How would communists handle the nonviolent revolution?

[Individuality]

Let's say we are in the communist ideal utopia.

What would happen when the non violent anarcho capitalists started to act capitalistic?

What would happen?

[pusher robot]

Let's say we are in the communist ideal utopia.

What would happen when the non violent anarcho capitalists started to act capitalistic?

What would happen?

This was essentially the same question I asked the very first time I came to this board.

The answers basically boiled down to either (a) denying such a thing would ever happen or (b) mob justice.

[Marsella]

Let's say we are in a capitalist utopia.

What would happen when the non violent kings started to act feudalistic?

What would happen?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Let's say we are in the communist ideal utopia.

What would happen when the non violent anarcho capitalists started to act capitalistic?

What would happen?
What do you mean by "act capitalistic?" In order to act capitalistic you need to own private property, and in order to own private property you need some sort of armed authority to threaten violent retaliation on anyone who tries to use your property without your consent.

In the absence of armed strength, we can simply ignore your silly claims to "own" this or that and go about our daily business as if you did not exist.

[Individuality]

Let's say we are in a capitalist utopia.

What would happen when the non violent kings started to act feudalistic?

What would happen?
You shouldn't try to answer a question with a question Martov. This is a communist site, so I assume you guys would of had this scenario figured out.


The answers basically boiled down to either (a) denying such a thing would ever happen or (b) mob justice.I heard basically that, communist anarchism, really isn't governmentless. They do have like county governments or something like that, that would force you to behave. Or that you'd be brutally murdered.

I can say, being brutally murdered sounds like the perfect utopia of communism.

[Individuality]

What do you mean by "act capitalistic?"
Put my interests before society. Make profit. Etc.


n order to act capitalistic you need to own private property, and in order to own private property you need some sort of armed authority to threaten violent retaliation on anyone who tries to use your property without your consent.
Property is control, nothing more. I don't need an authoritarian body to control it.


In the absence of armed strength, we can simply ignore your silly claims to "own" this or that and go about our daily business as if you did not exist.
So you'd just ignore me. Interesting. What if millions of people started to shed the communist ideals to act in capitalistic ways(profit, self interest, etc)? Just ignore us?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

(a) denying such a thing would ever happen
Like I said, you cannot "act capitalistic" in a society that simply ignores your claims to ownership over most objects. In that sense, capitalist acts cannot happen in a communist society, because capitalist acts can only happen in societies that recognize private property.

Next question!

[Individuality]

Like I said, you cannot "act capitalistic" in a society that simply ignores your claims to ownership over most objects. In that sense, capitalist acts cannot happen in a communist society, because capitalist acts can only happen in societies that recognize private property.
I don't think you understand property. Property exists not through government but from control. Nothing more.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't think you understand property. Property exists not through government but from control. Nothing more.
And you cannot control an object against the will of society unless you have government force to back you up.


Put my interests before society. Make profit. Etc.
"Put your interests before society?" That is so vague as to be meaningless. Give me an actual example of something you might do.

And you can't make a profit if you can't own means of production. In communism, all means of production are owned in common. If you point at a factory and say "this is mine," society will simply reply "no it isn't" and carry on as usual.


Property is control, nothing more. I don't need an authoritarian body to control it.
Yes you do. Suppose you want to own a factory, but you live in a communist society that doesn't recognize such ownership, so people keep walking into "your" factory, ignoring you, and using it for their own purposes. How do you stop them using "your" property? You must use force. You must start a war with society.


So you'd just ignore me. Interesting. What if millions of people started to shed the communist ideals to act in capitalistic ways(profit, self interest, etc)? Just ignore us?
Exactly. Ignore you and ignore your claims to ownership. If you try to defend your claims to ownership with force, then we will have to go to war, but it will be a war you started.

[Individuality]

And you cannot control an object against the will of society unless you have government force to back you up.
Please tell me how I couldn't go out in the woods and declare a piece of property mine and do what I want to it. Just please explain. The will of society is a thought, not anything physical. You realize that, right?


And you can't make a profit if you can't own means of production. In communism, all means of production are owned in common. If you point at a factory and say "this is mine," society will simply reply "no it isn't" and carry on as usual.
I'm not talking about property that is declared or has a certificate. I'm talking about property in reality sense. Control. I can go out to the woods and grow food without your consent and sell it without societies consent? ***GASP*** HOW DID I DO THAT???


How do you stop them using "your" property? You must use force. You must start a war with society.
Yes, a war would brew. It's say I live out in the sticks an I take a piece of property to do farming on it. Society rejects this since property is obviously evil. But I control my property with my gun. Would society just give in since it wouldn't be worth their time? And if they wouldn't, how many people do you think would be willing to die for a piece of land in the sticks, just so no one can own it?


Exactly. Ignore you and ignore your claims to ownership. If you try to defend your claims to ownership with force, then we will have to go to war, but it will be a war you started.
I don't have a problem starting a war with fascists.

[Individuality]

Oh another good question. If you believed that fighting a war with me was necessary, would you be the first wave of people to face my gun?

I know it's easy to talk about war and revolution from a theory point of view. Another thing is being the first wave of people to be mowed down by a gun.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Please tell me how I couldn't go out in the woods and declare a piece of property mine and do what I want to it. Just please explain.
It goes like this:

You go into the woods, find a piece of property and declare it yours. If no other human being ever goes through those woods, all is well and good. But what happens if another human being does go into the woods and tries to use your piece of property? You tell him "you can't use it, it's mine" and he replies "I do not recognize your claim to ownership over this piece of property." Then you have two choices: Either you let him use your piece of property - meaning that you give up your claim to ownership over it - or you try to violently force that man to go away.

And the moment you've started a violent conflict with that man, the only thing that matters is which of you has more firepower. If you're alone and he has a whole communist society to come to his aid, you will lose.


I'm not talking about property that is declared or has a certificate. I'm talking about property in reality sense. Control. I can go out to the woods and grow food without your consent and sell it without societies consent? ***GASP*** HOW DID I DO THAT???
A key aspect of property is denying others the right to use your property without your consent. Yes, you can grow food on your land without society's consent. But you cannot deny other people the right to grow their own food on "your" land without society's consent.


Yes, a war would brew. It's say I live out in the sticks an I take a piece of property to do farming on it. Society rejects this since property is obviously evil. But I control my property with my gun. Would society just give in since it wouldn't be worth their time? And if they wouldn't, how many people do you think would be willing to die for a piece of land in the sticks, just so no one can own it?
It depends on the size and importance of this land. If you want to go into self-imposed exile and start farming a piece of land in the middle of nowhere that no one is interested in, the communist society will not stop you.


I don't have a problem starting a war with fascists.
If you start a fight with us, we shall exercise our right to self-defense and retaliate with overwhelming force. We shall also hold the moral high ground. And we shall not care what you choose to call us in your stupidity.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Oh another good question. If you believed that fighting a war with me was necessary, would you be the first wave of people to face my gun?
No, but I would gladly climb into the armoured car that we will send against you. One of the benefits of living in society is that you get access to the products of heavy industry, which tend to be quite effective in fighting a single man with a gun.

We don't really need to send anyone either. A single missile could do the trick.

[Individuality]

You tell him "you can't use it, it's mine" and he replies "I do not recognize your claim to ownership over this piece of property." Then you have two choices: Either you let him use your piece of property - meaning that you give up your claim to ownership over it - or you try to violently force that man to go away.
I'd use threats, than force. Definitely. He needs to stay away from my property.


And the moment you've started a violent conflict with that man, the only thing that matters is which of you has more firepower.
That's how the United States beat the shit out of the North Vietnamese, right?


A key aspect of property is denying others the right to use your property without your consent.
No it's control. Like I can invite friends over to my place and we can have a BBQ.


Yes, you can grow food on your land without society's consent. But you cannot deny other people the right to grow their own food on "your" land without society's consent.
Yes I can.


It depends on the size and importance of this land. If you want to go into self-imposed exile and start farming a piece of land in the middle of nowhere that no one is interested in, the communist society will not stop you.

Communism has been conquered.


If you start a fight with us, we shall exercise our right to self-defense and retaliate with overwhelming force.
First, self defense is when someone attacks your property. Driving out to the sticks to fight me, seems a bit out of the way.
Second, is this going to be an organized attack or will be just individuals coming up?


We shall also hold the moral high ground
Communists don't believe in morals.


And we shall not care what you choose to call us in your stupidity.
I can only hope you'd be the first wave.




I thought I'd ask this before I get. Let's say, I make and sell methaphetamine from my society house. Is that considered profit without property?

[Individuality]

No, but I would gladly climb into the armoured car that we will send against you.
That's pretty cowardly. Who determines who gets an armored car and who doesn't?


One of the benefits of living in society is that you get access to the products of heavy industry, which tend to be quite effective in fighting a single man with a gun.
I'm not sure who'd make them since they really serve no point. But couldn't I have access to the same products?


We don't really need to send anyone either. A single missile could do the trick.
I wonder what I'd do with my missile?

[Individuality]

I do not recognize your claim to ownership over this piece of property.
Another question about this statement. What happens to someone that recognizes my claim to the property?

[Demogorgon]

Control. I can go out to the woods and grow food without your consent and sell it without societies consent?
How would doing that make the woods your property?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'd use threats, than force. Definitely. He needs to stay away from my property.
We do not recognize your claim to own that property. We believe all land belongs to mankind in common, therefore your threats and use of force against someone trying to use "your" land are in fact threats and use of force against someone trying to use land that belongs to him just as much as it belongs to you. Therefore your act is an act of aggression against an innocent victim. We will defend that victim against you.


That's how the United States beat the shit out of the North Vietnamese, right?
Funny you should bring up a communist victory to support your point, but if you want to be pedantic, fine: The moment you've started a violent conflict with that man, the only thing that matters is which of you can win the war. If you're alone and he has a whole communist society to come to his aid, you will lose.


No it's control. Like I can invite friends over to my place and we can have a BBQ.
And how do you stop your neighbor Joe from inviting his friends to have a BBQ on your front lawn? That's right, you call the cops. Or use violence yourself.



Yes, you can grow food on your land without society's consent. But you cannot deny other people the right to grow their own food on "your" land without society's consent.
Yes I can.
Wrong. If society - by which I mean any large group of people - wants to have a party on your front lawn, and there is no police or other armed authority to stop them, there isn't much you can do about it.


Communism has been conquered.
Communism is not interested in pursuing hermits to the ends of the Earth. Though if you ask me, subsistence agriculture is a rather crappy way of life.


First, self defense is when someone attacks your property. Driving out to the sticks to fight me, seems a bit out of the way.
If "the sticks" are the communal property of our communist society, then you have attacked our property.


Second, is this going to be an organized attack or will be just individuals coming up?
Organized, of course.


Communists don't believe in morals.
Some of us do.


I thought I'd ask this before I get. Let's say, I make and sell methaphetamine from my society house. Is that considered profit without property?
Good luck selling it with no money around.

[Individuality]

How would doing that make the woods your property?
Well, I'm not really concerned about that. The guy suggested I couldn't make profit without property and I'm showing I can make profit in a communist society without the consent of society?

Speaking of consent. How is consent calculated?

[Demogorgon]

Well, I'm not really concerned about that. The guy suggested I couldn't make profit without property and I'm showing I can make profit in a communist society without the consent of society?

How is growing your own food making a profit?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Another question about this statement. What happens to someone that recognizes my claim to the property?
Nothing. If they recognize your claim, that means they are not interested in what you do with "your property." So they will do nothing, and stay out of the whole affair. But those of us who are interested will act like I have described.


That's pretty cowardly.
No, it's an example of something we call intelligence. If we have an advantage over you, we're going to use it. That's what happens in war. If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't have started the fight.


Who determines who gets an armored car and who doesn't?
No one "gets" an armoured car. It should be glaringly obvious that there will be no private ownership of military equipment. Hell, even capitalism restricts or outlaws the private ownership of military equipment.

[Individuality]

We do not recognize your claim to own that property. We believe all land belongs to mankind in common, therefore your threats and use of force against someone trying to use "your" land are in fact threats and use of force against someone trying to use land that belongs to him just as much as it belongs to you. Therefore your act is an act of aggression against an innocent victim. We will defend that victim against you.
That sounds more like a religion than society. How do you even know the populace actually believes that or doesn't believe something different?


Funny you should bring up a communist victory to support your point, but if you want to be pedantic, fine: The moment you've started a violent conflict with that man, the only thing that matters is which of you can win the war. If you're alone and he has a whole communist society to come to his aid, you will lose.
I thought Vietnam wasn't a really communist. I always hear people saying there hasn't been a real communist country. But I guess I'll take your word for it. I think my point was illustrated. Firepower doesn't win wars.


And how do you stop your neighbor Joe from inviting his friends to have a BBQ on your front lawn? That's right, you call the cops. Or use violence yourself.
Yes, See you're arguing semantics. I said property is control. Needing my consent is part of control. IF you want to argue property is consent, that's fine, but essentially you're agreeing with me.


Wrong. If society - by which I mean any large group of people - wants to have a party on your front lawn, and there is no police or other armed authority to stop them, there isn't much you can do about it.
Really? Threats of violence and/or ending their lives takes care of that.


Communism is not interested in pursuing hermits to the ends of the Earth. Though if you ask me, subsistence agriculture is a rather crappy way of life.
Let's say this "hermit" was a great doctor. Just amazing. He does brain surgery and stuff like that. Would it be worth going to war with him and forcing him to conform? "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."


If "the sticks" are the communal property of our communist society, then you have attacked our property.
Yes, I get that. Your high and mighty laws have been violated. My point is how many people are willing to die for them?


Organized, of course.
How is it organized?


Some of us do.
No you guys don't. I've heard you guys here. Crazy shit, no morals, no rights, no nothing. Some ass in another thread suggested to me that humans didn't even have natural instinct.


Good luck selling it with no money around.
Money is just a word. How about, shiny metal(gold)?

[Individuality]

How is growing your own food making a profit?

Control. I can go out to the woods and grow food without your consent and sell it without societies consent?


Nothing. If they recognize your claim, that means they are not interested in what you do with "your property."
There's going to be a point where ummm, let's say ideal communists feel there is an epidemic, right? Too many people are thinking impure thoughts.


So they will do nothing, and stay out of the whole affair. But those of us who are interested will act like I have described.
I doubt everyone is so eager to die in a battle.


No, it's an example of something we call intelligence.
Oh I agree it's more intelligent, but to hide in an armored vehicle, while others don't is cowardly. And it would almost seem like you're in the higher military class than those that have to go in with nothing.


If we have an advantage over you, we're going to use it. That's what happens in war. If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't have started the fight.
I have 200 armored vehicles though. I made a mega fortress of cement and made a bunker. It's a pretty wild place.


No one "gets" an armoured car.
Don't argue semantics. You know exactly what I said. When the battle is started, someone is going to be in an armored vehicle, and others aren't. Who determines this?

[Demogorgon]

This is getting silly. The reason you can own property in a capitalistic society is that the state will use force to defend your (legally recognised) property. In a Communist society you aren't going to have that to defend anything you call your property and if you try and use force to "defend" it society will treat it as an act of assault or murder and nobody is going to tolerate that.

If you want a demonstration of what will happen, go and find somewhere in society right now that does not belong to you and claim it is your property. What is going to happen? People are going to pay you not the slightest heed and presume you are a little unbalanced perhaps. If you start using force in defence of this "property" you will get arrested.

[pusher robot]

We do not recognize your claim to own that property. We believe all land belongs to mankind in common, therefore your threats and use of force against someone trying to use "your" land are in fact threats and use of force against someone trying to use land that belongs to him just as much as it belongs to you. Therefore your act is an act of aggression against an innocent victim. We will defend that victim against you.

The problem is that this is so vague as to be useless. Your attempt to try to pretend that not having property rights means there will be no conflicts of interests is ludicrous. People must live somewhere. Crops must be grown somewhere. Factories must be located somewhere. This means that property will have to at least be possessed even if not owned.

But the same kinds of problems crop up with possession. If I am farming a piece of land, then anybody can just walk up and assume possession? Decide to put a house in the middle of the farm field? Can somebody just walk into your house and declare that they are now living in it? Can someone come and sink an oil well in your back yard? Obviously, disputes will arise, but it is not at all clear how without any kind of property rights they would be resolved. If someone walks into my house and declares that he is now living there, and I try to eject him, is he an innocent victim of my violence? If not, why not? What is the guiding principle that could be used to resolve these disputes? And who in an anarchic society could be charged with resolving these disputes?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That sounds more like a religion than society. How do you even know the populace actually believes that or doesn't believe something different?
A communist society, being democratic, can only exist if the majority of the people want it to exist.

And how is it "religious" to hold certain principles about property or ownership?


I thought Vietnam wasn't a really communist. I always hear people saying there hasn't been a real communist country.
Communists are people who support communism. I think it's fair to say that most soldiers in the North Vietnamese Army were communists (i.e. they were people who supported communism), regardless of the nature of the North Vietnamese government. It is perfectly possible for soldiers to fight and die for ideals that their government does not actually share.


But I guess I'll take your word for it. I think my point was illustrated. Firepower doesn't win wars.
Right. But wars between a single individual and a whole society should have a pretty obvious outcome.


Yes, See you're arguing semantics. I said property is control. Needing my consent is part of control.
Then you cannot have control over a piece of property without the ability to use violence to force other people to comply with your wishes.


Really? Threats of violence and/or ending their lives takes care of that.
So you admit that property is based on violence? That was precisely my point.


Let's say this "hermit" was a great doctor. Just amazing. He does brain surgery and stuff like that. Would it be worth going to war with him and forcing him to conform? "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
You can't force him to conform even if you wanted to. If you try to force him to perform operations when he doesn't wish to, he will just perform shitty operations. Better get a different doctor.


Yes, I get that. Your high and mighty laws have been violated. My point is how many people are willing to die for them?
It is highly unlikely that anyone will have to die in battle against an enemy force composed of a single man.


No you guys don't. I've heard you guys here. Crazy shit, no morals, no rights, no nothing.
Perhaps if you paid some attention you might have realized that there are different groups of communists with different views on philosophy, morality, and rights. I, for example, am a Christian and a utilitarian.


Money is just a word. How about, shiny metal(gold)?
And what exactly am I supposed to do with gold in a communist society? Look at it and marvel at how shiny it is? Why would I want gold?


There's going to be a point where ummm, let's say ideal communists feel there is an epidemic, right? Too many people are thinking impure thoughts.
Communism grants you complete freedom of thought. Yes, we really don't mind at all if you keep wallowing in your cesspool of idiocy. Why, it might even be entertaining.


I doubt everyone is so eager to die in a battle.
Again, you're just one man. The "battle" would consist of pushing a few buttons.


I have 200 armored vehicles though. I made a mega fortress of cement and made a bunker. It's a pretty wild place.
And you can drive 200 cars at once and shoot all those guns at the same time?


Don't argue semantics. You know exactly what I said. When the battle is started, someone is going to be in an armored vehicle, and others aren't. Who determines this?
I'm no military expert. The military forces of a communist society will have to be organized in some way, of course, and it will be up to the people to decide democratically exactly how they should be organized, but I can't predict what they might decide. Hell, by that point we might use completely different military technology than we do today.

[Demogorgon]

The problem is that this is so vague as to be useless. Your attempt to try to pretend that not having property rights means there will be no conflicts of interests is ludicrous. People must live somewhere. Crops must be grown somewhere. Factories must be located somewhere. This means that property will have to at least be possessed even if not owned.

But the same kinds of problems crop up with possession. If I am farming a piece of land, then anybody can just walk up and assume possession? Decide to put a house in the middle of the farm field? Can somebody just walk into your house and declare that they are now living in it? Can someone come and sink an oil well in your back yard? Obviously, disputes will arise, but it is not at all clear how without any kind of property rights they would be resolved. If someone walks into my house and declares that he is now living there, and I try to eject him, is he an innocent victim of my violence? If not, why not? What is the guiding principle that could be used to resolve these disputes? And who in an anarchic society could be charged with resolving these disputes?
It is important to remember that Marxists distinguish between private property and personal possessions. The fairly archaic language involved here can make arguing in the twenty first century a tad difficult if we don't upgrade our terms a bit.

A Communist society has no interest in taking away your personal possessions (though it will stop you aquiring them through exploiting other people's labour), rather it is ownership of the means of production (private property to use the jargon) that we want to stop.

Housing of course is the interesting one, because that can potentially lead to people aquiring land, but the solution is fairly simple. Everyone needs a place to live. Everyone is entitled to a share of the land (and bricks, mortar etc) on which to live. There is no exploitation involved in having your own home provided you aren't using it to deny other people the ability to have the same luxuary.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The problem is that this is so vague as to be useless. Your attempt to try to pretend that not having property rights means there will be no conflicts of interests is ludicrous.
I never said such a thing. Of course there will be conflicts of interests, and they are to be resolved by the community through democratic means.


People must live somewhere. Crops must be grown somewhere. Factories must be located somewhere. This means that property will have to at least be possessed even if not owned.
Correct.


But the same kinds of problems crop up with possession. If I am farming a piece of land, then anybody can just walk up and assume possession? Decide to put a house in the middle of the farm field? Can somebody just walk into your house and declare that they are now living in it? Can someone come and sink an oil well in your back yard?
If you are a member of the communist society, no. Different pieces of land and property will be assigned different purposes - for example, a house will be assigned the purpose of being your home - and individuals will not be able to arbitrarily do whatever they want with anything that belongs to the community.

Now, in the example used by Individuality, he went out and built himself a farm in the middle of a forest or on some other land that the community wasn't using. That's why I pointed out that members of the communist society would consider it their right to do whatever they wished on "his" land - because, from their point of view, it is empty land.


Obviously, disputes will arise, but it is not at all clear how without any kind of property rights they would be resolved.
They will be resolved with temporary use-rights. For instance, the community will grant you the right to live in a certain house for a certain number of years, and this right cannot be revoked or amended until those years have passed.


If someone walks into my house and declares that he is now living there, and I try to eject him, is he an innocent victim of my violence? If not, why not?
If the community has granted you the right to live in that house, then you are well within your rights to eject someone who tries to install himself in your house. His actions violate the decision of the community.

[pusher robot]

If the community has granted you the right to live in that house, then you are well within your rights to eject someone who tries to install himself in your house. His actions violate the decision of the community.

What you describe is not anarchy, it is democracy.

Of course, even pure democracy poses issues. Suppose that the community votes that your house is to be demolished to build a bowling alley. Have you no more say in the matter than any of your neighbors? Suppose your neighbor convinces a bare majority that your house impedes his view and should be razed. Have you no recourse?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What you describe is not anarchy, it is democracy.
Yes, of course. I am not an anarchist.


Of course, even pure democracy poses issues. Suppose that the community votes that your house is to be demolished to build a bowling alley. Have you no more say in the matter than any of your neighbors?
No, but like I mentioned in my previous post, the community will give out unrevokable use-rights to houses. This means that you have the right to use a house for a set period of time (or until a certain event occurs, such as your death), and the community cannot revoke this permission after it is given. If you are granted use-rights to a house for 20 years, the community may decide to demolish the house to build a bowling alley, but they will have to wait 20 years before they can go ahead with the plan.


Suppose your neighbor convinces a bare majority that your house impedes his view and should be razed. Have you no recourse?
Well, again, nothing can be done to your house until your use-rights expire, and in that time you can attempt to convince a bare majority that your neighbor is wrong.

I expect that in a communist society young people will prefer to ask the community for use-rights with a set expiry date so that they can move to a different house after some time, while older people will prefer lifetime use-rights so they can stay in the house they love until they die.

[Bilan]

Let's say we are in the communist ideal utopia.

What would happen when the non violent anarcho capitalists started to act capitalistic?

What would happen?

The same thing that happens when people retreat to primitive modes of lifestyle - like living in the forest.
Nothing, because it wont have any sway on society as a whole.


It's when you start trying to control the means of production which affect society at large that you will find conflict.
When you deprive people of food because you feel you 'own it', have we not the right to resist you?

Of course we fucking do, and of course we will.


The earth, the land, it belongs to no individual, but society as a whole.

But by all means, fuck off into the forest and have your barbeque's, no one cares.


I heard basically that, communist anarchism, really isn't governmentless.

You heard?
Where did you hear such bullshit.
No wonder your spouting such inaccurate rubbish: you haven't a clue on whats actually being advocated.



I can say, being brutally murdered sounds like the perfect utopia of communism.

Foolish.
Instead of spouting useless rubbish, why not actually educate yourself on it, so you can understand it, and then make your judgment, not before.



Put my interests before society.

...
Communism is not the destruction of the individual. It is a rejection of the ideology of individualism, but not individuality. The two are vastly different.

Anarchist Communists believe, that only through solidarity, through voluntary cooperation, can the individual truly achieve its greatest potential: for the benefits of social cooperation are their, they are not slaves to their labor - such would be the effect of individualism (i.e. you working on your farm your whole life, alone).
But, anarchist communism defends the right to make that decision, just disagrees with it.
That being, on an individual level.
The moment you try and force capitalism back on society (which is what capitalists generally do, as property can only be gained by force) is the moment you will be met with force.



I don't think you understand property. Property exists not through government but from control. Nothing more.

I think you're misunderstanding him. Governments are a means to defend property, to defend the interests of those who have property from those who don't (especially in a modern capitalist society, we can see this clearly - and to, in older capitalist societies. Property must always be defended by force)

[Black Dagger]

What would happen when the non violent anarcho capitalists started to act capitalistic?

Define 'act capitalistic'.

Regardless, how does one act 'capitalistic' in a society without money? Without wage labour?

Without private property?

You should not have dismissed Martov's analogy so flippantly:


Let's say we are in a capitalist utopia.

What would happen when the non violent kings started to act feudalistic?

What would happen?

The point he makes is apt - you're asking a fallacious question - you cannot simply resurrect the social relations that existed in a capitalist society because you want to - because the conditions required for capitalism to function will no longer exist.

And the idea that people who obviously had the revolutionary consciousness to establish a stateless classless society would then suddenly decide that they want to reintroduce the exploitative wage-labour system (that they abolished) when the option to work without exploitation, or hierarchal control is already in existence.

Or to re-introduce money so that they could buy low-grade food from some guy in the wilderness when there is already a functioning 'gift economy' or what-have-you... it's just patently absurd.

[mikelepore]

to act in capitalistic ways

There's your mistake right there. Capitalism isn't a way that a person a can choose to act. It's a set of institutional structures. It means that the would-be capitalist finds a lot of other people who have no other way to survive except by selling themselves on labor market. It means that a judge will dispatch the sheriff to use a gun to ensure that a contract gets enforced. It means that a piece of paper stored in town hall saying that land belongs to someone is accepted as the official answer on the subject. You don't just choose to act that way. You find yorself in a society in which those protocols have been formalized. Socialism would repeal the formal procedures that were previously provided for the capitalist to act within. You may even wish that you could act like the patricians of the Roman empire, but that social role is no longer available.

[Cryotank Screams]

You shouldn't try to answer a question with a question Martov. This is a communist site, so I assume you guys would of had this scenario figured out.

She actually makes a good point. Look at history; the bourgeois revolutions crushed feudal society and after you didn’t see any “non-violent feudal kings,” trying to act “feudalistic,” so why would people living under Communism (which might I point out occurs after a Socialist revolution has crushed capitalist society) just wake up one day and say “fuck! I like teh cApiTali$m!!!1!!1” become (“anarchist”)-capitalists (which wouldn’t make sense either) and start trying to act ‘capitalistic’?

[pusher robot]

Yes, of course. I am not an anarchist.
I'm sorry. I was specifically talking about an anarchist society, because the original point was whether or not communism requires a government. You seem to agree that it does, so I don't have any quarrel with you on this point.

[Dros]

Put my interests before society. Make profit. Etc.

How are you going to do that? Your question presumes the existence of commodity exchange which will no longer exist.

The reason Martov's question is so pertinant is this: it is absurd to think about a society spontaneously reverting to a previous historical state without looking at the material conditions on the ground. It highlights the absurdity of your claim that capitalism will spontaneously restore itself within Communism despite the a.) complete lack of material basis for that to happen (such as private property and commodity relations) b.) total lack of desire for such a mode of production c.) total inability to do so.

[Dros]

I'm sorry. I was specifically talking about an anarchist society, because the original point was whether or not communism requires a government. You seem to agree that it does, so I don't have any quarrel with you on this point.

Not a government in the sense of a state no. But yes Communist society will have economic and political orginization expressed through direct, collectivized democracy.

[jacobin1949]

Heres your answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartleby,_the_Scrivener (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartleby,_the_Scrivener)
http://www.thoughtaudio.com/titlelis...eby/index.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.thoughtaudio.com/titlelist/TA0049-Bartleby/index.html)