Are you opposed to other Anarchistic societies?

[Barry_diller]

If you say France becomes an Anarcho-Communist society and Germany becomes an Anarcho-Capitalist society, would you deny the Anarcho-Capitalist idea of private property and use force to redistribute the ressources between us all?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You're already using force to maintain private property, so please don't go any further in that direction, sir.

[Remus Bleys]

Of course. Then we would lay seige to the capitalists, forcing terror on the reactionaries.
Fuck your pacifism.

[Bourgeois]

You're already using force to maintain private property, so please don't go any further in that direction, sir.

Let's say I lived in a Communist society. If everything is public property, then what's stopping me from doing as I please on such property? It obviously can't be force.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Let's say I lived in a Communist society. If everything is public property, then what's stopping me from doing as I please on such property? It obviously can't be force.

Some extension of the community. MAJORITARIANS FORCING US TO BE WEAK AND BLARGH.

Sod off with the fucking Rand, daftie.

[Bourgeois]

Some extension of the community. MAJORITARIANS FORCING US TO BE WEAK AND BLARGH.

Sod off with the fucking Rand, daftie.

I'd appreciate a clarification on "some" extension of the community.

I'm also confused as to why you call me a "daftie"? It seems derogatory and I'd like to know what caused me to spark a reaction from you?

[Barry_diller]

Of course. Then we would lay seige to the capitalists, forcing terror on the reactionaries.
Fuck your pacifism.

So your approach is to start a war on everybody who doesn't accept Anrcho-communism?

[DasFapital]

Anarcho capitalism is a contradiction in terms. For there to be private property there needs to be an exploiting class. For there to be an exploiting class there needs to be a state.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'd appreciate a clarification on "some" extension of the community.

I'm also confused as to why you call me a "daftie"? It seems derogatory and I'd like to know what caused me to spark a reaction from you?

How could I know what form that extension of the community would take? What sort of revolution is it? I cannot know exactly what sort we're talking of here.

Because you have the Fountainhead as an avatar, i.e. you are stupid. Ergo, daftie.

[Remus Bleys]

So your approach is to start a war on everybody who doesn't accept Anrcho-communism?
My approach is to be a part of the struggle that ends in the abolition of classes.

[Barry_diller]

You're already using force to maintain private property, so please don't go any further in that direction, sir.

Private property only exist because the people around it accept it as private property. I understand that if people in a area don't want to support the idea of private and moves it to public and then some outsider insist it's private, it will then be an agression against the people living there

But I would argue that you can't move into another society that accepts private property and take what's in it to redestribute. That is an act of agression

[Barry_diller]

My approach is to be a part of the struggle that ends in the abolition of classes.

struggle=war?

[Art Vandelay]

Let's say I lived in a Communist society. If everything is public property, then what's stopping me from doing as I please on such property? It obviously can't be force.

Abundance. Communism is a society of 'free-producers.'

[Remus Bleys]

struggle=war?
No. proletarian revolution

[Remus Bleys]

That is an act of agression
So fucking what?
So is the entire notion of capitalism.

[Barry_diller]

No. proletarian revolution


There can only be a revolution if an agency is forcing you to not live the way you see fit(the state). If you are already in an Anarcho-communist society and other societies exist besides that, and those societies are not forcing it's population to stay, it's not then a revolution if you attack those societies. it's an invasion
You are not freeing anyone, if they want to live there with the rules.

[Barry_diller]

So fucking what?
So is the entire notion of capitalism.


Not if people living in it accepts it's

[Per Levy]

If you say France becomes an Anarcho-Communist society and Germany becomes an Anarcho-Capitalist society, would you deny the Anarcho-Capitalist idea of private property and use force to redistribute the ressources between us all?

"anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, anarchism is against hierarchies while capitalism is hierarchical to its core. so your scenario is a strawman.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There can only be a revolution if an agency is forcing you to not live the way you see fit(the state). If you are already in an Anarcho-communist society and other societies exist besides that, and those societies are not forcing it's population to stay, it's not then a revolution if you attack those societies. it's an invasion
You are not freeing anyone, if they want to live there with the rules.

There's no such thing as free will. Those people cannot just up and leave, can they now? They have families that live there, children & whatnot. They might not want to leave your an-cap purgatory, even if they hate it. Those "choices" exist only in a world where this is the only defining thing, but the world is endlessly complex. Anarcho-communism, or communism in general, cannot exist in a world of nation-states.

[Remus Bleys]

There can only be a revolution if an agency is forcing you to not live the way you see fit(the state). If you are already in an Anarcho-communist society and other societies exist besides that, and those societies are not forcing it's population to stay, it's not then a revolution if you attack those societies. it's an invasion
You are not freeing anyone, if they want to live there with the rules.
I do not think you know what the fuck you are talking about you pigshit.
A revolution is the change in the mode of production. What the fuck is this shit about a revolution is only possible if the state forces you to live there? That doesn't even make sense by dipshit randroid logic

[Remus Bleys]

Not if people living in it accepts it's
accept what? capital needs to expand it needs to inflitrate the world.

[Barry_diller]

"anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, anarchism is against hierarchies while capitalism is hierarchical to its core. so your scenario is a strawman.


I could use another societies as example. Anarcho-primitivism, zeitgeist..

[GiantMonkeyMan]

There can only be a revolution if an agency is forcing you to not live the way you see fit(the state). If you are already in an Anarcho-communist society and other societies exist besides that, and those societies are not forcing it's population to stay, it's not then a revolution if you attack those societies. it's an invasion
You are not freeing anyone, if they want to live there with the rules.
In order to establish bourgeois democracy as the dominant ideology there were violent revolutions, from the English Civil to the American Revolution to the 1848 revolutions across Europe, and violent repression of groups of people who didn't want to live under such a societal order, the numerous massacres of striking workers, brutal crackdowns of protests etc. In order to establish proletarian democracy and then a society where class doesn't exist at all, we recognise that violence is going to be a useful tool in crushing reactionaries and we don't shy away from it but our revolution isn't to establish a political economy predicated on exploitation but one of liberation.

[Barry_diller]

There's no such thing as free will. Those people cannot just up and leave, can they now? They have families that live there, children & whatnot. They might not want to leave your an-cap purgatory, even if they hate it. Those "choices" exist only in a world where this is the only defining thing, but the world is endlessly complex. Anarcho-communism, or communism in general, cannot exist in a world of nation-states.


why not? How are it's ever then going to exist?

If some people live in an Anacho-capitalistic society and they want to move to an Anarcho-Communist society, would you not help them? What if it's a whole family decision?

[Remus Bleys]

I could use another societies as example.
FAIL TO SEE RELEVANCE

Anarcho-primitivism,
FUCK INDUSTRIALISATION11111111

zeitgeist..
WAT:confused:
No seriously wtf

[Per Levy]

Private property only exist because the people around it accept it as private property.

that is quite honestly bs, you arnt asked if you accept private proberty, you arnt asked if you think capitalism is a bad system that should be smashed. you are born into this system, you are teached that it is "natural" and if you can break free of all the propaganda that oozes out of every radio, tv, newspaper you'll prboalyl be targeted by the state that is there to protect private proberty. we arnt asked if we want this system it is forced down our throats if we want to or not.


But I would argue that you can't move into another society that accepts private property and take what's in it to redestribute. That is an act of agression

capitalism is agression, every part of this world is captalist, its not very peaceful is it now? not to mention that if there is a revolution where workers take power that revolution is at war with every bourgeois state in the world because the bourgeoisie wont just stand idle by while its power is declining.

also communism and capitalism cant just live peacfully besides each other, both are global systems that need to be global, communism can only be achived if there is no capitalism anymore.

[Barry_diller]

we recognise that violence is going to be a useful tool in crushing reactionaries and we don't shy away from it but our revolution isn't to establish a political economy predicated on exploitation but one of liberation.

Is this generally accepted in Anarcho-Communism? Violence as a tool to free people from capitalism?

[Per Levy]

I could use another societies as example.

no you couldnt, your argument is based on the asumption that in one country there is private proberty and in the other there isnt.


Anarcho-primitivism, zeitgeist..

zeitgeist seriously? that isnt anarchistic at all. and primitivism is pretty vague, it depends on what you understand under that term.

[Remus Bleys]

Is this generally accepted in Anarcho-Communism? Violence as a tool to free people from capitalism?
yes
why wouldnt it be?

but im not an anarchist.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Is this generally accepted in Anarcho-Communism? Violence as a tool to free people from capitalism?
Violence to break the chains that hold us against our will. I'm not an anarcho-communist but pretty much every branch of revolutionary ideology recognises that violence is a very real possibility over the course of a revolution.

Power does not come any more from the barrel of a gun than it comes from a ballot box. No revolution is peaceful, but its “military” dimension is never central. The question is not whether the proles finally decide to break into the armouries, but whether they unleash what they are; commodified beings who no longer want to exist as commodities, and whose revolt explodes capitalist logic. Barricades and machine guns flow from this “weapon”. The greater the change in social life, the less guns will be needed, and the less casualties there will be. A communist revolution will never resemble a slaughter: not from any nonviolent principle, but because revolution subverts more (soldiers included) than it actually destroys. - Gilles Dauvé

[#FF0000]

If you say France becomes an Anarcho-Communist society and Germany becomes an Anarcho-Capitalist society, would you deny the Anarcho-Capitalist idea of private property and use force to redistribute the ressources between us all?

An "anarchist" society must be communistic or it isn't "anarchist" at all. A state is necessary to maintain and protect private property in the first place.

also excuse Remus Bleys. he's like this with everyone.

[Bourgeois]

How could I know what form that extension of the community would take? What sort of revolution is it? I cannot know exactly what sort we're talking of here.

Because you have the Fountainhead as an avatar, i.e. you are stupid. Ergo, daftie.

I don't know what you're going on about. My question was simple: What's stopping me from doing as I please on public property?

I still don't understand your nuanced claptrap. Your philosophy can be twisted around however the poster pleases. "Because you are a member of RevLeft, i.e. you are crazy. Ergo, insane." I don't spout this out because it's a vast generalization. It wouldn't help my cause, just as it doesn't help yours.


Abundance. Communism is a society of 'free-producers.'

This doesn't explain what would keep me from doing as I please on public property. Abundance is different for different individuals.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Well, I suppose the well-worn mantra "from each according to their ability - to each according to their need" comes into force (although how we define what constitutes someone's productive ability or needs - that seems to be another thorny matter entirely.)

Theoretically, you would be fairly free to do as you wished, with consideration as to what is avaliable at this place and who else is also using it/needs to use it. I will concede this can sometimes be a difficult idea to get your head around - I wonder about it a lot and I imagine many other people might feel the same even in leftist circles, since we're all conditioned by the system we live under (i.e capitalism) but it is important to bear in mind that society and our ideas of ownership would be radically different under a radically different social order (i.e anarchist-communism)

If I might draw a historical example, we can look at the friction between settlers and the indigenous population in North America during the first decades of the 17th century - so for convenience's sake we shall say in the area around Jamestown, Virginia. Relations were relatively good at first, and there was a degree of mutual trade and co-operation - but quickly tensions arose, particularly over what the English settlers percieved to be stealing, and what the native population percieved to be extreme discourtesy and malappropriation of arable land. On both sides, there was a serious misunderstanding about how the other side saw ownership and property (not unsurprisingly given the circumstances.)

To boil it down to basest simplicity - after contact and initial trading (and a degree of compassion on behalf of the powhatans towards the English settlers, who were initially unable to support themselves) it seems that natives generally saw the settlers as relatively friendly and willing to co-operate - and given that they had shared valuable food with the settlers, it did not seem unreasonable (in their culture) to assume that most possessions and land would now be shared. The result is that there are several cases of natives being beaten for "stealing" tools - when in fact it had simply been assumed that they were relatively free to use what the settlers were not using - and perhaps vice-versa. Conversely, the settlers managed to deeply offend natives by building and planting tobacco on their maize fields. The English assumed that by trading tools for land (or so they seem to have thought) they were essentially gaining property rights to that land - which was not the case, since cleared fields were a vital resource to native populations, given the rarity of agricultural surplus.

In other words, common property and use on basis of need rather than ownership is not a concept unusual to human societies - and we are manifestly talking about societies which suffered from scarcity and warfare. I do not think it is outlandish to posit that in a society of abundance and equality we would be able to get our heads round common ownership once more. In this context - what is there that you would do on public property that would be particularly disagreeable? (aside from murder or rape and suchlike) In terms of disputes over who gets to use what in a situation where whatever it is is NOT abundant enough to just use (and there probably will be such occurences over certain things which are difficult to produce/are not usually needed in quantity.) I imagine that it will be settled by reasonable debate and nobody would even need to resort to anything more.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Is this generally accepted in Anarcho-Communism? Violence as a tool to free people from capitalism? Well yeah
Not like bitcoins or whatever shit is going to bring down the state
At least ancoms have a plan, man
ancaps are pure lifestyle posturing

[Jimmie Higgins]

Private property only exist because the people around it accept it as private property.private productive property in a capitalist sense didn't always exist and it didn't come into being because of ideas and an amicable general agreement. It exists because the commons were enclosed because the rich found that rather than a bunch of feudal estates that exist to reproduce themselves, they could turn the land into capital which was much more dynamic because land was used based on what would bring the best return, rather than maintaing the feudal relations. People resisted this process because they lost the ability to make their own living off the common lands or plots on the estates and were suddenly landless. Laws had to be passed to prevent people from farming or gathering on private property, laws and repression were used to force people to take up work.

So private property only exists because of the state.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Anarcho-Primitivism can only be seen positively in a vacuum, to be honest (let's destroy agriculture, modern housing and infrastructure, and cull ~80% of the world's population! Rewild, folks!).

Zeitgeist is simply one of the many painful guises of the old technocracy advocates. It is not anarchistic in any way.

[RedMaterialist]

I don't know what you're going on about. My question was simple: What's stopping me from doing as I please on public property?

It depends on what you want to do on public property. If you want to kill a fellow human being (and since you are bourgeois, we can assume you are homicidal) then a lot of other human beings will stop you and lock you up in a mental institution.

[bcbm]

If you say France becomes an Anarcho-Communist society and Germany becomes an Anarcho-Capitalist society, would you deny the Anarcho-Capitalist idea of private property and use force to redistribute the ressources between us all?

what is this mysterious world you believe in where there is 'anarcho communist society' and nation states at the same time? the slate will be wiped clean across all geographic boundaries and a new age of human freedom and community will shine across the globe.


I don't know what you're going on about. My question was simple: What's stopping me from doing as I please on public property?

nothing? but if you get too zany we may have to cull you

[Niccolo]

How does Remus Bleys get away with constantly swearing and only contributing through rude one-liner posts. I thought the point of this subforum was to actually answer questions from opposing ideologies, not just insult them.

To the OP: Marxists generally call for world revolution, as a mode of production is a world system. This is why 'socialism in one country' is impossible. I don't think that small, alternative communities would not be allowed to exist, but there would not be any isolated countries with an alternative mode of production.


I do not think you know what the fuck you are talking about you pigshit.
A revolution is the change in the mode of production. What the fuck is this shit about a revolution is only possible if the state forces you to live there? That doesn't even make sense by dipshit randroid logic

Horrible comment. How do you expect to teach other people about your views with this attitude? You're representing communists as people who are not up for intellectual discourse.

[Remus Bleys]

What's. This about me being rude? I don't post one liners, I think I've actually contributed. I have interlaced my argument and facts with "swears" (oh no someone online is cussing!) Because that is the way I talk.

[G4b3n]

So your approach is to start a war on everybody who doesn't accept Anrcho-communism?

I think "starting a war" and liberating an oppressed class of people is a bit different. That is what bourgeois propaganda does, it paints a struggle for liberation as an ideological struggle in which the liberators are insatiable in forcing their believes on free people, "freedom" which the bourgeoisie has been so generous as to provide them with.

[argeiphontes]

I think "starting a war" and liberating an oppressed class of people is a bit different. That is what bourgeois propaganda does, it paints a struggle for liberation as an ideological struggle in which the liberators are insatiable in forcing their believes on free people, "freedom" which the bourgeoisie has been so generous as to provide them with.

Yeah, but what would justify an anarchist society in imposing their views on some other anarchist society if they were acting freely? I think that was the OP's question. In anarchist Spain, for example, they didn't try to impose anarcho-communism on all of the groups.

Freedom and self-determination are an indispensable part of anarchism, aren't they? From what I've read so far at least, I would be hard pressed to justify the invasion of the neighboring collective federation just because it had a different organization structure or economic system.

How would someone justify this from an anarchist perspective?

[Bourgeois]

How could I know what form that extension of the community would take? What sort of revolution is it? I cannot know exactly what sort we're talking of here.

Because you have the Fountainhead as an avatar, i.e. you are stupid. Ergo, daftie.

The question was simple: What would stop me from doing as I please on any property in a Communistic society?

[Remus Bleys]

The question was simple: What would stop me from doing as I please on any property in a Communistic society?
What are you going to be doing?

Lastly, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed--“nobody” in the sense of a class, of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population. We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.

[Bourgeois]

What are you going to be doing?

Anything I please. If there's no state, who will stop me? If it's the people of society, wouldn't they have to set some sort of rules to determine when they can and can't intervene?

[Remus Bleys]

Anything I please. If there's no state, who will stop me? If it's the people of society, wouldn't they have to set some sort of rules to determine when they can and can't intervene?
Anything? Of course not! But that doesn't mean there needs to be a rule of law. People would have different social norms that they would know not to do, or they would be stopped by the people.

[Bourgeois]

Anything? Of course not! But that doesn't mean there needs to be a rule of law. People would have different social norms that they would know not to do, or they would be stopped by the people.

Social norms? You know what they are dictated by? Society. What's stopping social norms from rapidly changing into something very, very ugly? Without law, there is no definite right or wrong... Society can break down overnight depending on what the majority believe to be socially "correct".

[Remus Bleys]

Social norms? You know what they are dictated by? Society. What's stopping social norms from rapidly changing into something very, very ugly?
What's stopping it from now... oh wait


Without law, there is no definite right or wrong
This is true even with law.

Society can break down overnight depending on what the majority believe to be socially "correct".
You do know that laws are dictated by social norms right? Or rather, laws are a solidified version of bourgeois social norms imposed on people?

[Bourgeois]

What's stopping it from now... oh wait


This is true even with law.

You do know that laws are dictated by social norms right? Or rather, laws are a solidified version of bourgeois social norms imposed on people?

A state... With checks and balances and rights to prevent majority rule... Maybe... :rolleyes:

Not sure what you mean here. Yes, I believe that without a state there would still be wrongs, but the open-endedness of wrongs means that it wouldn't be long before the majority starts attacking religion because it is socially unacceptable. Or at least, what would stop them from doing this?

Of course they are. But laws are in and of themselves different from social norms. Laws protect the minority when it comes to what the society deems as normal. Do you deny this?

[Remus Bleys]

A state... With checks and balances and rights to prevent majority rule... Maybe... :rolleyes:

Not sure what you mean here. Yes, I believe that without a state there would still be wrongs, but the open-endedness of wrongs means that it wouldn't be long before the majority starts attacking religion because it is socially unacceptable. Or at least, what would stop them from doing this?

Of course they are. But laws are in and of themselves different from social norms. Laws protect the minority when it comes to what the society deems as normal. Do you deny this?
laws protect the minority, in this case the bourgeois state. That is all laws do. I have yet to see a law solve racial problems.
Fuck rule of law. Fuck checks and balances. Fuck democracy. Fuck the state. And fuck those who say we need to be "controlled"

[Bourgeois]

laws protect the minority, in this case the bourgeois state. That is all laws do. I have yet to see a law solve racial problems.
Fuck rule of law. Fuck checks and balances. Fuck democracy. Fuck the state. And fuck those who say we need to be "controlled"

Seems you went on some tangent and answered none of my questions.

Here's another one, what's stopping the majority from censoring this web forum if they deemed it as socially wrong (as many of them would)?

[Remus Bleys]

Seems you went on some tangent and answered none of my questions.

Here's another one, what's stopping the majority from censoring this web forum if they deemed it as socially wrong (as many of them would)?
Why would a majority want to do that? I mean, I literally just said "fuck democracy."

Of course I can't imagine what communist society would do, that would be utopian of me. But I do think its safe to say they arent going to arbitarily decide what you can do, you'd have to be reasonable.

But yet again, how is anything you say not occuring as we speak, under capitalism?

[Bourgeois]

Why would a majority want to do that? I mean, I literally just said "fuck democracy."

Of course I can't imagine what communist society would do, that would be utopian of me. But I do think its safe to say they arent going to arbitarily decide what you can do, you'd have to be reasonable.

But yet again, how is anything you say not occuring as we speak, under capitalism?

Because they could in a stateless society. Social norms are a type of democracy, I'm afraid. So even in your stateless, classless society, you would still be having the majority decide what is right and what is wrong.

You need to be pretty dang specific of what a communist society would do in terms of this, as you are advocating, as least from what I can tell, for one of these societies.

It will always occur... Didn't say it didn't. Societies with states, though, usually have institutions in place to prevent this from occurring as much as it would in stateless societies.

[Remus Bleys]

Because they could in a stateless society.
what

You need to be pretty dang specific of what a communist society would do in terms of this, as you are advocating, as least from what I can tell, for one of these societies.
I have tried. And now I am done.

[Bourgeois]

what

I have tried. And now I am done.

What would stop them? You keep dodging this...

You've said societal norms would be upheld by armed citizens. Societal norms are democratic social principles... This isn't a libertarian society, so there would be no inherent natural rights protected by the state. What is right and what is wrong would be dictated by the armed majority, as it would have to be to prevent me from doing as I please. I simply see this as primitive and counter-intuitive to a modernized/civilized society.

[Remus Bleys]

What would stop them? You keep dodging this...

You've said societal norms would be upheld by armed citizens. Societal norms are democratic social principles... This isn't a libertarian society, so there would be no inherent natural rights protected by the state. What is right and what is wrong would be dictated by the armed majority, as it would have to be to prevent me from doing as I please. I simply see this as primitive and counter-intuitive to a modernized/civilized society.
You literally are asking me to map out what type of society communism will be and how exactly it will run.

[argeiphontes]

What would stop them? You keep dodging this...


Stop them from doing what? Putting on a trench coat and flashing children in a public park? That wouldn't last very long, now would it?



Societal norms are democratic social principles...
They can be but in general, sociologically speaking, they are not--they develop informally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28social%29) and can represent deeply held beliefs that have been true of most societies over most of time.



This isn't a libertarian society, so there would be no inherent natural rights protected by the state.
This thread is specifically about a libertarian society, anarchism. Anarchism has no state. That's why the OP asked his question--in anarchism, a group or individual could adopt different functioning principles without any kind of government sanction except being told to get lost.

Natural rights, like the right to life or to personal property that you are actively using, would be respected, as social norms, as they always have been in all societies across all of time. This is what makes them natural--everybody understands them to be rights. On the other hand, rights granted by governments and enforced at the point of a gun, like private property in the means of production, would cease to exist along with the governments that enforced them.

[o well this is ok I guess]

This isn't a libertarian society, so there would be no inherent natural rights protected by the state. wait, so being in a libertarian society changes ones natural character?

[LeftwingerIndia]

Capitalism sucks anyway :lol: giving an an anarchist tag wont make it better :laugh:

[Tim Cornelis]

It's odd that there are somehow "inherent natural rights" yet have never existed outside of theoretical or philosophical considerations.

Under communism, we'd have customary law. Customary law is a reflection of the social institutions of society, and under communism these social institutions are based on egalitarianism and cooperation. Odds are, customary law will likewise be based on such principles.

Without coercive power, how are they to enforce censorship? What purpose would it serve in a communist society?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

There is this obesession with the idea that if the State and the Law went the only result will be murder and mayhem because that's what everyone secretly wants to do anyway it's only laws that stop them.

..it's a pretty grim view of humanity overall.

Any examples of rampages where looting, violence etc have occurred have done so within the current capitalist model - where poverty, social deprivation, lack of education etc are common place within certain sections of society.
We can't know for certain how most people would behave within a communist society because it hasn't been achieved yet (abundance with an absense of authoritative / exploitive persons and institutions).

As for the OP and the question of Country A having a different societal structure to Country B, would conflict arise because A believes itself superior to B and vice versa? I know it seems likely but I don't think it's inevitable. There are capitalist countires of different stripes sharing borders right now that don't attack eachother regularly because their exploitation is better than the other guy's.
Let's hope that communism can go global so that that kind of conflict can become a thing of the past anyway.

[Tolstoy]

The idea that Anarcho-Capitalism produces the most possible freedom is a laughable one.

To begin, when most people speak of society in Anarcho Capitalism, they frequently describe private associations of homes that pay some sort of fee for a private police force and the neighbors agree to some contractual agreement that fails to violate the NAP.

You know what that sounds like? A Gated Community or a housing association! In case you havent lived in such a place, I can assure you, they arent very free.

I fail to understand how liberterians can only see opression by governments but fail to recognize all the tyranny that private institutions can exert over peoples lives.

Further, liberterians fail to recognize the "freedom from" aspect of freedom. Sure you are free to pay your workers a quarter an hour in Rothbards dream land, but are you free from poverty? I dont think so.

[Comrade #138672]

So your approach is to start a war on everybody who doesn't accept Anrcho-communism?I think the best approach would be giving weapons to the "anarcho-capitalist" proletariat, so they can overthrow their capitalist enemies by themselves.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you say France becomes an Anarcho-Communist society and Germany becomes an Anarcho-Capitalist society, would you deny the Anarcho-Capitalist idea of private property and use force to redistribute the ressources between us all?
The assumptions you start out with are false. The likelihood of a communist society within the territory of France is practically nil.

That being said, what you're really asking is whether communists here would advocate for and support direct military intervention.

I generally don't think that social revolution can be exported militarily, or that it would be productive for a revolutionary working class in one territory to conduct the struggle in such a way.
If for nothing else than for sheer firepower of capitalist states. But there are other problems here as well.

On the other hand, I think it is absolutely indispensable for a revolutionary working class ("anarcho-communist France" or country X) to support the world working class in other ways.

[bcbm]

Anything I please. If there's no state, who will stop me? If it's the people of society, wouldn't they have to set some sort of rules to determine when they can and can't intervene?
anarchy means no rulers not no rules

[ColossalButtwipe]

Why are AnCaps always worried about whether or not anarchists would tolerate their quasi-feudal plan for society?

[bcbm]

cuz they know real anarchists would mop the floor with them

[Jimmie Higgins]

Social norms? You know what they are dictated by? Society. What's stopping social norms from rapidly changing into something very, very ugly? Without law, there is no definite right or wrong... Society can break down overnight depending on what the majority believe to be socially "correct".

Well this reflects middle-class ideology in a nut-shell: favoring the tyranny of the minority over the "tyranny" of the majority.

Law is not objective it's the result of real social forces in society - generally the rulers of a society, but often there are contested areas where the ruled have eeked out some limited gains through struggles etc.

It was law and it was "right" for white farmers to capture and return slaves, property, to their rightful masters in the antebellum US South. But is it "right" according to most people today? Not to us, not to slaves at that time, but it was "right" and just to the slave-owning class because for them emancipation was "society breaking down overnight". How would they have people to work the fields without slavery? How would they maintain their plantations and keep their families and so one fed? The end of slavery was apocalypse for them, for us it was a (partial) liberation. Without the old law to protect them, the slave-owning class turned to terrorism to restore "order" and once that order was restored, troops gone, Republican abolitionists run-off, "uppity" freemen put in their place, then they turned their terrorism back into law sanctified by the supreme court. They called jim-crow law and order... it was to them, but it was "tyranny" for the exploited.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

As far as my own experiences go, I believe the idea that humans are inherently "bad" (or at least tend towards "badness") and need to be governed by law can be traced back not just to moralising liberals, but right down all the way through judeo-christian thought - thus unsurprisingly it is a very pervasive idea percolating through our entire society. The doctrine of original sin seems to have been incredibly resilient over the years - I'll grant that it's changed somewhat in a superficial way - but ultimately it remains the same - the "feckless criminals" are bad people because they do not respect The Law with capital letters - and ultimately it doesn't matter much whether it's the law of God or the law of the state - the message is that people are on some level bad and without the guiding hand of the law-givers, there would be chaos. They obviously know best - if they didn't, why would they be in charge?

[Bostana]

Anything I please. If there's no state, who will stop me? If it's the people of society, wouldn't they have to set some sort of rules to determine when they can and can't intervene?

You should really read things about the far left before you jump into arguing against it.

So go the the infamous website everyone on this forum loves and read some things and start to know what the hell you're talking about
F. Security

This service embraces the necessary measures to guarantee to all inhabitants of the commune the security of their person and the protection of their homes, their possessions, etc., against deprivation and accident (fire, floods, etc.).

There will probably be very little brigandage and robbery in a society where each lives in full freedom to enjoy the fruits of his labor and where almost all his needs will be abundantly fulfilled. Material well-being, as well as the intellectual and moral progress which are the products of a truly humane education, available to all, will almost eliminate crimes due to perversion, brutality, and other infirmities. It will nevertheless still he necessary to take precautions for the security of persons. This service, which can be called (if the phrase has not too bad a connotation) the Communal Police, will not be entrusted, as it is today, to a special, official body; all able-bodied inhabitants will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune.

It will doubtless be asked how those committing murder and other violent crimes will be treated in the new equalization society. Obviously society cannot, on the pretext of respect for individual rights – and the negation of authority, permit a murderer to run loose, or wait for a friend of the victim to avenge him. The murderer will have to be deprived of his liberty and confined to a special house until he can without danger be returned to society. How is the criminal to be treated during his confinement? And according to what principles should his term be fixed? These are delicate questions on which opinions vary widely. We must learn from experience, but this much we already know: that thanks to the beneficent effects of education (see below) crimes will he rare. Criminals being an exception, they will be treated like the sick and the deranged; the problem of crime which today gives so many jobs to judges, jailers, and police will lose its social importance and become simply a chapter in medical history.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm


What's with this 'no state no safety shit' dude?
It makes no sense. Just because some rich white dudes wrote something on a peace of paper doesn't mean shit. Let's take the Jewish exodus from egypt to palestine (let's pretend it's real) Do you really think the jews were murdering, robbing, rapping, etc eachother until Mosses gave them laws? Hell no

[argeiphontes]

You should really read things about the far left before you jump into arguing against it.

So go the the infamous website everyone on this forum loves and read some things


Also, since I'm on an An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ) kick, there's a whole Section I: What would an anarchist society look like? (http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI) with lots of material.

[human strike]

Let's say I lived in a Communist society. If everything is public property, then what's stopping me from doing as I please on such property? It obviously can't be force.

"But if there's no private property what stops me doing whatever the hell I want?!"

That's the point!

[Dagoth Ur]

So called "an-caps" are a direct result of libertine nonsense. One leads to another and so on.

[Bostana]

Also, since I'm on an An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ) kick, there's a whole Section I: What would an anarchist society look like? (http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI) with lots of material.

looks like a good read :)

[Bourgeois]

Stop them from doing what? Putting on a trench coat and flashing children in a public park? That wouldn't last very long, now would it?

Whatever they please. There'd be nothing stopping them from doing this. I don't believe natural law would prohibit this. If we go into social norms then social norms differ and actually do evolve; Meaning, these norms aren't set in stone.


They can be but in general, sociologically speaking, they are not--they develop informally[/URL] and can represent deeply held beliefs that have been true of most societies over most of time.

These rules would not be specific enough. And different geographic areas have different social beliefs. If Communism is to be a global system, it would somehow have to account for these varying different social norms without the use of a state.


This thread is specifically about a libertarian society, anarchism. Anarchism has no state. That's why the OP asked his question--in anarchism, a group or individual could adopt different functioning principles without any kind of government sanction except being told to get lost.

I was just asking a question about how a Communist system would account for these unwritten rules, who would enforce them, how they would universally evolve without some groups of people being thrown under the rug, and how the system would account for the different social norms of different people.


Natural rights, like the right to life or to personal property that you are actively using, would be respected, as social norms, as they always have been in all societies across all of time. This is what makes them natural--everybody understands them to be rights. On the other hand, rights granted by governments and enforced at the point of a gun, like private property in the means of production, would cease to exist along with the governments that enforced them.

Except social norms are not universal... Different societies have different norms... You'd have to account for this and essentially set some sort of universal norm, like one of the previous posters talked about as being: "Customary Law".


wait, so being in a libertarian society changes ones natural character?

Nope...

[Logical seal]

I would forcely resdirubute the shit, Me, Anyway.

[argeiphontes]

Whatever they please. There'd be nothing stopping them from doing this. I don't believe natural law would prohibit this. If we go into social norms then social norms differ and actually do evolve; Meaning, these norms aren't set in stone.

These rules would not be specific enough. And different geographic areas have different social beliefs. If Communism is to be a global system, it would somehow have to account for these varying different social norms without the use of a state.

I was just asking a question about how a Communist system would account for these unwritten rules, who would enforce them, how they would universally evolve without some groups of people being thrown under the rug, and how the system would account for the different social norms of different people.


An anarcho-communist society isn't without structure, nor does it preclude regional variation. Check out the Anarchist FAQ I linked to above. There is a federation of communes or syndicates, and direct democracy whenever possible.

If there are unwritten rules, aka social norms, why wouldn't they just be enforced the same way they are now? If they're unwritten social norms, then a state doesn't enforce them, does it? Since a state only enforces written laws, or is supposed to, by definition.

Anarchist societies don't require any universality in social norms, people in different areas are free to do as they please as long as they're not infringing on the rights of others to also do as they please. If you want to live in a fundamentalist Mormon commune, you are free to do so as long as you don't try to forcibly convert other people or something.