Isn't Communism a Broke Version of Anarchy?

[tooAlive]

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

If there's no state to enforce the rules, isn't it considered anarchy? Just without money.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Contumacious]

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

If there's no state to enforce the rules, isn't it considered anarchy? Just without money.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HUH? WTF?


One is 100% freedom, the other one is 100% tyranny.

So can they ever be similar?


.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

If there's no state to enforce the rules, isn't it considered anarchy? Just without money.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well if Anarchy is a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority and Communism requires you follow the common ownerships social, political and economic ideology than it would seem they are forcing you to do things.

 

[tooAlive]

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

If there's no state to enforce the rules, isn't it considered anarchy? Just without money.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HUH? WTF?


One is 100% freedom, the other one is 100% tyranny.

So can they ever be similar?


.

Well if Anarchy is a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority and Communism requires you follow the common ownerships social, political and economic ideology than it would seem they are forcing you to do things.

Right, but tyranny and enforcement by who? There's no state in communism.

Currency would be eliminated, but people would still be running amok without a state to enforce rules or laws.

 

[Contumacious]

If there's no state to enforce the rules, isn't it considered anarchy? Just without money.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HUH? WTF?


One is 100% freedom, the other one is 100% tyranny.

So can they ever be similar?


.

Well if Anarchy is a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority and Communism requires you follow the common ownerships social, political and economic ideology than it would seem they are forcing you to do things.

Right, but tyranny and enforcement by who? There's no state in communism.

Really? There is not a huge state apparatus in Cuba? There wasn't a gargantuan one in the former USSR?

.

 

[LibertyLemming]

HUH? WTF?


One is 100% freedom, the other one is 100% tyranny.

So can they ever be similar?


.

Well if Anarchy is a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority and Communism requires you follow the common ownerships social, political and economic ideology than it would seem they are forcing you to do things.

Right, but tyranny and enforcement by who? There's no state in communism.

Really? There is not a huge state apparatus in Cuba? There wasn't a gargantuan one in the former USSR?

.

^^

 

[tooAlive]

Really? There is not a huge state apparatus in Cuba? There wasn't a gargantuan one in the former USSR?

.

Absolutely. But "true" communists will argue that neither of those two countries is/was truly communist.

Again, I'm going by their ideology here. We all know true communism can't exist without tyranny. Just look at history, like you already pointed out.

But the paper definition of communism is classless, moneyless and stateless.

My question is, how is that any different from anarchy?

 

[Contumacious]

Really? There is not a huge state apparatus in Cuba? There wasn't a gargantuan one in the former USSR?

.

Absolutely. But "true" communists will argue that neither of those two countries is/was truly communist.

Again, I'm going by their ideology here. We all know true communism can't exist without tyranny. Just look at history, like you already pointed out.

But the paper definition of communism is classless, moneyless and stateless.

My question is, how is that any different from anarchy?

True.

But we know better.

.

 

[Black_Label]

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

If there's no state to enforce the rules, isn't it considered anarchy? Just without money.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HUH? WTF?


One is 100% freedom, the other one is 100% tyranny.

So can they ever be similar?


.

Tooalive has clearly shown he doesn't have a clue what any political ideology means.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Really? There is not a huge state apparatus in Cuba? There wasn't a gargantuan one in the former USSR?

.

Absolutely. But "true" communists will argue that neither of those two countries is/was truly communist.

Again, I'm going by their ideology here. We all know true communism can't exist without tyranny. Just look at history, like you already pointed out.

But the paper definition of communism is classless, moneyless and stateless.

My question is, how is that any different from anarchy?

This is the criticism of "true communism" (Marxism is what you seem to mean). Having common ownerships social, political and economic ideology is a pipe dream. How are you going to get every single person in society to agree on the political, economic, and social goals? It will never happen. The reason it is called Communism my man is because the Communist Party is supposed to assist the Proletariat with usurping power. Who do you think ends up running things then? The party.

 

[Contumacious]

Really? There is not a huge state apparatus in Cuba? There wasn't a gargantuan one in the former USSR?

.

Absolutely. But "true" communists will argue that neither of those two countries is/was truly communist.

Again, I'm going by their ideology here. We all know true communism can't exist without tyranny. Just look at history, like you already pointed out.

But the paper definition of communism is classless, moneyless and stateless.

My question is, how is that any different from anarchy?

This is the criticism of "true communism" (Marxism is what you seem to mean). Having common ownerships social, political and economic ideology is a pipe dream. How are you going to get every single person in society to agree on the political, economic, and social goals? It will never happen. The reason it is called Communism my man is because the Communist Party is supposed to assist the Proletariat with usurping power. Who do you think ends up running things then? The party.

easily.

Disarm the people, kill or jail dissidents, massive police state.

Don't worry, the US will never do that............right?

.

 

[tooAlive]

This is the criticism of "true communism" (Marxism is what you seem to mean). Having common ownerships social, political and economic ideology is a pipe dream. How are you going to get every single person in society to agree on the political, economic, and social goals? It will never happen. The reason it is called Communism my man is because the Communist Party is supposed to assist the Proletariat with usurping power. Who do you think ends up running things then? The party.

Again, you're totally right.

Communism can't exist without a tyrannical, oppressive state to enforce the rules.

I was just trying to understand how the "paper" definition of communism was any different than that of anarchy. I'm well aware of what the reality is; my family is from Cuba.

 

[LibertyLemming]

This is the criticism of "true communism" (Marxism is what you seem to mean). Having common ownerships social, political and economic ideology is a pipe dream. How are you going to get every single person in society to agree on the political, economic, and social goals? It will never happen. The reason it is called Communism my man is because the Communist Party is supposed to assist the Proletariat with usurping power. Who do you think ends up running things then? The party.

Again, you're totally right.

Communism can't exist without a tyrannical, oppressive state to enforce the rules.

I was just trying to understand how the "paper" definition of communism was any different than that of anarchy. I'm well aware of what the reality is; my family is from Cuba.

Well that is what I said earlier. Anarchy is the absence of a state, a lack of absence of laws.