Difference between a communist and a anarchist?

Is there anyone here who can point to the exact differences between anarchists and communists that is non trivial?

 

The link below will take you to a vid of Murray Bookchin who explains why he went from being a communist to an anarchist. He makes a lot of good points, but mainly states that Marxism is mainly an economic theory that aims to abolish all classes, whereas Anarchism is more of a mentality that challenges power, authority and hierarchy, wether it is that of the state, the school, relationships between men and women, parents and children and so on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVVxfCUEu1I&search=anarchism

I urge everyone who reads this to watch the video and make up their minds about since I am very interested to hear what Communists especially have to say about it.

 

I would disagree with you both but, m6m, I agree with you more
In fact marx said that before a communist state could be reached a
period of socialism would be needed to take the people to a state
of communism - which he agreed would be a communal anarchism
Anarchists do not believe a socialist interim is necessary
I would count myself as an anarchist because though I believe
we should battle for revolution I do not see that we can afford
to be bourgeois and lead that revolution -
to have socialism is to swap one dictatorship for another
surely as part of the class that can afford such luxuries as food
and computers it is for the peasant workers in nations South of the
USA, for example to rise and we support them - in deed or by rhetoric.
It is absurd to think we have the right to call revolution
when it is coffee pickers who get paid $0.10 that are
to die because of that call - we are then not only part of the system
they are fighting against but also part of the system that calls them
to revolution. It is us that must be fully behind them, not leading !

 

To have socialism is to swap dictatorship of the bourgeoisie for dictatorship of proletarians.

People often ask "Why should we switch one master for another?", and the answer is you shouldn't proletarians. You must put yourselves into power, not the next Stalin, Mao, or Castro. Proletarian bonapartism is a revolution carried out by the proletarians in which they put someone else into power and not themselves. I'm talking about oppressive dictators who murder or imprison (or send to mental institutions) their opponents. Examples of proletarian bonapartism are the Russian Revolution (October revolution, though it really happened in november), the Chinese revolution, Vietnam, and Cuba.

 

The difference between an anarchist and a communist is how they expect the revolution to occur and what will happen after the revolution, though many of them see the same ultimate goal, and many do not.

 

communism implies centralised power.
anarchism does not (an archon-without leader).anarchism means direct democracy/federalisation taken to extreme.the "government" is just some sort of post-mail,and each anarchist unit (region to city to village to family to individual) can determine it's own laws and freedoms,as long as it doesn't affect the other units' freedom and the laws accepted by the whole "system",which are made known to all through the "government".

of course,it depends on what sort of anarchism you refer to.there is anarcho-capitalism,anarcho-communism,anarcho-socialism,anarcho-ecologism,spiritual anarchism,etc.

 

about the way an anarchist revolution should occur,there are 2 options:
1.violent revolution
2."the anarchist society should peacefully rise from the shell of the old society"=parasitic existence on the capitalist sistem,untill the "host" crumbles due to the growth of the number of "parasites"

 

If an anarchist revolution happens, it'll probably be a mix of the two

 

communism is an idiology, an-archy is the abscence of hierarchal soverignty, the complete, total and absolute abscence in any way shape manor or form, and that includes personal bullying, which even that is a form of hierarchal soverignty.

i know that isn't the way the word is commonly used. commonly used because most people are to intellectualy lazy to really try and invison what true anarchy would really mean. and it isn't mad max. or biker gangs.

it may take more self dicipline then people have and that may be why we don't have it.

an anachist revolution is thus a virtual contradiction in terms. anarchy isn't created by making war on anything, not the REAL an-archy i'm talking about, but by NOT supporting, any government, economic theory nor idiology.

it takes work to keep the tyrannies we impose on ourselves going. work we don't need to keep doing. without it they fall. only coerciveness in it's myriad guises keeps them us supporting them. we don't have to destroy anything. all we really need to do, is for everyone to stop supporting and perpetuating what is causing suffering and harm.

marxists and libertarians both pay lip service to anarchy, wile both continuing to perpetuate and support idiology and concepts of soverignty that pay lip service to concepts of soverignty.

there is no natural soverignty, only the harm that is caused by a lack of self dicipline and the hell that is robbing each other of our calmness and the heavin we would have if no one did so.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Perfect themnax, perfect!

 

Reading Peter Kropotkin's essay on Anarchist-Communism, it seems pretty clear to me now that Anarchism and Communism (not Marxism) belong with each other and depend on each other for existence.

I tried finding a link to it on the net but found none. The essay is published in "Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings"