Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

11

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

state communism and anarcho-communism have the same end goal: a classless, stateless society.

The main difference is they way they try to get to it: ancoms do not believe in a temporary state that would dissolve itself once true communism is on the way.

If you believe that:

  • power corrupts, even for "party leaders"

  • all system's first goal is self-preservation, at the cost of the other goals

  • people are able to look after themselves and others, and do it naturally

maybe you should look into anarcho-communsim.

Also, communalism is kinda cool, even if not true anarchism.

further reading: "are your an anarchist [...]" by david gaeber

8

shanoxilt wrote

Because communism implies anarchism: a classless, stateless society.

-2

MrPotatoeHead wrote

It does not imply this at all. Prove it.

2

ziq wrote

Even Marx says communism is stateless.

-3

MrPotatoeHead wrote

And yet every communist entity has been a state. USSR and China were unfriendly at best. People aren't ready for a one world government. The Muslims will try to destroy it. Africa should accept it as they don't seem capable of anything other than fighting with each other. Perfection is impossible on this planet, a great goal, but compromises must be made.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

They weren't communist, they just called themselves so. USSR and China are both state capitalist. Either you abolish money and state or you aren't communist. It's not rocket science.

People aren't ready for a one world government.

Boy are you confused.

2

foggymorn wrote

one world government

You clearly don't know the first thing about anarchism, at least read the book linked in the sidebar before you spew this rubbish.

1

thirdnature wrote

i'm not entirely certain about ALL but most attempts at communism have been via marx's idea that a dictatorship of the proletariat would force a transition from capitalism to a communist society and once communism has been achieved/assured, the dictatorship would dissolve itself. anarchists have always thought it was bizarre to think a dictatorship would ever dissolve itself and historically they've been right.

these 'examples' of communist countries were definitively not communist. if there's a dictator, centralized authority, or a market economy it isn't communism- they might be intending to move in that direction, but they aren't communist countries-, no matter what you learned in school or hear on tv or from clueless politicians and political commentators.

communism isn't about a perfect world. it's about a different vision of so-called human nature. capitalism is founded on the belief that humanity is naturally greedy, competitive, and violent (see hobbes, see locke, the mainstream notion of human nature was articulated by a few cynical renaissance jackasses and jackass economists who were influenced by those two piles of trash). this selfish, violent humanity has to be kept in check by a state and our appetites regulated by or channeled into a market economy.

communism, anarcho-communism, and anarchism in general takes less of an ahistorical and less of a religious stance on human nature, one rooted in science, sociology, and anthropology, etc. it views the human as inherently social, not a mindless monster viciously pursuing the satisfaction of its appetites or manipulatively seeking out its own self-interest. anarchists and communists recognize the principle of mutual aid in human behavior, that we are capable of organizing and maintaining ourselves without a state to control or focus our self-interest in the right direction and anarchists/etc know we would do a much better job of it than a highly centralized, detached apparatus of coercion and exploitation. complex systems theory attests to this and almost affirms it as a fact, if you ask me.

communism isn't a one world government, you should probably research stuff rather than just accepting the bullshit perpetuated by public schools and the trash on the news as truth.

the idea that 'Muslims would destory it' is pretty fucked up. you should read about the recent history of the middle east and africa's relationship to colonial powers. you'll be surprised to find that most of the current social problems and warfare are a result of western imperialism. if you're under the impression that 'muslims and jews have been fighting for 100s of years' you should look into history. caliphates, while nowhere near utopic in nature, tended toward a high level of cultural tolerance. look into how britain manufactured israel's geopolitical situation and how the west supports the israeli government in its incredibly violent, racist campaign against the palestinians, how the west supports saudi arabia in- among other things- the horrifying bombardment of yemen, look into the war against the soviets in afghanistan and the us's occupation after the defeat of the soviets by propping up oppressive, violent puppet regimes.

5

happysmash27 wrote

I honestly didn't realise there was a difference until I was banned from /r/communism on Reddit myself...

4

emmaloldman wrote (edited )

I think /u/TheLegendaryBirdMonster summed it up nicely but I’ll add a bit about the differences in analysis I’ve experienced as an anarchist coming from Marxism.

In the broad sense, communism is primarily concerned with class struggle as the essential point of social conflict. While this is unquestionably a large contributor to the social ills we see today, anarchism extends this struggle into abolishing domination within every sphere of life. Hierarchy, patriarchy, racism, gender norms, nationalism, ableism, ecocide, speciesism; these are all things that—while certainly exacerbated by class—cause a great deal of suffering outside of a traditional Marxist critique of capitalism.

This holistic view is why I’m an anarchist.

1

thirdnature wrote

i actually find the idea that the history of all societies has been a history of class struggle pretty incredible hah i can't believe that idea isn't challenged more. i'd never shit on marx (i don't know his work that well, but from what i gather he was fuckin incredibly insightful/intelligent and anarchism has rly benefited from a lot of what he wrote), but that's just so obviously a case of projecting yr current situation into the past.

2

emmaloldman wrote (edited )

Yeah I suppose a more accurate statement (and this could be what he meant) is "the history of large-scale western civilization..." rather than just societies as a whole. As far as I know, his analysis of class struggle starts with feudalism but I've really only read Capital Vol. 1 so anyone should feel free to correct me.

4

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Communism implies anarchism; the problem is that people think the idea of the 'withering away' of a state is the proper way to achieve this type of world, but if you look back at the 20th century you will see how this has always failed. You cannot expect a state to create a stateless society.

4

NEOalquimista wrote (edited )

I don't like the idea of having someone else making the choices for me. Too much power on very few people lead to malicious activities from them, especially silencing whoever disagrees with what they do, in order to protect their power. If we can find a way to manage ourselves independently and still naturally create consensus within the community, I'm all for it.

I've seen that people have what's needed to make this possible. Good examples are the Free Software Movement, the groups of mutual aid and the people practicing DIY in their lives (do-it-yourself); it makes me motivated.

Also, talk is cheap. I wouldn't trust companies and governments because all they do is give us talk, but are not transparent, not "open source". Whatever transparency they try to show once and a while is heavily filtered to avoid leaking what could damage their precious public opinion. They would kill you, if they found it profitable.

4

Naokotani wrote

Because freedom comes from the people, not from authority.

3

ziq wrote

Because rulers are for bootlickers.

1

Halstan wrote

How can you defend against bad folks under strict anarchism? I've always been unsure about that bit or maybe I'm just a coward?

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Why can't the people come together to defend their own communities? We don't need a state to protect us from ourselves.

1

Halstan wrote

Agreed, but how can we stop a group that's bigger than our group? Or a group more willing to be extra violent. I don't know. I just worry about this stuff.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Stop them from doing what? If everyone is equal and everyone has what they need to prosper, why would they attack their neighbors? And if they do kill their neighbors and double their resources, why would other communities tolerate warlords? They'd form a militia to take them out before they invade the next town.

1

Halstan wrote

You don't worry about people feeling like they didn't get their fair share? In my life, I've jl seen people who hate for no reason and it scares me. Just look at our current political situation. I agree with you about how great it would be and is worth doing. I guess I'm just scared.

1

ziq wrote

Honestly I think you're concern trolling and it's irritating.

1

Halstan wrote

Sorry to irritate you. I thought it was a valid point. I've met a lot of nut jobs in my life.

2

thirdnature wrote

one response to this is that a lot of the 'hate for no reason' comes from psychosocial dislocations and socioeconomic inequalities caused by hierarchical social systems.

warlords might arise, all an anarchist community could do is form militias to resist them. hopefully warlords would have hierarchical militias, because the anarchist non-hierarchical ones would have a way better chance of winning. but it might lose too. that's just the way things go

1

Halstan wrote

You're right. If something is right and just you need to at least try

1

wildcat wrote (edited )

"Sell it to me."
-Conversations from the marketplace of ideas.

-6

[deleted] wrote (edited by a moderator )

4

NeoliberalismKills wrote

Why all the hate? Feel free to disagree but personal attacks are inexcusable. Especially the F word. I can guarantee if you win the revolution there will be gulags.

-5

[deleted] wrote (edited by a moderator )

5

NeoliberalismKills wrote

The F word is personal. Just like the N word. So keep your bigotry out of here. If you cannot debate in good faith do not debate at all.

-7

[deleted] wrote (edited by a moderator )

-6

[deleted] wrote (edited by a moderator )