I am looking for good books that explain the relationship between anarchism and communism, and how they differ in practice. I am not looking for a book that takes a communist angle and calls anarchism merely utopian or a liberal version of communism that has no revolutionary potential, or the liberal anti-communist propaganda that calls itself anarchist or radical and mostly serves to spread the lie that Stalin was actually worse than Hitler.
I have had trouble finding books that do not approach each other from this lens but instead takes you through historical examples where both groups disagreed and why, and when there has been clear unity in the fundamental goal of communism and anti-capitalism
Full transparency, I’m a Marxist-Leninist that used to be an anarchist. My viewpoint on anarchism is as someone who came to the left more generally, then started getting into anarchism, then eventually as I read more Marxist and anarchist works I found myself agreeing more with Marxism. I think it will be very useful if you understand the following:
Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
As far as reading is concerned, I would start with Ann Robertson’s The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict to understand more broadly. Following that:
Marxist POV:
-
K. Marx - Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy & Critique of the Gotha Programme
-
A. Gramsci - The State and Socialism
-
F. Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (or better yet, the full Anti-Dühring)
-
V. I. Lenin - The State and Revolution
-
J. V. Stalin - Anarchism or Socialism?
-
Zhenli’s Marxism vs. Anarchism
Anarchist POV:
-
An Anarchist FAQ, Section H, Why Do Anarchists Oppose State Socialism?
-
Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy
-
P. Kropotkin - The Conquest of Bread
-
E. Goldman - Anarchism and Other Essays
-
A. Lorde - The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master’s House
For further exploration of Marxism-Leninism, I wrote an introductory reading list.
-
From an anarchist perspective, i can attest to books others have recommended. Classic anarchist books give very good historical examples and arguments against the tyranny of a well-meaning vanguard ; i was lately reading Bakunin making that very argument about a scientist-run government, which i think is quite relevant today with Andreas Malm arguing for what we could call a green dictatorship of the proletariat.
More historically, [Bloodstained: one hundred years of leninist counterrevolution](Bloodstained: One Hundred Years of Leninist Counterrevolution) was a
Before delving into the topic, let’s be very clear about one thing: anarchism in most forms is communism, and vice-versa. There was not really a distinction when the socialist movement was born. Many anarchists consider themselves “anarcho-communists”, and many marxists are in fact libertarian and don’t defend a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. There is not really an opposition between anarchists and communists, but there is a strong historical opposition between free-thinkers and a marxist-leninist vanguard eliminating everyone who disagrees with it including many marxists. I’ll assume in the rest of this comment that’s what you meant with “relationship between anarchism and communism”.
From an anarchist perspective, i can attest to books others have recommended. Classic anarchist books give very good historical examples and arguments against the tyranny of a well-meaning vanguard ; i was lately reading Bakunin making that very argument about a scientist-run government, which i think is quite relevant today with Andreas Malm arguing for what we could call a green dictatorship of the proletariat.
More historically, [Bloodstained: one hundred years of leninist counterrevolution](Bloodstained: One Hundred Years of Leninist Counterrevolution) was a good read. So were some books about the Spanish revolution, but i don’t remember the names (except Homage to Catalonia, which someone mentioned). Emma Goldman, in Trotsky protests too much (1938) made a powerful historical account of how Trotsky and Lenin rewrote history after massacring the Kronstadt soviet, and i remember reading some french translation of Volin, a great revolutionary from the russian/ukrainian revolution (but i don’t remember which text precisely).
For a case where “anarchism” and “communism” work fine together, you can read about the zapatistas. I personally would say there’s two interesting features making it work:
- the zapatista movement refuses identification with marxism or anarchism, saying their political orientation has much deeper roots, from much before the europeans divided themselves along those lines
- the zapatistas have a strong separation of powers: the militias (which tend to be more marxist and hierarchic) don’t have any political powers because they have the military power, and leave 100% of the political power to the communes (which tend to be more anti-authoritarian farmers)
All in all, the zapatistas have elements of authoritarian culture (especially in the people’s army, where discipline and security management is important) and anti-authoritarian culture as they have no State, police or prisons as we know them. Unfortunately, apart from oral history recounted by comrades, i don’t know of good sources for these specific questions/divisions/perspectives.
Thanks for your recommendations, I had not heard about these books. I guess I am struggling with forming a coherent opinion that situates the USSR, China and other socialist states as a better alternative to capitalist imperial states while also having a strong anarchist critique of them.
It’s hard to formulate a coherent opinion because reality is complex and multifaceted. And on the one hand, “purity” is an impossible goal in politics and can lead to various forms of sectarianism and moral judgement (as you can see in much of the liberal left who’s much more interested about optics and PR than about direct action and building collective power).
I mean, from some perspectives, calling China or USSR “socialist” is already picking a side. Neither really abolished private property, both have/had very wealthy ruling classes, and both came hard on the critiques from the left who were building popular power via the soviets (see Emma Goldman / Volin for early critique of bolsheviks killing communists and dismembering the soviets). In marxist views, the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be the ugly/necessary phase on the road to communism (abolition of State and private property); a critique of those “socialist” States is that they are not working toward these goals but merely reinforcing themselves for their own sakes.
I mean, was the USSR good or evil? Both? Neither? From a geopolitical perspective (be careful with those analysis, the tools of the enemy usually produce the worst thoughts), the USSR provided balance to prevent total US domination. In a more local perspective, they supported many revolutionary movements throughout the world, but also destroyed some revolutionary movements around the world when it did not fit their interests (eg. Spain 1936). In the case of Ukraine/Russia 1917-1921, they crushed millions of people in the name of their so-called revolution and tried to bribe figures of the movement (such as Kropotkin, who died in poverty refusing privileges that were not given to the masses, or Emma Goldman, who at first fell for it before realizing). Later, under Stalin, they committed a bunch of actual genocides.
I personally don’t think we can say things are better or worse in China today than in the West. In some regards, they are much better (education/healthcare), and in some regards they’re much worth (pollution/slavery). A comparison can only be applied if very strongly situated (studying a specific aspect, from the perspective of a certain social group) otherwise it will be meaningless. There are strong social movements both in Europe and in China; as an anarchist, i believe my comrades are those who struggle all over the world, and my enemies are the States on both sides crushing the people.
Although i would object to saying the USSR was not imperialist, or that China isn’t imperialist today. From a very strict definition of Lenin they are not, but as i talked earlier about Ukraine/Chechnya, the USSR had colonial blood on its hands, a very clear process of “otherisation” and deprivation which is characteristic of colonialism. Just like today, it’s hard to look at military occupation in Tibet, the mosque destructions and muslim reeducation camps in Xinjiang, and not draw a parallel to (being a french person) French imperialism and colonial practice.
Nothing is binary and in communist/anarchist praxis, self-criticism is very important. While not exactly an anarchist/communist revolution, you may be interested to read about the Kurdish liberation movement and Rojava’s democratic confederalism. They practice tekmil weekly and that’s a very important part of life especially in the collectives / public administration. My personal rule of thumb is if a specific power/person is not capable to hear criticism from their left and below, they are not working in the interests of a global socialist revolution and in the interests of the peoples ; under that standard, both China and the USSR would fail the test.
Oh i forgot to link to a zapatista perspective about not being anarchist/communist.
wouldn’t Peter Kropotkin’s Conquest of Bread be a classic example?
I would imagine reading classic anarchist works by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, etc. would probably illuminate many of the similarities and divergences with communism. Anarchism is a form of left-communism, so reading Lenin and Engels can also be illuminating to the way more right-wing forms of communism differ, in particular Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder and The State and Revolution, and Engels’ “On Authority”
I don’t personally know of any history book that systematically records examples of conflicts between anarchists and communists.
You might also be interested in Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell, since it also covers the way the USSR suppressed the anarchist revolution in Catalonia.
Emma Goldman’s My Disillusionment in Russia might also be relevant, for an anarchist perspective on the USSR. Goldman also has some writing on Catalonia, for an American anarchist perspective on the revolution there.
Anarchism & communism are both broad movements, so what you are asking for is a very broad scope - I would suggest narrowing to a particular point of interest - in what context are you interested in differences between anarchists and communists? You may not care at all about critiques of 19th century American individualists like Josiah Warren on the labor theory of value, for example.
Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism is moreso directed at other Marxists, not anarchists. A better piece for answering the anarchist perspective as a Marxist would be Anti-Dühring, or at least Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
I don’t think categorizing Marxism as “right” communism and anarchism as “left” communism is particularly accurate. It’s more that Marxism is about collectivizing production and distribution, while anarchism is about communalization.
I wouldn’t take Eric Blair too seriously on Catalonia. On Orwell is an excellent read, with some great revelations of his character:
Most of the Orwell cult only irritates, but one thing legitimately grates: the idea of Eric Blair as a monument to British decency. The author of 1984 not only wrote a deathbed list for the authorities denouncing notable writers and public figures as Communist sympathisers. He had meticulously kept throughout the last decade of his life a paranoid notebook filled with 135 names.
These, he had variously labelled what he called “cryptos,” “F.T.s” for fellow travellers, or those he alleged were Stalinist sympathisers, suspect agents or outright members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Orwell’s list included figures as eminent as the future leader of the Labour Party Michael Foot, the broadcaster and writer J.B. Priestly, and the historian E.H. Carr. Whilst occasionally it was right, more often than not the list was absurd.
There is a notable and obvious overlap in Orwell’s notebook between many of 1940s London’s prominent gay, Jewish and anti-colonial public figures and the accused “cryptos.” Orwell’s bigoted commentaries fill his suspects notebook. Jews are clearly labeled (“Polish Jew,” “English Jew,” “Jewess”) whilst others were mislabeled (“Charlie Chaplin — Jewish?”). The African-American bass singer and future civil rights activist Paul Robeson finds himself in Orwell’s list with the note “very anti-white,” whilst the half-Jewish poet Stephen Spender is damned as a “sentimental sympathiser… tendency towards homosexuality.” Orwell was a British McCarthyite before the hour. It was only Orwell’s death in 1950 that saved his reputation from his paranoia.
Lovely fella /s
I asked Google: “book comparing and contrasting anarchism with communism” and it returned a list, it will be interesting to see if any of these are AI hallucinations:
Books and collections
Marxism, Anarchism, Communism: Marx, Karl: This collection includes fundamental texts from both ideologies.
Appears to be a real book, but it’s just a collection of:
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin
And then invites the reader to draw their own inferences.
Looks like all three are public domain:
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23428
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htmAlso in the search:
“Anarchism, Anarchist Communism, and The State: Three Essays”
The LLM was very off-base, just recommending random works of theory hardly presents a clear view of the differences between Marxism and anarchism. I wrote a better list and overview myself if you’re curious.
I am! Thanks!
No prob.
I am also interested in this, but don’t have good examples.
Ultimately, a lot of anarchist texts are describing anarcho-communist societies, but historically when communists and anarchists disagree, the communists ignore/fight them, or the revolution gets crushed before either really get a say.
That’s a misconception, actually. Conflict between Marxists and anarchists isn’t really the norm, there’s been many examples of them joining forces, or anarchists joining Marxist parties in order to support building socialism. Conflict arises when “disagreement” goes well and truly beyond that point.
As for answering OP’s question, see my answer.
