Anarchy =~ Communism

[myrkul]

I see anarchy as the freedom to join a system that you feel works best, without being forced into a system - rather than being forced to have no system at all.

You've got it.

[1713852136]

1713852136

[1713852136]

1713852136

[1713852136]

1713852136

[1713852136]

1713852136

[CNMOH]

It's hard to say whether anarchism and communism are alike, because there are different flavors of both ideologies. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism, which doesn't really work too well with communist ideals.

However, excluding sub-ideologies like anarcho-capitalism, anarchism and communism are very much alike. I feel followers of both ideologies usually want to achieve the same goal, but for different reasons.

[em3rgentOrdr]

It's hard to say whether anarchism and communism are alike, because there are different flavors of both ideologies. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism, which doesn't really work too well with communist ideals.

Incorrect.  Voluntary communism is perfectly permissible inside of an anarcho-capitalist society.  Just not the other way around

[CNMOH]

It's hard to say whether anarchism and communism are alike, because there are different flavors of both ideologies. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism, which doesn't really work too well with communist ideals.

Incorrect.  Voluntary communism is perfectly permissible inside of an anarcho-capitalist society.  Just not the other way around

Well, I agree. I'm just saying they're too different from each other to be considered basically the same thing.

[smellyBobby]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I disagree with the OP.

Anonymous for example can be considered an anarchist organization in the sense that there is no central leadership or hierarchy. However, this does not prevent the forming of cells and networks that have their own internal hierarchy. I see anarchy as the freedom to join a system that you feel works best, without being forced into a system - rather than being forced to have no system at all.

While this may be stretching the definition of anarchism a bit, I feel that a society that works with 'cells', where every cell has its own structure (be it communist, socialist, or anything else), and the only rule was to not actively interfere with other cells and their structures... would still fit the definition of anarchism, and would definitely have a chance of working.

It would be considerable different from communism, where everyone is forced to adhere to a centralized communist system.

And before people ask - yes, 'humanity/mankind' as a whole could probably be considered anarchist.

The problem with Canarchy is that it does not have any explicit mechanism to deal with coercive hierarchies. Sanarchy on the other hand does, which I learnt after starting the thread.

Sanarchy is sustainable. Canarchy is a fantasy idea because like communism it does not explicitly deal with coercive human hierarchies.

Sure the processes and firms that each ideology proposes is different. However they both 'hope' that there will not be a subset of the population that uses its force to enslave the rest.

[myrkul]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it does not have any explicit mechanism to deal with coercive hierarchies.

Um... Wrong.

[LokeRundt]

mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*

[smellyBobby]

mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*

Canarchy like communism 'hopes' that no subset of the population forms an organization, and becomes powerful enough to enslave the rest.

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

[The Script]

mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*

Canarchy like communism 'hopes' that no subset of the population forms an organization, and becomes powerful enough to enslave the rest.

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

Please specify your terms, what is "canarchy" and what is "sanarchy"?

[smellyBobby]

 

Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

[myrkul]

Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

And had you used those terms in the first place, you would have completely avoided the confusion.

[The Script]

Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

[steelhouse]

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

[The Script]

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

Could you not have voluntary communism without a State?

[yk]

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

Could you not have voluntary communism without a State?

This depends on your definition of state

In Communism you do not have the distinction between private companies and communities (aka state). So your workplace will also have to organize public services (like road building and security). In an anarchy this needs to be organized by a voluntary group of interested people (in practice likely aligned with companies). So if you think that the private sector should also provide essential public services, then you would call yourself a capitalist anarchist. If you think that the state should take over production of goods, then you are a communist. But one entity would in the end produce both.

[CNMOH]

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

No, they are not complete opposites. A communist society is stateless.

[qbg]

mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*

As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

[myrkul]

As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

[lemonginger]

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.

Funny since the vast majority of the original anarchist theorists identified as either explicitly anarcho-communist or strongly collectivist in other ways.

[myrkul]

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.

Funny since the vast majority of the original anarchist theorists identified as either explicitly anarcho-communist or strongly collectivist in other ways.

Yeah. Proudhoun, among others.