What's the difference between Anarcho-Communism and Communism?

> we want the state not to exist and we will take the means of production from the dirty burgers and kinda not use money unless you are a basic market socialist bro

>we just want to live in our own communities without any government above us.

A more interesting discussion is

Anarcho-Communism vs Anarcho-Syndicalism vs Collectivist Anarchism

Anarcho-Communism

How are you going to do that without the state's backing friend?

Anyway, in a purely anarachist world the ancaps would destroy the ancoms

Communism

In a purely anarchist world, you have no idea what would happen.

>you can do whatever you want
vs
>you can do only what we allow you

Which one's going to win?

If you look at farming villages or factory towns or whatever, they would essentially be collective enterprises in both cases. The difference is that in Communism, the produce would go to the State which would then decide how to distribute it or sell it and distribute the proceeds to the people of the whole country (together with everything else that's produced in the country), whereas in A-C the farming village or factory town decides what to do with it and how to distribute the product or the profits from the product, by itself. The latter is more libertarian, but has some unavoidable issues when it comes to bigger projects like building a cohesive military or a space project or anything that requires more resources than those that a town or a town and it's immediate neighbours can muster, whereas the latter can do those things but is inherently less representative of the individual.

In a purely anarchist world, people would rally behind the greatest warlord to create a kingdom/ civilization. That's what happened when we last had anarchy.

>That's what happened when we last had anarchy.
When was that?

That's what the thick people would do. The smart ones would collectivise and use strength in numbers to out-produce, out-farm and in the end out-gun the warlord.

Prehistory.

Around 5000 BC

>Claims to know the political situation of a time which literally preceded recorded history

The prehistory transformed into history. That is the fate of all anarchy.

Anarchy=/=Anarchism. Read some basic politics and then consider to reply.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

By creating their own complex system of administration that we call a government.

>Anarcho-Syndicalism
is an stateless society in the which the workers own and control the factories
right?

Communism, as a material condition is the lack of stat, lack of class relations due to all means of production being held by those who work them collectively (socialism), and by lack of currency.

Communism, as an ideology, can divided into two main schools of thought: Marxism and Anarchism, as well as their derivitives, e.g. Leninism, Trotskyism, Anarcho-Communism. Marxism and Anarchism agree on many things, for example their critique of capitalism which draws from Marx and Proudhon. That said, Anarchists tend to focus on authority and hierarchy that is shown in capitalist society, for example the employer-employee relationship.

The main differences are method and methodology, not analysis of capitalist society, although that can play a part but not often. Marxists believe that after the revolution, the state should be seized by the proletariat and should be used to form what they call a "dictatorship [dictatorship meaning whatever class controls the state] of the proletariat" which will then be used to control things more immediate to the survival of socialism, such as the army, water, electricity, but not everything will be state owned. The state, from the libertarian Marxist perspective, will be controlled directly democractically by representatives of the workers in towns, cities, districts, etc. by the people there themselves. As the revolution continues and socialism has been spread to all corners of the Earth, because the state is now obsolete, it will wither away due to workers controlling the state apparatus (police, army, navy, justice system) finding alternatives to the state apperatus in order to manage their communities. (1/2)

cont.
Anarchists on the other hand, believe that no such society is possible through the tyranny of the state. In the eyes of Anarchists, we can not use an overtly hierarchical and tyrannical beast such as the state in order to achieve socialism - it will merely end in tyranny (bare in mind Anarchists making this criticism were writing in the 1870s long before the Soviet Union that would prove them right). Anarchists think you cannot build a free society using something that is not free, and thus disagree with the proletariat taking state power and instead opt for immediate local action and organisation, by using directly democratic and as unhierarchical as possible methods, such as trade unions (for Anarcho-Syndicalists) or confederations of voluntary participants in a way similar to that of the CNT-FAI in Anarchist Spain, or that of the Democratic Confederalists in Rojava.

In short: Marxists want to use the state to achieve communism, Anarchists argue against this and think it would lead to tyranny, while Marxists call Anarchists idealists for wanting to achieve communism without the state. (2/2)

Good posts

>2016
deliver pls.

Yes only the way to achieve it change. In marxism, the society must first go through the "proletariat dictatorship" in order to reach communism.

This reminds me of a joke from the old Cold War days.

A Croat and a Serb die and go to Hell because God doesn't like Slavs.

In Hell, they are presented with two possibilities: Choose Western Hell, where you get to live life same as above in the Western world, but you have to eat a spoonfull of shit every day (and you will never get used to it or enjoy it). Eastern Hell is the same (only like the Soviet bloc naturally), but instead of a spoonfull, you have to eat a whole bucket.

The Croat naturally decides to go to the Western Hell, but the Serb, perpetually drawn eastward in life, takes his chance and chooses the Eastern Hell.

A year later they meet up, and ask the other how they're doing.

>The Croat says "it's not that bad, there are plenty of things to enjoy, but whenever it's time to eat that spoon it always ruins his day and he can't get the taste of shit out no matter how hard he brushes his teeth. I can't imagine how bad it must be for you."

The Serb starts laughing. Confused, the Croat asks what's so funny.

>"See, I worried too, but on the first day they told us the bucket makers are on strike. Then the factory's outdated machinery collapsed and we had to wait until they replace everything. This took forever because somebody forgot to pay the necessary bribes. When they fixed everything and started producing again, it turned out that the trucks used for shipment have been repurposed and now there was no way for the buckets to reach us. By the time they produced new ones, the shit was so stale it was no longer deemed fit for consumption. Finally, after working overtime to acquire enough shit, buckets, machines and trucks, the workers decided they were being mistreated and started a strike. My friend, I have not eaten shit once."

>mfw all anarchists are anarcho-primitives, they just aren't aware of it yet