Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why do Communists confuse themselves with anarchists?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    If you advocate ownership based around use, which I do, it fundamentally results in the same thing. Suppose you have three guys with a patch of land. In one scenario they start with the land divided between them and in one they start off owning it collectively.

    If they prefer to work alone, in the former they have no problem, and in the latter they will work out some sort of mutual division of the land.
    If they prefer to work together, in the latter there is no problem, and in the former they will pool their land.
    So what happens if I go away on holiday and some vagabond mixes his labour with 'my' land, do I automatically lose all claims to ownership under the anarchist model?
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Communism: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

    Anarchism:
    a political theory favoring the abolition of governments

    The difference seems fairly obvious.
    You would think so...
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    What complete garbage. Until the last two hundred years or so, communal use of land was the bedrock of society. You are so historically and ideologically deluded it is not even funny.

    Capitalism's influence on agriculture was about freeing up unproductive land, for example land owned by the Church, and to create economic conditions so you have surplus labour. This labour could then be redistributed to other areas of the economy, but it also helped drive down the standard of living too. Feudalism has its bad points, but the peasant or serf had guaranteed privileges and rights so far as agriculture was concerned which protected them from economic and natural downturns.

    Calm yourself down, I was using a simplified hypothetical example to help critique various models of land ownership. It wasn't supposed to take into account the past 2000 years worth of British landownership history. You're coming across as a bit of a bigot.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    To adapt the anolgy that I used above, if a team of builders kept trying to erect a structure that persistently fell down killing an extraordinary amount of innocent bystanders in the process you wouldn't necessarily need a degree in architecture to explain why their blueprints failed. They just did.

    I take it as such an expert in the field you've read all three volumes of Das Kapital?
    I have little interest in Marx himself, but I think it is important to correct your misconceptions.

    Your argument is predicated upon economic liberalism. The reason why Muscovite mentioned Marx's historical perspective is because it is teleological. Marx's historical materialism saw capitalism as one part of a historical process. Like feudalism before it, Marx believed capitalism would be replaced by something else, something better - communism.

    This is why you continually mentioning your stupid examples shows you have not really understood the points people have mentioned. If you want to stand up for capitalism then go ahead, but at least understand the other side's argument and what they want to achieve. (In reality, there are lots of examples where 'communism' beats capitalism at its own game so I would be wary of blindly advocating capitalism).
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    I have little interest in Marx himself, but I think it is important to correct your misconceptions.

    Your argument is predicated upon economic liberalism. The reason why Muscovite mentioned Marx's historical perspective is because it is teleological. Marx's historical materialism saw capitalism as one part of a historical process. Like feudalism before it, Marx believed capitalism would be replaced by something else, something better - communism.

    This is why you continually mentioning your stupid examples shows you have not really understood the points people have mentioned. If you want to stand up for capitalism then go ahead, but at least understand the other side's argument and what they want to achieve. (In reality, there are lots of examples where 'communism' beats capitalism at its own game so I would be wary of blindly advocating capitalism).

    What are you talking about? This thread has nothing to do with capitalism so my alleged defence of it is entirely irrelevent. To remind you of the original question I asked why so many communists on TSR mistakenly confuse themselves for anarchists when their ideologies are the polar opposite, anarchists believe in the abolition of the state while commies would like to see complete public ownership over the means of production. I appreciate your contributions but is there any chance you could post something on topic and not make up stuff I've supposedly said?
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What are you talking about? This thread has nothing to do with capitalism so my alleged defence of it is entirely irrelevent. To remind you of the original question I asked my so many communists on TSR mistakenly confuse themselves for anarchists when their ideologies are the polar opposite, anarchists believe in the abolition of the state while commies would like to see complete public ownership over the means of production. I appreciate your contributions but is there any chance you could post something on topic and not make up stuff I've supposedly said?
    Now you are just being insincere. You have continually criticised communism using the logic of someone who clearly advocates capitalism, whether economic or political (the relationship between capitalism and democracy is less clear cut than you think). It is relevant to this discussion because it has impeded your ability to understand the rather obvious distinction and relationship between anarchism and communism.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    So what happens if I go away on holiday and some vagabond mixes his labour with 'my' land, do I automatically lose all claims to ownership under the anarchist model?
    Heard this argument a million times over and it still doesn't sound any less pedantic and nit-picking. No, of course, this is within reason, some anarchists have devised ideas of 'abandonment time' and the like. But fundamentally, the idea of use-based land is to abolish exploitation through wage labour, rather than anything else.

    To remind you of the original question I asked my so many communists on TSR mistakenly confuse themselves for anarchists when their ideologies are the polar opposite, anarchists believe in the abolition of the state while commies would like to see complete public ownership over the means of production.
    If by 'public ownership' you mean 'state ownership', then communists want nothing of the sort. If you mean common ownership or worker ownership or something similar, then that would be a definition of socialism rather than communism. Communism is by definition a stateless society. As is anarchism. Saying a communist can be anything other than an anarchist would be a contradiction. Not all anarchists are communists though.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    What complete garbage. Until the last two hundred years or so, communal use of land was the bedrock of society. You are so historically and ideologically deluded it is not even funny.

    Capitalism's influence on agriculture was about freeing up unproductive land, for example land owned by the Church, and to create economic conditions so you have surplus labour. This labour could then be redistributed to other areas of the economy, but it also helped drive down the standard of living too. Feudalism has its bad points, but the peasant or serf had guaranteed privileges and rights so far as agriculture was concerned which protected them from economic and natural downturns.
    Oh jeezus. I actually facepalmed when I read this.

    You have got everybody against you (even marxists) on that point.

    Are you a sociologist?
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    Now you are just being insincere. You have continually criticised communism using the logic of someone who clearly advocates capitalism, whether economic or political (the relationship between capitalism and democracy is less clear cut than you think). It is relevant to this discussion because it has impeded your ability to understand the rather obvious distinction and relationship between anarchism and communism.
    You're beginning to sound like another carbon copy TSR communist sympathiser who's incapable of advancing the reasons behind his support of Communism. It strikes me as a ideology for the confused souls that want to have their cake and eat it, on the one hand you support the "moneyless, classless, stateless" society yet on the other you advocate the benefits of common ownership over the means of production. And to think commies attack capitalism for it's supposed "internal contradictions", lol.

    Perhaps Communism is a religion rather than a coherent body of ideas? You believe in the principles of anarchism but instead of pushing through the change you're waiting for history to catch up with Marx's predictions. It all sounds very strange to me.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    on the one hand you support the "moneyless, classless, stateless" society yet on the other you advocate the benefits of common ownership over the means of production.
    And the problem would be?
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Heard this argument a million times over and it still doesn't sound any less pedantic and nit-picking. No, of course, this is within reason, some anarchists have devised ideas of 'abandonment time' and the like. But fundamentally, the idea of use-based land is to abolish exploitation through wage labour, rather than anything else.
    Ah, ok then. Who get's to decide the acceptable length of abandonment time in a non-hierarchical stateless society? Surely you'd need some sort of voluntary body to enforce the rules, and if it is voluntary what's to stop the vagabond from ignoring the rules anyway?

    I agree with your aims btw, I just don't believe they can be guaranteed under anarchism.


    If by 'public ownership' you mean 'state ownership', then communists want nothing of the sort. If you mean common ownership or worker ownership or something similar, then that would be a definition of socialism rather than communism. Communism is by definition a stateless society. As is anarchism. Saying a communist can be anything other than an anarchist would be a contradiction. Not all anarchists are communists though.

    So communists are essentially anarchists with a psuedo-religious commitment to Marx and socialists are the ones that want to adopt Marxist principles such as the common ownership over the means of production. Tbh I think you lot are taking the p!ss a bit in saying that I don't get this stuff, none of you are able to get across what you really stand for and you keep mixing and matching whenever it suits. Timewasters.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Ah, ok then. Who get's to decide the acceptable length of abandonment time in a non-hierarchical stateless society? Surely you'd need some sort of voluntary body to enforce the rules, and if it is voluntary what's to stop the vagabond from ignoring the rules anyway?

    I agree with your aims btw, I just don't believe they can be guaranteed under anarchism.
    Probably some sort of local court. Enforcement would probably be through some sort of non-violent means, such as ostracisation.

    And historically, the state is the greatest tool for the suppression of said aims.

    So communists are essentially anarchists with a psuedo-religious commitment to Marx.
    No, there are plenty of communists who aren't that bothered about Marx. You're the one who seems to have an obsession with Marx. There are communist philosophers like Kropotkin, Berkman, Goldman, Makhno, Malatesta. I could go on.

    and socialists are the ones that want to adopt Marxist principles such as the common ownership over the means of production.
    That's not a 'Marxist principle', it's a socialist principle. In fact, it's the socialist principle.

    Tbh I think you lot are taking the p!ss a bit in saying that I don't get this stuff, none of you are able to get across what you really stand for and you keep mixing and matching whenever it suits. Timewasters.
    No, no-one is doing anything of the sort. You just keep coming into or making threads like this with pre-made decisions about what you're going to say communism/anarchism/socialism and their adherents support or do, and then continue to repeat them as if it somehow makes them more true.

    There might be inconsistencies between different communists and anarchists but come on, we're different people, do you expect us all to have the same opinions?
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And the problem would be?
    You need a state to administer the whole thing. How am I supposed to share a tractor with some bloke living 500 miles away in any meaningful way? To keep it truly Communist you require a massive USSR-esque bureaucracy to keep a check on everything. I'm not rubbishing the concept completely as I understand the need for common ownership over common resources, but as this is a bit of a legal and moral minefield it can only be upheld with state backing in my opinion. Without the state and stability it's bring it's impossible to predict exactly what would happen.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    How am I supposed to share a tractor with some bloke living 500 miles away in any meaningful way?
    You're not. Why would you?
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    You're not. Why would you?
    I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Probably some sort of local court. Enforcement would probably be through some sort of non-violent means, such as ostracisation.

    And historically, the state is the greatest tool for the suppression of said aims.
    So it's still in the design phase?

    This is what I mean when I say the various 'isms' have given enough thought to the practicalities and drawbacks of their respective systems, we're in limbo now as we have no idea who's being given legal access to the plot in question. Presumably we wait for the vagabond to pop down the shops for a pint of milk so the original owner can return home non-violently?


    No, there are plenty of communists who aren't that bothered about Marx. You're the one who seems to have an obsession with Marx. There are communist philosophers like Kropotkin, Berkman, Goldman, Makhno, Malatesta. I could go on.
    Philosophers such as Kropotkin are more like modern day mutualists rather than outright communists, he emphasied anti-statism and was wary of treading upon individual rights but also highlighted the importance of the cooperative society. I think we're getting into quite a poncy area of political philosophy though where the boundaries of all these theories seem to merge seamlessly, it's an exercise in self adulation and has little to say about the human condition.


    That's not a 'Marxist principle', it's a socialist principle. In fact, it's the socialist principle.
    Right, so Marxists don't favour common ownership over the means of production? Is that what you're saying now?

    No, no-one is doing anything of the sort. You just keep coming into or making threads like this with pre-made decisions about what you're going to say communism/anarchism/socialism and their adherents support or do, and then continue to repeat them as if it somehow makes them more true.

    There might be inconsistencies between different communists and anarchists but come on, we're different people, do you expect us all to have the same opinions?

    I expect supporters of ideology X to be competent enough to at least explain their ideas and then back them up with facts and logic. When an inquisitive person asks what on earth they're going on about and why they keep chopping and changing their opinions it's not enough just to say..'you obviously don't understand our ideology, go and read up on history' etc etc. That's a bit of a cop out. There's a reason for this type of evasive behaviour, they know their ideas are flawed so they hide them behind a veil of nonsense.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    So it's still in the design phase?
    No, but I have no way of knowing what institutions people will form in a stateless society, they'll probably be different from place to place. If I were to come up with some one-size-fits-all proposal that I said would definitely be the case, someone would be bound to say that one-size-fits-all ideas wouldn't work or that I want to force everyone to have these courts or something like that.




    Philosophers such as Kropotkin are more like modern day mutualists rather than outright communists
    You're just messing with terms and words now and trying to redefine concepts so that they fit in with your argument. Kropotkin's about the closest thing to an 'outright communist' there is. He certainly wasn't a mutualist, he explicitly rejected markets and any form of money, both of which mutualists tend to advocate.

    Right, so Marxists don't favour common ownership over the means of production? Is that what you're saying now?
    Again, you always have to try and picket and find a loop hole or something, don't you? Marxists do, yes. Marxists are socialists. But I'll quote you here;

    socialists are the ones that want to adopt Marxist principles such as the common ownership over the means of production.
    You're implying it's primarily a Marxist principle that socialists adopted, rather than the other way round because Marxists are socialists. If I hadn't said what I did, you'd inevitably say I was arguing that all non-Marxists reject common ownership.

    I expect supporters of ideology X to be competent enough to at least explain their ideas and then back them up with facts and logic.
    Which is what has been done here.

    When an inquisitive person asks what on earth they're going on and why they keep chopping and changing their opinions it's not enough just to say..'you obviously don't understand our ideology, go and read up on history' etc etc.
    Which you probably should do before you start criticising something anyway. The amount of strawmen of Marx by you and others here is huge. And I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't done what you're describing.

    That's a bit of a cop out. There's a reason for this type of evasive behaviour, they know their ideas are nonsense so they hide them behind a veil of nonsense.
    Again, what I said in my last post. You just keep churning out and repeating the same asserted nonsense over and over, in the hope that sticking it at the end of every post somehow will have an effect on something.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    No, but I have no way of knowing what institutions people will form in a stateless society, they'll probably be different from place to place. If I were to come up with some one-size-fits-all proposal that I said would definitely be the case, someone would be bound to say that one-size-fits-all ideas wouldn't work or that I want to force everyone to have these courts or something like that.






    You're just messing with terms and words now and trying to redefine concepts so that they fit in with your argument. Kropotkin's about the closest thing to an 'outright communist' there is. He certainly wasn't a mutualist, he explicitly rejected markets and any form of money, both of which mutualists tend to advocate.



    Again, you always have to try and picket and find a loop hole or something, don't you? Marxists do, yes. Marxists are socialists. But I'll quote you here;



    You're implying it's primarily a Marxist principle that socialists adopted, rather than the other way round because Marxists are socialists. If I hadn't said what I did, you'd inevitably say I was arguing that all non-Marxists reject common ownership.



    Which is what has been done here.



    Which you probably should do before you start criticising something anyway. The amount of strawmen of Marx by you and others here is huge. And I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't done what you're describing.



    Again, what I said in my last post. You just keep churning out and repeating the same asserted nonsense over and over, in the hope that sticking it at the end of every post somehow will have an effect on something.
    So who 'invented socialism" then.

    Was it Auguste Blanqui?

    Thomas More?

    Pierre Leroux?

    Mazdak (6th century)

    Or is it a general school of thought that, like every european (excluding the rest of the world for obvious reasosn) political and social philosophy, from the ancient greeks?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    So who 'invented socialism" then.

    Was it Auguste Blanqui?

    Thomas More?

    Pierre Leroux?

    Mazdak (6th century)

    Or is it a general school of thought that, like every european (excluding the rest of the world for obvious reasosn) political and social philosophy, from the ancient greeks?
    It's almost impossible to say who 'invented socialism', or even that it was 'invented' at all? I'd argue that socialism in society existed before socialism as a political ideology existed.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You're beginning to sound like another carbon copy TSR communist sympathiser who's incapable of advancing the reasons behind his support of Communism. It strikes me as a ideology for the confused souls that want to have their cake and eat it, on the one hand you support the "moneyless, classless, stateless" society yet on the other you advocate the benefits of common ownership over the means of production. And to think commies attack capitalism for it's supposed "internal contradictions", lol.

    Perhaps Communism is a religion rather than a coherent body of ideas? You believe in the principles of anarchism but instead of pushing through the change you're waiting for history to catch up with Marx's predictions. It all sounds very strange to me.
    Criticising you or capitalism does not make me a communist sympathiser so get rid of that idea straight away. Likewise, the reasons behind people's support of communism are obvious. It is in principle a fairer way to structure society. Just because you are unaware of 150 years of intellectual thought does not mean we have to state the obvious for your benefit.

    What you suggest as an internal contradiction of communism is not a contradiction at all. It only sounds strange to you because you have not understood communism, and I am not the first person in this thread to have to repeat myself over this point. Common ownership over the means of production does not contradict a moneyless, classless, stateless society at all. It removes these negative attributes from the process of production itself.

    Ironically, if these attributes were removed from society true capitalism could function in reality. This is where the two systems overlap. One is predicted upon the idea of equality of opportunity (communism), while the other advocates it in principle but does not actually practice it (i.e. the idea that competition is beneficial for all). This is the major contradiction of capitalism. It almost never involves actual competition. You criticise communism because you suggest that a state would be necessary in order for it to function, but at the same time a state impedes true capitalism from functioning. You cannot criticise one without acknowledging the other. If you disagree then feel free to name just one example of true capitalism, where competition is allowed to function unimpeded. (I am confident you will not be able to name one because true capitalism has never existed in human society).

    Having re-read the last paragraph, it strikes me that true capitalists are anarchists. Communists are only anarchists - if they are at all - by historical accident. Perhaps that is something worth considering.

    The major flaw of communism is its teleological nature. Like all non-religious teleologies, what happens after communism is questionable. If Marx's historical materialism is valid then - to simplify - there is no reason to suggest that communism itself will not be superseded. This is the strength of capitalism, it makes few promises, it caters for the 'pessimistic realist'.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: February 20, 2012
New on TSR

Student in a Million awards

All the results from our prize-giving night

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.