Questions for Anarcho-Communists?

[ZenTaoist]

I consider myself Anarcho-Communist because I largely agree with the works of Peter Kropotkin. However, I do have my issues with how exactly the transition from capitalism straight to communism would take place.

1. How does this transition come about? I understand there will be free workers' federations and communes, but I'm assuming all that has to be organized before the revolution takes place? How will that happen exactly? And how do we ensure the proletariat are protected from counter-revolutionaries?

2. Do we go straight to a gift economy or something before that like collectivism? I'm wondering how we could go straight from capitalism where people are constantly forced to compete against one another to a gift economy that's largely based on giving? How would we ensure production for basic needs continue to be met? Also, if we decide on collectivism, what is to keep hierarchies and class societies from re-emerging if communes start competing with one another?

3. Do you view human civilization from an individualist standpoint, or social standpoint...OR do you see this as a false dichotomy? Do you feel either individualism or society is more important than the other?

[The Idler]

Class consciousness, not a bunch of revolutionaries.
Class consciousness, not collectivism.
Social standpoint.

[ZenTaoist]

Class consciousness, not a bunch of revolutionaries.
Class consciousness, not collectivism.
Social standpoint.



Okay this is incredibly vague.

1. When the working-class is class conscious, how do you organize them and what steps do they take to overthrow the capitalist system.

2. When the revolution occurs, how do they organize themselves according to the principles of anarcho-communism?

[The Idler]

You don't organise them, you organise yourself, like every other member of the working class organises themselves. Whatever steps are necessary will be tried and taken to overthrow the rule of capital.
Probably no-one will go to work for a wage, preferring to take what they need, and produce what others need. Unless you're in finance or other certain occupations you can probably carry on producing what you produced under capitalism. Don't expect a Khmer Rouge style collectivisation and accompanying genocide.

[G4b3n]

1. Worker's institutions ought to be established before revolution. A minority of revolutionaries should not engage in a bloody struggle, the working class can only seize power when a majority is class conscious. This is done by physically seizing the means of production from the bourgeoisie. The state is then to be dismantled. Defending the revolution from counter-revolutionaries is circumstantial but physical conflict should be the last resort.

2. A gift economy can not be established at the wave of wand. A transitional phase will be needed before any sort of socialism is established, I would argue that this should be done with labor vouchers.

3. Social standpoint, though it should not be forced. With a class conscious majority there would be no need for Stalinist style forced collectivization.

[Red Economist]

3. Do you view human civilization from an individualist standpoint, or social standpoint...OR do you see this as a false dichotomy? Do you feel either individualism or society is more important than the other?

As a Marxist, I'd say it's potentially a false dichotomy. the division of collectivism and individualism into antagonistic polar opposites is very much idealist/liberal thinking because it assumes that the individualism is freedom for individual consciousness and collectivism is freedom for the collective consciousness of the state (to render an individual passive). This conclusion rests primarily on the assumption of self-interest individuals as making individuals hostile to one another and to the collective power of the state.

The division is about the alienation of the powers of the state from the community, which makes the state hostile to society. If the functions of the state are directly incorporated into an individual morally (and society as a free association of individuals), then the antagonism no longer exists.

However, this is simply a 'philosophical' breakdown of the concept and does not spell out 'practical' solutions to the problem of reconciling antagonistic individuals in society. I would suspect this would take long-term technological and economic changes to precondition people to think and behave in a 'socialist'/'anarchist' way where they could live without a state.

[ind_com]

1. Worker's institutions ought to be established before revolution. A minority of revolutionaries should not engage in a bloody struggle, the working class can only seize power when a majority is class conscious.

If a minority among the working class faces a choice between starvation and a bloody violent struggle, then who will explain to them that they should not engage in the struggle?