You must log in or register to comment.

RosaReborn wrote

Because the routes taken to reach that goal is very different, and most anarchists believe that the communist method of using the state to enact communism is impossible (or at least highly likely to fail due to incentives for those in power), which is true.


Brick wrote

Kropotkin explains it best:

Marxists have the bad (but deliberate) habit of confusing 'state' for 'society'. So of course they always end up making allowances for statism both in theory and practice.

Since they have a monopoly on the word 'communism', we're better off using our word because it's been conceived to not make allowances for hierarchy or 'temporary' states.

Anarchism is more than a set of economic theories - it's an unending struggle for autonomy and a stand against authority. Marxism doesn't gel with anarchy's primary drive, and that's why there's so much conflict between us historically. We simply don't want the same things.


JoeMemo OP wrote (edited )

I find this piece about Bakunin's stance against Marxist communism to be helpful.

He said:

The most fatal combination that could possibly be formed, would be to unite socialism to absolutism

Which was a frightenly accurate prediction of every communist revolution that occured over the next 100 years.

The prediction by Engels that the seizing and centralising of property would be the state’s last official act [9] proved to be a sick joke on the workers of the Stalinist countries.


AresUII wrote

Apparently the differing means of getting there (from the bottom vs from the top, as I understand) is enough to warrant a dichotomy.


RevolutionaryCatalonia wrote

Communism believes in hierarchy and anarchism doesn't. That makes it so the way to achieve communalism is different.


undersc0rezer0 wrote

Communism is willing to use state authority to abolish the state eventually. Anarchism says fuck that shit no state never.


kirosaima wrote

Anarchism alone simply implies an active opposition to authority and hierarchy (including the state ofc.) whereas a more specific form of anarchism as anarcho-communism would imply the criteria you say. In addition, communism implies criteria other than the lack of a monetary system and statelessness.


darsa wrote

Anarchism would not necessarily mean 'moneyless, stateless' either; that would be one form of anarchism. Forms such as mutualism or branches of anarcho-syndicalism would keep a form of 'money', though one not familiar to the current form. This is why there would need to be separate words, as well as the fact that Marxist-Leninists jacked the word pretty badly.


selver wrote (edited )

That's not what anarchism means. It's not even inherently anti-money. Anarchism is opposed to authority and domination, while Marxists just oppose capitalism.


RandomNoob wrote

Because communism isn't perceived like this by everyone while anarchism is a pretty clear principle