common ownership is not lack of ownership, it's not even democratic necessarily, stop saying that things that are not the same are the same
It's like saying anarchism is chaos because anarchy and chaos are synonymous in present vernacular.
What you seem to lack understanding of, is that anarchy is not revolutionary, it's continuous rebellion toward illegitimate authority. Communism seeks to extract surplus value from labor to administer it to all with out a state. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" as Marx put it. This may or may not be compatible with anarchism. I'm not arguing that case, you are.
What is that you think makes anarchism resemble Marxism? Class warfare? Class warfare is present in all forms of capitalism also.
see youre getting wrapped around the axle of the "ownership" word appearing in relation to "The Commons"
"The Commons" are not owned by anyone or anything in The Utopian Communist Worker's Paradise. they simply exist, and everyone takes from the commons only what they need, and all things are shared equally.
if you mark out a patch, plow it, fertilize it, and carry water to grow weed, it is not YOUR dope which you would then trade for My tomatoes or Deprave's wheat, or Wabbit's corn, but rather, i simply harvest such dope as i need, and you likewise visit the patch on which i grow tomatoes, and take such tomatoes as you need, and so on, with no economic activity at all.
there would be no concept of ownership, even your underpants would be communal, and when you take them off, Godhere can put them on if he so desires.
that is the dream marx envisioned for the stateless Worker's Paradise, a truely free, truely egalitarian smurf village.
we only talk about the commons being "Owned" because this implies that no single person could declare "This is Mine" , because it is already owned, by everybody and nobody all at the same time.
real
anarchy is certainly not "revolutionary" since a revolution abolishes one thing to replace it with another, by design.
anarchy is solely destructive, with no creative power to follow. under
anarchy, the US would cease to be, and NOTHING would replace our government. this is viewed by some as an ideal, but this too is completely unworkable and utopian, since every time
anarchy has occurred, SOMEBODY has instituted order (usually by violence) to the detriment of the anarcho-populace who were not prepared for violence to defend their lack of governance and order.
the only solution for the Anarcho-populace is to institute some form of order, to defend their disorder from aggression, and in so doing, dismantled their anarchy themselves.
anarchy has become a buzzword with no real meaning in the context in which it is used, since anarchy is in fact chaos, and chaos invites violence, which invariably results in the imposition of order.
i did not imply communism was democratic, in fact there is no need for democracy in The Utopian Communism's Worker's Paradise, since there is no state, and thus no need to elect leaders for that non-existent state.
communism is also not
anarchy, since communism presumes that everyone lives an orderly life of their own volition, and thus anarchy does not occur, since everyone imposes order on their own lives without any outside force (the state), but it is order all the same.
anarchy does NOT resemble marxism, it is anathema to marxism. YOUR version of "anarchy", which is NOT
anarchy but rather "anarcho-______ism" (which is a fiction) assumes a similar smurf village style self-established order without imposition by a state, or laws, or in fact any form of governance, and thus is NOT
anarchy, even though you insist on calling it "anarchy". using a word outside it's established definition is the cause of the confusion and misapprehensions, and this is solely a result of SEMANTICS, not logic or reality.
you could call your vision of "anarchy" anything else, any word you choose, and it will still not be actual
anarchy.
if you wish to distance yourself from marxism (and the authoritarian baggage which it has so consistently earned) then you could choose any of a variety of words to describe a stateless self-established entirely self-actualized society of caring and sharing, with no property ownership, no state, no class or caste system, and no imposed order whatsoever, but it will still resemble Utopian Communism so strongly that the parallel will be drawn.
"Egalitarianism" comes to mind as a possible alternative to "anarcho-___ism"
"Chomskyism" has a certain ring to it.
"Naderism" would be a useful choice, but would have no cache' outside the US
"Spoonerism" is already in use within some circles, but i doubt you would accept that since most Spoonerites have an acceptance of property rights ingrained in their philosophies.
but continuing to use "Anarchy" in direct violation of the definition of the word is counter-productive.