Hello, I'm a libertarian-leaning person

Jayden Hughes
Jayden Hughes

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.

Attached: ancom.png (2.44 KB, 230x219)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xcwXME-PNuE
youtube.com/watch?v=IyOgmmPMVp4
localtools.org/find/
hackerspaces.org/
scene.org/
sourceforge.net/
youtube.com/watch?v=oplNnhOonQk
youtube.com/watch?v=8G4dllW2fBQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership#Labour_markets_and_private_property
zerothposition.com/2017/03/21/libertarianism-conquest/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
youtube.com/watch?v=Cb7mNouddb8
issuepedia.org/New_American_Movement
zabalazabooks.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/poster-if-you-are-unemployed.pdf
crimethinc.com/posters
crimethinc.com/stickers
mega.nz/#F!DpAz2IgQ!nW7bPNnpJFk5CAV3ypiaHw
youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Lucas Campbell
Lucas Campbell

How can communism happen without the state backing it up?
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.

Jaxson Martinez
Jaxson Martinez

This week's book club was an introductory text on anarchism, you can check it out and the pdf is included. Try reading that.
How can communism happen without the state backing it up?
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.

Jacob Price
Jacob Price

Better question: how can capitalism happen without the state backing it up? Who decides what private property is legitimate? Or what currency is legitimate?
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.

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.
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?

This week's book club was an introductory text on anarchism, you can check it out and the pdf is included. Try reading that.
Thanks, I'll take a look.
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 the concept of property existed in such societies. (assuming the concept of property is banned from communism)

Zachary Williams
Zachary Williams

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?

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.

Henry Bailey
Henry Bailey

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.
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.

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.
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.

Wyatt White
Wyatt White

I think I know where you're going with this
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.

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?
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.

Nathan Myers
Nathan Myers

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".

Brody Campbell
Brody Campbell

In Ancom if I plant some apples, then gather them, am I supposed to be able to not share them with anyone, or not?
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?
<A> gift them to someone who will feel like gifting you something else later
<B> 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

And "community enforced rules" is state, just smaller, even if you disagree with it.
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).
And even if you refuse to concede this, how are you even going to stop it from growing, which is the state's nature?
What makes you think growth is the nature of a state or community? Loads of places IRL right now have shrinking populations.

I kinda see some parallels between ancom and ancap, but ancoms seem to think that very small government isn't government.
What parallels lol? Ancaps think feudalism (which is what an ancap society would really be) isn't government.

Thomas Stewart
Thomas Stewart

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.

Josiah Lopez
Josiah Lopez

It's unnecessary to enforce the absence of class
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.

You're probably not just going to get to take things if people see you acting that way.
Ok, I'm going to assume that property does exist in ancom then.
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.
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?

Noah Collins
Noah Collins

So there IS property then.

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.

Angel Gonzalez
Angel Gonzalez

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.)

Sounds pretty much ok to me

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.

pic related, I don't think ancom would be as okay with casual violence as right-libertarianism

Attached: ancap-pepe.jpg (17.18 KB, 255x255)

Isaac Thompson
Isaac Thompson

How can communism happen without the state backing it up?
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.

assuming the concept of property is banned from communism
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.

So there IS property then.
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.

what's the workaround for nobody producing anything and only relying on others.
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.

Camden Hall
Camden Hall

Private property: A factory, a machine, a farm, that is used to create economic goods
No, those are the means of production, not private property, although the means of production are nearly all private property in capitalism.

Eli Thomas
Eli Thomas

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.

pic related, I don't think ancom would be as okay with casual violence as right-libertarianism
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.

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.
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.

Incentive. Those who produce large quantities of wealth are gifted a greater share of the wealth produced by others.
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.

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.
Maybe they weren't using currencies, that's just less convenient.

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.
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?

Thus production is directly rewarded and not simply forced upon the worker as is the case with capitalist production.
not simply forced
If I produce nothing, I get nothing? Then I'm forced to work.

Julian Hall
Julian Hall

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'.

Eli Gonzalez
Eli Gonzalez

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.

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.

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?

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.

Sebastian Nelson
Sebastian Nelson

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.
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.

People are going to hoard it, because they're afraid of other people hoarding them, since it's all free.
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.
Prisoner's Dillema, or Game Theory, or whatever it's called.
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":
<The Tragedy of the "Commons" by Mexie youtube.com/watch?v=xcwXME-PNuE
or if you don't want a long video, there this:
<Yes… The tragedy of the commons is BS by BadMouse youtube.com/watch?v=IyOgmmPMVp4

I'm going to make a scenario, let me know at what part I did something that is incompatible with ancom principles.
OK
I found some land where nobody's living in, built a small house, put some fences around it
The fences are already questionable, particularly where you put them. Fencing in land is historically how public land was carved up by capitalists when they got rid of the feudal lords and "enclosed the commons."
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'll stop you here. In ancomistan you'd likely already have met each other and discussed what work you're each doing. There's nothing stopping you from asking the guy to take some fish. Likewise, the guy might ask for some eggs. If you just went and took some stuff, the likely (healthy/useful) response is to ask if you have a need/want for that and if an arrangement can be made. If you're just using the land that's there naturally though (like in this specific case) how does this guy have a claim to that? You would have a much better claim to the eggs because the chickens depend on you feeding them. The fish would presumably be there in any case.
I then talked to him and we agreed to trade a chicken for a fish.
That's not really how this would work in practice. You might describe the value of these things numerically or you might just quantify them heuristically, but outright trading one thing for another is not a viable economic system and is a completely ahistorical idea (read Debt: The First 5000 Years for more on this). Instead you're more likely to engage in trade on an as-needed basis. You hungry for fish? Ask for some fish. He's hungry for chicken? He asks for some chicken. You two keep track of this and if one feels like he's getting gypped then he says so and terms can be negotiated about how much is too much or how to make things more equitable.
In the long term it would be more practical to involve a larger number of people and pool resources for the efficiency that comes with scale. It's also worth pointing out that fishing and farming have been industrialized so these can only be illustrative examples and not practical IRL.
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.)
Why would keeping track exactly be necessary though? If you know each other well enough (you're immediate neighbors) you should trust each other and be able to keep track of whether you think the deal is equitable. If you want to systematize it that's fine too, though.
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.
Yeah that's just fending off raiders.
Is everything described here fine in ancom principles so far?
It's got weird details that probably wouldn't happen but it's not incompatible with anarcho communism as far as I can tell.

Connor Gray
Connor Gray

If I build a farm
Then you should probably be a construction worker instead of a farmer.

someone asks me to work on my farm
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.

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.
Which is why people would give you what they make in order to keep getting eggs and chickens.

People are going to hoard it, because they're afraid of other people hoarding them, since it's all free.
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.

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.)
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.

They threaten me, my neighbor comes by and helps me take them out.
And the entire rest of the community is doing what?

Joshua Wood
Joshua Wood

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.

Juan Price
Juan Price

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.

Landon Wood
Landon Wood

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.

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.
A large group of people taking the farm from me because they think it's the right thing? That's government.

You can't stop other people from just working the farm and ignoring your demands for a cut of what they make
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.

The fences are already questionable, particularly where you put them. Fencing in land is historically how public land was carved up by capitalists when they got rid of the feudal lords and "enclosed the commons."
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.

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.
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.

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.
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 not take what each other needs and offer the surplus to others?
Why would I? I'd rather find other people to trade with, or find ways to preserve things for later, like using salt.

Then you get things that are not merely fish and eggs.
Oh, you did mean trade. Yes, sure.

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.
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.

And the entire rest of the community is doing what?
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:
erect a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat that oppressed the bourgeoisie.
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.

Kevin Wilson
Kevin Wilson

So, a farm is private property
A farm is only private property when the farmers themselves give what they grow to an owner. Don't be confused by .

I had no right to refuse them my chickens and cows? Or did I? Please clarify.
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.

Also, someone asked before how would currency work, and rare metals work mostly fine, for example.
It wouldn't. Communism is moneyless.

I can enforce my ownership of my farm by using firearms, and me and my neighbors helping ourselves defend our properties.
Communism.

This is already a thing in capitalism.
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.

Maybe they weren't using currencies, that's just less convenient.
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.

And who would guarantee this distribution?
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.

If I produce nothing, I get nothing?
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.

Connor Mitchell
Connor Mitchell

I'm a Marxist not an anarchist
Any marxist is ultimately an anarchist, as communism is an anarchy.

Jackson Walker
Jackson Walker

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.
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.

A large group of people taking the farm from me because they think it's the right thing? That's government.
So what, government is whenever multiple people cooperate? That's also a functionally useless definition of government.
I can, by threatening, harming or killing them.
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.
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.
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.

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?
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.

Aaron Wright
Aaron Wright

Anarchist notions of immediate statelessness
Don't exist, anarchists believe statelessness is achieved by the social revolution.
seem be largely driven from moral concerns about hierarchies rather than a materialist analysis of society.
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.

Ryan Torres
Ryan Torres

If he works for me
Why would he do that? Why should he allow you to claim as yours that which he makes?

And "more land than you can work yourself" is very arbitrary
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.

You talk as if 1 or 2 people would take an entire supermarket worth of food home and lock it up.
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.

Oh, you did mean trade.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Or, in another scenario, let's assume that our local community is me, my neighbor, and those 5 people who want my stuff.
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.

Aren't proletariat and bourgeoisie classes?
Yes they are, and they should be eliminated.

Attached: FuckYeahCollectivization.webm (6.82 MB, 480x360)

Brandon Jenkins
Brandon Jenkins

Hello, I'm mentally retarded. What ancom? what is commieism?

Grayson Cox
Grayson Cox

How do you define "bureaucracy"? A bureaucracy is not a bourgeoisie, a bureaucracy is not a mode of production.

You want to build a system of class oppression to get rid of the oppresion of classes?
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 opposition to the state is due to the state's historic role as a tool of the minority
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.

Liam Martinez
Liam Martinez

Why would he do that? Why should he allow you to claim as yours that which he makes?
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?

Dylan Harris
Dylan Harris

He has been arguing in good faith, and his questions appear to be born of genuine curiosity.

Blake Bell
Blake Bell

1 v. 1 exchange is impractical and ultimately unnecessary, especially when compared with generally socializing production for use by all.
Just use currency.

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.
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.

Andrew Wood
Andrew Wood

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
/ˈkapədlˌizəm/Enviar
noun
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.

Justin Hughes
Justin Hughes

Because he wants to.
Some odd personality quirk that makes him want to act against his own interests? It does happen.

Or because he feels like it's easier and safer to just go work to someone who's already established.
That is working with someone, not working for someone.

Or maybe he doesn't have some cows, so he can't make more, etc.
If there is a cow shortage, then it would probably be a bad idea to take up ranching.

It doesn't matter why
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.

Why should people not be able to engage in consensual transaction?
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.

Attached: FuckYouSystem.webm (3.9 MB, 960x540)

Thomas Gutierrez
Thomas Gutierrez

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.
Communism operates on the same logic as friends pooling their resources to do things together
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.

Adam Murphy
Adam Murphy

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.

Landon Howard
Landon Howard

Some odd personality quirk that makes him want to act against his own interests? It does happen.
I just gave examples on why someone might want to work for someone else. Don't just ignore them.

If there is a cow shortage, then it would probably be a bad idea to take up ranching.
What? On the opposite, breeding cows would be the most valuable thing in that case.

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.
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.

Nathaniel Perry
Nathaniel Perry

Just use currency.
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.

These scenarios are so easy to come up with that you shouldn't be asking for examples.
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.

People do stupid shit all the time, and there are assholes out there, not everyone is nice and level-headed.
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.

Oh, and producing stuff earns you the right to get stuff in return, so communism is capitalism minus classes and minus currency?
If only capitalism actually did that.

What is the word for an economic system in which you can use currency (capitalism would fall under it)?
Absolutely everything that falls between simple hunter-gatherer egalitarianism and communism.

who would divide the produced goods, and why is this person or group not "government"?
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.

Also, what would you do once society starts to get larger?
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.

Levi Sanchez
Levi Sanchez

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.
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.

Dylan Wilson
Dylan Wilson

If you say that you want to work for someone else, then it is only because you are unable to work for yourself.

[citation needed]

Michael Moore
Michael Moore

I bet 99% of "socialists/communists" have never even thought about how it would work, but I'm still very curious.
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.

Don't just ignore them.
I answered each in turn. What are you talking about?

On the opposite, breeding cows would be the most valuable thing in that case.
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.

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.
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.

Attached: StirnerVsIndividualism.png (33.18 KB, 770x275)

Henry Ortiz
Henry Ortiz

Reality. All but the lowliest of bootlickers would rather have no boss.

Oliver Allen
Oliver Allen

It is an idea that only makes sense to the ancap, because he is not able to follow an idea from cause to effect.

Nathan Foster
Nathan Foster

I answered each in turn. What are you talking about?
Bunch of no-replied comments ITT. Does being a lolbert literally blind you to counterarguments or something?

Attached: when-bae-tryna-tell-you-summin-that-aint-an-argument.png (391.15 KB, 601x601)

Camden Hill
Camden Hill

The state doesn't have an agenda of its own
I didn't say it did, hence "tool of".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".

Attached: electoralism.png (483.68 KB, 728x635)

Ryder Sanders
Ryder Sanders

How can communism happen without the state backing it up?
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.

localtools.org/find/
hackerspaces.org/
scene.org/

…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.
I apologize in advance if I offend anyone by even asking questions about ancom.
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.
Now…
sourceforge.net/
…go download some communism. It's actually all around you, as you might start to figure out.

Nicholas Long
Nicholas Long

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."
I have absolutely no idea how to parse this paragraph.

Attached: WTF.png (92.77 KB, 404x404)

Nathaniel Perez
Nathaniel Perez

I have absolutely no idea how to parse this paragraph.
this paragraph.
Well, found your problem.
<define two sets
<quote only a partial description of one
…of course it's going to break. Good luck.

Daniel Anderson
Daniel Anderson

So, it's not a paragraph, just a part of one that has been reddit spaced to hell and back.

Attached: WhereMightYouBeFrom.jpg (68.98 KB, 544x544)

Zachary Wood
Zachary Wood

english is still hard
Maybe you are unimportant.

Justin Perry
Justin Perry

english
Is that was you call that nonsensically formatted gibberish?

Luis Moore
Luis Moore

While you've literally contributed absolutely nothing, your attempt$ at disruption and derailment STILL keep the thread up!

Cameron Lewis
Cameron Lewis

STILL keep the thread up!
And you expect me to think that's a bad thing. Are you drunk?

Jose Reyes
Jose Reyes

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…

Nicholas Rodriguez
Nicholas Rodriguez

Better get started. Maybe with enough alcohol you will be able to string a coherent thought together.

Parker Price
Parker Price

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.

Bentley Turner
Bentley Turner

You are tripping.

David Kelly
David Kelly

Simple calculation of gain and loss.
I'll probably just start impersonating you when the thread falls, because causes fear in you.

Ryder Williams
Ryder Williams

lol.
actually-existing anarchist communism offended someone.

Zachary Price
Zachary Price

Bakunin was actually better than Krapcrockin fite me

Attached: Screenshot-20190126-074352.png (227.59 KB, 800x1280)

Matthew Foster
Matthew Foster

because causes fear in you.
I fear bad English?

Elijah Phillips
Elijah Phillips

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.

Joshua Sanchez
Joshua Sanchez

Honestly, I cannot understand what is saying. It's gibberish that was formatted by a lunatic.

Angel Garcia
Angel Garcia

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.
There exist two differential groups:
def_group_a
def_group_b
#exists third group
here are some examples of the economic system right now
I don't expect or call for OP to get banned.
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.

Mason Bailey
Mason Bailey

Krapcrockin
Not Crackpotkin
Not Krapcockin
Not Krapfucking

Asher Hernandez
Asher Hernandez

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.
I imagine that you get that a lot, since you write like a schizo.

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.
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.

Logan Bennett
Logan Bennett

someone used a sentence fragment on a chan!
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.

Camden Thompson
Camden Thompson

There exist two options. The first is that you
WTF bro that doesn't even make any sense do you even english?

Brandon Morales
Brandon Morales

I am guessing that the guy is an ESL who learned English from a combination of American films and the internet.

Aiden Jackson
Aiden Jackson

There are ways to make currency work without state enforcing it. Hell, cryptocurrency is a thing.
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.

Lucas Wilson
Lucas Wilson

Absolutely everything that falls between simple hunter-gatherer egalitarianism and communism.
Currency didn't pop into existence the moment agriculture was invented. There have been plenty of agrarian societies that also used gift economies.

Brandon Jenkins
Brandon Jenkins

Currency didn't pop into existence the moment agriculture was invented.
Pretty damn close to it. Originally it represented a given quantity of grain.

There have been plenty of agrarian societies that also used gift economies.
I assume that you are talking about the Inca and their predecessors. Their society was quite extraordinary.

Henry White
Henry White

op its called contracts, you probably know what since youre an ancap

Elijah White
Elijah White

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,
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.

Attached: 16b.jpg (58.72 KB, 863x875)

Jace Reyes
Jace Reyes

Monarchism
Do you believe North Korea is Monarchist Socialist?
Fatherland and Family
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.
youtube.com/watch?v=oplNnhOonQk
youtube.com/watch?v=8G4dllW2fBQ
The only purpose a woman has is to reproduce children, NOT raise children. At this point, women should be the property of men.

Attached: download.jpg (34.13 KB, 600x337)

Jace Lopez
Jace Lopez

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:
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.

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.
Private property is stealing. The truth of that claim can be seen in the plain fact that it requires armed thugs to secure it.

And I still haven't seen anyone in the thread (so far) justifying calling small government "anarchy".
What "small goverment?" Everyone making collective decisions together? Anarchy does not mean "without rules," just "without a state."

Blake Ward
Blake Ward

Everyone making collective decisions together?
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?

Private property is stealing. The truth of that claim can be seen in the plain fact that it requires armed thugs to secure it.
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.

they simply ignore the problem or hand-wave it away with "we'll think of something."
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.

Jacob Brown
Jacob Brown

I decide against something, and yet something still gets done because other people demand it. That's government.
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.

Securing your private property is not stealing, you're not taking it away from anyone because it's yours.
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.

Make other people go build their own stuff elsewhere
That might have been an argument before capitalism was global, but it clearly is not now.

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.
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.

Because ancap is an ethical argument.
Then it does not even meet the criteria for being theory. It is just mindless moralizing based on arbitrary ideals.

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.
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.

Jayden Garcia
Jayden Garcia

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.
Then I can go to anyone's food storage and eat all I want.

Parker Baker
Parker Baker

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.

Isaac Thompson
Isaac Thompson

I just took what nobody owned
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.

William Cooper
William Cooper

my land

its not your land

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)
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.

leaving the last 10 people without any bread

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.

Gabriel Mitchell
Gabriel Mitchell

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.
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.

Christopher Phillips
Christopher Phillips

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.
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

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.

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.

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Gabriel Rivera
Gabriel Rivera

Why would you when you already have the same food?
I have no food, I gathered none, I produced none, I baked none. I just leech from someone else's stockpile.

There is no point in stealing what you already have in abundance.
I don't have food at my disposal. Someone else does have it stockpiled, I'll take it since it's everyone's property.

This is why you actually have to consider things like cause and effect when developing a theory.
Cause: I didn't lift a finger to get any food for myself.
Effect: I get food from someone else's stockpile.

Daniel Jones
Daniel Jones

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.
The people making decisions would be corrupt, so this wouldn't work. Reee.

Robert Walker
Robert Walker

And then what? How is determined what the full product is, and by why whom?
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's a principle that cannot be made true without violating itself.
It is not dependent upon simple principle, like ancap nonsense is.

they both view the world in terms of pure forms.
Commies quite pointedly do not.

Michael Gonzalez
Michael Gonzalez

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.

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.

Kevin Baker
Kevin Baker

How do you justify your claim to property rights?

You are skipping over the most important part.

Connor Collins
Connor Collins

can't understand the basic concept of a gift economy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

Nathan Ross
Nathan Ross

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.

Justin Stewart
Justin Stewart

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.
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 is not dependent upon simple principle, like ancap nonsense is.
It's dependent on the principle that the base constant of existence is -1.

Commies quite pointedly do not.
My mistake, commies see the world in terms of purely material and therefor actual forms.

Parker Bell
Parker Bell

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.

Mason Jackson
Mason Jackson

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,[9] where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.[10][11] 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.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership#Labour_markets_and_private_property

a better word to use is autonomy

How do you justify your claim to property rights?

How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?

Anthony Gonzalez
Anthony Gonzalez

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.

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.
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.

is my body private property
"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.
gift economy - a system that has been the basis for numerous societies for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years - can't work because I say so
really activates my almonds

Lincoln Ramirez
Lincoln Ramirez

Under socialism, gratitude, like all good things, is mandatory.

Benjamin Reyes
Benjamin Reyes

ill give you a hint if you dont actually know libertarian theory

zerothposition.com/2017/03/21/libertarianism-conquest/

<Almost all inhabited land on Earth has been conquered by one group of people or another at some time in the past, so as long as this remains unexplored, libertarianism will be left open to attacks from all manner of enemies of private property rights. Thus, it is necessary to examine conquest from a libertarian perspective.

Aiden Perry
Aiden Perry

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.

Eli Barnes
Eli Barnes

"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.
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.

Julian Diaz
Julian Diaz

of course it is im just waiting for him to say it

he dodged twice already so im starting to think hes arguing in bad faith

Noah Baker
Noah Baker

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.

You have to if your ideology cannot tolerate conflicts of interest, with organizational at the local level therefor only amounting to hierarchical delegating.

You cannot have perfect harmony, without things being perfectly held into place.

Ryder Bennett
Ryder Bennett

Just like that it also doesn't work in reality
That article literally contains numerous examples of real life gift economies.

John Rivera
John Rivera

How do you justify your claim to property rights?

How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?>How do you justify your claim to property rights?
We need a starting point, so AGAIN I ASK, YOU BLIND FOOL, is my body my property?

Hudson Gray
Hudson Gray

To say what? I'm not going to say that property is natural, it's social convention.

Ethan Young
Ethan Young

its not evil no one is making moral judgements here.

if I make tools to help me with my work that I can maintain by myself, are those mine?
yes

And if I get them advanced enough, when does it become evil

it becomes exploitative when they are advanced enough that they require labor from others that goes uncompensated

Can I have robots
no, but not because there is a ban on robots, but because it is not possible for a single individual to create a robot from scratch with an individually maintained plot of land

even if nobody is working for me and I'm working and maintaining everything by myself?
thats perfectly fine if you aren't claiming exclusive ownership(ie right to use) over collective property that you couldn't possibly create yourself, like a tractor

Matthew Scott
Matthew Scott

no, but not because there is a ban on robots, but because it is not possible for a single individual to create a robot from scratch with an individually maintained plot of land
and what if me and my associates get together to make 5 robots for each of us, to which all of us agreed to, and then make use of them?

Adrian Lopez
Adrian Lopez

to say where you derive your rights to property from.

what is the social convention of private property based on?

then thats perfectly fine as long as you have the consent of the coders, manufacturers, miners, like how many times do i have to say this.

and no selling and purchasing things is not a valid consensual contract as it is performed under duress.

is my body my property?
are you your body?

James Morgan
James Morgan

Is my body mine, or is it the community's?
You are your body. Self-ownership is a nonsense concept.

Hunter Green
Hunter Green

seizing what was previously public property (owned by the community of people) and privatizing it,
While privately property as we know it now didn't exist before the 19th century, with instead of land being owned, rights on the land being owned (which derived from the king/emperor) this also meant that public poverty as we know it since the 19th century didn't exist either, everything was tied to specific people, instead of legal persons or people in principle.

Christopher Wilson
Christopher Wilson

We need a starting point
The big bang, or maybe quantum capitalism before that if you're lucky.

Luke Perry
Luke Perry

like you do realize that if you go buy some microchips and assemble a DIY phone you didn't "make" it right? You do know that people actually have to dig metal out of the ground in third world countries at gunpoint and that those conditions are maintained by the existence of private ownership over that land? And that those metals are then shipped to another country in which people are denied access to land for sustenance in order to force them into sweatshops and ……..

i can go on if you really dont understand

Julian Kelly
Julian Kelly

Other people have said other things in this thread
Other people are fucking wrong then. Private property isn't personal property. It's specifically having absentee ownership over "your" property where you get to control what is done with what it produces even if you weren't the one who produced it. Any socialist supporting the notion that private property and personal property are equivalent is a brainlet and falling victim to the same fundamental four terms fallacy that right-libertarianism (or propertarianism) is based on. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms
It uses "private property" to mean both private property and personal property, conflating the particular legal arrangement with the general concept of ownership. You should get to control stuff that is yours (personal property). You shouldn't get to declare something is yours and that because you own it other people must pay you rent to use it (taking a cut of production - extracting surplus - is in effect renting it). The reason this specific arrangement is unjustifiable is that it creates a class system that is self-reinforcing and puts the workers at a tremendous disadvantage to the owners. Left unchecked such a system has proven to produce staggering inequality based on that imbalance. The general point of socialism is to remove that sort of imbalance so that people can produce and control/earn what they produce in accordance with their actual work/merit rather than the gimped version of it that capitalism allows them (while someone else sits around making money off other people's work).

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (95.9 KB, 320x229)

Logan Allen
Logan Allen

You do know that people actually have to dig metal out of the ground in third world countries at gunpoint and that those conditions are maintained by the existence of private ownership over that land?
You do know that people had to dig stuff out of the earth from before there were people? You're acting like stuff wormed itself out of the ground before private ownership.

Angel Reed
Angel Reed

Other people have said that I can't have my own small 1 man farm
Liar. A guy said that you cannot have more land than you personally work.

Anthony Reyes
Anthony Reyes

You do know that people had to dig stuff out of the earth from before there were people?
lol wut

Jaxon Bell
Jaxon Bell

You cannot have perfect harmony, without things being perfectly held into place.
Perfect harmony isn't the point of socialism ya dingus.
You have to if your ideology cannot tolerate conflicts of interest, with organizational at the local level therefor only amounting to hierarchical delegating.
Delegation doesn't imply hierarchy. If you delegate from the people toward a representative (who is actually answerable to the people) then it's not a hierarchy. Also, you're completely misusing the concept of a conflict of interest. Maybe you meant cross purposes, but conflict is completely expected. The thing is to work out terms agreeable to the involved parties. A conflict of interest is when a single entity has interests in conflict that would prevent them from doing their job, like if a delegate stood to gain something from screwing the people.

You are correct that technically public property isn't an accurate description. I'm trying to bridge the communication gap. It's close enough for the purposes of talking to a lolbert since the property was for practical purposes owned by the community.

Hudson Baker
Hudson Baker

Ok, I'll try to change words. Do I have complete power over what can or can't be done with my person then? I assume you people believe that nobody should be allowed to harm someone else.
Is self-defense justified?
Can I stop people from taking my clothes by threatening them or harming them?
What about my food?

Just make the example simpler then, let's say me and my associates made a shovel for each of us. I shouldn't need to adjust these examples for every little step of the way, you should be smarter than that.

Production isn't a zero sum game.

And someone else said you cannot have any land. If one of my questions doesn't align with your ancom view, just don't answer it, it's a question for someone else that does align their view with that. Or you can talk to them and tell them they're wrong I guess too. I just don't want to discredit anyone's view. I really want someone to sell this ancom/communism thing to me, but I need to be convinced by it. I'd love to be persuaded by this, as so many people love communism, and I'd rather be on your side as it seems far less risky than on mine. But as long as I'm not convinced. I'll remain true to what I think is best.

If this thing really is viable, introducing currency in it would only make it more convenient and easier to keep track of the grattitude.

Landon James
Landon James

Production isn't a zero sum game.
That's not an answer to that post, cucko. And the reason you think it's not a zero sum game is because you ignore the surplus value of the labor, assuming that the profit magically appears. Just saying "hey dude, man, it's like, not a zero sum game, brah" is hippie bullshit. Some things are zero sum and some are not. You're not more enlightened for thinking that something isn't zero sum. You're just factually incorrect if it actually is a zero-sum game, which it is here.

Ryan Gomez
Ryan Gomez

Do I have complete power over what can or can't be done with my person then? I assume you people believe that nobody should be allowed to harm someone else.
yes

Is self-defense justified?
yes

Can I stop people from taking my clothes by threatening them or harming them?
yes

What about my food?
yes

let's say me and my associates made a shovel for each of us.
yes

So if I make tools to help me with my work that I can maintain by myself, are those mine?
yes

you cannot have any land [under communism]
false, you cannot have absentee ownership over useful land that you do not occupy and use [under communism]

honestly it sounds like your already communist but with extra steps because you fetishize currency and ownership like a diety ie you have fallen for the commodity fetishism of capital and view it as a physical reality even though you openly say its a social construct.

Luis Gonzalez
Luis Gonzalez

honestly it sounds like your already communist but with extra steps because you fetishize currency and ownership like a diety ie you have fallen for the commodity fetishism of capital and view it as a physical reality even though you openly say its a social construct.
on the contrary, you're the ones vilifying currency
I can understand limiting the ownership of land, but banning currency is just ridiculous.

And I also don't see as the fucking devil to trade currency or goods for someone else's labor, as long as they're not forced to do it.

In fact in current society, why don't people get together and make a communist store for example? Everyone pitches in and everyone gets a share of the profits. This is already doable in current society.

1 person producing 50
he hires someone
they now produce 140
he keeps 80 and gives out 60 to his employee
They grouped together and made out more stuff than they could do alone.

Jace Cooper
Jace Cooper

Just make the example simpler then… I shouldn't need to adjust these examples for every little step of the way, you should be smarter than that.

They grouped together and made out more stuff than they could do alone.

I'm not trying to trick you buy saying "the miners, the smelters, the manufacturers" I'm trying to remind you that an exploitative supply chain exists and that the economy is an interconnected ecosystem.

The labor theory of value is mathematically and logically sound and historical materialism is a hard science.

In fact in current society, why don't people get together and make a communist store for example?
They do and its wildly successful until interrupted by police or military.

Evan Rodriguez
Evan Rodriguez

They grouped together and made out more stuff than they could do alone.
Why does he get to decide what the employee gets instead of both negotiating agreeable terms? Because in that scenario it sounds like the worker is straight up adding 90 to what would have been 50. The worker easily has the power to say "look dude I can just not work and you'll be stuck with 50. If I take this to the community, they'll side with me because I produce almost twice what you do. They'd rather have me alone than you alone so pay me my due if you want to get to keep making your shitty little fifty, faggot."

Jacob Diaz
Jacob Diaz

and you need to always think of it as an ecosystem. It doesn't make you evil to import parts from a manufacturer and create a product and sell it, you can even hire laborers if you treat them well. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism and each of us have to deal with that.

Instead of thinking that we think you are a bad person for being an entrepreneur because you think we think its evil perhaps you should be thinking about how it undermines your own efficiency when the non-aggression principle is broken at other places in the supply chain; and understand that contradictions within capitalism ,and the concept of currency, are instrumental to causing this.

By removing labor from the individual and consecrating into a symbol you remove the autonomy of that individual and their ability to direct the production and reproduction of their own livelihood and place it into the hands of the owner of that symbol to be manipulated.

Landon Bell
Landon Bell

Perfect harmony isn't the point of socialism ya dingus.
The point of socialism is that there is inequality in transactions, the harmonization of which constitutes socialism/communism. Employment needs to be abolished because the transaction is inharmonious, trade needs to be abolished because trade deals are inharmonious, nations need to be abolished because national self-interest leads to global disharmony.
Delegation doesn't imply hierarchy. If you delegate from the people toward a representative (who is actually answerable to the people) then it's not a hierarchy. Also, you're completely misusing the concept of a conflict of interest. Maybe you meant cross purposes, but conflict is completely expected. The thing is to work out terms agreeable to the involved parties. A conflict of interest is when a single entity has interests in conflict that would prevent them from doing their job, like if a delegate stood to gain something from screwing the people.
There is however a hierarchy when delegating done from the people towards a representative is done based on the conditions laid out by the representative body, take the soviets for instance, or for that matter, every democracy to varying extend. I'm using the term conflict in the interest in its objective, absolute, marxist sense, in which every form of employment and profit is exploitation in its premise. Without an hegemonic entity to prevent it, there will inevitably people that get the short end of the stick in their deals with other people, i.e exploitation, the thing of which the abolition socialists see as socialism itself.

You are correct that technically public property isn't an accurate description. I'm trying to bridge the communication gap. It's close enough for the purposes of talking to a lolbert since the property was for practical purposes owned by the community.
This system of lordship's is something that differed too much between localities to use it as a practical example of precedent, or maybe you're talking from American history, in which case I don't know. However, what made things like highland clearances possible was that those lands never belonged to the village communities, they were only allowed to use them as such until industrial farming brought in more than they could pay in rent.

Dylan Fisher
Dylan Fisher

If this thing really is viable, introducing currency in it would only make it more convenient and easier to keep track of the grattitude.
When you're out with friends, do you keep a notebook with you to keep track of how much everyone paid and got paid for by whom?

Elijah Wright
Elijah Wright

OP, get familiar with this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Think back to smaller tribes, and everything works out pretty well. People look out for their neighbors and help each other out. The problem is we have huge amounts of people now in our so-called tribe. The model does not scale well.

Parker Nelson
Parker Nelson

harmony
Why are you putting this is pseudo-spiritual terms when you can just say that people are getting robbed of their work by design?
Without an hegemonic entity to prevent it, there will inevitably people that get the short end of the stick in their deals with other people, i.e exploitation
In some kind of market there would be fluctuations of price that cause this, but not if you just give people labor vouchers for the time they worked or simply distribute products according to need. Exploitation isn't any time that value doesn't equalize, it's systemic extraction of value.

This system of lordship's is something that differed too much between localities to use it as a practical example of precedent
This is way off topic. The original point I was making was that the lolbert's idea of private property is relatively new and not the natural order, even in the context of a class society. If you want a good "precedent" you need to look at primitive agrarian or hunter gatherer societies, but the fact that typically the community managed resources in feudalism is enough to make the point I was making.

Tragedy of the commons
Don't use that shitty neoclassical fairy tale. It's based on a bunch of fantastical stipulations, like nobody being allowed to coordinate even though the resource is "commonly owned." It's much more in everyone's interest to say "fuck you we're going to coordinate" than to simply exploit the resource maximally.

Logan Taylor
Logan Taylor

They do and its wildly successful until interrupted by police or military.
I mean that they can do it in legal ways (until the state is taken down, at least.)

Ethan Flores
Ethan Flores

nobody being allowed to coordinate even though the resource is "commonly owned."
That's not a fantastical stipulation, that's a basic reality of capitalism. If someone takes from a common, what he took becomes his property and the community has no recourse against him. This encourages people to do exactly that.

Obviously, capitalism proponents tend to disingenuously present this as an argument for, rather than against, private property, but this doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

As per above, the problem is not the number of actors in society, the problem is contemporary property laws that incentivize asocial behavior.

Cameron Flores
Cameron Flores

Think back to smaller tribes, and everything works out pretty well.
I don't think that living in the jungle, naked, having problems with food supply, having no medicine, no water infrastructure, no sewage system, etc as being a good way to live.
And even then, in smaller tribes they still have people deciding what goes and what doesn't. That's government.

The more people there are in a society, the easier it is for chaos to happen.

Noah Rodriguez
Noah Rodriguez

Anyone willing to answer who would decide in a small community how stuff would happen, and why aren't these people government? (which contradicts the concept of anarchism)

Nathaniel Anderson
Nathaniel Anderson

and why aren't these people government? >which contradicts the concept of anarchism

Left anarchism is opposed to the state, not government. If you disagree with that assertion then you are arguing on the basis of semantics rather than actual ideas and theory. A democratic body of people is not a state because there is no hierarchy of power, the power of the people direct serve themselves.
I don't know why you are demanding an answer when and have already addressed this issue.

Christopher Kelly
Christopher Kelly

A democratic body of people is not a state because there is no hierarchy of power, the power of the people direct serve themselves.
This post said "Deputies could be chosen to handle specific tasks like bookkeeping,"
How is that not hierarchy?
And how would things be decided if there isn't a consensus? Majority vote? That's democracy, and that's mob rule. If they're imposing tyranny on me and taking more than what's fair, what do I do?
This "everyone making decisions together" is all bullshit, there will almost always be some people who are against the decision of the majority (when there is a majority at all), and they'll be forced by the rest to follow what they want? 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to eat for dinner and all that.

Jonathan Cruz
Jonathan Cruz

Idk about some of these but I imagine some jobs would be simply randomized so that everyone would do bad stuff but everyone would do good stuff too. Also automation would delete a lot of jobs so nice.
And how would things be decided if there isn't a consensus? Majority vote? That's democracy, and that's mob rule. If they're imposing tyranny on me and taking more than what's fair, what do I do?
Ding ding bastard, it's democracy. If you want your ideas to win, simply convince others it's a good idea. Anarcho-communism isn't as eldritch as you think it is, fool.

Samuel Gomez
Samuel Gomez

Idk about some of these but I imagine some jobs would be simply randomized so that everyone would do bad stuff but everyone would do good stuff too. Also automation would delete a lot of jobs so nice.
What a foolish idea, not everyone can do the same jobs as well as other people, as for high skilled jobs, some people simply can't do it at all. In comes the issues of people who study a ton to do something that has a ton of responsibility getting reward the same as someone doing manual labor. This is why extreme collectivism will always fail.
Anarcho-communism isn't as eldritch as you think it is, fool.
Democracy is a form of governemnt. This is not anarchism, it's just democracy with more theft than usual.

I've been called a cucko and a fool and probably other names already in this thread, and I am not impressed. For you people to condescend this much (not all of you, of course, most have been very cordial, thank you) while shoving THESE arguments around? Really?

If you want your ideas to win, simply convince others it's a good idea.
There are other ways, but yes, I think that's the best one. I just can't believe how hard it is to convince people that state should be reduced to a minimum, only to keep people from coercing and harming others, maybe enforcing voluntary contracts too.

Ryder Nguyen
Ryder Nguyen

Democracy is a form of governemnt. This is not anarchism, it's just democracy with more theft than usual.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
Do you even read Wikipedia?

Attached: c62.jpg (136.3 KB, 546x700)

William Howard
William Howard

What a foolish idea, not everyone can do the same jobs as well as other people, as for high skilled jobs, some people simply can't do it at all.
There isn't a hell of a lot that deputies would need to do.

Democracy is a form of governemnt.
So is a boss.

This is not anarchism, it's just democracy with more theft than usual.
Anarchy is not a lack of organization; it is the lack of a state. After all this, you really need to define "government" and "state" and "anarchy," because the way that you are using those terms makes no sense. If "anarchy" is a system without "government," then how is an enterprise with private owners not "government" and thus incompatable with "anarcjy?"

Carter Gray
Carter Gray

Forcing your will upon others through majority vote is government.

So is a boss.
Not one that I agreed to.

Anarchy is not a lack of organization; it is the lack of a state. After all this, you really need to define "government" and "state" and "anarchy," because the way that you are using those terms makes no sense. If "anarchy" is a system without "government," then how is an enterprise with private owners not "government" and thus incompatable with "anarcjy?"

All right, I'll only use state from now on. State is when people coerce other people into doing things. It can be the mafia, it can be the actual state which is usually referred to as government, but you people claim it's not the same, and it can also be a group of people who think that because they have the majority they can steal things from other people.
Anarchy is the absence of coercion. If there is a state, it should only hold the monopoly in coercion and use it only to get the minimum money they need to operate and keep the monopoly on coercion.

And I also gotta ask, if you people claim that one can't have private property because you can't justify it, then how do you justify personal property?

Eli Murphy
Eli Murphy

How can communism happen without the state backing it up?

It seems to work perfectly fine groups of less than 40 people.
If its not a jewish kibbutz its 'not real communism.exe'

Gavin Price
Gavin Price

I'd like to make it clear that I'm completely fine with people buying some land and doing their communist society in there, and whoever wants out can just get out of there.

David Lopez
David Lopez

So your starting out your communist utopia by flying on a (capitalist) plane to Israel. And then giving some Jew money for his land?
How very communistic of you.

Austin Watson
Austin Watson

The point is that you have an easy way to get what you want working. I mean, it won't work because it never does, but there it is.

Adrian Reyes
Adrian Reyes

Fair enough.
It just seems like a really shitty start for a communist utopia.

Like how illegal migrants start out their new life in the USA or Europe by breaking in to the country illegally. Sure its easy but your not really on the right path from the very beggining.

Blake Moore
Blake Moore

Better to make protests and demands from governments and the people while living inside your utopia and welcoming in people who want it, as well as using it as example of how it can work and how perfect it is. And if it leads to nothing, at least you lived your lives in the society you wanted, with everything shared and whatnot.

Easton Morgan
Easton Morgan

Im not sure if im misunderstanding you. But you cant make demands or protests towards the government in a communist society because communism is by definition stateless and therefore has no government.

Gavin Jones
Gavin Jones

It's not stateless and you do have government, as there are people deciding what other people can and can't do with their lives.

As for my previous post, I'm saying you can get together, buy a piece of land, build upon it and live together sharing everything like you say you want to.

Samuel Carter
Samuel Carter

nobody being allowed to coordinate even though the resource is "commonly owned."
That's not a fantastical stipulation, that's a basic reality of capitalism.
It's a reality of capitalism, but not socialism. That's the point. The guy who came up with the tragedy of the commons couldn't imagine a system outside of capitalism and imported its faults into his thought experiment about "socialism." The only people who will point this out are the socialist critics, though.

Nolan Miller
Nolan Miller

It's not stateless and you do have government, as there are people deciding what other people can and can't do with their lives.
Then by definition its not communism. I thought we were talking about communism. Sorry user got my wires crossed.

Zachary Fisher
Zachary Fisher

And how would things be decided if there isn't a consensus? Majority vote? That's democracy, and that's mob rule.
sortition - the OG democracy
look it up read plato/socrates

and read marx. as a capitalist you really should read Kapital vol 1 as its the most thorough explanation of the workings capitalism and doesn't really talk about communism hence the name "capital". it will help you have a better understanding of your own ideology.

Asher Morris
Asher Morris

not everyone can do the same jobs as well as other people, as for high skilled jobs, some people simply can't do it at all.
This is false and distribution of labor is a myth. Self actualized individuals with autonomy can perform a variety of tasks and do them well. Think renaissance man polytechnic. If children were given the resources to freely express their desires they would naturally develope the necessary skills however the resources are kept from them by the owners of capital limiting progress and education of mankind as a whole. Imagine how many Einstein/Teslas there would be if half the world wasn't literally malnourished to the point that they are 30 points below stand Autism Level deviation and had access to water without arsenic and lead. Such a thing can only happen under a for-use production system and will never happen under a for-profit system.

Parker James
Parker James

Democracy is a form of governemnt. This is not anarchism, it's just democracy with more theft than usual.

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules it means no rulers. An-archy, from an meaning without and archons, meaning rulers. Anarchy is a horizontally organized system without unjustified hierarchies.

If the community decides you cant shit in the water supply that's not an "authoritarian government", if a mom stops her child from running into the street in front of a car thats not "government" either.

If an individual has competent experience in a certain field and you go to learn the craft from them and they instruct you to do X and you voluntarily do so this is a student-teacher relationship and a justified hierarchy.

Rules != Rulers. If you want the benefits provided by society you have to agree to the rules they conduct themselves by. If you want to be a hermit in the woods and take care of yourself literally no one will care or stop you up - until you start denying access to water, oil, mineral, lumber, etc rights on a scale that will effect the production of that community.

If thats all you want then please stop defending property rights of international conglomerates that deny right to life and property of your fellow humans around the world or they are going to come for your shit and will be justified in doing so. Its really that simple. Stop making justifications for chemical plants dumping waste into water supplies that feed millions of people and stop making justifications for individuals owning and logging the entire amazon stop making justifications for the bush family owning an aquifer that spans 5 international borders.

Jace Taylor
Jace Taylor

In governance, sortition (also known as selection by lot, allotment, or demarchy) is the selection of political officials as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates,[1] a system intended to ensure that all competent and interested parties have an equal chance of holding public office.
Great, so the state has randomly appointed people commanding it. It's still state.

And who provides the rules? I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about what adults can do. I can't shit on the water supply because the ruler says I can't, that's state. Who decides what we can and can't do with the water supply? The rulers. Rulers = state. We can have rules in anarchism, sure, but if we have rulers, then it's not anarchism.

Stop hiding behind the "the community". There is no "the community", there are individuals, some of which will be giving orders when they are in power.

Nathan Rogers
Nathan Rogers

The point is that you have an easy way to get what you want working. I mean, it won't work because it never does, but there it is.

And be denied access to heavy machinery and economy of scale plus be bombarded by sanctions if actually productive and spreading and then get nuked if successful.
Sounds fun.

Forcing your will upon others through majority vote is government.

This is just dumb and doesn't happen. The absolute most you will be "forced" to do is would be akin to contribute your labor for lets say 8 hours avg a week to a socially necessary task of your choice.

Think of how it would actually function mathematically in a 7 billion person communist utopia. Right now you have billions of able bodied people sitting on their ass doing nothing.

You could have people "serve" 2 years at 40 hours a week, you could have them serve 1 hour a day for 6 years, you could work 80 hours a week for one year. We have the productive capacity to light up the whole world on such a system with practical effortlessness.

Capital is a ghost. Its not real. There are resources in your figurative backyard right now but property rights are stopping you and your neighbors from walking outside and putting that land to use. Investors do not create wealth. Labor plus land creates wealth. Why is there a bar to entry under capitalism? Why do some own vast empty swathes of land and some are born with none? How are you so blind to these contradictions?

Xavier Price
Xavier Price

And who provides the rules?
You do if you agree to them. If you don't then go your own way. I don't see the problem. No one is forcing anything.

Liam Hughes
Liam Hughes

Stop hiding behind the "the community". There is no "the community", there are individuals

I'm not trying to trick you buy saying "the miners, the smelters, the manufacturers" I'm trying to remind you that an exploitative supply chain exists and that the economy is an interconnected ecosystem.

Stop thinking in isolated transactions they are a fantasy that doesn't exist. Basic economics is a fucking anti-science cult.

read marx

Attached: quote-there-is-no-such-thing-as-society-there-are-individual-men-and-women-and-there-are-families-margaret-thatcher-29-25-01.jpg (61.91 KB, 850x400)
Attached: hqdefault-(1).jpg (14.83 KB, 480x360)
Attached: download-(3).jpg (7.43 KB, 275x183)

Hudson Clark
Hudson Clark

watch this

youtube.com/watch?v=Cb7mNouddb8

Luis Adams
Luis Adams

Communism by defintion has no state
Countries of 50 or so people can function without a state.
We have examples of this called a kibbutz
Therefore its not real communism if the country has more than 50 people

Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?

Leo Bell
Leo Bell

I really don't think I'll be convinced by any of this. It's all a bunch of extremely arbitrary concepts and definitions, small isolated examples, people attacking concepts that I sympathize with that I haven't asked about (though that is fine, it helps nothing on defending communism/ancom for me). I can't even understand most of this stuff you people present as they're as consistent as they're likely to work in practice (in my book, close to zero).

What I do feel like I've understood, maybe even partially agree with, is people only having as their property what they can work on and use/protect on daily life. I still think people should be able to buy and sell things using currency, as well as hire people and work for other people if they're inclined to, so in those points I heavily disagree with ancom.

But most importantly, I want to thank all of you for trying to help me understand these things, and you have mostly been cordial and I can see at least you were trying to convince me, not just throwing insults.

I don't know wether I'll post much on this thread after this, but one way or the other, thanks a ton.

Connor Wilson
Connor Wilson

What I do feel like I've understood, maybe even partially agree with, is people only having as their property what they can work on and use/protect on daily life. I still think people should be able to buy and sell things using currency, as well as hire people and work for other people if they're inclined to, so in those points I heavily disagree with ancom.
That's market socialism, which we can also argue about. AFAIK nobody ITT really mounted a criticism of markets which is very possible to do.

I don't know wether I'll post much on this thread after this, but one way or the other, thanks a ton.
OK, but I'll suggest you read some socialist literature like Value Price and Profit.

Daniel Parker
Daniel Parker

Attached: 5d3zgbb8uwd21.jpg (115.66 KB, 640x853)

Parker Scott
Parker Scott

and read marx. as a capitalist you really should read Kapital vol 1 as its the most thorough explanation of the workings capitalism and doesn't really talk about communism hence the name "capital". it will help you have a better understanding of your own ideology.
Fucking this. Capital remains the most comprehensive analysis of capitalism out there. It is a must-read, especially for the deconstruction of those not-so-little aspects of economy that a person likely does not even notice.

Isaac Allen
Isaac Allen

so in those points I heavily disagree with ancom.
Like what'stheirname said above, growpotkin's "anarchomarxism" isn't really the end-all, be-all of ancom.
localtools.org/find/
hackerspaces.org/
…you'll have to move WAAAYY out of USLP territory to disagree with peoples' right to create a world in which nobody is excluded from the means of production, and people organize themselves without masters.
Also…
I still think people should be able to buy and sell things using currency
Familiar with the "liberty dollars" arrest? You may change your mind a bit if you think about currency being worthless paper printed by a state and printed at gunpoint; while a "sole-proprietor" coop, the 'liberty dollar' situation was basically mutual-credit banking a la proudhon.
as well as hire people and work for other people if they're inclined to
Marketsoc is pretty fine with hiring outside labor firms. Class-stratification with wage rent is most of what the left historically objects to.
Ancom doesn't much because, well, it's all about accessing the means of production in a self-directed fashion, so it wouldn't make much sense. But it's there in most market strains; a worker-owned temp collective is center-of-the-road marketsoc…
Thanks for stopping by, and I hope we can change your mind about whether it's vital to burn the public library down. ;)

Joshua Watson
Joshua Watson

That's actually a pretty good thing to print off and post places, my local co-op has a community board for events and landlords, I could stick something like this there. Is there a document file or pic for the text? It would save me from writing it out, also is there a repository with these kind of posters and fliers?

Jackson Morgan
Jackson Morgan

issuepedia.org/New_American_Movement

zabalazabooks.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/poster-if-you-are-unemployed.pdf

bonus: crimethinc.com/posters
crimethinc.com/stickers

Wyatt Fisher
Wyatt Fisher

Attached: vM1pGHgNcyCiPqT8DYUFbFACeRoVpcbY2ZN2RiRFWu8M5GYLJChtzi7RYDz46hqCTq7hCzZxUot5AmzveVWnsb61EobGezpqqjLsj2k6jVgeXwdF17DMJ5ieCqFZixokMCp67Bt.jpg (52.71 KB, 480x480)
Attached: nn0fb0emb5b21.jpg (107.52 KB, 596x842)

Nolan Phillips
Nolan Phillips

become a mutualist or syndicalist instead of an ancomm.

Blake Davis
Blake Davis

thumbnail pics
off-white, textured background
distressed text
spelling errors
THIS COUNTRY
/r/BasicIncome
Fuckin eww. I went ahead and made a better one.

A4, 600 dpi. If you want to add some bullshit at the bottom, you can just move the text up a bit first. Fonts are Molot 420pt and KaiTi 200pt or 220pt for emphasized lines, if you want to use the same ones for that.

Attached: If-you're-unemployed-it's-not-because-there-isn't-any-work.png (374.6 KB, 4960x7016)

Grayson Murphy
Grayson Murphy

Slightly different version.

Attached: If-you're-unemployed-it's-not-because-there-isn't-any-work-v2.png (774.03 KB, 4960x7016)

Jason James
Jason James

There is no such thing as a society. There are {humans}, and then there are families.
Margaret "Broseph Stalin" Thatcher
wtf i feel so confused

Lucas Jones
Lucas Jones

lmao I bet she didn't want to include families but she couldn't leave it out because of the conservative PC culture

Juan Flores
Juan Flores

the community decides

Attached: Capture-d’écran-2015-04-23-à-17.41.34.png (231.89 KB, 478x468)

Jose Robinson
Jose Robinson

Yes lad. Anarchism with segregation is still anarchism. What's your point?

Oliver Gutierrez
Oliver Gutierrez

That you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Jack Edwards
Jack Edwards

Yes I can. That's what you do with a cake. Eat it.

Ryder Howard
Ryder Howard

You have been banned for violating community guidelines.

William Smith
William Smith

:^(
:^0🎂
:^{

Sebastian Richardson
Sebastian Richardson

there's a difference between personal property and property ownership that is just leeching landlordism.

Isaac Robinson
Isaac Robinson

segregation
anarchism

no

Brandon Morales
Brandon Morales

Let me help you out then. Rather than nitpick on semantics I will go straight to the point.

Premise 1: Every human has the right to appropriate the fruits of his labour.
Premise 2: Human rights are inalienable.

You disagree with Premise 2. So either you think that a man can sell his freedom of speech, freedom of movement, right to life, body etc OR you have some pretty arbitrary and inconsistent criteria regarding Premise 2, whereby only some human rights can be alienated but not others.
I dismiss the possibility that you reject Premise 1 because this is the basis for your claim of owning the chickens and the eggs on your farm (even if for some bizarre reason you choose to state in nonsensical terms such as "I own myself", "I own my body", "I own my labour", "I own things mixed with my labour" etc).

Joseph Perez
Joseph Perez

Krobodgin was good fight me

Ian Sanchez
Ian Sanchez

Krobudgin :–DD was based, I was just saying his play on words wasn't good enough.

Ryder Watson
Ryder Watson

Capitalism and the nation-state are connected. From a historical materialist perspective, globalized capitalism is more than ever interwened in a system of national states, institutions and networks and international, supranational and transnational superstructures. One hegemonic nation-state, currently the USA, enforces the imperial dynamics of capitalism. This superpower is supported by vasal nation-states. Moreover, each nation forms its proletariat differently hindering the needed worldwide revolution. While nation-state system limits the proletariat, the bourgeiosie live a life as voluntary cosmopolitans (in comparison to involuntary cosmopolitans like refugees). If we want to enter the post-capitalist era, we have to radically engage for grassroots democracy and challenge the nation-state system. Within the existing institutions we cannot abolish capitalism. Socialist and reformist (social democratic) approaches have failed, as we can learn from the 20th century. What remains are the anarchist approaches to achieve communism. This why we need radical grassroots democracy movements.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit