Talk:Anarchist communism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Socialism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Libertarian Communism[edit]

This article has next to no information on libertarian commnism, yet people searching for it are redirected here.

  • That's because they're pretty much the same idea. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The sign for Anarcho-Communism[edit]

Usually isn't it a flag that's half diagonally with red either on top or bottom and black the opposite of where the red is? --User:Paracite 9:41, january 9, 2006

That is usually associated with Anarcho-Syndicalism. QFlux (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a reference to both and is used by both groups. I also want to propose the Circle-A Hammer and Sickle as a symbol that should be on this page. Easily found by google image searching anarcho communism —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea, because the hammer and sickle is an offensive symbol to anarchists. I don't know anyone who would use it. I would like to bring up the issue of the Communism sidebar again, as well. Let's get rid of it. Hiram (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The page is called anarchist-communism HiramvdG. While I'd agree that the hammer and sickle can't really be associated with anarchism today (bearing in mind it certainly was around the turn of the 19th century), the inclusion of the sidebar is entirely valid, given that it's trying to explain the overall concept of communism, which in its final incarnation is indistinguishable from the anarchist viewpoint - it's only how we get there which is in dispute. The communist strands which practice democratic centralism and vanguardism in general is what directly conflicts with anarchism on an ideological level, which is only one aspect of what the sidebar covers. --Saii (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a sign for Anarcho-Communism?[edit]

Is there? Maybe we could make one.. That would be cool. Perhaps.. an A with a C... hmm. Maybe 120? But that wouldn't be too fair to the europeans.. Maybe 120-240AC based on Alternating currents from different countries. With the A being the anarchy symbol... ooh, what a neat idea. --Cyberman 01:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is one on the french version of this article (see --CyberKeupon 11:50, january 2, 2006

Can anyone verify the validity of that logo? --Evil Eccentric 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I made one myself, think it's pretty good. Quite bad quality. Nice if someone could improve it. Click on this link to see it--->[[1]] Marhen 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) If you flipped the sickle around to make it look like a C rather than a backwards C it would make a lot of sense. CalBears99 (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


Anarcho-Communism should be redirected to this page as oppossed to Libertarian Socialism. Anarcho-Communism is only a strand of Libertarian Socialism, but is a synonym of Libertarian Communism. TPermyakoff

As it stands, the article is very shallow and uninformative. It should be improved by someone with knowledge in the field, or merged with libertarian socialism. I don't know enough about anarcho-communism to be able to add anything to the article myself. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Anarcho-Communism is a particular branch of libertarian socialism": please elaborate in the article. A-giau 10:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we add that anarcho-communism is basically communism without the transitionary period (AKA socialism). We could add the basic ideas of anarcho-communism (no private property, communually owned means of production, etc.), information about anarcho-communism and human nature, famous examples of anarcho-communism, and famous anarcho-communists. --Jazz Remington 06:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

there are currently three different symbols for anarchist communism. The first one is the red and black flag and the second one is the red and black star. The third symbol is relatively new and is the Red and Anrarchist Action Network (RAAN) and their hammer and sickle A.


announcing a policy proposal of general interest[edit]

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


I general hear this called "Anarchist communism" and that phrase does in fact edge "Anarcho-communism" out in Google search results. Admittedly it's true I have a personal preference for the former term (which eliminates the seemingly patriarchal anarcho), and would like some support on the matter before engaging in a move. Sarge Baldy June 28, 2005 03:33 (UTC)

Yes.. I have wondered that myself... Anarcho-communism is perhaps an Americanism ... Anarchist-communist I seem to remember was used by Nestor Makhno and the Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists/platformists.. but the terms are pretty much interchangable no?. -max rspct 28 June 2005 14:07 (UTC)

It might be, although I know even some groups in the US use "anarchist communism". I'll give people another day or so, and if there's no objections I'll move it. Sarge Baldy June 29, 2005 22:27 (UTC)

Why has someone changed "anarchist communism" to "anarchocommunism" throughout? The article is correctly entitled "anarchist communism". "Anarchocommunism" isn't used by anybody (some people refer to anarchist communism as "anarcho-communism," a usage derivative of "anarcho-syndicalism" which post dates the development of anarchist communism). Robgraham 19:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Communist template[edit]

Is the communist template really appropriate for this article? The origins of anarcho-communism happened alongside what is considered communism for that template, rather than growing out of it, and had more to do with Proudhon than Marx. In addition, most anarcho-communists are openly hostile to state communism, rather than friendly to it. Kev 8 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)

"State communism" is oxymoronic. Anarcho-communists consider themselves communist, and Marxists != Communists. Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with Marx in fact, but is still derived from the communist movement. -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)
Be that as it may, and I would tend to agree, the current template lists all the following amongst "schools of communism": Marxism · Leninism Trotskyism · Maoism Left Communism Eurocommunism. To my knowledge not a single one of these "schools" is generally considered compatible with anarcho-communism according to anarcho-communists. So while I do understand that anarcho-communism is listed under "related-subjects", because it is a related subject, I don't understand why the anarcho-communism article should dedicate space to two separate templates, one of which is more obviously relevant, and the other which is host to a bunch of movements hostile to anarcho-communism. Kev 8 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove the template pending a response here. Kev 05:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Sigh*, reflects something awful I suppose, that the original meaning of communism - anarcho-communism, in terms of minmalised state control and communal living has been lost to the Marxist kind. I do wish to emphasise though that anarcho-communism vehemently considers itself a communist movement (I think), or perhaps I do, because "communist", discounting the social stigma is a rather good word to use in place of "anarchism", which tells of no state, which really isn't descriptive (doesn't distinguish from anomie) - and well...having the "communist template" makes one remind that this is a libertarian socialist movement...emphasis on socialism (which communism is a branch of), emphasis on libertarianism (which anarchism is a branch of) - in my personal opinion, both templates are justified, because both philosophies (which are compatible - liberty and collectivism/socialism) are both vital and fiercely part of anarcho-communism. But it does reflect how foul our Marxist comrades have been. It's like watching your brother or sister become corrupted by drugs until you can't recognise him or her anymore. -- Natalinasmpf 05:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I very much understand where you are coming from. Contrary to most public opinion, I know that all forms of communism do not stem from, nor are they all dependent on, Marxism. I agree with you above that Anarcho-communists are, imho, the only actual form of communist, and that Leninists, Maoists, etc, are little more than capitalists who invest at the state level today with a supposed "vision" of become communists someday. I believe that the best thing to do would be to try to reclaim the word, so that at the very least it does not necessarily entail Marxism. However, atm the article on communism begins with the following sentences, "Modern communism is associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels..." and "Communism is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life in conditions of Communist party rule." These statements are a sad reflection of our historical understanding in modern times, but it is also probably true.
I think this situation is very similar to the libertarian page. A word once synonymous with anarchism has now been so far removed from it by the capitalists that the template now only lists movements which advocate capitalism, and the article deals exclusively with the capitalist form of libertarianism and their perspective on the issue. It is an unfortunate distortion of the words anarchists have used to describe their ideals, made all the more frustrating because those very ideals are being used in a crass and opportunistic manenr as a mask to cover true oppression of a kind anarchists have always decried.
However, much as I would like to reclaim both words, I would rather see anarchism distanced from both than to see people begin to either equate anarcho-communism with state socialism (as many do now on the libertarian capitalist side of things), or to see people equate anarchism in general with lassez faire capitalism (which is a small but frightening trend). And the sad matter at hand now is that some of the very people who have violently suppressed anarcho-communists and other anarchists in the past are now the ones most closely associated with communism on wikipedia. Kev 08:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

anarcho-communism section in Anarchism[edit]

They need some help over there. Apparently some people think that anarcho-communists supports the products of labor as private property rather than collective property. RJII 05:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has made any edits stating that anarcho-communists support the product of their labor as private property. Nor has anyone claimed that anarcho-communists believe that they support any form of private property. The only claims that have been maintained that are relevant to the page is that anarcho-communists sometimes uphold personal possessions as legitimate. The fact that Tucker or Proudhon would have called that private property is not really relevant. Kev 05:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
You're the one that deleted the statement that they oppose private property! And, deleted the statement that the believe that the produce of labor should not be private property! Try a little honesty sometime will you? RJII 14:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I worked the statement concerning their views on private property into the text in a different way because another editor objected to the way your phrased it. As to the produce of labor being private property, that isn't what your edit said, Mr. Honest. Kev 14:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

kev deleting important and useful info[edit]

Kev, why are you deleting some information I put in explaining anarcho-communism? I put in a quote from Cafeiro who was involved with the First International that explains his reasoning for opposing private ownership of the produce of labor. And I put in a quote from Dejaque criticizing Proudhon. Anarcho-communism developed as an explicit rejection of Proudhonism because it support private ownership of produce of labor and exchange markets. RJII 16:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This Article Needs More Attention[edit]

Anarcho-communism is a popular leftist movement which includes aspects of libertarian socialism. Simply clarifying what separates anarcho-communism from libertarian socialism would be a step in the right direction.

ahh!!!!;lkjs;fklsaldfj anarcho-capitalism seems to be a self defeating phrase; let me get this straight- basically, there is no law, but a bunch of people get together willingly and agree on a sort of contract if you will, and this contract says "if you don't pitch in, we'll boot you out" and yet there is no legislation, enforcement of rules/laws (can laws exist in an anarchist state, even on a personal communal level?). But in an anarchic state, natural laws exist, right? so to survive the adversity of others using their freedom to compete with you and your anarchic commune, you must work and compete as a commune to survive. So its kinda like collective darwinism, perhaps?

Introduction needs a rewrite[edit]

The introduction blurb needs to be rewritten it seems. The first paragraph does not give a good definition or description of Anarchist-Communism, but rather immediately delves into what it is similar to and what it should not be confused with. I'm not an expert on the topic, but the first thing that struck me about the article is its lack of a clear definition at the very beginning.

I think all of the information below the first paragraph should be in a section called 'Development and Theory' or something, to neaten up the introduction and the whole article. PJB 19:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Done it PJB 19:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone in the know come up with a definitive and concise introductory paragraph? I don't really know anything about this subject, and have only a rudimentary knowledge of anarchism, but found the lead section pretty alienating and wordy, without reaching any kind of definition.
The paragraph mentions the word 'communist' or 'communism' fourteen times, 'anarchism', 'anarchy' or 'anarcho' seven times, 'libertarian' nine times, and 'socialism' three times. This is far too much, bombarding the reader with terms they may not necessarily be familiar with. More importantly though, the lead section only explains what it Anarchist communism is not, rather than what it is. A good strong lead section is vital to keep a reader interested in the rest of the article - see WP:LEAD for more details. Can anyone help out here? Nuge | talk 15:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Anyone else think the two templates for Anarchy and Communism should be one above the other? The introduction text would look very cramped on a smaller screen otherwise.

EvocativeIntrigue 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

RadicalMallard blanking out large portions and deleting Criticism section and links [2] [3][edit]

RadicalMallard, why are you deleting the Criticism section? Those are real criticisms from individualist anarchists. I don't understand your comments about Bryan Caplan and anarcho-capitalism. The individualist anarchists cited are not anarcho-capitalists. And, what does Bryan Caplan have to do with anything? And, why are you deleting the external links that are critical of anarcho-communism? Aren't you aware of the NPOV policy? ALso, how do you explain this large scale blanking of material: [4] RJII 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

________ Are you aware of exactly what a NPOV policy is? "Those are real criticisms from individualist anarchists," sounds like these critisms are nothing more than partisan garbage. Please, feel free to rewrite the entire Criticism section from scratch to include your anarcho-capitalist/individualist criticisms, as well as some anarcho-syndicalist, and communistic criticisms. If the Criticism section is to stay, doesn't it need to be fair, and balanced? Honestly, the reason the left can never get anything done is because you all squabble with eachother over the most minor issues! Anarcho-Communism can be almost completely compatible with Anarcho-"Individualism". A place where people work together for the greater good by adding their inputs (specific skill sets) is both communal, and individualist. You're yourself, and that helps everyone, because only you know what you know, and only you can do what you do.

Now, please: Just remove the section for now. Or, at least add some non-partisan critisms. Remember, not all of the people who come to read this article will be Anarcho-ANYTHINGs. They might not know much about Anarchism, or Communism... Why make them feel out of place by introducing a FIGHT into the criticism section? - A Vigilante 14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Saying that communist anarchism is incompatible with anarchism would be a bit bizarre, since it's the main form of anarchism. You'd have to write off 80% of the history of anarchism, basically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Social Darwinism?[edit]

I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject could elaborate more on the anarcho-communist position on aiding the poor, elderly, disabled, et cetera, and just social programs of that nature in general. How would education be handled (typically) in this type of society? Hospitals? How would these kinds of things be regulated? --Animarxivist 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist Communism's position on these topics are relative to the struggle. For example, if there is a struggle for the elderly going on, then we'll join it and try to expose the limits of capitalism and try to facilitate direct action. If there is no struggle going on for the elderly, then we'll use what's called "horizontalism" to link a pre-existing struggle to the need to struggle for the elderly.

I guess the crux of your question is "how would things be regulated?" and the answer is by the working class. The class whose labor is fueling society would be the class who regulates itself in its own interest under a communist society.


Is anarcho-communism against religion like other forms of communism or does it just let you do your own thing? Does it get away from the darwinism that communism has and makes man just an animal?

16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the only branch of communist thought that is against religion is Marxism (although there are some schools of Marxism that are more lenient such as Marxist Ecology, Cultural Marxism and Autonomist [Libertarian] Marxism). Marxism was the largest and most popular branch of communist thought, so communism gets the stigma of being "godless". However, Anarchist-Communism is against organized religion as in religious hierarchy and religious rules forced over society, but is not opposed to personal faith. In fact, most Anarchist Communist societies had large religious/spiritual populations and still had churches. There are many faiths and spiritualities were are egalitarian and anti-authoritarian by nature (such as Daoism, Buddhism and some denominations of Western religions). As long as religions do not impose hierarchies over their followers and impose religious laws over society, Anarchist Communists are not opposed to religion although many of us favor personal spirituality over organized religion. In fact, I've heard some anarchists propose the idea of egalitarian "spiritual councils" where people voluntarily gather and discuss spirituality. Full Shunyata 10:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

differences with bakunin?[edit]

I have recently read guillaume´s work Ideas on Social organization (at the marxists internet archive altough he as no marxist but one of bakunin´s friends and partners in struggle) and it seems that he agrees with the communist principle, only that the implantation of communism must be a gradual unhomogenous and voluntary proccess that should be started whenever possible in each place. it sounds too much like malatesta to me. Read it please.


The Individualist Anarchist and "Anarcho-Capitalist" articles have long rebuttals and responses to the criticisms of them. Since the Communist Anarchist aritcle has criticisms from Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists on the page, shouldn't this article has responses to the criticism from Communist Anarchists? Full Shunyata 10:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

P2P Production Economy[edit]

Along with the Gift Economy that Anarcho-Communists usually propose an alternative economic system to markets, I've seen Peer-to-Peer Production proposed as well. Would it be appropriate to add P2P as a form of a Gift Economy in the Anarcho-Communist article? Full Shunyata 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Graham book[edit]

Does anyone own "Graham, Robert Anarchism - A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas - Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939), Black Rose Books, 2005"? Previously, all that was linked to was the chapter list on the Black Rose site (it doesn't have the book on it), so none of the cites have page details. Donnacha 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Abolition Of Work[edit]

There should be a mention of Bob Black's rejection of labor in this article because many Anarcho-Communists share this view with him. Full Shunyata 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Anarchist Communists do not share Bob Black's rejection of labor. Any anarchist that accepts that idealistic romanticism is not an anarchist Communist, as the direct appropriation of the means of production and class struggle are the heart of the strain of Anarchist Communism.


Not true. Chuck Munson, for example, opposes labour like Black does, and I think he's an anarchist communist. ~Switch t c g 04:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Astonishingly enough, Bob Black and Chuck0 are not the sole opinions within the anarchist current, the vast majority of anarchist-communists are, have been and will continue to be supportive of the labour-led model of social revolution. The largest current of anarchism in Europe continues to be the IWA and other syndicalist movements. The largest historic current of anarchism was that active in the fight for the eight hour day and in the IWW - which still ontains the single largest organised force of anarchist-communists in the US. Comparatively, including the views of Bob and Chuck in this article would be like including the views of two vocal Daily Mail commentators in an article about conservatism in Britain as a major theoretical strand. - Saii
i don't think there's a serious political theorist of any tradition that seeks to "abolish work". however, the definition of "work" has always been extremely contentious. does an artist work? there's a near-fascist strain of anarcho-communism that would argue they are parasites and starve all those that don't work in production, and how they think this is somehow compatible with liberty or could ever satisfy the needs of society is really quite beyond me; on the other side of the spectrum is somebody like oscar wilde, who claimed any kind of activity is work and wrote a very good essay about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

History Of Anarchist Communism[edit]

Could a history section of anarcho-communist socities and communities in modern history be added to the article? There have been many oustanding and successful attempts at anarchist communism in modern history such as the Catalonian communities of Spain during the Spanish Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the Ukrainian Revolution, the Mexican Zapatista councils, the Argentianian anarchist councils, the Kenyan anarchist movement, etc.

There's too much history in this movement for such things to not be mentioned. Full Shunyata 01:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Anarcho-communism and Anarcho-syndicalism?[edit]

Whats the difference? They both sound to be the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Answer:Anarcho syndicalism often tends to focus exclusively on the labor movement while Anarcho-communism usually does not. Also all Anarcho communists always oppose wage labor and pay while Anarcho syndicalists (usually) though not always oppose wage labor.--Fang 23 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Not quite Fang, Anarcho-syndicalism is a tactic within the anarchist-communist strand which emphasises the labour movement as the "revolutionary subject" - the group which is most able and potentially most willing to destroy capitalism and bring about anarchist communism. While critics often say that it does this to the exclusion of other potentially revolutionary groups (Maoists would point to the peasantry, others would point to say, communities in struggle) nothing in anarch0-syndicalism excludes reaching out to thse groups (indeed more recent incarnations of a-s have shifted towards a far stronger emphasis in organising geographically as well as industrially).

In short, it's possible to be an anarchist-communist and not be an anarcho-syndicalist, it's not possible the other way around. --Saii (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of Criticism and discussion[edit]

Pardon the interruption by an anonymous user (elitest, much?) but: The entire Criticism section seems to be basically a bunch of partisan garbage. In reality, someone who isn't an anarchist, isn't a communist, and isn't an anarcho-communist who comes to this article, and reads that section will just be confused. It's not actualy criticism, and even if it were, it's all anti-the-"communism"-part of anarcho-communism, mostly by anarchists of one form or another who all believe that they are the truest of the true anarchists. I vote that the Criticism section be removed in entirely (at least until there are some proper Criticisms there by others, such as Communists, and even Capitalists). I'd explain further, but I'm sure deep down you all understand my point. NPOV, people!

Also, the symbol (in my own belief, and as I've seen in various protests I've gone to, and voluntary collectivist activities I've been to) for anarcho-communism is a red an black flag. Half red, a diagonal seperator, half black. As a warning, I'm not a credible source for this particular information as I've only been considering myself to be of the anarcho-communist persuasion for the past eight years, or so. -- A Vigilante

That's the flag of anarcho-syndicalism you're thinking of. Closely related, but not necessarily the same. ~Switch t c g 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire "criticism" section is poorly formated. It does not follow the format of other articles.Rugz 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

red anarchism[edit]

Is it true that "red anarchism" is a synonym for anarcho-communism? I would think it would be called "pink anarchism." That's why I decided on pink when I designed my anti-anarcho-communism symbol. Any sources for "red anarchism" being a synonym?Anarcho-capitalism 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

-I think, "Red Anarchism," would be a neologism synonymous to Anarcho-Communism. The term, "pink," is usually used as a derogatory means to refer to anything communist-like. ~ -- A Vigilante

"Red" means socialist or, more often, communist - red flag, red star, etc. "Pinko" and similar terms are political epithets used by capitalists to describe communist (usually Marxist) sympathisers, or socialists of any form, saying that they are "half-red" or something similar. Pink when self-applied is more associated with gender and sexual equality, such as the queer movement and feminism.
I don't know how long the term "red anarchism" has been used, but it is used now - there's a link to an anarchist communist website called "red anarchists" or something similar near the top of this talk page - and Emma Goldman was known as "Red Emma".
I think this shows just how badly you need to be exposed to a socialist point of view on socialism, communism and capitalism, "An"-Cap. Please do look into it. ~Switch t 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Kropotkin[edit]

Why does the first paragraph in the Anarchist communism#Peter Kropotkin section repeat itself? --Loremaster 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Have deleted *shorter* version. Hope that was the right way round!


Are there really no critical opinions of this school of thought?Rugz 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See here for critical material that was deleted. This looks to me to be fairly neutrally written and solidly referenced, on the whole. I think at least some of it should go back in.BobFromBrockley 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That old section is pretty dreadful - starting off with someone (Proudhon) who was dead for many decades before the ideas he is presented as criticising actually came into being is a good illustration of how bad. Probably make more sense to start work on a new text then to try and salvage what is there which is a confusing mish mash AndrewFleming72 12:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The Proudhon bit now has this paragraph, which may be true, but what does it have to do with anarchist communism?

However, while being opposed to communism, he was also opposed to capitalism. In a series of commentaries, from What is Property? (1840) through the posthumously-published Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1863-64), he first declared that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". When he said property is theft, he was referring to the landowner or capitalist who he believed stole the profits from laborers. For Proudhon, the capitalist's employee was "subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience."[1] Proudhon called himself a "socialist" and called his philosophy "anarchist socialism". He opposed state ownership of capital goods in favour of ownership by workers themselves in associations.

BobFromBrockley 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, the criticisms section has two paragraphs on anarchist communes working "despite criticisms". Shouldn't this be merged with the following section on History of anarchist communist societies? And should that section be after the criticism section, which is normally the last substantial section in an article isn't it? BobFromBrockley 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


... is the usual name for this, isn't? Roger 11:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, anarchist communism and anarchist syndicalism are two different and distinct things. Perhaps the easiest way to understand the difference is this: communism includes the whole community in discussion making, while syndicalism includes only the work place. If that makes sense? ~AFA Imagine I swore. 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Some anarcho-syndicalisms, such as that described by Tom Brown, also included neighborhood councils, but the syndicate/union model appears in those instances to be derived from the workplace. Libertatia 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Anarcho-Syndicalism refers to a theory and practice within the anarchist wider movement that embraces radical trade unionism. This is not necessarily to the exclusion of other organizing. Though it can be argued that historical Anarcho-Syndicalist movements did (in practice, if not in theory) privilege the workplace in their organizing, every Anarcho-Syndicalist that I can think so at least gives lip service to community organizing. 22:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most anarcho-syndicalists also are communist anarchists. Anarcho-syndicalism is more of a revolutionary tactics to achieve anarchism, generally communist anarchism (i.e. organizing the working class into radical labor unions (syndicates) whose ultimate goal is the appropriation of all large scale productive property by organized labor and the immediate abolition of government in revolution, the syndicates de facto becoming the fundamental structure of the new society). Communist, collectivist or mutualist anarchisms are just the different economic systems that could be used in an anarchist society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

English revolution[edit]

Is it POV to use the phrase "English Revolution" (wikilinking to English Civil War article) in this article, as Terper says ni his edit today? English Revolution is a pretty widely used term - it is the title of the Encarta article[5] for example. BobFromBrockley 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

individualistic communalists[edit]

From the article: "Socially, many communist-anarchists are individualistic communalists believing that by people seeking to serve themselves, they will freely interact with others for mutual benefit." Does this make sense? What does it mean? BobFromBrockley 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution by Peter Kropotkin24.184.136.137 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Communism[edit]

I think there should be a seperate article for "Libertarian Communism". If you type the words in, it redirects to this article, but "libertarian communism" is not necessarily identical to anarchist communism. There are forms of libertarian communism that are not anarchistic, such as Autonomism, Council Communism, Neo-Marxism and Situationism that are forms of communist philosophy and anti-authoritarian, but not a form of anarchy. Anarchist communism is only one form of libertarian communism, just as mutualism is only one form of libertarian socialism but not a synonym for libertarian socailism. Full Shunyata 03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. BobFromBrockley 09:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


The communism template should stay; this is a form of communism. Marxism is not the only form of communism, and the article is on the template. Zazaban (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It seems ridiculous to have to argue that anarcho-communism is a form of communism and that communism-related articles should carry the communism template. Skomorokh incite 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a serious misunderstanding of the differences between anarchism and communism to add the communism template to this entry. It's even more offensive to anarchists given that the Communism template includes the odious hammer and sickle, symbol of the old Soviet Union, a country that repressed and killed anarchists. Anarcho-communism is related to communism in the small "c" communism sense. The addition of the communism template is just unnecessary and will confuse readers about the significant difference between anarchism and Communism. Chuck0 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Anarcho-communism is Communism, it just isn't Marxist Communism. But I'm willing to have the template removed until consensus is reached. Notwithstanding that this article is linked to from the template. Zazaban (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was a repressive regime. By definition, it was not communist. (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That is completely true, where did I ever bring up the Soviet Union? Zazaban (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that anarcho-communism is a form of small "c" communism, but it is confusing and silly to add the communism template to this entry. Anarcho-communism is a form of anarchism and most people would say that it is mostly in the anarchist camp. In a similar vein, it would be equally dumb to add a socialism template to the main "Anarchism" entry. Does Wikipedia have a policy about adding multiple template boxes to a page? Chuck0 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the communism template should be representative of all types of communism, just as Template:Anarchism sidebar includes any serious self-identified anarchist philosophy. RE: multiple template boxes; it's fine as long as they don't crowd out the content and are otherwise appropriate. See Anarcho-capitalism for example. Skomorokh incite 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Multiple sidebar template boxes are pretty uncommon on Wikipedia. The first time I've noticed this is with these questionable additions to anarchism entries. There has to be a very good reason to add the communism template and I just don't see it. Adding both templates to this entry implies that anarcho-communism straddles both communism and anarchism. It clearly doesn't, because it lies totally within the anarchist camp. What's more important, anarcho-communists will be offended that a template bearing the symbols of the Soviet Union would be on a page about anarcho-communism. That's like putting a template box for satanism on a page about Catholicism. Chuck0 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got to believe that anarcho-communism has more to do with communism (that's a lowercase "c") than satanism has to do with Christianity. They're very similar goals, just very different tactics and, uh, "maps" for getting to the end product. I would think that the bigger issue would be having the hammer and sickle in the communist template, which is clearly a partisan image, offensive to communists of many stripes, not just the anarcho-s. Murderbike (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Which kind of communism? That's the problem here and is the reason why adding the communism template would engender more confusion. Anarcho-communism has very little to do with Communism as most people know communism. It even has very little to do with actual left communist movements and organizations that exist today. Anarcho-communism does have a connection with communism in the sense of historical political philosophies. But adding the current Communism template would confuse and mislead Wikipedia users as to the actual nature of anarcho-communism. Chuck0 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to propose that the connection between anarcho-communism and communism be handled through a "see also" reference instead of the template. Chuck0 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Two Issues[edit]

Firstly, I would like to dispute Mikhail Bakunin's spot in the "People" section as Bakunin is quite obviously an Anarchist-Collectivist, something the article itself proves:

"Anarchist communism as a coherent, modern economic-political philosophy was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International by Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta, Andrea Costa and other ex-Mazzinian Republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences with collectivist anarchism explicit until after Bakunin's death."

And secondly I would like to urge that perhaps a few authors would like to plan making an individual article for Libertarian Communism, which is a separate concept from Anarchist Communism though Anarchist Communism can be recognized as a form of Libertarian Communism. --Violent Proletarian (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian communism, again[edit]

I still think libertarian communism should have its own page, not redirect here. Any other opinions? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Collective ownership[edit]

This source says that Anarchist communism believes in collective ownership which contradicts this article which says that anarcho-communism doesn’t believe in ownership so i changed it.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Check anarcocomunismo (version of this article in spanish[edit]

ive been extending the article on anarchist communism in spanish. now its longer than the version in english so you people might want to check it. if i have the time i might collaborate on the english version incorporating the additions i made in spanish here in english.--Eduen (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, sounds like a great idea. Skomorokh 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this really original research?[edit]

"Anarcho-communism shares similarities with the traditional family.[citation needed] Each member contributes income purely by altruism.[citation needed] Parents can please their children even though it contradicts their self-interest[citation needed] and there is no internal price system in the traditional family, which is also the main feature of anarcho-communism.[citation needed]"

Do simple comparisons such as this qualify as original research? No point is being made, it is merely a statement of fact.

QFlux (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the article identifies which source the claim is taken from, it is "original" to this encyclopaedia. See also WP:ASF, WP:TRUTH. Skomorokh 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Marxist Criticism section[edit]

If I may try to make some constructive criticism... :)

  • Marxists criticize anarchism as being incapable of creating a successful and lasting revolution because it is philosophically flat-footed and does not aptly identify issues of class and modes of production.[47] (47: "anarchism developed in opposition to the growth of capitalist society...the liberty defended by the anarchists was not the freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society. Rather, anarchism defended the freedom of the small property owner – the shopkeeper, artisan and tradesman – against the encroachments of large-scale capitalist enterprise." Socialism From Below McNally, David)

This is actually more of a slander than a criticism. It's based on either ignorance or dishonest misrepresentation of Anarchism by Marxists. All anarchists defend "the freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society" (and all socialists defend the freedom of the small property owner, artisans etc, unless you believe in forced collectivization!). Does the section on Marxist criticism really have to include criticisms that are plain slander, rather than actual criticisms? If yes, then some anarchist response (e.g. quote explaining how this is a misrepresentation of anarchist ideology) should be provided right after.

  • The anarchist response to the argument the proletariat needs to seize state power to prevent capitalism from re-emerging should also be provided (i.e. that capitalism requires property rights in order to exist or emerge, and that property rights can only be enforced by the state, so the unlikelihood of capitalism re-emerging from a stateless socialist society)
  • The paragraphs on the Spanish revolution have no place in this section. They should be placed in the section on "Example societies throughout history", which should itself be massively expanded (drawing from the Wiki articles on the Makhnovtchina and the Spanish revolution).


This page is a complete mess, the criticism section for example is both disproportionately long compared to the main body and includes a large section on Proudhon who died before the theory became widespread and is a single individual - would you put him in the main criticism section for anarcho-capitalism as well? Of course not. A short paragraph explaining the criticisms of mutualists (his strand of thinking) is more than adequate (and again, very generous compared to the space mutualism gets in critiquing say, anarcho-capitalism). As for what Bob Black thinks, who cares? He's of minimal influence in the US, which in turn is a minor part of the anarchist-communist movement worldwide, which is itself part of a much larger theoretical tradition. I'll start with cutting this down before moving to other sections. --Saii (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mis-Representations of Kropotkin and Anarchist Communism throughout Page[edit]

I have some strong disagreements with the way Kropotkin and anarchist communism is represented throughout this page.

Although Kropotkin believed it the inherent good nature of people, he ultimately believed that free association came to an agreement about what the requirements a member of that association would perform in exchange for the benefits the member would receive. Along with this conception included the ability to dissassociate from those who didn't work: Here's one quote from The Conquest of Bread, Chapter 12, Objections showing this:

Take, for example, an association stipulating that each of its members should carry out the following contract: "We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets, means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or five hours a day to some work recognized as necessary to existence. Choose yourself the producing groups which you wish to join, or organize a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And as for the remainder of your time, combine together with those you like for recreation, art, or science, according to the bent of your taste.

"Twelve or fifteen hundred hours of work a year, in a group producing food, clothes, or houses, or employed in public health, transport, etc., is all we ask of you. For this work we guarantee to you all that these groups produce or will produce. But if not one, of the thousands of groups of our federation, will receive you, whatever be their motive; if you are absolutely incapable of producing anything useful, or if you refuse to do it, then live like an isolated man or like an invalid. If we are rich enough to give you the necessaries of life we shall be delighted to give them to you. You are a man, and you have the right to live. But as you wish to live under special conditions, and leave the ranks, it is more than probable that you will suffer for it in your daily relations with other citizens. You will be looked upon as a ghost of bourgeois society, unless some friends of yours, discovering you to be a talent, kindly free you from all moral obligation towards society by doing necessary work for you.

"And lastly, if it does not please you, go and look for other conditions else where in the wide world, or else seek adherents and organize with them on novel principles. We prefer our own."

That is what could be done in a communal society in order to turn away sluggards if they became too numerous.

Here's another from his description of anarchist communism in the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Anarchism he wrote:

"...he has tried, moreover, to indicate how, during a revolutionary period, a large city - if its inhabitants have accepted the idea could organize itself on the lines of free communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food and clothing to an extent corresponding to the comfort now available to the middle classes only, in exchange for a half-day's, or five-hours' work; and how all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by everyone if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations pursuing all possible aims - educational, literary, scientific, artistic, sports and so on.

Again, he sees the concept of the requirement for labor as consistent with the anarchist communist principle "from each according to ability, to each according to needs"... which is also the view of anarchist communists Berneri, Magon, Makhno, Puente and others.

Or in his text Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles, he reinforces that idea that everyone should be put on an equal footing not just in regards to production, but also consumption:

The question is thus no more a mere question of bread. It covers the whole field of human activity. But it has at its bottom a question of social economy, and we conclude: The means of production and of satisfaction of all needs of society, having been created by the common efforts of all, must be at the disposal of all. The private appropriation of requisites for production is neither just nor beneficial. All muse be placed on the same footing as producers and consumers of wealth. That will be the only way for society to seep out of the bad conditions which have been created by centuries of wars and oppression. That will be the only guarantee for further progress in a direction of equality and freedom, which have always been the real, although unspoken goal of humanity.

Or this quote from the same text which he reinforces the concept of common production:

Common possession of the necessaries for production implies the common enjoyment of the fruits of the common production; and we consider that an equitable organization of society can only arise when every wage-system is abandoned, and when everybody, contributing for the common well-being to the full extent, of his capacities, shall enjoy also from the common stock of society to the fullest possible extent of his needs.

He argues that this differs from collectivism not because communism rejects the concept of remuneration, but the differences in remuneration. At the beginning of section II of Anarchist Communism, It's Basis and Principles

Here Kropotkin talks of communism as a form of remuneration:

The views taken in the above as to the combination of efforts being the chief source of our wealth explain why most anarchists see in communism the only equitable solution as to the adequate remuneration of individual efforts.

Here kropotkin talks of the distinguishing feature between communism and collectivism having to do with remuneration as proporational to the hours of labor spent (rather than according to needs):

The anarchists cannot consider, like the collectivists, that a remuneration which would be proportionate to the hours of labor spent by each person in the production of riches may be an ideal, or even an approach to an ideal, society.

I think that this article is filled with claims about what anarchist communism is without at the very least acknowledging that the dominant views of anarchist communism historically- and as I've show specifically with it's most famous promoter, Kropotkin- have seen free agreements to contribute according to ability in order to receive according to needs that could be enforced by associations or communes deciding to freely disassociate from those not fulfilling their obligaitons.

Recent research and writing on the history of anarchist ideas have also supported this view:

In Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt wrote:

Page 48: In other words, genuine freedom and individuality could only exist in a free society. The anarchists did not therefore identify freedom with the right of everybody to do exactly what one pleased but with a social order in which collective effort and responsibilities- that is to say, obligations- would provide the material basis and social nexus in which individual freedom could exist.


Such, in short, was the aim of anarchism: not 'misanthropic bourgeois individualism' but a deep love of freedom, understood as a social product, a deep respect for human rights, a profound celebration of humankind and its potential and a commitment to a form of society where a 'true individuality' was irrevocably linked to 'the highest communist socieability'. This interlinking of rights and duties opens the door to the exercise of a degree of legitimate coercive power in an anarchist society- an issue that will be examined below98.


Chapter 2, End Note 98: It is therefore incorrect to define anachism as a philosophy that holds that every individual should be entirely free to establish one's obligations to society; given that anarchism advocated a social vision of freedom as realised through society and cooperation, it could not be in favour of absolute and unrestrained individual sovereignty...


Page 70: An anarchist society must also include a measure of legitimate coercive power exercized against those who commited harmful acts against the comonwealth- that is, acts against the social order and the freedom of other individuals. In particular, the linkage between rights and duties had to be maintained. Given that the anarchist society would be a voluntary association, membership assumed a basic commitment to the goals and values of that society.

Those who disagreed with those values where under no obligations to remain within a society with which they were at odds; equally, that society was under no obligation to maintain such persons. To allow some to enjoy the rights and benefits of a cooperative commonwealth, while allowing these same individuals to refuse to fulfill their duties according to their abilities, was tantamount to resurrecting social and economic inequalities and exploitation- precisely the evils of class that the new world was meant to abolish. Likewise, to allow some individuals to disregard the rights and freedom of others- even if they otherwise fulfilled their social duties- would amount to a restoration of hierarchy.

An anarchist society would be well within its rights to exercise legitimate coercive power against harmful acts- acts criminal in the manner that they are understood today, such as raper or murder, or in terms of the new morality, such as exploitation. If authority was defined as obedience to a moral principle, anarchism was not against authority; if individual freedom was defined as freedom from every restriction, anarchists were not in favour of individual freedom...."

I was planning on making edits on the page to reflect all of this; but I figured I'd post a longer rationale and argument for the type of edits I plan to make here first to avoid edit wars about it. --Thomas.giovanni (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

History and features of anarcho-communism[edit]

I have decided to expand the section on history and so have continued explaining developments of anarcho-communism after Kropotkin and so this includes the debates over organization or not, the relevance of anarcho-communism in anarchist led revolts and revolutions and the debate over the Dielo Truda Platform. I think it might be possible to deal with the evolution of anarcho communism in the post war era and so this includes dealing with the emergence of platformist organizations which separated or reacted from and towards sintetist federations and i think this started to happen in the late 1960´s in places like Italy and France. A brief discussion of current platformism might follow.

Also i would like to deal in this section with insurrectionarism and possibly on the relation of anarcho-primitivism with anarcho-communism. this could be controversial with more classically minded anarchists and I´ll be glad to discuss it with anyone.--Eduen (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Requirement to Work Quotations[edit]

Makhno (with Dielo Trouda): "It proposes that every individual in proportion to their needs, provided that every individual places their powers and faculties in the service of society and not that he serve it not at all.

An exception will be made for the children, the elderly, the sick and the infirm. Rightly, society will excuse all such persons from the duty of labour, without denying them their entitlement to have all their needs met.

The moral sensibilities of the toilers' is deeply outraged by the principle of taking from society according to one's needs, while giving to it according to one's mood or not at all; toilers have suffered too long from the application of that absurd principle and that is why they are unbending on this point. Our feeling for justice and logic is also outraged at this principle.

The position will change completely as soon as the free society of toilers entrenches itself and when there are no longer any classes sabotaging the new production for motives of a counter-revolutionary nature, but only a handful of idlers. Then society will have to make a complete reality of the anarchist principle: "From each according to ability, to each according to needs," for only on the basis of that principle will society be assured of its chances to breathe complete freedom and genuine equality.

But even then, the general rule will be that all able-bodied persons, enjoying rights over the material and moral resources of society, incur certain obligations in respect of production of these.

Bakunin, analyzing this problem in his day, wrote in the maturity of his anarchist thinking and activity (in 1871, comrade Nettlau reckons): "Everyone will have to work if they are to eat. Anyone refusing to work will be free to perish of hunger, unless they find some association or township prepared to feed them out of pity. But then it will probably be fair to grant them no political rights, since, capable of work, their shameful situation is of their own choosing and they are living off another person's labour. For there will be no other basis for social and political rights than the work performed by each individual." From Dielo Trouda Editoral Group. "Supplement to the Organizational Platform (Questions and Answers)". 2 November 1926. "Supplement to the Organizational Platform (Questions and Answers)"

Puente: "Libertarian communism is based on the economic organisation of society, economic interest being the only common bond sought between individuals in that it is the only bond on which all are agreed. The social organisation of libertarian communism has no aim other than to bring into common ownership everything that goes to make up the wealth of society, namely, the means and tools of production and the products themselves and also to make it a common obligation that each contribute to that production according to their energies and their talents and then to see to it that the products are distributed among everyone in accordance with individual needs." Puente, Isaac. "Libertarian Communism". 1932. The Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review #6. Orkney. English Translation 1982. Also available at:


"no compulsion to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work." Berneri, Camilo. "The Problem of Work". pp. 59-82, Why Work?. Vernon Richards (ed.). p. 74

Magon: "The Partido Liberal Mexicano recognizes that work is necessary to subsistence, and therefore all, with the exception of the old, the physically impaired, and children, must dedicate themselves to producing something useful in order to provide necessities."p. 139 "With the inventory taken, the workers in different industries will come to a fraternal understanding among themselves on the management of production. In this manner, during the course of this movement, no one will lack anything, and the only ones who will die of hunger will be those who don't want to work, with the exceptions of the old, the handicapped, and the children, who will have the right to the use of everything.

"All that is produced will be sent to central community warehouses from which everyone will have the right to take everything that they need, according to their needs, with no other requirement than they show proof that they work in one or another industry."pg. 141

"...but of men and women who desire that all be brothers and, as such, enjoy all the good things provided by nature and by the arms and minds of the men who create them, with the only condition being that everyone dedicates himself to truly useful work." pg.144

From Flores, Magon; Rivera, Librado; Figueroa, Anselmo; Magon, Enrique Flores. "Manifesto". 23 September 1911. Dreams of Freedom: A Ricardo Flores Magon Reader. Chaz Bufe and Mitchell Cowen Verter (ed.) 2005. pgs. 139,141 & 144 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.giovanni (talkcontribs) 15:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Crticism section[edit]

As I have argued successfully on other pages, I will incorporate the criticism section, where appropriate (and most of it is) into the article, instead of it having its own section.

To many users, this is the sign of an out of balance and poor article, where the main body is either too complimentary (not really the case here) or noone could be bothered to implement criticism as a proper argument within the arugment.

I will be bold and begin this task now, tell me what you think. Thanks for reading and best wishes, ValenShephard (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for review from a committee of style. I am suggesting changes in wording to better describe the concept.

[quote]Anarchist communism (or anarcho-communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to ability, to each according to need".[3][4][/quote]

Anarchist communism (or anarcho-communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of competition due to scarcity; by the state, goods that can be rivalrous and excludable such as private property and private ownership of capitalism, in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils (e.g. unions, guilds); with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to ability, to each according to need".[3][4].

Any feedback on grammar and composition are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho communism wants abolition of the state, you are saying something else here. and the part goods that can be rivalrous and excludable such as you might need to clarify what you mean since as you present it you might be needlessly confusing things for the reader. Maybe a mention of the discussion on scarcity could be brought up in the article´s section on economics. Obviously I have to say I prefer the paragraph to stay as it is now.--Eduen (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a joke or vandalism, dont worry about it Eduen. ValenShephard (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions about Anarcho-Communism[edit]

How is anarcho-communism different from mutualism? I thought it was just because it does not use trade, but the article says that some anarcho-communists are okay with trade, and, I think, on the mutualism article it said that its system also pushes for cooperative ownership (usage). Is the difference that necessities are owned collectively, but not anything beyond that? Is the difference that anarcho-communism has an open-door policy to others being able to join collective groups, while mutualism doesn't?

I'm also confused on this: "Anarcho-communists reject mutualist economics because they believe that market competition, even non-capitalist markets, inherently create inequalities in wealth and land which would lead to inequalities of power - thus the recreation of the State and capitalism as some workers would have more access to capital and defence force than others. They reject collectivist economics arguing that remuneration would require a type of currency, which, again, anarcho-communists reject as an artificial measurement of the value of labor. --------------------------------------They further argue that those who are not part of collective groups or unions in workers' councils and collectives could be alienated from access to capital, and thus promote free common use over ownership by society.-----------------------------------"

Does that mean that anarcho-communism is not an open-door to newcomers to collective groups and that, by that, necessities are being refused to others? Or is this sentence speaking about anarcho-collectivism or mutualism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not of a forum or to "ask questions" about the subject of the article but to coordinate changes in the article. There are many anarchist forums on the internet for that. Anyway your questions might be good for suggesting small clarifications in the article such as a main difference between anarcho-communism and mutualism which is the rejection of the labout theory of value which mutualism adheres to.--Eduen (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Individualist anarcho-communism[edit]

"Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are egoist and strongly influenced by radical individualism, believing that anarchist communism does not require a communitarian nature at all." What the fuck does this even mean? i really think this needs further claryfing

I am responsible for the a lot of the additions on egoist anarcho-communism on this article but as far as the sentence you are critizicing here I didn´t add it and I will agree with you that It should be better sourced or I might better that we erase it. I suggest the following "Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are egoist and strongly influenced by radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realization of individual liberty". I think I can give good references for that. I will come back when I find them.--Eduen (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge with libertarian socialism[edit]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism, especially anarchist communism The Anacostia Diaries As It Is. Lulu Press. p. 160 Darkstar1st (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)ę


Mention should be made of Trotsky's Stalinism and Bolshevism in which he stated "Marxists are wholly in agreement with the anarchists in regard to the final goal: the liquidation of the state. Marxists are “state-ist” only to the extent that one cannot achieve the liquidation of the state simply by ignoring it."Bolegash (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus to not move. --regentspark (comment) 02:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anarchist communismAnarcho-communism – It looks wrong to have a sidebar called "Anarcho-communism" when the parent article is at Anarchist communism. "Anarcho-communism" is favored considerably by the Google test (1,490,000 to 90,600 with -wikipedia), and seems to better describe this hybrid ideology; "anarchist communism" implies this is an anarchist type of communism, when you could just as easily define it as a communist type of anarchism. And yes, if this request fails, I'll absolutely want to rename the sidebar. --Relisted Cúchullain t/c 19:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)--BDD (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that Anarchist communism is one part of Anarcho communism, just like libertaian socialism is also. So both are in my opinion correctly named. No need to rename.--MrBoire (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Anarcho-communism and anarchist communism are synonymous. It may be better to change it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Anarchist Communism" is the correct full term, of which "Anarcho-communism" is used as short-hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Anarchist communism[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anarchist communism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "joeblack":

Reference named "":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 07:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Does somebody...[edit]

... know the difference between anarchist communism and libertarian socialism? By the leads of the respective articles, they appear to be more or less the same thing... Againme (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The main issue here is taxonomy. It is the usual view to consider communism as a part of socialism but not the other way around which will be communism containing socialism. As such anarcho-communism will be considered a part of or a type of libertarian socialism. Now ¿why are they not the same thing? It seems to me you did not pay enough attention to the intro of the wikipedia article libertarian socialism which notes thats libertarian socialism includes anarchist as well as a few marxist currents known collectively as libertarian marxism. On the other hand anarcho-communism, as its name implies is a form of anarchism. Taxonomy and set theory is the main issue here. Anarcho-communism is not a marxist current, is an anarchist current while other types of libertarian socialism are forms of marxism such as autonomism and council communism and there are also types of libertarian socialism which cannot be considered either anarchist of marxist such as guild socialism or zapatismo. In the end i might also have to suggest you to give a check to the entire article and not just the introduction. Then you will notice that anarcho-communism is listed as one tendency of libertarian socialism. But i also think we should avoid here turning this into something which might be more apporpiate for an internet forum with a question answer format and not what this space is for which is editing this article.--Eduen (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eduen, very enlightening... :0) --Againme (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Eduen's revert edit[edit]

Hello I do not want to get into a long debate, but reverting an entire edit on the grounds that "in some cases of this huge edition there was a removal of sourced information. in other ones the addition of" is a problem. First, this was not a "huge edition", but mainly a reframing (as stated) of some illogical claims that created a problematic chronology. Second, there is no serious work claiming that the anti-organisationalist 'individualism' of the insurrectionists was due to Stirnerism, as the article currently states. Parallels - which is all that the Baginski quote, and even the Black text show - are not the same as influences, and the basic conception of an anarchist communist economy and a class struggle for it - whether insurrectionist or mass-based is at odds with Stirnerism. Third, anarchist communism as advocated by figures like Kropotkin is not a gift economy, not least because it is based on obligation to work: not a minor point in the work K, or, indeed, of the praxis of the Makhnovists in the Spanish Rev, which is given as the main example of actually-existing a-c. 'Conquest of Bread', which is repeatedly cited, is quite explicit on this matter. Long discussions of pre-modern gift economies are out of place. The grounds for the revert are therefore not adequate to justify the revert that was done. I am not going to have time to come back to this; I trust that my points will be noted. Best wishes RBW

For the reason of my revert i stae that it should have said the following "in some cases of this huge edition there was a removal of sourced information. in other ones the addition of unsourced affirmations."

Now lets examine the issues of this discussion:

Stirnerism: I have checked the article again and i have not found the claim at all that "the anti-organisationalist 'individualism' of the insurrectionists was due to Stirnerism". The only place where there is a mention of Stirner is in the "philosophical debates" section" and it says that it has influenced some from past times and from today insurrectionists, not that insurrectionism "was due to Stirnerism". 3 of the names mentioned there are contemproary living authors while anti-organizationalism exists most likely from the late 19th century at least in Italy. In the historical section there is not a single mention of Stirner or stirnerism. The Max Baginsky quote shows that there was an important awareness and discussion with and within the ideas of Stirner already in early 20th century anarcho-communism which gives support to the affirmation in the text that says that Stirnerism was influential in such circles and not only within insurrectionism. Emma Goldman has also defended both Stirner and Nietzche al although that is not mentioned, nevertheless it just adds up the importance that it had in debates.
"praxis of the Makhnovists in the Spanish Rev": I hope you made a mistake here and can come here to accept it, otherwise it seems you don´t know what you are talking about. Makhnovism is the name given to the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine while the Spanish Revolution of 1936 cannot be said to have had a tendency and even worse to be in character a "makhnovist" revolution which does not mean the example of the ukranian anarchist might have influenced them in some degree in the events of 1936.
Gift economy: "anarchist communism as advocated by figures like Kropotkin is not a gift economy, not least because it is based on obligation to work". A gift economy is the implication of a type of economy as advocated by anarcho-communism by Kropotkin, Cafiero and others which eliminates money and exchange of goods for the access of consumption of goods and they explicitly rejected forms of measuring amount of work done by individuals which was what the collectivism of Bakunin advocated for. Now a gift economy does not imply nessesarely that the community which puts it in practice might not be able decide to give part of what has been produced collectively by taking into consideration some work requirement for themporary commune dwellers. Nevertheless for the history of the debate within the anarchist movement on this issue i recommend you to check the article "Anarchist-Communism" by Alain Pengam which shows this in detail. Gift economy is something that happens even in comtemporary societies if you check realities like internal family economics or welfare state provisions like Universal Healthcare, free Public hospitals, and even in a highly neoliberal economy like the United States where primary and secondary school education is free and no one there asks children or their parents for a work requirement. It is just given out as a citizen right.--Eduen (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Eduen's revert - reply[edit]

1. I note you have sidestepped the issue of chronology: your reversion essentially maintains a chronology which makes the following incompatible claims i. "Anarcho-communism developed out of radical socialist currents after the French Revolution" ii. "Anarchist communist currents appeared during the English Civil War and the French Revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries, respectively." iii. "Early Christian communities have been described as having anarcho-communist characteristics.[116] " iv. "but was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International.[2 Well, does it emerge in BCE 10,000, 1640 CE, 1789 CE, 1864+ CE? That is not logical, yet you reverted the attempt to sort this out. The grounds you gave ("(in some cases of this huge edition there was a removal of sourced information. in other ones the addition of)" did not touch this point. Nor does your new version of your objection ("unsourced affirmations").

2. Stirnerism: you deny that the current framing suggests that anti-org and insurrectionist positions are due to Stirnersim. Perhaps this is a matter of interpretation, but the current text specifically states that "Egoist philosophical positions are important in anarcho-communist insurrectionary anarchism," that Renzo Novatore argued "From Stirnerist positions," and cite Black with approval when he claimed that Galleani's view on anarcho-communism was "the final fulfillment of individualism". You are indeed making the link, not considering that these same arguments for a type of individualism a) do not have necessary links to Stirnerism b) can have been elaborated in other ways and from other grounds (paralell evolution) and c) the chronological problem that if (as you claim) "anti-organizationalism exists most likely from the late 19th century at least in Italy" then this "anti-organizationalism" precedes the discovery of Stirner by the anarchists (the "Stirner renaissance") started by McKay from 1898.

3. "praxis of the Makhnovists in the Spanish Rev": yes, this is a typo, for which I apologise,but while you note this and make much of it, you do avoid dealing with the substantive points being raised i.e. that work was compulsory in the Ukrainian and Spanish revolutions, both given here as examples of actually existing a-c. This means the point gets lost.

4. "gift economy": you may mention families and welfare states, and even claim a gift economy is "the implication of a type of economy as advocated by anarcho-communism by Kropotkin" etal. That is fine. It may be so. However, you will look in vain for such a concept as "gift economy" being used by Kropotkin, Cafiero etal, let alone CNT, Makhno and the rest. My problem was that a large part of this entry on a-c is being tied down to a) something you admit is only a possible "implication" of a-c, and that b) is at odds with what actually happened in (and what was explicitly put in place) by actually-existing a-c revolutions i.e. an obligation to work, which is precisely what is meant by the axiom "each according to ABILITY to each according to NEED." that is something very different to the defining feature of a "gift economy": says the page, "In anthropology and the social sciences, a gift economy (or gift culture) is a mode of exchange where valuable goods and services are regularly given without any explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards (i.e. no formal quid pro quo exists)." Actually here there is a pretty clear and enforced "quid pro quo" in a-c in theory and in practice e.g. any study of the Spanish revolution collectives makes it quite clear. Bringing in such issues as collectivism is a red herring. Collectivism sets a link between amount of work, and amount of access; communism argues that there is no link between amounts, but it certainly does not say work is now voluntary, and that work is entirely detached from access. That is a completely separate issue. Work is obligatory (to best of "ability") but is delinked from specific wages or levels of consumption. That is the difference, not whether work becomes a matter of choice. It is also a red herring to discuss the US welfare system and so on - the financing and obligations of these systems is nothing to do with a-c. I have no quarrel over whether gift economies have ever existed, but over whether a-c is a gift economy, and the assertion that the page that "Anarcho-communists advocate a gift economy as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets, nor central planning."

NB!! 5. All of your responses indicate quite clearly that you did NOT revert my edit on the stated grounds of "(in some cases of this huge edition there was a removal of sourced information. in other ones the addition of)" nor even your new addition ("in other ones the addition of unsourced affirmations.") Rather, you deleted a whole range of points with which you have substantive disagreements on the basis of this apparently neutral technical grounds.

First of all i advise you to sign your interventions here, otherwise we can have problems of knowing who is speaking and where it starts and ends. Anyway anyone can very well check that my intervention starts here if they check the history of this page.
It seems that the sources that we can bring to this discussion should help advance the edition of this article. On the issue of "chronology" i have to remind you that i have not been the only person that has edited this article as so at least on this issue i think i don´t deserve this affirmation by you: "your reversion essentially maintains a chronology which makes the following incompatible claims". It seems you have pointed out to an important mistake in the article that has to be fixed but which nevertheless i am not responsible for as i have not been the only person who has edited this article and this article in general was created some years well before i started to edit continously wikipedia at all. Now if something is being described as having "anarcho-communist" characteristics it is not meaning that it was called anarchocommunism in the time that it existed.

:"you deny that the current framing suggests that anti-org and insurrectionist positions are due to Stirnersim. Perhaps this is a matter of interpretation, but the current text specifically states that "Egoist philosophical positions are important in anarcho-communist insurrectionary anarchism,"

Well. I don´t see the problem here. There is clearly a difference between saying something is important in something else and saying something is due to something else. The second thing is never said on this specific issue.
"can have been elaborated in other ways and from other grounds (paralell evolution)"

If you can prove this particular influence then bring the sources. The influence of stirnerism in insurrectionists is sourced.

"the chronological problem that if (as you claim) "anti-organizationalism exists most likely from the late 19th century at least in Italy" then this "anti-organizationalism" precedes the discovery of Stirner by the anarchists (the "Stirner renaissance") started by McKay from 1898. "
The text of this article never affirms that "antiorganizationalism" was born because of stirnerism and even worse it never says it influenced anti-organizationalism from the late XIX century onwards. It only says that it influenced anti-organizationalism and the earliest person clearly influenced by (check his article) it and that is mentioned in this article is Renzo Novatore who is a personality of the early XX century. By this point i have to start to question the way you elaborate logical arguments. Please be more careful on the inferences that you make.
"you do avoid dealing with the substantive points being raised i.e. that work was compulsory in the Ukrainian and Spanish revolutions, both given here as examples of actually existing a-c. This means the point gets lost"
Maybe you are right but in wikipedia we follow reliable outside sources and not the affirmation of a user. If you can bring references supporting this then we might have to mention that in the article. Otherwise you can expect us to just "trust you" on that.
"and the assertion that the page that "Anarcho-communists advocate a gift economy as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets, nor central planning."
In the introduction of the article it never says that "anarcho-communism is a gift economy". I found that this is affirmed in the section titled "Free association of communes as opposed to the nation-state" and so that particular sentence you can clearly remove it if you want to. On the specific relationship of anarcho-communism with gift economies check this article which establishes the relationship as "The Net as Really Existing Anarcho-Communism" and it is mentioned in this article. Clearly something like "intellectual property" will not exist in anarcho-communism and so we could not see the commune charging a tax or a fee on using intellectual and cultural products and so this "commons" of culture is clearly both a feature of anarcho-communism and an implication of the absence of the enforcement of intelectual property rights is a de facto gift economy. Indeed the whole issue of "commons" is clearly a part of anarcho-COMMUNism just as of any other type of COMMUNism. This article is pointing this out as far as exchange and sharing of information and digital goods and is reliable according to the standards of wikipedia. That article received a good deal of attention in its time and so it was mentioned in its time and it was inserted in the wikipedia article long before i even started editing this article. A gift economy clearly fits in the scheme of anarcho-communism since it eliminates money, exchange and property rights and so it is advocated by anarcho-communists as well as by other types of communists because of logical reasons (communism implying a "commons" to be shared). And gift economies are advocated by two widely read contemporary anarcho-communists such as Bob Black and David Graeber. But lets also remember the fact that we still cannot trust you on the point that you make that the spanish and the urkanian revolutions imposed a work condition on accessing to the products of collective labour.--Eduen (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014[edit]

Not entirely sure how to submit this but i think this would be a worthwhile addition to the anarchist communist section Anarchists are against the State but are not against political organization or "governance"—so long as it is self-governance utilizing direct democracy. The mode of political organization preferred by anarchists, in general, is federalism or confederalism.[citation needed] However, the anarchist definition of federalism tends to differ from the definition of federalism assumed by pro-state political scientists. The following is a brief description of federalism from section I.5 of An Anarchist FAQ:

"The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a form of municipal organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves. [...] The key to that change, from the anarchist standpoint, is the creation of a network of participatory communities based on self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots neighbourhood and community assemblies [meetings for discussion, debate, and decision making]. [...] Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger areas, such as urban districts, the city or town as a whole, the county, the bio-region, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies will confederate at several levels in order to develop and co-ordinate common policies to deal with common problems. [...] This need for co-operation does not imply a centralised body. To exercise your autonomy by joining self-managing organisations and, therefore, agreeing to abide by the decisions you help make is not a denial of that autonomy (unlike joining a hierarchical structure, where you forsake autonomy within the organisation). In a centralised system, we must stress, power rests at the top and the role of those below is simply to obey (it matters not if those with the power are elected or not, the principle is the same). In a federal system, power is not delegated into the hands of a few (obviously a "federal" government or state is a centralised system). Decisions in a federal system are made at the base of the organisation and flow upwards so ensuring that power remains decentralised in the hands of all. Working together to solve common problems and organise common efforts to reach common goals is not centralisation and those who confuse the two make a serious error -- they fail to understand the different relations of authority each generates and confuse obedience with co-operation."[1] Cormaccaulfield (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

{1}Anarchist Writers. "I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like?" An Anarchist FAQ.

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The main domain for the source linked doesn't seem very reliable. Nor does it actually work Cannolis (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)