Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

What are the differences between Anti-State communism and Insurrectionary Anarchism?

+4 votes
asked Jan 8, 2011 by bruno-larrea (510 points)
Um, many insurrectionaries are anti-state communists. Are we talking about ideological brands or various theories, practices and cultural signifiers?
I am talking about the later portion of your question. I feel there is becoming or is a big distinction between the two and would like to see where other people see the distinction...
Communists are statists.
^wrong. Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Trotskyist-Stalinists embrace statism; council communists and anarcho-communists do not. 99% of human evolution took place before the state, in band or tribe societies, i.e. based on communal living without the state with a significant degree of autonomy, anti-authoritarianism, and mutual aid.
What do "COMMUNAL LIVING" and "AUTONOMY" have in common?????????????????
I'm sorry, but "anarcho/communist" is a completely contradictory, illogical term. I go create farm in forest.. someone else creates farm nearby.. we both create our own tools, plow our own land.. build our own shelters.. grow our own food... other person's harvest is bad... they come to my farm and say "give me some vegetables, and some tools, and let me use some of the farm land you have plowed" - i say "well i can give you some vegetables but i need my tools and everything for myself" - first person says "you dont understand.. you cant claim this land or these tools or anything as solely your property... im going to take some vegetables anyway, and use your land.. because you can't have private property" who is the authoritarian?? who is trying to rule another person and things they have created/traded for?
Cool story, but human societies don't work that way. In real life, we are never isolated individuals building a private world from scratch, flyin solo in the woods. Human beings exist in communities of one sort or another. We all rely on the efforts of others. The question is not whether these ties of interdependence will exist or not, but what form they should take.

In your story, neither individuals seems to have established a relationship of any kind with the person next to them, until one of them spontaneously goes over to the other one's house to demand all their stuff. That action could be pretty strange, and perhaps authoritarian, but it's impossible to say because of the complete cultural vacuum that your characters inhabit. In some societies, it actually wouldn't be out of line for a neighbor to do that if they fell on hard times, but in those societies the person being asked for help probably wouldn't experience the request as "authoritarian." They would just think of it as what neighbors do for each other.

Anarchist communism is arguably simplistic--can mutual aid replace exchange relations ENTIRELY in a society so used to market exchange?--but at least it acknowledges that humans are social animals. Your narrative is much more simplistic, and assumes that communist relations would be based on coercion in the first place. The strange thing is that for the most part it is the most "communist" tribe and band societies that have the least developed coercive institutions. By contrast, the most developed market economies have historically been located in the most oppressive and imperialist world powers around.
bravo! i have nothing to add, i just wanted to say that this is one of the best responses i have seen to the capitalists posing as anarchists.

3 Answers

+2 votes
From an historical standpoint insurrectionary anarchism is a confluence of anarchist Illegalism, anarchist-communist theory and annotations (predominantly generated by Italian militants), and anarchist egoism (or "individualism"—the former has stronger connotations, I believe). Make a note of the fact that I can only account for North American tendencies concerning insurrectionary anarchism. Apparently it has become popular to imply some correlation between bestselling French theory and insurrectionary anarchism, but I can't confirm that this is because there is an actual popularity of those ideas among people who would identify as insurrectionary anarchists. Most of it just seems like name calling.

In contrast, anti-state communism is a very rudimentary phrase people use to categorize communist politics that, in some way, have established a divergence from the Left. I've seen it employed by people who have become disillusioned with anarchism and who retreat into avant-garde Marxism, or some variant of it.

Obviously, these differences are only on the terms of literal significance and broad connotations. I can't speak for the intricacies in which these things intersect and converge in individual praxis.
answered Jan 8, 2011 by madlib (2,710 points)
+2 votes
anti-state communists are communists - in general they focus more on economics and marx.
insurrectionary anarchists are anarchists - in general they are more holistic in what they think the problems are. and insurrectionary relates to methods.
answered Jun 7, 2011 by dot (52,720 points)
edited Jun 28, 2011 by dot
"Anti-state communism" is contradictory. People who want to "collectivize," have "no private property in the means of production," and use "democracy" to "control" those means of production are no more anarchists than the DNC. If those communists want to go make a commune, the only way they could ever do it without trampling all over their "anarhist" principles is through voluntarily trading through the free market, NOT through "government" force... and if they do, then fine, but they are still using authoritarian methods, they still want to be serfs to "the collective," and have 51% of "the people" deciding what everyone is going to do that day, what all commodities are worth, etc.. eventually, i'm sure they will end up having to kick people out when they are free-loading and the commune is running out of commodities (and hopefully at that point those communists will understand that what makes that commune theirs are PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THEIR EXERCISING THEM...or, if when someone doesnt want to go along with the "democratic planning" they can just up and leave, then fine.. which is probably what everyone will end up doing when they realize it's the same thing as statism...
fucking shut up.
–1 vote
Could the answer be that non-state communism does have ideology that does apply morals of shared privileges of land and product onto the people under this condition.  It may be against state and capitalism but still focuses on anti-class and anti-ownership which has overtones of a  forced or enforced equality.  This has nothing to do with anarchy.  Anarchy has no motives other than to do away with any factors imposed by others or by a state for every person to make their own choices free form authority and capitalism.
answered May 29, 2012 by afunctionalworld (2,070 points)
...