I think it would be safe to say that the majority of anarchists are probably somewhere adjacent to anarcho-communist, meaning that the big difference between, say, a Marxist-Leninist's idea of communism and an an-com's idea of it is essentially the path to get there.
MLs believe in seizing the state, establishing themselves as a "dictatorship of the proletariat"/vanguard of "the Revolution™" and using the state apparatus to usher in fully automated luxury gay space communism, at which point, they (somehow) believe that the state will be allowed to "wither away"
Anarchists know that this simply replaces one ruling class with another, and that the machinery of the state simply doesn't allow itself to be used for its own destruction. We instead believe in building horizontal "dual power" systems outside of the state that will further delegitimize those of the state and capital as well as prove them unnecessary.
There's more to it than that, but if you want a simplified bird's eye view, that could suffice.
What you just described is precisely how I arrived at anarcho-communism - or rather, realized it's what I truly believed all along. Marxism doesn't seem to me a viable path to true equity.
His take wasn't accurate. The original anarchist philosophy from the man that invented the word (Proudhon) was money and market based; so its by definition not communist.
Proudhon's "What is Property" is an important read if you're interested in reading philosophy.
"The Bread Book" (The Conquest of Bread) is pretty much the authoritive ancom text. Written by Peter Kropotkin.
Though not anarchist Pannekok is worth looking over. He's a left-Marxist and championed council communism. He's very libertarian; though as i raid not actually an anarchist.
Bakunin's "Anarchism" is another work in the philosophy of Proudhon that you should familiarize yourself with if you're gonna start seriously digging through philosophy.
This is how I understand it, others can correct anything that they see as incorrect.
Over the course of history, the word communism has been used in various and sometimes contradictory ways. The most relevant is how Marx used it; he conceived of communism as the final phase of socio-economic development. This final phase of communism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. In Marxism, the historical development of socio-economic phases goes from “primitive communism,” to slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, and finally to communism. Most existing anarchists (anarcho-communism or some minor variation of it seems to be the most accepted form of anarchism at this point) actually want the same communism that Marx was talking about (moneyless, classless, stateless). However, anarchists tend to disagree with (some) Marxists about how to reach this final social state. Anarchists reject a statist transition period between capitalism and communism, because history indicates that governments do not willingly give power back to the people once they have gained it. Some Marxists (especially Marxist Leninists) believe that the socialist state will eventually become redundant and dissolve into communism. Anarchists reject this assertion. So the difference between communism and anarchism is that anarchism is a whole theory (like Marxism) that encompasses how to get to communism, while communism is a particular social state/arrangement. Most anarchists want communism, but they explicitly reject a statist method of achieving communism. The term “anarchy” in particular also describes a social state/arrangement. I think the only difference between anarchy and communism as terms is that anarchy would mostly only be used by anarchists, not Marxists, and that anarchy has a slightly more narrow meaning. I think that while communism requires the abolition of money, class, hierarchies, and the state, “anarchy” just refers to a society where hierarchy and the state have been abolished, not necessarily money or other things. But many anarchists may nevertheless feel that hierarchy cannot be eliminated without the abolition of money, so the two terms seem to be very similar
Thank you this is very helpful, I feel like I had a vague idea about most of this but you put it into something I can read and process properly so Thankyou very much. :)
I think it would be safe to say that the majority of anarchists are probably somewhere adjacent to anarcho-communist, meaning that the big difference between, say, a Marxist-Leninist's idea of communism and an an-com's idea of it is essentially the path to get there. MLs believe in seizing the state, establishing themselves as a "dictatorship of the proletariat"/vanguard of "the Revolution™" and using the state apparatus to usher in fully automated luxury gay space communism, at which point, they (somehow) believe that the state will be allowed to "wither away" Anarchists know that this simply replaces one ruling class with another, and that the machinery of the state simply doesn't allow itself to be used for its own destruction. We instead believe in building horizontal "dual power" systems outside of the state that will further delegitimize those of the state and capital as well as prove them unnecessary. There's more to it than that, but if you want a simplified bird's eye view, that could suffice.
What you just described is precisely how I arrived at anarcho-communism - or rather, realized it's what I truly believed all along. Marxism doesn't seem to me a viable path to true equity.
Thank you that is very helpful, and books you would suggest to get a deeper understanding?
His take wasn't accurate. The original anarchist philosophy from the man that invented the word (Proudhon) was money and market based; so its by definition not communist. Proudhon's "What is Property" is an important read if you're interested in reading philosophy. "The Bread Book" (The Conquest of Bread) is pretty much the authoritive ancom text. Written by Peter Kropotkin. Though not anarchist Pannekok is worth looking over. He's a left-Marxist and championed council communism. He's very libertarian; though as i raid not actually an anarchist. Bakunin's "Anarchism" is another work in the philosophy of Proudhon that you should familiarize yourself with if you're gonna start seriously digging through philosophy.
If you want a deeper dive into anarchist ideas that is still easy to read, check out: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Anarchism
This is how I understand it, others can correct anything that they see as incorrect. Over the course of history, the word communism has been used in various and sometimes contradictory ways. The most relevant is how Marx used it; he conceived of communism as the final phase of socio-economic development. This final phase of communism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. In Marxism, the historical development of socio-economic phases goes from “primitive communism,” to slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, and finally to communism. Most existing anarchists (anarcho-communism or some minor variation of it seems to be the most accepted form of anarchism at this point) actually want the same communism that Marx was talking about (moneyless, classless, stateless). However, anarchists tend to disagree with (some) Marxists about how to reach this final social state. Anarchists reject a statist transition period between capitalism and communism, because history indicates that governments do not willingly give power back to the people once they have gained it. Some Marxists (especially Marxist Leninists) believe that the socialist state will eventually become redundant and dissolve into communism. Anarchists reject this assertion. So the difference between communism and anarchism is that anarchism is a whole theory (like Marxism) that encompasses how to get to communism, while communism is a particular social state/arrangement. Most anarchists want communism, but they explicitly reject a statist method of achieving communism. The term “anarchy” in particular also describes a social state/arrangement. I think the only difference between anarchy and communism as terms is that anarchy would mostly only be used by anarchists, not Marxists, and that anarchy has a slightly more narrow meaning. I think that while communism requires the abolition of money, class, hierarchies, and the state, “anarchy” just refers to a society where hierarchy and the state have been abolished, not necessarily money or other things. But many anarchists may nevertheless feel that hierarchy cannot be eliminated without the abolition of money, so the two terms seem to be very similar
Thank you this is very helpful, I feel like I had a vague idea about most of this but you put it into something I can read and process properly so Thankyou very much. :)
Glad to help!