fwiw, as a communist on my last day here on this platform:

a) communism, socialism, & anarchism are all distinct political dispositions, despite the persistent elision of the differences between communism & socialism from various quarters over the last 150 years.

b) communism is closer to anarchism than it is to socialism, largely because of a shared horizon of abolition (of classes, wage-labor & production for sale, and the state).

c) socialism, contrarily, retains some or all of these features, managed differently, with a horizon of equalizing distribution rather than ending capitalist production, an affirmation of the laboring class rather than its abolition, and of that class's control over the state.

d) the seemingly greater adjacency or even identity of socialism & communism is a consequence not of their "natures" but of a longstanding belief that one led to the other. This belief was neither wrong nor transhistorically right, it was a reading of historical conditions.

e) those conditions, which specifically assessed the capacity for seizing power of the organized working class in the form of the historical labor movement, had a good century-long run from about 1875-1975. They are no longer with us.

f) while many insist the historical worker's movement remains powerful, its leading institutions (in the west, this refers to unions as well as formations like DSA) openly admit that the dynamic linking forward to communism no longer exists & socialism is as far as things go.

g) this is why statists, as well as those who wish only to affirm labor, full employment, growth (which is death, by the way), etc, should be identified with socialism as distinct from communism or anarchism.

h) the main distance i have noticed between communists & anarchists concerns analytical frameworks more than it concerns visions of what a post-capitalist world might look like.

i) most communists I know come from the Marxist tradition & start from political economy & the compulsions of capital as cause & problem to be solved, while most anarchists i know start from the problem of the state & hierarchy as such.

j) both of these frameworks, among people I know including myself, have historically not treated settler colonialism as adequately central to their analyses & we should, though I do not think this poses insuperable problems for thinking about a unitary global political economy.

k) it is for this reason that I place a lot of hope in revolutionary frameworks, communist & anarchist, developed in the "third world," in indigenous frameworks, developed among the stolen & the colonized.

l) given that communist solutions to the problem of capital can no longer pass through a purportedly revolutionary program of seizing state power, the differing analytic frameworks should no longer pose real problems for solidarity between communists & anarchists.

m) wanting anarchists to be communists or anarchists to be communists is foolish.

n) there will be enmities, disparities, & attempts at subordination that preexisted capitalism & will survive it, including white supremacy & patriarchy, that all these dispositions should understand will need to be addressed. The idea that we need a state to do is a blockage.

This is simplified & schematic. There are exceptions. It's already too long. Take your nuance to instagram. There is much more to say re climate catastrophe & its relation to these 3 dispositions, but I hope the above note that growth = death will do for now. Thanks, everyone.