ancom vs classical marxism

What exactly is the difference between anarcho-communism and marxist communism? To me they seem to be the same (abolition of state and communist society) so what exactly differentiates them from each other? I am not very well read in these subjects but I think I understand the basics. Just not sure which one is a stronger ideology.

Marxism implies a specific mode of analysis and historical perspective while anarcho-communism is primarily a political tradition and mode of organization. Both have unique histories, normally as allies, but also enemies in some context.

Historically, Marxists and anarchists have primarily disagreed upon the usage of a state in a "transitional period" from bourgeois society into communist society. Bakunin and other anarchists of the first international era dismissed the transitional period on the basis that the society resulting from this route would essentially resemble bourgeois society and would be characterized by lack of autonomy for the worker. Marx, Engels, and the so called "authoritarians" of the first international dismissed the abolition of the state on the basis that revolutionary suppression of the bourgeoisie and abolition of property necessitates the existence of a state until these things have been completed then the existence of the state becomes "superfluous".

Not sure what you mean by 'stronger ideology' MasterDebator. So it's difficult to offer an opinion on that. More logical? Has more adherents? Has more tanks?

Political philosophies that claim to be Marxist are stronger on all counts there I think. But the most coherent and logical forms of Marxism are also the once with fewest adherents and no tanks. Conversely, the ones with millions of adherents and lots of tanks are also in my estimation bourgeois garbage.

And that's why i think this site's weird as it appears the majority of Marxists on here are nothing like the majority of people who identify as Marxists irl. The latter generally being counter-revolutionary and not worth anyone's breath.

Are anarcho-communism and upper-stage communism the same thing?

No and yes.

The major distinction between Anarchists and Marxists is over the necessity of the proletariat to assume control of the state in some form.

The goal is ostensibly the same, its the method we use to collectively arrive there that is different (or might be different - sometimes it's a question of definitions).

Marxist communism is stronger because was better advertised. And that's only reason of that. But there are two major differences. The most known is that anarcho-communism wants dissolve a state firstly. A proletarian state is impossible according this ideology. The second less known difference is that anarcho-communism wants to eliminate money and all their equivalents like labor vouchers immediately as Marxism wants a transitional period for that.

It's not about 'wants'. I don't know any Marxists who 'want' to keep money or the state or any of the rest of the wreckage of capitalism any longer than we have to.

It's about 'can't'. Anarchism thinks capitalism and the state can be abolished by wishing. Marxists think there is work involved, which will take time. That's what we disagree over.

One things the same though, the criticisms of anarchism are equally pathetic.


This is just nonsense and either a result of pure ignorance or willful deception.

Really? I was an Anarchist for 20 years. Perhaps I was 'ignorant' or 'willfully deceiving' myself then as well.

Maybe you should explain how the state can be 'abolished'.

20 years? You should know the standard position then: the state is abolished through altering the conditions in society. The state neither arose nor will be destroyed by wishing, if you spent 20 years as an anarchist and thought this i'd be surprised if no one tried to explain to you that you were a walking strawman.

Tbh, it makes more sense to say abolish class society than abolish the state. The latter is impossible without the former and the former necessarily implies the latter

Oh, the thing is, I completely agree that abolishing class society makes more sense than abolishing the state. I don't think the 'abolition of the state' is possible. The abolition of class society, however, makes sense if you mean the abolition of the conditions that cause class society.

But, then again, I'm a Marxist. I think that the existence of the state is conditioned by other factors. If you don't hold with the 'abolition of the state' then perhaps you could explain what (if anything) is your problem with the Marxist contention that the state continues to exist until the conditions which lead to the existence of the state are done away with? It seems to me that this is the usual bone of contention between Anarchists and Marxists (at least, in terms of analysis).

No real disagreement here :)



I don't think there is contention over whether or not the state continues to exist until class society is abolished to be honest with you. Obviously bourgeois states continue to exist until the basis for bourgeois society is destroyed and the state will act to destroy the revolutionary movement. I think instead the contention is over one of two things: either over whether or not the working class can control the bourgeois state at all or whether or not the organs of the working class abolishing class society can be considered a state.

If the contention is over the former i'd consider it incredibly important as the bourgeois state is only capable of counter-revolution. If it's the latter i think it's way less of an issue but i'd reject claims that the organs of the working class abolishing class society can be considered a state of which i have my reasons but they may not conform exactly to other anarchists.

In which case, I'll withdraw my comment that 'Anarchists believe that the state can be abolished by wishing' - because I don't see any major disagreements beyond definitions.

I'll say some Anarchists seem to believe the state can be abolished by wishing. My problem is with self-proclaimed Anarchists who don't have a class analysis of society and regard the state as some kind of existential threat enacted by 'authoritarianism' as a psychological condition.

I think you know full well that "wishing" is an unfair depiction of the anarchist position. Anarchists have advocated for and created grassroots organizations that are designed to take on the task of managing socialism. If you disagree with this approach, that is all fine and good, but it is not and has never been about "wishing".

Do you want to explain how (or if) the state is abolished?

Personally, I am very critical of the idea of abolition. I generally lean toward left Marxism. While I could make the argument, it is irrelevant to your assertion that the difference between the anarchist and Marxist positions is "wishing". That is a slap in the face to many years of tangible practice.

As no Anarchists have abolished a state, I'm not sure it is.

If the self-proclaimed anarchists lack class analysis and reject class struggle they're not worth any of our time. I've sadly met such people and on closer examination they've tended to be apologists for the petit-bourgeoisie; liberals trying to create a radical chic for themselves.





You've got to go into more details around that im not sure what you're getting at.

Can you point to some specific anarchist current that doesn't think "there is work involved"? Obviously, there are disagreements among various marxist and anarchist factions about the nature of the work involved, but I'm having trouble thinking of any faction in either camp that relies on "wishing."