| You’re not wrong, anarchy and communism are potentially very different, but not necessarily. The two often worked together (especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries), but will not do so necessarily. See below for more explanation.
If you have not finished the game, SPOILERS follow:
The Anarchs within the game rather seem to define themselves negatively: they are a group, but neither Camarilla nor Sabbat (and definitely not Keui-Jin). They are a self-regulating society (you can see that from Nines’ and Skelter’s attitudes to what the Camarilla would consider Masquerade violations. The Anarchs see this as mere common sense). The Anarchs are really defined by being opposed to control from above. They can therefore accommodate a broad range of views: Damsel is a communist (which I think could be a hangover from her mortal coil, as Vampires have less need for economic resources, although evidently they are helpful. Damsel may of course just see communism as class conflict, rather than an economic theory. So she is simply uninformed); Nines just dislikes people (“them” as it were) telling others what to do; Isaac is opposed to people telling him what to do, because he wants the power himself, albeit only over a small domain (Isaac would seem to represent regionalism rather than the transnational nature of the Camarilla, Sabbat and Kuei-Jin). It would be interesting to see how these conflicting views would pan out if the Anarchs were able to regain control of L.A.
It is (from my perspective) unfortunate that the final ending makes the Anarchs option be that of Nines and Damsel (with whom I would not associate, and I could not see either a Tremere or Ventrue being especially keen), and that Isaac is unavailable as an option.
OT, theoretical musings.
In a theoretical Marxist approach to communism, the end result will be the same as that of anarchism: the end of the state. For Marxism this would be the result of inevitable historical determinism of class conflict, and would require no actual action. The end of the state would come about due to the end of the class system, as the state is merely an organ of the dominant class at any point in time. End the class system, and the state disappears. Anarchism might not agree with this historical approach, and might be more proactive. As such, it is quite possible for one person to believe in theoretical Marxist communism and anarchism without any contradiction. However, many (practical) communists were considerably more active, and tried to precipitate, accelerate or further class conflict (and the final victory of the workers). These “communists” (such as Leninist, Stalinists and Maoists) saw a valid role for the state in this process, and at that point would come into conflict with anarchists.  |