Free market anarcho-communism?

[adace]

attack the system free market anarcho communism

Hi guys, I registered on this site in hopes you could share your opinions on this interesting article I came across. How do anarcho-communists deal with the issues of coercion and individual freedom? For example, I read that the Spanish anarchist revolutionaries forced some peasants and farmers to collectivize. If you could respond both to the article and to the example I just provided, that would be great. Thanks!

PS: Can't post links yet so you'll have to Google the keywords above to get to the article. Sorry.

[Prinskaj]

Are you talking about this article?
http://attackthesystem.com/free-market-anarcho-communism/
Seems like regular boring mutualism to me.

[leftistman]

I would never force collectivization if people did not want to join the revolution. If people want to join the revolution, they must collectivize. It's as simple as that.

[Raúl Duke]

If people want to join the revolution, they must collectivize. It's as simple as that.Simply this.

Anarchists have discussed this issue previously, in the Anarchist FAQ they mentioned that those who don't want can simply be an independent worker/farmer yet none of this mutualist/"free market" crap; their goods are part of the pool of general goods produced by the anarchist economy which will follow to some extent the communist ideal (as much as possible; the degree is subject to change over time, etc across the development of the new society but mostly closer to the ideal as conditions permit).

However, when it comes to revolution itself, it mostly deals with employed workers and a part of the socialist revolution involves that these employed workers seize their workplaces (the means of production, et.al), etc from the bourgeoisie. I don't imagine anarchists targeting independent farmers/independent workers much, unless they actively sided with the counter-revolution, and they make a minority anyway so they as a group won't have much influence compared to the 'collectivized' workers/farmers who make up a majority.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

free market anarcho-communism is an oxymoron, i hate to be a stifler about it and not really reply in depth to the post or article but it just doesnt fly IMHO dude. Communism by definition requires the elimination of market mechanisms, not just in Marxian Communism but in Kropotkins formulation of "anarcho-communism" as well. The existance of market mechanisms in an economic system mould people in a fashion contrary to the needs of an egalitarian, communial society.

[helot]

Are you talking about this article?
http://attackthesystem.com/free-market-anarcho-communism/
Seems like regular boring mutualism to me.


It seems to me that the author of that is quite naive. The entire notion that communism could exist side by side in peace with the capitalist mode of production is a fairy tale no matter what apologists claim about the non-aggression principle. The author fails to understand that for people to 'organise in a capitalist manner' there is a necessity for the vast majority of people to be dispossessed and have nothing to sell but their right arm. A society in which workers no longer need to sell themselves to an owner in order to survive is necessarily at odds with any and all attempts and desires to alter this condition in favour of the capitalist mode of production. I'd go as far to claim that even to suggest some sort of peace is a spit in the face.

[x-punk]

Ive heard this theory before. It seems like the standard anarcho-capitalist rhetoric. Land and natural resources are communally owned allowing anyone access to them but systems of ownership exist based on the homesteading principle. i.e. if you add your labour to something you own it. Then it lumps on the non-aggression principle and says that anyone can live as they wish, whether it be communist, capitalist or whatever.

The problem, as has been stated by other posters, is that communism and capitalism cant coexist in this manner. The author of the article makes the assumption that private property is some sort of universal constant which occurs naturally. It isnt. Its a forced construct pushed on us by the state. Because of this, areas with capitalism require a state to define and enforce the private property rights. Thus, capitalism can never be anarchistic and can never embrace this much vaunted non-aggression principle (n.b. its quite comical that these anrcho-capitalists put so much weight on this non-aggression principle and use it as a justification for a system of capitalism which is inherently coercive by nature) Because there is private ownership, people are forcibly denied access to the private property of the capitalists. And because of this private ownership you cant have communal ownership of this stuff, thus communism cannot exist.

Other posters have answered your question regarding individual freedoms in communism and as i understand it the idea that you could live independently of the communal system was applied in the Spanish free territory. However, you must understand that during this period, this area in Spain was not fully communist. It couldnt be as it had to interact with other capitalist areas to gain access to resources. Thus market trade had to occur with these areas. This actually highlights just why communism and capitalism cant coexist.

Just another point about the non-aggression principle which seems to form the main thrust of your question. Its really a nonsensical principle. It suggests that coercion is unacceptable but once again assumes that what constitutes coercion is some sort of universal constant. Its not, its highly subjective. However, it seeks to enforce non-aggression by universally defining what constitutes coercion and then using coercion (or force) to enforce it. i.e. they want to create a state which uses violence over a area to enforce a stateless system with no aggression :confused:.

[Kotze]

That's an interesting website.

Did you guys know that National-Anarchism is a revolutionary third way beyond left and right, and against totalitarian dogmas like communism?

National-Anarchism recognises that races exist and that their differences can and should not be fanatically eliminated.

National-Anarchism: The Way of the Future.

0_________________________0

[adace]

Thanks for the replies everyone. The picture is pretty clear for me now, but I still have some issues I'd like resolved.

1. So how does homesteading fit in with anarcho-communism, if at all? Is there such a thing as "communal ownership" or would that concept be illogical in post-revolution society?

2. Going off of #1 and in response to Raul Duke's post, let's say there's an individual who claims to have homesteaded, if that word is at all applicable, a certain piece of land without any social input. He/she made all the tools and did all the work him/herself. Now let's say he/she is approached by a collective that wants to take his labor/resources in the name of the common good. Does he/she have any legitimate defense to withhold whatever is requested of him from the collective or is he/she effectively acting as a one-person state (i.e. in a coercive manner) in doing that? If that person is acting coercively then how would the collective deal with him/her without itself assuming the powers of a state?

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that a true global communist revolution would require the elimination of all borders including the elimination of all distinctions between collectives themselves. In other words, the entire world would be one single anarchist collective. I say this because if there were distinct collectives then the emergence of "state socialism" would be a near inevitability. So assuming my analysis is correct, which it may very well not be, I guess I would ask the same question as I did in #2: How to coordinate action against a capitalist/counter-revolutionary threat. Obviously if it's just a handful of people you can't have the entire rest of the world go after them.

As to the Spanish Revolution, I'll probably start another thread as I don't want to go too far off-track here. I await your responses. Thanks again!

[Raúl Duke]

the non-aggression principle

I've most heard of this shit from certain American anarchist currents (even those who claim to be for socialism) and it comes from free-market capitalist libertarianism. (I've literally have met "anarchists" in the US who claim to be inspired by both Kropotkin and Rothbard, who theorized this principle, and claim to be social anarchists :rolleyes: ). The fact that it claims to be some sort of "free market anarchist communist" already tells me it's one of "those types:" confused self-described most likely American "anarchists."

I theorize one reason why this confusion appears is that most Americans get into the whole anarchist thing out of the whole freedom/liberty rhetoric when the real focus of anarchism has more to do with anti-hierarchy and equality than freedom/liberty: we do not respect the "liberty" to own property or to institute wage slavery.

I think the NAP is a bunch of rubbish and it seems to easily fall into the hands of that whole BS Engel's critique that anarchism won't use force to "institute their program." Actual anarchists will not stand idlely by and let some free-market/capitalist relations appear within their mists. As I said, either these independent farmers/workers join the communist economy or be isolated and left to rot. If they make a plurality in one region of the libertarian socialist territories and may threaten the communist economy in some way it's totally possible that force will be used if the people decide it's necessary.

[Raúl Duke]

Looking into the site, they're not real anarchists at all; too much "let's all come together" BS to the point of inviting reactionary elements all because they see the status-quo as their enemy ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). They accept people who hold reactionary positions, dismissing anti-racism/misogyny/etc it as upper class "culture war" thing (as if working class PoC and working class women don't face racism and sexism in their realities), such as white nationalists and anti-choice Chrisitians plus whole bunch of non-sense that probably doesn't exist IRL like "anarcho-monarchism." <facepalm>

Than they proceed to, like every other left sect even those which only exist in the internet, claim that they're "the most [i.e. only] strategically feasible anarchist movement for contemporary North America" :rolleyes:

One thing for sure, this seems like the kind of aberration that could only exist within American anarchism/politics. Never seen an anarchist in Europe advocate this crap and even consider "anarcho-capitalism" a part of anarchism or think of anarcho-monarchism or anarcho-feudalism (wtf) as real things.

[Raúl Duke]

there's an individual who claims to have homesteaded, if that word is at all applicable, a certain piece of land without any social input. He/she made all the tools and did all the work him/herself. Now let's say he/she is approached by a collective that wants to take his labor/resources in the name of the common good. Does he/she have any legitimate defense to withhold whatever is requested of him from the collective or is he/she effectively acting as a one-person state (i.e. in a coercive manner) in doing that? If that person is acting coercively then how would the collective deal with him/her without itself assuming the powers of a state?

It depends on economic scale mostly

Assume there were a few scattered "homesteads" that basically function at more or less subsistence. We leave them alone.

Now imagine there was an entire region of independent homesteads that began to form their own separate market/capitalist economy. They may have to be dealt with. How would be decided by the people in the anarchist territories, the use of force is a possibility; particularly if they re-introduced wage slavery.

Now imagine a region with a network of independent homesteads but they had a socialist-type economy of sorts or were just a co-operative subsistence network yet for some reason did not want to be a part of the larger anarchist/libertarian socialist economy. We'll probably leave them alone too, although it would be a mystery to why they wouldn't want to be a part of the larger and compatible anarchist/socialist economy.


How to coordinate action against a capitalist/counter-revolutionary threat. Obviously if it's just a handful of people you can't have the entire rest of the world go after them.

Re-assemble the voluntary militias, begin production of ordinance to arm them, and have them at the ready for defense and if need be to engage/attack; if they pose a real threat.

[adace]

So you're saying that capitalism can co-exist with anarcho-communism so long as the capitalists just keep to themselves and don't try to reintroduce private property?

Also, if someone from the collective decides to sell his/her labor to a capitalist, would that person be forcibly stopped from doing so since that might threaten the social order?

[adace]

Oh yeah, one more thing. What about the National Anarchists? Can they exist side-by-side with the anti-racist anarchists assuming they're not capitalist? Or would their exclusive nature automatically make them a threat to the other collectives?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

1. So how does homesteading fit in with anarcho-communism, if at all? Is there such a thing as "communal ownership" or would that concept be illogical in post-revolution society?

If the person uses it as mode of production (homesteading being a first requirement to be able to produce) it becomes his property for as long as it is used for means of production.



2. Going off of #1 and in response to Raul Duke's post, let's say there's an individual who claims to have homesteaded, if that word is at all applicable, a certain piece of land without any social input. He/she made all the tools and did all the work him/herself. Now let's say he/she is approached by a collective that wants to take his labor/resources in the name of the common good. Does he/she have any legitimate defense to withhold whatever is requested of him from the collective or is he/she effectively acting as a one-person state (i.e. in a coercive manner) in doing that? If that person is acting coercively then how would the collective deal with him/her without itself assuming the powers of a state?

If that man (or woman) built the homestead and has a piece of land on which he produces eneough for him and his family, then what on earth could a collective do with a piece of land, barely enough for one family.
If it is big enough for multiple families, then the estate could be divided (because then it would cease to be property as soon as it stops being used for production).
The house would be left alone, for what can a collective do?
Put one family out of their home, just to house another?
What other possible motive could they have to claim it all?



3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that a true global communist revolution would require the elimination of all borders including the elimination of all distinctions between collectives themselves. In other words, the entire world would be one single anarchist collective. I say this because if there were distinct collectives then the emergence of "state socialism" would be a near inevitability. So assuming my analysis is correct, which it may very well not be, I guess I would ask the same question as I did in #2: How to coordinate action against a capitalist/counter-revolutionary threat. Obviously if it's just a handful of people you can't have the entire rest of the world go after them.

After the revolution, who would willingly want to return to a failed and corrupt system of slaves and masters (capitalism changed the terms, but not the ideology).
And besides, a counter-party could easily be formed as Raúl Duke has pointed out.
Furthermore, it would have to be a localised counter-fraction if they are to communicate it in secret. A few, scattered over the entire world will prove to be harmless.
And what would you do with a capitalist market in a communist world?
How are you supposed to sell something without money? It would become and stay a very small-scaled operation, with virtually no survival-possibilities.
Want to sell? You can't! Want to buy? Not possible! Asking for goods from the communist world? You ain't gettin' any!

[newdayrising]

This is a silly discussion. Communism means no market, end of story.
If the free market thing is a method towards communism, it's not very anarchist, because it implies a period of transition.