>>1415296
Because in communism everyone is supposed to live well. The fact that they didn't, makes people think that it wasn't communism. Also they don't know what communism really is.

because the state, wages and class divisions still existed

>>1415296
because it's only real communism if there isn't a genocide and/or famine

>>1415314
The state doesn't need to be destroyed in pretty much every reading of communism other than very early Marx. That's one of the main difference between anarcho-socialism and communism

>>1415296

Maoism deviates pretty far from most other schools of communism. As for Russia, the reason communists have disowned it is mainly because it turned out to be such a horrendous failure and didn't behave the way the theorists had envisioned. In some circles these two cases are referred to as "red fascist" states rather than communist.

If you ask me china was never communist, command economics and expropriation =/= communism. Russia started out as communist but in only a few years strayed away. In general I would say that both are poor examples of communism in a theoretical sense. This is coming from an anarchist.

>>1415417
>anarcho-socialism
if you see this then you know that you can stop reading

>>1415440
I'm sorry for using commonly used leftist terminology?

>>1415296
because all it was was despotism with memes

>>1415450
"anarcho-socialism" is not commonly used leftist terminology because all anarchism is a kind of socialism
the only people who say "anarcho-socialism" are free market liberal types
there is social anarchism and individualist anarchism, the word social is used instead of collectivist because collectivism is a system of wages within anarchism, but all individualist anarchists (Stirner, Novatore, Armand, Wilde) were socialists

>>1415296
because communism is the utopian end state of socialism where there the only governments are local worker communes. Obviously, communism can't exist in the real world.

>>1415458
>but all individualist anarchists (Stirner, Novatore, Armand, Wilde) were socialists

To add to this, yes even the ones an-caps like to claim such as Tucker and Spooner.

>>1415458
Not all anarchism is a kind of socialism. There are some forms of modern anarchism that reject socialism and favor some form of capitalism. Yes it is true that anarchism has its roots in the socialist movement and that the first proclaimed anarchists were in fact socialists, but that is no longer exactly the case. If i felt the need to specify anarcho-socialism its because I didn't want there to be any confusion.

>>1415296
It wasn't, because communism is a fantasy used by despots to get the dipshit peasants to help them strong-arm their way into power. "True Communism" can't exist on any kind of large scale, just like a borderless anarchist "state" can't. It's a silly fucking idea invented by a fat German NEET.

>>1415484
Murray Rothbard and the others call themselves anarchists, but in reality they have nothing to do with anarchist thought. Some anarchists such as Spooner, Proudhon etc believed in some liberal ideas like rights, but these are non-anarchist tendencies within anarchism and were flatly rejected during the development of anarchism as something separate from liberalism.

>>1415491
I'm not even arguing with you, that's exactly the distinction, or rather the association, I was trying to avoid making in the original post.

>>1415501
it's a bit pedantic of me but my point is that it's better to refer to the anarchist tradition as anarchism and the other things as some kind of anti-state liberalism or voluntaryism, some name that reflects its emphasis on liberal ideas

>>1415508
I would agree, but when most people read "anarchism" they don't usually know about the history of the movement as being essentially socialist. The term "anarcho-socialism" is thus useful in the sense that the connection is made in the phrase itself and it also creates a distinction between those other schools of thought that claim to be anarchist and liberal or capitalist. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, its just that I'm used to used to teaching undergraduates as a TA and this is typically how me and my professors introduce the topic to those who think that anarchists want everything to be like Mad Max or The Purge.

>>1415536
>The existence of this prejudice and its influence on the public’s definition of the word anarchy, is easily explained. Man, like all living beings, adapts and accustoms himself to the conditions under which he lives, and passes on acquired habits. Thus, having being born and bred in bondage, when the descendants of a long line of slaves started to think, they believed that slavery was an essential condition of life, and freedom seemed impossible to them. Similarly, workers who for centuries were obliged, and therefore accustomed, to depend for work, that is bread, on the goodwill of the master, and to see their lives always at the mercy of the owners of the land and of capital, ended by believing that it is the master who feeds them, and ingenuously ask one how would it be possible to live if there were no masters.
but I see where you're coming from too

>>1415544
Malatesta right?

Honestly I appreciate any sort of interaction with people who know what they are talking about. Have a good night anon.

>>1415556
yeah
you too man