well, the first international culminated in bakunin renouncing marxism as authoritarian and causing a gigantic schism between the two, so there we go. you could argue that syndicalism provided a common ground between the two as well, but the way anarchism has been defined since the early 20th c. i would say it is largely a rival and an enemy of communism, because most anarchists renounce political parties and believe any defined ‘state’ (whether communist or not) and state power is corrupt. marxists generally encourage political participation, define any state as a system of class repression and many believe the dictatorship of the proletariat does not constitute a repressive organ. it’s not a necessity that vis-a-vis varieties of communism or anarchism are opposed, and in that sense i was being a little stupid (since i agree with anarcho-syndicalism on many points), but the way this site’s userbase defines ‘anarchism’ (including largely anti-communist, anti-centrist, ancap and anarcho-primitivist advocates) i would say they are generally opposed here.
So not always, and considering both revolve around destroying the hierarchic power structures present within bourgeois society (at least, class-struggle conscious anarchism) they’re not both completely antithetical.
There are a lot of anarchists on Tumblr I purposefully don’t follow precisely because they don’t get that difference. I purposefully don’t associate with the entire Tumblarchist community for that reason (and for a lot of misogyny, white-privilege denying and hetero-normative crap that flies around).
Without getting into the nitty-gritty details the distinction comes down to whether or not the “state” can(/n’t) or should be weaponised to destroy bourgeois power structures, not what the intended end result is, and for the stage we’re at sectarianism between anti-capitalists at the moment isn’t of exceptional value. There are arguments to have, and I will have them, that doesn’t mean I reject someone’s contribution based on them happening to identify as a specific type of anarchist. It comes down to the arguments they make and the consciousness behind them.
okay, yes, you’re right, i was oversimplifying, not all anarchists are voluntarists. i will concede that.
however, anarchism is usually voluntarism, because most anarchists believe that FREE individuals in FREE (voluntary) agreement creates a prosperous society for themselves and others. there may be a deferral from voluntarism by anarchists under capitalist conditions, but that does not change the innate voluntarist outlook of many schools of the ideology ultimately as an ideal. there are some anarchists who accept ultimately non-voluntary positions on law and so on as part of a pessimistic outlook on human nature, but i wouldn’t say they make up the majority either, especially not on this site. that is why most anarchists on here are completely antithetical to practical communist ideals, and also because they commonly agitate for a complete dismantlement of the state.
And it’s the conceptualisations of freedom and definitions of what the state is and how it functions that I disagree with. And I have the argument. But when someone’s mindset is to start off by being an asshole I have no qualms in being an asshole to them.
Except when I see people making a point I disagree with I challenge them on it. If they’re being an ass about it, I will challenge them in the same format in which they make their point. Whether or not I do challenge a person can also depend on a variety of factors (whether or not I see their comment, whether or not I register it, whether or not I’m interested in challenging it at that particular moment in time because often there are more interesting/important things I could be doing).
Maybe I don’t follow them, or maybe I don’t find them as mindnumbingly annoying on the whole?
well, i suppose i’m guilty of the same then regarding some of the people below.