In the thread concerning Neo-liberalism I made the following post. So that the discussion can stay on topic there, I think that it would be good to have a discussion about communism, anarchism, and socialism here. What are your thoughts?

You are partially correct on the Communism point, but your point on anarchism is patently false. First let me point out that anarchy and anarchism are two different things. The former is commonly associated with the chaos in the absence of a government, while the latter is the theory that government (and, many claim, capitalism) is inherently evil and must therefore be abolished. The term "anarchist society" is more accurate than "anarchy."

Now, about Communism. It's not simple, so this will be a rather long post.

Marxist theory outlines three prerequisites for a proper revolution:
- Industrialization
- Capitalism
- A proletariat

Now, before I go any further, let me point out that Marx believed that all societies progress in the following stages, defined by the ruling class and working class.

(1) Primitive Communism: no government, small community, hunter gatherers
(2) Slave Society: ruling class were slave owners, working class were slaves; farmers
(3) Feudalism: ruling class were nobles, working class were serfs; farmers
(4) Capitalism: ruling class is the middle class, working class are the factory workers
(5) Socialism: Working class and ruling class become one and the same.
(6) Communism: No classes, no government

Now, tsarist Russia was a feudal society, in which the means of production were controlled by a few extremely rich people. Lenin and the Bolsheviks adapted Marxist theory, claiming that the suffering of the peasants was too great to wait for the right conditions for revolution. They said that a vanguard or professional revolutonaries, made up of Party members, could lead the revolution.

The result of this de facto heirarchy led to the resulting inequalities in the Soviet government following the revolution. This was compounded by the ensuing civil war, in which the new Bolshevik government had to combat loyalist Republican and Tzarist forces. Obviously, the Bolsheviks won, but the war drained the country of able-bodied workers and resources.

Anyway, I suppose my point is that Tzarist Russia had a miniscule proletariat and industry (Russian industry at this point consisted entirely of a few munitions factories), and, like I already said, Russia was running on a feudal, not capitalist, system.

The same goes for every other Communist or Socialist revolution.

As for anarchism, there are numerous examples of successful anarchist societies, including the Ukranian Anarchist Federation (c. 1920), anarchist-controlled territory during the Spanish Civil War (c. 1930s), and the Paris Commune (c. 1850).

On the surface communism and anarchism would appear to be somewhat similar (as both ideally would have no government), though the way that people would conduct themselves would be different, as anarchism is the belief that government is bad, and communism would be more aptly described as the belief that government is unfair, especially to the working class.

Socialism does not, in my opinion, have much to do with either system, besides the obvious link to communism. A purely socialist society would be classless, but it would be unlikely that there would be a complete absence of government.

Communism has seemed to be the more possibly successful form of government. Although major communist governments failed and succeeded.

Russia's communist system failed in the early 90s and ended the cold war.


And if anarchy was so successful in those countries then why don't they still exist?

I'm not necessarily against all of these alternative forms of government, I just haven't seen one that has had a successful history.

Anarchism and Communism have the same problem for different reasons, they don't work in large areas.

Anarchism can work fine in a small town, no major system needs to be kept, it would work fine until/unless major problems arise. A communism in a small town would be about the same. The difference? The anarchy town would have everyone trading to get what they need, while the communism town would have everyone share.

Once you hit a larger scale though, this becomes more difficult, In a communism, with so many people, you need a leader to look over everyone's stuff to make sure no one takes more than they need, this can be taken advantage of by the leaders. In an Anarchy, people can decide not to help each other. The larger the country gets, the more vulnerable it becomes to hazards such as attack from foreign forces.

Anarchism and Communism are similar in that no modern states follow those idealogies fully. Most communist/socialist states are either facades of totalitarian states (North Korea), or have changed to capitalist economic structures (People's Republic of China). And their are states in anarchy (Somalia comes to mind), but none have chosen anarchist structures.

Small sectors of state can be communist or anarchist, but the state itself cannot support itself on true communism or true anarchism, as populations will always violate the rules set by those political systems if there is no moderation by a government.

Is not "the absence" of government not the same thing as the abolition of government? In in anarchy, there is no government, and in anarchism there is no government, I don't see what point you're trying to make.

An absence of government would mean that, even if a government was desired, it was not in place due to various factors in the state. To abolish a government means that the populace makes a decision to end the government in an organized manner. They could mean the same things, but in many cases they do not.

"Anarchy" is a very ambiguous term which carries not only negative connotations, but also multiple possible meanings. Furthermore, in my personal opinion, and in the opinion of other anarchists, an "anarchy" implies the existence of persons who are coerced into accepting the nonexistence of government and not permitted to leave. The term "Anarchist society", however, is much more specific, holds fewer negative connotations, and implies that all persons within said society are anarchists.

This is an excellent question.

The Ukranian Anarchist Federation (c. 1920) had to fight off numerous invasions by better-equipped, better trained, and more numerous Tzarist and Bolshevik forces. If I remember correctly, they repelled three all-out Bolshevik invasions.

Similarly, the Spanish anarchists had to fight off the Nazi- and Italian-backed fascist armies of Franco. The anarchists often had little to no military training.

I believe that anarchism can work for a period of time, but eventually the lack of a government makes it difficult to maintain infrastructure, create an organized defense force, and compel people to assist one another.

For the last time Russian was not a Communist government, they were SOCIALISTS! Also, the middle class DO NOT rule in Capitalist societies, the upper class do. If you havent noticed the middle class in American is getting shafted basically.

The reasons those anarchists were able to fight so well with no training is because they believed in what they were fighting for.