Its almost amazing that their's people online attempting to connect

@gol979 Spoken like someone who doesn't understand true communism in the slightest. At least know the system you dislike before you speak against it.

@gol979 anarchists and communists fundamentally want the same thing

@LordShadowfire Communism and anarchism are both fantasist. Fun to talk about, but without any meaningful and reasonable means of achievement,

@Fukfacewillie Oh, I agree. I just say that if you're going to talk about communism, it's best to know whereof you speak.

@LordShadowfire I’d say I have a pretty good understanding from my college days, but not an expert.

@Fukfacewillie I'll admit that most of my knowledge comes from talking to other people who studied Marxist theory pretty intently. People who still mistakenly think it would work in the real world. I understand the principle, and if it weren't for corrupt people all set to be the next Joseph Stalin, it might actually be a good system. But there's always another Stalin.

@LordShadowfire Communists tend to ignore human nature.

@Fukfacewillie what is 'human nature"?

@LordShadowfire communism is about centralisation and anarchism respects the individual (reductive but in a nutahell). They are oil and water.

@gol979 communism is about workers owning the means of production in a classless and stateless society. Anarchism is against any form of hierarchy and also advocates for workers owning the means of production in a stateless society

@gol979 I don't know who you've been talking to, but there aren't prizes being given out to people who can prove they haven't got the first fuсking clue what they're babbling about.

@Guitarman123 So anarchism is roughly equal to communism?

Communism needs rigid control; anarchism opposes any such control, but for the "workers" (I assume employees in any role and level) to "own" the "means of production" presumably both manufacturing and services, implies they will have to impose some form of rigid control on themselves.

Etymologically, "anarchy" means "no leadership or rule"; but can those who claim to be anarchist actually suggest any credible, practical, alternative form of society?

I doubt they can, nor do.

In practice it would mean a formless state of affairs in which anything goes, everything fails and society collapses. It would have to be against far-Left and far-Right dogma, or indeed any form of even any sort of balanced government; and at heart is anti-democratic.

@ArishMell communism is communal ownership of major resources and workers owning the means of production as a co operative. Anarchy means without rulers and also advocates for voluntary organisation

@ArishMell Nope.

@LordShadowfire No? Perhaps my statement was unintentionally ambiguous though. Communism needs to use rigid control to "work", i.e. a Communist state, like China, is one characterised by rigid control.

@ArishMell real communism doesn't, though. The reason so-called Communist countries like the USSR and China end up exerting rigorous control is that corrupt people always take advantage. Somebody always get in the office in the initial stages when control is required and passes laws ensuring that control will never be relinquished, as it's supposed to be.

@LordShadowfire That's true really of any tyranny, but whatever is put forwards of a "pure" definition of what Communism should be, fails to address the point that any society - including democracies - still need some degree of control simply to operate.

Someone has to be charge somewhere,, but what matters is whether in charge to benefit self or society, and whether that society has sufficient control over its leaders..

In that respect, both anarchy (not "anarchism") and what we see calling itself Communist, fail similarly. Both would allow small cliques to rise to the top and control everyone else for their own ends.

Anarchy is not "right-wing" ideology as the OP claims, but neither is it "left wing". Either label would give it a political definition, creating an immediate contradiction.

Anarchy is nebulous, apolitical, holding to no ideology save only that no ideology is permissible - and is no good for anyone.

@ArishMell They said, missing the point of communism. But I do agree with you that communism always seems to fail in the real world.

@LordShadowfire I think many "isms" fail to meet their expectations.