Anarchy similar to Communism?

[sirtom93]

So I was just thinking, In an anarchic state everyone is relatively the same and hence no hireachy, similar to communsim. Have I covered this right?

[Drakim]

At 5/26/08 04:32 PM, sirtom93 wrote: So I was just thinking, In an anarchic state everyone is relatively the same and hence no hireachy, similar to communsim. Have I covered this right?

Aren't they quite the opposite? In anarchy, equality is made by removing the government and thus removing the source of oppression that would make people unequal. Communism, however, uses the government as a tool of enforcing equality instead.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

They are the complete opposite, really.

Communism utilized central planning to control the economy, anarchy utilizes complete free market capitalism.

[sirtom93]

But I mean the outcome is the same.

[Seachmall]

At 5/26/08 05:57 PM, sirtom93 wrote: But I mean the outcome is the same.

With Anarchy people run the streets causing anarchy, with Communism the right to public speech isn't even a right to private thought.

I know thats pretty politicaly inaccurate and I am no expert on the subject thats how I always thought of it.

[RubberTrucky]

Communisme in se has nothing to do with totalitarianisme, though it was forced upon people by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. That episode was more a demonstration of extreme nationalisme and right-wing pollutive elements.

Communism is about the working class breaking the layers of society and in the remaining society there's no more statuses. The government should not discriminate between farmers and royalty. A fact which so called communist nations in the past have neglected.

However anarchy just states that everyone should be allowed to have his own rules and noone should boss you around and tell you what to do.

[SmilezRoyale]

Anarchy is similar to The end result of Marxism, but it is the exact opposite of War or 'Real' Communism. [Real communism is the communism that seemed to show up every time someone thought they created the perfect Marxist or socialist state... strange... Coincidental? perhaps...]

[animehater]

I think it depends of what variant of Anarchy you're talking about. For example, Anarcho-Capitalism obviously has nothing to do with Communism

[TonyTostieno]

At 5/26/08 08:16 PM, animehater wrote: I think it depends of what variant of Anarchy you're talking about. For example, Anarcho-Capitalism obviously has nothing to do with Communism

I think he's going for true anarchy. The whole do whatever the fuck you want and get away with it unless someone kicks your ass for pissing them off thing. I'd be an anarchist if I didn't understand that people were greedy bastards, someone's always going to find a way into a position of power, official or not.

[kustdro]

If there were anarchy, there would still be hierachys. People would form there own 'clans' and groups. Certain 'clans' would rule certain areas. People would lead these clans, and thus become leaders. Communism is all ruled by one person or government. It's completely different.

[waw460]

You are, almost, all wrong.
Communism DOES not use the state as a tool of opression; the true communism, being that of Marx and Engels, is in fact more anarchistic than anything else. After the revolution; there is no state and there are no classes.
Lenin changed this a bit to fit hís revolution; and Staling raped Communism; what he did can be called fascism. The same goes for Mao and the North-Korean guy.
You americans should read more than the government tells you; communism is not evil, it was only (mis)used by evil people. (In deformed worker's states).
True Socialism/Communism has néver been used correctly.

[Elfer]

At 5/26/08 05:57 PM, sirtom93 wrote: But I mean the outcome is the same.

I suppose the outcome is relatively the same, but since there's no guiding force, anarchy is highly unstable in larger populations and quickly degrades into a system of clan and hierarchies, which (usually) evolves further into a dictatorship or oligarchy.

[lapis]

I think this image of the extremes as far as political ideologies go might help.

With the belief that people are equal regardless of nation, race and socio-economic status/potential and a system that helps to further this equality on the upper bar and state control over personal life and business ventures on the lower bar.

[ThePretenders]

I think people confuse Communism with Stalinism, which is an agressive implementation of Marx's stages to communism. True communism advocates the abolition of the state and for people to work together for the benefit of society, therefore not requiring the state as a paternalistic force. This is the same as anarchy, which also argues for the abolition of the state and power to be decentralised to the people, so that people will make decisions and restribute wealth through local assemblies and workers councils.

True Communism has never happened and 'communist states' are oxymorons because these states were 'worker's states' and were in the stage of socialism. People think that anarchy=random violence and gangs roaming the streets in the absence of police need to be informed about definitons.

[Heretic161]

Communism is one of Karl Marx's ideas which has become heavily convoluted in implimentation.

Anarchy is less a system and more a segregation and secularlisation of society. Communism, on the other hand keeps a set of communal values and laws, yet shares its wealth amongst the society as a whole.

[G-Locked]

Anarchy is a state of complete absence of government, a total power vacuum. True communism is the absence of social classes, and the complete freedom of all goods to be distributed to those who need them. True communism would inevitably descend into chaos and anarchy, as people would take advantage of the system and want more power and control for themselves. Capitalism would ensue on small scales, because now there is not enough of everything for everybody. People now need something to give something. It would become a semi-anarchy, with warring factions, which would likely become a totalitarian state or republic when, eventually, a person or group seizes total control. Communism also relies on complete availability of all necessary goods, if the state doesn't produce them, they must obtain them. Their fellow countries are likely not all communist, so they must BUY the goods they lack. Of course, they could just print money without disseminating it, but that would mean the currency is worthless, because it represents no economic activity. They wouldn't be able to purchase anything from anyone else. So in the end, the system is incompatible with the rest of the world.

[LegendaryAwesome]

At 5/26/08 04:32 PM, sirtom93 wrote: So I was just thinking, In an anarchic state everyone is relatively the same and hence no hireachy, similar to communsim. Have I covered this right?

They are the opposite of eaach other i believe....

[mrdurgan]

At 5/28/08 10:46 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: It essentially is anarchy.

Marx was so brilliant that he never properly outlined what Communism was; just that it was inevitable and that it would come about after the gradual phasing of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

yep, one of the reasons ive come to dislike marxism. the dictatorship of the proletariat gets established and then...uh, just kinda randomly vanishes somehow? russia waited almost a century and the dictatorship of the proletariat (if the soviet government ever was such a thing) never vanished or showed signs of vanishing. anarcho syndicalism on the other hand rests power to the people directly, both socially AND politically. ok its yet to be applied on a long term scale in a post-industrial society besides from brief times in the spanish civil war and the paris commune of 1870 but who knows.

[mrdurgan]

At 5/28/08 03:12 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 5/28/08 01:55 PM, mrdurgan wrote:
yep, one of the reasons ive come to dislike marxism.

Well, don't get me wrong, in terms of taking a scientific look at stratification Karl Marx is a genius and his insights are still influencing contemporary social scientists... I'm just not big on this "predicting the future" lark. I also think it's a bit short-sighted of him to claim that society is merely going to cease changing during the "Communism" epoch.

fair point. he wrote a lot of great things and influenced political theory massively id agree. but as you say, we have to be wary of determinism wether in history, politics, economics or whatever. very few things are 'bound' to happen, although we can often make a fair guess.

[Jizzlebang]

Russian early 20th century Communism:

A class conflict is the most important of all happenings throughout history.
The final quarrel between social classes is between the middle class (bourgeois-capitalists) and the working class (proletariat). This will break out as a revolution - this breaks out in industrialized countries where there are a large number of working - people in the towns rise up in revolt.

After the revolution, the party rules the country for a while on behalf of the working class. This government is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

When all opposition to the new government has been crushed, no government is needed because all people are treated fairly and are contented. "The state will wither away".

Then Communist society comes into being. There are no different classes. All people are treated in this way:

To each according to his ability: To each according to his needs

-

Now that was the idea of course, 'course they never got passed the Dictator stage. But in principle, somewhat similar to anarchy at the ideal end.

Mao Communism was a little different. There you had a democratically elected Communism, enforcing Totalitarianism. Crazy stuff.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

everyone knows communsim doesnt work!

[waw460]

At 5/28/08 05:02 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: everyone knows communsim doesnt work!

How incredibly wise and intelligent of you.
O, great Dante, lighten us with your experience from your suburbian villa.
Please, brighten our minds with your spoilt intellect!

It does work. The problem is it was never applied correctly/by correct persons.

Read Animal Farm.

[ByronicHero]

I hate to break it to everyone but "equality" is a myth, no matter what anyone else may say.

But don't take my word for it.

[Slizor]

I suggest everyone actually looks at the link that Jizzlebang came up with. Because the meaning of the word has changed in the past 150 years the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not what it would, at first, appear to mean. In fact, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be democratic.

[mrdurgan]

At 6/2/08 09:19 AM, Slizor wrote: I suggest everyone actually looks at the link that Jizzlebang came up with. Because the meaning of the word has changed in the past 150 years the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not what it would, at first, appear to mean. In fact, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be democratic.

yup. the thing is, most political systems aim towards a fair democracy (except for fascism etc,) its just that each one interprits the means and ends of democracy in different ways. liberals would argue communists want to impose a 'tyranny of the majority', whilst communists claim liberal democracy is unequal and in the hands of the elite. then the anarchists say that both marxist and liberal versions of democracy impose coersion on individuals and dont give these individuals true direct power of governance.

[karkynplague]

At 5/26/08 04:32 PM, sirtom93 wrote:

Aren't they quite the opposite? In anarchy, equality is made by removing the government and thus removing the source of oppression that would make people unequal. Communism, however, uses the government as a tool of enforcing equality instead.

Exactly, equality through freedom not oppression.