Peter Kropotkin

Of course no, no leader or any bullshit like that, it's power by the people like in any other anarchist theory

Anarcho-communism is an horizontal hierarchy (instead of a vertical hierarchy like in communism dictatorship). The people themselves decide of the decisions through popular assemblies, syndicates, communes, etc... Then anarcho-federalism is used to federate the decision of everyone, but if you follow what i'm trying to explain the decisions come from the bottom, anarcho-federalism is just a way to put all those decisions together

as for the other question, anarchosyndicalism and anarcho-communism aren't mutually incompatible, anarchosyndicalism is more a way to fight, they believe the organization of the revolution should be through syndicate because it is the biggest force of the workers and the best way to stuggle... For example the spanish revolution was typically anarcho-syndicalist and even today most of the anarchosyndicalists work with organizations from the spanish revolution heritage : CNT, CNT-FAI, CNT-F, etc... Spanish revolution went anarchosyndicalist because when the government disseapeared, syndicates was all that was left for the workers to organize, so it was a quick and easy way to federate the peoples and keep minimal order. And also because of years and years of anarchosyndicalist propaganda before the revolution

But like i said it isn't mutually incompatible, in anarcho-communism the syndicates would be a big part of the organization tools

As for kropotkin's writtings, I also suggest "the ethics of anarchism" and "the anarchist morale", two big referrence for the anarchist ideas (and not only anarcho-communism)

Note that kropotkin was a russian and he was exiled from the communist russia after the revolution and was one of the first victim of the repression, another proof he have nothing to do with authoritarian communism. He was also a friend and supporter of Voline, another notorious russian anarchist who was one of the biggest opponent to communist russia. He wrote a book called "the red fascism" against the bolcheviks, and he also wrote one of the best critic of russian revolution, called "the unknown revolution", a huge book in 3 parts that i recommand to everyone who want to know the true face of the russian revolution.

 

Please if you are going to talk about real communism, talk about LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM. Fuck Karl Marx, he was an authoritarian asshole, he has nothing to do with the communism that anarchists believe in.

Marx believed in dictatorship of the proletariat, which would be just another form of oppressive and authoritarian government. Bakunin explained that very well, here are some quotes from his most notorious writtings:


"The Marxists argue that the dictatorship alone - their dictatorship, of course - would express the popular will. Our answer is this: no dictatorship has no objective other than its own perpetuation, and it can only lead slavery of the people the tolerant, freedom can only result in freedom, ie of the rebellion of the working people and their freedom to organize. "
Bakunin
"(...) So, no state, whether that be democratic forms, even the reddest republic, popular only in the sense of the lie known representation of the people, is able to give the it what it needs, that is to say, the freedom to organize its own interests, from bottom to top without any interference, restraint or supervision from above, because every state, even the Republican and the more democratic, even as popular pseudo-state envisioned by Mr. Marx, is not something that the government of the masses up and down by a few learned and even preferred, supposedly better understanding of the real interests of the people that the people themselves. "
Bakunin
"There will be a government overly complicated, which will not only govern and administer the masses politically, (...) but still administer them economically, concentrating in its hands the production and fair distribution of wealth, the cultivation of land, establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of trade, and finally the application of capital to production by one banker, the State. All this will require an immense knowledge and many heads overflowing with brains in this government. This will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, the most despotic, the most arrogant and most contemptuous of all regimes "
Bakunin

----

"According to Bakunin, that insofar as there is in fact a seizure of power centralized in a minority, on behalf of the working class that criticism of authoritarian communism is valid. It is recommended that Bakunin collective exercise of social power and decentralized by the mass of working people. "

"Marx did not have a sense of freedom from foot to head is an authoritarian. "
- Bakunin


"I hate communism [authoritarian], because it is the negation of freedom and I can not conceive anything without human liberty. I am not a communist because communism concentrates and is absorbing all the powers of the corporation in the State because it inevitably leads to centralization of ownership in the hands of the state. [...] I want the organization of society and social or collective ownership is low up by means of free association, not the top down by means of any authority whatsoever. It is in this sense I am a collectivist and not communist "
- Bakunin, end September 1868

"Claiming that a group of individuals, even the most intelligent and best-intentioned, will be able to become thinking, the soul, the directing and unifying will of the revolutionary movement and the economic organization of the proletariat roof countries is such a heresy against common sense and covers the historical experience, we wonder in amazement how a man as intelligent as Marx could conceive "
- Bakunin, October 5, 1872

"We do not accept even as a revolutionary transition, or national conventions, nor the Constituent Assembly, nor the interim government nor the so-called revolutionary dictatorships; pair we are convinced that the revolution when [...] is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals rulers, inevitably and immediately becomes reaction. "
- Bakunin, October 5, 1872

"If the proletariat becomes the ruling class, who do we ask, does it dominate? (...) Who says State necessarily says domination and, therefore, slavery. (...) By any measure is Instead, you get the same result execrable government of the vast majority of the masses by a privileged minority, but this minority, the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Ont, admittedly, old workers, but, soon they will become leaders, will cease to be workers and will begin to see the world from the top of the proletarian state will no longer represent the people but themselves and their claim to govern '
- Bakunin, 1873

"The Marxists find solace in the idea that this dictatorship will be temporary and of short duration. They argued that the state yoke that dictatorship is a transitional stage necessary to achieve the total emancipation of the people, anarchy, or freedom being the goal, the state or dictatorship means. So to free the masses, we must begin by enslaving. (...) To this we reply that no dictatorship can have no other purpose than last as long as possible "
- Bakunin


(sorry, translated from french with google)

All of the notorious anarchists also disliked Marx very much. Beside the class analys and the capitalism critique, there is not really any common point between anarchists and marxists. You can see this division very well in the commune of paris and the first international, where the anarchists opposed their projects against marxists views and where marxist communist was highly critized by peoples like Bakunin, Joseph Dejacques (who represented the anarchist side in the first international and who critized marxism authoritarism a lot), and even Proudhon critized Marx.

Anarcho-communism have nothing to do with marxism, even Kropotkin who is behind anarcho-communism wasn't a fan of Marx, he barely read marxist theories and that's why joseph stalin accused him of not understanding communism...

 

Marxism is dictatorship of the proletariat, therefore the peoples in power would form the new upper class. That's not a classless society, and we could even say that it's not stateless because it forms a new worker's state.

marxism is also communist party, the manifesto of the communist party was written by marx.

the dictatorship of the proletariat exclude everyone who is not a worker so it is a dictatorship of a PART of the population and not everyone. And it's still dictatorship, which is synonymous of authoritarism.

Bakunin also explained very well that the new "dictators of the proletariat" would become a new class and wouldn't be proletarians anymore. So it wouldn't be equality anymore since there would be a new ruler class..

The final stage maybe, but like Bakunin said this final stage will never be reached because all dictatorship stays forever. And everyone who was inspired of marx became a full-time dictator and this society was never achieved. Only permanent dictatorship was achieved.

But hey back2front, you believe that disinformation is called freedom of speech, so don't call it a problem.