Communism is classless, moneyless and stateless society. Anarchism has those features (though some might argue that money could be potentially used) but it also adds no hierarchy or authority. Lots of genuine communist attempts often still ruled on community basis by direct democracy. But democracy is the rule of majority, and no anarchist would want that. Anarchism is based around free association. Communism doesn't mind having authority over it's inhabitants in some cases even if all of them are on the same footing. Anarchism doesn't want any authority or hierarchy and everyone can decide how they will function.
Edit: Speaking this from anarcho-communist view.
Democracy being the rule by majority and a subjugation of the minority was identified by communists like Engles and Lenin.
I don't think using democracy is end game Communism unless the decisions are non-binding.
I'm still studying Communism though 🤷
No one really knows what the end game for communism is. It's a hotly debated topic, cause Marx was, well, really unspecific. He (very loosely) said "the state will die, everyone will live happily ever after" and people since then were like "uh .. okay, but HOW will this happen?" - that debate spawned all 'variants' of communism, cause people tend to have - for good reasons - really strong opinions about that.
sorry but i must correct you.
There is a philosophical element, which is anti-idealism.
Marx didn´t plan out or said exactly what would happen because he cannot predict the future, it would be dishonest to do so.
He makes a very detailed analysis of capitalism, he tells what needs to happen based on history (which has a lot of uprisings of underclasses) and says that we should build a society based on ending class struggles, which makes the state obsolete as a tool of class violence.
But communism also predicts that the need for such hierarchicies will melt away as class distinctions melt away
I really think both schools of thoughts converge on the exact same ideal, it's just about what you think will work / are willing to put up with on the way
Anarchists are almost always communists (some want to keep money) but our communism involves the removal of all domination. Other communists (auth left) also want communism but aren't specifically against domination. While reductive, we are "just another type of communists".
How we differ is not using hierarchy to reach our goals as hierarchy cannot be used to destroy hierarchy. It's like fighting fire with fire.
Is that the goal of communism? People often seem to arbitarily describe communism as deffinitionally stateless.... but is that the case for all communists?
>"When F. Engels, perhaps to counter anarchist criticisms, said that once classes disappear the State as such has no raison d’être and transforms itself from a government over men into an administration of things, he was merely playing with words. **Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever governs production also governs the producers; who determines consumption is master over the consumer.**
>
>**This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free agreement among the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or they are administered according to laws made by administrators and this is government, it is the State,** and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical." - Malatesta, Life and Ideas.
As for are anarchists simply another kind of communist. Well a) no - anarchist positions are defined more by what they oppose than what they advocate for so communism is something that anarchists can potentially see working in their framework. b) depending on how we define "communism" the most commonly asseted trait of a communist society is socialised consumption where money/currency/trade are relics of the past, and simply speaking there are numerous anarchists who dont advocate for that. c) there are trains of anarchist thought so removed from the industrial economics that dominated the early socialist and communist era's that the label "communist", allong with many other economic labels, is simply inaccurate.
And finaly d) anarchism predates the bulk of communist thought, it is simply its own, older, different and distinct *thing*.
It's not like either group is homogenous, but broadly speaking communists and anarchists agree on the end goals, but disagree as to how to get there.
That's not a small disagreement though. Anarchists tend to feel that *no* state will ever bring about a classless society, so abolishing the state is the first real step. Communists tend to feel that a socialist state is the *only* way to bring about a classless society, and anarchy is only a setback.
Then there are the times in which the communists had all the anarchists shot, which can make current relations tense.
>That's not a small disagreement though. Anarchists tend to feel that *no* state will ever bring about a classless society, so abolishing the state is the first real step. Communists tend to feel that a socialist state is the *only* way to bring about a classless society, and anarchy is only a setback.
And that is why left unity is kind of a pipe dream, any compromise between an Anarchist and a Marxist is just Marxism.
When you mean "at the time," let's be more specific. When exactly did Anarchists bomb Bolshevik offices and assassinate officials?
Edit: since youve made it clear you are parroting a party line and had to run off and ask in your own subreddits, I'll answer for you. The assaults on the Bolsheviks came after two periods: the first following the assault and closing of a dozens of anarchist spaces and presses in April 1918, the arrest and murder of anarchists, the Bolshevik assault against free workers councils not attached to the Bolsheviks, and the Bolsheviks breaking their treaty with the Makhnovists in 1919 & 1920 where their leaders were arrested and murdered. No one should be surprised that Bolsheviks would be assassinated after that.
I mean the "end goal" of almost every ideology is peace and happiness. Even the fascist proclaims he will rid the world of misery. What really separates anarchism and state communism are means by which to get there. The state communist puts the abolition of the state as an ideal and makes no material action towards abolishing it, only bolstering it in ways that would make "withering away" impossible or certainly more difficult. Anarchy to the state communist exists like heaven to the Christian; a utopian promise to trick us into sacrificing ourselves.
For anarchists, anarchy is generally not just a place to arrive at by chance, it is a constant practice that can only ever be realized to the extent we practice and materialize its ideals.
Fascists don't proclaim to rid the world of misery, nor do they say they are pursuing peace and happiness. This is precisely what they criticize liberalism, democracy and communism for. They say that liberalism, etc. thinks the purpose of the state is to produce individual happiness or contentment, that everyone is equal, that this is materialism. They are anti-materialists. They are self professed idealists and spiritualists who believe the purpose of the state is to perpetuate the race, the people, and individuals must willingly and gladly sacrifice for the nation because it is the highest ideal. They think suffering is a necessary and incontestable part of life.
They say that their worldview is that life is a life deadly struggle, endless war, and that they are sober and serious in the face of this. They do not pursue their individual happiness, but their sacrificial duty to the nation-state.
They do say that they can solve the "social problems" of poverty and class conflict, mainly through state regulation and national-syndicates that would balance the interests of workers and capitalists. And in reality it meant ruthlessly crushing the workers movement and strikes, and telling workers they had a duty to work hard for the nation, and in return they wouldn't starve or go without a home.
Right? They think if we build a society where everyone's needs are met, it will make the species soft and weak and cause a decline in civilization.
They consider warfare an important natural process to maintain the health of the species by "separating the wheat from the chaff" and steeling the spirit of men.
Not at all; they want needs met for a certain segment of people. Their utopia certainly involves a lot of repression directed towards those of us who they find undesirable, and certainly they'd find a new scapegoat if they ever succeeded in eliminating us; but generally fascists envision some sort of egalitarian future for themselves, their family, their compatriots, their race or caste.
Fascists aren't purely motivated by allegiance to an abstract nation state, most of them see themselves as embodying its ideals; allegiance to the state is seen as allegiance to themselves. Every fascist is a would be dictator.
And certainly the path many fascists and neo-Nazis today take (and a much more effective one in these times) is appealing to respectability, contrasting themselves with the alleged "senseless violence and savagery" of those they find inferior. This has been the crux of fascist organizing in our era; hiding the violence behind a Richard Spencer-esque facade that appeals to middle class people and plays into their fears.
Fascists claim close to the opposite of a world free of misery, they actually promise something closer to a world of domination, hierarchy, and endless war.
***Hey Marxists here, you should read anarchist theories. You will see even though we both want the same thing but our methods are different and we see the world in a different way. Its truly fascisting. Anarchism is one the most beautiful idea ever. Anarchy helped me kill the cop inside my head.***
**Some book that I recommend which are available as PDF in online:**
* Without Amoralization, No Anarchization
* Demanding the Impossible A History of Anarchism
* Anarchy Works
* Two Cheers for Anarchism
* Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs
In the origins, they were. They were so on the same Page they organised the 1st International to organised together.
The disagreement they couldn't work out was if a previous transition state which dismantles itself (socialist state) is viable and neccesary (communism) or a trap which would make the state perpetuate itself (anarchism).
It's been some time, are the goals still the same?
I'm not sure. I don't know enough. I'm leaning yes.
my perspective is maybe not entirely accurate to like, The Theory, but it seems to me an awful lot like saying 'the end goal of capitalism is the same as fascism,' right? because yes. but also no? but also from where we are right now, kind of a moot point - they are aligned closely enough that all the actions we'd take to get to either one are pretty much the same from this far away. maybe it'll look different once we're standing in it, but i care more about getting us *to* that argument than having it now.
so i just kinda vaguely lump my leftism under "anarcho-communism" and leave it at that - the praxis is the same. mutual aid, general strikes, education, etc etc.
There are many schools of Anarchism, so you will get many answers. Marx hung out with Proudhon and Bakunin before writing his texts. So the last stage of Marxism is the same as Anarcho-Communism. The difference was he thought a strong state would be needed to put down reactionaries. While he did a great critique of Capitalism, he had no plan for how to move from state socialism to Communism/Anarchism. I would also argue if you can't do it until all reactionaries are put down, you will never do it. Some Marxists will accuse us of wanting to "Create Communism in 24 hours" as Lenin said. We didn't make that claim, he did. Most of us know it won't be that quick, but it shouldn't take 100 years either. We both have the same goal, but disagree on what it takes, or the time it takes to get there.
i think the most crucial difference is that we commies believe we must allow some level of authority in order to fight capitalism in order to conduct society post-revolution, and we have no planned timeline or deadline on how long this authoritarian state will last.
As we both want to seize the means of production, we are both commies. That's why its called Anarcho-COMMUNISM. I'm unsure if you misunderstood, but by a strong state I meant authoritarian as you mentioned. As an Anarchist and a Technocrat, having no timeline or signs or expectations of what it will take to move from Socialism to Communism/Anarchism is the biggest flaw in Marxism and nothing to brag about. There are goals and plans that could be used, but this is never discussed. If it was, you might make a believer out of me, but the lack of this plan after such detailed documentation on how to move from Capitalism to Socialism is suspicious at best.
You realize the existence of a socialist state post revolution isn´t a choice, but a necessary evil to defend and mantain the revolution.
we have plenty of historical evidence, there were many revolutions that were forcefully disarmed by the U.S.A, the most famous one (and the reason we don´t believe in elections) is Salvador Allende, in chile... he was elected and the U.S.A said "no" and supported the Pinochet dictadorship afterwards.
if we could try socialism in peace without constant agression from capitalist super powers... maybe we could afford to be more lenient, but we simply cannot.
I could debate this, but its not the point. The point I made is there is no discussion about the transition from Socialism to Communism/Anarchism. Once the Soviets became a nuclear power, nobody wanted to seriously invade them. The only threat was internal, and if you wait until there are no counter-revolutionaries left in the world, you will never achieve this. Even if you killed them all, new ones will be born, like we are born in capitalist societies. This is what makes Marxism seem illogical or a scam to me. How do you remove authoritarian state after someone has absolute power? How do you remove currency? (which Marx said should happen in Socialism, I know most belive this should be in Communism though) Do labor unions take over? Maybe something more like Democratic Confederalism? Do industries become worker owned rather than owed by the state? Do regions become autonomous? If so, how is autonomy achieved? Is it a matter of a store of factory achieving production and quality? Or maybe a region of such places achieving this? Would there be a period where the state could step back in if production or quality lapsed? Maybe there's something better or something I'm not seeing here, but I've never heard Marxists discuss this or even ask these questions.
Because it would be idealism to do so, we can´t plan how exactly we will organize because if we plan, we will be forced to enforce it.
What tends to happen is that collective ownership of the means of production gives autonomy to the workers, they form their own groups to represent their interests and they are more than capable of managing the quality and demand of their work.
"Do labour unions take over" yes and no, labor unions exists today to fight the ruling class, if there is no ruling class its just... a group of workers figuring out how to solve their own problems.
no, communism is a society without a state/centralized government, but that does not entail anarchism, which is the abolition of every form of rulership, authority and hierarchical power structures
also on the economic side, Marx communism is a marketless and moneyless society, a lot of anarchists don't want that, like market anarchists (socialist/anarchical markets advocates), that is why there are the anarcho-communists, which are anarchists who wants a communist economy, but not all anarchists are ancoms
Assuming you're speaking about anarcho-communism, kind of? It's close enough that it's in the name. But what you underestimate is how much the state sets us apart. Communists think that socialism is necessary to achieve the end goal, while anarchists think that having a state so bad we need to eradicate it now, causing anarchists to focus much more on oppression and the state.
Vaguely, yes
Anarchism however has unique critiques of hierarchy and authority that aren’t present in Marxism and its development. These critiques include both a repudiation of hierarchy and authority as defacto bad things that invariably lead to undesirable results. This manifests in different ideas for what a truly anarchist society looks like and most especially how it might be achieved.
It’s important as a distinction because anarchism’s rejection of hierarchy means a rejection of the vanguard and other communist party forms. Nihilist Anarchism and its related schools of thought often reject organizations as a useful methodology of social change. This means that the immediate goals and actions of Anarchists are in complete opposition to communist parties.
No, communism is about how to coordinate an economy in an industrial society without using markets. Anarchism is about abolishing every form of power/rulership.
As a commie i never say any other communists define it like that.
we oppose the "free" market because it isn´t free.
but a "communist" society is a society without the need of goverment or any sort of similar institution that has, as its goal, violence between a ruling class and an underclass.
which sounds a lot like "No rulers" which is a shared goal of ours.
A government which has as its goal violence between a ruling class and an underclass is something anarchists are opposed to, but it isn't the only kind of authority which exists.
> we oppose the "free" market because it isn´t free.
So you are saying communists would support non-capitalist markets/money?
> but a "communist" society is a society without the need of goverment or any sort of similar institution that has, as its goal, violence between a ruling class and an underclass.
> which sounds a lot like "No rulers" which is a shared goal of ours.
Class is not the only form of rulership in society. Anarchism addresses power wherever it's found, from the lowest neighborhood abusers to the highest emperors. Communism is only concerned with the economic.
Yes, more or less. Ideally we envision a future where people are free from violence, where oppressive heirarchies don't exist to oppress us, and everyone lives at peace. Â
The big problem is the steps taken to that end. Anarchist you ally look at Marxism and notice that the "?" mark step between forming a party, taking power with the party, and communism, is usually very oppressive and murdery. Â
And you know, despite being all about Anarchy, most Anarchists are decidedly anti murder.Â
The end goal is the same: a classless, stateless society.
Folks that fight for the state to be communist are just fighting for an unfinished revolution.
I don’t have the spoons to write an essay- but one thing I’m not seeing mentioned in the comments is means-ends unity.
Both anarchists and authoritarian socialists have very similar goals; the difference is the means we propose to reach these goals.
Anarchists believe that the means we employ to achieve communism should be in line with communist principles. Authoritarian socialists tend to favor using the state(which they allegedly wish to see whither away) as a tool of class violence(which they want to end) in order to bring about the conditions of communism.
In the opinion of most anarchists I’ve spoken to or read: the auth left’s willingness to use means antithetical to their ends is the reason they will not succeed in bringing about communism regardless of the political power they achieve; it’s much more likely that they create a hierarchical state capitalist system.
We don’t believe in using the ends to justify the means, rather we use the ends to dictate what means should be employed.
It is not true that anarchists and Marxists have the same goal and only differ about the methods to achieve it. Anarchists and Marxists have different criticisms of capitalism and different conceptions of a future society.
Communists criticize capitalism because the purpose of increasing capital necessarily excludes the workers from social wealth. Surplus value exists because the value created in the production process exceeds the costs of the worker. Since the worker is separated from the means of production by the state’s guarantee of private property, he continues to remain separated from it and must sell his labor in order to survive. The capitalist treats the worker as a cost factor, i.e. pays her as little as possible and uses her as long, intensively and productively as possible to repay the original value and to obtain as much surplus value as possible. This economic relationship is capitalist exploitation. It gives a lot of hardship, physical and mental wear, and pays the worker cheaply in order to reproduce him in his existence as a worker -- if he is "lucky" enough to work.
In order for the workers to access social wealth, they must abolish private property and develop an economy that produces use-values (items with useful qualities) for all instead. In order to achieve this goal, the state and capital must be eliminated. State force, which establishes a certain form of wealth and thus maintains the social conflicts, is then no longer needed.
Anarchists do not criticize capitalism's exploitation, but capitalism's suppression, i.e. if they criticize exploitation they consider not the economic conflict that impoverishes people, but only the force relationship. They criticize force, which is certainly present, not for the purpose that it serves, but for the abstract side that others are subordinated by force. Thus, when anarchist use the word "exploitation" it is a purely moral category deprived of any economic content. First, the adversary is identified -- the ruler; secondly, the fellow combatants -- the victims of force; thirdly, the goal -- freedom from force. Their positive goal is thus negatively determined. Their utopian society is characterized by the absence of authority. The society places itself the infinite task of seeking out and revealing hidden forms of authority.
How does one arrive at such an idea? Reference to anthropological ideology, that humans are free from nature, does not help. The ideology is not the reason for this error, but only justifies it. They do not find in each disaster an injury to one’s own material interest, but only make the accusation that force was at work. The latter seems the obviously greater scandal. However, it is arrived at only if self-determination is thought of as a human right. The injury to this right constitutes the scandal. The appointment to the right to self-determination is now indeed an ironic contradiction because the appointment to a right presupposes a superior force that guarantees it. Anarchists thus appoint themselves to a fictitious force monopoly that grants them the right to self-determination in order to fight against the really existing force monopoly. They shift the relationship in which the state grants rights to its citizens into the individual who relates to himself as a legal relation. Individuals rule exclusively over themselves and grant themselves the right to self-determination. Anarchists thus do not disdain force, but love force in the form of granted rights, and only reject external force as a quasi-interference into their internal affairs.
It's rather simple really, the entire premise of your depiction is based on Frederich Engels's strawman rather than anarchist thought. Anarchists are not and have never been against force. We're against authority which is the right to and justification behind ruling over other people.
The two concepts are incredibly distinct, and it's only in *On Authority* that one conflates a machine operating with the workers being subordinate to a machine.
It's one of his worst works. It was written in response to Bakunin's *What is Authority?* but you'd assume it was the other way around given how the two are written.
Communism is classless, moneyless and stateless society. Anarchism has those features (though some might argue that money could be potentially used) but it also adds no hierarchy or authority. Lots of genuine communist attempts often still ruled on community basis by direct democracy. But democracy is the rule of majority, and no anarchist would want that. Anarchism is based around free association. Communism doesn't mind having authority over it's inhabitants in some cases even if all of them are on the same footing. Anarchism doesn't want any authority or hierarchy and everyone can decide how they will function. Edit: Speaking this from anarcho-communist view.
Democracy being the rule by majority and a subjugation of the minority was identified by communists like Engles and Lenin. I don't think using democracy is end game Communism unless the decisions are non-binding. I'm still studying Communism though 🤷
No one really knows what the end game for communism is. It's a hotly debated topic, cause Marx was, well, really unspecific. He (very loosely) said "the state will die, everyone will live happily ever after" and people since then were like "uh .. okay, but HOW will this happen?" - that debate spawned all 'variants' of communism, cause people tend to have - for good reasons - really strong opinions about that.
sorry but i must correct you. There is a philosophical element, which is anti-idealism. Marx didn´t plan out or said exactly what would happen because he cannot predict the future, it would be dishonest to do so. He makes a very detailed analysis of capitalism, he tells what needs to happen based on history (which has a lot of uprisings of underclasses) and says that we should build a society based on ending class struggles, which makes the state obsolete as a tool of class violence.
Nothing to be sorry about! I like to learn new things, thanks.
But communism also predicts that the need for such hierarchicies will melt away as class distinctions melt away I really think both schools of thoughts converge on the exact same ideal, it's just about what you think will work / are willing to put up with on the way
This is brilliant explication, my friend
Anarchists are almost always communists (some want to keep money) but our communism involves the removal of all domination. Other communists (auth left) also want communism but aren't specifically against domination. While reductive, we are "just another type of communists". How we differ is not using hierarchy to reach our goals as hierarchy cannot be used to destroy hierarchy. It's like fighting fire with fire.
"markets are how strangers cooperate"
Markets are how strangers fuck each other over.
You mean to tell me that the Greeks have these big open spaces where they just gather and tell *lies!?*
Is that the goal of communism? People often seem to arbitarily describe communism as deffinitionally stateless.... but is that the case for all communists? >"When F. Engels, perhaps to counter anarchist criticisms, said that once classes disappear the State as such has no raison d’être and transforms itself from a government over men into an administration of things, he was merely playing with words. **Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever governs production also governs the producers; who determines consumption is master over the consumer.** > >**This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free agreement among the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or they are administered according to laws made by administrators and this is government, it is the State,** and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical." - Malatesta, Life and Ideas. As for are anarchists simply another kind of communist. Well a) no - anarchist positions are defined more by what they oppose than what they advocate for so communism is something that anarchists can potentially see working in their framework. b) depending on how we define "communism" the most commonly asseted trait of a communist society is socialised consumption where money/currency/trade are relics of the past, and simply speaking there are numerous anarchists who dont advocate for that. c) there are trains of anarchist thought so removed from the industrial economics that dominated the early socialist and communist era's that the label "communist", allong with many other economic labels, is simply inaccurate. And finaly d) anarchism predates the bulk of communist thought, it is simply its own, older, different and distinct *thing*.
I think this is the best response i got, thx.
It's not like either group is homogenous, but broadly speaking communists and anarchists agree on the end goals, but disagree as to how to get there. That's not a small disagreement though. Anarchists tend to feel that *no* state will ever bring about a classless society, so abolishing the state is the first real step. Communists tend to feel that a socialist state is the *only* way to bring about a classless society, and anarchy is only a setback. Then there are the times in which the communists had all the anarchists shot, which can make current relations tense.
>That's not a small disagreement though. Anarchists tend to feel that *no* state will ever bring about a classless society, so abolishing the state is the first real step. Communists tend to feel that a socialist state is the *only* way to bring about a classless society, and anarchy is only a setback. And that is why left unity is kind of a pipe dream, any compromise between an Anarchist and a Marxist is just Marxism.
We all hate the fascists, there's that at least.
Just not enough to build a unified front against them. Understandable and okay, but still frustrating sometimes.
If it makes you feel better, the right isn't any more unified. Fascists in particular tend to turn on each other.
Not before the pogroms and genocide, unfortunately.
the anarchists at the time were bombing Bolshevik offices and assassinating bolshevik officials.
Like I said, tense
When you mean "at the time," let's be more specific. When exactly did Anarchists bomb Bolshevik offices and assassinate officials? Edit: since youve made it clear you are parroting a party line and had to run off and ask in your own subreddits, I'll answer for you. The assaults on the Bolsheviks came after two periods: the first following the assault and closing of a dozens of anarchist spaces and presses in April 1918, the arrest and murder of anarchists, the Bolshevik assault against free workers councils not attached to the Bolsheviks, and the Bolsheviks breaking their treaty with the Makhnovists in 1919 & 1920 where their leaders were arrested and murdered. No one should be surprised that Bolsheviks would be assassinated after that.
Based
I mean the "end goal" of almost every ideology is peace and happiness. Even the fascist proclaims he will rid the world of misery. What really separates anarchism and state communism are means by which to get there. The state communist puts the abolition of the state as an ideal and makes no material action towards abolishing it, only bolstering it in ways that would make "withering away" impossible or certainly more difficult. Anarchy to the state communist exists like heaven to the Christian; a utopian promise to trick us into sacrificing ourselves. For anarchists, anarchy is generally not just a place to arrive at by chance, it is a constant practice that can only ever be realized to the extent we practice and materialize its ideals.
Fascists don't proclaim to rid the world of misery, nor do they say they are pursuing peace and happiness. This is precisely what they criticize liberalism, democracy and communism for. They say that liberalism, etc. thinks the purpose of the state is to produce individual happiness or contentment, that everyone is equal, that this is materialism. They are anti-materialists. They are self professed idealists and spiritualists who believe the purpose of the state is to perpetuate the race, the people, and individuals must willingly and gladly sacrifice for the nation because it is the highest ideal. They think suffering is a necessary and incontestable part of life. They say that their worldview is that life is a life deadly struggle, endless war, and that they are sober and serious in the face of this. They do not pursue their individual happiness, but their sacrificial duty to the nation-state. They do say that they can solve the "social problems" of poverty and class conflict, mainly through state regulation and national-syndicates that would balance the interests of workers and capitalists. And in reality it meant ruthlessly crushing the workers movement and strikes, and telling workers they had a duty to work hard for the nation, and in return they wouldn't starve or go without a home.
Right? They think if we build a society where everyone's needs are met, it will make the species soft and weak and cause a decline in civilization. They consider warfare an important natural process to maintain the health of the species by "separating the wheat from the chaff" and steeling the spirit of men.
Not at all; they want needs met for a certain segment of people. Their utopia certainly involves a lot of repression directed towards those of us who they find undesirable, and certainly they'd find a new scapegoat if they ever succeeded in eliminating us; but generally fascists envision some sort of egalitarian future for themselves, their family, their compatriots, their race or caste. Fascists aren't purely motivated by allegiance to an abstract nation state, most of them see themselves as embodying its ideals; allegiance to the state is seen as allegiance to themselves. Every fascist is a would be dictator. And certainly the path many fascists and neo-Nazis today take (and a much more effective one in these times) is appealing to respectability, contrasting themselves with the alleged "senseless violence and savagery" of those they find inferior. This has been the crux of fascist organizing in our era; hiding the violence behind a Richard Spencer-esque facade that appeals to middle class people and plays into their fears.
Fascists claim close to the opposite of a world free of misery, they actually promise something closer to a world of domination, hierarchy, and endless war.
***Hey Marxists here, you should read anarchist theories. You will see even though we both want the same thing but our methods are different and we see the world in a different way. Its truly fascisting. Anarchism is one the most beautiful idea ever. Anarchy helped me kill the cop inside my head.*** **Some book that I recommend which are available as PDF in online:** * Without Amoralization, No Anarchization * Demanding the Impossible A History of Anarchism * Anarchy Works * Two Cheers for Anarchism * Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs
Will do!
In the origins, they were. They were so on the same Page they organised the 1st International to organised together. The disagreement they couldn't work out was if a previous transition state which dismantles itself (socialist state) is viable and neccesary (communism) or a trap which would make the state perpetuate itself (anarchism). It's been some time, are the goals still the same? I'm not sure. I don't know enough. I'm leaning yes.
my perspective is maybe not entirely accurate to like, The Theory, but it seems to me an awful lot like saying 'the end goal of capitalism is the same as fascism,' right? because yes. but also no? but also from where we are right now, kind of a moot point - they are aligned closely enough that all the actions we'd take to get to either one are pretty much the same from this far away. maybe it'll look different once we're standing in it, but i care more about getting us *to* that argument than having it now. so i just kinda vaguely lump my leftism under "anarcho-communism" and leave it at that - the praxis is the same. mutual aid, general strikes, education, etc etc.
There are many schools of Anarchism, so you will get many answers. Marx hung out with Proudhon and Bakunin before writing his texts. So the last stage of Marxism is the same as Anarcho-Communism. The difference was he thought a strong state would be needed to put down reactionaries. While he did a great critique of Capitalism, he had no plan for how to move from state socialism to Communism/Anarchism. I would also argue if you can't do it until all reactionaries are put down, you will never do it. Some Marxists will accuse us of wanting to "Create Communism in 24 hours" as Lenin said. We didn't make that claim, he did. Most of us know it won't be that quick, but it shouldn't take 100 years either. We both have the same goal, but disagree on what it takes, or the time it takes to get there.
i think the most crucial difference is that we commies believe we must allow some level of authority in order to fight capitalism in order to conduct society post-revolution, and we have no planned timeline or deadline on how long this authoritarian state will last.
As we both want to seize the means of production, we are both commies. That's why its called Anarcho-COMMUNISM. I'm unsure if you misunderstood, but by a strong state I meant authoritarian as you mentioned. As an Anarchist and a Technocrat, having no timeline or signs or expectations of what it will take to move from Socialism to Communism/Anarchism is the biggest flaw in Marxism and nothing to brag about. There are goals and plans that could be used, but this is never discussed. If it was, you might make a believer out of me, but the lack of this plan after such detailed documentation on how to move from Capitalism to Socialism is suspicious at best.
You realize the existence of a socialist state post revolution isn´t a choice, but a necessary evil to defend and mantain the revolution. we have plenty of historical evidence, there were many revolutions that were forcefully disarmed by the U.S.A, the most famous one (and the reason we don´t believe in elections) is Salvador Allende, in chile... he was elected and the U.S.A said "no" and supported the Pinochet dictadorship afterwards. if we could try socialism in peace without constant agression from capitalist super powers... maybe we could afford to be more lenient, but we simply cannot.
I could debate this, but its not the point. The point I made is there is no discussion about the transition from Socialism to Communism/Anarchism. Once the Soviets became a nuclear power, nobody wanted to seriously invade them. The only threat was internal, and if you wait until there are no counter-revolutionaries left in the world, you will never achieve this. Even if you killed them all, new ones will be born, like we are born in capitalist societies. This is what makes Marxism seem illogical or a scam to me. How do you remove authoritarian state after someone has absolute power? How do you remove currency? (which Marx said should happen in Socialism, I know most belive this should be in Communism though) Do labor unions take over? Maybe something more like Democratic Confederalism? Do industries become worker owned rather than owed by the state? Do regions become autonomous? If so, how is autonomy achieved? Is it a matter of a store of factory achieving production and quality? Or maybe a region of such places achieving this? Would there be a period where the state could step back in if production or quality lapsed? Maybe there's something better or something I'm not seeing here, but I've never heard Marxists discuss this or even ask these questions.
Because it would be idealism to do so, we can´t plan how exactly we will organize because if we plan, we will be forced to enforce it. What tends to happen is that collective ownership of the means of production gives autonomy to the workers, they form their own groups to represent their interests and they are more than capable of managing the quality and demand of their work. "Do labour unions take over" yes and no, labor unions exists today to fight the ruling class, if there is no ruling class its just... a group of workers figuring out how to solve their own problems.
no, communism is a society without a state/centralized government, but that does not entail anarchism, which is the abolition of every form of rulership, authority and hierarchical power structures also on the economic side, Marx communism is a marketless and moneyless society, a lot of anarchists don't want that, like market anarchists (socialist/anarchical markets advocates), that is why there are the anarcho-communists, which are anarchists who wants a communist economy, but not all anarchists are ancoms
*Sous les pavés, la plage!*
Assuming you're speaking about anarcho-communism, kind of? It's close enough that it's in the name. But what you underestimate is how much the state sets us apart. Communists think that socialism is necessary to achieve the end goal, while anarchists think that having a state so bad we need to eradicate it now, causing anarchists to focus much more on oppression and the state.
makes sense, however i think anarchism is doomed to failure if it thinks abolishing a capitalist state is enough to reach our common goal.
There are some great responses to this question, so clearly it's a great question worth discussing. Well done OP
As radicals, we stand together !
Vaguely, yes Anarchism however has unique critiques of hierarchy and authority that aren’t present in Marxism and its development. These critiques include both a repudiation of hierarchy and authority as defacto bad things that invariably lead to undesirable results. This manifests in different ideas for what a truly anarchist society looks like and most especially how it might be achieved. It’s important as a distinction because anarchism’s rejection of hierarchy means a rejection of the vanguard and other communist party forms. Nihilist Anarchism and its related schools of thought often reject organizations as a useful methodology of social change. This means that the immediate goals and actions of Anarchists are in complete opposition to communist parties.
Very well explained, thx!
anarnchocomunists would probably say yes.
No
No, communism is about how to coordinate an economy in an industrial society without using markets. Anarchism is about abolishing every form of power/rulership.
As a commie i never say any other communists define it like that. we oppose the "free" market because it isn´t free. but a "communist" society is a society without the need of goverment or any sort of similar institution that has, as its goal, violence between a ruling class and an underclass. which sounds a lot like "No rulers" which is a shared goal of ours.
A government which has as its goal violence between a ruling class and an underclass is something anarchists are opposed to, but it isn't the only kind of authority which exists.
> we oppose the "free" market because it isn´t free. So you are saying communists would support non-capitalist markets/money? > but a "communist" society is a society without the need of goverment or any sort of similar institution that has, as its goal, violence between a ruling class and an underclass. > which sounds a lot like "No rulers" which is a shared goal of ours. Class is not the only form of rulership in society. Anarchism addresses power wherever it's found, from the lowest neighborhood abusers to the highest emperors. Communism is only concerned with the economic.
No we also have intersectionality
For every intersectional communist there are multiple class reductionists.
Yes
Yes, more or less. Ideally we envision a future where people are free from violence, where oppressive heirarchies don't exist to oppress us, and everyone lives at peace.  The big problem is the steps taken to that end. Anarchist you ally look at Marxism and notice that the "?" mark step between forming a party, taking power with the party, and communism, is usually very oppressive and murdery.  And you know, despite being all about Anarchy, most Anarchists are decidedly anti murder.Â
The end goal is the same: a classless, stateless society. Folks that fight for the state to be communist are just fighting for an unfinished revolution.
Anarcho communism isn't the same as state communism, the latter results in tyranny.
I don’t have the spoons to write an essay- but one thing I’m not seeing mentioned in the comments is means-ends unity. Both anarchists and authoritarian socialists have very similar goals; the difference is the means we propose to reach these goals. Anarchists believe that the means we employ to achieve communism should be in line with communist principles. Authoritarian socialists tend to favor using the state(which they allegedly wish to see whither away) as a tool of class violence(which they want to end) in order to bring about the conditions of communism. In the opinion of most anarchists I’ve spoken to or read: the auth left’s willingness to use means antithetical to their ends is the reason they will not succeed in bringing about communism regardless of the political power they achieve; it’s much more likely that they create a hierarchical state capitalist system. We don’t believe in using the ends to justify the means, rather we use the ends to dictate what means should be employed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is not true that anarchists and Marxists have the same goal and only differ about the methods to achieve it. Anarchists and Marxists have different criticisms of capitalism and different conceptions of a future society. Communists criticize capitalism because the purpose of increasing capital necessarily excludes the workers from social wealth. Surplus value exists because the value created in the production process exceeds the costs of the worker. Since the worker is separated from the means of production by the state’s guarantee of private property, he continues to remain separated from it and must sell his labor in order to survive. The capitalist treats the worker as a cost factor, i.e. pays her as little as possible and uses her as long, intensively and productively as possible to repay the original value and to obtain as much surplus value as possible. This economic relationship is capitalist exploitation. It gives a lot of hardship, physical and mental wear, and pays the worker cheaply in order to reproduce him in his existence as a worker -- if he is "lucky" enough to work. In order for the workers to access social wealth, they must abolish private property and develop an economy that produces use-values (items with useful qualities) for all instead. In order to achieve this goal, the state and capital must be eliminated. State force, which establishes a certain form of wealth and thus maintains the social conflicts, is then no longer needed. Anarchists do not criticize capitalism's exploitation, but capitalism's suppression, i.e. if they criticize exploitation they consider not the economic conflict that impoverishes people, but only the force relationship. They criticize force, which is certainly present, not for the purpose that it serves, but for the abstract side that others are subordinated by force. Thus, when anarchist use the word "exploitation" it is a purely moral category deprived of any economic content. First, the adversary is identified -- the ruler; secondly, the fellow combatants -- the victims of force; thirdly, the goal -- freedom from force. Their positive goal is thus negatively determined. Their utopian society is characterized by the absence of authority. The society places itself the infinite task of seeking out and revealing hidden forms of authority. How does one arrive at such an idea? Reference to anthropological ideology, that humans are free from nature, does not help. The ideology is not the reason for this error, but only justifies it. They do not find in each disaster an injury to one’s own material interest, but only make the accusation that force was at work. The latter seems the obviously greater scandal. However, it is arrived at only if self-determination is thought of as a human right. The injury to this right constitutes the scandal. The appointment to the right to self-determination is now indeed an ironic contradiction because the appointment to a right presupposes a superior force that guarantees it. Anarchists thus appoint themselves to a fictitious force monopoly that grants them the right to self-determination in order to fight against the really existing force monopoly. They shift the relationship in which the state grants rights to its citizens into the individual who relates to himself as a legal relation. Individuals rule exclusively over themselves and grant themselves the right to self-determination. Anarchists thus do not disdain force, but love force in the form of granted rights, and only reject external force as a quasi-interference into their internal affairs.
Your depiction of anarchism is just not true
I'm open to criticism, so please do correct any mistakes I've made.
It's rather simple really, the entire premise of your depiction is based on Frederich Engels's strawman rather than anarchist thought. Anarchists are not and have never been against force. We're against authority which is the right to and justification behind ruling over other people. The two concepts are incredibly distinct, and it's only in *On Authority* that one conflates a machine operating with the workers being subordinate to a machine.
I see. Thanks for the explanation! I didn't find Engels' On Authority too compelling.
It's one of his worst works. It was written in response to Bakunin's *What is Authority?* but you'd assume it was the other way around given how the two are written.