anarchism is communism in its purest form

[BlackEagle]

as much of a dedicated anarchist i am, i have relized that anarchism is communism in its purest for.
i belive that communism isnt a bad idea minus the whole "control what you say and think" part, its equaly fair to humanit yand would not implicate class stuctures or hierarchy.
when stalin turned russia into a communist country he alterd the communism picture so that he could have power.

but thats just my opinion.
any comments?

[K=x'uksami]

As I understand it, the term "communism" is really quite muddled since it can refer to two separate (and arguably diametrically opposed) social models. I was under the impression, though, that the Soviet Union and similar states considered themselves socialist rather than communist, as Marxist theory defines socialism as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" where the working class controls the state.

[|Y|]

The idea that "pure communism" results in a "stateless society" is a misnomer. The whole point of communism is economic, to produce and consume goods a certain way. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the process would eventually result in a "stateless society" because those who have power in a hierarchy based communist system will wish to maintain that power. Consider Cuba as an interesting example, they are the longest lasting modern communist society on the planet. The leaders in that society have maintained their power via their "parlementary democracy," which hasn't changed its face very much in over 5 decades. Those in power maintain power.

Anarchists are of the belief that starting with removing power before even working on the social institutions will result in a society without a state. It's basically the exact opposite of how communists propose to do things, and the results are clear. If you start without power and you have in place mechanisms to reduce or mitigate people from having power, then how can a state form to begin with?

Even if somehow magically state communism were to fall, it would become anarchism, not "pure communism." Mind you Marx coopted Proudhons ideas about the state, and rather than using the word 'anarchy' to express the idea of statelessness, he basically claimed that "communism will become stateless." We have to remember the history of the ideas. Anarchists were a popular bunch in the early 1900s. They knew that the state was the sole reason for our problems.

It would then seem quite odd that those "communists" who wanted a "future stateless society" would utilize statist methods to kill and massacre anarchists.

It's not really part of the "pure communist goal."

[Selkie]

I sort of agree...I think a pure communist group would create communism as its means of production, ie, everyone decides together how to produce, how much, etc. Communism is just a way of economy, not a government type imo.

[D351]

Communism is the top-down version of the commune. It is by its nature, a form of government (one quite focused on economics, but a gov't none the less). It has some similarities with certain visions of utopian anarchism, but that doesn't make it anarchism, nor a utopia. The organization required for communism depends on officials whom depend on authority. That's not anarchism, even if everyone likes the officials and they're doing a good job (never.. going to... happen). Now, if humans shared a hive-mind and could all agree on policy without the use of representatives, that might pass for anarchism, though I don't think any of the members of this theoretical hive-mind would really pass as human, not to mention that you could still consider the creator(s) of the system by which such a hive-mind would exist its authority. Either way communism is definitely not, even under the best human circumstances, anarchism. Communism just wants really bad to be anarchism, because it knows, deep down inside, that it'd make a lot more sense if it were (not to mention how much cooler it'd be). But sadly, anarchism is already taken... by anarchism.

[Selkie]

Communism is the top-down version of the commune. It is by its nature, a form of government (one quite focused on economics, but a gov't none the less). It has some similarities with certain visions of utopian anarchism, but that doesn't make it anarchism, nor a utopia. The organization required for communism depends on officials whom depend on authority. That's not anarchism, even if everyone likes the officials and they're doing a good job (never.. going to... happen). Now, if humans shared a hive-mind and could all agree on policy without the use of representatives, that might pass for anarchism, though I don't think any of the members of this theoretical hive-mind would really pass as human, not to mention that you could still consider the creator(s) of the system by which such a hive-mind would exist its authority. Either way communism is definitely not, even under the best human circumstances, anarchism. Communism just wants really bad to be anarchism, because it knows, deep down inside, that it'd make a lot more sense if it were (not to mention how much cooler it'd be). But sadly, anarchism is already taken... by anarchism.

But consider, if an anarchist community decided together how to produce things, of course there would be disagreements but the general consensus would win. The workers/anarchists would vote together and how to carry out these orders they have given themselves, then get to work! Isn't that communism?

[Yuda]

You have to differentiate between authoritarian communism (leninism, maoism, etc) and libertarian communism (anarchism, libertarian marxists)

[D351]

Communism is the top-down version of the commune. It is by its nature, a form of government (one quite focused on economics, but a gov't none the less). It has some similarities with certain visions of utopian anarchism, but that doesn't make it anarchism, nor a utopia. The organization required for communism depends on officials whom depend on authority. That's not anarchism, even if everyone likes the officials and they're doing a good job (never.. going to... happen). Now, if humans shared a hive-mind and could all agree on policy without the use of representatives, that might pass for anarchism, though I don't think any of the members of this theoretical hive-mind would really pass as human, not to mention that you could still consider the creator(s) of the system by which such a hive-mind would exist its authority. Either way communism is definitely not, even under the best human circumstances, anarchism. Communism just wants really bad to be anarchism, because it knows, deep down inside, that it'd make a lot more sense if it were (not to mention how much cooler it'd be). But sadly, anarchism is already taken... by anarchism.

But consider, if an anarchist community decided together how to produce things, of course there would be disagreements but the general consensus would win. The workers/anarchists would vote together and how to carry out these orders they have given themselves, then get to work! Isn't that communism?

Damn... I hadn't considered the microcosm... Okay, in the small scale that you just pointed out, I concede, Communism could be anarchist...

[Selkie]

I won? I won?!

Yay!

*cough*

Anyways...!

I personally think that that's the only way anarchy could ever work, anyways. Think about it. An anarchist society would have to rely on trust and a willingness to work together...and you aren't going to get that in huge cities like New York, people are just going to tear at eachother because they're all strangers. But if an anarchist society exists in many small groups that work together (each could be different depending on its people's wants and needs...some could be nomadic, some ancap, some vegan, some communist, etc), everyone will know eachother and willingly work together without intimidation or coercion. And if they don't, they can leave or split or whatever. And in those groups, they would need to figure out together how to make things work for them...like elder councils, only it's a senior home

[D351]

I won? I won?!

Yay!

*cough*

Anyways...!

I personally think that that's the only way anarchy could ever work, anyways. Think about it. An anarchist society would have to rely on trust and a willingness to work together...and you aren't going to get that in huge cities like New York, people are just going to tear at eachother because they're all strangers. But if an anarchist society exists in many small groups that work together (each could be different depending on its people's wants and needs...some could be nomadic, some ancap, some vegan, some communist, etc), everyone will know eachother and willingly work together without intimidation or coercion. And if they don't, they can leave or split or whatever. And in those groups, they would need to figure out together how to make things work for them...like elder councils, only it's a senior home

Just imagine the effect the internet would have on an anarchist continent... The educational and productive opportunities would be endless.

[Selkie]

Though, would scientists and educated folk start talking like "OMG THATS L33T, LOL GTFO NOOB"?

[Steel]

Well, I don't know about anarchism being the 'purest form' of communism since as far as I am aware the two will achieve a similar result, with the main differences being in organisation (anarchists rejecting political action in favour of direct action, whilst socialist favour political action) and theory (that is socialist take a difference view of capitalism to anarchists)

Was it Kropotkin who once said 'anarchism is political liberation, communism is economic', or something to that effect?

Mind you Marx coopted Proudhons ideas about the state, and rather than using the word 'anarchy' to express the idea of statelessness, he basically claimed that "communism will become stateless."

I don't really understand what you mean by this, I thought that anarchists, as you say in your post, believe that the state is the 'sole reason for our problems', for Marx however, the state and such like were rooted in the “material conditions of life”. Certainly Marx did not view the state as inherently evil, but potentially an instrument with which we could pursue our emancipation, proving of course what he designated 'the state machinery' (unaccountable bureaucracy and professional military) was destroyed.

They knew that the state was the sole reason for our problems.

But the state is not the sole reason for our problems, for-profit production plays an extremely large part in it, The existence of a state is not the reason that people starve, but the profit motive in capitalist production which can often result in food being destroyed in order to keep prices up. It would be no different under a system of capitalist production in which no centralised state existed.

Communism is the top-down version of the commune.

How so? After all in the introduction to 'The Civil War In France' Engels explicitly stated that the commune was what he and Marx had in mind:

Of late the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Yarrow]

Marxist theory defines socialism as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" where the working class controls the state.

surely the working class is busy working? on their time off i believe workers are entitled to a break. possibly one of the great stumbling blocks. and what the hell is a stumbling block anyway? it sounds like it is specifically for stumbling!