It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about.

Communism is neither the most extreme left-wing, nor is it about control. Indeed, what communism is about is found in its name - "commune". It's about the sharing of wealth and localisation of government. I'm betting you think that China and Russia are (or at least were) communist - they're not, and haven't been within the modern era at least. They're socialist, not communist.

Anarchy is in no way a right wing ideal. More generally, it's NOT a "left is about control, right is about freedom" thing at all. Otherwise, the far right wouldn't be wanting to ban abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, interracial marriage, immigration, etc.

Indeed, the "wings" refer to the overarching approach to economic issues. The left wing believes in the people collectively having responsibility over the means of production, the right wing believes in the means of production being under the control of those who have proven themselves most capable. These are the "in theory" concepts of the two.

To the far left, you find communism and, a little beyond that, anarchism. To the far right, you find capitalism, and beyond that, fascism.

Of course, this is the simplistic way of characterising things. A more accurate way to capture the concept is to use the "two-dimensional" approach, as seen in sites like "political compass". The simplest way to understand this approach is that it separates two different kinds of "freedom/control" logics. On one axis, you find economic control (regulation) vs economic freedom ("free market"), while on the other axis, you find social control (authoritarianism) vs social freedom.

The "far right" capitalism would fall under the extreme "economic freedom + social control" combination in one corner. In the opposite corner, you'll find communism. Freedom on both axes is anarchism, while control on both axes is fascism.

To give a sense of how powerful this separation is in truly understanding things, consider the Nazis. They weren't especially economically liberal or conservative. Indeed, on the economic axis, they were quite centrist. But they were very, very authoritarian. This is why you often hear arguments between people about whether the Nazis were left or right wing - effectively, they were neither.

Libertarians lie not far from anarchists, in the corner with "freedom" on both axes.

Note that most of the American 'left wing' is actually right-of-centre, as the world would judge it. And Donald Trump is actually less in favour of the free market than Hillary Clinton - this image may help you to calibrate how it all lies:

And let's be clear - this axis isn't skewed in favour of putting the "left" in the centre. Here's the equivalent chart for 2008:

Also note that "libertarian" on the bottom isn't referring to the US political movement, which is actually what you might call the "libertarian right".

Oh, and here's one more - this is 2016 Democratic and Republican primary delegate-winners:

These were the positions that the candidates were in during the primaries (notice that Trump moved to the centre on economic issues because he didn't have to focus so much on the base, while Clinton moved slightly to the right because she no longer had to deal with Sanders?).

----

But then, given much of the rest of what you said, it's clear that your definitions of "left" and "right" roughly equate to "people I agree with are right, and people I disagree with are left". Otherwise, you wouldn't be lumping far-right authoritarian religious groups that want the government to get out of their pocket with far-left hippy government-should-fund-my-lifestyle-whatever-that-is types. They're literally polar opposites on every single issue, and you consider both to be "left" because they're both somehow about "control".

I'm not, Socialism is not by nature authoritarian or statist. Authoritarianism can be left or right or centre, but the economical difference distinguishes Fascism from Communism (as in Soviet Communism).

how do you share/distribute wealth without control?

"Otherwise, the far right wouldn't be wanting to ban abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, interracial marriage, immigration, etc."

what makes you think those are policies coming from a right wing perspective? 

"To the far left, you find communism and, a little beyond that, anarchism"

lol so you think anarchism is on the same side as communism? that's quite interesting to say the least... how from your view does communism develop into anarchy?

"Otherwise, you wouldn't be lumping far-right authoritarian religious groups that want the government to get out of their pocket with far-left hippy government-should-fund-my-lifestyle-whatever-that-is types. They're literally polar opposites on every single issue"

how can they be polar opposites on every issue when you yourself say here that one group is authoritarian while another group wants a larger government?

"given much of the rest of what you said, it's clear that your definitions of "left" and "right" roughly equate to "people I agree with are right"

lol based on what? that's an odd comment

if authoritarianism can be in any position on the spectrum where would its opposite be positioned or can that be placed anywhere too?

how do you achieve socialism without people abiding by the rules of a state or community?

if authoritarianism can be in any position on the spectrum where would its opposite be positioned or can that be placed anywhere too?

you are contradicting yourself

"He wanted absolute power for the state"

"He has nothing in common with socialism"

You distribute wealth through agreement between people. The only functional communist groups are the ones that are opt-in. See Kibbutzim in Israel as an example. In *real* communism, the community works together for the betterment of the community, and those who would refuse to be part of the community are expelled - meaning, if they aren't contributing, they don't get the benefits.

What makes me think that those policies are coming from a right-wing perspective? How about every single definition of left vs right wing ever devised?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum#Ideological_groupings_across_the_spectrum

"Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism.""

As you can see, the *Ieft* wing is the one associated with freedoms and rights, generally, while the right favours nationalism and tradition. Of course, it's more complex than that - many on the right are about "individual freedoms", while those on the left are more about "collective freedoms". The distinction works like this: the right cares more about "Freedom of speech" in the sense of "I should be able to say as I please", while the left cares more about "freedom of speech" in the sense of "ideas shouldn't be banned". The left wants freedom of religion in the sense of being able to follow whichever religion you please, while the right wants freedom of religion in the sense of being able to practice your religion as you see fit. Notice the subtle difference - one is about belonging, the other is about individuality.

The left wants there to be no classes, a broad concept. The right wants people to be able to move between (and into higher) classes, a concept focused more on the individual. The right wants people to be able to act to ensure the prosperity of their own offspring, the left wants to make sure that all offspring are cared for and considered. 

But even that doesn't quite capture the distinction clearly enough, because it's not an exact distinction - caused primarily by the fact that multiple factors are being combined into a single categorisation, when most people have aspects on both sides.

I'm not the only one that views anarchism and communism as being on the "same side". Indeed, not only are they on the same side, they're only a small distance apart, to the point that Anarchist Communism is a thing, and most anarchists call themselves anarcho-communists (because as I pointed out above, communism only works on an opt-in basis, so these people believe communism is the best system, but it has to lie within anarchism - a point I disagree with, but let's not get bogged down in my personal views).

Literally the only difference between pure anarchism and pure communism is the belief that there is value in established leadership (in communism, the leadership is simply the people making the broader decisions that can't be made by individuals).

Here's another pic showing the traditional placements of the various ideas:

Of course, this pic is demonising left and right (while its "middle" is actually rather right-wing), and isn't quite accurate with "Nazism", which doesn't fit well on the spectrum. If you look at other representations, including those favouring or opposing either side, such as this one which is clearly pro-right-wing, they consistently put anarchism with communism on the left. The only time that Anarchism is put on the opposite side of Communism is when it's actually marked, explicitly, as "freedom" vs "tyranny" or equivalent, and invariably has communism and fascism as equivalent, despite the two being literally opposed to each other. The reason this happens is that Americans, especially, have a massively skewed concept of what "communism" is, because rather than learning about the *concepts*, they look at "communist parties" in various countries, like Russia and China.

Unsurprisingly, these countries aren't actually running anything remotely resembling communist government. But uneducated Americans invariably are conned into believing "communism is fascism" by comparison.

As for my view on "how does communism develop into anarchy", that's quite a kettle of fish, in part because I believe both systems are inherently unstable and naturally develop into dictatorship due to said instability, unless something like democracy is placed over it to ensure stability. But in an ideal world, the more accurate description would that anarchy develops into communism, as people naturally organise together. It's referred to as "collectivism". Many anarchists believe that ownership of the means of production should be in the hands of those who do the work... but when you have a hundred people, each pulling in a different direction, things don't get done. So some method of organisation happens - people talk, convince each other of their ideas on how to proceed, and things become smoother.

Over time, certain people are seen to have good ideas and are listened to by others. These people take on a kind of leadership role amongst the workers, and when others have a disagreement, they go to the "wisest ones" to have their disagreement settled.

Do you know what system has formed? That's right - what I've just described is communism. The wisest are naturally raised to a leadership position and guide the community's actions in order to produce a more favourable outcome for the entire group. Of course, human nature gets in the way of this, because invariably it's the most arrogant, the most stubborn, that ends up in power, rather than the wisest. And these people become dictators. Hence what I said about instability.

I said nothing about "larger government". Not sure where you got that from. The left wing believe that the government's role is to regulate non-human things (like the economy, etc) and to get out of the way of human things (such as morality). The right wing believe that the government's role is to regulate humans (such as morality) and to get out of the way on other issues (like the economy).

The term for those who believe in smaller government is "libertarian", and libertarians aren't really left or right wing. They're the literal opposite of "authoritarian", and authoritarianism happens on both sides of the system. Hence the "political compass" images I provided, that separate the left/right spectrum from authoritarian/libertarian concepts.

And you can have libertarian left and libertarian right.

And my comment about your definition being based on those you agree with being "right" is justified in the rest of the paragraph. You literally treat polar opposites as being on the same "side" of politics. On every single point, the far right authoritarian religious people disagree with the far left communists. On attitudes towards morality, economics, freedom, and identity, they're the opposite of each other. They literally only agree on one thing - that the world is being screwed up by the centrists (who in turn believe that those two extremes, or at least one of them, is the cause of all of the problems).

Communists don't believe in government control - they believe in government *ownership*. Do you know what the difference between the two concepts is? Simple: communists believe government is "by the people, for the people". They believe "government" should own the means of production, and that the people should own the government. Communist ideals vary by subgroup, of course - the social democrats believe in democracy on the large scale and communism on the small scale, whereas anarcho-communists believe that communes should be purely opt-in unions of like-minded people working together, and so "government" can be anything from "the overarching organisation that runs everything" (like federal governments) to "the people who settle disagreements" (like a group leadership or a small council).

As I said before, look at Kibbutzim in Israel. They operate on communist principles. They also happen to be one of the places with the fastest internet in the world (as one example of a factoid I'm aware of regarding them).

How do you maintain capitalism without rules and a state? Same problem.

As how to achieve socialism, every group has a different opinion so that's quite hard to awnser.