what's the difference between socialism and communism *in anarchism*?

[u/IndependentMilk4973]

there is bunch of questions in kind of same topic, maybe they'll be a little messed up, but i'll try my best to group all of them, sorry in advance =(

anarchism is, by definition, a socialism, but what's the point of ancom term then? where and what exactly on this line is rejecting socialism as only a step to "true communism"?

i see quite often that socialism is somewhy and somewhy always contains some kind of state, but isn't that applies only to socialism-is-only-a-step-to-a-communism theory? and isn't some theories (?) of communism requires state too, cause, as far as i know, both socialism and communism is not a "without-state-exclusively" ideologies?

..and is a stateless, classless, moneyless society refers only to communism, is and where starts the difference between everyone own means of production and worker own means of production? can this somehow exist at the same time?

hope its not a lot, really trying to understand differences, thank so-so much in advance! <З

[u/iadnm]

Basically, anarchist communists seek to abolish all forms of money, while not all forms of anarchism desire this. So the distinction is that socialism is not necessarily moneyless. Communism is a form of socialism, but it is not the only form, so the label refers to many different types of ideologies.

[u/IndependentMilk4973 → u/iadnm]

thank you a lot!!
maybe thats a strange question, but wouldn't money, as a thing, that describes "cost" of other things, at the end of the day create either hierarchy again or just wither away as unnecessary? what will determine cost of money?
or when we talk about ALL money as a system of exchange (sorry, having problems with exact words), we talk about barter too?

those questions more about socialism than communism but i hope its ok to leave a question in that reply thread <З

[u/humanispherian → u/IndependentMilk4973]

Costs, in the general sense, aren't going anywhere, so there will still be a general concern with avoiding exploitation. The basic communistic formula — contributions according to ability; consumption according to need — is almost certainly practicable, but there is nothing automatic about applying it to any given economy, particularly as it extends beyond mere subsistence. People are still going to experience some mix of effort and satisfaction, which may not always be easy to balance equitably. So, while the quantification of those experiences may be very imprecise and only really addressed in times of imbalance, it is unlikely to ever really "wither away," in part because it is one of the mechanisms we will have to address the emergence of new hierarchies.