How many anarchists are actually Anarcho-Communists?

[Le Rouge]

I always wondered what is the proportion of anarchists that are Anarchists communists. Seems like many of people I know who proclaim themselves "anarchists" are in their rebel period of random anger. When I ask them if they are anarchists communists, they end up saying, no communism killed many peeplz.

How many of REAL anarchists (not the trendster ones) are into class struggle?
Most of them? A few of them? Looks like many of them despise the "left".

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well,it depends on the person and tendency; thee is little way to really discover how many individuals adhere to a specific view.

[NewLeft]

About 350.

There's even the ultra capitalists who have been hijacking the term anarchist since the 20th century and now they've discovered the internet. They only appear larger because their movement is entirely based on the internet while real anarchists have lives too and don't have the time to propagate all over YouTube...

[Yuppie Grinder]

In America to many of the people who call themselves anarchists are pissy teenagers or shity punk rock musicians.

[Durutii Column]

Probably a majority. What have anarcho-captalists ever done in real life

[rundontwalk]

I make at least one. :p

[Sheepy]

The REAL Anarchists majority tendency seems to be Anarcho-Communist or Syndicalist. But there have also been "Anarcho-Capitalists" trying to hijack the movement to promote their neo-feudalist agenda.

The whole thought of so-called "Anarchist-Capitalism" scares me beyond imagining. Really nothing more than Pure Fascism with extra doses of Slavery here and there. The business owners and rulers would buy their own militia's to go on campaigns of money driven bloodshed, etc. Who the hell are these people trying to kid?

[Comrade Hill]

I have a couple of buddies of mine in college that are actually Anarcho-Communists.

I have another friend who has no idea what anarchy I'm talking about when I mention anarchy, he just laughs and says "anarchy" because a lot of his favorite rock bands are like that.

I'm no anarchist though so I can't speak for all anarchists.

[Yazman]

I have a couple of buddies of mine in college that are actually Anarcho-Communists.

I have another friend who has no idea what anarchy I'm talking about when I mention anarchy, he just laughs and says "anarchy" because a lot of his favorite rock bands are like that.

I'm no anarchist though so I can't speak for all anarchists.

Probably better to avoid using the term "anarchy" in a revolutionary left context. Anarchy is not the same as anarchism. We want a stateless society, which doesn't mean no government, just no state. I always thought "anarchy" referred more to chaos and "anarchism" to the political system.

[Smyg]

Anarchists who aren't anarcho-commie or anarcho-syndicalist are no true anarchists.

And Yazman, ἄναρχος (anarchos). ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule). Without rulers, not chaos.

[Nox]

I don't think so-called Anarcho-Capitalists are really Anarchists, deep down they know that a truly Anarcho-Capitalist society would never be able to function, that's probably why they're all becoming Paulites and calling themselves 'Libertarians' now.

So, if you consider how many of us want zero government then every single Anarchist in the world is a left-wing Anarchist.

[eyedrop]

Seems like many of people I know who proclaim themselves "anarchists" are in their rebel period of random anger. When I ask them if they are anarchists communists, they end up saying, no communism killed many peeplz.


Stop asking 14 year olds? Or stop hanging out on punk-rock shows?

The reason why you recieve such answers is more about your social circle I would guess, when people go some into their 20ties you shouldn't meet so much hip-anarchos.

[Tim Cornelis]

OP did not mention "anarcho-capitalism" (i.e. nonarchism), yet nearly all comments presume he was referring to that doctrine.

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that OP was referring to anarcho-communism in contrast with collectivist anarchism, mutualism, and participatory economics.

I suspect the vast majority of anarchists are anarcho-communists based on personal experience and one internet survey (here: http://www.anarchistsurvey.com/results/#Q20). Too bad nonarchists were included.

[socialistjustin]

The only true anarchist I met was an anarchist syndicalist. I used to be an communist, but that was years ago and I couldn't even give you a rundown of the main points anymore. I remember anarchist communists seemed really utopian compared to other forms of anarchism which was one reason I left the tendency.

[Yazman]

Anarchists who aren't anarcho-commie or anarcho-syndicalist are no true anarchists.

And Yazman, ἄναρχος (anarchos). ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule). Without rulers, not chaos.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the term "anarchism" or "anarchy" here.

I am talking about modern english here as well, not necessarily the original greek. I have always understood "anarchy" to refer to a state of disorder and "anarchism" to refer to the political system.

Not that it really matters, I mean it isn't a huge deal. It's worth clarifying for the sake of whoever happens to be wrong here (could be me). Either way I've always noticed "anarchy" in common usage to refer to a state of disorder, hence my posts.

[Smyg]

Many use anarchy for that, yes. Just as communism is red fascism under our glorious master Barack Obama. I'll let Wikipedia take this one:



Anarchy has more than one colloquial definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is meant to refer to a society which lacks publicly recognized government or violently enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples, that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.

[individualist communist]

Probably better to avoid using the term "anarchy" in a revolutionary left context. Anarchy is not the same as anarchism. We want a stateless society, which doesn't mean no government, just no state. I always thought "anarchy" referred more to chaos and "anarchism" to the political system.
Arent a state and a government basicaly the same thing?

[Yazman]

Many use anarchy for that, yes. Just as communism is red fascism under our glorious master Barack Obama. I'll let Wikipedia take this one:

So it's just a regional linguistic difference. Must be more common in Europe/the UK to refer to anarchism as 'anarchy' then, I'm guessing.

[Susurrus]

There's a reason the slogan/symbol is "Anarchy is Order." The ever-famous circle-A is originally an A within an O, standing for the slogan.

[Magón]

How many of REAL anarchists (not the trendster ones) are into class struggle?

Just taking those who call themselves Anarchists in my general area, I'd say the majority of them are into Class Struggle. Some are Anarchists for other reasons (Primies live where I do,) but the majority of them I'd consider Class Struggle Anarchists.


Arent a state and a government basicaly the same thing?

No. A State is as we see them today, which are patches of land separated with nothing more than a few lines drawn on a map defining which State is where. Government is simply the body who runs the State, nothing more. Anarchists aren't against Government, we're just against the type of Capitalist/Imperialist Governments that would uphold the idea that these States are indeed separate from one another, and that we're not allowed to go in between these imaginary State lines because it says so on some paper and shows it on some map.

[Comrade Jandar]

Using terms such as "class struggle" anarchism or social anarchism are redundant. Anarchism as a philosophy and political theory was created and developed within the First International. Anarchism is a tendency of libertarian socialism and those who claim the label of anarchist and are not socialists, are in fact not anarchists.

[individualist communist]

Just taking those who call themselves Anarchists in my general area, I'd say the majority of them are into Class Struggle. Some are Anarchists for other reasons (Primies live where I do,) but the majority of them I'd consider Class Struggle Anarchists.



No. A State is as we see them today, which are patches of land separated with nothing more than a few lines drawn on a map defining which State is where. Government is simply the body who runs the State, nothing more. Anarchists aren't against Government, we're just against the type of Capitalist/Imperialist Governments that would uphold the idea that these States are indeed separate from one another, and that we're not allowed to go in between these imaginary State lines because it says so on some paper and shows it on some map.
That makes absolutely no sense. Anarchy means a lack of government not a lack of state. I at least, and most other anarchists i know want to get rid of government too. How can you be an anarchist and support a government?

[Smyg]

IC, do you have any clue what you're talking about?

[Искра]

How many anarchists are actually not nationalists?

[Smyg]

All real ones.

[Искра]

The you are suffering from defecit.

[Comrade Jandar]

That makes absolutely no sense. Anarchy means a lack of government not a lack of state. I at least, and most other anarchists i know want to get rid of government too. How can you be an anarchist and support a government?

Anarchists are for the abolition of the state, but not necessarily government. The state is simply a specific manifestation of government. Workers councils or a federation of syndicalist unions could conceivably be considered a form of government, albeit a horizontally organized, non-hierarchical form of government.

[Magón]

That makes absolutely no sense. Anarchy means a lack of government not a lack of state. I at least, and most other anarchists i know want to get rid of government too. How can you be an anarchist and support a government?

Really? I think you're a bit confused and crossed on what Anarchism actually means.

Anarchy is anti-Statist, that means opposition to State formation, unlike Marxists who believe in a State. Anarchists are not anti-Government at all. Without some form of government, how are people supposed to know this or that in the communities they build? The rules people make in their community, for one another to follow is a form of government since it's governing how people expect others to act. Anarchists are for a government in the form of Direct Democracy, not Representative like we see here in the US, or Parliamentary in the UK, etc. A State creates lines, lines that split the working class from one another, and Anarchism looks to abolish the State.

Abolishing the State, is kind of a key tenant to Anarchism in the first place.

[Smyg]

We're not against government - in fact, we're very for it. Governing ourselves, that is.

[individualist communist]

Anarchists are for the abolition of the state, but not necessarily government. The state is simply a specific manifestation of government. Workers councils or a federation of syndicalist unions could conceivably be considered a form of government, albeit a horizontally organized, non-hierarchical form of government.
A localised and democratized state/government does not mean that rulers or authority has been abolished, which is necessary for anarchism to exist. It really depends on whatever or not the workers councils/communes are voluntary and organized through free association or imposed upon anyone who lives within a specific territory. If it is the former there is anarchy, if it is the latter there is archy.

[individualist communist]

Really? I think you're a bit confused and crossed on what Anarchism actually means.

Anarchy is anti-Statist, that means opposition to State formation, unlike Marxists who believe in a State. Anarchists are not anti-Government at all. Without some form of government, how are people supposed to know this or that in the communities they build? The rules people make in their community, for one another to follow is a form of government since it's governing how people expect others to act.
Depends on how those rules are made. If a majority within a defined area know as a community can make any rules they wish, there clearly is't anarchy.


Anarchists are for a government in the form of Direct Democracy, not Representative like we see here in the US, or Parliamentary in the UK, etc. A State creates lines, lines that split the working class from one another, and Anarchism looks to abolish the State.

Abolishing the State, is kind of a key tenant to Anarchism in the first place.

Anarchists wish to abolish rulers, whatever form they take. Be it a majority enforcing it's will on a non-consenting minority, or a tyrranical ruler enforcing his/her will makes no difference to an individual. It would't make it right to ban drugs or restrict freedom of speech within a community/location just because it is a majority who wanted it.

[Magón]

A localised and democratized state/government does not mean that rulers or authority has been abolished, which is necessary for anarchism to exist.

For Anarchism to work, there can be no State. Period. State's are ran by a select minority who make the rules and regulations that the majority has to follow or they get reprimanded in some way or another, for not following the rules and regulations. In Anarchism, it is the majority who makes the rules and regulations, because it is the majority who knows best when it comes to what they're looking to create as a well balanced and free community.


It really depends on whatever or not the workers councils/communes are voluntary and organized through free association or imposed upon anyone who lives within a specific territory. If it is the former there is anarchy, if it is the latter there is archy.

They'd absolutely have to be voluntary, and each commune would be free from one another, but still work together for the better gains. I really think you should learn and read about Direct Democracy, to understand what Direct Democracy actually means. Right now you don't seem to have a clue what it means, and frankly I don't think you understand what Communism is, because Anarchism is just that: Communism.


Depends on how those rules are made. If a majority within a defined area know as a community can make any rules they wish, there clearly is't anarchy.

If it's the majority (Working Class) making the rules and regulations, what problem is there? In Anarchism/Direct Democracy/Communism, everyone would be given a voice to say what they want on a matter (big or small), even those who chose not to have an opinion one way or the other, would be able to say they don't care. Nobody gets everything they want in the world, even in a Direct Democratic forum where you can freely say your opinion without reprimand, you're not always going to get your way. Real Anarchists realize this and accept it, but through debate and reasoning, somewhere down the line they just might be able to.


Anarchists wish to abolish rulers, whatever form they take. Be it a majority enforcing it's will on a non-consenting minority, or a tyrranical ruler enforcing his/her will makes no difference to an individual. It would't make it right to ban drugs or restrict freedom of speech within a community/location just because it is a majority who wanted it.

Have you ever read any Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Bookchin, etc.? You clearly haven't read anything on Direct Democracy, or the idea that those put into places of power in Anarchism/Communism, could easily be taken from the position if the people thought they weren't doing a good enough job, or completely blew it one way or another. Those people put in power, wouldn't have to go through bureaucratic bullshit to get their position, if the people thought they were well suited, they'd be put there immediately, and if the people thought they weren't, they'd be pulled from the position immediately.

Anarchism isn't your bullshit rebellious teenage wet dream of chaos and disorder, where everyone's going around doing as they please with no rules or whatever from Mom and Dad, there's plenty of order and reasoning within Anarchism that you're just failing to get past because whenever anyone seems to bring something up, you take it like it's going to be now, or how it's set up now. You have to read about actual Anarchism, not just what Wikipedia says, which Wikipedia even says more coherent things than what you've said. And you have to actually step back from the teenage wet dream.

[Adorno4498]

I consider myself libertarian in the true sense of the word: small to no state, worker's control via unions, and international solidarity. RECLAIM LIBERTARIAN!

[individualist communist]

For Anarchism to work, there can be no State. Period. State's are ran by a select minority who make the rules and regulations that the majority has to follow or they get reprimanded in some way or another, for not following the rules and regulations. In Anarchism, it is the majority who makes the rules and regulations, because it is the majority who knows best when it comes to what they're looking to create as a well balanced and free community.
No, if the majority could make any rule they wanted there clearly would't be anarchy. In anarchy either everyone makes the rules (concensus democracy) or people nagotiate with each other on what is acceptable or not.

They'd absolutely have to be voluntary, and each commune would be free from one another, but still work together for the better gains. I really think you should learn and read about Direct Democracy, to understand what Direct Democracy actually means.
I know what direct democracy means. It should be voluntary to join a commune no matter where you live, even if everyone else in your location chooses that commune, and the commune should not be able to force its laws/rules on you if you are not a member. If it is a voluntary process to join a commune they cannot be described as governments, because the definition of a government is an entity that governs a specific territory.

Right now you don't seem to have a clue what it means, and frankly I don't think you understand what Communism is, because Anarchism is just that: Communism.

Not necesarily, there could be a wide variety of economic systems, communism, collectivism, mutualism, market socialism etc.

If it's the majority (Working Class) making the rules and regulations, what problem is there?
The problem is that the majority can make oppressive rules and regulations, in which case leaving the commune (not necesarily leaving the territory in which the commune is located) should be an option.
In Anarchism/Direct Democracy/Communism, everyone would be given a voice to say what they want on a matter (big or small), even those who chose not to have an opinion one way or the other, would be able to say they don't care. Nobody gets everything they want in the world, even in a Direct Democratic forum where you can freely say your opinion without reprimand, you're not always going to get your way. Real Anarchists realize this and accept it, but through debate and reasoning, somewhere down the line they just might be able to.

Have you ever read any Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Bookchin, etc.?
Yes, and i generally agreed with what they said, with the exeption of Bookchin, who i do not consider an anarchist.

You clearly haven't read anything on Direct Democracy, or the idea that those put into places of power in Anarchism/Communism, could easily be taken from the position if the people thought they weren't doing a good enough job, or completely blew it one way or another. Those people put in power, wouldn't have to go through bureaucratic bullshit to get their position, if the people thought they were well suited, they'd be put there immediately, and if the people thought they weren't, they'd be pulled from the position immediately.

So what? The majority is still a form of ruler, thus a form archy, which is the opposite of anarchy.

Anarchism isn't your bullshit rebellious teenage wet dream of chaos and disorder, where everyone's going around doing as they please with no rules or whatever from Mom and Dad, there's plenty of order and reasoning within Anarchism that you're just failing to get past because whenever anyone seems to bring something up, you take it like it's going to be now, or how it's set up now. You have to read about actual Anarchism, not just what Wikipedia says, which Wikipedia even says more coherent things than what you've said. And you have to actually step back from the teenage wet dream.
I wont respond to your personal attack, but are you aware that there are different brands of anarchism and different understandings of what anarchy/anarchism is?

[Magón]

No, if the majority could make any rule they wanted there clearly would't be anarchy. In anarchy either everyone makes the rules (concensus democracy) or people nagotiate with each other on what is acceptable or not.

I said that. Did you just completely avoid this point?


In Anarchism/Direct Democracy/Communism, everyone would be given a voice to say what they want on a matter (big or small), even those who chose not to have an opinion one way or the other, would be able to say they don't care. Nobody gets everything they want in the world, even in a Direct Democratic forum where you can freely say your opinion without reprimand, you're not always going to get your way. Real Anarchists realize this and accept it, but through debate and reasoning, somewhere down the line they just might be able to.


I know what direct democracy means. It should be voluntary to join a commune no matter where you live, even if everyone else in your location chooses that commune, and the commune should not be able to force its laws/rules on you if you are not a member. If it is a voluntary process to join a commune they cannot be described as governments, because the definition of a government is an entity that governs a specific territory.

A commune is just like a city or something like that, where there's a large collection of people who live under varying rules and regulations, that they themselves created for that city. To make this clear, if I go to one city/commune, the rules and regulations on how I'm expected to act for the sake of the commune's stability, could be different than that of the one just a few miles in whatever direction.

They each have governments, because there are people put in place to make sure the rules and regulations stay as they are, and are followed, nothing more. They aren't put there to create or take away the rules and regulations, they're there simply to uphold them for a time. If a group of people however, come to an agreement that some rules and regulations need to be changed in the commune, then the whole commune comes together to hear them out and vote whether the rules and regulations at hand, should be reversed or replaced with something else.


Not necesarily, there could be a wide variety of economic systems, communism, collectivism, mutualism, market socialism etc.

:rolleyes:


The problem is that the majority can make oppressive rules and regulations, in which case leaving the commune (not necesarily leaving the territory in which the commune is located) should be an option.

The majority is the commune itself, not some affinity group living here or living there, while everyone else lives over here. If Anarchism/Communism came to light, and people finally overthrew the world's governments and put in place their own working communes, then why on Earth would they want to just create more of the same by oppressing one another? The whole point of the Revolution, is that people have learned to think a different way, to live a different way than what we live now. Their society would be completely different than it is now, and would be equally spread out because that's what Communism is.


Yes, and i generally agreed with what they said, with the exeption of Bookchin, who i do not consider an anarchist.

Well you might want to read them again, because you're clearly out there jumping between "isms".


So what? The majority is still a form of ruler, thus a form archy, which is the opposite of anarchy.

See, you're misunderstanding them for rules we have today. That's not at all what I'm trying to get through to you. Anarchism can have rulers, but they're not the ruling type we have now at all. Like I said, those put into positions of power, are put there by the majority of the people. Like for example a factory of steel workers puts their best capable men/women, in charge of making sure things get done right. If they fail, they're pulled immediately from that position of power, and put back to working as they did before with the rest, and the steel workers can either choose to elect someone else, or no one and keep whoever else is already there.


I wont respond to your personal attack, but are you aware that there are different brands of anarchism and different understandings of what anarchy/anarchism is?

Of course there's different types, but we're talking about Anarcho-Communism, not Mutualism, not Individualism, not Insurrectionism, etc. We're talking the big AnCom.

[individualist communist]

I said that. Did you just completely avoid this point?





A commune is just like a city or something like that, where there's a large collection of people who live under varying rules and regulations, that they themselves created for that city. To make this clear, if I go to one city/commune, the rules and regulations on how I'm expected to act for the sake of the commune's stability, could be different than that of the one just a few miles in whatever direction.
Not really. A commune is a free assocation voluntarily entered to by it's members. That i live in a specific city would not mean that i would necesarily have to be a member of that city's commune.


They each have governments, because there are people put in place to make sure the rules and regulations stay as they are, and are followed, nothing more. They aren't put there to create or take away the rules and regulations, they're there simply to uphold them for a time. If a group of people however, come to an agreement that some rules and regulations need to be changed in the commune, then the whole commune comes together to hear them out and vote whether the rules and regulations at hand, should be reversed or replaced with something else.
Yes.



:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: I can be an asshole too.



The majority is the commune itself, not some affinity group living here or living there, while everyone else lives over here. If Anarchism/Communism came to light, and people finally overthrew the world's governments and put in place their own working communes, then why on Earth would they want to just create more of the same by oppressing one another? The whole point of the Revolution, is that people have learned to think a different way, to live a different way than what we live now. Their society would be completely different than it is now, and would be equally spread out because that's what Communism is.
What do you mean by equally spread out?



Well you might want to read them again, because you're clearly out there jumping between "isms".

What?


See, you're misunderstanding them for rules we have today. That's not at all what I'm trying to get through to you. Anarchism can have rulers, but they're not the ruling type we have now at all. Like I said, those put into positions of power, are put there by the majority of the people. Like for example a factory of steel workers puts their best capable men/women, in charge of making sure things get done right. If they fail, they're pulled immediately from that position of power, and put back to working as they did before with the rest, and the steel workers can either choose to elect someone else, or no one and keep whoever else is already there.

Yeah.


Of course there's different types, but we're talking about Anarcho-Communism, not Mutualism, not Individualism, not Insurrectionism, etc. We're talking the big AnCom.
But there are also different viewpoints within anarcho-communism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Arent a state and a government basicaly the same thing?
No. A state is an instituion that holds a monopoly on violence and coercion( as a means of organising society and sustaining it's own existance). Government is the people and organizations that make up the state.

[Magón]

Not really. A commune is a free assocation voluntarily entered to by it's members. That i live in a specific city would not mean that i would necesarily have to be a member of that city's commune.

No, but for simplicities sake, we'll use cities as a form of commune centers. And with that, the majority of that city and every other city, would be apart of that commune. Sure, you could have people live in the city/commune for a bit, work, and then go to a completely new commune to work and live there a bit, never joining one particular commune, but those who do are likely to be apart of that one commune.


What do you mean by equally spread out?

The MoP (Means of Production) are what I mean by equally spread out. Nobody owns more of something, than someone else, everyone has equal say in how this or that is. Simply put, things are equally spread out.


What?

I said I think you should take another read of them, because you're jumping between various "isms", not just Communism or Anarchism. If you want to talk about Anarcho-Communism as Anarcho-Communism, not Anarcho-Syndicalism or whatever, then I think you should reread some of the big names.


But there are also different viewpoints within anarcho-communism.

Sure, but they have to actually make sense to be considered apart of Anarcho-Communism. Saying you're pro-State but anti-Government does not help your claim of being an Anarchist. Anarchists have always been anti-State, and pro-Government, just not this kind of governing we see today because the kind of Governments we see today are something all Anarchists oppose.

[Tim Cornelis]

The notion that "government" and "anarchism" are compatible is solely derived from revleft and has no anarchist, theoretical, or sensible basis given what is meant by "government".

Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized.

Anarchism is not against governance (self-governance), but it is against government.

[individualist communist]

No, but for simplicities sake, we'll use cities as a form of commune centers. And with that, the majority of that city and every other city, would be apart of that commune. Sure, you could have people live in the city/commune for a bit, work, and then go to a completely new commune to work and live there a bit, never joining one particular commune, but those who do are likely to be apart of that one commune.
Well i disagree. That is not what i understand by the word anarchy and most othere anarchists i have meet also have a different conception of anarchy. Are you even an anarchist?



The MoP (Means of Production) are what I mean by equally spread out. Nobody owns more of something, than someone else, everyone has equal say in how this or that is. Simply put, things are equally spread out.

A strange way of putting it.


I said I think you should take another read of them, because you're jumping between various "isms", not just Communism or Anarchism. If you want to talk about Anarcho-Communism as Anarcho-Communism, not Anarcho-Syndicalism or whatever, then I think you should reread some of the big names.
I always considered anarcho-syndicalism a strategy, not an ideology in itself. I could be wrong though.

Sure, but they have to actually make sense to be considered apart of Anarcho-Communism. Saying you're pro-State but anti-Government does not help your claim of being an Anarchist. Anarchists have always been anti-State, and pro-Government, just not this kind of governing we see today because the kind of Governments we see today are something all Anarchists oppose.[/QUOTE]
I never said i was pro state. I'm against both state and government and consider them the same thing.

[Magón]

Well i disagree. That is not what i understand by the word anarchy and most othere anarchists i have meet also have a different conception of anarchy. Are you even an anarchist?

Well most other Anarchists you seem to have met, don't seem to have an actual grasp on what Anarchism actually is because apparently they seem to be unable to tell State and Government apart from one another, even though there's a clear line between them that many Anarchist theories have noted. Just because people are apart of a commune, doesn't mean they can't just break away from that commune, but it's sort of like now where maybe people just don't want to up and leave where they are. They've come to like where they live, they like the people, geography, etc. so they live there, apart of that Commune. If all I ever did, was live in one particular commune, with a house and whatnot, I wouldn't say I'm from another one, I'd say I'm from such and such.

And yes, I am actually an Anarchist, and have been for several years.


I always considered anarcho-syndicalism a strategy, not an ideology in itself. I could be wrong though.

It depends, but since Anarcho-Syndicalism focuses more on Unionization than Anarcho-Communism, I hold it to be more than just a strategy for waging Class War, and organizing Revolution. I've met plenty of Wobblies and other Anarcho-Syndicalists who would like communities to be organized into unionized forces of all kinds, spanning various kinds of work.


I never said i was pro state. I'm against both state and government and consider them the same thing.

But they're not the same thing, as others and myself have pointed out to you in this very thread. State and Government are two very different things. Anarchists can have Government, there's nothing in Anarchist theory that says otherwise, but State is a deal-breaker when it comes to calling yourself an Anarchist.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I've met right libertarians who bordered on right anarchism... most just call themselves 'libertarian'. Anyone who defines himself as an anarchist is most likely left wing.

[Magón]

I've met right libertarians who bordered on right anarchism... most just call themselves 'libertarian'. Anyone who defines himself as an anarchist is most likely left wing.

Anarcho-Capitalism is not Anarchism. Plain and simple.

[individualist communist]

Listen, anarchism does not simply mean that government becomes more local and directly democratic. No, anarchism is a completely new system. It functions through free association which means that people voluntarily go together and form communes and cooperatives. No one is forced to join a commune or a cooperative. Even if the majority of the people in your town join a specific commune the town does not become the communes territory, as communes do not have a defined territory. A commune cannot enforce it's rules on non members, altough this off course does not mean people will be allowed to go around and murder, rape, steal, threaten people etc. The system i'm describing here was supported by every major anarchist thinker i can think of.

[Magón]

Listen, anarchism does not simply mean that government becomes more local and directly democratic. No, anarchism is a completely new system.

Have you ever been to an Anarchist gathering, where you sit down and talk about theory and what you'd like society to look like? I've been to many of them, and since Direct Democracy has never actually been tried, just like Anarchism, Direct Democracy is what many Anarchists think would work best. I understand Anarchism is a completely new system, you're the one who got hung up on State/Government, and me trying to explain that Government doesn't mean Government like it does today, it leans more towards Direct Democratic operating.


No one is forced to join a commune or a cooperative.

Where did I say people were forced, to be apart of a commune? I simply said that some people would do as they do now, and settle in one place, and not be roaming around commune to commune, working various jobs as a free Vagabond or something. If you want to force people into something, then create a State, but governing (especially Anarchist governing) does not force anyone into anything they're not with. If you choose to settle in say San Diego, and as I said for simplicity's sake we'll call it a commune, then that's your business, but like now if I live in San Diego, I can't say I'm from Boston.


Even if the majority of the people in your town join a specific commune the town does not become the communes territory, as communes do not have a defined territory.

If the majority of the people in a town join together, that's a fucking commune. Plain and simple. Those people use the resources they have at hand, and make what they can, while simultaneously working with other communes to better one another. Not every commune has every resource they need to sustain themselves, just like now, so there has to be communes where they have one speciality, and others have another. There's nothing stopping people coming in and out of one commune or another, I never said there was, but defining something as one thing, and another as something else, does not make it a bad thing automatically.

If one commune started to oppress the majority, then you'd have a problem and the surrounding communes could handle it.


A commune cannot enforce it's rules on non members, altough this off course does not mean people will be allowed to go around and murder, rape, steal, threaten people etc. The system i'm describing here was supported by every major anarchist thinker i can think of.

You're twisting it. You're right in saying it doesn't mean people can go around murdering, raping, etc. But just like if you came to my house, or I came to yours, and my or your house has a set of rules that I or you need followed to keep it uncluttered and messy, then you or I have to respect those rules you or I tell you or I. Having some boundary rules, is not against Anarchism, it's not against a commune, but if that commune says please don't smoke in our shops or whatever, because you're effecting everyone else in that shop, then you better learn to have some consideration and understanding.

[individualist communist]

Have you ever been to an Anarchist gathering, where you sit down and talk about theory and what you'd like society to look like? I've been to many of them, and since Direct Democracy has never actually been tried, just like Anarchism, Direct Democracy is what many Anarchists think would work best. I understand Anarchism is a completely new system, you're the one who got hung up on State/Government, and me trying to explain that Government doesn't mean Government like it does today, it leans more towards Direct Democratic operating.
I havent said i'm i opposed to direct democracy, i think that is the system cooperatives and communes should use.


Where did I say people were forced, to be apart of a commune? I simply said that some people would do as they do now, and settle in one place, and not be roaming around commune to commune, working various jobs as a free Vagabond or something. If you want to force people into something, then create a State, but governing (especially Anarchist governing) does not force anyone into anything they're not with. If you choose to settle in say San Diego, and as I said for simplicity's sake we'll call it a commune, then that's your business, but like now if I live in San Diego, I can't say I'm from Boston.
But settling in an area does not mean you have to participate in that area's commune.



If the majority of the people in a town join together, that's a fucking commune. Plain and simple. Those people use the resources they have at hand, and make what they can, while simultaneously working with other communes to better one another. Not every commune has every resource they need to sustain themselves, just like now, so there has to be communes where they have one speciality, and others have another. There's nothing stopping people coming in and out of one commune or another, I never said there was, but defining something as one thing, and another as something else, does not make it a bad thing automatically.
I'm not sure what your talking about here. What i'm saying is if i live in Boston, and the majority of the people in Boston come together and form a commune, i dont have to join the commune if i dont want to just because i live in Boston.


You're twisting it. You're right in saying it doesn't mean people can go around murdering, raping, etc. But just like if you came to my house, or I came to yours, and my or your house has a set of rules that I or you need followed to keep it uncluttered and messy, then you or I have to respect those rules you or I tell you or I. Having some boundary rules, is not against Anarchism, it's not against a commune, but if that commune says please don't smoke in our shops or whatever, because you're effecting everyone else in that shop, then you better learn to have some consideration and understanding.

Well a commune could have whatever rules it wanted in areas that are there's like on the roads they could have traffic regulation and in they shop they could have rules regarding smoking etc. I'm not against that, what i'm against is if a commune started to intervene in people's private lifes like banning drugs or restricting freedom of speech or starts having dress code just because a majority wanted it, i would't have to obey it just because i live in a certain area and that area's commune decided it. If i'm not a part of that commune and do not consent to they intervening in my private life i dont have to follow it's rules.

[Magón]

But settling in an area does not mean you have to participate in that area's commune.

No, but if you want to get things done, you have to be at least a bit social and do things with others, you can't just say, "Oh hey I live here by you people, I'll do as I please though, I'm not one of you."

Communism isn't a welfare system where people don't have to do jack for things they want. They have to take some intiative with what they do, just like now.


I'm not sure what your talking about here. What i'm saying is if i live in Boston, and the majority of the people in Boston come together and form a commune, i dont have to join the commune if i dont want to just because i live in Boston.

No, but people would probably think you are regardless. If I live in San Diego Commune, people are going to take it that I'm apart of it, even though


what i'm against is if a commune started to intervene in people's private lifes like banning drugs or restricting freedom of speech or starts having dress code just because a majority wanted it, i would't have to obey it just because i live in a certain area and that area's commune decided it. If i'm not a part of that commune and do not consent to they intervening in my private life i dont have to follow it's rules.

We're talking Anarcho-Communism here, not bullshit Soviet Socialism. If in the future, revolution is achieved world-wide and Communism is had (i.e. a moneyless, classless, absolute free society,) then why would a commune of Communists want to take away people's freedoms, by telling them how to dress or what drugs they can and cannot take, etc? It doesn't make sense, and sounds like a line some Right-wing Conservative would use. Not that I'm saying you are a Right-wing Conservative, but they use the same type of logic, and it always falls short because Communism is about giving people their absolute freedoms, and being who they want for whatever reason. And the only way these communes could ever come to light, is if we lived in a Communist society

Communism is not an idea that wants to make you dress a certain way, do drugs of certain kinds, and get involved with your personal life. Plain and simple, there is no "buts" or anything.

[individualist communist]

No, but if you want to get things done, you have to be at least a bit social and do things with others, you can't just say, "Oh hey I live here by you people, I'll do as I please though, I'm not one of you."

Communism isn't a welfare system where people don't have to do jack for things they want. They have to take some intiative with what they do, just like now.
Off course, people cant just expect to get free goods if they dont work even though they are able to work.



No, but people would probably think you are regardless. If I live in San Diego Commune, people are going to take it that I'm apart of it, even though

Even though what?


We're talking Anarcho-Communism here, not bullshit Soviet Socialism. If in the future, revolution is achieved world-wide and Communism is had (i.e. a moneyless, classless, absolute free society,) then why would a commune of Communists want to take away people's freedoms, by telling them how to dress or what drugs they can and cannot take, etc? It doesn't make sense, and sounds like a line some Right-wing Conservative would use. Not that I'm saying you are a Right-wing Conservative, but they use the same type of logic, and it always falls short because Communism is about giving people their absolute freedoms, and being who they want for whatever reason. And the only way these communes could ever come to light, is if we lived in a Communist society

Communism is not an idea that wants to make you dress a certain way, do drugs of certain kinds, and get involved with your personal life. Plain and simple, there is no "buts" or anything.
I'm not saying that is what communism want, and i agree such a thing would be unlikely in a free communist society, but you could risk such restrictions on people's freedom if you just give the majority absolute decision making power. That is what i mean by you dont have to be a part of a commune, that is if they make such authoritarian rules you could just secede from the commune and would thus not have to follow it's laws.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think there are two main trends of anarchism today: the anarcho-communists/anarcho syndicalists, and the insurrectionists. A lot of the insurrectionists also profess to be revolutionary anarchists or communists, but it seems like a lot of the more vocal firebuggy ones like to spout off weirdo nihilist individualism or something.

[Rafiq]

Anarchism is a term the Left might be able to win back... But as far as the U.S. Is concerned, not libertarianism.

[Magón]

Even though what?

Even though you might not.



I'm not saying that is what communism want, and i agree such a thing would be unlikely in a free communist society, but you could risk such restrictions on people's freedom if you just give the majority absolute decision making power. That is what i mean by you dont have to be a part of a commune, that is if they make such authoritarian rules you could just secede from the commune and would thus not have to follow it's laws.

But you're missing that this new majority doesn't think like they would now. This new majority would have to be of the mindset, that people are all independent from one another, and yet still work together to better one another since they have to work and live together (that's not to say if a family wanted to leave, they couldn't, they absolutely could). If you put the power into the majority of today, with how many people in say the US think, the outcome would be as you fear, where people's personal freedoms are violated and it becomes something like out of 1984, but maybe not as dramatic.

[Comrade Jandar]

In this book I'm reading, Black Flame: The Revolutionary Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, the authors contend that there are really only two actual tendencies of anarchism and that the difference between the two lie in strategy. Here are some quotes.

"...insurrectionist anarchism, argues that reforms are illusory and organized mass movements are incompatible with anarchism, and emphasizes armed action, propaganda by the deed, against the ruling class...as the primary means of evoking spontaneous revolutionary upsurge."

"...mass anarchism...stresses the view that only mass movements can create a revolutionary change in society, that such movements are typically built through struggles around immediate issues and reforms..."

I more or less agree with the premises above. What do other people think?

[individualist communist]

But you're missing that this new majority doesn't think like they would now. This new majority would have to be of the mindset, that people are all independent from one another, and yet still work together to better one another since they have to work and live together (that's not to say if a family wanted to leave, they couldn't, they absolutely could). If you put the power into the majority of today, with how many people in say the US think, the outcome would be as you fear, where people's personal freedoms are violated and it becomes something like out of 1984, but maybe not as dramatic.
So you agree people should be allowed to leave a commune without having to move out of they house, or do you think you should have to leave the area in order to leave the commune?

[Bronco]

I personally prefer not to assign an adjective on the end of Anarchism, partly because I think it can create unnecessary divisions in the Anarchist movement and also because while I'm still learning I'd prefer not to commit myself to any one particular branch

[Welshy]

So you agree people should be allowed to leave a commune without having to move out of they house, or do you think you should have to leave the area in order to leave the commune?

I don't understand why you are so hung up about this one issue. If a person doesn't want to move but also doesn't want to be involved with a commune then fine they don't have to be. But by doing this they are effectively isolating themselves from the rest of society and will probably have a hard time making a living. In my mind if someone who lives with in the area of commune and wants to make use of the public transportation, get food from food store front (couldn't come up with a good term for this), and to interact with the people around them, they should very well contribute to the commune by not only working but taking part in decision making. Any sort of anti-social behavior like leaving a commune with out moving should be frowned up by society.

[individualist communist]

I don't understand why you are so hung up about this one issue. If a person doesn't want to move but also doesn't want to be involved with a commune then fine they don't have to be. But by doing this they are effectively isolating themselves from the rest of society and will probably have a hard time making a living. In my mind if someone who lives with in the area of commune and wants to make use of the public transportation, get food from food store front (couldn't come up with a good term for this), and to interact with the people around them, they should very well contribute to the commune by not only working but taking part in decision making. Any sort of anti-social behavior like leaving a commune with out moving should be frowned up by society.
Because i'm a strict voluntaryist, no one should be forced to do anything against they will. But i agree that you should't be able to use a commune's resources like it's roads, schools, hospitals etc, without contributing to the commune, exept if you for some reason is unable to work.

[Comrade Jandar]

Because i'm a strict voluntaryist, no one should be forced to do anything against they will. But i agree that you should't be able to use a commune's resources like it's roads, schools, hospitals etc, without contributing to the commune, exept if you for some reason is unable to work.

So you think that bourgeois and capitalists will just voluntarily give up the means of production and private property? Anarchists believe in coercion as long as it democratically supported by a mass movement from the bottom up. This is the kind of thinking that holds anarchists back.

[Welshy]

Because i'm a strict voluntaryist, no one should be forced to do anything against they will. But i agree that you should't be able to use a commune's resources like it's roads, schools, hospitals etc, without contributing to the commune, exept if you for some reason is unable to work.

(emphasis is mine)

But isn't the threat of not being able to make use of the communes resources, a form of coercion in a way? I guess I can see how you can still voluntarily be a member of a commune because you could always chose to go live as a hermit or move and join another commune, but the type of voluntarism that you seem to be pushing doesn't make much sense.

Also as another poster mentioned, how do you see this type of society coming into being? Would you overthrow the capitalists by force? If so then you aren't living up to your strict voluntarism. Or do you expect the capitalists to give up the their control over the MoP peacefully or move to some island to try to make randian capitalist paradise? If so then you are awfully naive and idealist.

[Magón]

So you agree people should be allowed to leave a commune without having to move out of they house, or do you think you should have to leave the area in order to leave the commune?

I believer when you leave somewhere, but don't move house, that's called a vacation? I don't see why people couldn't have a vacation when they wanted? In fact, I think people could go on vacation a lot more frequently, than they can now because there would always be someone to fill their position (or at least should be), at work or wherever.

But, I think you if you plan to leave a commune, and go to another one, never to return to that first commune, you shouldn't keep the house because in the first place a house is never really yours to begin with. You simply occupy it for a certain amount of time, and when you leave/die, that "ownership" of the house becomes void and the next person/people to come to it, can have it.

Remember the famed quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Well when you leave a commune for good, and thus the house you no longer occupy, that particular house ceases to be a need for you, and becomes something you simply want for the sake of it, even though you're not coming back to that commune again. There's no point in it, so you have to give it up, and allow others to take it.

[individualist communist]

So you think that bourgeois and capitalists will just voluntarily give up the means of production and private property? Anarchists believe in coercion as long as it democratically supported by a mass movement from the bottom up. This is the kind of thinking that holds anarchists back.
You fail to understand voluntaryism.

[Bronco]

Is Voluntaryism not generally associated with Anarcho-Capitalism?

[individualist communist]

(emphasis is mine)

But isn't the threat of not being able to make use of the communes resources, a form of coercion in a way? I guess I can see how you can still voluntarily be a member of a commune because you could always chose to go live as a hermit or move and join another commune, but the type of voluntarism that you seem to be pushing doesn't make much sense.
It makes plenty of sense. Threatening someone with no longer supporting because of they behavior or something is not coercive as voluntaryism goes both ways, no one should be forced to support you or help you.

Also as another poster mentioned, how do you see this type of society coming into being? Would you overthrow the capitalists by force? If so then you aren't living up to your strict voluntarism. Or do you expect the capitalists to give up the their control over the MoP peacefully or move to some island to try to make randian capitalist paradise? If so then you are awfully naive and idealist.[/QUOTE]
Private property is a form of agression. Rebelling against private property owners is defensive, not aggressive.

[individualist communist]

I believer when you leave somewhere, but don't move house, that's called a vacation? I don't see why people couldn't have a vacation when they wanted? In fact, I think people could go on vacation a lot more frequently, than they can now because there would always be someone to fill their position (or at least should be), at work or wherever.

But, I think you if you plan to leave a commune, and go to another one, never to return to that first commune, you shouldn't keep the house because in the first place a house is never really yours to begin with. You simply occupy it for a certain amount of time, and when you leave/die, that "ownership" of the house becomes void and the next person/people to come to it, can have it.

Remember the famed quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Well when you leave a commune for good, and thus the house you no longer occupy, that particular house ceases to be a need for you, and becomes something you simply want for the sake of it, even though you're not coming back to that commune again. There's no point in it, so you have to give it up, and allow others to take it.
I dont think your understanding what i'm saying. I'm not talking about the commune as a certain territory/area, i'm talking about it in a political sense. I'm talking about secession from the commune, politically. Like if you disagree with some of the commune's policies, like who does the garbage collection or whatever, you should be allowed to secede from the commune, meaning you no longer participate in the commune's meetings, no longer enjoy it's common resources like free schools, hospitals, roads etc, and no longer have to follow it's rules. Do you think you should be allowed to do that, without having to actually move out of the area?

[individualist communist]

Is Voluntaryism not generally associated with Anarcho-Capitalism?
No. Are you suggesting that i'm an Anarcho-capitalist?

[Bronco]

No. Are you suggesting that i'm an Anarcho-capitalist?

Not necessarily but it seems to me that most Voluntaryists hold Anarcho-Capitalist views, the logo for instance combines the black of Anarchy with the Gold of currency as does the An-Cap flag

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/VforVoluntary_normal.svg/220px-VforVoluntary_normal.svg.png

[individualist communist]

Not necessarily but it seems to me that most Voluntaryists hold Anarcho-Capitalist views, the logo for instance combines the black of Anarchy with the Gold of currency as does the An-Cap flag

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/VforVoluntary_normal.svg/220px-VforVoluntary_normal.svg.png
I dont think voluntaryists have a logo, that looks like another of anarcho-capitalism logo's.

[individualist communist]

From wikipedia


As government is defined as a monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force and coercion in a given geographical region, voluntaryists call for its abolition. One of the goals of voluntaryism is the replacement of the government or state by a voluntary society in which autonomous self-determination is had by each individual and in which association among people occurs by mutual consent. A voluntary society entails a stateless society; voluntaryism entails (or is compatible with) a variety of anarchist positions, and is often compared to anarchism without adjectives.
Voluntaryists advocate radical stateless pluralism. While voluntaryists as individuals have particular values and preferences for stateless socioeconomic arrangements, voluntaryism as a philosophy does not specify the arrangements that a society without government ought to embrace; only that initiative force be abandoned in bringing about such arrangements, so that individuals and communities may flourish. For example, many voluntaryists advocate societal arrangements in which property rights exist and are respected, which they regard as compatible with non-coercion and part of pre-institutional natural law. On the other hand, some voluntaryists may be non-propertarians, believing that inhabitants of a society can voluntarily choose cooperative arrangements of land and resources that are not privatized.
Note i do not entirely agree with the last sentence.

[Magón]

I dont think your understanding what i'm saying. I'm not talking about the commune as a certain territory/area, i'm talking about it in a political sense. I'm talking about secession from the commune, politically. Like if you disagree with some of the commune's policies, like who does the garbage collection or whatever, you should be allowed to secede from the commune, meaning you no longer participate in the commune's meetings, no longer enjoy it's common resources like free schools, hospitals, roads etc, and no longer have to follow it's rules. Do you think you should be allowed to do that, without having to actually move out of the area?

So you're saying, that to receive things like schooling, hospital care, use of roads, etc., in a commune, I'd have to participate in a commune's meetings? No, I don't think that has to be the case at all. Like I said earlier, there could be plenty of people who come to the meeting and just say, "I don't care," on one topic like garbage disposal, or just don't go at all to the meeting because it's not a big deal to them, but still participate by working the job they work within the commune. Or find a new job within the commune if that previous job's been compromised in some way, like you no longer agree with how it should be ran or whatever, if it happens to be a garbageman.

Everyone, far and wide, regardless of who they are, where they come from, or what they think, should have access to schooling, hospitals, and the ability to use roads, etc. with no questions asked since those are vital things for modern day life.