Pondering...

[MilitantAnarchist]

I've been pondering things I’ve previously discussed, and although i stand by my political statement, i have a brief idea of a 'necessary evil' called government some people have talked about, and is this what you mean by Anarcho Communism:-
There is no 'essential' government, but is a 'non-compulsory' state of individuals who are the people. There are rules, but can be ignored if they compromise a persons autonomy, and these laws are enforced by a 'workers militia'. When it comes to the economy it is run in a 'socialist' sort of way, i.e the profits goes to workers and not fat cats?
Now i accept this as a beautiful ideal (to quote the wonderful Emma Goldman), but i do have one or two criticisms of this. For one; Who appoints the 'necessary evil' and who watches them to make sure they aren't corrupt?
Who decides where to draw the line on a persons autonomy? How i see it would be 'against the rules' (so to speak) when what you do stops another persons autonomy e.g rape, assault, murder ext, but what in cases where there is an explanation? Say i was to stab one of this 'workers militia' because he was harsh, or racist, or violent to someone, and in anger i killed or harmed him? Even though he possibly deserved it, who decides if i was right or wrong? The workers militia? that would be unfair wouldn’t it? (sorry to use extremes, i am just using them as loose examples, not those actual crimes, if you understand)
And also, what if people don’t want to live this way? What do we do with them? What if they oppose us? Its their right because they also have autonomy.
And most importantly, i have no faith in the masses (neither did Emma Goldman or Alexander Berkman after the failed attentat). The masses are happy and sedate by capitalism, through bills/debt/television/consumerism/ and the benefit system, they are happy with what they have... Plus you have plain old greedy human nature to combat. And to quote Emma once again, i wouldn’t want a revolution i couldn’t dance to.
Answers? Questions?

[Sean]

Moved to learning.

[MilitantAnarchist]

cheers mate, no one ever reads em in the learning bit.

[Sprocket Hole]

Hmm... Well I will try to tackle this to the best of my ability.

i.e the profits goes to workers and not fat cats?
There would be no profits, and no money. No class, so therefore no fatcats. Everything would belong to the community.


For one; Who appoints the 'necessary evil' and who watches them to make sure they aren't corrupt?
Nobody would be "appointed" to rule. There are proposals in An/Communism to form loose federation that work on a bottom-up power structure. A community would be in full control of itself, but for desisions on a larger demograph, communities would delegate people to speak for them. The differance between a Delegate and a representative, is that if the delegate does not fulfill his responsibility he can be called back at any time. These large communes or councils would mainly serve to see that desisions follow through, they wouldn't hold any power. No one person would be able to be a delegate for too long, it would rotate (only for people who volunter). (this would be the same for the militia)


How i see it would be 'against the rules' (so to speak) when what you do stops another persons autonomy e.g rape, assault, murder ext, but what in cases where there is an explanation? Say i was to stab one of this 'workers militia' because he was harsh, or racist, or violent to someone, and in anger i killed or harmed him? Even though he possibly deserved it, who decides if i was right or wrong? The workers militia? that would be unfair wouldn’t it?
This would be desided by the community, or the commune.


And also, what if people don’t want to live this way? What do we do with them? What if they oppose us? Its their right because they also have autonomy.
If they do not wish to live a certian way, they do not have to, they could leave the community. If they where to violantly oppose the community, the militia would defend it.


Plus you have plain old greedy human nature to combat.
Meaningless. There is no human nature, only human behavior that mimics the institutions of the society said human is in.

I'll add some more later

[Dóchas]

Who appoints the 'necessary evil' and who watches them to make sure they aren't corrupt?



what do you mean by this? like a council or something? if it is well then i think it will be formed of either some of the more revolutionary learned people or just average people. it owuld be changed periodically so that everyone can have their say



Who decides where to draw the line on a persons autonomy?


the council i guess but its made up of pretty much everyone so the poeple decide



Say i was to stab one of this 'workers militia' because he was harsh, or racist, or violent to someone, and in anger i killed or harmed him? Even though he possibly deserved it, who decides if i was right or wrong? The workers militia? that would be unfair wouldn’t it? (sorry to use extremes, i am just using them as loose examples, not those actual crimes, if you understand)



a bit hypothetical dont you think? but every case is different so the actions decided will vary from case to case



And also, what if people don’t want to live this way?


well the in ABC of Anarchism alexander berkman advices that we rehabilitate them by making them live in an anarchist community/commune. they wont be able to survive on their own so they will have to acept the conditions they are forced to live in to survive. i supose over time they will learn to put up with the lifestyle if they still dont want to live in it

im sure people will correct me and build on what i have said as i to am still learning :)

[MilitantAnarchist]

Great explanation by the way, but a few points


There would be no profits, and no money. No class, so therefore no fatcats. Everything would belong to the community.



So Anarcho-Communism abolishes all money?



Nobody would be "appointed" to rule. There are proposals in An/Communism to form loose federation that work on a bottom-up power structure. A community would be in full control of itself, but for desisions on a larger demograph, communities would delegate people to speak for them. The differance between a Delegate and a representative, is that if the delegate does not fulfill his responsibility he can be called back at any time. These large communes or councils would mainly serve to see that desisions follow through, they wouldn't hold any power. No one person would be able to be a delegate for too long, it would rotate (only for people who volunter). (this would be the same for the militia)


How would that be practical? Good idea, but i cant see how it would work. There will be people at the top, no matter how hard you try to fight it. If there is a position of power availiable, even though it technically isnt 'power' how we want it to be, it will create divisions in the community because technically, now in our day and age anyone can run for their local council, but they never do.


This would be desided by the community, or the commune.



Sounds good, but what if their is conflicting interests? Vote? Then a section of the people will be unhappy with the decision wont they?



If they do not wish to live a certian way, they do not have to, they could leave the community. If they where to violantly oppose the community, the militia would defend it.



But where would they go? If we're living in a Anarcho Communist country, what do we say, leave the country then? (not saying there would be a 'country' because i dont beleive in borders, but you no what i meen). I just mean if they are not happy with the way it is, if they want the old capitalist regime? They are just unhappy...


Meaningless. There is no human nature, only human behavior that mimics the institutions of the society said human is in.

Agreed, but power corrupts.. and if it where to change tomorrow, the inistitutions of today would still be in everyones mind, it would take a while for the masses to get accustomed to the new society....

Sorry to be a twat about this stuff, but these are all my issues and how it could bite the majority on the arse...
Will add my alternative in a moment :tt2:

[Sprocket Hole]

what do you mean by this? like a council or something? if it is well then i think it will be formed of either some of the more revolutionary learned people or just average people. it owuld be changed periodically so that everyone can have their say


Most definitely not "more revolutionary learned people" if where talking about an anarchist society. Regardless of revolutionary knowledge, people living within a community are more than capable of deciding the fate of the said community.

Other than that, I'd say everything else you added was about spot on.

[Sprocket Hole]

Great explanation by the way, but a few points
So Anarcho-Communism abolishes all money?

Yes.


How would that be practical? Good idea, but i cant see how it would work. There will be people at the top, no matter how hard you try to fight it. If there is a position of power availiable, even though it technically isnt 'power' how we want it to be, it will create divisions in the community because technically, now in our day and age anyone can run for their local council, but they never do.There would be no power. Hypothetically if one in a delegated council refuses to leave, mind you it would be an anarchist society, they would be forcefully removed.




Sounds good, but what if their is conflicting interests? Vote? Then a section of the people will be unhappy with the decision wont they?Look up "Consensus Decision Making"





But where would they go? If we're living in a Anarcho Communist country, what do we say, leave the country then? (not saying there would be a 'country' because i dont beleive in borders, but you no what i meen). I just mean if they are not happy with the way it is, if they want the old capitalist regime? They are just unhappy...Rise as Ones's point was good. Though, if the person could not be rehabilitated, and the majority does not want capitalism back, I could see them being exiled. But there would be no need for capitalism, everyones needs would be met.




Agreed, but power corrupts.. and if it where to change tomorrow, the inistitutions of today would still be in everyones mind, it would take a while for the masses to get accustomed to the new society....Great point! Yes, todays institutions and values are in all of us. My own goal as a revolutionary is to liberate my mind of these values and teach others to do the same. Also to form autonomous working class communities that are free from these institutions. Understand?

I was about to raise another point but my thoughts are a bit scattered right now.
I wouldn't say I'm highly learned on the subject, so I am interested in what others have to say.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Also, how do we acheive Anarcho Communism? you cant achieve it through revolution without full support of the people. And voteing it in would be hypocritical wouldnt it? And even if we did win the vote, the current government would never let it be known because all the other parties would fix it.
And if we were to go down the voteing route, then you couldnt call it 'anarcho communism' it would have to be named something else, surely?
I know what people calle 'true communism' has never been practiced, but it was intended to be... so who says anarcho communism wont go down the same road?

[nuisance]

I hope I am not stepping on your toes posting this, Sprockethole.



So Anarcho-Communism abolishes all money?
Communism is the result of the abolition of a monteary system, so yes. Goods will be produced according to need and surplus can be claimed by interest groups and individuals for various activities.


How would that be practical? Good idea, but i cant see how it would work. There will be people at the top, no matter how hard you try to fight it. If there is a position of power availiable, even though it technically isnt 'power' how we want it to be, it will create divisions in the community because technically, now in our day and age anyone can run for their local council, but they never do.
No one will be 'at the top' because there will be no top as federalism is based upon horizontal organisation. Delegation is used because it is practical to nominate someone to present the agreed/majority position of the area being represented.
There is also no point in comparing todays people and society to that of an anarchist-communist one, because the general class persona has to undertake a change- becoming conciousness of itself and interests before revolution is possible. Another point is that council will not be akin to that of the ones in a representative democracy. Councils will not be made up of unaccountable members but of delegations from community assemblies and the such.


Sounds good, but what if their is conflicting interests? Vote? Then a section of the people will be unhappy with the decision wont they?
We can't, for obvious reasons, say for definate what a anarchist-communist society would look like because it will be created by the workers and not a vanguard of anarchists laying out the organs of the revoluntionised society. However agreements will have to be made by the communities or the outcome be based upon a vote- for example 2/3 majority.


But where would they go? If we're living in a Anarcho Communist country, what do we say, leave the country then? (not saying there would be a 'country' because i dont beleive in borders, but you no what i meen). I just mean if they are not happy with the way it is, if they want the old capitalist regime? They are just unhappy...
Anarchist-communism is a voluntary society and cannot exist without people wanting it. If a person would like to leave then that they can. Perhaps the society will provide the means to get them started living upon their own or maybe they won't. That is down to the community or any sympathetic people willing to help them on their way.


Agreed, but power corrupts.. and if it where to change tomorrow, the inistitutions of today would still be in everyones mind, it would take a while for the masses to get accustomed to the new society....
Class conciousness is necessary for revolution. This will mean a massive upheavel in the mentality of the working class for it to be successful. Libertarian frameworks will arise during this fight for liberation that will go on to the forefront of the reshaping of the world. But yes, remains of the previous capitalist age will perhaps take a few generations to leave humanity, as Sprockethole said we are products of society and the institutions it is comprised of. To put it simply, free voluntary associations will produced free people.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Sound, i get it, but this will sound trivial, but life is trivial, so all booze and fags are free??? or do i get a small amount to last? things like that, its the small things that could fuckin wreck it?
Also, what about people who dont want to work? I know many people (wouldnt call them friends, more associates) who dont work and are happy with gettin dole money or watever benefits they might get... they get rent paid for, tax paid for, and have just enough to go on the piss n get food, and get gas and electric topped up, just getting by.... What do we do with people who dont want to work in the communities?
And i know alot of people who do work, and they hate these people for doing this, even tho they just get by too.....

[nuisance]

Sound, i get it, but this will sound trivial, but life is trivial, so all booze and fags are free??? or do i get a small amount to last? things like that, its the small things that could fuckin wreck it?
Yes, they will be free. The production would be done to consumption levels and other problems/situations that could arise from it. It is also the belief of many anarchists etc that the intake of alcohol, fags and drugs will actually decrease due to the cosumption of such things are down to the alienation and need for escape that the average person feels in capitalist society.


Also, what about people who dont want to work? I know many people (wouldnt call them friends, more associates) who dont work and are happy with gettin dole money or watever benefits they might get... they get rent paid for, tax paid for, and have just enough to go on the piss n get food, and get gas and electric topped up, just getting by.... What do we do with people who dont want to work in the communities?
These people are and will be in the minority hence it is not such of a problem. It is of no surprise that people don't want to work in modern day society where your labour is being sapped by the property owning classes opposed to you being able to reap the full fruits of your labour for yourself and your own. Work will be restructured as it will be for greater good of society and you will see direct improvements to your own living standards from your/and the society as awholes input. Work hours will also be dramatically cut due to goods being produced to need, opposed to modern overproduction. The labour force would also greatly increase due to unnecessary jobs being abolished.
However if afterall of this some do not want to work, they will either be put up with or asked to leave based on the feelings of the population concerned.

[Sean]

Noone can be forced into living in a commune. If you don't want to work fine, but you'd have to figure out some way of paying in exchange for the benefits your neighbours have.

Actually, heres a nice FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html) from infoshop.org that answers lots of questions about what an anarchist society would operate. Maybe not definitive, but its a good start.:)

[Sprocket Hole]

Also, how do we acheive Anarcho Communism? you cant achieve it through revolution without full support of the people. And voteing it in would be hypocritical wouldnt it? And even if we did win the vote, the current government would never let it be known because all the other parties would fix it.
And if we were to go down the voteing route, then you couldnt call it 'anarcho communism' it would have to be named something else, surely?
I know what people calle 'true communism' has never been practiced, but it was intended to be... so who says anarcho communism wont go down the same road?
Well, I am consider myself an Insurrectionary Anarchist as will as an Anarchist Communist, so I can give you my ideas on getting there. I believe in creating class consciousness and building autonomous communities, meaning a material social force. In the event of general disapproval of the current system, these communities would be ready to turn a riot into insurrection.

True communism has been in practise and in some places already is.

Oh, and no anarchist would ever recommend voting as a way towards social change. Except maybe a liberal who calls themself an anarchist:rolleyes:


Sound, i get it, but this will sound trivial, but life is trivial, so all booze and fags are free??? or do i get a small amount to last? things like that, its the small things that could fuckin wreck it?
Also, what about people who dont want to work? I know many people (wouldnt call them friends, more associates) who dont work and are happy with gettin dole money or watever benefits they might get... they get rent paid for, tax paid for, and have just enough to go on the piss n get food, and get gas and electric topped up, just getting by.... What do we do with people who dont want to work in the communities?
And i know alot of people who do work, and they hate these people for doing this, even tho they just get by too.....

My, my your concerns are trivial. Basically, you get what you need and you put in what you can, in other words "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

I can't beleieve I hadnt reccomened the Anarchist FAQ before Sean did! Check it out!

@Organize!
No worries, your defenetly not :)

[MilitantAnarchist]

i understand all this, and thanks for your input... but how does any of this make me completely free to my own devices? How can you be free with rules?
What i propose (is already happening) is creating our own communities, preferably in one place, and expanded, and have other communes throughout the UK. We would be 100% self sufficient and we ask for NOTHING off the state, and we give them nothing. We tell them not to intefere with our way of life, and we oppose them until they leave us alone, which they will if their is enough of us. And we have the technology to be self sufficient now, it isnt like we have to live with no indoor plumbing or electic. It is very utopian i know, but it is happening in very small numbers, the squatting scene is still quite active and has anarchist numbers. Then, if that happens, we have NO RULES, NO RULERS and have achieved complete ANARCHY.

[Sean]

"No rules" has nothing to do with anarchy. This is a fundamental point that needs to be stressed. There must always be some kind of rules for interaction within any community, hell, even between two people. No kind of trade or cohabitation can happen fairly between people unless there is a general concensus of some kind. The difference is that rules are not imposed by some state but by the people living in a commune. If you don't agree to the rules you can either persuade people to change your living agreement or not participate.

[MilitantAnarchist]

"No rules" has nothing to do with anarchy. This is a fundamental point that needs to be stressed. There must always be some kind of rules for interaction within any community, hell, even between two people. No kind of trade or cohabitation can happen fairly between people unless there is a general concensus of some kind. The difference is that rules are not imposed by some state but by the people living in a commune. If you don't agree to the rules you can either persuade people to change your living agreement or not participate.

I agree to an certain extent, but that is basically all pointless then... if theres rules, then the community is the rulers? And if you disagree and you dont fit in that community, then what? You move out to a commune where you do fit? Then we have segregation dont we?
That could work out alright, but i still dont fully trust this...

Surely someone here can understand my worries?

[nuisance]

i understand all this, and thanks for your input... but how does any of this make me completely free to my own devices? How can you be free with rules?
What rules? Rules in the type of society we talk about are only to prevent someone interfering with anothers liberty. These rules will be created and acted upon by those whom accept them.


What i propose (is already happening) is creating our own communities, preferably in one place, and expanded, and have other communes throughout the UK. We would be 100% self sufficient and we ask for NOTHING off the state, and we give them nothing. We tell them not to intefere with our way of life, and we oppose them until they leave us alone, which they will if their is enough of us.
You have the technology that would produces sufficient living standards to make people actually want to opt out? What about material goods we want and food? The reason we need to sell our labour is because the capitalists have what we need in the form of capital.
The State could quash such communities, espically easily if they are concentrated in one place. Also these initivatives would take time grow.
Christiania in Denmark is proof that it is possible to create large concentrated squatted community, however also shows that it is not revolutionary nor sustainable on the scale you advocate without expropriating the means of production.


And we have the technology to be self sufficient now, it isnt like we have to live with no indoor plumbing or electic. It is very utopian i know, but it is happening in very small numbers, the squatting scene is still quite active and has anarchist numbers. Then, if that happens, we have NO RULES, NO RULERS and have achieved complete ANARCHY.
Complete anarchy in opposition to what other form of anarchy?

[Sean]

I agree to an certain extent, but that is basically all pointless then... if theres rules, then the community is the rulers? And if you disagree and you dont fit in that community, then what? You move out to a commune where you do fit? Then we have segregation dont we?
That could work out alright, but i still dont fully trust this...

Surely someone here can understand my worries?
You're talking about "the tyranny of the majority" (although originally used to talk about the minority being the wealthy, it also fits here). What happens if the fucking Westbro Baptist Church are my nearest neighbours and they win every vote? Then you interact with them as little as possible and don't fully intergrate into a commune with them. While crime and ignorant behaviour is generally looked upon through rose tinted glasses as something that is caused purely by big bad capitalism and the church, people will continue to be dicks, yes. However, in communal living simply out of necessity people will be more open minded and ready to compromise and adapt. If you don't like their rules, fuck em, only go near them if you want to exchange something.

[MilitantAnarchist]

What about material goods we want and food?
We grow our food, and make our own entertainmen....


Complete anarchy is opposition to what other form of anarchy?
One where we are told what to do or made to feel obliged to do somthing because of the majority disagree with it...
Im probibly just being awkward towards things, because there is plenty of things wrong with everything... and probibly anarcho communism is the best way.... but what about the masses? Do you seriously trust them? Ones that arent like you and me and actively support the system we have in place now?

[Sprocket Hole]

So your only problem is rules? You want to live in a society where there is no organisation or rules?
If I understand correctly, it is within a person's autonomy to murder another person, no matter how absurd the reasoning behind it?

You can combat the fundamental ideas of anarchy all you want, but it is what it is, and people here are just trying to explain it to you.

It seems like anarchism was not what you had in mind, no?

Your making a huge deal out of something completely reasonable: an alternate way to organise society, and certain consensus reached ground rules for human interaction!

Anarchism is an alternative way to society, not a plan to destroy it. It is about puting communities in control of itself, rather than the state in control of it.

It just seems like every time your questions are answered, you raise the same problem with rules you have.

[nuisance]

We grow our food, and make our own entertainmen....
That may be fine for you and others but that isn't enough to create such a swing in society necessary to implement libertarian frameworks.



One where we are told what to do or made to feel obliged to do somthing because of the majority disagree with it...
Then don't, it is voluntary. Rules will be minimal, for example commonsensical things like no interfereing with others because you feel like it. This wouldn't necessarily be written down but it should be acknowlegded that if you harm someones liberty with no valid justification then you can expect measures may be taken, not necessarily punishment.


Im probibly just being awkward towards things, because there is plenty of things wrong with everything... and probibly anarcho communism is the best way.... but what about the masses? Do you seriously trust them? Ones that arent like you and me and actively support the system we have in place now?
It is in my interests that the workers mobilise in masses to bring about a free communist society. I may not trust the masses actions in the terms of modern day society but I can recongise that they, like myself, are merely products of their materials surroundings. Human behaviour can change and be altered according to the circumsrances we find ourselves in. Perceptions will not change unless shown a viable alternative. We have all gone under massive amounts of conditioning, however this can be broken down. Are we here honestly the only ones capable of such thought? No. It iis up to the more concious sections of society to agitate the rest of our class.
We can see that in times of revolutionary struggle workers have created councils and implemented workers self-management. It has shown to be the logical step for workers to take- this of course before/while resisting various middle class bolshevik loonies.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Its not really... well yea, partly it is rules i have a problem with, but its just at every turn someone trys to control me (no im not paranoid). I dont think people should murder people, i beleive aslong as your not ruining someone elses autonomy then its ok, if you understand?
But that is me, as the other guy said just ignore them... which i do now... but then they will have power, because they will be in control.... so all the people now who treat me like shit and do try and control me, will then have the 'majority' power over me.... do you see what i meen?
Its not that i dont want it [anarcho communism], its that i dont trust the masses.... that is my main issue

[nuisance]

What rules, in an anarchist communist society, could possibly be used to infringe upon your autonomy?

[MilitantAnarchist]

What rules, in an anarchist communist society, could possibly be used to infringe upon your autonomy?

If the community make the rules, then what if they made a rule saying no tattoos on hands, face or neck? or (as i have been told) no 'outrageous' haircuts... or no smoking indoors? or no sex in public (i no i no)? or whatever???? if everyone is telling me not to do things (plus more) then i would be personally worse off wouldnt i?

[nuisance]

If the community make the rules, then what if they made a rule saying no tattoos on hands, face or neck? or (as i have been told) no 'outrageous' haircuts... or no smoking indoors? or no sex in public (i no i no)? or whatever???? if everyone is telling me not to do things (plus more) then i would be personally worse off wouldnt i?
It wouldn't be an anarchist society if such rules were made because it would interfere with one of them main tennats of anarchism. In such a society, as has been said, the rules would only be to do with the interferance of someones liberty.

[Sean]

If the community make the rules, then what if they made a rule saying no tattoos on hands, face or neck? or (as i have been told) no 'outrageous' haircuts... or no smoking indoors? or no sex in public (i no i no)? or whatever???? if everyone is telling me not to do things (plus more) then i would be personally worse off wouldnt i?
You're part of everyone, you get to make the rules too. Setting aside that most of those rules are bullshit made up by the state for large businesses with disposable people and not communes where each person actually has an integral role to play, how would you deal with a flatmate that you share rent with imposing a smoking ban? I'm pretty sure that in a situation where he/she didn't have other people beating down the door to live there ie capitalism, they would be forced to compromise with you, adapt to you or suffer the burden of everything by themselves.

[Sprocket Hole]

If the community make the rules, then what if they made a rule saying no tattoos on hands, face or neck? or (as i have been told) no 'outrageous' haircuts... or no smoking indoors? or no sex in public (i no i no)? or whatever???? if everyone is telling me not to do things (plus more) then i would be personally worse off wouldnt i?

Organize! just explained the answer to that concern quite nicely
Right here:

Then don't, it is voluntary. Rules will be minimal, for example commonsensical things like no interfereing with others because you feel like it. This wouldn't necessarily be written down but it should be acknowlegded that if you harm someones liberty with no valid justification then you can expect measures may be taken, not necessarily punishment.
And Personally, I wouldn't advocate a majority rules democracy, at least not for a commune, like I said earlier, look up Consensus Decision Making.

[Sean]

Calm down Sprocket Hole, this is Learning and (for once!) MA hasn't said anything inflamatory enough to warrant that kind of reaction. Lets keep it civil.:)

[Sprocket Hole]

Sorry, got aggravated. Post edited. :)

[Jack]

It wouldn't be an anarchist society if such rules were made because it would interfere with one of them main tennats of anarchism. In such a society, as has been said, the rules would only be to do with the interferance of someones liberty.

What about my freedom to live in a community without drugs or offensive behavior? Shouldn't that have a role?

[Sprocket Hole]

What about my freedom to live in a community without drugs or offensive behavior? Shouldn't that have a role?

Offensive behaviour sure (even thought its unrealistic to think that people will stop being offensive every now and then in an anarchist society), but what about my freedom to not be told what I can and cannot do to my body, so long as I am not harming the community?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Militant Anarchist. I am glad you made this thread. I knew you were adverse to Communism before so I'm glad you now want to learn about Anarcho Communism. As I think you have already discovered this IS Anarchism. You said you were worried about rules in such a society but these are not as we have them today: Enforced by an external illegitimate police force and state. They would be implemented by the community. Each communities rules would be unique and be purely voluntary.

[nuisance]

What about my freedom to live in a community without drugs or offensive behavior? Shouldn't that have a role?
Get a clue, mate.
It has been repeatably stated that rules shall only be enacted when someones freedom is interfered with by another. As long as someones drug intake does not lead to massivly adverse actions, then what should it bother you?

[Dóchas]

Most definitely not "more revolutionary learned people" if where talking about an anarchist society. Regardless of revolutionary knowledge, people living within a community are more than capable of deciding the fate of the said community.

Other than that, I'd say everything else you added was about spot on.

ye i wasnt to sure myself when i was typing that i think im mixing up a couple of books i read!! :o

[MilitantAnarchist]

So basically, no matter what there will always be rules in life and Anarcho Communism is the best of the bunch...
Or my only other option is to live in a commune out in the country with a bunch of hippies, tend to the vegetables, and smoke terrible home grown pot for the rest of my life?
Ah well.... Second is easier, but first is worth the fight i guess... Im still not convinced it could work.... does anyone have any other political theories that are worth a mention?

[Rjevan]

Yes, "pure" communsim. ;)

[Tjis]

If the community make the rules, then what if they made a rule saying no tattoos on hands, face or neck? or (as i have been told) no 'outrageous' haircuts... or no smoking indoors? or no sex in public (i no i no)? or whatever???? if everyone is telling me not to do things (plus more) then i would be personally worse off wouldnt i?
Others have given good answers to this question, but I felt like giving my opinions here too.
I believe majority rule is evil and should be avoided at all costs. Instead, there should always be a consensus about everything that is decided. Always.

But of course, we don't always agree on things. I recognise that if we had to agree on everything, we'd spend more time talking and less time doing stuff. In these cases things might better be decided by a majority vote after sufficient discussion. There's one important rule to this though: any decision made by such vote can only be binding by those that said that they'd accept the outcome. So then we still have consensus, since even the people that disagreed with the outcome still accept it.

So what about the people that don't accept the outcome? Obviously the decision just made can't force them to do or not do anything. However, the rest of the community doesn't have to accept that.
A simple example: Say you share a house with a few others. You guys create a timetable saying who should clean what when. However, you don't agree with this timetable, saying you don't want to clean anything, even though you will use the shower, toilet and kitchen. Your house mates have every right then to deny you the right to use any of those. If you really don't want to clean, you'll have to find another house where they might put up with this silliness.
The same applies on a larger scale. If you do want to eat, but don't want to work, the people that do work have every right to deny you access to food. Whether they will or will not provide you with food will depend on the community in question. If you don't like it, the only option would be finding another community with different rules.

So about your example about weird haircuts, even if lots of people hate weird haircuts, it's impossible to actually forbid anyone from getting one. No majority vote is going to change that, unless the owner of the silly haircut decides to accept the outcome. Of course, if the community really really hates your haircut, they could decide they no longer wish to work with you and stop supporting you. It might be harsh, but the opposite would be far worse: anyone would be able to destroy, rape and murder everything and everyone and still the community would be forced to support them. Anyway not to worry, I doubt any community would ever ditch you over a haircut.

So, long story short I believe a free society should be based on consensus-based decision making and free agreements. Nobody should be able to decide anything for you without your consent, and nobody should ever be forced to work with anyone.

[Black Dagger]

Small gripe...


And most importantly, i have no faith in the masses (neither did Emma Goldman or Alexander Berkman after the failed attentat).

Not sure what gave you that idea.

The failed attentat did not cause either party to lose faith in the masses but rather in propaganda by the deed as a revolutionary tactic (though Goldman nevertheless defended Berkman's actions and sentiment). Goldman's fervor for the revolutionary efforts of the Spanish people (as opposed to their political leaders) is a prime example of her so-called 'faith in the masses' - she never lost that.

[Sort It Out Frosty]

Get a clue, mate.
It has been repeatably stated that rules shall only be enacted when someones freedom is interfered with by another. As long as someones drug intake does not lead to massivly adverse actions, then what should it bother you?

An it harm none, do what ye will.

Fucking obvious innit?

[#FF0000]

I want to point out something, real quick.

The "anarchist militia" is not some body that is separate from the workers in the commune. That's actually exactly what it is. Someone in the militia doesn't have any sort of special status, necessarily. They're just people with guns who volunteered to defend the commune.