Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
Well, I’m an anarcho-syndicalist, really – I do hold several reservations concerning anarcho-communism but this isn’t really the place to get into that.
I don’t think I enunciated my point well enough – Marxism is what I meant when referring to communism as the absolute opposite of capitalism. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism etc. all rely on Vanguard parties (and historically get stuck with those parties in power), hence why I claim that they are not truly communist as they don’t embody the requirements separating socialism (in the case of many of these isms, dictatorial socialism by the self-considered proletariat) from capitalism.
So yes, I believe that anarcho-communism is more ‘true’ to the idea of communism’s roots which I believe is everything up to and including Marxism.
As you say, arguing definitions is pointless. The question was ‘didn’t capitalism help the poor [more than communism]’ but I believe this was loaded as any answer could give a false impression of either of these systems – simply put, in a theoretical anarcho-communist or Marxist system *there are no poor people* – in capitalism there will *always* be poor people, but in any of the myriad previously implemented dictatorial socialist states there are *many* environmental factors that should be accounted for and a base of hard data is required to even have an idea of the answer to that question.
It’s certainly not as easy as a simple argument online about ‘Soviet Union vs US’ or whatever.