NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just wondering about the differences between anarchism and communism. I'd be grateful if somebody could clear that up.

I'm just wondering about the differences between anarchism and communism. I'd be grateful if somebody could clear that up.
Well...I think communism = anarchism but anarchism doesn't necessarily equal to communism.

So, communism is a branch of anarchism?

quick and dirty.

anarchy = no government = no one has the right to force anyone else to do anything

communism = no private property = no one has the tight to keep anyone from using or enjoying anything - everything is owned in common

anarchy and communism can coincide, and Marx's post-industrial society is predicated upon communal property & capital ownership and individual decision making.

Anarchy with private property can exist, exemplified by the anarcho-capitalists, where government has no power and all property is privately owned. Communism can exist without anarchy, exemplified by the old Soviet Union where, aside from personal possesions, everything was owned by the state but there was a fairly intrusive government.

This is a quick and dirty breakdown and not intended to be taken as an entirely accurate or comprehensive analysis of the difference between the two.

Marx's theory of comminism is a form of anarchism--most anarchismists (sp?) are communist and don't like the word becuase history has given it a bad name. I think history books should refer to historical "communism" as "authoritarian socialism" a more accurate name that is fairer to communists.

Ah, I just checked my "The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of The English Language -- Canadian Edition" (It's so much fun to cite long titles).

It says that under anarchism "all laws and government are evil".

So communism would be anarchism with laws allowed then? (Assuming the laws benefited everybody equally of course)

hmm, anarchy is a completely, well almost completely different system than communism. anyone who thinks a society can prosper with no authoritative figures to bring order is not too bright...

hmm, anarchy is a completely, well almost completely different system than communism. anyone who thinks a society can prosper with no authoritative figures to bring order is not too bright...

Yeah, thats more of a theoritical contradition that is the fault of Marx and his followers than a failure of the definition-- I wonder about the arguments anarchists make.

Yeah, thats more of a theoritical contradition that is the fault of Marx and his followers than a failure of the definition-- I wonder about the arguments anarchists make.
you should see the anarchist thread

although...I haven't noticed the anarcho-communists answering any such questions

Marx's theory of comminism is a form of anarchism--most anarchismists (sp?) are communist and don't like the word becuase history has given it a bad name. I think history books should refer to historical "communism" as "authoritarian socialism" a more accurate name that is fairer to communists.


I agree:
Marx's ideas of Communism was one of a utopia where people didn't have to worry about the tifles of money and property. If you read the Communist Manifesto, true Communism, unlike the "authoritarian socialism" we saw in the Soviet Union and in China and Korea, outlines an almost perfect system. True communism does parallel anarchy in that it relies on the goodness of the people to be fair and just without need of a government or laws. True Communism, like all utopias, is not possible; people on the whole are too stupid and/or greedy to be able to govern themselves fairly.

The the closest thing to True Communism in the real world would be the tribes of African bushmen. They live in their villages, sharing everything they have. Their survival depends on them working together and helping one another. Some would call them primitive, but they are perhaps the most civilized peoples on the Earth. ;)

I agree:
Marx's ideas of Communism was one of a utopia where people didn't have to worry about the tifles of money and property. If you read the Communist Manifesto, true Communism, unlike the "authoritarian socialism" we saw in the Soviet Union and in China and Korea, outlines an almost perfect system. True communism does parallel anarchy in that it relies on the goodness of the people to be fair and just without need of a government or laws. True Communism, like all utopias, is not possible; people on the whole are too stupid and/or greedy to be able to govern themselves fairly.

The the closest thing to True Communism in the real world would be the tribes of African bushmen. They live in their villages, sharing everything they have. Their survival depends on them working together and helping one another. Some would call them primitive, but they are perhaps the most civilized peoples on the Earth. ;)

I don't dismiss Utopias just because their utopias. I have my own utopia: Its called Auto-Industrialization. Short explanation: Robots and computers do everything we don't want to, so we're free to expand our minds.

hmm, anarchy is a completely, well almost completely different system than communism. anyone who thinks a society can prosper with no authoritative figures to bring order is not too bright...
Actually there is nothing in most anarchist theory that prevents either authoritative figures or order. What is prohibited is coercion, the use of or threat of force to make people obey authoritative figures or to enforce order.

I don't dismiss Utopias just because their utopias. I have my own utopia: Its called Auto-Industrialization. Short explanation: Robots and computers do everything we don't want to, so we're free to expand our minds.


Well.. A utopia is one's idea of a world that is "perfect" in every which way. I suppose if you have low standards, it would be possible. :p

'Course, you'd have to worry about the robots taking over in your utopia. ;)

Ah, I just checked my "The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of The English Language -- Canadian Edition" (It's so much fun to cite long titles).

It says that under anarchism "all laws and government are evil".

So communism would be anarchism with laws allowed then? (Assuming the laws benefited everybody equally of course)

No, in its general sense communism is neutural with regards to laws, it only deals with the nature of ownership of property. Under communism, you can have laws or not have laws, but property is owned by everyone.

Well.. A utopia is one's idea of a world that is "perfect" in every which way. I suppose if you have low standards, it would be possible. :p

'Course, you'd have to worry about the robots taking over in your utopia. ;)

When was the last time your computer overthrew you? Becuase the systems I suggest would have no more ability to make such a dicsion as a rock-- It simply wouldn't be that intellegent. Don't confuse Robotics with Artificial intellgence.

I'm just wondering about the differences between anarchism and communism. I'd be grateful if somebody could clear that up.

anarchism is the set of political theories that hold that rulers and hierarchy are unjust and unnecessary and seek to create a classless society, with order created through voluntary agreements and freely formed organizations and federations of organizations.

communism is a classless society in which all land and capital is owned in common follows the idea of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

the vast majority of anarchists are communists - though we use the term anarcho-communist if we have to distinguish between ourselves and more authoritarian communists who believe that absolute control of the state and capital must be given to their party for some undetermined amount of time. there are still some other types of anarchists running around; a few mutualists and individualists, some syndicalists that aren't also communists, and maybe the primitivists count.

Ah, I just checked my "The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of The English Language -- Canadian Edition" (It's so much fun to cite long titles).

It says that under anarchism "all laws and government are evil".

nah, that's not quite right. well, maybe if we define 'laws' as 'rules imposed by an authority upon subordinates' or something. though i still wouldn't use the word evil.

you should see the anarchist thread

although...I haven't noticed the anarcho-communists answering any such questions

which questions?

mainstream anyway the mainstream movement and what most people see,her and read about and think about is the anarchists who are well communists etc. however there are capitalist anarchists out there. They want a laissez fair economy and social freedoms. They call themselves classical liberals,libertarians (not so much of this bunch is full blown anarchist) and of course anarcho-capitalists etc. mises.org is a great site among others on this other half of the anarchist bunch, I can often be among this capitalist bunch

Emma Goldman who was practically the mother of anarchism said that all anarchists are socialists but not all socialists are anarchists. but that is refering to anarchism in its original context not in its current absolutely no rules context

Emma Goldman who was practically the mother of anarchism said that all anarchists are socialists but not all socialists are anarchists. but that is refering to anarchism in its original context not in its current absolutely no rules context

nah, that context still applies as far as the anarchist movement is concerned.

but emma goldman was more of a really good propagandist than the mother of anarchism. she wasn't too heavy on theorizing.

Emma Goldman who was practically the mother of anarchism...

Eh, no, anarchism was around long before Emma Goldman. The two main threads of anarchism are political (communist, collectivist or syndicalist) anarchism and individualist anarchism. The former officially starts with PJ Proudhon (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/proudhonbio.html), the latter with William Godwin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/godwin/godwinbio.html).

Vas.

In a nutshell, Communism means the government controls everything including how much money people make, while Anarchsm means the government has little or no power whatsoever.


In otherwords, they are on opposite sides of the political compass.

i think communism is the perfect form of governement for the perfect human, but the perfect human does not exist

hmm, anarchy is a completely, well almost completely different system than communism. anyone who thinks a society can prosper with no authoritative figures to bring order is not too bright...


Sorry bud...but your wrong.
There haven't been many attempts at true anarchybut it has worked perfectly. Spain in the 30's, Southern Mexico right now, are both places in which anarchy was/is working fine (until Hitler attacked Spain, while it wa supported by the good ole USSR). You don't need a figure head in order to maintain a nation. Some rise to be recognized as fairly intelligent, but in Mexico sub commandant Marcos and all the other revolutionaries wear black masks so no one can idolize them.

This concept of anarchic-capitalism that some of you are talking about is insane. The any reason a capitalist would want to associate themselves with any kind of anarchy, would be to further exploit the people. With no central coersive force ( a government), the way that an anarchy is supposed to be any buisness owner couls simply move in and operate in any way the choose. Since even the most moderate capitalists like Adam Smith accept the fact that capitalism is extremely exploitive, any capitalist that could operate in a zone free of labour laws or fair buisness practice laws, don;t you think they'd be as crocked as they could be? I mean why do US buisnesses move into northern mexico? Because the labour laws and minum wages are far lower and thus they can get more profit with less cost and pay their workers less than a living wage.

Hey, you stinking hippie ,how did you get this computer?

anarchism is the set of political theories that hold that rulers and hierarchy are unjust and unnecessary and seek to create a classless society, with order created through voluntary agreements and freely formed organizations and federations of organizations.

communism is a classless society in which all land and capital is owned in common follows the idea of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

the vast majority of anarchists are communists - though we use the term anarcho-communist if we have to distinguish between ourselves and more authoritarian communists who believe that absolute control of the state and capital must be given to their party for some undetermined amount of time. there are still some other types of anarchists running around; a few mutualists and individualists, some syndicalists that aren't also communists, and maybe the primitivists count.

Good answer Free Soviets.
To add a bit, anarchists can be divided into left-anarchists (AFAIK the majority) which include anarcho-socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and anarcho-capitalists, and the right-anarchists, or anarcho-capitalists.


I find the Anarchist Theory FAQ (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm) to be quite a good discussion.

(I lean towrds minarchism personally.)

i think communism is the perfect form of governement for the perfect human, but the perfect human does not exist

What makes a human imperfect? We can probably all agree that: selfishness, greed and a thirst for power over others are among humanities negative traits. So, the question is, what is the best system for such humans? Do we continue a system that rewards and promotes selfishness and greed and allows those with a thirst for power access to it? Or do we create a system where co-operation and solidarity are promoted and rewarded and hierarchies are abolished preventing any individual from gaining power over others?

Vas.

Good answer Free Soviets.
To add a bit, anarchists can be divided into left-anarchists (AFAIK the majority) which include anarcho-socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and anarcho-capitalists, and the right-anarchists, or anarcho-capitalists.

Except anarchists, as defined by history, do not accept that "anarcho-capitalists" have anything to do with anarchism. They're oxymorons.

I find the Anarchist Theory FAQ (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm) to be quite a good discussion.

There's a more up-to-date version here: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/. Section F, in particular, covers my statement above.

Vas.

Good thoughts around here, but this thesis "Does Anarchism = Communism" makes we wonder; what is meant by Communism?

Is communism simply commmunism as explained in the encyclopedia, or has it become a collective term including all socialist governing forms that have existed all those years, just excluding socialism itself? If that is the case, then anarchism should be the same as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Communism itself, National-Socialism (or Nazism, though that's an entirely different discussion), Maoism and finally Socialism. That would be quite an unholdable thesis to defend i think. Because anarchism is far from any of these. Anarchism is a governmental form in which noone holds power, noone is responsible and no unity exists, or does it? Anyway that has been explained in other posts. The communist/socialist governmental forms must in theory actually be very organized, and in some cases one person, or more, must have the power to decide things over others. This proves communism is actually the opposite of anarchism.

The problem we struggle with however is that socialist governmental forms have a bad image in this world. Relatively spoken socialist forms are the best governmental forms we could have. The only problem we've had instituing them is that we, the lifeforms trying to institute it, are asocial beings. Or at least too asocial for a socialist governmental form. So until we humans have learned too overcome our asocial thoughts and emotions (and that'll take a very long time), a stable and true socialist government could never be installed.

Except anarchists, as defined by history, do not accept that "anarcho-capitalists" have anything to do with anarchism. They're oxymorons.



There's a more up-to-date version here: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/. Section F, in particular, covers my statement above.

Vas.


Except they are different FAQs. On Anarcho-Capitalism, the page I linked has this to say:

What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?

As should become plain to the reader of alt.society.anarchy or alt.anarchism, there are two rather divergent lines of anarchist thought. The first is broadly known as "left-anarchism," and encompasses anarcho-socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and anarcho-communists. These anarchists believe that in an anarchist society, people either would or should abandon or greatly reduce the role of private property rights. The economic system would be organized around cooperatives, worker-owned firms, and/or communes. A key value in this line of anarchist thought is egalitarianism, the view that inequalities, especially of wealth and power, are undesirable, immoral, and socially contingent.

The second is broadly known as "anarcho-capitalism." These anarchists believe that in an anarchist society, people either would or should not only retain private property, but expand it to encompass the entire social realm. No anarcho-capitalist has ever denied the right of people to voluntarily pool their private property and form a cooperative, worker-owned firm, or commune; but they also believe that several property, including such organizations as corporations, are not only perfectly legitimate but likely to be the predominant form of economic organization under anarchism. Unlike the left-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists generally place little or no value on equality, believing that inequalities along all dimensions -- including income and wealth -- are not only perfectly legitimate so long as they "come about in the right way," but are the natural consequence of human freedom.

A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely skeptical about the anarchist credentials of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. In my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history to maintain this claim. In Carl Landauer's European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements (published in 1959 before any important modern anarcho-capitalist works had been written), this great socialist historian notes that:

To be sure, there is a difference between individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists also do not acknowledge any right of society to force the individual. They differ from the anarchistic individualists in their belief that men, if freed from coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a communistic type, while the other wing believes that the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation. The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private property which is maintained through the power of the state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to maintain private property as a necessary condition of individual independence, without fully answering the question of how property could be maintained without courts and police.

The only similarity between Communism and anarchism is the idea of a society without government (society controlled by the people's government was only a temporary stage in Marx's theories).

Communism implies a fundamental obligation to society and the people around you.

Anarchism states that a person has no obligation to society or others except those they choose to assume.

It's the same contradiction you encounter in most democratic political systems - a party that claims to stand for the rights of society, and a party that claims to stand for the rights of the individual (specific rights are interchangeable).

Of course, the problem communists have is that there is no way to force every individual to sacrifice their rights and hopes in the name of society.

Meanwhile, Anarchists have the amusing task of telling social institutions such as friends and family that they should not expect loyalty and support simply because they are friends and family.

The communist/socialist governmental forms must in theory actually be very organized, and in some cases one person, or more, must have the power to decide things over others. This proves communism is actually the opposite of anarchism.

This proves nothing except for your absolute ignorance of the topic. Communism (and socialism) are socio-economic theories, not governmental forms. They need to be added to a governmental type to be implemented, whether the state model of Marxism or the libertarian model of anarchist communism.

Vas.

Except they are different FAQs. On Anarcho-Capitalism, the page I linked has this to say:

If you look at the FAQ I linked, it clearly debunks this. Anarchists have always included the individualist thread of Godwin, Stirner, Tucker and Spooner as a divergent part of anarchism. However, the gap between the individualists and the oxymorons is sufficient to show that, a. anarchism is anti-capitalist and b. the oxymorons are not anarchists.

Vas.

Genuine communism is a form of anarchism and to my knowledge, the majority of anarchists advocate it. They aren't exactly the same thing, though, as there are advocates of communism who seek to attain it through non-anarchist means.