Communism and the Use of Force

[SidBh]

Suppose an Anarcho-Communist government comes to power, wouldn't force be required to take away property rights and personal wealth. What if people still want to hold on to property and have a personal fortune? If there is no dictatorship, would there be some force or group outside the State which would redistribute the wealth by taking away people's right to private property and wealth by the use of force? And finally is Force required to establish an Anarcho-Communist system, because without Force (and sometimes violence) people might not want to give up their individual wealth and personal/private possessions (property,land, etc.)

[Rooster]

An anarcho-communist government?

Anyway, if the mass of workers revolted then the process of capital accumulation would stop and cease to function. Capital can only exist when there is wage labour and once you no longer have any wage labourers then capital will no longer function. A capitalist may not want to give up his factory but they won't be able to do anything about it if the work force refuses to work for him. What's one capitalist going to do in the face of 50, 100, 500, 1000 or more workers? Nothing.

[SidBh]

[QUOTE=rooster;2271803]An anarcho-communist government?

Maybe Anarcho-Communist "system" is the correct word? I meant a situation where the Anarcho-Communists come to power. In Stalinist Communism or any authoritarian form of Communism, the question of Force is obvious (i.e. they have power, they can do anything), but my question is directed toward the anti-authoritarian or anarchist form of "system" which is Stateless.

[Void]

Communism is a stage where "new man" is created who does not need private property in the meaning we understand today. "New man" has such a quality that the inner consciousness of him makes him getting disgusted of values of pre-communist world instead of having lust for gold and personal property and hedonism of that "new man" is going to enjoy science, sports, arts in any kind etc. Any person who has lust or greed will be made fun of and he is going to feel ashamed of his behaviours. In capitalist thinking rich people with big villas and famous people get respect, in communism such values are not going to exist not by force but the way of thinking will be like that. No force will be needed, shame will be the best inner force.

We can not %100 describe the "new man" neither have %100 image of him in mind, it may take centuries to get such consciousness in homo-sapiens but we hope for it.

Socialist states are going to have the duty for this education in order to create new man. And in a true revolution all rich of today will be dispossessed by force after offering them to dispossess themselves and join leftist thinking and aim of communism( in most cases they are going to send some hounds, cyborgs or collaborators but they are all going to be overwhelmed by the might of people ). Force may be required against the insisting. Finally socialist laws must restrict private property and aim to remove it gradually and this process should simultaneously take part with communist education so that the reasons of removing private property must be clear...

[Ose]

Suppose an Anarcho-Communist government comes to power,OK, as long as by government you mean working class self-organisation and by power you mean the power to administer society and the economy as best serves our own collective ends.


wouldn't force be required to take away property rights and personal wealth.Yes.


What if people still want to hold on to property and have a personal fortune?There's no 'what if' about it. They certainly would, they're called the bourgeoisie and they are the class enemy.


If there is no dictatorship, would there be some force or group outside the State [system?] which would redistribute the wealth by taking away people's right to private property and wealth by the use of force?Wealth in the sense of money would become useless. The mass movement would involve the seizure (by force whenever necessary) of land and means of production. Also what rooster said.


And finally is Force required to establish an Anarcho-Communist system, because without Force (and sometimes violence) people might not want to give up their individual wealth and personal/private possessions (property,land, etc.)Yes. You don't overthrow the state and expropriate the ruling class without force.

[Hivemind]

There's no such thing as an anarcho-communist state, nor would there be people "in power", so I don't see what you're asking.

[Ravachol]

I don't see how the use of force to expropriate the bourgeoisie is a problem at all? The capitalist system relies on force (in greater and lesser quantities) on a daily basis, it relies on force to establish itself (the process of primitive accumulation) and it relies on force to guarantee the status quo. There is no such thing as 'zero level violence', some supposed placid peaceful state disturbed by the violence of expropriation. The very functioning of capital, the threat of "wage-labour or starvation", is force. In fact, force is the ultimate authority from which all other authority derives.

It is as such that anti-authoritarianism isn't opposed to force and the derived 'authority', it merely seeks to construct a use of force that is 'centrifugal' as Pierre Clastres would term it. A use of force that does not result in the accumulation and/or centralisation of power but, in fact, disperses it.

[hatzel]

I cannot even begin to explain how much I disagree with Void. We're not supposed to be talking about this quasi-Biblical 'Fall of Man' that the glorious communist system will rectify, by 'eradicating' or otherwise 'curing' man's sinful desires. Fuck that shit, and fuck that outright indoctrination (seriously? We're supposed to 'educate' people to be better, that is to say, better suited to the little system we've thought up for them? Not if I've got anything to do with it) And fuck all that 'greedy people will be mocked, and that's how society will function.' A society based on morality? The morality we've come up with? Not on your nelly, sonny Jim! If communism means we can't be as greedy or as lazy or as lustful as we want, without moralists coming in and spoiling the party, then fuck communism. We'll need a better system.

[Psy]

An anarcho-communist government?

Anyway, if the mass of workers revolted then the process of capital accumulation would stop and cease to function. Capital can only exist when there is wage labour and once you no longer have any wage labourers then capital will no longer function. A capitalist may not want to give up his factory but they won't be able to do anything about it if the work force refuses to work for him. What's one capitalist going to do in the face of 50, 100, 500, 1000 or more workers? Nothing.

Send in the bourgeoisie army like the US bourgeois state has always done when faced with a popular general strike (for example in 1877). For example what would Greek workers do if NATO "restores order" in Greece the same the USSR "restored order" by flooding the city streets with tanks.

This is reason for revolutionary armies to defend the revolution from bourgeoisie armies trying to get workers to accept wage slavery through military occupation (yet they can't do that if there is revolutionary army defending them without first snuffing out the revolutionary army).

[Iron Felix]

An overthrow of the bourgeoisie can only be violent, regardless of whether we want it to be or not. But those who began the violence are the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat, the proletariat will only end it.

[Ravachol]

I cannot even begin to explain how much I disagree with Void. We're not supposed to be talking about this quasi-Biblical 'Fall of Man' that the glorious communist system will rectify, by 'eradicating' or otherwise 'curing' man's sinful desires. Fuck that shit, and fuck that outright indoctrination (seriously? We're supposed to 'educate' people to be better, that is to say, better suited to the little system we've thought up for them? Not if I've got anything to do with it) And fuck all that 'greedy people will be mocked, and that's how society will function.' A society based on morality? The morality we've come up with? Not on your nelly, sonny Jim! If communism means we can't be as greedy or as lazy or as lustful as we want, without moralists coming in and spoiling the party, then fuck communism. We'll need a better system.

Well there's something to say for the 'fall of man' analogy if you consider how out of primitive communism class society emerged with the slow rise of agriculture in the fertile crescent. And if we don't subscribe to 'human nature' (which nobody in their right mind does) and people being a product of the social relations that produce them and which they (re)produce, there's something to say for communism being both the product and producer of a 'new man'.

Other than that, the thing about 'shunning greedy people' and moralism (dear god I hope not) is poppycock. In fact, 'greed' in itself might be a factor contributing to the move towards communism as the Situationist essay 'The right to be greedy' (http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything) elaborates.

The problem isn't so much the construction of a blueprint or fixed set of morals as the production of a set of new social relations, the revolutionary process is the process where all previous relations are washed away and replaced by communist relations, the growing qualitative break with class society. This process involves the use of force to conquer a material base to enact these relations upon (as social reproduction requires a material plane to inhabit) but the very establishment of these relations helps to erradicate the old ones in a snowballing effect.

It is for this reason that those CNT militants that opposed entering the popular front during the Spanish civil war said that the best weapon against fascism was the spread of the revolution and not it's halting.

[Book O'Dead]

An anarcho-communist government?

Ha, ha! Good one!

[Psy]

An overthrow of the bourgeoisie can only be violent, regardless of whether we want it to be or not. But those who began the violence are the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat, the proletariat will only end it.
I don't think it has to be violent just that force and the threat of violence has to be used. If the revolutionary armies is able to outmaneuver the bourgeoisie forces to the point the bourgeoisie forces accept defeat before the two sides starts shooting at each other then there would be no point in starting. A good example would be the storming of the Winter Palace, yet on a larger scale where the ruling class sees that no body is going to save them from the revolutionary armed forces marching against them and armed resistance to the revolution is futile due to the revolutionary army having far more firepower then what forces remain loyal to bourgeoisie.

Of course this demands on how events within a revolution unfolds.

[ericksolvi]

I cannot even begin to explain how much I disagree with Void. We're not supposed to be talking about this quasi-Biblical 'Fall of Man' that the glorious communist system will rectify, by 'eradicating' or otherwise 'curing' man's sinful desires. Fuck that shit, and fuck that outright indoctrination (seriously? We're supposed to 'educate' people to be better, that is to say, better suited to the little system we've thought up for them? Not if I've got anything to do with it) And fuck all that 'greedy people will be mocked, and that's how society will function.' A society based on morality? The morality we've come up with? Not on your nelly, sonny Jim! If communism means we can't be as greedy or as lazy or as lustful as we want, without moralists coming in and spoiling the party, then fuck communism. We'll need a better system.

I agree to some extend with void.
I believe that a desire for the rational creates true justice. The rational proletariat places the good of the whole above individual desire. Force is called for to prevent people from harming themselves or others, because harm to individuals weakens the whole of society.
Freedom without any rational limitations placed upon it is not true freedom. Running around stoned and naked, just because it feels good is not freedom. Acceptance (total acceptance with no indignation) of the rational reasons why some actions must be forbidden, is true freedom.
When we are free we will be able to focus upon elevating ourselves, within a framework established for the good of all.

[Rocky Rococo]

There are reasons the old syndicalist formula of "build the new within the shell of the old" was dead on, and this is one of the biggest ones. Unless there's already a critical nucleus of people that have developed organically, within themselves, the web of values and motivations that will allow an egalitarian economy to function, and the experience of operating in one, there's no way such a system can be brought into being out of whole cloth in the aftermath of a chaotic social upheaval.

[jake williams]

The idea that the capitalist class can be expropriated peacefully and at once is a total fantasy. Yes, if all workers in the world simultaneously refuse to serve capitalists, then they will lose all of their social power, and the world will be faced with an absolutely peaceful communist revolution. But this is an absurdity and will not happen. It's just not how the world works. We could about as easily expect the capitalists to simultaneously give up all of their wealth.

The reality is that workers need to gain power where they can. Workers need to win every peaceful victory that can be won. Workers need to establish workers' control everywhere that it can be established. Workers need to peacefully expropriate capitalists wherever possible. But the forceful defence of workers' control is as necessary as the forceful attacks on it are certain.

[SidBh]

Yes but what about the women and children and the innocent young men? Tsar Nicholas's wife, his son, his four daughters (and also the family's medical doctor and cook) were killed by the Bolsheviks. What's the point of such senseless slaughter? I can see the reason why the Tsar and his wife were killed, but what about their children? Moreover if the revolutionaries treat the enemy in the same way (murderous), whats the difference between them (the revolutionaries) and the enemy (bourgeoisie, etc.)?

[ericksolvi]

Yes but what about the women and children and the innocent young men? Tsar Nicholas's wife, his son, his four daughters (and also the family's medical doctor and cook) were killed by the Bolsheviks. What's the point of such senseless slaughter? I can see the reason why the Tsar and his wife were killed, but what about their children? Moreover if the revolutionaries treat the enemy in the same way (murderous), whats the difference between them (the revolutionaries) and the enemy (bourgeoisie, etc.)?

I don't recognize the Soviet revolution as a true expression of communism. Marx believed that communism was a step after capitalism. Russian was not even a fully developed capitalism system when their revolution started, they were barely beyond the feudal stage of development.
Only those nations that have achieved material excess are good candidates for the implementation of communist ideology.
History has proven that the application of communism to underdeveloped nations is wrought with disaster. Those of us that live in countries that are good candidates need to push rebellion/revolution.
Those in under developed nations need to push economic development that is as pro worker as possible. Trade unions are a good start, political parties based around labor even better.

[Psy]

The idea that the capitalist class can be expropriated peacefully and at once is a total fantasy. Yes, if all workers in the world simultaneously refuse to serve capitalists, then they will lose all of their social power, and the world will be faced with an absolutely peaceful communist revolution. But this is an absurdity and will not happen. It's just not how the world works. We could about as easily expect the capitalists to simultaneously give up all of their wealth.

The reality is that workers need to gain power where they can. Workers need to win every peaceful victory that can be won. Workers need to establish workers' control everywhere that it can be established. Workers need to peacefully expropriate capitalists wherever possible. But the forceful defence of workers' control is as necessary as the forceful attacks on it are certain.The problem is that that one can maneuver ones forces to bring the enemy into a un-winnable situation in which the only rational move of the enemy is to surrender. If the capitalist class knows they their defeat is assured and resistance will only lead to their death odds are they won't resist.

[jake williams]

The problem is that that one can maneuver ones forces to bring the enemy into a un-winnable situation in which the only rational move of the enemy is to surrender. If the capitalist class knows they their defeat is assured and resistance will only lead to their death odds are they won't resist.
Assuming that every element of the capitalist class is rational in all situations, which clearly isn't the case.

[OHumanista]

The point of the Tsar's children is that in a monarchy they need a claimant, and a child is the obvious heir for a future atempt to restore a monarchy. When there are no children the other branches of the family often have issues with the new heir. I am not saying I fully agree with it, but it has it's logic and in revolutionary times things that are brutal or difficult to digest can often be seem as necessary(even when they aren't, but people judge what is necessary by the situation they are in)

Aside from that I can only say I agree with IronFelix
The proletarian use of force is necessary, some burgeois will be intimidated by a show of it and give up but history has shown that most of it does not, it will fight back until they flee or are completely destroyed.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Anarchism is about equal, decentralized power structures. There is no central authority molding society into what they want, that's the whole point.

[Void]

I don't recognize the Soviet revolution as a true expression of communism. Marx believed that communism was a step after capitalism. Russian was not even a fully developed capitalism system when their revolution started, they were barely beyond the feudal stage of development.
Only those nations that have achieved material excess are good candidates for the implementation of communist ideology.
History has proven that the application of communism to underdeveloped nations is wrought with disaster. Those of us that live in countries that are good candidates need to push rebellion/revolution.
Those in under developed nations need to push economic development that is as pro worker as possible. Trade unions are a good start, political parties based around labor even better.

So Russian revolutionaries should have waited capitalists to take over everything... Do you think capitalism brings development ? Totally disagree.

[Manic Impressive]

Suppose an Anarcho-Communist government comes to power, wouldn't force be required to take away property rights and personal wealth. What if people still want to hold on to property and have a personal fortune? If there is no dictatorship, would there be some force or group outside the State which would redistribute the wealth by taking away people's right to private property and wealth by the use of force? And finally is Force required to establish an Anarcho-Communist system, because without Force (and sometimes violence) people might not want to give up their individual wealth and personal/private possessions (property,land, etc.)
Well, part of the process of dismantling the state is to abolish money. Once money is abolished most of the assets of the capitalists own become meaningless. So then we're just talking about houses and stuff like that and if there are people who need a roof over their head and nowhere for them to live then I have no problem using force to ensure that they get a bed.

[Rocky Rococo]

Do you think capitalism brings development ? Totally disagree.

I certainly hope you don't call yourself a Marxist then. After all, the whole underlying premise of Marx's politics was historical materialism, and specifically that capitalism in its development of great economic and social forces midwifes the birth of its successors/overthrowers, who then use the productive forces created by capitalism to enhance the lives of all. There is no premise more fundamental to Marx's analysis than this.

[Manic Impressive]

So Russian revolutionaries should have waited capitalists to take over everything... Do you think capitalism brings development ? Totally disagree.
Russian "revolutionaries" should have concerned themselves with the task of educating the proletariat instead of looking for a quick fix solution.

[Void]

I certainly hope you don't call yourself a Marxist then. After all, the whole underlying premise of Marx's politics was historical materialism, and specifically that capitalism in its development of great economic and social forces midwifes the birth of its successors/overthrowers, who then use the productive forces created by capitalism to enhance the lives of all. There is no premise more fundamental to Marx's analysis than this.

Rocky Rocco, you have a point, I have missed something in my opinion there, it was too fast written without much of thinking but I do not regret the first part. But looking at what capitalism has caused and being disgusted of philosophical emptiness of it sometimes I even rather live under feudalism. This makes me think of capitalism as not an advancement.


Russian "revolutionaries" should have concerned themselves with the task of educating the proletariat instead of looking for a quick fix solution.

USSR had excellent education despite so much damage to the Union.

Many of the important intellectual communists and party members were killed in the front lines in second world war for defending the Soviet Union.

You can not truly educate the proletariat under a capitalist system when almost all means of communication are controlled by capitalist powers and their agents. Today the control is much easier thanks to technology. Through any method: disinformation, manipulation etc..

[thefinalmarch]

But looking at what capitalism has caused and being disgusted of philosophical emptiness of it sometimes I even rather live under feudalism.
Oh.

You wouldn't want that.

[hatzel]

I believe that a desire for the rational creates true justice.

The Enlightenment was aaaaages ago. Can we all please get over it already?


The rational proletariat places the good of the whole above individual desire.
a) Ravachol posted up a link to the wonderful text, 'The right to be greedy,' the very first line of which reads: "Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society." Elsewhere on the forum I have recently drawn parallels between this and Gustav Landauer's claim: "We have never called upon anyone but the individuals, the egoists, the Eigenen! [...] However, the consequences that we think need to be drawn puzzle quite a few egoists. We say that no one is better suited to maintain a communist economy than true individualists. In fact, a communist economy can only be maintained by true individualists." I would like to question whether placing the good of the whole above individual desire would be of benefit, from a purely economic perspective.

b) I have no intention of placing 'the whole' above myself as some kind of strange idol that I have am inescapable responsibility to. Uniting voluntarily with others, for our mutual benefit, as long as it suits me, yes, but being obligated (or at least very very strongly encouraged) to sacrifice my very existence 'for the common good' or anything like that? Doesn't sound appealing to me. Doesn't sound like a good basis for a society, in which individuals have to repress their desires, in order to conform with the image society has come to demand of them? I don't think this would overcome any of the negative effects contemporary society has on the pysche. In fact, it could even exacerbate them, if it now comes that one isn't just encouraged to repress themselves and act for the common good, but actually obligated to, this being the very foundation of the system.


Freedom without any rational limitations placed upon it is not true freedom. Running around stoned and naked, just because it feels good is not freedom.

If you hadn't included the word 'rational' then we may have been in complete agreement here, which is nice. Though I feel that our approaches to this differ from one another. I'll cite Albert Libertad here, actually, who said words to the same effect:


To go towards freedom, it becomes necessary to develop our individuality. When I say: to go towards freedom, I mean for each of us to go toward the most complete development of our Self. We are not therefore free to take any which road, it is necessary to force ourselves to take the correct path. We are not free to yield to excessive and lawless desires, we are obliged to satisfy them. We are not free to put ourselves in a state of inebriation making our personality lose the use of its will, placing us at the mercy of anything; let’s say rather that we endure the tyranny of a passion that misery of luxury has given us. True freedom would consist of an act of authority upon this habit, to liberate oneself from its tyranny and its corollaries.

I feel that there are two points in here over which we might disagree. The first is the necessity to develop our individuality. That is to say, a wholly personal and unique manifestation of our Self. Not(!!!) the complete manifestation of the 'New Man' or any other imagined concept of how one should be for a communist society to function smoothly. The second is, as he clearly states, "it is necessary to force ourselves to take the correct path," "to liberate oneself." There's no suggestion of an external entity playing a part here, some other person claiming to know what is best for the individual in question, and forcing them to take the right road, so that they may become free. I think not.

Of course, a reshaping of society may make it considerably easier to develop one's own freedom (for example, it's easier to develop one's Self, and dedicate oneself to character building pursuits, if one works only 8 hours a day, rather than 14, so labour laws may have helped liberate people, or, I should say, given the possibility of liberation), but contemporary hierarchical society isn't some kind of dam holding back a reservoir of liberty. It's not like smashing the State and its accompanying systems of oppression, as one would a dam, will mean that liberty will inevitably surge forth and everybody will be free. But freedom may be easier to attain, yes. Unless the society we try to bring about in its place is just as messed up as the one we're trying to get out of.


Acceptance (total acceptance with no indignation) of the rational reasons why some actions must be forbidden, is true freedom.
What is this I don't even...

Firstly, you should know already from my comments to you on another thread that I don't believe in appeals to rationality and all that, and I also don't really think there are rational reasons why some actions must be forbidden. I mean, one can rationalise why it isn't good to walk into the road when there is a red man, because you might get hit by a car. And that's bad, rationally, because getting hit by a car might hurt, or even kill you. But there comes a point when you just have to admit that there's nothing inherently rational about, for example, the preference for not getting hurt. One can try to rationalise it as far as one can, and rationalise one's reasons, and the reasons for the reasons, and so on, but the very basis is totally irrational. In contemporary society, in the shadow of the Enlightenment, claiming that rules are irrational sounds like I'm suggesting they should therefore be abolished, but in fact I'm not. This just goes to show how pervasive an idea rationality (and its inverse) has become, that claiming something in irrational is tantamount to claiming it is false or questionable. I'll return to this.

The other issue here, however, is that we're not taking much of a step up from Void's moralistic communism. There, we may have a rule ('work for the good of the community and don't be lazy and greedy!') which becomes a moral guideline. Those who work for the good of the whole and aren't lazy are, because of this, good, moral, upstanding members of the community. Those who don't are immoral, the naughty ones. Here, however, we've shifted it. Now we're claiming that the rule ('work for the good of the community and don't be lazy and greedy!') isn't a moral concern, though it could still have moral implications; if I could just take this opportunity to cite from one of my own essays, because I just so happen to be the kind of pretentious little so-and-so who cites themselves as an authoritative voice :tt2:


The moral foundation of civilisation can therefore be summarised: ‘thou shalt not disobey.’ With the widespread collapse of religion as a source of ethical guidance, the political has usurped it in its role, endowing itself with the power to declare right and wrong, through its legislative judgements. Disobedience, failure to adhere to its rulings, then becomes more than merely a legal issue – it is simultaneously a moral one; Kropotkin’s claim in Law and authority – that “moral goodness and the law of the masters are fused into one and the same divinity” – is becoming evermore pertinent, with each making constant demands of the other. As he argues, “a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil,” yet this is not merely because of an inability to conceive of a means through which to tackle evil if not through appeals to legal repression, but also through the demand that the ‘evils’ of society be recognised and denounced, by being declared illegal; ‘evil’ cannot be considered as such without official condemnation, without the outlawing of the act, tantamount to an affirmation of its supposed immorality – the demand for an act to be recognised as illegal is the demand for said act to be recognised as immoral.

With the illegality/immorality of the act established, through its condemnation in statute, the ruling is embraced by those subject to it as a normative judgement concerning right and wrong.

I remain sceptical as to whether or not the foundation of the ruling, namely, whether it was devised from this appeal to reason, and its intention, whether it exists to defend the capitalist system or for the good of a socialist community, has any bearing on its impact here; if we declare an act forbidden from a supposedly rational perspective, we're merely being rational moralists, and still seeking an objective system of right and wrong to employ. Of course I see no problem with the suggestion that people shouldn't kill people (though I'm not entirely convinced that legalising murder would have a dramatic impact on crime figures), but if we're talking about working for the common good as a rational decision, and rulings coming from a similarly rational basis, then we haven't escaped Void's moralism, this society which defends itself by demanding people be 'good.'

The only difference is that we've attempted to shift it, so that those who flout the rules aren't considered immoral (though I feel they would be), but are instead considered irrational, for not understanding the one true correct rational way of living. And given the importance of rationality in your worldview, as is clear from your post, I shudder to think what will become of those irrational elements. If contemporary society, based on reason, is anything to go by, then it seems likely that they will be looked upon as a threat, as an unpredictable live-wire. The idea being that if somebody is rational, you (supposedly) know what they're going to do, but if somebody is irrational...well, then you never know when they're gonna start randomly bombing shit or doing other totally irrational stuff. I feel, for example, that a certain amount of contemporary Islamophobia (by which I mean a pure phobia, a fear, rather than a hatred) stems from the fact that we consider them irrational, and therefore we can't rely on them to behave in the way that we think they're supposed to. If a communist society will be based on this idea that those who don't follow the rules aren't rational...well, there's a problem here, I feel...we're still perpetuating a solid dichotomy between insiders and outsiders, with these irrational/immoral strangers either shunned, mocked, or at least looked upon with great suspicion. I think we need to go beyond that.

[Rooster]

I should have pointed out that there's a difference between gaining power and maintaining power. If you're having to use force and violence to maintain power then you're just another minority oppressing a majority, the same way that feudal lords maintained power, the same way that capitalists maintain power and the same way that soviet bureaucracy maintained power. Trotsky argues that in a more developed capitalist society, the attaining of power would be hardest but the maintaining of it would be easier (because of the greater mass of proletariat).

[The Idler]

Various people and organisations argue for a non-violent revolution including Tolstoy, Alex Comfort, Malatesta and Peace News.

[bricolage]

Various people and organisations argue for a non-violent revolution including Tolstoy, Alex Comfort, Malatesta and Peace News.
It is our aspiration and our aim that everyone should become socially conscious and effective; but to achieve this end, it is necessary to provide all with the means of life and for development, and it is therefore necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies these means to the workers.

[robbo203]

I think one has to start from the intrinsic nature of an anarcho-communist society in order to effectively adresss this question. I take it as read that we are talking about a society in which the principle "from each according to ability to each according to need", prevails

Given that, what would be the material basis of force or compulsion? There is no economic leverage that any person or any group could exert over others to compel them to do what they want them to do when goods and services are decommodified and made freely available and where labour is transformed into an act of creative voluntary effort. If the odd member of the now defunct capitalist class wanted to assert his or her right to the property they once had under capitalism (and here we are talking simply of "means of production" or capital), what could they do about it? He or she can't run this factory on a capitalist basis without wage labour and who is going to volunteer to be a wage slave?. More to the point, where is the market on which the products of the factory might be sold? Commodified goods are no competition against free goods at all. Given a choice people will always prefer the latter. Thus, anarchocommunism by its very nature precludes any possibility of a resurgence of capitalism.


Not just that - we have to bear in mind that the attainment of an anarcho communist is a process of incremental social and cultural transformation, a tranformation in the basic outlook and values of society. People tend to forget this when they raise objections to the idea or assert that it needs to be brought about violently. I dont rule out the possibility of isolated acts of violence but I do consider that the likelihood of violence will significantly dminish the stronger and the more powerful and influential the anarcho communist movement becomes.

Its very growth will radically transform the entire social environment and the nature of the opposition it encounters along the way. Capitalism in its twilight years will be a very different creature to what it is today. The wriggle room for capitalist states to get away with inflicting the kind of barbaric outcomes we witness today on their subject populations, will sharply diminish. It will be far more difficult, for example, for states to wage war against each other, in a social environment that has been radically transformed by the growth of the anarcho communist movement. As the saying goes, you get the government that you deserve and this true also of the policies that they inflict on you. Governments are literally able to get away with murder because the population by and large acquiesces in this and even votes to return the same government back into office time after time.

It will be quite a different matter if hypothetically an anarcho communist movemenet were to become an influential presence in society. Even if anarcho communists constituted only a small percentage of the population - say 10% , a figure which today we can only dream of - then 10% of the population subscribing to an anarcho communist outlook implies at least another 20, 30 or 40 percent being well on the way to adopting such an outlook themselves. Two radically opposed ways of looking at the world cannot both flourish in the same social enviroment. One must grow at the expense of the other.

So the very growth of an anarcho communist movement presupposes the diminution of the strength - and, equally importantly - the nature, of the opposition it will encounter. The means can never really be separated from the ends: they are determined by the ends. A democratic free society of anarchocommunism requires as the means by which it is to be brought about, methods that are themselves free and democratic.

Violence does not assist this goal. On the contrary violence brutalises and generates authoritarian strucutures, tendencies and habits of thought that sow the seeds of a future class society . It needs to be avoided at all costs or at least minimised as far as is practically possible

[Iron Felix]

Yes yes. But should it be forgotten that the use of violence was first began by the bourgeois. Any violence coming from the proletariat is a reaction and completely justified. Has not the working class been violently suppressed in every capitalist society? Every proletarian revolution has been violently suppressed by the bourgeois, those that haven't only survived because they fought back.

[robbo203]

Yes yes. But should it be forgotten that the use of violence was first began by the bourgeois. Any violence coming from the proletariat is a reaction and completely justified. Has not the working class been violently suppressed in every capitalist society? Every proletarian revolution has been violently suppressed by the bourgeois, those that haven't only survived because they fought back.


The bourgeosie - the capitalist class - are a tiny bunch of exceedingly rich and pampered individuals - who probably wouldnt know which end of a gun to fire from unless they have had occasion to go grouse shooting or whatever. Jimmy Reid, the red clydesider, was spot on when he said that if we all spat we could drown them.

What concerns me more are those members of our class who would support the retention of capitalism and the use of force to retain it. But these individuals would be no more immune to the spread of communist ideas than anyone else as I suggested in my previous post. Given a sizeable communist movement then, statistically, the odds on your cousin, sister, grandmother or boyfirend being a communist would be correspondingly significant. There is nothing quite like the personal touch to get you to reconsider your ideas in my view;)

[ericksolvi]

So Russian revolutionaries should have waited capitalists to take over everything... Do you think capitalism brings development ? Totally disagree.
It's not just my opinion that capitalism brings industrial and economic development, it was also the opinion of Marx.

"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism."

[ericksolvi]

The Enlightenment was aaaaages ago. Can we all please get over it already?


a) Ravachol posted up a link to the wonderful text, 'The right to be greedy,' the very first line of which reads: "Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society." Elsewhere on the forum I have recently drawn parallels between this and Gustav Landauer's claim: "We have never called upon anyone but the individuals, the egoists, the Eigenen! [...] However, the consequences that we think need to be drawn puzzle quite a few egoists. We say that no one is better suited to maintain a communist economy than true individualists. In fact, a communist economy can only be maintained by true individualists." I would like to question whether placing the good of the whole above individual desire would be of benefit, from a purely economic perspective.

b) I have no intention of placing 'the whole' above myself as some kind of strange idol that I have am inescapable responsibility to. Uniting voluntarily with others, for our mutual benefit, as long as it suits me, yes, but being obligated (or at least very very strongly encouraged) to sacrifice my very existence 'for the common good' or anything like that? Doesn't sound appealing to me. Doesn't sound like a good basis for a society, in which individuals have to repress their desires, in order to conform with the image society has come to demand of them? I don't think this would overcome any of the negative effects contemporary society has on the pysche. In fact, it could even exacerbate them, if it now comes that one isn't just encouraged to repress themselves and act for the common good, but actually obligated to, this being the very foundation of the system.



If you hadn't included the word 'rational' then we may have been in complete agreement here, which is nice. Though I feel that our approaches to this differ from one another. I'll cite Albert Libertad here, actually, who said words to the same effect:



I feel that there are two points in here over which we might disagree. The first is the necessity to develop our individuality. That is to say, a wholly personal and unique manifestation of our Self. Not(!!!) the complete manifestation of the 'New Man' or any other imagined concept of how one should be for a communist society to function smoothly. The second is, as he clearly states, "it is necessary to force ourselves to take the correct path," "to liberate oneself." There's no suggestion of an external entity playing a part here, some other person claiming to know what is best for the individual in question, and forcing them to take the right road, so that they may become free. I think not.

Of course, a reshaping of society may make it considerably easier to develop one's own freedom (for example, it's easier to develop one's Self, and dedicate oneself to character building pursuits, if one works only 8 hours a day, rather than 14, so labour laws may have helped liberate people, or, I should say, given the possibility of liberation), but contemporary hierarchical society isn't some kind of dam holding back a reservoir of liberty. It's not like smashing the State and its accompanying systems of oppression, as one would a dam, will mean that liberty will inevitably surge forth and everybody will be free. But freedom may be easier to attain, yes. Unless the society we try to bring about in its place is just as messed up as the one we're trying to get out of.


What is this I don't even...

Firstly, you should know already from my comments to you on another thread that I don't believe in appeals to rationality and all that, and I also don't really think there are rational reasons why some actions must be forbidden. I mean, one can rationalise why it isn't good to walk into the road when there is a red man, because you might get hit by a car. And that's bad, rationally, because getting hit by a car might hurt, or even kill you. But there comes a point when you just have to admit that there's nothing inherently rational about, for example, the preference for not getting hurt. One can try to rationalise it as far as one can, and rationalise one's reasons, and the reasons for the reasons, and so on, but the very basis is totally irrational. In contemporary society, in the shadow of the Enlightenment, claiming that rules are irrational sounds like I'm suggesting they should therefore be abolished, but in fact I'm not. This just goes to show how pervasive an idea rationality (and its inverse) has become, that claiming something in irrational is tantamount to claiming it is false or questionable. I'll return to this.

The other issue here, however, is that we're not taking much of a step up from Void's moralistic communism. There, we may have a rule ('work for the good of the community and don't be lazy and greedy!') which becomes a moral guideline. Those who work for the good of the whole and aren't lazy are, because of this, good, moral, upstanding members of the community. Those who don't are immoral, the naughty ones. Here, however, we've shifted it. Now we're claiming that the rule ('work for the good of the community and don't be lazy and greedy!') isn't a moral concern, though it could still have moral implications; if I could just take this opportunity to cite from one of my own essays, because I just so happen to be the kind of pretentious little so-and-so who cites themselves as an authoritative voice :tt2:



I remain sceptical as to whether or not the foundation of the ruling, namely, whether it was devised from this appeal to reason, and its intention, whether it exists to defend the capitalist system or for the good of a socialist community, has any bearing on its impact here; if we declare an act forbidden from a supposedly rational perspective, we're merely being rational moralists, and still seeking an objective system of right and wrong to employ. Of course I see no problem with the suggestion that people shouldn't kill people (though I'm not entirely convinced that legalising murder would have a dramatic impact on crime figures), but if we're talking about working for the common good as a rational decision, and rulings coming from a similarly rational basis, then we haven't escaped Void's moralism, this society which defends itself by demanding people be 'good.'

The only difference is that we've attempted to shift it, so that those who flout the rules aren't considered immoral (though I feel they would be), but are instead considered irrational, for not understanding the one true correct rational way of living. And given the importance of rationality in your worldview, as is clear from your post, I shudder to think what will become of those irrational elements. If contemporary society, based on reason, is anything to go by, then it seems likely that they will be looked upon as a threat, as an unpredictable live-wire. The idea being that if somebody is rational, you (supposedly) know what they're going to do, but if somebody is irrational...well, then you never know when they're gonna start randomly bombing shit or doing other totally irrational stuff. I feel, for example, that a certain amount of contemporary Islamophobia (by which I mean a pure phobia, a fear, rather than a hatred) stems from the fact that we consider them irrational, and therefore we can't rely on them to behave in the way that we think they're supposed to. If a communist society will be based on this idea that those who don't follow the rules aren't rational...well, there's a problem here, I feel...we're still perpetuating a solid dichotomy between insiders and outsiders, with these irrational/immoral strangers either shunned, mocked, or at least looked upon with great suspicion. I think we need to go beyond that.

You read rather a lot into what I write, and most of the time your wrong. You engage in Reductio ad absurdum, taking an argument way beyond what it is intended to address then mock the extreme that nobody ever thought in the first place.
My concept of rationality comes from Plato, and is therefor pre-enlightenment. It's based not on moral drives but on a mathematical view of the world.
I'm not expecting people to be rational. You can be as irrational as you like, or are driven to be. I am however insisting that the only basis for law, or any restriction on individual freedom, that is philosophically unassailable is grounded in a mathematical view of the human race. This completely ignores, or actively rejects, conventional views on morality.
Killing another person is not wrong because it's immoral. It is unacceptable because without mitigating circumstances one individual is not entitled to kill another, or looked at mathematical one person subtracting a whole other person from the human race is tantamount to stealing all the productive potential the killed person had, and society being composed of many individuals has a right to impose its collective will on the murderer.
I don't care what you think. You're clearly so individualistic that you will never be able to live happily in collectivised society. You will always need to place yourself and your desires above those of others. According to Plato you are ruled by appetitive desires, and guess what so are capitalists. You're just the flip side of the same coin that most communists fight against.
I would love to hear what your ideal world is.
I'll describe a couple days day in my perfect world.
I wake up in my assigned free housing, probably an apartment since I'm single with no children. I shower in water I don't have to pay for heated with electricity that is also free. I walk, down perfectly clean streets, nodding to my fellow workers as I pass them. Go into the nearest cafe purchase a coffee and muffin with a work hours card (When you work time gets added to the card, when you need to make a purchase time is subtracted) I could get free coffee and food at a communal dining hall, but the cafe has better quality, and that encourages people to work a bit. I arrive at work, whatever that work may be, insert my hours card into the time clock, and work for a few hours. I get done with work take my card and go to the free public health and wellness gym. Shower, go to see a local production of Hamlet. I meet someone at the play, and we go to my place where we take bong hits and fool around. Then I get ready for bed and watch Jon Stewart (Who is now the national czar of News/Entertainment programming). Next day is the weekly public assembly day, everybody has this day off, and those that like can go to the public forum to engage in debate and vote over local matters, those that don't want to go to the forum can do whatever they like. Forum runs from 10am-4pm voting held off to the last hour so that people who want to skip the debates can just come in and vote.

[disbeliever]

Suppose an Anarcho-Communist government comes to power, wouldn't force be required to take away property rights and personal wealth. What if people still want to hold on to property and have a personal fortune? If there is no dictatorship, would there be some force or group outside the State which would redistribute the wealth by taking away people's right to private property and wealth by the use of force? And finally is Force required to establish an Anarcho-Communist system, because without Force (and sometimes violence) people might not want to give up their individual wealth and personal/private possessions (property,land, etc.)

anarcho-communism is a gross contradiction

[Psy]

What concerns me more are those members of our class who would support the retention of capitalism and the use of force to retain it. But these individuals would be no more immune to the spread of communist ideas than anyone else as I suggested in my previous post. Given a sizeable communist movement then, statistically, the odds on your cousin, sister, grandmother or boyfirend being a communist would be correspondingly significant. There is nothing quite like the personal touch to get you to reconsider your ideas in my view;)
The problem is in a revolution you have proletarianization of politics, as the capitalists become even more reactionary.

[RedMarxist]

Maybe Anarcho-Communist "system" is the correct word? I meant a situation where the Anarcho-Communists come to power. In Stalinist Communism or any authoritarian form of Communism, the question of Force is obvious (i.e. they have power, they can do anything), but my question is directed toward the anti-authoritarian or anarchist form of "system" which is Stateless.

would you consider Leninism, on a theoretical basis, authoritarian? Just curious.

[SidBh]

would you consider Leninism, on a theoretical basis, authoritarian? Just curious.

No I would not consider Leninism authoritarian on a theoretical basis.

[carlk]

Suppose an Anarcho-Communist government comes to power, wouldn't force be required to take away property rights and personal wealth. What if people still want to hold on to property and have a personal fortune?
Force would be needed to take away they capital, but i dont see why they personal wealth should be seized.


If there is no dictatorship, would there be some force or group outside the State which would redistribute the wealth by taking away people's right to private property and wealth by the use of force?
Well the workers would "forcefully" take control of they work place.


And finally is Force required to establish an Anarcho-Communist system, because without Force (and sometimes violence) people might not want to give up their individual wealth and personal/private possessions (property,land, etc.)
People would't have to give up they "individual wealth and personal/private possessions" because anarcho-communism is voluntary.