Differences between Anarchism and Communism.

[MaverickChaos]

Well I know some Marxist theory but I'm hardly an expert on the subject. I don't really know much about Anarchism beyond it's basic premise of egalitarianism without rulers. Am I mistaken in thinking that Communism is similiar in its basic maxim, that no state or political hierarchy should exist and the people should work together as equals?

Sorry for my ignorance, but I'm trying to make sense of it.

[Bright Banana Beard]

the people should work together as equals?
Not in a sense of making the production. But we cannot force them to work, or that is coercion, which we are opposed.

Anarchist and Communist are different in the sense of transitional of event. Communist urged for worker's state so they can destroy the bourgeoisie before they reach communism. Anarchist urged for stronger workforce and worker council as they can handle the bourgeoisie without the need for worker's state.

[MaverickChaos]

I see, but I thought Anarchists were opposed to a hierarchy of any form. Surely keeping a class system (albeit a fairer one) would still contradict their most basic premise.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I see, but I thought Anarchists were opposed to a hierarchy of any form. Surely keeping a class system (albeit a fairer one) would still contradict their most basic premise. A coercion hierarchy, not the volunteer version.
I think you confused that we not destroying bourgeoisie, but we are doing it through direct action and we will fight back at them by making the proletariat to powerful than them, we have to destroy the bourgeoisie and their element to make it into anarchism. We doing it without forming any state.

[nvm]

Communists believe that the state will wither away during socialism in order to achieve communism. This is because the state is armed bodies of men oppressing one class over the other. So after he revolution , a workers state , which is democratically controlled by the masses with elected and recallable officials will oppress the bourgeoisie and private property, until a state is not needed any more and it will naturally dissolve i.e there would be no class for the workers state to oppress as the society will be classless.
Anarchists do not understand the difference between a workers' state and a bourgeois state. They think both as being the same and unfortunately , history (with the development of the USSR), gave them a strong example (although marxists do not believe that the development of the USSR was a failure of Marxism-Leninism, but it was a result of objective conditions and other factors). The anarchists fight for a stateless , classless society also but the means of getting there differ from the communists. I consider anarchism to be utopian, and scientific socialism the only way in order to achieve this stateless classless society . But that is just my humble opinion.

[tedster]

There are also various forms of anarchism. Syndicalist and Individualism are the two primary ones. The others usually fall under those two.

Anarchists often are very skeptical about the state withering away, and are concerned that the state will end up being a dictatorship that doesn't always have concerns for the masses. This of course varies from person to person.

The main thing to think about when considering what an anarchist is, is by looking at the root word an=without archy=leader.

By the way, as an anarchist, I disagree that anarchist don't know the difference between a workers state, and a bourgeois state. The concern is though, is that workers don't always get well represented in a system that is supposed to be a workers state.

[nvm]

The concern is though, is that workers don't always get well represented in a system that is supposed to be a workers state.


If they don't get well represented that is not a workers' state

[MaverickChaos]

There are also various forms of anarchism. Syndicalist and Individualism are the two primary ones. The others usually fall under those two.

Anarchists often are very skeptical about the state withering away, and are concerned that the state will end up being a dictatorship that doesn't always have concerns for the masses. This of course varies from person to person.

The main thing to think about when considering what an anarchist is, is by looking at the root word an=without archy=leader.



Yeah, I knew all of this bit. Please correct me if any of this is wrong: Anarchists want to empower the workers to a point where they are strong enough to overthrow the ruling class and create a workers society without a state.

Communists believe in State Socialism at first after a revolution usually led by a Vanguard party of some sort. Once the system and culture is in place for everyone to work together as equals, the need for leadership will disappear.

Is that an alright grasp of it?

[Holden Caulfield]

anarchists think that the answer to all problems is that they will perish in the revolution and so no state will be necessary,

socialists think that they revolution will have to be firstly protected from international and internal counter-revolutionary threats, and that the state can be weilded to sweep away the worst parts of the former society and help to create the new ones,

realistically i don't think there are much differances dispite these opposing views on the state, call them worker councils or soviets they would work much in the same way,

[Kropotesta]

anarchists think that the answer to all problems is that they will perish in the revolution and so no state will be necessary
False. Our social revolution, as Kropotkin pointed out, my potenially last hundreds of years after a an anarchist society is developed. We merely believe that people are rational enough to control their own lifes, the act of revolution however would further this idea as a fair deal of the working class would have to be class concious for the act of revolution to take place, through such institutions as neighbourhood councils, worker councils and a confederation of communes. A federalised system which would produce more freedom of communities and people. Opposed to a centralised buearucracy exerting is power upon its subjects.

[Niccolò Rossi]

A federalised system which would produce more freedom of communities and people. Opposed to a centralised buearucracy exerting is power upon its subjects.

Wow, way to misrepresent Marxism :rolleyes:

Any Marxist with half a brain would oppose any centralised state bureaucracy during the political transitional period, likewise any Anarchist with half a brain would know this...

Marxists understand the state as a body for the suppression of opposing classes. The state does not always have to be a centralised bureaucratic body. Marxists see the necessity for a workers state, that is a decentralised, federated body for the suppression of the bourgeois remnants, having it's basis in the local workers council or commune. It is a dictatorship of the people, not over the people; that is proletarian democracy.

And to MaverickChaos, I sent you a pm. :)

[Kropotesta]

Wow, way to misrepresent Marxism :rolleyes:

Any Marxist with half a brain would oppose any centralised state bureaucracy during the political transitional period, likewise any Anarchist with half a brain would know this...
I know that is not the idea, however 'Dictatorships of the Proletariat' that has lead to mass murdering state bueraucracies has left me, well, a tiny bit sceptical.
And no I'm not sympathetic to those regimes "becasue it was against their will and the best that could do at the time", as these statez have killed fellow anarchists, portraying them as 'counter-revolutionaries'.


Any Marxist with half a brain would oppose any centralised state bureaucracy during the political transitional period
But in practice they haven't.

[The Feral Underclass]

Wow, way to misrepresent Marxism :rolleyes:

Not really. Although Marx didn't talk about a state in great depths we can see from his own political organisation that he was a centralist.


Any Marxist with half a brain would oppose any centralised state bureaucracy during the political transitional period

Lenin didn't?


Marxists understand the state as a body for the suppression of opposing classes. The state does not always have to be a centralised bureaucratic body.

Well, actually, I would argue that it does. Although at the end of the day this boils down to a semantic argument and if you were to call a decentralised federalism "a state" then so be it. However, if you actually look at the nature of a state the organisation and function of it is far more complex than Marx's simple defintion.

While the function of a state is one class to suppress another the structure of a state is specific and relies primarily on the centralisation of political power. A state is this manifested into institutions designed specifically to defend that centralisation of power.


Marxists see the necessity for a workers state, that is a decentralised, federated body for the suppression of the bourgeois remnants, having it's basis in the local workers council or commune. It is a dictatorship of the people, not over the people; that is proletarian democracy.

Fine, if that's what you want to call a workers state, you can call it that. I would not call it a state because a state is something specifically different. In any case, what you are arguing is a rejection of Leninism. Are you happy with rejecting Leninism?

[Niccolò Rossi]

I know that is not the idea, however 'Dictatorships of the Proletariat' that has lead to mass murdering state bueraucracies has left me, well, a tiny bit sceptical.

Please, I've heard this kind of argument all too often. "Communism failed, why try it again", all it is is a straw man argument.


Lenin didn't?

I know you'll dispute it, but ever heard of "All power to the soviets"? Also, ever read The State and Revolution? Despite the actions of the man I think of can read his works with a distinctly anti-centralist lens.


Well, actually, I would argue that it does. Although at the end of the day this boils down to a semantic argument and if you were to call a decentralised federalism "a state" then so be it. However, if you actually look at the nature of a state the organisation and function of it is far more complex than Marx's simple defintion.

I would agree laregly that it is a matter of semantics, as I have always said (maybe not so much on these boards) but Anarchists and Marxists have a lot more in common than they wish to admit.


While the function of a state is one class to suppress another the structure of a state is specific and relies primarily on the centralisation of political power. A state is this manifested into institutions designed specifically to defend that centralisation of power.

The structure of the state relies only on the centralisation of political power so long as the ruling class is a minority. The structure of the state is not fixed, atleast in the Marxist definition.


Fine, if that's what you want to call a workers state, you can call it that. I would not call it a state because a state is something specifically different. In any case, what you are arguing is a rejection of Leninism. Are you happy with rejecting Leninism?

I would argue that it is not a rejection of Leninism, rather it is a rejection of the Leninist caricature presented by so many M-L's and Anarchists alike.

[Kropotesta]

Please, I've heard this kind of argument all too often. "Communism failed, why try it again", all it is is a straw man argument.
That is not my arguement. I saying that the centralisation of power with lead to the consolidation of the state, opposed to the supposed 'withering away'. I rejection is on an ideological basis, not saying that 'communism has failed', which it also has done.

[The Feral Underclass]

ever heard of "All power to the soviets"?

Yeah, it's a nice slogan.


Also, ever read The State and Revolution? Despite the actions of the man I think of can read his works with a distinctly anti-centralist lens.

Yes, I've read that book. Twice actually. In fact, it was re-reading that book in the context of me being a paid organiser for a Leninist party that I became an anarchist.

It is not true that Lenin was a decentralist and it's a very bizarre claim to make.


I would agree laregly that it is a matter of semantics, as I have always said (maybe not so much on these boards) but Anarchists and Marxists have a lot more in common than they wish to admit.

Well, it depends on what kind of Marxist you are.


The structure of the state relies only on the centralisation of political power so long as the ruling class is a minority. The structure of the state is not fixed, atleast in the Marxist definition.

But it becomes fixed.


I would argue that it is not a rejection of Leninism, rather it is a rejection of the Leninist caricature presented by so many M-L's and Anarchists alike.

Well, that's a nice dream, but a little naive. I think history has clearly proved the caricature of Lenin more of a work of reality than one of fiction.

[Niccolò Rossi]

It is not true that Lenin was a decentralist and it's a very bizarre claim to make.

This is not a claim I am making, I apologise for any misunderstanding. What I mean to say is that one can read Lenin and draw from his writings with a destinctly decentralised lens, as opposed tp the destinctly centralised and statist lens which is normally used.


The structure of the state relies only on the centralisation of political power so long as the ruling class is a minority. The structure of the state is not fixed, atleast in the Marxist definition.

But it becomes fixed

What do you mean by this?


Well, that's a nice dream, but a little naive. I think history has clearly proved the caricature of Lenin more of a work of reality than one of fiction.

That may be the case, but I think one can certainly draw much from the writings of Lenin when viewed with a decentralised and even anti-statist lens.

[trivas7]

I found this Anarchist FAQ helpful:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech31