How can Anarchy be Left-wing?

Im going to bed brother, ill let you have the last word and leave it as is for now. I don't know where you live but it's 1:30AM here.

PS I decided to delete my Facebook in order to better spend my time. Look at this. In one day ive learned a great deal about communism. Cant complain with that lol.

I'll throw this one out there too - private property is not the same as personal property. For both communists/socialists and most anarchists, the working class are repressed by a system were the bourgeoisie (or 'capitalists') own the means of production. Capitalists extract surplus value ('profit' if you will) from the labour of the working class. Private property in this sense refers to the means of production - anything from factories to businesses to natural resources. It is this relationship between the worker and the capitalist that both communist/socialists and anarchists oppose, as it is a relationship of exploitation. We conclude that everything comes down to the means of production. A market system does not remove this exploitation, it intensifies it.

Communists/socialists and anarchists agree on this basic principle. Communism and anarchism are like brothers and siblings - they differ not in their conclusions regarding society, nor in the direction that society should head in. They differ merely in the means, the plan of action - disagreement is usually found in how the working class should organise, rather than why. Most anarchists are communists as well. Most anti-authoritarian communists are essentially also anarchists.

Going back to your TV analysis earlier, neither communists nor socialists would necessarily oppose the personal ownership of a television set because it has nothing to do with the means of production and associated exploitation. This is personal property, not private property.

Im pretty sure I understand the communist definitions of Private and Personal property which Is why I said TV.

I know it will be like pulling teeth but if I can get an honest man to confront the issue id be stoked. Here's a few questions I thought of while I was sleeping believe it or not.

1) if I decide to not work because im a lazy bastard like so many are and I just want to suck on the nipple of communism my whole life, what will happen?

2) If I decide I dont like my job and want to do something else, how would I go about that?

3) if im an outside individual, perhaps from a nation of capitalism and I decide to walk in your factory and run your machinery and not give the resulting products to the commune, what will happen?

If someone could answer those questions directly in quotes id appreciate it.

People are far less lazy than you deem them to be. Not working at all would entail that the individual sit around all day doing jack all, a very unhealthy situation. They may be able to survive physically doing that by suckling from society, but people do not want to simply survive physically. If you are familiar with Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, that concept is related to this.

In Full Communism, you don't have a specific job that you have to work at. The means of production would be held communally and would be accessible to all freely. If you woke up one morning and wanted to do some some carpentry, you'd go and do some carpentry. If you found out you absolutely hate carpentry, you could then go try your hand at something new.

Most of us here advocate for an international revolution, and the end of Capitalism globally. If, however, Communist societies and Capitalist states were to coexist, and the states attempted to seize the means of production from the Communists, then the Communists would have to form militias and fight off the Capitalist aggressors.

The problem here is that you think that people's actions are guided by merely how it would affect their money. This definitely isn't the case. Even if your well-being was likely to not suffer from it, you still wouldn't go in your friend's house and damage it. I'm not going to damage phones just because I can. Think about the people who have billions of dollars now. They don't do that.

You would highly likely start progressively suffering from depression. Additionally, you would be socially disliked.

In fact, it would also be highly likely that you contribute to society in some way, even if it is not in one of the standard ways which were previously done per wage labor in capitalist society.

What would be extremely unlikely is that enough people stop working to pose a threat to society. Even in that case, the community could come up with a solution like denying scarce goods to people who do not work.

Whatever system is used, it would have the same ease or more as now. The community doesn't choose people's jobs.

You can take the resulting final goods of your own work and use them how you want. What you can't do is, for instance, set up a factory and expect that only the people you name are going to be able to use it.

It won't happen. Or to be more precise, I would definitely expect that a minimum guaranteed income - utilities and food, at the least - would be possible to actually work as a generalized worldwide phenomenon, but it might be necessary to organize distribution and consumption beyond that according to labor time performed.

In other words, anarchy or communism - whatever you want to call it - doesn't and cannot possibly mean the abolition of human labor. Accordingly, the best way to organized this labor is to socialize it (thus getting rid of capital) so that a certain person only needs to work a smaller amount of time per unit of time.

You could check out which work tasks are open and available at the moment, throughout the world.

Communism is extremely unlikely when capital still remains in certain parts of the world; but to go along with this silly question, no you won't be able to do so. How on earth will you be able to force me and my workmates and other people to bow down to your silly request?
But if you indeed did that, you would probably be greeted with thunderous laughter and ridicule.

Bear in mind, though, that very few communists think there is some sort of absolute right to personal property. If you designate a yacht as "yours", it would probably still be available to every other worker if you're not using it.

Have you ever tried not doing anything? It's harder than it seems, since humans have a need to do something between being born and croaking.

I'm no proponent of forced labour, but I don't think there will be much of a problem with "lazy" people as work, liberated from the constraints of class society, becomes an enjoyable activity around which the entire social life of the human species is organised.

Presumably you would notify the people who monitor such things (to get accurate labour statistics and so on), notify the people in your old and new workplaces, and show up to your new job (assuming you're needed of course).

Comrade Mauser would have a word with you.

But as noted, communism and capitalism can't coexist.

This is a basic question of communism. Communists want an eventual dissolution of the state.

per your replies to my questions:

1) So the entire communist idea relies on a strong majority preferring to be productive over personal enjoyment?

2) How are these people appointed and how is me being required to speak with them not a form of ruler?

3) So communism criticizes capitalism for creating violence in defense of private property but is in full support of violence in defense of property that happens to belong to a larger group known as a commune?

per your replies.

1) So who organizes this and how are they not in a position of power like a ruler?

2) Who am I checking out whats available with and why must I report to them? If I wish to be a welder and there are no openings as a welder I am no longer free if I cant be a welder.

3) I would peacefully run the machinery. It would be up to you to be violent in defense of your communes property. That was supposedly one criticism of capitalism. That private property creates violence. Yet here we are with the same machinery and the same violence. The only difference is multiple owners.

Violence has nothing to do with it, it would be the fact that you would own the means of production, extracting surplus value from the labour of the workers. That would make you an exploiter.

This is only overcome by putting the workers in control of the means of production. Surplus value would no longer exist without capital, production would take plus by the proletariat for the benefit of the proletariat.

Violence has nothing to do with it, it would be the fact that you would own the means of production, extracting surplus value from the labour of the workers. That would make you an exploiter, a reactionary bourgeoisie trying to maintain a position of dominance.

This is only overcome by putting the workers in control of the means of production. Surplus value would no longer exist without capital, production would take place by the proletariat for the benefit of the proletariat.

So If I own a machine and you take control then you'll say im wrong for using violence to regain control. But if i take control of your collectively owned machine then im wrong and you're right to use violence? So basically the number of owners decides when its right or wrong? If its not everyones machine then its wrong?

Im not necessarily disputing your stance on this but looking to establish it.

Everything comes down the worker's relationship with the means of production. This is precisely where inequality comes from - workers do not gain the full fruits of their labour in a capitalistic system, this surplus value is instead extracted by the capitalist.

This is basic Marxian theory, and thus shared by most anarchists.

I know you weren't replying to my answers, but still:

No. It would be extremely unlikely that a big enough amount of people simply "do not work". But even in that case, we can choose to lock out non-workers from access to scarce goods.

You're not really going to have to to speak with anyone. But even in that case, how would they even be able to keep you out from doing what you want?

Private property owned by an individual or an exclusive group is a form of authority. Being owned commonly, by everyone; non-owned, is the absence of that authority, the absence of any hierarchy. If someone wants to damage society, that's a crime and it will have to be protected.

The community organizes it. And it is no form of authority. You can do what you want.

Does that involve common property? If so, then it is the exact same as under capitalism - if there are no openings as a welder, you can not a welder. If not, you are welcome to do your work by yourself.

Capitalism is based on authority, exclusion: communism is based on inclusion, on the lack of that authority. If you're going to take the result of a collective work process for yourself, then that's a crime and it will have to be fended off.

Because in the first case communists are taking control of exclusive private property and making it available to everyone; whereas, in your case you're taking everyone's non-property and re-assigning it to yourself, for your own profit.

I apologize that since im on a phone I cannot answer to each quote if there are multiples in a given post. Perhaps it would be easier if you guys all collectively select one person to represent your collective opinions and we can have a one on one debate.
I'm halfway kidding but it would be easier being collectivism allows your group to have an appointed ruler... I mean representative... to debate with me.

No its not because under capitalism there is infinite openings in every field. If there are 150% welders of the demand then the best 100% will survive. The less skilled 50% will be force to become useful enough to get into the 100% or they will fail and drop off. At no time is any position "full" though. Only under communism where whoever gets to the machine first regardless of skill level, gets to be a welder. That promotes poor skills and production.

No. First of all, there is no need for a "strong majority" of people to labour. Even in capitalism, the number of workers that are required to operate the means of production has declined; in socialism, liberated of the need to maximise the rate of profit, this decline would become rather steep. The number of "necessary" posts would probably be insignificant compared to the population.

More importantly, I never claimed that workers in the communist society would forgo personal enjoyment in favour of work, but that work would entail personal enjoyment. That is already the case in some fields - a lot of scientists, for example, enjoy their work. If that is not the case for miners, it is because they work in a dangerous job for starvation wages. That would not be the case in socialism.

I have no idea how they would be appointed. They would probably either be elected by the soviet or volunteer. I'm not going to draw up a detailed plan for the administration of a communist society.

Also, do you seriously think that the expectation that you notify someone about changing workplaces so your old workplace doesn't wonder what happened to you and the people in your new workplace don't gawk at you when you just show up is "rulership"?

Not a commune, a society, communism is not a federation of "communes". As for violence, you're ignoring the class character of violence. We are against the violence of the bourgeoisie directed at the workers. We are for the violence of the proletariat directed at the exploiters and everyone who tries to be one.

Well as common courtesy for all those individuals involved it would be appropriate. But if it is required within the system then yes its a form of ruler.

Anything required of a man that does not effect the life, liberty or property of another and will then be met with a physical action in response is a form of ruler.