Anarcho-communists (holy shit...)

[DSEngere]

Hi everyone. 

Has anyone else experienced the mind-fuck that is anarcho-communism? I need some empathy before my head explodes. 

So lately, I've taken a strong interest into the anarcho-communist, anarcho-mutualist, libertarian socialist, etc. (leftist) world. I really wanted to consider their ideas with an open mind. After all, they claim to be anarchists, so they can't be that bad, right? WRONG! 

Not only are their ideas unbelievably bad in every way possible (evil, naive, unrealistic, etc.), but these are some of the most pompous people I have ever debated. They like to make posts taunting anarcho-capitalists by calling us "an"caps, as if we're supposedly not anarchists because we support "hierarchy" and "oppression" via voluntary trade. It's literally like watching a scrawny 10 year old walk up to a sumo wrestler and spit in his face. They have no idea how bad and embarrassing they look. 

I have directly asked many of them, and almost all support the initiation of force against peaceful property owners (such as businesses) because they're engaging in "exploitation". This worries me. Will we have to start shooting commies again? I wouldn't mind a whole lot, to be honest. 

I searched hard to find any merit to their ideas and found precious little if any. 

I can't be the only one tripping over my own incredulity here. 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I mentioned this on another thread:

 

Anarcho-communism is a contradiction. Anarchy means "no rulers". Communism has rulers. The end.

 

What else is there to discuss?

[Jer]

I mentioned this on another thread:

 

Anarcho-communism is a contradiction. Anarchy means "no rulers". Communism has rulers. The end.

 

What else is there to discuss?

The Zeitgeist, it's open source BROOOO! Don't be so truncated in your idea of no rulers and accept your robot overlords.

[Alan C.]

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists by Murray Rothbard (1970)

[fractional slacker]

My experience has been many lefty anarchists have little to no economic education. They believe Wall st. to be the pinnacle of capitalism. Those that are educated about economics tend to adopt the social justice warrior model to justify their various bigotries and contradictions. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

They advocate coercion which is a form of violent rule so they are not anarchists. But they get around that in their heads through the rejection of private property and/or self-ownership. It's not theft because you didn't own it in the first place you see. 

[Donnadogsoth]

My limited experience of online anarchosocialists or anarchocommunists is that they're self-righteous and impervious to rational debate.  I was booted from an ancom forum once for defending the idea that truth exists.  Bitter, unpleasant people who are probably harbouring deep rages against society.

 

Offline, I remember meeting an ancom who basically handwaved every problem away, but was pleasant and personable enough.

[D-Rex Naptime]

I too brought up these questions in an earlier thread called "Libertarian Socialism." No matter how intelligent the anarcho-communist/socialist, or anarcho-syndicalist, the answer to every question is that they believe in communism or socialism without government. I can never seem to get an answer as to how you develope an economic, or political (for communism) system without central planning and gargantuan government oversight.

[J. D. Stembal]

Stop hanging out on Reddit, for starters.

 

In a sense, anarcho-communism already exists within the modern family unit. Every parent gets to play dictator over their own children, spanking if he desires, while no other adult outside the fiefdom is allowed to instruct the parent on how to rule over their children.

 

My childhood girlfriend was viciously pummeled and sexually abused by her father. Everyone, including her mother and elder brother and sister, willfully ignored the signs that something was amiss. Police and child services intervened on at least one occasion that I can recall, but nothing happened except that the girl was institutionalized, probably accused of fabricating false stories.

 

She revealed the horrors of her family history to me, but I was forbidden to speak of it. She didn't want to go back to the mental hospital. To this day, I feel haunted about my complicity in the demented family drama. I couldn't have been the only one she told. Why didn't anyone intervene?

 

Sometimes, I wish I could forget.

 

Last summer, I ran into an old high school friend that knew her. He specifically asked me about her, "So-and-so and you dated, right? Did she have a fucked up home life?" Apparently, even people who spent short amounts of time with her could tell something was wrong. This interaction stirred up the memories in my head, and I reflected on the tragedy again.

 

To tie this back into the on-going ancom vs. ancap debate, one of the common objections to libertarianism or anarchism is, "Who is going to protect the children?" I would answer this question with another question.

 

Who is protecting children now?

[LovePrevails]

Here is the guy that puts their views across eloquently

 

His arguments should be engaged with, rather than the stupid keyboard warriors on facebook

[Libertus]

Has he written an article? It's a hassle to quote youtube videos.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

I think Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-communism are sophistry. Their ideology is full of vague definitions. What is "ownership", what are the "means of production". I do not think they provide categorical definitions of either, and yet they are foundation to their envisaged society. How is the concept of  "just hierarchy" and "unjust hierarchy" applied to the real world? 

 

The examples of attempts to establish Anarcho-communism or syndicalism as practical are under irregular conditions, failed, or are in technically primitive societies.

 

I just don't find any of these ideologies compelling and certainly not in the way that private property and capitalism are.

 

It all seems like pseudo intellectualism, Peter Joseph is a prime example.

[D-Rex Naptime]

I've actually seen that video before and, like everything I've seen or read on this topic, it merely explains how they want the world to be, rather than how you make it that way. They don't want hierarchal institutions, but to deny an owner of assets, capital, or land, the right hierachally manage labor and production requires policies, or mob violence, in complete disregard for property rights.

 

DROs could never enforce communal ownership of land and production, as their very existence would contradict the rules hey are enforcing. They wouldn't be able to operate without paying based on risk and ability, otherwise they would lose their workers to the those in production based industries, rather than protection based industries.

 

However, you COULD have a community established on voluntary membership and private contracts which espouses the economic principals of socialism and political methods of communitarianism. Any breach of your contract could therefore be enforced by DROs. But the membership would still be voluntary, meaning you could either stay in or join the capitalist outside world, if that is what you prefer.

 

In anarchy, communitarianism could flourish within capitalism, but not the other way around, being that you could not accumulate any land or assets to start your capitalist society within communism to begin with.

 

I would love to hear an anarcho-socialist address these arguments, as I do wish to know more about the concept.

[A Madman Person Guy]

I think there's a very simple explanation for this phenomenon, and if there's no maxim for this I'd like to propose it: "As the requirements of individual idealism, naivety and self-delusion necessitated to make a philosophy, model of economics or political theory practicable increase, the idealism, naivety and self-delusion of its proponents and subscribers increases correspondingly".

 

Marx proposed communism because a) he was a self-deluded intellectually blinkered theorist, and b) because he thought everyone else was, or at least close enough to one. Either he could not see that his demands of altruism on anyone to be included in his system were too high, or he was naíve enough to not believe that others would see things differently.

 

Am I right in assuming that these people also consider themselves to be staunch egalitarianists? Because that just takes the cake, and it shows exactly the kind of mindset that led to the pogroms and to Maoism; "if people are all created equal, then those who have more must simply be more avaricious". In practice it just turns out anti-structuralist and destructive, which I'd say is a good enough excuse to have them shot. I find it offensive when someone tries to rape science and statistics and good sense in mere words, but when someone wants to do something which might damage industry and set back technology, I'd say it's time to break out the 12-gauge.

[kavih]

I just had my first experience with an ancom yesterday on facebook. As soon as I presented a question that was conflicting to his/her stance, this person said, "We'll have to agree to disagree." Given that we only conversed back and forth a couple times, it was easily a cop-out. I said I do not agree to disagree and am hoping for more dialogue, but I left it up to the OP as to whether she wanted us to continue (I didn't want to upset the OP since she has potential for waking up). The OP was about this: http://www.auroville.org/

[EveryVoluntaryistIsLemons]

Every anarchist commune comes with its own PC Police force, SJW military, and Thought Surveillance Agency - because how could we be free if people were allowed to think or say things that others might find offensive?

 

Meh, I have no problem (other than practical ones) with anarcho-communism itself, as long as it's voluntary. The problem is that they view private property as illegitimate, so in their minds they'd be perfectly justified in stealing private property, since they view it as having been stolen from "the people" already, so they would be returning it to its rightful owners (in their minds). If they all wanted to take their own property that they already own and form a commune and develop it, good for them - just don't force others to give up their property.

 

And (as I alluded to at the beginning of this post) my problem with anarcho-communists is that they, like most leftists, have a strong tendency to verbally assault anyone who says anything that they consider to be offensive. Honestly, they are some of the most hateful/hate-filled, aggressive, bigoted/biased/prejudiced/closed-minded people I have ever come across (which is ironic considering that they claim to be against those things and accuse their opponents of being that way). They don't seem to consider for a second that they might be wrong and that it's worth listening to other perspectives, even ones you strongly disagree with and/or have an emotional reaction against, because they might have something of value to say or have a point you hadn't considered. They're too driven by their emotions.

 

Also, I hate how they (like most leftists) say that we don't care about the poor, despite us commonly advocating charity and pointing out how the current system hurts the poor. When they resort to creating a dishonest caricature of their opponents, you know they're desperate.

[Tservitive]

I have only met one anarchy-commuist in person and he's my downstairs neighbor. We have had discussion where he has argued private property does not exist but we own are bodies because they are private property. He also seems to be entrenched by the idea that economics is made up to cover true human nature, which is to be directed to do things based on the needs of our individual community.

 

I know this is by no means a philosophical argument, but rather just my only experience in real life. I still think it is important to note that of the five guys that live in our house (two Jewish moderate socialists, a Christian monarchist libertarian, the anarcho-communist, and me: an Atheist anarchy-capitalist) the only person who is constantly not paying rent or bills is the anarchy-communist. This reminds me much of Marx's wife's complaint about her husband's finances.

[doodydota]

Stef has a great conversation in his latest podcast (#2928) with a "resource based" guy who claims to actually live his ideas. I think the commie has made some excellent points and their approach can work in a small community, but is absolutely not scalable, as Stef has pointed out.. 

[Alan C.]

The caller is woefully misinformed about some things.

 

Everything requires resources because the procurement and provision of things requires consumption. People have to eat and time is not unlimited.

 

Money IS a resource; otherwise it's not money. I realize that's a prescriptive statement, but real money arises on the market. It's a representation, and direct result of, production. Paper tickets issued by the State aren't money.

 

He said that everything costs something because of money. No, everything costs something because of scarcity.

 

Moneyless communities can exist, but their standard of living will be very primitive.

 

Money prices allow division of labor to extend across large groups of people. Look around your home at the modern conveniences available to you. You probably have access to appliances (refrigerator, washer/dryer, microwave, stove/oven), computer, Internet, TV, mobile phone and electronics, entertainment devices, personal appliances (fan, electric shaver, blow dryer), personal care products (soap, toothpaste, deodorant), prescription lenses, transportation, etc. Price signals coordinate the allocation of resources, and the division of labor of millions of people, to make these things possible.

 

Having "coordinators" running around, asking people what they need, or calling in orders to some central planner, is extremely inefficient.

[J. D. Stembal]

What the RBE caller in 2928 is describing is part of the tenets of the economy of Burning Man.

 

For the week long event in the desert, Burners are encouraged to bring enough food, water, and supplies to be self-sufficient. However, it is entirely possible to survive through the event without spending a dollar except the $400 required to be admitted to the event. No one, except the official ice vendor in center camp, is allowed to charge money for any product or service. Everything has to be gifted at the event. Under 21 Burners cannot be given alcohol.

 

Over-consumption is a very real problem at Burner events. Often, if you aren't an early bird and first in line, you will miss out on a lot of the popular cuisine consumed there. Also, there is the SWAG (stuff we all get) effect. People hand out cheap, mass-produced trinkets because they are encouraged to bring enough for their entire camp and whomever decides to visit them. I accepted many of these trinkets on the first day, some useful and some strictly ornamental, like bracelets and necklaces. By the end of the week, I had misplaced a few of them (MOOP, or matter out of place in Burner parlance), including the face bandana with a dust filter. I also misplaced one of my ex-girlfriend's walkie-talkies while dancing at one of the music camps.

 

When people are given a series of gratuitous gifts in this manner, psychologically, they tend to not exact ownership over it. There is nothing special about an item everybody receives for free. The mind doesn't want to claim responsibility over the object.

 

Everyone who proposes anarcho-communism as a functional economic and political ideology should visit their local Burner event at least once to see the shortages of food, the lines, and the inefficiency of a moneyless or tradeless economy.

[Alan C.]

The amusing irony is that Burning Man is made possible by the capitalistic order of production.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

 

Having "coordinators" running around, asking people what they need, or calling in orders to some central planner, is extremely inefficient.

This just reminded me of a Mises Inst program describing how the Communist Party of China used to obtain catalogs from Hong Kong because their magical commie committees didn't know how to conjure prices out of thin air. They had decades to abolish money and create their utopian commune, but it all slid back to markets.

 

The Burning Man phenomena reminds me that experiments in societies without capitalism only; happen in exceptional circumstances, are transient or else are in primitive societies. People can go back to the woods, but they will have to forgo medicine.

 

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

The amusing irony is that Burning Man is made possible by the capitalistic order of production.

 

The same way camping is made possible via the same method, yea?

[Alan C.]

It depends upon the type of camping you're talking about.

 

I went camping when I was a kid, but we brought a tent, food, sleeping bags, and supplies with us in a car.

 

If you're talking about roughing it like Survivorman or Man vs Wild then that's a bit more difficult, but even those guys bring a few items with them that can't be easily procured in the wild.

[zek]

Hi, I think all these "movements" or "philosophies" are spawned because people want to feel they are not alone in their opinions. Those who search for truth need no such crutches. Some like to feel they are "different", but not that different, so they choose a relatively unpopular movement, but popular enough to find mates. 

 

When this movement grows more popular, or less edgy, they have to either find something else or distinguish themselves from most of the others. Often they do this by crossing it with another movement. 

 

Our heads believe all kinds of stuff, but our bodies know what "movements" produce!

 

The only thing worth pursuing is truth. No rulers is truth, there are only followers who imagine they are ruled. Thus anarchy is just an observation of truth. Anarchism is silly, like gravitism would be if it existed. Anarcho-***ism is silly for the same reason.  If something is true, there's no need for an -ism. All -isms are collectivism, by definition.

 

Even anarcho-capitalism... think about it, if there are no rulers, people are free to trade voluntarily with each other while doing no harm. There's no need to add anything to anarchy, because you're already free to do it. 

 

So, on the empathy request, what you really need is to rid yourself of the incredulity. What you saw happening did indeed happen. People do believe the crap their movements produce. It's like gravity exists, and so do people with slave mentalities. If you've done all you can, then there's nothing else you can do, so no need to feel discomfort. Just move on and associate with people who make you feel good, not bad. ("Embrace the company of those that seek the truth, and run from those who have found it". -Vaclav Havel)

 

By enhancing freedom in your own life you automatically enhance freedom for others, that's how freedom works. 

 

I think it was Buckminster Fuller... he said that there's no point in opposing the existing reality, we just build a new model that makes the existing one obsolete. 

[Josh Takacs]

Lovepervails. Who is that man? Would love to see if we could get him here for some conversations. Its nice to see someone who I dis agree with who's speaking doesn't sound like the verbal equivalent of throwing shit. 

[labmath2]

From my understanding, the difference between anarcho-communist and anarcho-capitalist is property rights. The communists usually reject homesteading of land. I think there various forms of anarcho-communism too.

[Tweak]

It is my personal belief that if I am to tell somebody they are stupid, well then I want to be educated about it. It is not a must, however one will feel more liberated and able to "fight" agains tyrants such as in this thread commies. I have therefore studied it in some detail. 

 

So I´m going to make a short "what is communism" since I´ve seen some both faulty and good explanations.

 

Like every system of ideological governance witch we have hade al the time it seems like. Requires that all principles must be laid on every person of that society and thus those who disagree must suffer. It doesn´t matter witch ideology it is, this is what will happen.

 

To be very clear, people who have "money" meaning the super rich, are in fact communists. What do I mean by that? Well I mean that money is not enough for them, they want to control the people too. And that they do by the control of production. Just like commies. The control of production is key since the production of for example food keeps people "in line".

 

Communism vs socialism.

Whats is the difference with socialism and communism? It is the means by witch one thinks that socialism should be achieved. That one is that a communist thinks that he should force socialism on others, and socialists should vote their way to socialism.

 

The anarcho- communist, to me seem like communism. What do I mean by that? Well one must understand that the endgame of communism, once fully implemented is that of a stateless society, that is called Full Communism- their claimed goal. Therefore I feel that anarcho- communism is faulty be cause what it is suggesting is a stateless society. Just like the NLRBE:s believe that things are going to show up out of nowhere and that society is going to supply them with an abundance of produce. No government needed. No money needed.

 

So how come the most totalitarian regimes have been communist based? Well for starters communist core in furthering the agenda of communism comes to one end, and that is that anything goes as so long it further the socialist ideology.

 

If the end is to have a stateless society how come they have dictators staying in power till they die? One reason ore excuse they have for this is that society needs to be reinforced until people are "good enough" to not have to be told what to do. This leading like in the case of Joseph Stalin to a nationalist state, witch in and of it self is contradictory, since a socialist is a person does´nt believe in a state, but that rather "all workers should gather together no matter witch state, sex and race you are. We are all victims of the capitalist."

 

Already in the 1920:s the commies new that what they proposed did´nt work. Be cause of this they new they hade to come up with a new plan to implement their world- wide revolution. Before we continue a need to stress that what you are about to read is not necessarily communist subversion but subversion of the totalitariasts to " the common folk".

 

This is what the sovjets did to us in the west and the rest of the word and is started not long after the October revolution.  NOTE our leaders of the "free world" did the same thing most people forget this even tough there are evidence. This leading to some extent of my personal opinion that some checkas and then KGB to think that they were more successful than they were be cause the very people who they did this to, their own leader did to their own people at the same time. Thus helping each other furthering the agenda of a totalitarian regime. The regime change is going to be done by the same method of subversion. 

 

They are called today, 1:st 2:nd and 3:rd way feminists and then you have the liberals and the multiculturalists. In essence it is the same type of people trying to usher in a new world, by subversion. Most of them do not know this because they are stupid and shallow people.

 

Once this things are implemented the kings of society can put forth the "Iron Curtain". Since society has collapsed and the masses are now screaming of a savior. This is the time when Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin shows up. This can of course happen any time now since the people, at least from the western countries since the people, almost all are subverted.  

 

The NLRB: ist will have the same explanation to the worlds trouble as Karl Marx did. Marx said that industrialization was the answer to abundance. None of them seem to realize that just because something is scarce, doesn´nt mean that there will be a shortage. And that it will save the earth from extinsion. Wich is counter to what they both state, since they say that they want abundance. The free market will take care of that since the free market will put the resources in the most exact manner to the places it needs to go. People already buy shit they don´t need to impress people they don´t like....

[ManDudely]

A few years back, after coming to a true understanding of anarchy that wasn't the view imposed by the mainstream media, I thought it would be a good idea to attempt to find a local gathering of anarchists. I found a group that was advertising a meeting, donned my best Che Guevera t-shirt  and took a friend to the meet up.

 

The attacks upon the ideas of capitalism started almost right away. The speaker did acknowledge that not everyone might share the same understanding of what anarchism is, but that the group wasn't interested in debating points of philosophy. Anarcho-Capitalists were specifically singled out as being somehow worse than statists, by one member openly making backhanded comments. The resistance to capitalism was somewhat expected, but I didn't expect the degree of unwillingness to debate that I encountered. Surely, I thought, that anarchists above all others would be open to the sharing of knowledge, especially regarding new ways of organising and doing things. I had the acceptance that I may be wrong in my understandings, and that a little discussion of the fundamentals would be a good thing overall, and expected a similar openness from them.

 

Not so, as it turns out. The overwhelming consensus among this group was that 'anarchist' was defined as being anti-state and anti-capitalist, that on the whole they were not willing to accept new ideas, or even engage in debate on the matter. I managed to corner one or two of them in break periods for a discussion, and continued this over an exchange of emails for a time afterward. It turned out that one of these people was a tenured professor at a local university. The words ownership and incentive were used a lot as I tried to explain my position. I felt like they simply didn't understand the core ideas of capitalism, and that their irrational despisal of it stemmed from that misunderstanding. They eventually stopped responding.

 

Overall, I'd still say it was a good experience in that I got to witness non-coercive means of organisation. There was plenty of opportunity to provide input within a structured environment, although it was largely proposed by senior members but never without the chance to speak up and propose a better way. People were always given chance to speak and propose ideas, and a system put in place where you could get feedback from the group while talking without having a roomful of dissenting opinions rising to interupt you. This was achieved by sitting in a circle where everyone could see everyone else, and if you agreed with what they were saying you would shake your hand. At a glance, you could guage the popularity of your statement by scanning the circle for shaking hands.

 

I didn't go again, partly because this group had just emerged from an episode where they were infiltrated by the local police force, but also due to the deep seated anti-capitalist sentiment that was at odds with my own ideas of how best to change the world for the better. That said, putting philosophical differences aside, there were areas of discussion where I found myself and others in agreement. Most of the discussion focused on organising 'Direct Action', which I don't remember ever being defined, but I took it to mean protesting and community building. Protesting I felt was a waste of time, but 'doing things to improve the local community' seemed like a good goal, though what that entailed was largely undefined as this was mostly an introductory meeting after the groups reformation.

 

My lasting impression is that, true to the basic principle of anarchy, I'm not going to impose my will on others violently and would hope that the same courtesy is shown in return. What we do with that freedom is down to the individual, or whatever term AnComs use to refer to themselves without begging the question of contradicting self-ownership. And of course, if anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists are ever in close proximity, there are ways for them to achieve goals together in a manner that satisfy both parties by understanding how each party views 'value'. Just don't spend too long in each others communities or the problem of property will rear its head and cause an irreconcilable rift.

 

Finally, be aware that the definition of anarchism as understood by this community is not the generally accepted view of anarchism, so if you ever do immerse yourself in a gathering of anarchists, even online, you're likely to be the minority sub-group within the already political minority that anarchists are considered.

[thelion]

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists by Murray Rothbard (1970)

 

Couldn't have said it better than Rothbard. He said all that can be said on the topic.

 

Anarchistcommunists hate anarchistcapitalists more than they hate anything else, and argue on economic topics primarily via slanders and insults. I remember a typical piece of anarchocommunist or anarchosyndicalist nonsense on Boing-Boing. (Almost all the tech people who are not themselves highly educated engineers---the pop-tech people---are anarchosyndicalists. Which is a shame, but so are many other things.)

 

It's the reason why Charles Stross or Cory Doctorow, for example, aren't and is unlikely to become, as good a writers as Vogt or Heinlein or Vance; to write science fiction you need more knowledge of economics than you do of physical science.