Could anarcho-communsim even work?

[CCCPneubauten]

Can anarcho-communism work? won't it just be total chaos? Won't there be food shortages and all kids of chaos? Sees too....perfect to be true.

Hell, what is the diffrence between anarcho-communism and anarchy?

With out government, wouldn't people revert to capitalism?

[JKP]

Seeing as how you're new, please read this FAQ:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

[CCCPneubauten]

I was hoping for something a little....shorter perhaps?

[rioters bloc]

just to clarify cos im not entirely sure what you're asking, are you saying that communism isn't practical because of the absence of the government?

[CCJ]

Can anarcho-communism work? won't it just be total chaos? Won't there be food shortages and all kids of chaos? Sees too....perfect to be true.

Not at all. Though a successful anarcho-communist system may require a huge shift of resources and restructuring of society, construction of new buildings and various other things, an anarcho-communist society is quite possible indeed. It would be similar to thyself and thy friends going off and starting thy own community. Would there be any crime: no. Who would steal from a friend? Who would murder their friend? Theft is merely an effect of a capitalist society. Greed in merely the effect of being told over and over again that one must keep one's possessions to oneself.


Hell, what is the diffrence between anarcho-communism and anarchy?

Anarcho-Communism is a specific form of anarchism. Anarchy, however, is merely the lack of a socio-political hierarchy. Unfortunately, the word "anarchy" is associated with disorder and chaos, something which has been perpetuated by the capitalists in order to maintain the status quo. As for the actual difference:

Anarcho-communism is a form of "anarchy" (which will henceforth be referred to as "anarchism"). Another form of anarchism is anarcho-syndicalism. Therfore: all anarcho-communists are anarchists, but not all anarchists are anarcho-communists. I'm not actually as familiar with anarcho-communism as I'd like to be, I'm more familiar with anarcho-syndicalist and mutualist thought.


With out government, wouldn't people revert to capitalism?

Not at all. In anarchist-controlled areas during the Spanish Civil War, people were free to choose to start a capitalist community if they wanted. The thing was: no one wanted to go work under someone else in worse conditions than they were currently working in. If communities can set up and run correctly, the likelihood is that no one will want to revert back to capitalism.

I hope this helped.

[TheComrade]

This is interesting - I was under the (limited) impression that anarchy is about decentralisation - small communities working together to help each other (rather than one massive unified state) Anarcho-communism is therefore the same thing but an emphasis on equality? The problem is that there are always people how want more - so they have a community but see another, wealthier community and want it!

What is anarcho-syndicalism?

[JKP]

Anarcho-syndicalism is a method of using anarchist trade unions to achieve revolution.

[Donnie]

You're best option is to read Peter Kropotkin’s: The Conquest of Bread. It describes what an Anarchist Communist society would be like it. (It’s my favourite book).


The problem is that there are always people how want more - so they have a community but see another, wealthier community and want it!
You're basing that argument on a negative view of human nature. Unfortunately you're argument is not correct; humanity has strived to where it is today through mutual aid and co-operation. If humanity was as you say it is, we would be in even worse turmoil. Unfortunately rugged individual capitalism has tried to squash out most of these characteristics of human nature.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:38 PM
You're best option is to read Peter Kropotkin’s: The Conquest of Bread. It describes what an Anarchist Communist society would be like it. (It’s my favourite book).
No it isn't the best option at all.

The best place to start would be with 'What is Communist anarchism' - Alexander Berkman (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)

It's brilliantly accessible to people who have absolutely no knowledge of anarchist communism.

[TheComrade]

Donnie - Your right I guess. There have been some civilisations which have exsisted without the need of invasion/conquest. The Native American Indians only fought to protect themselves and the buffalo they followed - they never fought to conquer land, riches, women etc. Maybe this is because it was impractical - total war would kill them off.

You can argue, however, that it is human nature for someone to demand power, to obtain power through words. CCJ rightfully said that no one would go from a free community to one where you worked for someone (in bad conditions.) But if the leader of that community masked the reality - masked the truth - through brilliant propoganda etc (which every society does) then they would gain power.

I have these reservations about the human nature argument for anarchy/communism because all you have to do is look at history to see a contrast. There always seems to be a cycle of empires/powerful people. An empire rises, is great, and falls only to be replaced by another empire - another dictatorship... This is a facinating discussion point (if a little off topic! Sorry!)

[CCJ]

I have these reservations about the human nature argument for anarchy/communism because all you have to do is look at history to see a contrast. There always seems to be a cycle of empires/powerful people.

I find that human nature is shaped more by the environment we grow up in and the belief that we hold than any inherent propensities in human genetics. For example, my school has these things called "work camps" on which we are required to on in order to graduate. On a work camp one travels to another place and helps a community. Each work camp must make a presentation to the rest of the school about their experience. One workcamp to one South American country (it may have been Puerto Rico, but I'm not sure) said that the community they went to help did not understand the concept of private property. When one student asked "whose car is that?" a person responded, "what do you mean?" and after a bit of discussion, the students managed to find out that the car belonged to the entire community.

This is not the only exception to the "rule" of the commonly-portrayed human nature. Throughout history - early Christian communities, the Diggers in England in the late 17th century, the anarchist federation in the Ukraine in the early 20th century, the anarchist Spain in the 1930s, the list goes on and on - people have risen up against oppression - and won.

[CCCPneubauten]

How could we get all 6 billion plus people under this?

As I read up on the Spanish Civil War it seems the anarcho-communism didn't work all that well.

So there are NO government officials?

What about hillbillys that get a bunch of guns and take us over?

[Black Dagger]

As I read up on the Spanish Civil War it seems the anarcho-communism didn't work all that well.

Are you a communist? Communism and anarchism are the same thing, a stateless classless society, if you don't think that an anarchist society could work, neither could a communist one.


As I read up on the Spanish Civil War it seems the anarcho-communism didn't work all that well.

You can't expect the spanish people to produce flawless communism in only a few years, the organisational strategies were working in spain, on what are you basing that they 'didn't work all that well'?


What about hillbillys that get a bunch of guns and take us over?

Firstly, what is a 'hillbilly'? Sounds like anti-WC slur to me, secondly, we have guns and self-management. There is no centralised power structure to 'take over'- no president to hold hostage, no parliament or government house to occupy. That is one of the strengths of de-centralised power- bottom -> up power. The power lies not in 'the white house' or in the oval office, but in the hands of workers themselves. If a group of reactionaries tried to 'take over' they would have to crush all of these localised authorities, and they would be better with resistance, they have guns, but so do we, and we also have numerical supremacy.


So there are NO government officials?

This is communism, there's no 'state', no centralised government in the bourgeois sense.


How could we get all 6 billion plus people under this?

How do you think? It will take time, guns and blood.

[CCCPneubauten]

I consider myself a Left wing guy. Not quite sure yet. But I was just being critical of this before I accept it. Plus that is the general argument againt it.

[Black Dagger]

I consider myself a Left wing guy. Not quite sure yet. But I was just being critical of this before I accept it. Plus that is the general argument againt it.

Fair enough. You should continue to be critical, but remember to subject the arguments 'against it'- to your own intellectual criticism as well :P

[CCCPneubauten]

Well I really support anarcho-communism, I mean, it sounds great. But I would love to know more about it. I am in the porcess of reading that anarchist FAQ and it helps.

IS it possible to get full equality? Wouldn't there be some that divided up the weath and thus were seen as "higher"?

Didn't Marx talk about being a fisherman one day and a doctor the next...how the hell does that work?

Thank you for your time.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 08:52 PM

As I read up on the Spanish Civil War it seems the anarcho-communism didn't work all that well.


It worked rather well until it was betrayed by the leninists.

[CCCPneubauten]

What is the diffrence between anarcho-communism and communism?

[JKP]

In terms of society, none.

[CCCPneubauten]

Sorry, this may sound dumb (and old) but: Would some one get more stuff for doing a differnt job, such as doctor in relation to an artist?

What about overweight people who need more food...wouldn't that creat an in-equality?

[JKP]

Everyone deserves to have nice things right?

As the means of production allow everyone should be free to take as much as they want. So this would apply for agriculture, public transportation,pencils etc.

But what about things that are difficult to manufacture and highly prized? Obviously we have limited amount right?

When come to take their goods, you could put them on a list. Those who do the most undesireable jobs will have first priority for goods, thus creating an incentive.

I think I was influenced by this:
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[CCCPneubauten]

So we can never be really equal can we then?


Also, why would people go to communism after a revolt?

With anarchy is there just no rules or no gvoernment?

[JKP]

I know that FAQ I linked to is kind of long, but it answers all of your questions. I'd just keep reading it; you'll learn alot.

[enigma2517]

IS it possible to get full equality?

Probably not. All we can do is get rid of class and put all means of production under direct democratic control of the workers.

What kind of equality are you talking about?

People will always be smarter, prettier or more physically able then others.

Economically speaking, absolute equality would be a theoritical abstraction. This is more like biological cells, the cell membrane allows water to diffuse through it. Likewise, wealth heavily concentrated in one part of the world would eventually disperse throughout the other parts.

[CCCPneubauten]

Very true. And I am about 1/3 of the way through the FAQ...very good stuff, tanks for the link JKP.

[JKP]

We're not advocating that everyone should be the same like clones; we should cherish differences in people.

What we want is equality of oppurtunity, namely that everyone should be able to achieve the full development of their faculties.

[CCCPneubauten]

So...do anarcho-communists support socialism?

[JKP]

Depends on what you mean by socialism.

The word socialism has so many different meanings to different people that I lost count.

[CCCPneubauten]

Like a heavy central government, high taxes, ect. You know, the Marx meaning.

[CCJ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:07 PM
Like a heavy central government, high taxes, ect. You know, the Marx meaning.
No. Anarchists oppose the existence of a state.

[CCCPneubauten]

How would any order be kept...

Also, the man argument againt this I get is "Well, it couldn't work" any responses to this?

[CCCPneubauten]

Wouldn't there just be mob rule?

[anomaly]

You assume that the 'mob' can never organize itself (gee, there's an idea!) Well, it certainly can. Perhaps you happen to just not realize that the lack of a state does not mean a lack of government. (of course this government would be direct democracy)

[CCCPneubauten]

But wouldn't areas be inequal to each other, such as Africa to lets say..Nebraska. I mean one has way better farming.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:12 PM
IS it possible to get full equality? Wouldn't there be some that divided up the weath and thus were seen as "higher"?


Well, things wouldn't have value in the same way they do in society today. You wouldn't receive any pay in a communist society, there wouldn't be any money. You would receive entitlement to all the fruits of other peoples production, as they would enjoy yours.


Didn't Marx talk about being a fisherman one day and a doctor the next...how the hell does that work?

By this he simply meant, that, you wouldn't need to have a Job. You could do something in the morning, until you get bored, then do something else in the evening. The next day you could do something else.

However, as a species our goal is to survive! so, what we would do is get together and decide what jobs really should be done, and maybe share out the bad ones so no one has to do much of it.

[Red Militant]

Originally posted by JKP+Nov 20 2005, 07:56 PM--> (JKP @ Nov 20 2005, 07:56 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 08:52 PM

As I read up on the Spanish Civil War it seems the anarcho-communism didn't work all that well.


It worked rather well until it was betrayed by the leninists. [/b]
How did the Leninist betray it in spain?
Also from what I think your saying Anarcho-Communism would work better in agricultural Communes but how would we make it work in Industrialized Societys
I dont think it would be possible with an unified economic structure, is this what trade unions would provide?

[CCCPneubauten]

It only seems possible after a violent revolution, in which MANY things have changed.

[Clarksist]

The only problem with Anarcho-Communism & Anarcho-Syndacilism is that they are so fucking outdated.

Almost all economic systems on the left are based on scarcity. In most places nowadays (and anyplace where a true proletarian revolution could occur: the 1st and 2nd world) there is something called: surplus.

We have SO MUCH MORE than we could ever need. As leftists, we must save the Left by revitalizing economic models.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:52 PM
The only problem with Anarcho-Communism & Anarcho-Syndacilism is that they are so fucking outdated.

Almost all economic systems on the left are based on scarcity. In most places nowadays (and anyplace where a true proletarian revolution could occur: the 1st and 2nd world) there is something called: surplus.

We have SO MUCH MORE than we could ever need. As leftists, we must save the Left by revitalizing economic models.
i dont see how this makes anarchist communism outdated

[anomaly]

Actually, Nate, anarcho-communism is not outdated. I have no idea what Clarksist is going on about here.

Clarksist, I don't know what you mean when you say all 'economic systems on the left' are based on scarcity...ALL economic systems are based on solving the problem of scarcity, that is, the realization that our wants always outnumber the amount of goods we have available to us to satisfy these wants.

Capitalism will naturally create a surplus in countries which benefit from the system (the 1st world) and a deficit where countries do not benefit from the system (the 3rd world). These together lead to recessions and, sometimes, depressions, that are the norm under capitalism.

The reason we support anarcho-communism, the reason we are anarcho-communists, is because we feel the system is better adapt than capitalism at solving this problem of scarcity.

So...what are you talking about there?

[CCCPneubauten]

How in the world can we unite all peoples under this banner? We can't even seem to agree here. I really would want this to work. bur first I gotta ask that.

[anomaly]

Under what banner? There should be no banner, no party, no slogan. It should just be the proletariat, as a class, united. We simply predict that the proletariat will move towards communism, towards their own self-interest, when they do unite. Do you not also predict this?