Hello, I'm a libertarian-leaning person. I came here to see if someone can explain to me what ancom is about. How can communism happen without the state backing it up?
I apologize in advance if I offend anyone by even asking questions about ancom.
Hello, I'm a libertarian-leaning person. I came here to see if someone can explain to me what ancom is about. How can communism happen without the state backing it up?
I apologize in advance if I offend anyone by even asking questions about ancom.
Other urls found in this thread:
Better question: how can capitalism happen without the state backing it up? Who decides what private property is legitimate? Or what currency is legitimate?
Communism is what people do when there's no class system or state forcing them to do something else. Communism operates on the same logic as friends pooling their resources to do things together. It's the same mechanism as a cookout or potluck. Everyone brings what they have to the table and takes what they need. This process became disturbed historically by the introduction of class, where a minority of people were able to take disproportionate power and coerce other people's behavior.
This week's book club was an introductory text on anarchism, you can check it out and the pdf is included. Try reading that.
The state as it actually exists is an organ of domination for a specfic class, communism is what would occur without the state and mirrors what we know of pre-state societies.
I think I know where you're going with this, and I'm actually… I think minarchist is the term. I'm sympathetic towards there being no institute of coercion (state), but I'd settle for minimal state. Is there a flag for minarchism? I couldn't find it in the list.
But what if we're in "Ancom", I can just take food from whoever I want? Why would I work if I can just take from other people's stock?
Thanks, I'll take a look.
I think the concept of property existed in such societies. (assuming the concept of property is banned from communism)
Rules would be enforced by the community, would your friends just let you take all their stuff? No they'd want you to get the pizza one time and the next time you could have some of their chinese. Anarchism would be on a small scale (as I understand it) so that these kind of social bonds could work in the community.
However I'm no expert as I'm a filthy Demsoc statist. I recommend the book 'Pacific Edge' by Kim Stanley Robinson for an actual depiction an ancom society (the other books in the series are good too but are more anti-capitalist than showing Marxism). I'm kind of a brainlet so I get more out of fictional depictions than theory books.
So there IS property then. What if I produce absolutely nothing, they can't stop me from eating from theirs, otherwise this isn't communism.
I'm afraid of diving into books and wasting way too much time to just find out (if they even mention it) what's the workaround for nobody producing anything and only relying on others.
Am I getting something wrong? In Ancom if I plant some apples, then gather them, am I supposed to be able to not share them with anyone, or not? And "community enforced rules" is state, just smaller, even if you disagree with it. And even if you refuse to concede this, how are you even going to stop it from growing, which is the state's nature? Are you going to stop people from having too many children? I'm not going to go into the problem of outside forces because there would be too many variables and then it becomes pointless.
I kinda see some parallels between ancom and ancap, but ancoms seem to think that very small government isn't government.
It's a rhetorical question. I'm saying the state functions to enforce class. It's unnecessary to enforce the absence of class. An anarchist like me will go even farther and tell you it can't do that because its structure is based on class, on forcibly parasitizing the economy to support itself. Class and state are symbiotic.
It depends on the system. You're probably not just going to get to take things if people see you acting that way. We easily produce enough food that we could convert grocery stores into distribution centers by just allowing people to come take food without paying. If the food is free there's no reason to horde it (since people aren't going to pay you when they can go get it for free) so there's no reason to take more than you need or expect to need in case there's a shortage. If you take more than you really need to the point it affectsd other people they will notice and stop you directly by confronting you. There's no need for a state, cops, or a market regulating this.
Personal property is your stuff.
Private property is productive resources, like a factory, that you have the "right" to keep people from using because it's "yours" and you have the "right" to take a portion of the value people produce with it because it "yours".
Yeah but if you pick more than you personally need what do you do with those? Throw them away? Wouldn't it make more sense to do one of these things?
gift them to someone who will feel like gifting you something else later
put them in a community stockpile so other people who didn't pick apples can come get some, and people will feel you are more entitled to take other things from the community stockpile
A state in the technical sense is an entity that holds a monopoly on "legitimate" violence and presides over a defined territory. People following general rules and enforcing them personally is not the same thing as a state. Part of the point of anarchy is to resolve disputes non-violently by figuring out what each side wants and figuring out how to meet everyone's needs. This is actually a fundamental issue with our ideology that makes life difficult for us at almost every level. I'd encourage you to look up Marshall Rosenberg's ideas of non-violent communication to understand how people can create conflicts where there are none because we don't know how to communicate effectively. Of course, there are also systemic conflicts like class that can't be resolved that way, but getting rid of those is the point of anarchy (not to solve all problems unilaterally).
What makes you think growth is the nature of a state or community? Loads of places IRL right now have shrinking populations.
What parallels lol? Ancaps think feudalism (which is what an ancap society would really be) isn't government.
Communes can deal with a certain number of "lazy" people but they wouldn't be without recourse if you were stealing resources. In an anarchist society where the work is shared people also generally need to work less anyways. Also I think that capitalism regularly overestimates the number of truly lazy people. In the United States most people who go on welfare get a job within less than a year. Even in countries where people on welfare are not socially ostricized like in Nordic nation's the unemployment amongst them is very low. Humans generally like to work and in a society where they are connected with their community and the work is shared people are more motivated to work even if it's optional. I would highly recommend reading about how Hunter gatherer societies deal with work because it's quite similar.
If I build a farm and someone asks me to work on my farm, then he's under me, that's already a class system brewing up. Unless nobody can own the farm, anyone can take all the chickens and nobody will have a farm then because if you work people will just come and take your stuff.
Ok, I'm going to assume that property does exist in ancom then.
People are going to hoard it, because they're afraid of other people hoarding them, since it's all free. Prisoner's Dillema, or Game Theory, or whatever it's called.
I'm going to make a scenario, let me know at what part I did something that is incompatible with ancom principles.
I found some land where nobody's living in, built a small house, put some fences around it, brought a few chicken and a few cows inside it, and now I'm feeding them to grow them to eventually kill and eat them. Also to eat the eggs. Someone living a few hundred meters from my house set up a small pond and is raising fish in them. I decided to take some fish from his pond, and he stopped me saying they were his. I then talked to him and we agreed to trade a chicken for a fish. We then decided to write what we were trading using values we set up in notebooks and signed after transactions so we wouldn't have to trade good everytime we traded (example: I want some fish and he wants eggs, but if I wait a few days his fishes will grow larger, but my eggs which I already have will rot, so I'll give them today and he'll give them later to me, as agreed upon.)
Some other day, some 5 people that live close to us came by and demanded a cow and two chickens, to which I refused. They threaten me, my neighbor comes by and helps me take them out.
Is everything described here fine in ancom principles so far?
Private property: A factory, a machine, a farm, that is used to create economic goods
Personal property: a house, a TV, a sandwich, which is for the use of the person it belongs to.
Sounds pretty much ok to me
pic related, I don't think ancom would be as okay with casual violence as right-libertarianism
Communism cannot be achieved while a state is present, because a state is an instrument of class dominance. Thus communism (the mode of production, not the real movement that abolishes the present state of things) can only be stateless as it is defined by the elimination of class.
There is no need to ban a thing that can only exist by enforcement. Private property (useful things which the owner rents to the people who actually utilize it) requires enforcement and is ignored where no such enforcement is present.
There is personal property (useful things that the owner himself uses exclusively), a toothbrush being the classic example. The distinction between personal property and private property is significant in communist theory.
Incentive. Those who produce large quantities of wealth are gifted a greater share of the wealth produced by others. This is common practice among complex hunter-gatherer societies (eg. pre-Columbian Maya, Northwestern coastal American Indians, and modern New Guinean horticulturalists) and usually results in significant community surpluses. Furthermore, without the threat of shortages that complex hunter-gatherer societies endure because they lack industrial production capabilities the rewards for extraordinary production in communism would be substantial. Thus production is directly rewarded and not simply forced upon the worker as is the case with capitalist production.
No, those are the means of production, not private property, although the means of production are nearly all private property in capitalism.
So, a farm is private property, which can't happen in communism, so I had no right to refuse them my chickens and cows? Or did I? Please clarify.
What should I have done then? Those 5 people are a large part of our small community, should I let them take my animals? Should I let them hit me and then have them take my animals while I'm unconscious?
Also, someone asked before how would currency work, and rare metals work mostly fine, for example. There are ways to make currency work without state enforcing it. Hell, cryptocurrency is a thing.
I can enforce my ownership of my farm by using firearms, and me and my neighbors helping ourselves defend our properties. Unlike the state, I wouldn't be going around collecting money and property from other people, I just took what nobody owned and now I'm using it to breed more animals, eggs, etc.
This is already a thing in capitalism. If you produce something that's not in large quantity, but it's in high demand and is difficult to produce, you'll be highly rewarded just the same, by getting more money.
Maybe they weren't using currencies, that's just less convenient.
And who would guarantee this distribution? I mean, even ignoring that whoever is in charge for this wouldn't be impartial, I still have to ask, why do you consider whoever is in charge of this distribution not government?
If I produce nothing, I get nothing? Then I'm forced to work.
I'm saying that's what socialists mean when they want to seize private property, and that's usually always what the bourg state means too when it defends 'private property'.
Well it depends, under state socialism the farm would be collectively owned but under ancomism a one person farm wouldn't be considered private property I suppose. I guess I mis-spoke.
This is another thing I don't really get about ancom but like I said the community at large wouldn't accept people just stealing each other's things, so presumably the community would help you sort the situation out. I think I should just let the actual anarchists answer this topic since I'm confusing the situation. I guess where you are a libertarian who doesn't get ancom, I'm a socialist who doesn't get anarchism in general ha.
Without a state enforcing your private property, how do you stop the majority of the community saying that the farm is collective property? They can just overwhelm you. You can't stop other people from just working the farm and ignoring your demands for a cut of what they make.
This is demonstrably false. There are plenty of IRL examples in anthropology and at small scales. Systems like this is how communities were managed right up through feudalism, before capitalists took over every aspect of the economy.
Prisoners' Dilemma is a topic in Game Theory, which is basically propaganda. People are not being held separate from each other so the arbitrary rules of the dilemma don't apply to the IRL situation. People will just talk to each other and try to work out the best solution because they have the basic intelligence required to realize they can do this. For more on the topic watch this video about the "Tragedy of the Commons":
Then you should probably be a construction worker instead of a farmer.
Why would you have more land than you can work yourself? If you cannot use a thing, then it is not yours to begin with.
Which is why people would give you what they make in order to keep getting eggs and chickens.
How? Are they going to have gigantic locked concrete bunkers to store the shit that they take? Are they then going to guard it themselves, because they have no means to compel others to guard it for them? Without private property and state enforcement such hoarding is impossible.
Why not take what each other needs and offer the surplus to others? Then you get things that are not merely fish and eggs. There is no reason to balance any of this when there is sufficient production to meet the needs of all. It is not as though the two of you would be the only farmer and fisherman in the world.
And the entire rest of the community is doing what?
I'm a Marxist not an anarchist, basically we believe that the state is a tool to oppress one class in favour of the other, the aim is to seize the state and erect a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat that oppressed the bourgeoisie. Anarchist notions of immediate statelessness, that goes for both the AnCap as well as the AnCom faction, seem be largely driven from moral concerns about hierarchies rather than a materialist analysis of society.
The idea that the proletariat will not erect their own bureaucracy, annoint themselves architects of the administration of the new state, surely different in kind than the old state, and direct the new apparatus of state toward the interest of the new bureaucratic class at the expense of the nonbureaucratic is both ahistorical and antimaterialist.
It just seems, from what you're saying, that it's fine to do everything the same as under capitalism, but if you have more than an arbitrary number of cows/chickens/eggs, then you're going evil.
A large group of people taking the farm from me because they think it's the right thing? That's government.
I can, by threatening, harming or killing them.
Also, I can get together with the people I know and we organize a defense group, and then we defend our properties from this government trying to steal my property.
I can stop people from taking my eggs and my chicken, but if I put some fences so they can't just walk in and steal stuff, then it's too much?
Again, this stuff seems extremely arbitrary.
I'm watching the videos now. The 2:20 video ended up saying nothing while also being condescending. I hope the 14m one is better.
I don't, but my land can produce enough for me and someone else. If he works for me, I can pay him and not have to work, or I can do something else with my time and produce other stuff. And "more land than you can work yourself" is very arbitrary (again with the just don't go too large or it's evil thing) but I'll forget about that for now.
Assume a bakery bakes 100 loaves of bread. Usually 20 people would buy 5 each, but now under this example, the first 10 come in and take 10 each, leaving the last 10 people without any bread. You talk as if 1 or 2 people would take an entire supermarket worth of food home and lock it up.
Why would I? I'd rather find other people to trade with, or find ways to preserve things for later, like using salt.
Oh, you did mean trade. Yes, sure.
It's easier and works better than trading 1 for 1, like you said. Also, I gave an example earlier, where I have eggs coming out daily that will rot, and I can get credit for when his fishes are larger, then he can pay his debt to me.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm at the border of our community and my neighbor is the one who heard the fight and came to help.
Or, in another scenario, let's assume that our local community is me, my neighbor, and those 5 people who want my stuff.
Aren't proletariat and bourgeoisie classes? So you want to fight class oppression by doing, and I quote:
this? You want to build a system of class oppression to get rid of the oppresion of classes?
If any of these come as disingenuous, I apologize, I'm trying my best to understand the logic. For example, I think I understand ancaps completely, I just don't think it'll work, so I'm minarchist. But ancom just seems contradictory to me. Ancaps say that state is the means to steal things from other people, and ancoms say that state is the means to keep private property as a thing, so they're directly contradicting one another. I'm way more inclined to believe ancaps on this matter, because I know that classes can emerge without the need for government whatsoever.
A farm is only private property when the farmers themselves give what they grow to an owner. Don't be confused by .
It is not a question of rights. If there are people who would take more than they use, then they should be denied by all, because such an act benefits only them. When production is socialized (which is to say that it is made available to others) that which gets produced is controlled collectively. Thus it would not just be you and your neighbor who objects to thieves taking what you made but everyone who would benefit by its socialization. Basically, socialization ensures that you would have the entire community denying the theives.
It wouldn't. Communism is moneyless.
No, it absolutely is not. The people who work the hardest, the people who produce the most wealth, they nearly all have a tiny fraction of the value that they actually produce. Capitalism is an anti-meritocracy where those who work are impoverished and those who do not produce one damn thing get a free ride.
On the contrary, it simplifies everything. They do, however use a rudimentary monetary system, as they have to account for who takes what in an environment where scarsity exists.
What typically happens in the examples of complex hunter-gatherer societies is that when those who are particularly productive bring their goods to a gathering at which they are enjoyed by all the producers in question are popularly recognized for their contributions and given first choice of various boons, tools, and status symbols. Such a system would work just as well for luxury items in a post-scarsity environment.
You get what you need regardless. You do not get the things that you may want, such as luxury goods and status symbols. Egalitarian societies tend to be unkind to moochers.
Any marxist is ultimately an anarchist, as communism is an anarchy.
More like you failed to describe capitalism. There wasn't any class structure in your example. People were entitled to what they produced and could decide to share it. Nothing was produced for sale on a market, it was produced for consumption and you just tracked numerically how the resources were managed. None of that implies capitalism unless you define capitalism as people engaged in productive labor and distributing things, which applies every society ever and is functionally useless in critiquing the particular economic form we have today.
So what, government is whenever multiple people cooperate? That's also a functionally useless definition of government.
And then they'll overpower you because you're vastly outnumbered and they'll be justified because they were trying to make a living and you were trying to parasitize them.
No, this is exactly where you are unambiguously describing class. Who says it's your property to prevent other people from working it? Who are you to say that production may only take place if it will make money for you personally? It's one thing to stop people from just taking stuff you use to survive. It's another thing to stop people from working land unless they pay you part of what they make because "it's my land." If you want to get something out of the land you can work it like everyone else. If you're not a farmer but you build the farm then you can be compensated for that work, but it doesn't entitle you to take a cut of the farmers' produce indefinitely.
Fences aren't necessarily too much. You might use them to keep the chickens from wandering away or to have some privacy. I raise the question because it's an odd thing to do to define what part of the land is "yours" and what is not. We think of it as normal today because it was normalized out of practical necessity when capitalism became the dominant economic model.
Don't exist, anarchists believe statelessness is achieved by the social revolution.
The opposition to the state is due to the state's historic role as a tool of the minority and its supposed inability to actually represent the interests of the working class, morality has nothing to do with it.
History shows us that the state is unable to be administered and directed by the proletariat, rather the administrators and directors find themselves transformed by their position and their interests diverge from that of the proletariat.
Most self-described Marxists are social democrats that have little interest in communism.
Why would he do that? Why should he allow you to claim as yours that which he makes?
Hell no it isn't. It is a plain physical limitation. Land should not go to waste just because someone wants to call it his.
No, I am talking as if every person would bring what they make to be shared by all. If someone wants a ridiculous number of something for whatever reason (seriously, why?) he would have to justify it.
Not as such. I am talking about socialization in general. Your disconnect is that you are seeing socialization as a 1 v. 1 exchange when it needn't be. It is better for everyone when it isn't.
This is what I am talking about. 1 v. 1 exchange is impractical and ultimately unnecessary, especially when compared with generally socializing production for use by all.
Okay, we are talking about roving bandits. Afterward go to town, explain your situation and have some men at arms patrol the area. They will do so, because everyone wants eggs and fish.
And those five people make nothing else? How do they benefit by taking your chickens and leaving themselves with no eggs or chicken meat in the future? The scenario is nonsense.
Yes they are, and they should be eliminated.
How do you define "bureaucracy"? A bureaucracy is not a bourgeoisie, a bureaucracy is not a mode of production.
The proletariat is the class that does all the work in society, The bourgeoisie is the 1% ownership class. The "oppression" would amount to the bourgeoisie being under heel of the proletariat until private property is abolished.
The state doesn't have an agenda of its own. During the Roman Civil Wars the state was used to undermine the Senatorial oligarchy of the optimates, during the French Revolution it was used by the bourgeoisie to overthrow feudalism and so on. Marxists aren't anarchists because we don't believe that you can create a stateless society right now dislodged from the material conditions that surround it. That not even mentioning the obvious problems of defining what anarchists mean by state, in the end it seems like fetishism over an organisational form.
Because he wants to. Or because he feels like it's easier and safer to just go work to someone who's already established. Or maybe he doesn't have some cows, so he can't make more, etc. It doesn't matter why, what matters is why is this so reviled by communists? Why should people not be able to engage in consensual transaction?
He has been arguing in good faith, and his questions appear to be born of genuine curiosity.
Just use currency.
They had some cows, went drunk for a few days and wasted all their meat, and now they have none. These scenarios are so easy to come up with that you shouldn't be asking for examples. People do stupid shit all the time, and there are assholes out there, not everyone is nice and level-headed.
Oh, and producing stuff earns you the right to get stuff in return, so communism is capitalism minus classes and minus currency?
cap·i·tal·ismDictionary result for capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
What is the word for an economic system in which you can use currency (capitalism would fall under it)?
And I'll ask again because either I missed the answer or nobody answered it: who would divide the produced goods, and why is this person or group not "government"?
Also, what would you do once society starts to get larger? You can't go around killing people just to avoid society from becoming larger, and you can't stop people from gathering around the area until it eventually merges with another area. Or even ignoring other communities, the ancom community would itself grow so large that it'd distance itself from these models you people mentioned.
Some odd personality quirk that makes him want to act against his own interests? It does happen.
That is working with someone, not working for someone.
If there is a cow shortage, then it would probably be a bad idea to take up ranching.
It absolutely matters why. That matters more than anything else when you are talking about a system that is intended to serve people's interests. If a system allows people to act in their own interests, allows them the ability to do the things that they need to do in order to have the things that they want then it is a good system.
There is nothing "consensual" about wage labor. If you say that you want to work for someone else, then it is only because you are unable to work for yourself. That is excepting those individuals with a masochistic fetish who enjoy being under other people's boots. Capitalism and wage labor are not mere relationships (let alone mutual agreements) between two individuals; they are systemic, and there is no opting out of it.
Why don't you think for five seconds instead of coming to the Communist board and asking them to convert you?
How can people live in a socialist society without theft? Voluntary association, a charitable collective. How can you be a Communist without theft? Impossible.
Except if any of them decide to sell anything or anything has value, then suddenly it's capitalism which means it's fucked and impossible. That's what you're saying here.
I want to try to understand their point of view. I mean, what they describe here makes ancap seem doable, but still, I want to understand what they want to be put in motion. It probably won't be useful in my life as I bet 99% of "socialists/communists" have never even thought about how it would work, but I'm still very curious.
I just gave examples on why someone might want to work for someone else. Don't just ignore them.
What? On the opposite, breeding cows would be the most valuable thing in that case.
If I can make 10 boots, and a man tells me that if I operate his machine and make 100 boots and he'd give me 20 of those, in the same time period I'd spend to make 10 boots, I'd gladly work for him. I win, he wins.
Exchange by currency is a 1 v. 1 exchange, and it is massively inefficient. It is a symbol that represents value but never the exact value (the social cost of production which is itself an abstraction) of the things that are exchanged. Also, the money itself becomes an object of financial speculation, which throws its already tenuous connection to the equilibrium of value even further out of whack. Money is only utilized because it is a necessity to facilitate trade where commodities are privately owned.
They are also wildly unrealistic. They do not describe events that can be rationally extrapolated from a given premise. Instead they serve as fantastical aesops.
Of course, but we are not talking about a system shared by a pair of individuals but rather as a society-wide mode of production. Individuals may be irrational and unpredictable, but large collective groups of individuals are as predictable as clockwork. Large groups will behave in ways that trend toward their own interests.
If only capitalism actually did that.
Absolutely everything that falls between simple hunter-gatherer egalitarianism and communism.
As goods are to be controlled collectively, they shall be divided collectively. All who contribute have a say when production is collectively controlled. Deputies could be chosen to handle specific tasks like bookkeeping, making requests of other communities, or recognizing the contributions of extraordinary individuals. Whether or not you call that "government" is a question of semantics. It is not what we would call a "state." A state is a top-down organization which dictates to the lower classes on behalf of the ruling class. An anarchist "government" is just everyone.
I am not seeing a problem with that unless you are talking about putting strains on the planet's limited resources. More people just means more production.
Can you explain what that's supposed to mean in this context? If you go to a cookout where everyone's bringing food to share and try to sell something, people are probably not going to react positively.
While we are on the subject, I am curious as to why ancaps do not change their theory when they run into the many blatant contradictions that are present in their theory, the basic premise that capitalism can be achieved with state enforcement of private property for example. I see that you went "minarchist" in response to that particular hole in the theory, but that reinvites the old problem that the state always uses violence to suppress the lower classes. But back to the point, even ancaps see the semi-sized holes in their theory. Even in theory their proposed society devolves into a Mad Max dystopia full of roving gangs, tyrants, and people huddled in their homes and hinding from the world. In every way it sounds even worse than what we have now. At least some of the proper anarchists can spell out a fairly consistent claim as to how their proposed society would produce a better life for people. I do not understand the desire to advocate an ideology that is full of theoretical holes and resolves itself into a nightmare.
I answered each in turn. What are you talking about?
Not when there are no cows to breed. If one rancher who has been doing the job for years has cows, it is best to leave him to care for what cows are left until the herd is restored.
That scenario presupposes that you do not already have access to the machinery. That is where the theft truly lies. Why do you not have access to the machinery? The owner did not build the machines. He did not mine the metals, grow the rubber, or process the oil with which they were made. All he did was to invest currency which he likewise did nothing to produce. What makes the machines his beyond the state declaration that they are such? Absolutely nothing. The money that he invested was minted and imbued with value by a state. He got that money by way of the work of other people–people who were coerced into the same bargain into which he would now coerce you. He probably even had managers to oversee how his money was invested when the machines were concieved. In every step of their production he was nothing but a parasite. Now he, by virtue of state power refuses you access to them unless you agree to give him your production in exchange for a small portion of the value that you create.
Take the owner out of the equation altogether. The machines still exist, because they who made them still exist. Now you can make your hundred boots as you will with no parasitic middle man's involvement.
Reality. All but the lowliest of bootlickers would rather have no boss.
It is an idea that only makes sense to the ancap, because he is not able to follow an idea from cause to effect.
Bunch of no-replied comments ITT. Does being a lolbert literally blind you to counterarguments or something?
I didn't say it did, hence "tool of".
And in all of those cases class wasn't abolished, but a new class, that was a minority of the population, took control and used the state for its own interests. If the revolution puts power in the hands of the general population rather than an "elite" minority, then the burgeoning society can't be understood as a state in the current and historical use of the term.
Anarchists don't believe that a stateless society will emerge immediately or that it will be born independent of material conditions. You've got some weird ideas about anarchism buckaroo.
For over a century anarchists have been clear that by "state" they mean some variation of "concentration of power in the hands of a few, notably control over many functions in the life of societies by said few".
Some say it can only happen without the state backing it up.
There are two groups of fools here. There are "maybe we're anarchist, maybe we're dystopian marxist" fools who think communism is LIKE socialism, but with far more micromanagement and dystopian codependence. Basically, bakunin-hates-this-style marx-has-gone-full-leninist twerps. "But with maybe anarchism tho."
Kropotkin actually tried to pander to them in a last bid of desperation, so…
…then there are the lucid fools. The "classical," i.e. red-and-black, liberals who find their social system is anarchist, like pirate-tier "if there is a god we will slay them," while their economic system is communism.
…and you wake up in the morning, you check out a factory, you bust the crazy thing you thought it would amuse you to do, take the shit you made, and put the tools back. "Perhaps the landlords will cooperate by fleeing," Mohandas "little girls" Gandhi. Trust us, they did so long ago, possibly by being killed.
There's also green anarchism, which has its own libraries of communism. It happens without the state backing it up because, you know, you're fucking alone in the deep wilderness.
Eh. It's one of the dumbest questions in the world (as you can probably see why if you read that text up there), and you've got to admit there's some implicit pressure in the phrasing which one might want to sign on to. On the other hand, it's… not like you asked offensively or anything : welcome.
…go download some communism. It's actually all around you, as you might start to figure out.
I have absolutely no idea how to parse this paragraph.
Well, found your problem.
So, it's not a paragraph, just a part of one that has been reddit spaced to hell and back.
Maybe you are unimportant.
Is that was you call that nonsensically formatted gibberish?
While you've literally contributed absolutely nothing, your attempt$ at disruption and derailment STILL keep the thread up!
And you expect me to think that's a bad thing. Are you drunk?
Not yet, no.
So it's useful to both of us to keep the shit you took so much work to bury and derail, right there, clicked on by everyone. Interesting…
Better get started. Maybe with enough alcohol you will be able to string a coherent thought together.
The wierd thing is, you'd have to both be afraid of something in … AND be dishonest… to value thread-derailment and last-post-content sliding. But, you rebump.
You are tripping.
Simple calculation of gain and loss.
I'll probably just start impersonating you when the thread falls, because causes fear in you.
actually-existing anarchist communism offended someone.
Bakunin was actually better than Krapcrockin fite me
I fear bad English?
I don't THINK the english invented ancom, but you were terrified enough to do everything in your power to try to bury that shit. So, it's something. And you put yourself up as a glownigger in the process.
"Exorbitant effort" is an action which is always considered… motivated… in psychology.
Honestly, I cannot understand what is saying. It's gibberish that was formatted by a lunatic.
Then you're fucking retarded, but it's not the first time "I don't like it" = "I don't understand english and that makes everyone but me dumb" has been seen.
It's REEEEAAAAALLLYY fucking simple flow control. Yet someone_who_is_apparently_you took "there exist two groups," cut HALF the definition of group A in, dropped the second group, and thinks OTHER people are retarded.
Wierd, huh? The most probable answer is that said derailer (and all derailers, actually) are FAKE.
I imagine that you get that a lot, since you write like a schizo.
YOU cut the definition of Group A (which is described with misplaced commas, hyphens everywhere, quotes that qoute no one, and probably does not actually describe any real people) into pieces. You literally divided one thought into three paragrahs consisting of two sentences and a sentence fragment. That shit is unreadable, even by chan standards.
There exist two options. The first is that you could log off and throw your computer into a lake.
The second is that you could kill yourself.
WTF bro that doesn't even make any sense do you even english?
I am guessing that the guy is an ESL who learned English from a combination of American films and the internet.
Cryptocurrency is a speculative commodity just like any other. You should really check out the first one or two chapters of that Debt book another user posted. It's basically about the origin of money, how all currency is basically a way to quantify debt, and how stable currencies only exist with state enforcement.
Currency didn't pop into existence the moment agriculture was invented. There have been plenty of agrarian societies that also used gift economies.
Pretty damn close to it. Originally it represented a given quantity of grain.
I assume that you are talking about the Inca and their predecessors. Their society was quite extraordinary.
op its called contracts, you probably know what since youre an ancap
There's a ton of stuff to read now that I'm back online, but this here caught my attention so I thought I'd comment right away:
There's an ethical/moral argument for ancap which is: nobody should steal other people, or coerce other people, or harm other people. That's why this image exists, because either you have ACTUAL private property, or you have people stealing from others on smaller or larger degrees.
And I still haven't seen anyone in the thread (so far) justifying calling small government "anarchy". I need more time to read through everything, though, so I'll post later.
Do you believe North Korea is Monarchist Socialist?
The Nuclear Family™(conservatives) is already dead. The only good family is a family where the mother gets off the couch and goes to work the same hours as her husband. Most Stay-at-home mothers are lazy bitches who rarely raise their children.
The only purpose a woman has is to reproduce children, NOT raise children. At this point, women should be the property of men.
What follows is not a comment on it. The commies can go through their theory line-by-line and explain how their system would work, because when they find a problem with their theory they change it to account for the problem. On the other hand, when ancaps reach a gaping hole in their theory (eg. the concentration of wealth leading to the concentration of power; the enforcement of private property requiring a bunch of armed thugs that can suppress the public; the commodification of fucking everything making the production of things that people use in common impossible; etc.) they simply ignore the problem or hand-wave it away with "we'll think of something." They never actually engage with it. Of course, that is not universally true. The guy who was here earlier did the minarchist thing in response to the "no private property without a state" problem, but minarchy has its own set of theoretical contradictions.
Private property is stealing. The truth of that claim can be seen in the plain fact that it requires armed thugs to secure it.
What "small goverment?" Everyone making collective decisions together? Anarchy does not mean "without rules," just "without a state."
I am part of everyone, and I decide against something, and yet something still gets done because other people demand it. That's government. How do you think that's not government?
Securing your private property is not stealing, you're not taking it away from anyone because it's yours. Make other people go build their own stuff elsewhere, they have no right to steal your things. You need government to steal things, therefore, ancom can't exist. Communism = getting things from other people without their consent.
Also, back to that extremely arbitrary deal with the "what is private property". Oh, it's this large, then it's fine. Oh, it's a bit larger? That's evil and we need to seize it.
Because ancap is an ethical argument. You can't steal things from other people, coerce or threaten them. Everything else stems from that principle, and "forcing people to share" (aka stealing) is incompatible with that. Same for forcing people into contracts they don't want to take part in. This is stuff that state does, it coerces people to follow rules the state deems necessary to keep the state running, because the state has the firepower to enforce it. I am not defending ancap, I'm just explaining their reasoning. Again, I myself am a minarchist, I don't see ancap working because, as you said, concentration of wealth ends up making a mafia that will strong-arm people, or in other words, government will result from that.
That is human society. Your shit doesn't change that either. Instead, all it does is to eliminate collective decision-making and put the social course in the hands of an ever-shrinking minority.
Of course it's stealing. To make a thing into private property one must limit access to it when it had been available to all before. That is definatively stealing from everyone else.
That might have been an argument before capitalism was global, but it clearly is not now.
Learn to read. Private property is that which is claimed by an individual who does not make personal use of it. A farm is private property only when the owner hires other people to do the farming.
Then it does not even meet the criteria for being theory. It is just mindless moralizing based on arbitrary ideals.
Capitalism does precisely that. People are forced at gunpoint to accept another person's claim to the things that they need and use. Voluntarism is an illusion.
Then I can go to anyone's food storage and eat all I want.
Why would you when you already have the same food? There is no point in stealing what you already have in abundance. This is why you actually have to consider things like cause and effect when developing a theory.
This is actually a key material component of capitalist ideology so I think maybe re-framing it might help you understand.
First of all the concept of unsettled land is dubious. Who is to say that no one owned that land? By whos authority is its ownership status determined?
The thing is, "land" is really an irreducible system, real life is not minecraft. Borders and lots are imaginary lines in the sand. Anything small enough to be managed by one person is of course personal property, each laborer is entitled to the full production of his labor. Anything larger or requiring tools or machinery that were produced from contributions of other workers ie steel miners, manufactory workers etc must be used with the consent of the networked supply chain leading up to you, and of course back down to the supply chain that feeds, clothes and reproduces the material conditions that allow those workers to continue production.
By fencing of useful land and preventing others from accessing the natural resources therein(water, oil, minerals, lumber, animals, plants) you are using force to deny people sustenance required for life and should be treated as a murderer.
Any useful land with water, mineral, or agricultural significance is owned collectively by humanity as a whole and requires the consent of the international proletariat to be put into production for use rather than profit and to do otherwise is theft of our collective birthright which you should expect to be defended by force.
its not your land
Its not arbitrary, if you cant manage the production yourself you dont own it. The amount you can work may change over time but it is still a definite amount.
If other people are producing they are entitled to the full product of their labor.
this is dumb stop thinking with a scarcest mentality. bread is not a finite resource, it requires sun, water, air and labor which we have in abundance.
you can have as many cows and chickens as you fucking want under communism and no one is going to take them because there is not a goddamn scarcity of chickens and cows. they outnumber humans on this planet but distribution is limited
by capitalist greed through force and coercion at gunpoint.
And then what? How is determined what the full product is, and by why whom?
It's a principle that cannot be made true without violating itself. That's why ancaps and communists can argue so well, they both view the world in terms of pure forms.
ding ding ding winner
seriously my dude if you justify property rights from rights that came before your eventually going to have to follow that ownership claim back to conquest or war so you are literally saying that might makes right and lol gg good luck wthat read some history m8y
it just keeps getting worse. Stop thinking in isolated transactions they are a fantasy that doesn't exist. Basic economics is a fucking anti-science cult.
He cant have a boot machine unless someone built it and they cant build it unless someone gathers the resources and no one in their right mind would go mine a bunch of iron or to give to some fatass so he can get fatter while doing nothing unless they were under coercion by starvation or force.
In a just society people would collectively decide to share labor of mining, smelting etc in fairly proportioned shifts because as a group they decided it would be nice if everyone has shoes.
I have no food, I gathered none, I produced none, I baked none. I just leech from someone else's stockpile.
I don't have food at my disposal. Someone else does have it stockpiled, I'll take it since it's everyone's property.
Cause: I didn't lift a finger to get any food for myself.
Effect: I get food from someone else's stockpile.
The people making decisions would be corrupt, so this wouldn't work. Reee.
And then he has what he produces. That does not take any kind of determination. From there, the producer socializes what he produces and receives what he requires and additionally whatever beyond that he happens to be entitled to.
It is not dependent upon simple principle, like ancap nonsense is.
Commies quite pointedly do not.
Imagine you're going to boy scout camp and you decide who makes the fire and who does the dishes and who sets up the tent but you're going with 7 billion people of which no one will ever speak with 99.99% of the other boy scouts even if they all spoke the same language.
That's how we live in a just society.
How do you justify your claim to property rights?
You are skipping over the most important part.
That can be talked about, but my questions still remain. Everything is everyone's doesn't make any sense. Is my body mine, or is it the community's? Can communists at least accept that much as private property?
The concept is beautiful, just like everything in communism. Just like that it also doesn't work in reality because as soon as a disagreement arises, you have nothing objective to back things up because you're basing the system in "gratitude". Money is nothing more than solid proof that you traded with someone something that they valued, so you got rewarded for it.
Then what does he have, wiped pavements, miles driven, fixed dislocated shoulder blades? Who decides what will be required by whom? Who decides what who will be additionally entitled to?
You're not describing any actual situation.
It's dependent on the principle that the base constant of existence is -1.
My mistake, commies see the world in terms of purely material and therefor actual forms.
Also, either you have "rewards given on gratitude", OR you have no private property. As soon as you have no private property, I can take whatever I want from anyone else, so I don't have to get gratitude from anyone to get my food.
i mean it seems like you person is personal property of course but i don't know where you think your taking this and i would dispute the concept of self ownership because it reinforces wage slavery and prostitution of the body
Within anarchism the concept of wage slavery refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery, where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor by focusing on similarities between owning and renting a person.
a better word to use is autonomy
Bruh you don't have to organize communism at the global level. In reality just like with capitalism you have organization at every level, from households to the planet. Planet-wide management is only even useful (much less necessary) for huge infrastructure like the internet or shipping lanes. Most planning can happen at the municipal/metropolitan level since it's not hard to make mostly self-sufficient metropolitan areas.
I want to add to this that most production is highly social, meaning that any given product is made by numerous people who decide collectively how to use what they produce.
"Private property" doesn't mean "stuff that's mine" you sperg. It's a specific type of property that generates money for you based on legal ownership and taking a cut of what other people produce using it.
really activates my almonds
Under socialism, gratitude, like all good things, is mandatory.
ill give you a hint if you dont actually know libertarian theory
That's ahistorical nonsense. Private property isn't a rule of nature. It's a particular social arrangement enforced by law that was put into place during revolutions of the merchant classes seizing what was previously public property (owned by the community of people) and privatizing it.
Other people have said other things in this thread, so just ignore it when I mention this kind of private property. Other people have said that I can't have my own small 1 man farm, and I don't know if you're the one who says I can have it, or if you're the other one that says that a 1 man farm is too much for a single person and should be the community's.
So if I make tools to help me with my work that I can maintain by myself, are those mine? And if I get them advanced enough, when does it become evil? Can I have robots or machines making things, or is that too evil, even if nobody is working for me and I'm working and maintaining everything by myself?
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Past people have done bad deeds, if we don't have recorded history that dates back long enough then it's pointless to dwell in this subject, and if we do have recorded history, then stolen land should be given back to the descendants of the original owners.