Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
First of all, by definition.�
Anarcho-communism (according to Kropotkin) is a socio-economic trend in anarchist thought that calls for the creation of a society that exists on the basis of universal self-government, built from the bottom up, in which there will be no private property, instead of which all members of society are offered free use of all the products of labor. Anarcho-communism is based on four basic principles: decentralization, freedom, equality, and mutual aid.
But the very powerless society that anarcho-communism calls for is anarchy.
That is, to put it simply: anarcho-communism is one of the tools for achieving the goal. Anarchy is the goal.
Anarcho-communism is an idea. Anarchy is a form of organization of society. At the same time, anarchy does not have to be communist according to Kropotkin or anyone else.
By and large, the ideal of anarcho-communists is not an anarchist society, since it presupposes the primacy of the interests of the commune over personal ones. In addition, any leftist organization somehow ends up creating an artificial hierarchy under the auspices of the struggle for equality and suppressing some people in favor of others in order to “fight authoritarianism”: that is, if you are a strong active person who is able to gather others around you, then get the fuck out of here, because the next meeting of the poor and poor sees you as a threat.
Anarcho-communism differs from anarchism in that it has a very mediocre relationship to anarchism. It looks something like this:
we are against state violence and coercion – > therefore, we will prohibit initiative, expression of will, entrepreneurship, property, all issues will be decided by the crowd, that is, by consensus, of course, and we will declare everyone who is not satisfied with the decision of a non-state consensus as assholes, authoritarians, oppressors and fascists and expel them with pissing rags.
It is no different from communism, because it is a special case of communism.
Tactics, first of all.
Anarcho-communists believe that the state dies out immediately, and they completely reject the concept of a dictatorship of some progressive class that takes the initiative from past exploiters. They completely ignore the fact that power must first be retained, and the theoretical concepts of anarchists with their lack of power and hierarchy immediately after capture do not stand up to criticism, because in this case, the old class easily seizes power from anarchists. This is simply contrary to practice and historical experience.
It is simply impossible to take and abolish power, violence in one moment. Tell me, how can you keep this power?�
It follows from this that anarcho-communists can deny the dependence of the possibility of insurrection on the discrepancy between the relations of production and the productive forces, and therefore they can reject the concept of a “revolutionary situation” as such, leaning towards conspiratorial blankism or remaining a nondescript non-influential force in small communes.�
They can reject historicism as a method, and therefore take into account historical experience and existing trends.�
Anarcho-communism relative to anarchism is just a subspecies.
I think anarcho-communism is a bizarre and impossibly beautiful interweaving of the ideas of unlimited freedom of anarchism and the absolute public of communism(which, by the way, includes not only public responsibility, on which the ideologists of the Union focused their blind attention, but also the highest value of society itself, which everyone always somehow forgets).
Anarcho-communism is urgent and inevitable anarchy, in which to neobhodimosti any and every vestige of the bureaucracy, which is based on the old world (for it is considered all control of man by man, in one way or another), and then re-erect the apparatus of social control,however, is based on primitive in origin (it Kropotkin formulated and thus debased, I'm not guilty) of conventional ideas of equality and fraternity where a society that is fully responsible for itself (as in the case of anarchists) transfers its unlimited and absolutized powers to a certain delegated and chosen power organization (as in the case of communists). Pyotr Alekseyevich, however, did not explain how to implement a system in which this power, even if it is deeply public, does not rise above the society itself, which it serves(on the one hand, of course, he could not and did not consider it possible, and on the other, of course, he did not intend to – what fool, after all, will explain or, moreover, justify beautiful colored dreams that are completely unrelated to life and
And they were able to dream in the XX century-this is probably the main achievement of this ridiculous, meaningless and tragicomic century. Pyotr Kropotkin, the personification of anarcho-communism, one of the greatest social thinkers in Russian history (he can be safely placed in this line, mapping out his path roughly between Pestel and Dostoevsky), himself made it very clear how pure and immaterial his ideology is: As an honest man, Kropotkin first became completely disillusioned with Russian anarchism, seeing how senseless and merciless it was, just like Pushkin, and then with Russian communism, which was pretentious, bloody, deceitful and inept. So, beautifully and sincerely, Kropotkin forever left his ideology-a bizarre and impossibly beautiful interweaving of the ideas of unlimited freedom of anarchism and absolute public communism-a fairy tale, in terms of imagery, plots, poetics, drama, not inferior to the masterpieces of world literature.
I understand that ancom is a middle ground between libertarianism and communism.�
Libertarianism implies the absence of state violence, but personal and economic freedom. How will such freedom be maintained without a State? – people's consciousness.
Communism implies that everything is common – because it seems like you are economically free, but you do not have the right to fence off a piece of land and say that it is YOURS. Also, everything depends on the fact that people will not consciously rob others.
Under ANCOM , everything is common and everyone is jointly responsible for this common, having the right to their own opinion. And of course: the implication is that people are conscious… it's a pity it's not.
Anarchism is a broader concept and in this sense a flatter one. It implies the denial of the state as such, and nothing more. We can deny the state from any point of view: denials of the market, collectivism of communities and so on, all these are different versions of anarchism. Anarchism as such does not have a broad dimension and goes into versions.
Anarcho-communism is much more specific, rather old-fashioned, but for my taste. The peak of anarcho-communism occurred at the time of a hundred years ago, Kropotkin said that it is possible to quickly move to non — state forms of self-government in the foreseeable future after the revolution that the working people will implement, and this was the main difference with the Marxists-Trotsky and Lenin. The Marxist project proposed a gradual transition to the gradual elimination of the state. The main claim of anarchists to this was that it creates an infinite possibility for the existence of a bureaucracy that will indefinitely postpone the moment of transition, reproduce itself, and no state will cancel itself.
Anarcho-communism is also anarchism, it's just that it's a version of anarchism that is extremely left-wing, approaching communism, but still diverging on issues of the state.
Anarcho-communism is the same classical communism as in all the teachings, i.e. the goal. But, according to anarchists, the achievement of such a goal is possible only with the conquest of global direct or electronic democracy by workers, and not with a gradual transition with the so-called “vanguard” at the head, as it is colorfully described in Leninist/Bolshevik/state-capitalist theories.
Anarcho-communism does not differ from just anarchism, since anarcho-communism is included in the category of “anarchism”
They differ in their view of the liquidation of the state: Communists believe that it should die out on its own when technology develops and the people gain consciousness. Anarcho-communists, on the contrary, believe that the state should be destroyed immediately, because the dictatorship of the proletariat leads to the strengthening of state power, and in such conditions the consciousness of the population will not wait.