>>687420>>687414>>687402>>687409>But at that nascent point in time anCom and communist are not really different
At the time, anarchy and communism were mostly inseparable. Folks like Stirner separated them to give you an idea of what 'different flavors of anarchy' look like. Here's the basic rundown as I'm familiar; anarchists reject the state as a fixture, mostly universally on principal but we recognized two things then that socialist libertarians and most socialists recognize today;
1) you have to take care of society or you do not have a plan for it
(the right wing libertarians and Stirner for instance, seem not to agree). This is one of the big misconceptions I've found about anarchy; it doesn't have a plan or society falls apart. Negative, but communism is a necessary outcome of anarchy unless you love conflict or want society falling apart.
2) some sort of governance on some level has to be able to be achieved even if its broken down to community scale. The roles the state fulfills can't all just disappear. Seamless transition from not having a state function to filling one is every bit as important as making sure that 'the state' is as ephemeral as possible. A direct democracy for instance.
Communism exists on a spectrum: there are statists and there are anarchists. Lenin bridges communism into statism; and as you get into the anarchy groups most of us would tell you that he's a fine example of why you can't use the state's tools to establish communism.
That is, you can't use the tools of oppression that prevent the commune, to establish it.
Nonetheless its a revolutionary act and a revolution in political thinking. As a socialist, even as a human politicking on this planet, I believe we should seek to learn from successes and failures, and that failing a sounding success is best used for all to learn from. Some just seem to think 'her duurr socialism never worked LOOK AT LENIN' or communism etc. But these people attempted utopia. They had measures of success and failure that we must build off of.
Communism is a social, and economic flavor. It does not imply a totalitarian state
. Trying to use the state's existing tools of oppression yields some unfavorable and ugly results.
Turns out you cannot
get blood from a stone unless its the one thats already been used to bludgeon you with.
This post was edited by its author on .