Abolishment of Enacted Law.. Wait.. What?

[The Man]

Peter Kropotkin, I know, talked a bit about the abolishment of "Enacted Law".. How would this possibly work in an Anarchist-Communist society if we were to enforce Communism? How would we hold up a communist system without Enacted Law?

[William Howe]

It's a pretty big contradiction. Personally, I don't think there's any way to mix Communism and Anarchism. Not to say Anarchism is a bad thing, but there can't really be, in theory, 'Anarcho-Communism'.

Communism requires re-distribution of the wealth, which almost always requires a mediating communist party to do so, since, if no authority imposed, the people would just take everything they wanted and fight, steal, etc. to gain more.

This party serves as an authority, or government, which clearly goes against Anarchist ideas.

[The Man]

It's a pretty big contradiction. Personally, I don't think there's any way to mix Communism and Anarchism. Not to say Anarchism is a bad thing, but there can't really be, in theory, 'Anarcho-Communism'.

Communism requires re-distribution of the wealth, which almost always requires a mediating communist party to do so, since, if no authority imposed, the people would just take everything they wanted and fight, steal, etc. to gain more.

This party serves as an authority, or government, which clearly goes against Anarchist ideas.

http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/facepalm.jpg

[Magón]

It's a pretty big contradiction. Personally, I don't think there's any way to mix Communism and Anarchism. Not to say Anarchism is a bad thing, but there can't really be, in theory, 'Anarcho-Communism'.

Communism requires re-distribution of the wealth, which almost always requires a mediating communist party to do so, since, if no authority imposed, the people would just take everything they wanted and fight, steal, etc. to gain more.

This party serves as an authority, or government, which clearly goes against Anarchist ideas.

:confused:

You really don't know anything about Anarchism do you? From what you just said, you're following the logic of a Right-Wing Tea Partier, or worse.

For one, Anarchism can go with Communism, since Anarchism is only a means, like Trotskyism, or other Marxist theories, to reach Communism. Communism is the end goal for all of us, but the various theories are just theories on how to achieve it.

Another "point" in your ridiculous post, is in Anarchism, there is not government or means to keep the peace. Anarchism(ists) are against hierarchal ways of authority, but realize that government doesn't have to be hierarchal, or authoritarian to get things done like other theories say. Your logic of people would take what they wanted, fight, steal, etc. is ridiculous, and has been said countless times by Anarchists, that just isn't true.

Maybe read up on Anarchism before you post such ridiculous accusations and idiocy.

[Victus Mortuum]

Enacted laws are different than local explicit contracts of community self-defense

[The Man]

Enacted laws are different than local explicit contracts of community self-defense



Define 'Local Explicit Contracts of Community Self-defense' Im not sure what that is.

[Widerstand]

It's a pretty big contradiction. Personally, I don't think there's any way to mix Communism and Anarchism. Not to say Anarchism is a bad thing, but there can't really be, in theory, 'Anarcho-Communism'.

Communism requires re-distribution of the wealth, which almost always requires a mediating communist party to do so, since, if no authority imposed, the people would just take everything they wanted and fight, steal, etc. to gain more.

This party serves as an authority, or government, which clearly goes against Anarchist ideas.

You should read some Malatesta (an Anarcho-Communist), his works are really short by the way, especially what he has to say on Revolutionary Organisation and the relationship of Anarchism and Violence.

He by all means rejects the notion that there could be such a thing as a "self-organized" society during or immediately following revolution, and he clearly states that models for the organization of supply of vital resources such as food, water, electricity, etc. must be, from day zero, provided by the revolutionary forces (Anarchists), or someone else (a counterrevolutionary force) will. However he also stresses that these models may not be forced upon the workers through (threat of) violence.

[sologdin]

my understanding is that kropotkin would abolish legislation, but not customary law.

and the latter is likely to include the law of contract, as noted upthread.

that said, there would still need to be some mechanism for the enforcement of private agreements. we think of such things as the judiciary, as maintained by the state. perhaps there is some other way to do it (as we have public and private arbitration and mediation bodies now).

i also understand that kropotkin declines to abolish common law, as in english-based rules of decision developed by the bench.

from a legal perspective, it's not a very large difference--a rule of decision is a rule of decision, and statutes are always mediated by the judiciary (no matter how much the rightwing complains about "judicial activism," all judges "make law"--that's their job).

perhaps the only significant distinction is that a lack of centralized statute to provide guidance would allow large disparities to develop in the outcomes of similar cases in different locales, depending on the jurisprudence deployed by the local magsitrate. this is something that occurred in US criminal sentencing prior to the entrance of the sentencing guidelines, which provided for a centralized control on local judicial discretion (and allowed for some forms of race discrimination by judges to be diminished--but not all, of course, and it had no effect on race discrimination carried out by legislatures, prosecutors, witnesses, jurors, and incarcerators). that the sentencing guidelines have recently been found unconstitutional is not perhaps a victory for progress--though an important US constitutional right was thereby temporarily vindicated.