns everything!!
Oh, the wit..
yea i know...it sucke.d.but u can shove ur sarcasm up where the sun dont shine..lol [/b]
Again, I'm laughing my ass off. You just break me up..

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+October 03, 2007 10:45 pm--> (Killer Enigma @ October 03, 2007 10:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:11 pm

Killer [email protected] 01, 2007 09:23 pm

Mom: Stewie! dont forget to brush ur teeth

Stewie: sorry mom i cant...the president has it...he said its for a top secret mission...the state owns everything!!
Oh, the wit..
yea i know...it sucke.d.but u can shove ur sarcasm up where the sun dont shine..lol
Again, I'm laughing my ass off. You just break me up.. [/b]
i wasnt trying to be funny this time douchebag....ur sarcasm is really hurting my appetite..u may want to keep it to urself