anarchism and communist anarchism whats the difference?

I don't know any "communist anarchists", but I do know that communists support a transisional stage, that is, from capitalism to socialism, and then to communism. Anarchists want to crush the system right away and directly move on to communism, whithout any transisional stages.

Anarcho-communism, as it is commonly called, is a subset of Anarchism.

The difference is that anarcho-communism is anarchism without currency and with a gift economy.

Not at all. Anarchism and communism are the same thing. 'Communists' do not support a transition phase: communism existed before Marxism.

Anarchism and Communism complement one another as they are both necessary in a free and equal society. Anarcho-communists reject the market, money, property, the wage system and profit, and call for the abolition of the state. In it's place they seek to create free, voluntary agreements between individuals. In order to maintain equality, anarcho-communists believe that everything should be produced, distributed and exchanged for free according to need.

There are differences between this, and anarcho-syndicalism for instance. Or look up mutualism or individualist anarchism.

Syndicalism is more worker/work place based isn't it?

I always thought to the two were very similiar though, its just the method thats different.

i.e. syndicalism=militant trade unions

Syndicalism is revolutionary trade unionism. Anarchism was added to Syndicalism because they believe you could use trade unions as a way forward to revolution and during the revolution. An example of this would be the CNT which was an Anarcho-Syndicalist union during the Spanish civil war. In the UK today we have an Anarcho-Syndicalist union called I.W.W.

Communist Anarchism is the idea that communism can be brought about through the idea of Anarchism instead of the Marxist alternative. Also in an anarchic communist society goods and services will be made available on the basis of need with society as whole determing priorities for production and levels of consumption.
Anarchist communism is the only ideology which challenges all exploitation and oppression whether it is of workers or bosses, women by men or environment by human beings. It alone emphasizes both freedom of the individual and solidarity within the community and struggles for a society which is free of both economic exploitation and the oppressive state.

Mutualist anarchism believes that mutual banking and credit without interest would be the best economic form of a non-government society.

I'm a communist anarchist btw.

People really do differ on their views here, don't they? Until now, I've only heard people saying that anarchists wants to go directly into a communist society, while communists want to do it by first moving from capitalism to socialism, and then to communism.

And if this is not true, then why do they have different names?

well lenninism stalinism and maoism are all basically the same thing. It is just how things are in the left we have a lot of names for ourselves. I actually concider myself and anarcho-communist. In my opinion basically just a statless society with equal distribution of goods. I don't know how possible this is in modern society but it is my view of what a utopian society would be.

Do you mean the idea or the word?

It was Marxist who started using the word Communist. Today the word Communist is used to describe someone who is a Marxist Leninist.

It is evident that by there still existing two words Communism and Anarchism they mean different things.

That's not true. The word Communist was used long before Marx coined it. The word communist is used to identify anyone who wants to create a class, stateless society with an economic system based on production and distribution need.

Anarchism and communism are the same thing. The only difference could arise when you start to discuss economics. Anarchism as a theory has no set defined economic system, whereas communism does.

Communism and Anarchism (well Communist Anarchism) only differ in there means not there ends.

This is just so not true. Stateless communism as a byproduct of a world socialist state isn't really the pivotal crucial part of Communist ideology, the way that a stateless society is central to anarchist ideology. Lenin quoted Engles in State and Revolution as saying: "the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist." Its like, if the capitalists theoretically locked away all of the criminals and potential criminals, they really wouldn't need a police force anymore would they? Assuming that a socialist state having eliminated all opposition will slowely wither away, as a natural result of having outlived its useful purpose, hardly prioritizes statelessness the way the Anarchists do. Even if communists think that a stateless global society might be the most desirable, as most do, they also think that socialist states are in of themselves, as their own ends, very desirable types of societies, what they're actually working for all practical purposes. Anarchists have fundementally different priorities.


Its silly to talk about Communism in the most broad sense of the word, thats really only used by anarchists. Everyone else assumes Communism (the ideology not the social order) to be the same as Marxism-Leninism, and it was marxists and then marxist-leninist who popularized the word, and if they hadn't, Anarchists would be trying to co-opt another lable like "communitarian" or "socialist" or "libertarian" instead.

For anarchists to say that the word "communism" is really broader then Marxism and applicable to pre-marxist ideologies is to in essense through out the conventional, historically relevant, meaning of the word in favor of a politically useful esoteric meaning. It draws on the cultural weight of the word communism (which represented the only serious challange to the now dominate liberal democratic/imperialist states), while dissassociating itself from its history and real ideology. Its like, they know hammer and sickles are a lot more subversive and antagonistic in the western conciousness then say circle A's that people more associate with being in a middle school student's notebook then on a tank...they refer to themselves as 'communists' because they like the connotation of the word not because they have anything to do with the real substantive meaning of the word.


If you hate all authority regardless of whether or not its democratic and serves the people and you're more interested in a theoretical stateless society then a practical egalitarian state society, why can't you just call yourself Anarchists?

Not that it matters but I think it is a subset of communism.

Also, I am almost positive that the word communism was not invented by Marx or fist used by Marx.

I am not sure what the differance between anarcho-communism and communism are, but I don't think all these differant titles are a good thing, they divide us and we need to be united, we all want essentially the same thing.

That's ridiculous.

The socialist state was never meant to be a permanent solution. From Marx's own writings it is clear that he envisaged it as a transitional stage only; a step on the way to the long term goal of a stateless, classless society. Communism is the fundamental purpose of a proletarian revolution!

Do you think that its coincidental that Marx labeled the classless stateless society "Communist"?

Communism is called communism because it aims to achive ...communism.

Calling communism a "byproduct" of a communist revolution transcends ludicrousy!

No, "everyone" assumes that Communism is that thing where the government controls everything and you have to wait in line for toilet paper.

Perception does not define truth!

You mean like how Marxist-Leninists "co-opted" Communism?

Communism describes a stateless, classless society, it does not matter how that society was reached. Therefore communism is the goal of both Marxist-Leninism and Anarcho-Communism.

Shouldn't that describe you as well?

Isn't the long-term aim of Marxist-Leninism to dispense with the state?

You see it as a required transitional element, but you believe that, in the end, it must "wither away".

...right?

"Practical egalitarian state"?

Like what?

The USSR? The PRC? The DPRK!?

Marxist-Leninism has a track record of continual failure. I'm more interested in creating a viable communist society than I am in attempting yet another failed "vanguard" state.

"Pure and true" Communist's just want Communism, and doesn't say in what way. Then there's the more detailed approach, of what sub-sort you "are". A communist-socialist would want the transistionary-period...an anarcho-Communist, perhaps not. It's all bullshit-theory discussin's, nevertheless. What does one want, a sloppy but fast shortcut or a tough but thorough period of Socialism? Sometimes, the latter is the only possibility until it's all brought down - And any vanguard SHOULD be by -worker's- rule, not intellectual's

Stateless classless society know as communism isn't the crucial part in the Communist ideology? Erm last time I checked it was.

Stateless communism? You seem to assume that there is another form of communism?

Well i guess we could say modern term of Communist. Because it appears that thoose who disagreed with the transitional state call themselves Anarchist while thoose who agree a transitional state went on to call themselves communist.