Can the communist anarchy work?

[Individuality]

I just don't believe it's possible. Because communism is such a complicated ideal that has so many rules. It's like the fucking Bible.

How do you force people to follow the philosophy of communism?

I consider myself an anarchist(the capitalist brand), and I think it works better because it's philosophy is simple, as well as based off human nature, self interest.

How do you stop people from having self interest and get them to bow down to the needs of society without some form of powerful Orwellian government? Don't get caught up on definitions. I'm sure you believe in a government, except you won't call it that. It'll be like the Communist Party or Communist Purity Alliance. Or some other body that enforces the rules.

Just the way the moderator jazzrat works, I'm sure his narcissistic self interested needs will be met going KGB style all over the dissent of thought criminals.

Maybe I'm too selfish and think communists owe me an explanation if they plan to start a violent revolution and force me into their cult(sorry, utopia) of their perfect society.

I know these are thought crimes, but I'm just such a revolutionary against the revolution.

[Entrails Konfetti]

"Communist Anarchy", you sound like an old fart what goes up to teenagers in Wal-Mart and asks if "They like that Pokey-man?"

[Individuality]

Well, I keep getting told that there's 50 million different variations of communism, so I thought I'd slap the best label on it I could.

I know labeling and defining aren't really a strong point of communists, but it's really the only way to be concise and to "communicate" with others.

[Individuality]

I think that's the real problem with you guys here, definitions and labels. You're so against it , it's really difficult to explain anything. It seems to be a movement of vagueness that can't be explained, except in vague terms like "From each according to their ability, to each according to need" and "production is controlled by the people". When someone asks how(down to the nuts and bolts of things) it degenerates down to semanitics. "There can't be profit with property." I proved that wrong, never hear from them again. "They will be punished by society." How, I ask. I'm told I smell and never get an answer.

The great thing about communists is that they're very good at not answering questions, which would probably make you very good politicians.

[Cryotank Screams]

The great thing about communists is that they're very good at not answering questions, which would probably make you very good politicians.

That's funny because in the 'non-violent revolution' thread I responded and got no response from you and I also responded to your questions in the 'car situation' thread and again got no response so what does that say about you?


I consider myself an anarchist(the capitalist brand)

:laugh:

[Jazzratt]

Can the communist anarchy work?

Yes.

Any other fucking silly questions?

[JazzRemington]

No, the Communist Anarchy cannot work. It doesn't have a work permit.

[RedAnarchist]

Anarchy? Don't you mean Anarchism?

Communist Anarchy sounds like a load of people running around with hammers and sickles!:lol:

[Entrails Konfetti]

"Communist Anarchy" sounds like a load of Malarchy.

[Feslin]

I realize this argument could be used against Individualism as well as the lefty-anarchists here. But, that just makes it more interesting.

I think that when government disappears, people see the chance to become more powerful through pure force. Think Afghanistan when the Soviets left, think the Med. Sea when the Roman Empire fell. Feudalism, or some form of it, would ensue.

Of course, some of you believe in the whole "small commune" deal. Fine, I just don't think it will last.

[Publius]

I just don't believe it's possible. Because communism is such a complicated ideal that has so many rules. It's like the fucking Bible.

How many rules does communism have, roughly?



How do you force people to follow the philosophy of communism?

The same way you force anyone to do anything.



I consider myself an anarchist(the capitalist brand), and I think it works better because it's philosophy is simple, as well as based off human nature, self interest.

It's philosophy is "simple" in that it's non-existent, and thus easy to understand. Or rather, it's as good as non-existent.

I can't find anything in "human nature" that says anything about government vs. no government. Can you? Self interest, in the form of reciprocal altruism, produces social structures even in other primates. In dolphins. In wolves. In insects, even.

How does that preclude government?



How do you stop people from having self interest and get them to bow down to the needs of society without some form of powerful Orwellian government?

Does it take a powerful Orwellian government for you to feed your children? Or give to charity? Or help those in need?


Don't get caught up on definitions. I'm sure you believe in a government, except you won't call it that. It'll be like the Communist Party or Communist Purity Alliance. Or some other body that enforces the rules.

So since you don't believe in government (you're an "anarchist"), you don't believe there will be any body to enforce the rules?

So under your system, there will be no rules?

And I thought you were good at logic...



Just the way the moderator jazzrat works, I'm sure his narcissistic self interested needs will be met going KGB style all over the dissent of thought criminals.

Since he's no narcisstic and self-interested, shouldn't he be your ideal? Isn't greed a good thing?

Why is it bad in him?



Maybe I'm too selfish and think communists owe me an explanation if they plan to start a violent revolution and force me into their cult(sorry, utopia) of their perfect society.

I say the same to you in regard to your fantasy, which seems to me several orders of magnitude more insane than pure Marxian communism.



I know these are thought crimes, but I'm just such a revolutionary against the revolution.

Sure you are.

[careyprice31]

"communist anarchy"



um?

That term is contradictory. Communism recognizes the need for a government and anarchism recognizes the flaws in having a government and wants it abolished.

[RGacky3]

Communism is the simple idea that property should be communal, Anarchism is simply the idea that Authority must be completely justified. its not a system with rules, its principles.

[STI]

Because communism is such a complicated ideal

Guess what: human society and behaviour are complicated! Coming up with any meaningful model of how it is, can be, or ought to be organized will necessarily be complicated. The more precise you want to get, the more complicated things will become.



How do you force people to follow the philosophy of communism?

Depends on how they "not want to follow" the rules of a communist society.

If they ant to try and claim ownership over a factory or a food warehouse, we'll just ignore them. If they try to assert that ownership, which would require violence, we'll respond with necessary force... just as would be the case if anyone tried to claim aristocratic title over "slaves" in the current epoch.


I think [anarcha-capitalism] works better because it's philosophy is simple

Sure, it can be reduced to a few simple statements, but the more detailed questions one asks about the functioning of such a society, the more complicated an answer one will receive.


as well as based off human nature

One thing we can take from humans' diverse behaviour patterns across time, situation, and social/economic context is that "human nature" isn't so much a behavioural tendency as it is a set of mechanisms by which they acquire worldviews, manners, musical tastes, and any other facet of human behaviour you can think of.

We're just starting to understand what "behavioural output" will come from "input x". What "input x" represents is largely tied to the economy in which one was socialized.


self interest.

Communism is based on self-interest. People living in such an society would understand that it is moreso in their self-interest to advance the collective good rather than waste their time slacking off or foolishly attempting to win some sort of short-term payoff by laying an ill-fated epic screw upon their friends, neighbours and co-workers.


Don't get caught up on definitions

We necessarily have to be clear about what we mean when we say x, y, or z. Otherwise, wires get crossed and time gets wasted when the discussions are complicated enough already.

So, for simplicity's sake, why don't we proceed with the following definitions:

1)Government - the mechanisms by which decisions are made which effect large numbers of people, the community or society at large.
2)State - An institution with a monopoly on legal violence, representing and enforcing the rule of one class over another.



Maybe I'm too selfish and think communists owe me an explanation if they plan to start a violent revolution and force me into their cult(sorry, utopia) of their perfect society.

Why do you talk like this? Nobody thinks communism will be perfect. Better than capitalism, but not "perfect". It isn't a cult, it's distinct from cultsin several objective ways (ie: it's a proposed way of organizing society, not an organization which employs brainwashing techniques in order to indoctrinate vulnerable people into a thoroughly irrational belief system).

Being a prick won't get you anywhere around here.

[Aduro]

I consider myself an anarchist(the capitalist brand),
I stopped reading here.

[palotin]

If you are genuinely sincere in your more than a little aggressive questions, read the following essays: The Gift by Marcel Mauss and 'The Original Affluent Society' by Marshall Salins. Human nature is not a fixed thing, and as such universal notions of it, which ultimately derive from specific cultures, should not be used as the basis for a political ideology which you would commend to those outside your own culture (and even those in it, I would contend, but I'm trying to be accommodating here.) Self-interest may be an essential component of human nature to the extent that, under most circumstances, everyone is going to try to survive and be happy. But what produces happiness is ultimately conditioned by culture. And culture can be consciously and deliberately changed. If people arrive at a point where a new morality obtains, then communism of a sort is in no way dependent on deliberate use of violence to enforce that morality. The problem is how to get there. If it takes a gulag, I don't think it's worth trying. If all it takes are grassroots efforts at changing ourselves and how we treat and relate to others, I think you should feel pretty shitty about not doing 'your bit'. There is no "revolution against revolution", but by the same token there cannot be meaningful change that is dependent on the violent domination of a minority (even if they are sniveling ground apes akin to your average Wall St/suburbanite).

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think that's the real problem with you guys here, definitions and labels. You're so against it , it's really difficult to explain anything. It seems to be a movement of vagueness that can't be explained, except in vague terms like "From each according to their ability, to each according to need" and "production is controlled by the people". When someone asks how(down to the nuts and bolts of things) it degenerates down to semanitics.

The great thing about communists is that they're very good at not answering questions, which would probably make you very good politicians.

You claim that there is disagreement about politics and tactics among radicals -- True, there are. Now ask several economic professors why a particular recession happens. Ask several US think-tankers what's going on in Iraq. Get it?

In addition to claiming that radicals have too many different views and opinions, you claim that we are monolithic in thought by your references to Orwell and "thought crimes" and "monolithic government" and so on. Which is it? Group-think or too many different opinions? Please pick just one tired old red-baiting stereotype.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, the Communist Anarchy cannot work. It doesn't have a work permit.Hey is your picture a reference to Max Hedroom? Awsome nerdness if so.:D I used to love that show.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How do you stop people from having self interest and get them to bow down to the needs of society without some form of powerful Orwellian government?Why don't you tell me Mr. Strawman? How do you stop people from having self-interest and get them to bow down to the needs of capital and business? How do you get someone to accept working all day and then getting paid a fraction of the wealth that their work has created? First, you create private property through things like the enclosure acts and force the peasants to pay rent. Since they need money to pay rent, they have no choice but to sell their labor. Of course, since this exploitative arrangement causes the laborer to resent the deal that has been made, he tries to renegotiate the deal by striking or stopping production. But luckily for capital, they have created a big Orwellian government so the police can come in and beat the strikers, courts can order injunctions against the strikers, the state can sent the militarily in to force the laborers to accept the bosses' arrangement.

When working people can fulfill their general self-interest, then they will make society bend to their needs, not the other way around like in capitalist society.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Precisely what part of communist theory entails many rules? As far as I'm aware (and hopefully my cognitive abilities are still somewhat functional in 2008), less "rules" are an inevitable result of there being no money, state, and class system. Furthermore, all the filth we attribute to traditionalism (laws prohibiting sexual deviancy) will be eliminated as abundance provides people with enough time and energy to think, and doubt.


I consider myself an anarchist(the capitalist brand)There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism. Even if capitalists somehow did relinquish their assets to the middle class small business owner, the system would fail. Private protection agencies are 1.) chaotic and 2.) microcosms of a larger state. There is nothing stopping me from making my own private protection agency and enforcing my own rules while inhabiting a city street - except for more violence.


How do you stop people from having self interest and get them to bow down to the needs of society without some form of powerful Orwellian government?
Who said anything about preventing people from having self-interest? Communism entails the emancipation of the individual: finding your own "natural" talents and interests and using it/them to fulfill yourself as well as society. Greed and self-interest are not the same thing; one is exaggerated by material conditions.


I'm sure you believe in a government, except you won't call it that. It'll be like the Communist Party or Communist Purity Alliance. Or some other body that enforces the rules.It's called "direct democracy."


Just the way the moderator jazzrat works, I'm sure his narcissistic self interested needs will be met going KGB style all over the dissent of thought criminals.
Are you honestly comparing the actions of a moderator on a message board to the actions one takes in real life, or are you just trying to be disruptive?


Maybe I'm too selfish and think communists owe me an explanation if they plan to start a violent revolution and force me into their cult(sorry, utopia) of their perfect society.

I know these are thought crimes, but I'm just such a revolutionary against the revolution.Yep. You clearly don't give a shit about what we say. You just want a platform to insult us. It's highly ironic that an anarcho-capitalist like yourself is calling communists utopians. :rolleyes: Maybe you should rethink your own theory before trying to criticize another's.

All communists I've met/talked to believe in a classless, wageless, stateless society. Looks to me the capitalists are the ones who are unorganized.

[EwokUtopia]

Essentially, what you would have happen is the worlds governmental power being centered on small communities where people can determine the social/economic structure of their community by means of true, direct democracy. It is true that not everyone shares the same idea of what a good and bad society will look like, but in a world of many many varrying societies, you can just pack up and move to whichever one works best for you.