Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Anarchy vs Communism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Probe, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. Probe

    ProbeExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    I was just wondering what are the similarities AND the differences of Anarchy and Communism? I mean they both basically want the same things...right?

    Sorry if there already IS a thread about this..I did check, I just typed "Anarchy and Communism" in the search box but nothing came up I made it.
     

  2. KAAOS-82

    KAAOS-82Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    590

    1

    16

    Jul 13, 2010
     
    When they were developing as ideologies they weren't that much different from each other but to answer your question:
    Numerous and plentiful. So much so the word communist now angers me with a passion...
     
  3. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Communism in it's original idea would be a little like anarcho-communism, but not entirely.
    Marx wrote about "The dictatorship of the proletariat" - That's against anarchism, as anarchism deny authority, and therefore dictatorship of any form. In a communist society, all could decide on rules that limited the personal freedom, where as in a anarchist society, the only limit to personal freedom is, that you're not allowed to hurt others or limit their personal freedom.

    Apart from that, communism can be achieved through parlamentarism, which anarchism - in most cases - deny.

    If we take a look at the later forms of communism, like stalinism, it's basically dictatorship. Even if the people should take control, the rules would be applied by a state. Also, in Leninism and Stalinism, the strong state has to be present in the early stages of the revolution to "ensure that the power is given to the people rightly". There's 3 major flaws in that:
    1. How is "Rightly"? It's chosen by a state. Therefore, it's not the peoples communism, at least not initially
    2. Anarchism believes, that power corrupts. They wouldn't give up the power
    3. If we have to have a state to have communism forced upon others, it's against the anarchist ideals of democracy.

    It's just what i could think of. I'm no expert.
     
  4. antitude420

    antitude420Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    127

    0

    6

    May 16, 2010
     
    Anarchy and Communism both aimed at the same goal, originally. They both aimed at a stateless, classless society, where the goods would be collectevily owned by the people. They differed, though, on the way to achieve that society.
    Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to help the transition between capitalism and anarchism and, when the time was right, the dictatorship would eventually start fading away, leading to an anarchist society. Also, the 'dictatorship' of the proletariat was supposed to be sort of a collective of unions.
    And, while Marx proposed the dicatatorship of the proletariat, Phroudon disregarded saying it was authoritarian (because being of the proletariat or not it'd still be authoritarian) and, as anarchism opposes all forms of authority/domination, a contradiction in itself because the people wouldn't be really free, the 'proletariat' would become the new burgeiose and, as they start getting corrupted by power, the dicatatorship of the proletariat would be like any other form of dictatorship, it'd almost be fascism.

    But, the Communism I was talking about in the first and second paragraph was Marx's original communism and, now-a-days, when people talk about communism they are most likely reffering to Marxist-Leninist communism. Marx's communism, in theory, is great. Problem is power corrupts people, that's why it didn't work to date; contrary to anarcho-communism/libertarian communism.

    P.S : This is what I was able to remember from the top of my head, hope it helped :)
     
  5. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    0

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,312

    53

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Depends what is your definition of communism. Are you talking about Marxism, libertarian communism, or authoritarian communism like what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia and other countries ?

    Explaining everything would be way too long..

    Basically, there are no similarities between Marxism, authoritarian communism and anarchism except anti-capitalism. Libertarian communism is pretty much the same thing as anarchism and Anarcho-communism. We already debated a couple of time over Marxism on this forum, if you read again those debates you will clearly see what is the difference between Marxism and anarchism. It is two very different concepts but sometimes there is a common front, like during the Spanish revolution where the anarchists of the CNT fought with the Marxists from the POUM. But there are also many many other examples where alliances with communists ended up with trahison and where the anarchists were stabbed in the back by their so-called "allies", so such alliances are very dangerous, anyway there is no point of doing a revolution if it would end in a civil war between communists and anarchists because there was too much disagreements between the revolutionaries at first...
     
  7. SenI

    SenIExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    237

    0

    10

    Oct 4, 2009
     Russian Federation
    I agree with the thoughts vAsSiLy77 and ungovernable. Especially something that described and explained ungovernable.

    Сommunism a have two kinds: Left communism and Authoritarian communism.

    The ideas of the Left Communists are very similar ideas with anarchism. In the Left-wing Communists included: Libertarian communism, Libertarian Marxists, libertarian socialism, autonomist Marxism, etc. In case they were and are close to the ideologists of anarchism. But they have different viewpoints on the attempt to create a social revolution of way of social fusion. For example in the former Soviet Union, is being created eaten by a movement called the Social Revolutionary Movement. Which includes all kinds of organization among the Left Communists and anarchists in the way of creating a revolution in the social-revolutionary synthesis. By the way, our Krasnoyarsk group of anarchists there are a part.

    With regard to the authoritarian communists, them this are Lenisty, Stalinsty, Trotsisty and other Bolshevik bullshit scum. As well as the social democratic too. According to their ideas, they all believe that the revolutionary mood of the masses are not able to self manage and resolve important issues of the future of the people. Therefore, they believe that the only way is to create the party and state. What ultimately led to state capitalism. The most ardent example the Soviet Union, Colombia, Cuba. In these countries there is no such concept as a class struggle. Trailers and they are contrary to the creation of a classless society, not to mention the path to communism.
     
  8. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    vAsSiLy77:
    Thank you, and great addition.
    I've only read little Bakunin, though he seems to be the one i agree with the most. I should pull myself together and read it.

    - I think most of us can agree that Soviet and the Bolsheviks was mainly dictatorship. Or at least it became quickly.
     
  9. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    0

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Don't mention, it' just a pleasure.
    Bakunin and Kropotikin are really important, they knew what they were writing about 'cause they knew the situation of the people in Russia and Europe, while Marx was sitting in London, relying on books and libraries, doing his paperwork -
    Bakunins conflict with marx's proved it's worth much later while marx lacked the practical experience to draw the right conclusions. But he was very eager in starting petty little intrigues against his critics and his ambition to lead the revolutionary movement broke the unity of the first Internationale, Bakunin was getting the boot.
    Marx and engels made up a "scientific" aura about their theorie, while demoting the mass of the oppressed people it was meant for to nothing more than an very abstract aspect of the show. It's a bit like describing an ant population and it's opportunities in the future but not caring about the nameless ants. :ecouteurs:
    I still wonder if this is the reason for the obvious lack of humaneness/humanity the authorian communists always showed- Stalin killed more of his fellow children of the great soviet fatherland than the nazis, enforcing the industrialisation against all odds and using famines in the Ukraine and elsewhere to enforce the collectivation of the agrar production.
    Lenin and his staff didn't even experience the start of the revolution because they were in exile in Switzerland and arrived only days later, helped by the german military that was still fighting the russian army on the eastern front. The germans helped them hoping to destabilize the tsarist state by supporting the revolution while the war was going on.
    After arrival the bolsheviks were very busily trying to take over the lead after most of the fighting was done by the people and the revolutionary soldiers - Trotzky made the famous comment: The Anarchist are good for doing a revolution but they should be sent back where they belong - on the waste heap of history. And he really contributed to that...
    Again, you're right - it became a fucking dictatorship
    But we already know some better way - so let's further Anarchy! \m/
     
  10. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    vAsSiLy77:
    Yes, i'm a little more familiar with Kropotkin :) I've read quite a lot on it.

    Bakunins criticism of Marx was very interesting. And yes, i can only agree with what you say here.
    For the most part i like Marx, mostly because his criticism of capitalism was - and still is to this day - spot on. Yet, revolutionary, he didn't serve the individual and it's freedom .

    Lenin's ideas were always authoritarian, though the real psychopath was Stalin. Stalinism is just dictatorship with state capitalism, it shouldn't be called communism.
    What i do respect is Lenin's work with furthering the workers fight for better rights all over the world, in scandinavia for example. But the whole leninist movement afterwards wasn't good. To authoritarian. Also, i believe that they hesitated to much to get "order" in russia, which led to dictatorship.
     
  11. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,312

    53

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Lenin was the one who opened the first goulags and leninism was also dictatorship with state capitalism...

    Bolchevik dictatorship isn't what i would call "better rights for workers"...

    You also have the national-bolcheviks movement in russia, a bunch of fucking red nazis clowns :lmao:
    [​IMG]
     
  12. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,599

    110

    661

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Trotsky got his in the end though, assassinated by a famous Mexican artist and muralist, who was also an Anarcho-Communist, David Alfaro Siqueiros... :star:
     
  13. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,312

    53

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    I thought trotsky was killed by an agent sent by staline ??
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,312

    53

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    wikipedia says the attempt of assasinating trotsky was unsuccessful and it also says he was a stalinist
     
  15. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,599

    110

    661

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Well according to Siqueiros official biography, he dealt the death blow and Mercader's story was a cover up because the Mexican Govt. was already searching for him from the first attempt on Trotsky. Siqueiros was not a Stalinist although Stalin did want Trotsky assassinated....Siqueros had been involved with and participated in Anarchist sabotage for many years before Trotsky came to Mexico, including fighting in the Revolution. He was a good friend of Flores Magon and was heavily influenced by him. Diego Rivera was a Leninist-Marxist and the association and friendship of the two artists often led to misinterpretation of Siqueiros political views. I will try to find the film were D.A. Siqueiros speaks about all of this just before his death as he is working on some of his greatest and most fascinating murals.

    This also pigeonholes the artist as a "Stalinist" but according to Siqueiros he wanted revenge on Trotsky for atrocities committed against the people....
     
  16. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Ungovernable:
    Goulags? (Sorry, no idea what it is)
    And yes, Lenin was state capitalism, and a dictator, i know that.
    But he did have a lot of meeting and such in other countries. For example, he participated in the people's house meeting in Copenhagen, where 1st of May was pronounced the workers rights movements day (can't remember if it was pronounced internationally there though). It wasn't communism, there was no communist revolution, but better rights for workers.
    - That being said, he WAS a dictator. And he too gave orders to kill many people, not just in the revolution but afterwards (though Stalin was worse on that one)

    This stuff about David Alfaro Siqueiros is great reading. Quite interesting
     
  17. KAAOS-82

    KAAOS-82Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    590

    1

    16

    Jul 13, 2010
     
    Boring fucking politics that will get us all shot... hahahaha :lmao:
     
  18. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    0

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Druzhba, Towarihsh Shuei,
    (by the way pleaz tell me if the spelling is right...)

    Marx' critics on capitalism is worth the reading, it's a bit like reading a H-Bomb operarors manual - you're getting a nearly complete picture about what you are fighting against - it's a very useful tool to oppose leninism/stalinism too.
    I also liked his historical/dialectical materialism, it's a good way to systematisize the complex matters of evolution and development, constant progress, making every thing more easy to understan and it was only corrected by the progress of science in general.
    Most important are the sociological definitions and descriptions of the competeting classes and and the resulting class war - again a good tool to rip apart catholic's propaganda and authorian communists as well, 'cause he failed with his "dictatorship of the proletariat" and gave the arguments to oppose this theorie at the same time.
    (by the way stalin had an jesuit education...)
    Marx spared the Anarchists the efford of developing their own version, Bakunin only had to give more details in his "Mutual Aid", bringing the matter from the heights of abstract science back to the real life.

    Besides Lenins obvious bad authorian traits his devotion for internationalism sounded good, making me want to read more of his works when I was young, but his devotion remained only on the paper of his writings and never became a practisized strategy. He died when the revolution was still too weak to give any support and the later soviet support for other revolutionary movements was never pure solidarity or the insight of the necessity of a worldwide liberation, but always a tool to secure their state capitalistic interests only.
    I think lenin died too soon/too early to have had serious influence on what was going on. After his death his wife Krupskaja tried to continue in his legacy critisize the bolsheviks tendencies, but she was isolated and silenced by stalin and trotzky.
    Lenin became a symbol of bolshevism only and stalins "communism in one land" policy and his use of "solidarity" as a tool were the last nails to close his coffin tied shut - good riddance to him...

    Speaking of the bolsheviks abuse of the people's revolution we should not forget about the other opponents of the revolution 1917:
    The army of the reactionary germans on the eastern front, the tsarist white counterrevolution here and there in Russia, the international counterrevolution operating in the Baltikum - the list is too long to be healthy, enemies everywhere...
    I think it was the combination of the bolsheviks believe in authority and the seemingly overwhelming number of counterrevolutionary threats that made the whole thing getting out of control - turning the revolution into the opposite.

    Victor Serge wrote a very good book describing the early stages of the development of the bolsheviks killer machine.
    He was a volunteer leaving Belgium to join the revolution, he contributed to the defence of St. Petersburg against a white army - and he was very observative.
    The Red Army just got developed and was very weak, but the bolshevics in command distrusted the volunteering workers and "foreigners" like Serge and refused to arm them - just because they were no bolsheviks.
    The Tscheka was running amok, hunting real and unreal enemies of the revolution - the tschekists were no bolsheviks too, most of them we're ex-tsaristic agents and officers now just caring about their career in the bolsheviks hierarchy.
    Serge describes the situation shortly after the revolution much like Orwell described the living in his 1984 vision, really scary and problematic to resolve - but the bolsheviks only unleashed the bloodhound, and it went wild...

    I think there's a danger in professional organisations like "revolutionary authorities", nearly the same happened in Spain, when the stalinists enforced the development of the "peoples national army" - and lots of counterrevolutionaries joined the ejerico national - but not to defend the republic or the revolution against the fascist nationalists...

    Some claim that Stalin wasn't mad but nothing more than the chief mechanic of the bolshevik machinelike suppression system, once convinced by the success of necessary (?) enforcement of discipline to defend the revolution, he never gave up the tools of repression and he just continued to use them, never thinking twice about the consequences.
    Developed to defend the revolution, the Red Army was usefull to exterminate the opposition in Kronstadt and the Ukraine too, Trotzky was too much an opportunist to refuse contributing to this - still sitting "on the garbage heap of history", I don't feel sorry for him getting the ice pic after he lost his usefullness - and started critisizing the soviets in a vain try to regain his position.

    Living in germoney I'm still happy that stalin wasn't mad enough to mess up the great patriotic war too, so the Russians were able to kick the nazis out of the show - one of my grandfathers died at Stalingrad - but it was his decision not to refuse to serve in a fascist army, and it's never a healthy idea to do like he did, he was a loss for us -but I don't blame neither the Russians or stalin, I don't want to imagine what the nazis would have done to the "sub"-humans...
     
  19. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    0

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    at least they'll have just one reason to shoot us - except been bored by politixsssss :ecouteurs:
    ... and the last cigarette will be for free!
     
  20. SenI

    SenIExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    237

    0

    10

    Oct 4, 2009
     Russian Federation
    I want you happy, but they've long since collapsed :) . And more precisely their party strongly repressed the current government of the Russian Federation, i.e the party "United Russia" (will they all are dead, fucking bastards). They are to this day exist, they are now called the Party of "Other Russia" and at the rallies they drag their black and white and yellow flag (imperial flag):

    [​IMG]

    But their original are leader Eduard Limonov, lived in the U.S. and when he returned to Russia, through his party he wanted to create a new Russian state by analogy USA.It's all talk about their. And their don't fucking to understand. They is not what did not achieve, but an attempt to create the Orange Revolution and attracted their attention a lot of boneheads. In short, fuck with them. They are all the fucking crazy!

    Noting they and this very good.
     
Loading...