Good questions. One's I still reflect upon.

For Marxism I recommend www.marxists.org as a resource. For anarchy I recommend An Anarchist FAQ.

The wikipedia entries are good fodder for names and dates and historical events. Some of the "differences" between the two are more historical than conceptual, but still articulatable. There are times I think it comes down to almost nothing, though the popular conception is that they are opposite, so things become confusing as we rely upon our common notions.

Which is why I like the texts to begin getting at a difference.

But a rough-and-ready differentiation I could provide would be -- both are radical political philosophies. By "radical" I mean that they posit some underlying mechanism that is the result of many problems within current society. For Marx that radical center to society is the mode of production of a given society, which in turn is defined by ownership relationships to wealth production through labor-time, and so changing this mode of production is its goal for a classless society. For anarchy the radical center to society are hierarchical social relationships, so in order to develop an anarchist society we change our social relations such that we no longer hold hierarchical positions towards others.

The end-goal is where they look similar, but a lot of the things they care about along the way shows they have relevant differences to them too -- and I think those differences are best found by reading the thinkers of each.

I'm wondering why anarchism is often placed closer to the far left than anywhere else. It's rather its own direction, a dismissal of all government. So I guess it should be possible to ask the question against most other directions in politics and not just marxism.

Welcome to the forum! Your post isn't low quality. It's honest and curious and serves as a great starting point to discuss a topic that is hotly contested.

I don't have much to offer in reply right now, so I'll leave that to others. I'll just say one thing: it's probably important to see that the differences between these two traditions of political thought are about both means and ends. That is, Marxists and anarchists disagree not only about the end goal (although quite often they agree about that, and call it communism), but also, I'd say primarily, about how to get there: can we overthrow the rulers and transition to a communistic society by taking control of the state, using the institutions, hierarchies, and powers of government, police, education, the legal system, etc.—as Marxists usually believe—or does it have to be a ground-up, grassroots revolution, as the anarchists believe.

A good place to start with anarchism is Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread. For a modern overview, I can recommend Ruth Kinna's Anarchism: A Beginner's Guide.

I'm wondering why anarchism is often placed closer to the far left than anywhere else. It's rather its own direction, a dismissal of all government. — Christoffer

I treat anarchism as left libertarianism unless it's otherwise qualified. Even though the word 'anarchy' literally just means without a leader or without government, the historical actuality is that anarchism as a political tradition is left-wing.

I treat anarchism as left libertarianism unless it's otherwise qualified. Even though the word 'anarchy' literally just means without a leader or without government, the historical actuality is that anarchism as a political tradition is left-wing. — Jamal

Thanks for the welcome and other replies so far. I will give more fulsome comments to the others in due course but this naturally leads me to another question I have posed around this same subject:

What are the differences between libertarianism and anarchism as prima facie they seem to be aiming at a similar target of 'do not interfere with me!' but I think upon inspection they would quickly part ways? similar to how far left and far right extremes of the spectrum might both have a hatred of government but that may be where the similarities end.

From the little I have read, especially some of the snips I have read where is does seem much more than the childish (punk) rebellion for rebellion's sake it is make out to be in pop culture, it does seem to 'vibe' well on the far Left, even though anarchists might say they are nothing to do with that common axis. Again, I cannot qualify that statement properly, yet. :)

Anyway late in the evening now so don't feel I have the capacity to do things justice at this time. Will come back afresh to this thread on the morrow. A good start though! Cheers.

As a self described anarchist, I certainly hope I can provide some insight into your question.

First some historical context: Socialism, communism and anarchism all predate Marx, and can be argued not really have traceable historical origin but have been points of view developed way back in pre-history, along with traditions that result in monarchy, feudalism and private ownership etc.

In other words, as soon as their were chiefs there were people who had issue with chiefs and as soon as there was private property there were people who had issue with private property (or then issue with who happened to own it).

So there's already a lot of traditions, schools of thought, movements and material on these topics by the time Marx is born.

Probably the best place to start in terms of insight into the cultural conversations is Thomas Moore's Utopia, which is one of the corner stones of the kind of conversation that socialism, communism, and anarchism represent. Thomas Moore's Utopia is both a synthesis of political critique available at the time (in 1516), somehow managing to satirize both feudal power and alternatives to it simultaneously. It's a comedy, but written to be as thought provoking as it is hilarious. It's a sort of "why not? why can't things be better" book.

Essentially omnipresent to the development of what we include in the "philosophy cannon" such as Thomas More are all sorts of Christian schools and orders, already under Catholicism, that explode into far more sects and cults and churches during the reformation. Christian communism is a constant theme of Western society since basically Christ. The difference being that the various mendicant orders of Catholicism are doing communism for religious purposes and avoiding commenting on "worldly affairs" (even if they do essentially say everyone should be christian communists like themselves, it is not taken as dangerous political philosophy by kings or philosophers).

To make a long story short there's a rich history of all sorts of people trying out new things, making "ideal farms", or founding "more perfect" religious communities in the US and New Zealand and so on, in parallel to European states taking over the entire planet, subjugation or eradicating people as they go. Then capitalism starts to develop out of feudalism and globalized imperialism and along with that discovery of political instability of this new economic-political order, into which these new Utopian ideas suddenly take hold of the public imagination and inspire revolution.

All this context is necessary as Marx is one thinker in thousands of years of development of all these sometimes competing and sometimes aligning political ideas, and then Marx himself famously says "if this is Marxism then I'm not a Marxist" so there's then further distinction between Marx himself and Marxism as a school referencing Marx as a foundational figure.

However, in terms of broad comparison, the fundamental difference between Marxism and Anarchism I think can be reasonably found in Marx's work.

What Marx attempts to do is develop a science of history. Historical materialism just means science of history; science was a more nebulous word (astrology would be an erudite science for example) and if you wanted to talk about what we call science today you used the word materialism (that causes to effects were to be found in matter).

Long story short, Marx discovers a lot of, if not actual scientific laws, then useful guide rules (and far more "law like" than what passes for sociological peer review today). His foundational insight is that the technological development of society determines (although a modern equivalent would be constrains) a society's political organization and ideas. This is obvious to us now, but it was not really obvious at the time. Anthropologists are direct descendants and users of Marx's theory, immediately informing us of some ancient tribe's organization, religion, general world view, based on the material artefacts they dig up. This is exactly what Marx is talking about. Out of this technology based analysis of historical Marx undertakes an analysis of capitalism and how it develops from and is different than feudalism.

His second main insight is that technology progresses, and so a society's political organization that was suitable for the technological situation when it started could be no longer suited due to technological improvements. When Marx talks about revolution in his works he's referring to periods where there is tension between the political organization and the new constraints of technology. Again, in anthropology this is completely obvious, for example bureaucracy developing due to the problems that farming creates on a flood plain (both to keep track of stored grains, keep track of debts paid off by the next harvest, and also keep track of who even owns what land), a problem created due to agricultural success and reaching carrying capacity (people were obviously farming before bureaucracy was invented, so having no maps or anything they could either just go out and "find a spot" or then eyeballing / moving a rock to settle disputes, was sufficient when there was plenty of extra space anyways). So bureaucracy is a Marxist revolution in Marx's theory, followed by consolidation of state power to manage this bureaucracy, and then either slave-based Empires (such as Rome) or surf based feudal systems (such as Western Europe after the collapse of Rome).

As you may imagine, there's a lot more Marx has to say about capitalism and revolution: that capitalism is both simultaneously in continuous revolution of itself (as it constantly seeks to intentionally innovate; a stark difference to most previously political orders which were by nature conservative) while also hurtling towards a revolution of political relations due to the irresolvable internal conflicts capitalism creates through the concentration of wealth and power. To be complete, Marx does not say revolution is inevitable, only that when conflicts between political order and material conditions arise, either there's a revolution that creates a new political order adapted to the material conditions or then the system collapses.

Enter Marxism. Marxism, and certainly the grain is planted by Marx in his writings, central belief is the manipulation of history through this science of history.

Why you end up with things like "avant-guard" and "accelerationism" in Marxist traditions is that it's not exactly clear how exactly a science of history can manipulate history to begin with as well as what the point is. For, one poignant question is that if the revolution is inevitable ... what exactly is there to do? And from this starting point one can as easily argue attempts to cause a revolution could as easily backfire and in fact help state power.

A debate that can go on for quite some time, but it's the whole framework of manipulating history that anarchists generally reject and the main difference with other socialist-communist schools.

What Marx does not develop is a moral theory. That's why there's so much focus on who exactly causes what profit in Marxist discourse and debate, as Marx basically just assumes the general humanist ethics floating around in the enlightenment, of which the central ethical cornerstone of reformation is the idea that the benefits are due the producer (not at all obvious idea at the time, as what was previously totally obvious is that benefits mainly go to lords, kings and priests, and normal people should suffer quite a big deal actually to make amends with god).

So where socialists, communists, Marxists, anarchists and capitalists all agree is that the benefits of economic activity should definitely not be mainly going to lords, kings and priests, but amongst themselves. But who exactly, that's another question. The Marxist-Capitalist debate arises in that they both assume that if the proceeds of some economic activity can be attributed to themself, then they should get that share of the bounty. Fairs fair.

Anarchists generally reject this entire moral framework and view life and the value of life from a much broader perspective than economic production.

The purpose of the human enterprise for anarchists is not efficient economic production, with only who gets what as to be worked out, but rather love, mutual caring, and both creative self expression and creative community expression.

Where this creates differences is that anarchists were and still are highly skeptical, if not hostile, to the Industrial Revolution and destruction of both nature and the human spirit it entails, whereas for Marxists the Industrial Revolution is generally considered an important, necessary and good step in the development of man's productive capacity. For anarchists if it does not make people more creatively engaged in their surroundings, with their fellows, with their work and nature, then it's not progress, but subservience to state power.

Due to this focus on individual and collective creativity, anarchists are more political flexible and open. What anarchists generally want politically is equal participation in the political process (so that each can equally contribute their creative spirit to the collective project) and due to this focus anarchists simply don't know what such an equal people in terms of political power would do. They may very well vote that some people can have a hundred or a thousands times more wealth than others.

To summarize, the project to control history reduces to the project to control people (cue the Soviet Union), whereas the project of equal political participation is the project of a single individual and what they think they can contribute to the world, and what other people do is outside our control.

As a short addendum, the post above is differentiating Marxism with Anarchism starting with Marx and ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the most important "Marxist streak", as it were, primarily differentiated by this idea of understanding the laws of history in order to change history to our liking.

Now, Marx would disagree with most if not all the policies of the Soviet Union, but the basic framework as some sort of historical scientific mastery is rooted in Marx; famously saying "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it".

The resurgence of Marxism today are generally not of the historical mastery school, but generally using Marxism as a sort of brand recognition as an alternative to Neo-liberal economics. For example, Yanis Varoufakis may reference Marx, but also clarify that not in a Stalinist way.

This difference is also one of historical period. The idea of "changing history" made a lot more sense in the 19th century. New natural-philosophy (aka. materialism, aka. science) is being discovered all the time, wondrous reports from around the world, new technology that is essentially magic to people (such as electricity and the telegraph and so on) while the Reformation and then American Revolution proved that turning the religious order on its head was possible and the democracy was possible (previously a Utopian dream), after literally a thousand years of things staying basically the same, so there was this sort of "anything can happen vibe" and if we can master steam power, and then the electron and discover where continents and species come from and so on, why couldn't we master history?

So Marx is as much the product of the erudition of the 19th century as the naivety about what was possible.

Where socialists, communists, marxists, anarchists, leftists in general, agree is that people suffering is not a necessary evil and it's wrong to exploit people through system of coercion and manipulation (such as state power) for profit.

In terms of relation to libertarianism, all European renaissance and enlightenment philosophies that maintained any relevance are libertarian. Libertarian is in opposition to the surf and vassal system of feudalism. If feudalism simply doesn't exist anymore and there basically not adherents trying to bring it back, then all philosophies, including religious philosophies, are libertarian. All Western states and all Western parties promise liberty.

Liberals (from the leftist perspective) view liberty (in the you're no longer a surf sort of way) as the only necessary value and if poverty persists that's the poor fault for not using their liberty wisely enough, whereas anyone left of centrist liberals views poverty as a social ill that can be remedied (through various degrees of redistribution of wealth).

US libertarians are not anarchists, and not even liberals, but are basically in a philosophical psychosis of believing you can have private property without state power enforcing property rights. This just doesn't make any sense from the get go, but comes from American elites existing in a sort of philosophical vacuum in need of an ideology that backs them up. Wheres European elites can position themselves in a tradition of symbolic aristocracy and go rub shoulders with actual royalty and remark to themselves that this prince's balls are hot as fuck, and therefore all is well in the political order and so do not need to go around calling themselves philosophers to satiate their anxieties.

it's probably important to see that the differences between these two traditions of political thought are about both means and ends. That is, Marxists and anarchists disagree not only about the end goal (although quite often they agree about that, and call it communism), but also, I'd say primarily, about how to get there: can we overthrow the rulers and transition to a communistic society by taking control of the state, using the institutions, hierarchies, and powers of government, police, education, the legal system, etc.—as Marxists usually believe—or does it have to be a ground-up, grassroots revolution, as the anarchists believe. — Jamal

:up:

Means/Ends reasoning definitely differs between the two. I like your notion that communism is the theoretical they aspire towards, but maybe that's just the only idea they relate on, given the differences in material struggle.

Both marxism and anarchism are bestialities. Marxism is, however, a bestiality of minor imperfection. The dictatorship of the proletariat is equal to a true form of State; it, for surviving, has to create methods of government, policies, offices, and professionals. Within marxism, there is no liberation from the presence of a tangible State. In addition, the proletarian who does become a politician is not anymore a proletarian. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is contradictory. Anarchy is equal to a lie. There cannot be anarchy as also within anarchy there would be a major agency of protection, an institution playing, de facto, the role of the State. The greatest bestiality is equal to anarchy. While the dictatorship of the proletariat is an extended form of State characterized by penetrability (thus by the presence of perpetual newcomers), the dominant agency of protection ruling anarchy is equal to a private-based State, an institution that would not be accountable to the people. A private form of State is the most false and dangerous.

My only comment is the glib observation that in my experince Marxists are less interesting than anarchists. I am not someone who believes in utopias or the perfectibility of human beings and I usually find people who see the world as a rigid expression of theory to be dull monomaniacs. But in the current world of plutocracy, I hear my Marxist voices calling.

Both marxism and anarchism are bestialities. Marxism is, however, a bestiality of minor imperfection. The dictatorship of the proletariat is equal to a true form of State — Ludovico Lalli

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a criticism of the idea of democracy by its detractors at the time; democracy being a horrid thought for aristocrats. It was common sense for some thousands of years that poor people should never be able to participate in politics as they would just vote themselves more money. Even the original and archetypical democracy in ancient Athens had a wealth check for citizenship and the Roman republic system had weighted votes.

The dictatorship of the proletariat referred to regular people being able to vote (i.e. dictate governance rather than the Lords and kings, which was the system at the time), not that socialism / communism would need a dictator, such as Stalin.

Anarchy is equal to a lie. There cannot be anarchy as also within anarchy there would be a major agency of protection, an institution playing, de facto, the role of the State. The greatest bestiality is equal to anarchy. — Ludovico Lalli

Anarchism is about equal participation in the political process, without a moral or class hierarchy.

The general goal of most anarchists, such as myself, is genuinely accountable and decentralized governance. A stateless society in the sense of not having a class of bureaucrats organized in a hierarchy of essentially totalitarian control for all intents and purposes.

The greatest bestiality is equal to anarchy. While the dictatorship of the proletariat is an extended form of State characterized by penetrability (thus by the presence of perpetual newcomers), the dominant agency of protection ruling anarchy is equal to a private-based State, an institution that would not be accountable to the people. A private form of State is the most false and dangerous. — Ludovico Lalli

You seem to be talking about US libertarians who love private property but hate taxes and government. They sometimes randomly call themselves some sort of anarchist school, but that's just ridiculous. Their patron saint is Ann Rand who is not in anyway an anarchist thinker.

Also within anarchy there is a hierarchy. You state that there should be decentralization in order to construct a good anarchy. However, the issue has to do with the organs of governance characterizing anarchy. You will arrive at the conclusion that even within an industrialized and contemporary anarchy there would be a gerarchy. An industrialized anarchy thus would be characterized by the presence of a dominant agency of protection which, de facto, would be a private form of State.

I appreciate the effort but respectfully there is too much here in one, or several, mind dump/s to be able to work with and is not accessible for me.

Looking up and unpacking all the points would take days which stymies an active back and forth debate.

We were taught in essay writing to make one point and hammer it home well. Not trying to tell you how to write, and hope it does not sound preachy, just that it is my experience that that is easier to digest.

Again not trying to be ungrateful as it is clearly a well written reply but I am just saying that it is a wall of information and would take me a long time to climb it!

Hopefully it does not come off as disrespectful, I was just saying it was very challenging and puts the brakes on active debate, which was my intent of the thread.

The general goal of most anarchists, such as myself, is genuinely accountable and decentralized governance. — boethius

Indeed, this is what led me to an interest in anarchy over communism, where the thought of communism being centralized control, albeit by the proletariat, seemed less than ideal.

How are things like law enforcement or everyday services like roads and healthcare handled under this system?

The question is one of effective power.

Liberal democracies are constructed specifically to avoid anarchy through the principle of "consent of the governed": there's a totalitarian state built-up by kings, popes and emperors over many thousands of years, and that OK as long as people vote for the shiniest head of the hydra (aka. the president, prime minister, or what have you). Once a tiny handful (among thousands of bureaucrats) are elected it is essentially impossible to recall them, they need keep no promise, and the most critical governing institution that effectively controls society, law-enforcement and the judiciary, are kept "independent". What does independent mean? Independent from any democratic oversight whatsoever, even the paltry amount of oversight of managerial policy that does exist.

Our law-enforcement and legal system is for the most part simply a direct continuation of the feudal institutions with essentially zero democracy.

The first people to experience what we now call state power correctly identified police as a de facto hostile occupying army there to protect the interests of state power and not regular people. Of course, people had a justice system before police, which of course the merits of one such system over another can be debated, but it at least aimed to protect the interests of the people of that community and not state power in a far off capital.

So this is the sort of state power anarchists take issue with. A rebranding of the anarchist principles (or at least direction anarchist want to go in) of governance is direct participatory democracy, with immediate and easy recalls of any elected agent of the community.

But a rough-and-ready differentiation I could provide would be -- both are radical political philosophies. By "radical" I mean that they posit some underlying mechanism that is the result of many problems within current society. For Marx that radical center to society is the mode of production of a given society, which in turn is defined by ownership relationships to wealth production through labor-time, and so changing this mode of production is its goal for a classless society. For anarchy the radical center to society are hierarchical social relationships, so in order to develop an anarchist society we change our social relations such that we no longer hold hierarchical positions towards others. — Moliere

Ok reading this on a new day I see this looks to be a good summation and what Boethius also echoed.

So marxism the revolution is economic and the rest sorts itself out and anarchism is social structure and the rest sorts itself out?

It is interesting to question which is 'right', perhaps there are more than one way to skin a cat? I have often thought much of the ills of society are the product of rapacious greed and self centeredness, only think of number one, which I feel is a product of the underlying model capitalism.

Capitalism is only really discussed as an economic model yet clearly has effects on social structure. Most people are only interested in helping out those who can do something for them or otherwise in their small network of allies.

If thinking of the remedy, from your description above, I could imagine either could ameliorate it. Perhaps the question on which is better is which would bring least ills of their own once enacted.

↪boethius I appreciate the effort but respectfully there is too much here in one, or several, mind dump/s to be able to work with and is not accessible for me.

Looking up and unpacking all the points would take days which stymies an active back and forth debate.

We were taught in essay writing to make one point and hammer it home well. Not trying to tell you how to write just that it is my experience that is easier to digest. — unimportant

Then focus on one point if your mind and education is only able to deal with one point at a time.

Your OP question here is wanting to know the difference between two quite large historical movements, that overlap and are similar in many ways and sometimes allies and sometimes killing each other, each with a myriad of sub-factions, often mutually exclusive.

The kind of answer to this kind of question can only make sense to people who are actually familiar with the history and major works, and polemics, of the intellectual traditions addressed.

If you haven't read Marx you won't be in a position to understand what the difference between Marx and other thinkers you haven't read are. If you haven't read Utopia and aren't familiar with the pre-Marx utopian thinkers (and doers) that eventually give rise to political revolutions such as in American and France and Russia, then where Marx is situated in this intellectual and historical development isn't going to make any sense.

I realize it's popular today to perceive oneself to be an intellectual without having read anything concerning the topics at hand, but that's really not how it works.

A beginner won’t have the time to get through Marx if they feel obliged to read your rambling mega-posts.

I realize it's popular today to perceive oneself to be an intellectual without having read anything concerning the topics at hand, but that's really not how it works. — boethius

Ok, seems you did take umbrage with that passive aggressive quip at the end.

I said in my OP I was eager to know what to read and never implied to be an intellectual. I bore my soul that I know nothing and want to learn more about the topics.

You may have a vast knowledge in the subject matter but perhaps not the best skill to impart it. That was all I meant by the comments.

Of course you can just say 'gtfo, do your own research and come back to me' if you want. No one is paying anyone for professional services. Those are just my comments.

A beginner won’t have the time to get through Marx if they feel obliged to read your rambling mega-posts. — Jamal

:smile:

Ok so I will add The Conquest of Bread and Utopia to the reading list.

With all the talk of the differences where then where does this mixing of anarchist communism come from? Maybe it will naturally reveal itself as I read more about the roots of these movements but perhaps a preface?

EDIT: Oh I see that anarchism seems to be labelled by default as anarchist communism is that right? in that vanilla anarchism is interchangeable with anarchist communism? as I have just downloaded The Conquest of Bread and it is labelled as anarchist communism.

EDIT2: Oh no, it seems by chance this book just happens to be about anarchist communism, with other flavours also existing. From the wikipedia:

The publication of the text was a watershed moment in anarchist history, being the first time that a completed and in-depth theoretical work of anarchist communism was available to the public.[2] The publication of the text shifted the focus of anarchism from individualist, mutualist and collectivist strains to social and communist tendencies.[2] This shift would prove to be one of the most enduring changes in the history of anarchism as anarchism developed throughout the 20th century with Kropotkin and The Conquest of Bread as firm reference points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread

A beginner won’t have the time to get through Marx if they feel obliged to read your rambling mega-posts. — Jamal

How exactly do we go about comparing Marx to Anarchism if reading any thinker in each, not to mention Marx himself, is off the table?

Obviously no one's obliged to read any of my posts.

However, anyone who wants some insight into the OP's saught after knowledge, in my opinion, would need to read Utopia, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Lenon, Trotsky, a history of catholic mendicant (aka. communist) orders and their thinkers (as the early anarchists, socialists, self described or lambasted as "utopians", were all Christians familiar with these works as well, as well as the actual practice of monastic or friarly communal living), as well as obviously Marx, history of the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and also feudalism in Europe. Ideally also with a pretty clear understanding of Ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, renaissance and enlightenment philosophy and the general trend of the whole culture that results obviously with liberal democracies (and not socialism or communism, much less anarchism).

All that would be a bare minimum.

Otherwise, the question is basically "I don't know what this is and I don't know what that is, but please someone tell me the difference between this and that".

However, the question is still interesting either for those familiar with the material the question is about or then who plan to read that material in the future.

The short answer to questions about thinkers from people who haven't read those thinkers is of course "go read those thinkers first", but that's hardly a discussion.

And in general, I just really don't get anti-book intellectualism and why you, or anyone who's read books, would foster and nurture the notion.

It's like being an anti-stick hockey player ... what ... exactly is the idea here?

You got the wrong end of the stick.

You're saying having read the thinkers the OP is asking about is akin to playing hockey with an upside down stick ... or in other words the noble craft of ringette?

But please oblige me, how exactly do you go about comparing historical movements over many centuries, if not millennia, that include many intellectual sources and many differing schools of thought, often mutually exclusive but each insisting they are "the real one" doing many different things, sometimes allies and sometimes murdering each other ... without reading anything?

How is it a "beginners" step, to use your language, comparing Marx to Proudhon (a tiny part of the subject at hand) not having read Marx nor Proudhon, and my advise to go read them first and then perhaps start by just comparing these two, somehow doing it wrong?

Don't be a bore. All I did was mock your post for its excessive length, and implied that reading Marx instead of reading your posts is a better use of time. I felt justified in doing so because of your pompous rudeness in response to a post rightfully criticizing your verbosity.

All I did was mock your post for its excessive length, and implied that reading Marx instead of reading your posts is a better use of time. — Jamal

Sure, obviously, definitely reading Marx is a good starting point in a discussion that includes Marxism ... but then what's to discuss here?

As for verbosity, Marx and Marxists are verbose; it's impossible to discuss their ideas without using their language. It's one issue I have with them in that insisting on using 19th century agitation tradecraft lingo loses most people.

We haven't even gotten to Hegelian dialectic and Marx's antithesis (and dare we say synthesis) to that.

Now, if people don't want Marxist language in a discussion involving Marxism, my argument can be simplified.

There is first a christian communist movement during the Middle Ages, with all sorts of variations and re-emergences over the centuries, sometimes by clergy and sometimes lay people, often involving both.

Then there starts a Utopian movement emerging self consciously from fans of Thomas Moores Utopia, which is a satire (both of existing society and attempts to improve it) but adherents view it as a call to creativity, of sort of playful social design, which at first is all "micro". The reformation, going on at about the same time, mixes all this up a great deal resulting in things like the Pilgrims sailing across the Atlantic on the Mayflower to found the Plymouth Colony. So these religious (both catholic and protestant) and secular utopian ideas floating around and mixing in all sorts of ways, have very real consequences in history.

These early "micro level" utopians, "socially innovating" in one form or another, were at first not so interested in what internet denizens would call "macro" issues today.

"Utopia" is both simultaneously referencing a radical ambition, while at the same time a humorous self effacing dodge to avoid being executed. These early pioneers do genuinely want to practically make a better society, while at the same time be viewed as impractical and harmless day dreamers (so as to remain alive).

However, both these social innovation experiences, scope of analysis and movements grow with time to the point of challenging the existing political order (early pathfinders were quite aware the king would just chop their head off if they were too ambitious in their analysis; what literally happens to Thomas Moore for being the first, a lesson not lost on subsequent followers; so these movements grow slowly over time until the existing power can be challenged openly).

There's a series of revolutions starting with the American revolution. These revolutions are powered by utopian slogans with the hopes of practical management at least better than what existed before; democracy the core mediating principle to make things work out in practice.

Marx is born and works in this time of political change from absolute monarchies to secular liberal democracies. Nearly all the core ideas, slogans, rights, organizing principles, and so on have their roots in utopian thinkers in the previous centuries.

Of course, what emerges at the same time to this political transition is a new economic order we call capitalism.

It is clear there is a tension between liberal democracy and capitalism, as concentrated wealth undermines democratic institutions.

The anarchist movement, that has both successes and failures during all this time (including things like "radical anarchist experimentation" of proving children can learn without beating them), by and large views the problems of democracy as resolved by more democracy, and if people aren't convinced then the only thing to do is convince them harder and try to set an example of whatever it is.

The Marxist movement (which is highly debatable what Marx actually thought about it) is distrustful of liberal democracy to the point of viewing it as essentially irrelevant.

The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. — Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels

Many anarchists, liberals and social democrats (largely founded by rebranded anarchists), form the consensus that political violence is legitimate against tyrannies (such as the absolute monarchs they deposed) but is illegitimate if there's enough democracy that "the people" can obviously change things at the ballet if they wanted to (even in a process in which there is much to be criticized). A pretty reasonable argument and why political violence goes from a truly remarkable level of random assassinations of bureaucrats and blowing shit up regularly (including the suffragettes even though there is some democracy already, just not enough) to non-violent protest, where police tell you that you can protest, being the courageous maxima.

This movement culminates in the welfare state in Europe (free education, free health care, rehabilitation based justice system, labour protections, environmental protections etc. are all core anarchist, socialist, communist, liberal, utopian goals generally speaking, and so if they can be achieved piecemeal, and revolutions turn out to be super dangerous, then why not just do things piecemeal with the hard fought democrat right), and significant tensions in the Unites States due to capital managing to avoid that happening. Liberal democracy does little to tamp down on globalized Western imperialism.

Marxists, especially the kind of Marxists that found and manage the Soviet Union, are like "how about, no" and develop what is basically a Dune like science of historical management. Long story short, obviously didn't work out, while at the same time Marx's prediction of what would happen to capitalist liberal democracy seems to be proven correct (just about a century off in accuracy - not great, not terrible).

Important Marxist schools still exist, such as the entirety of China, presenting itself as socialism with Chinese characteristics. I do not know enough to say what the Chinese Marxist school is, how it differs from the Soviet conception, what exactly it's doing today managing the largest experiment in state capitalism the world has ever seen in order to produce a significant proportion of the world's satisfaction of bourgeoisie wants and desires, but would definitely be interesting if someone here did know.

Anarchism is the only way of living that can work, because it respects the inherent mystery and beauty in life, and it doesn't try to dominate or control nature, including other people.

Anarchism was the only way of living that humans have known before the rise of civilisation. Yes, times could be rough, but compare it to our modern society. Addiction, mental illness, inequality, pollution, nihilism and hedonism are rampant. Almost everyone is addicted to something (to cope with the fact that they are stuck within the system), mental illness is rising, the planet is dying (due to massive overproduction and -consumption, and the relentless extraction of resources), inequality and absurd competition are at an all time high (good luck getting a home), and so on.

More people can feel it now: this quiet sense of dread. We refuse to admit that our way of living has been a colossal mistake; we have built a castle on a foundation of quicksand. If we are truly honest with ourselves and we look deep into the mirror, we see the truth. Our way of living is not right. We are stuck in jobs we'd rather not do, endlessly bombared with advertisements, deadlines, and noise, we rely on hedonistic activities or substances to get through the day, it's getting more difficult to form meaningful relationships (mainly due to economic pressure and lack of time), and few of us truly see a way out.

The key pillar of anarchism is a lack of domination. We don't want to be told what to do, and we don't want to spend our energy towards activities that don't benefit us or our community. We want to be free, really free, and live in harmony with nature and our fellow humans.

So to put it simply: communism is different because it still clings to the root of the issue: the need for dominance. So long as we have forced schooling, forced employment, the state, institutions, the judicial system and as long as we are unable to take care of ourselves in a meaningful way, we will always remain imprisoned. Could we get rid of all of this? To most people, it sounds absurd, yet to our ancient ancestors this was all there was.