So tell me about anarcho-communism
Can it work, if so, how?
Has it ever worked?
>>1350963
>Can it work, if so, how?
Council, Syndicate
>Has it ever worked?
Syndicalism and Anarchy are both two large unknowns we know are theoretically possible if you've read enough, and easily dismissed if you haven't.
Largely, you know who is worth talking to on the matter and who isn't based upon their reaction.
>>1350963
Communism is actually anarchistic no matter what shitty Leninist-bolshevik told you. So anarcho-communism is redundant.
Oh and Makhno tried to create a free anarchic state in Ukraine before invaded and annexed by USSR.
>>1350963
Can it work, if so, how?
It's an utopian system, it requires perfect contitions to work, that means that all people on planet must act like Borgs or robots - everyone must be willing to become a human-ant.
Has it ever worked?
No one tried it, but ararchism and communism were tried dozen times and every time failed. You can draw the conclusions by yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
>>1350963
Every single experiments of anarchism and communism failed. They were too extreme. You don't have to follow such ideologies just to believe that the commons is an important entity. For them, it's not enough. You have to be a radical. You also have to destroy the private, disregarding the fact that the private is important too. It's one of the foundation of modern society. Furthermore, it can also transform into the commons, just like how the commons can be privatized or state-monopolized.
It follows that both the private and the state should be abolished. An idea that would bring us back to primitive societies.
>>1350963
>Has it ever worked?
depends how true Soviet propaganda about Mahkno and the CNT-FAI is
>>1351193
Most communists and anarchists distinguish between personal and private property.
>>1351311
Not clearly distinguished conceptually.
>>1351311
except the communist definition of "personal property" usually just boils down to "what I don't want stolen from me" and then no effort is made to understand the irony of that when scaled up
>>1350963
Long story short it is an incomplete theory and adherents are too dogmatic to change (thereby improve) anything.
The theory is correct in saying that the average person with no power and a general desire to improve the world around them (in a kind of kant's categorical imperative / utilitarian manner) is a decent decision maker and an effective means of representing their will and applying it to the real world would achieve many of the objectives of anarcho-communism.
All things considered, the state and class are irrational, it is completely feasible for a large group of likeminded people to play minecraft (bear with me) and to play without needing an overarching authority to coordinate efforts, deal with griefers and murderers in the game.
It goes without saying that in the real world it doesn't work like that, it is more like playing with a bunch of random 12 year olds and edgelords. Anarchists are aware of this, but their analysis of the situation is flawed, obsessing over the capitalism meme and ignoring the flaws of the bureaucracies intended to represent the people (or pretending they aren't just another bureaucracy).
>le humans will just behave under anarchy because everyone is intrinsically good XD *channels care-bear beam*
Was Rosseau the worst fuck-up in the history of philosophy?
this >>1351478
Poor people can be cunts too, but movements stemming from the first international are all focused on being memes and ensnaring people, not actually achieving anarcho-communism or whatever.
You don't get someone on your side by saying "hey, you're a petty weak willed ignorant piece of shit and your poverty is in large part your own fault, let me sit and lecture you about your flaws", even though everything you said is completely true and extremely important for people to understand in order for there to be the slightest chance of a utopia like anarcho-communism ever becoming a reality.
>>1351102
Wasn't it tried in Catalonia?
>>1351624
I prefer the word "Achieved".
>>1351692
You might want to read "The Anarcho-Statists off Spain", pal.
>>1350963
Yes it can work. It works with everyone doing what they're supposed to and clearly communicating. Yes, it works everyday, typically with communes.
If you're asking it can work on a country-wide level, it probably can with independent communities freely associating with each other, the same way as individuals in those communities associate with each other.
>>1350963
I think that abolition of all private property is not a feasible or even a necessarily desirable goal within a communist framework. There needs to be a more clear distinction between private property that is personal, specifically what's required for basic functioning such as a roof over your head and private property that is used for impersonal gain such as commons appropriated for enterprise, land used for rent seeking, etc.
Complete anarchism is not really a possible thing either, just a state that is small and decentralized as possible, with more power imbued to the actual people living in a particular area.
Together these principles lead to some sort form syndicalism, but implicitly demands a certain level of social cohesion and cooperation.
Anyways we're going to need to employ more communist principles if we are to keep automating everyone out of jobs, it's not a matter of preference but a matter of necessity
>>1351940
>>1351941
>>1355853
EDGY
>>1354456
Land value tax lad.
The owner of the land pays all of the tax, the proceeds of which can be used for support for the unemployed. Although I don't want communism just capitalism with more support for the poor, kinda Sweden like free markets and social insurance. Best of both worlds desu
>>1351478
Hobbes > Rousseau
I walked past Rousseau's house in Geneva and it was [spoiler]Locke[spoiler]d. I'm pretty sure that's against the general will.
>>1356292
Fuck off newfag, it combo'd. That's not edgy, it's a joke.
>>1351921
Sounds like a few hundred pages of "well anybody working together as a group to emancipate themselves and others from the dictatorship of capital is totally a state checkmate anarkiddies"
>>1356674
>I read communist literature
>>1356304
>I want a free market that also somehow takes care of the poor and unemployed as best as possible
Spot the liberal
>>1358334
Do you mean social democrat?
>>1358670
They call them liberal in the USA
>>1358693
Yeah but it's pretty retarded. Why do they do that anyway?
>>1350963
Anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous, that's a basis. How could anarcomunism work, though?
>>1351478
This is what libertarianism assumes. "My liberty will clearly not be used to oppress and abuse everyone else the instant I get a chance to do so factibly! Really, guise!"
>>1358334
Just wondering what are they going to do if they don't take care of them?
How are those people going to survive if no one will employ them? What's going to happen to them?
>>1351498
That's mean, dude, but even then you explained it better in these two/three lines of text I'm reading than /pol/acos in pages and pages and pages.
>>1358726
>This is what statism assumes. "The power of government will clearly not be used to oppress and abuse everyone else the instant the instant I gain control of it! Really, guise!
>>1358334
So free market needs people to suffer and die? What a positive system indeed, it warms my heart.
>>1358776
There is nothing about the free market that excludes charity.
>>1358334
Free market tends to look after a lot of people rather well (and provide long range growth prospects) . Problem is that some don't succeed much and I don't think we can let them starve.
>>1351478
Jean Jaques Rousseau? pro-anarchy?
I don't think so.
>>1358839
>it's okay guys, people may not starve to death today if the propietarians wake up feeling generous
I don't see how that works, but I myself push for for progressive libertarianism and friends look at me weird for that.
>>1350963
It never worked.
evry time it's been implemented it was basically just setting up a generic commie state and insisting that it's not a state.
>>1359024
What do you mean by progressive libertarianism?
Private property yay or nay?
>>1359001
> Yes let's let people starve to death, driving up the price of labour which we have to pay, excellent idea.
> Implying you can't have free markets with some form of welfare.
>>1359050
now you are being kinda socialist.
>>1359050
But where is the welfare money coming from? Taxation is theft! Stop treading on me REEEEEEE
>>1359060
I'm not the guy you were replying to. I was just pointing out that it's not really in the capitalists favour to let lots of people starve in the streets.
In places like Bangladesh child labour is the best option ( however bad it may be ) as the children either turn to prostitution/crime/starving if they can't get a job. This is a result of a government failure - no decent state funded ( but not necessarily ran ) education system. If they had a better education system then go ahead and ban child labour.
Social insurance != Socialist
I'd say I'm in the left part of the conservative party in the uk so pretty much centrist.
>>1359079
Tatcher would hang you from your balls.
>>1356688
>punish people
>enforce laws
>maintain a monopoly on the use of force
>>1359082
We could do with another Thatcher desu then we might get a decent labour party ( I.e social democrat ) opposition rather than corbyns reactionary rubbish. EERM worst move possible
>>1359064
Taxation is theft, but not all theft is wrong.
