Question for Anarchist

What exactly is the difference between anarchism and communism?
If there isn't a difference, why fight people whose end goal is the same as yours, even if it means having a strong state first?

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.u1.jpg (800x726, 84.58K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Communism is boon friendly

anarchism is all boons ALL OF THE TIME it's pure baboonery

cus anarchists think the commies won't ever let go of the state

Are you the guy from the "am I wrong" thread?

Same answer, then.

The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." See the course of the USSR - its high point was becoming a strong workers' state. It never achieved the communist end goal. Instead, it existed for decades as an ML dictatorship. When this state finally "withered away," instead of a stateless communistic society it gave way to an authoritarian capitalist state which was then pillaged by other capitalist states.

There are good things about the USSR, and there is good sense to the Marxist belief that a revolutionary state would be required to prevent destruction by other states. But why would everyone who wants a stateless (or even propertyless) society sign on for a dictatorship to get there? Of course they wouldn't.

It's not just anarchists, either. During the existence of the USSR, communists were extremely factional. During the Spanish civil war, they held active hostility towards anarchist forces and other socialist forces. The USSR was often not very pragmatic when it came to their international influence.

Oh, not to mention - even the ML states couldn't get along.

How is a dictatorship of proles a bad thing? I thought even most anarchist were on board with that idea, but thought the execution was terrible?

In anarchism, you kill your parents. In communism, parents still get to be authoritarian.

You asked this before and I answered. It's a dictatorship that's supposed to represent the proles until the state is no longer necessary. Workers having control over industry is not a bad thing. Workers effectively handing over control of industry (and everything else) to the revolutionary state which is supposed to represent them but also gets authoritarian power is a point of contempt.

Both anarchists and non-Marxist socialists are generally on board with worker control of industry afaik. But prole democracy is not the same thing as a literal dictatorship in which prole democracy is one feature. You can have one without the other.

I told you about the states bro but you didnt listen.

Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes the difference but in my opinion a lot of it boils down to disagreements on transitional stages. As I learn more I realize the ML take on it makes a lot more sense, take the early USSR for example: most people are peasants. The proletariat is barely developed. So the socialist state has to proletarianize peasants first: collectivization, education, urbanization, industrialization. It has to go through the same process the western capitalist states already went through but at breakneck speed. There are a lot of these contradictions as socialism was only succesful in underdeveloped countries: you have to create and developed the proletariat as a class in the first place and you have to compete with capitalist states.
I think it's in line with materialist thinking to say that future implementations will be more "libertarian" and "democratic" (complete buzzwords but I know the anarkiddies will like it) as it can be implemented with a much better base. Socialism starting out with most people already literate and well-fed.

Not all anarchists are communists. An anarchist society would be definition allow other forms of organizing besides complete communism, precluding non-anarchistic forms like capitalism.
Because we actually want to achieve that goal. Statism cannot achieve that goal, as all attempts to do so have shown. Most ML states didn't collapse from invasion or counter-revolution, but from their own system that inevitably led to revisionism and corruption.

Why does the state have to do that? Why are the peasants themselves too dumb to improve their lives on their own when given the chance of free association? They didn't seem to be too dumb to collectivize during the Spanish Civil War, and given time it's unlikely they wouldn't have mechanized their farming, or sent their children to become educated, or moved to towns and built them up.

Paris commune is a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Zapatistas are a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Catalonia is a dictatorship of the proletariat
Free Ukraine is a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Are you triggered by my statments for me correctly nameing them so? Jesus, anarkiddies are so retarded.

I'm not even an anarchist but no one seems to be able to answer this. Anarchists are against hierarchy. The state is a form of hierarchy. Communism is a stateless, currencyless, where the means of production are under common ownership. So anarchists support communism.

the USSR didn't wither away
you use that term incorrectly and perhaps sarcastically, which is unhelpful to a newfag
the conditions under which a state would wither away were far from achieved

the only anarchist i've read is Bakunin. His objection to Marxism seemed to be entirely based on revolutionary praxis. Bakunin and his anarchist compatriots thought that the state needed to be abolished directly during a confrontation with capitalism. Marx and his compatriots thought the state needed to be seized by the working class and weaponized to eradicated capitalism.
From what I understand, their bitter disagreement was almost entirely rooted in this divergence.

For Bakunin, anarchism was not based on moralizing about hierarchy (as it is today for many anarchists). it was based on a belief that the self interest

For both marxists and classical (far left) anarchists, the end goal of politics is a classless, stateless society. So in a sense, anarchists want to achieve communism, but they normally don't self identify as communists unless they take a bit more from marx, in which case the identify as anarcho-communists or some such nonsense.

I'm not even an anarchist, really.

But I honestly don't think the Paris Commune or Revolutionary Catalonia represented "dictatorships of the proletariat" in the revolutionary Marxist sense. That is, neither was strictly Marxist nor following Marx's prescribed "dictatorship of the proletariat" even if he described the former as such. I could be way off base here, but I think the Paris Commune probably would have survived more than a few months had it actually been an example of what Marx himself prescribed. He used the term to refer to the Paris Commune as a contemporary historical event, but the context of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a practiced tenet of Marxism is a bit different.

Makhno's Ukraine definitely wasn't.

Not sure about the Zapatistas, though - maybe???

Well, the state itself didn't, but to my eyes it still seems kind of remarkable that this entire union essentially was just dissolved voluntarily by its leaders in exchange for Pizza Huts. Does that happen a lot?

If we're being totally serious, it's a bit of ambiguity about what "communism" means. If "communism" is to be synonymous with "Marxist communism" then there are some differences in analysis and differences in practice but the end intended goals end up being very similar.
If "communist" just means anyone who goes for communism in general then then many (but not all) anarchists just are communists.
Need to be a little specific on this sort of thing.

Anarchist actually are communists and marxists just want a big daddy state to take care of them.

Mfw the Big boy dontneednostate anarchist gets assraped by bourgeoisie counterrevolutionary forces before me and my TANKIE comerades show up to liberate you

Attached: 20190619_121730.jpg (1080x998, 241.61K)

Attached: 94AWXUa.jpg (788x1024, 122.73K)

Gee, I wonder…?

Everytime I've looked up why were anarchists attacked or "betrayed" in certain moments, it's because they always did some retarded shit in the first place. Anarchists really love playing the victim

I sincerely never get tired of boonposting

we anarchists can say "stalin killed millions hurr durr yay for spain fuck tankies" all day but at the end of that day we still have you in our hearts, as our comrades. we love you marxists no matter what.

Awwww :3

Attached: zvv0pv9rda431.jpg (543x438, 24.27K)

thank you. i support leftist unity even with leftcoms, strasserists and nazbols.

Attached: united front.jpg (1280x720, 72.58K)

Yea I love you too, user.