Even with the differences in control, you may still end up with similar results. I probably could have worded my post better, but that is what I really meant.For (another) example, in communist societies, if a person says something the government doesn't like, they might go to jail and you can't stop them. In an anarchy, you could say something your neighbor doesn't like and get locked in their basement and you can't stop them.
Getting locked up in somebody's basement is a possibility in any society though, even with laws against it there's not a whole lot you can do. Even in anarchism I'm sure some form of vigilante justice will arise.
Communism is 100% the polar opposite of anarchy. It's not possible to have two things more opposite than communism and anarchy.
Communism = Forced equality.
Anarchy = nothing forced at all
Forced equality ≠ Nothing forced at all
Therefore, Communism ≠ Anarchy
There. Math and government lesson all in one.
So, people who don't like 115°F weather have to like -20°F weather?
If there was no government to stop people, I think they'd be stealing, not sharing.
No, it's still sharing just forced sharing.
My point is that in communism, the government forces all to share so that people are equal. In anarchy, there are no laws or leadership of any kind. The "forced sharing" that would take place would not be sharing at all, seeing as it would make one person more powerful. Thus, it would be stealing and could not be called sharing at all.
The OP did put sharing in quotes.
So forcing people to share and not stopping people from sharing are the same thing?
Also, I don't the possibility of unrestricted sharing is the main appeal behind anarchy. Not for most people, anyway.
Also, I don't think*
they are two opposite extremes...
Anarchy is actually a wide range of beliefs piled under the same title. Anarcho-Communism actually exists as an ideology, for the record.
If you take primitive anarchy and compare it to communism then indeed they would be similar because there would be no property(the defining point of anarchism, by the by).
However, modern anarchy is mostly about freedom(from the state, from the market, from whatnot), whilst Communism has always been about enforcement.
What they do have in common is that neither work. Anarchism is an OK thing to pursue as an individual or community, but it would never survive as a de facto government. Communism also doesn't work, as the supressed people of the 20th Century will tell you.
In true communism, there is no government, only a society of workers who equally share.
...This post and these comments helped me do my homework.
Well, at least my incorrect thoughts have helped someone. My work here is done. xD
Do you know the teachings of Marx at all!? Marx didn't what communism to have any government at all, he wanted life to be like life directly after the ice age (when mankind was equal). So whoever posted this your right they are somewhat equal. Russian communism is not the true definition of communism.
Anarchy is no government, communism is government. Complete opposites