Defining Anarcho-Communism

hi my name is Aaron and this is my show reeducation and today I'm going to talk about anarcho-communism specifically the definition of anarcho-communism itself it comes up so often in my comment section that I think it's necessary to actually dedicate an entire video to this so I can talk about exactly what I mean when I'm saying anarcho-communism you see anarcho-communism basically means an arco the abolishment of all the necessary hierarchies and Communism the worker control and ownership of the means of production now what exactly does that mean so let's break it down an arco it means that i want to abolish all unnecessary hierarchies now that doesn't mean that i think that all hierarchies need to be abolished i just think that they all need to be justified they need to be voted on by the people who are in that community now communism is obviously the worker control and ownership of the means of production now that means that the workers own and control the factories the plants the cars trucks planes trains and automobiles that ship all of their goods around and all of the equipment that is used to produce those goods they basically own production they own everything that is able to produce goods in the society that is the idea of having a communist structure now remember that there are two different definitions of communism when you're talking about it the first being hard communism which is basically an idealist utopia of extreme abundance where everybody works to the best of their abilities and is provided to them everything that the community can provide but the communism that I'm specifically talking about is soft communism which is the worker control and ownership of the means of production which is what I was talking about before a lot of people call this socialism specifically Richard Wolff calls this socialism the act of going from a capitalist state to a communist state is basically a socialist movement is basically soft communism and that's what I'm talking about here so when I'm talking about communism I'm talking about the workers owning and controlling the means of production I'm not talking about the government or the state owning and controlling it that is not the same thing that would be a Thorat Aryan communism and I am NOT for that I am for anarcho-communism where the workers are the ones that own and control the means of production and if you ask me I would personally say that it is technically the only true type of communism you can have because if you have a system that has people above and people below those people above are inevitably going to be the ones with the most power and the ones that are able to own and control the means of production and you can't have that if you want to have worker control and ownership of the means of production it's pretty simple it's pretty straightforward okay so really quickly when it comes to Anarchy there are a couple of different definitions that you can use the first one being the most common that everybody hears which is a lack of leadership resulting in complete chaos that is not what I'm talking about here what I'm talking about is the economic definition of Anarchy which is the abolishment of all unnecessary hierarchies there is a difference in that the conflicting definitions that you see with the word Anarchy are very similar to the conflicting definitions that you see with the word theory when you're talking about a theory in scientific terms it means basically a hundred percent proven fact but when you're talking about a theory in colloquial terms kalokhe colloquial whatever when you're talking about it in normal terms you're talking about something that is basically a guess an idea something that people kind of have a hunch on it's not the same thing when I'm talking about anarchism I'm not talking about it in normal terms I'm talking about it in economic terms now another thing that I've come across in the past is that a lot of people have a problem with me using the word anarcho before I say communist because they think that a narco would basically be a given like I explained before but I would have to disagree because we consider communists for the most part in normal terms to be referring to the authoritarian communism of Mao Stalin or Lenin but that is not what we're talking about we're talking about specifically anarcho-communism and it's very similar again to the way that we use the word agnostic atheist when we're talking about somebody's specific beliefs agnostic is a clarifier that is specifically talking about a factual claim and a theist is a specific argument that's talking about a belief claim and very similar to this anarcho is a statement of leadership whereas communist is a statement of ownership at least that's the way I look at it anyway this is my show reeducation my name is Erin thanks for watching

  1. Edit: After reading your clarifying comments under other videos I see that you do advocate for communities based on contracts that commit to ensure each others needs, as such you certainly fit into the an arc of communist tradition, but it should have been included in this video. The below comment, written before I was aware of your additional views may therefore still be interesting to you.

    I really appreciate that you clearly define your terms in every video, which means that even if people disagree with your usage of the term "communism", we can actually debate the ideas you advocate as opposed to the definitions.

    However: As this video is dedicated to definitions, I have to offer a critique of your usage of "communism". I will freely admit that it does have historical precedence (as socialism and communism has been used as synonyms, and have had so many contradictory usages), but in terms of how the terms of how the term is commonly used and understood, defining communism as worker ownership confuses the conversation.

    To clarify my usage and understanding of the terms I always try to be as inclusive as possible, and as such I acknowledge that we are referring to an extremely broad terms that include many contradictory ideologies. However:

    Communism as an umbrella term refers to ideologies that advocates for stateless, borderless, classless and moneyless societies where resources are distributed based on need.


    Socialism is an umbrella term for ideologies advocating worker, user or collective ownership and/or control of the economy (which is really broad spectrum ranging from full on free market co-operative economies, not to mention Mutualism, to state socialism, to Collectivism, Communalism, etc. to Democratic Socialism to Communism)

    The issue with your usage is that while Socialism is certainly a broader ideology it has traditionally been "Socialism" that has been defined as "worker ownership", while communism has been defined by collective ownership. (Though there are ideologies that advocate collective ownership, the most obvious being Collectivism, that are not communist).

    Using a label traditionally and currently associated with collective, not worker ownership, creates a massive confusion.

    If you look at Anarcho-Communists, the traditional argument was for federated communes, not worker ownership. In other words, the commune (there are many different kinds of communes) would be in charge of the resources, not the workers. Now, you could view the commune as a co-op, or refers to workers in terms of class as opposed to actual function, which would clear this up – but in traditional anarcho-communism the idea is that the community organizes the means of production, who does what and ensure that everyone are taken care of.

    A further point of confusion is that your definition would include Mutualism, Syndicalism and any co-operative economy based on worker ownership. In other words, by your definition if we simply replaced capitalist corporations with co-operative corporations, and kept states, governments, currency, etc. (which would be better, and it would fit the definition of socialism) we would have "soft-communism". This system would still allow for consumer exploitation, different classes, unbalanced power dynamics based on who would be lucky enough to be employed into successful/powerful co-ops, etc. There is very little here that can be associated with any of the traditional ideas of communism.

    I would urge you (though urging someone my be a little too presumptuous on my part) to reconsider your definitions and use a more general label, for instance Libertarian Socialist or simply Anarchist (or perhaps a more specific label, such as Anarcho-Syndicalist, Mutualist, Communalist or similar label if you find it to fit) in order to avoid causing confusion over the term.

    Edit: P.S. In terms of defining socialism as a transition stage to communism, this is primarily used within Leninist theory. Marx himself referred to low communism as the transition stage (by each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution) and high communism (by each according their ability to each according to their need), and other socialist ideologies have had other specific aims that do not necessarily include borderless, stateless and currency less societies – however, many anarchist and socialist movements have had the aim to reach a post-scarcity economy, which is very similar to high communism in practice (according to need), but may not have all the same attributes.

  2. bit reductionist no? The abolition of private property law is a big deal. I am an anarcho-syndicalist, which is anarcho-communism with more steps.

  3. If we are going to get technical; I am an Anarcho-Communist Syndicalist who believes in market socialism.

    Anarcho- abolishment of all unnecessary hierarchies
    Communist- worker control and ownership of the means of production
    Syndicalist- Unionism as a method to gain control of the economy
    market socialism- worker control of distribution through supply and demand, with No central government planning

  4. I'm sorry, but most of the thing you explain in this video start with "This is that, but that is not what I'm talking about.'" That way I can call neoliberal capitalism "a kind of communism" 🙂
    When you say anarchy, while minimal state has another meaning, maybe a better idea would be to be a bit more specific in what you mean to say and avoid things that make you say "That is that, but that is not what I'm talking about when i say it…"

  5. No, communism is not worker control over the means of production. Yes, that's part of it, but that's not "it". Communism means complete sharing of all property, every item, whether productive or personal, where everything belongs to everyone. This means getting rid of market economies and replacing them with gift economies, where all properties are equally distributed and free to access. Labour and services are provided by workers, who control the means of production for themselves, based upon their own enjoyment of their work, not because they'll obtain profit. So under communism, those who work do so because they like it, because its fun, and those who don't enjoy working get to enjoy all the fruits of the working population's labour. Since all their products belong to everyone, nobody will suffer due to economic conditions under communism. Communism equates to a world where finance will never, ever be a burden upon anyone, whatsoever.

    In a gift economy, people can choose to personally give gifts to those they like, that they've formed intimate relationships with. And if not this, than place their property in an open depository where people can come and take such property freely, without paying. Communism means a system without buying and selling, a stateless, marketless, moneyless, classes, borderless society. It also means to throw away with patriarchy, a political hierarchy, and no longer make distinctions between ethnic groups and races, so that people from all backgrounds will be equal. All advocated for by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

    Anarcho-communism, unlike Marxist-Leninism and Maoism (authoritarian communism), wants an immediate transition from a state society to a communist one, without having to utilise the state to do it. In fact, they believe the best way of achieving communism is to abolish the state itself, and than people will, due to spontaneous order, self-manage themselves into democratic communes and mass civilisations without private property laws. The state should never undertake the means of production, and instead, if it's truly communist, must abolish itself at once. But, of course, no state really is. So the working class will have to dismantle the state themselves, thus achieving a communist utopia.

    Communism in practice will always be anarchist communism, and anarchism in practice will inevitably lead to communism once civil conflicts are sorted out.

  6. I agree with the sentiment behind your definition but at least as far as I have researched the hard terminology; Socialism is the umbrella term that houses all systems that have the workers own the means of production. Where Communism is a specific highly defined system that in effect is what you are calling "hard communism". The world as a whole had both the USSR and USA propaganda machines purposefully confuse and muddy these definitions to stifle the spread ideas, so understandable is mess to at get into the semantics. I feel like if I wanted to be super technical what you are calling for sounds like anarcho-socialism or maybe anarcho-syndicalism as you reject a lot of the core tenets of Communism, but frankly I don't see any value in splitting those hairs in our current situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *