Ok, So I've been looking into anarchy as a 'political' concept and I keep finding myself directed to various groups who call themselves 'Anarcho-communists'. The very term seems contradictory to me. is anyone willing to engage in a in depth discussion about the concept and how it works?
If so let me know here and we can work out a suitible platform for our discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you for the informative links but it seems to portray 'anarcho-communism' as being, in effect, pure democracy (as layed down in 'The Green Book' by Muammar Gadaffi) and, like all statist ideas, leaves no hint to those who do not want to take part in these democracies.
how is it statist, and why do we have to tell people who don't want to take part what to do? isn't that their own business to work out?
leaves no hint to those who do not want to take part in these democracies.
While I find the idea of anarchist communism being statist ridiculous even, I'd like to point out that the lack of blueprints is actually a point in our favor because it is highly adaptable.
Within a framework of socialist property rights, there would be no reason to force people into collectivization; on the contrary. Anarchists oppose this.
Thus individualism (based on use-rights and not capitalist private property) and communism or other forms of socialist society are, strictly speaking, not mutually exclusive. (And that's why I find it ludicrous to slam individualists all the time)
...it seems to portray 'anarcho-communism' as being, in effect, pure democracy ...[and] leaves no hint to those who do not want to take part in these democracies.
Communism is 'pure democracy', Omnivar, in the sense that all aspects of human society, including economic activity, will be controlled by, and serve the interests of, all humans.
Reading between the lines of your question, you seem to be an 'individualist' who wishes to remain 'outside' of society and its democratic processes.
Of course, if you personally 'do not want to take part in these democracies', just hand back everything that society has given you, start from scratch, and be on your way with our blessings!
But won't the lobotomy that you will clearly need to rid your mind of all social influence to which you've been subjected since birth, and your divesting yourself of all clothes and possessions provided over your lifetime by society, and your hermit-like future existence away from other humans, actually prevent you existing as an 'individual' being?
We'd rather you participated in our attempt to build a better socio-economic environment for all individuals on this planet: Communism.
Omnivar wrote:
leaves no hint to those who do not want to take part in these democracies.While I find the idea of anarchist communism being statist ridiculous even, I'd like to point out that the lack of blueprints is actually a point in our favor because it is highly adaptable.
Within a framework of socialist property rights, there would be no reason to force people into collectivization; on the contrary. Anarchists oppose this.
Thus individualism (based on use-rights and not capitalist private property) and communism or other forms of socialist society are, strictly speaking, not mutually exclusive. (And that's why I find it ludicrous to slam individualists all the time)
I completely agree. Democracy of any form can be seen as an insidious device to manipulate socio-political power. Its rhetorical argument is that the majority of people know best, and when knowledge has been corrupted, well, just look around at all the 'democratic states' and their methods. Now, even the local football club is 'statist' in its mimicry of its dominant culture.
@radicalgraffiti: It appears statist in the concept that it's controlled by a majority oppinion/vote system. In such a system those who dissagree will still be forced to take part/contribute. as they do under a state, do correct me if I'm wrong.
@Railyon: Unfortunately I must confess I'm finding your post a little difficult to follow. I believe it is due to your reference to concepts I am unfamiliar with, such as use-rights and socialist property rights, perhaps you'd be willing to elaborate in an email discussion?
@Lbird: Your post is not helpful and outwardly hostile. I hope that you are only a fringe element in an otherwise open and welcoming group.
@Batswill: Thank you for helping to clarify my point, perhaps you too would be willing to discuss matters with me further, perhaps via email?
@Lbird: Your post is not helpful and outwardly hostile. I hope that you are only a fringe element in an otherwise open and welcoming group.
Admin: snip - keep it civil
Lbird I would like to point something out to you here, I came to this forum without bias or personal oppinion on the matter, as I stated in my introduction I'm looking for information. I am not an 'individualist' nor some kind of primitavist as you seem to be assuming. Your primary post was insulting and derogatory as well as adding nothing of merit to the questions asked so yes, it was 'hostile' in it's most loose and casual form. Again I hope that the others who frequent this forum are not so bloody minded and swift to attack people who are only here to ask questions. I must say that from an outside perspective it looks as if your either looking for an arguement or are very insecure in your own views.
Lbird I would like to point something out to you here, I came to this forum without bias or personal oppinion on the matter...
"without bias or personal opinion"? Pull the other one, mate! You're as transparent as glass.
Your primary post was insulting and derogatory...
What?
We'd rather you participated in our attempt to build a better socio-economic environment for all individuals on this planet: Communism.
I thought that was welcoming?
Anyhow, you seem to have brought your baggage, as I suspected, and now you're throwing it at me.
I'll leave the others to explain from now on. Happy 'information' gathering!
LBird for fucks sake!
It's funny. Engaging with you was one of the main reasons I stayed on this site. But it's clear you're not everyone's cup of tea with the directness of your approach!
People don't react well to bluntness. I did, because I'm a bit strange.
@Railyon: Unfortunately I must confess I'm finding your post a little difficult to follow. I believe it is due to your reference to concepts I am unfamiliar with, such as use-rights and socialist property rights, perhaps you'd be willing to elaborate in an email discussion?
Don't take it personally, but I'm not too keen on engaging in email discussions. No offense, it just makes me feel... uneasy. And by the way, this place is much better in case I say something stupid, haha.
First off, you would do well to abandon associating socialism and communism with what is widely called "real existing socialism". Our approach is very different, and I think the reasons why will become apparent over time.
Use-rights and socialist property rights are ideas that result from our critique of capitalism. Capitalism rests on exploitative social relations, like wage labor and rent, for example, in a struggle between classes (which are characterized by their ownership of the means of production in most cases - one class owns all the houses, factories, food etc, and the other class(es) have to work for that class to make a living)
Use-rights is an attempt at a new system of property rights that is non-exploitative. At its most basic, it allows you to keep all your fruits of your labor - but only as much as you can use or consume yourself. That means being a landlord or a factory owner is effectively ruled out, but you can for example own a house to live in and as much land as you can cultivate yourself. That means it is not legitimate to hoard wealth, in a simple sentence. That would only lead in a re-establishment of capitalism, even if small-scale.
In such a system, communism would only be voluntary, and the individualists could live on their farm somewhere isolated if they so desire. These are only the two extremes, and there are many stages in between, seamlessly blending into one another. Of course, as communists we are clearly favoring communism.
Proudhon wrote on this in "What is property?", you might give that one a read (though beware that the communism he refers to is the authoritarian kind, not what we propose).
(Writing this from memory, so if I get something wrong, correct me.)
@radicalgraffiti: It appears statist in the concept that it's controlled by a majority oppinion/vote system. In such a system those who dissagree will still be forced to take part/contribute. as they do under a state, do correct me if I'm wrong.@Railyon: Unfortunately I must confess I'm finding your post a little difficult to follow. I believe it is due to your reference to concepts I am unfamiliar with, such as use-rights and socialist property rights, perhaps you'd be willing to elaborate in an email discussion?
@Lbird: Your post is not helpful and outwardly hostile. I hope that you are only a fringe element in an otherwise open and welcoming group.
@Batswill: Thank you for helping to clarify my point, perhaps you too would be willing to discuss matters with me further, perhaps via email?
Let's keep it an open discussion my dear Omnivar. I can translate Railyons' antipodial dialect as meaning that there should not really be any conflict between anarchists or communists, thus anarcho-communist is a viable system as a social framework. In other words, anarchists as sovereign individuals can possess their own property as a self-employing asset not owned by a communistic collective body, which can still exist alongside it in a mutually arranged agreement, mostly as utilities and the produce and services they distribute according to need and demand. The crossing-over and compatability of individualists with communist economics and property ownership is not such a dichotomous relationship, despite what 'hardliners' say. I myself am a anarchist-communist, forced into defensive mode here at the slightest mention of the 'individualist creed'. Some others are grappling with the interpretation of 'libertarian', and how having freedom of lifestyle is often labelled derogatorily as 'hypsterism' , or that one should not drink beer whilst posting....Strange rules....
ok, from what I'm reading here the 'anarcho-communism' is, in actuallity, volentary direct democracy that would exist within an anarchistic 'country' but not actually 'running' it in the traditional sense. Or am I completely lost?
LBird for fucks sake!It's funny. Engaging with you was one of the main reasons I stayed on this site. But it's clear you're not everyone's cup of tea with the directness of your approach!
People don't react well to bluntness. I did, because I'm a bit strange.
But really I'm a big, daft bastard, and I'm always rolling over for my tummy to be tickled!
"not everyone's cup of tea"? What do you mean?
More seriously, you're not 'a bit strange'; you can just appreciate that my 'direct and blunt approach' always contains political analysis, rather than mere egotistical point-scoring. Let's face it, from the first of Omnivar's replies, containing a reference to 'Qaddafi's Green Book', we all knew the 'bias' we were about to read, no matter the OP's pretence of political ignorance and feigned innocence.
Plus, I've been very good so far - I haven't even mentioned the other posters' crap responses about 'individualism'!
Oops...
It appears statist in the concept that it's controlled by a majority oppinion/vote system. In such a system those who dissagree will still be forced to take part/contribute. as they do under a state, do correct me if I'm wrong.
Well...you're welcome not to take part in or contribute to society if you really don't want to (though I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to). That is, presuming you can single-handedly provide your own food, shelter, education, healthcare, entertainment...
Less sarcastically, some thoughts:
- Simply by living as part of a wider society you're participating in it, by benefiting from others (the doctors who treat you, the people who produce your food) and by working for the benefit of others yourself. Under capitalism this generally means working for the benefit of those who can make a profit; in anarcho-communism it would happen in order to meet people's needs. One way to figure out people's needs is to ask them (or, rather, to get together and ask one another); hence, direct democracy. I find the idea of being "forced" to take part in or contribute quite odd, since - aside from self-sufficient hermits - we all do so anyway to one extent or another.
- Direct democracy doesn't mean blanket coercive majority rule. There are probably some exceptions - if you're the only doctor in town and someone shows up with a gunshot wound I wouldn't really object to your being "coerced" into saving their life - but generally speaking I'd like to think an anarchist society would allow much more room for dissent and experimentation, and respecting the freedom of minorities to either do their own thing (where feasible) or opt out altogether.
- Direct democracy also doesn't mean every individual voting on every single issue and forcing the group decision on others. There's no real reason for a computer programmer to vote on what sort of tools the plumbers should make use of this year; there's also not much need for non-wheelchair users to vote on what sort of equipment would help make homes more accessible to those who need it (except perhaps those who would be making the equipment itself).
- Sometimes, however, decisions won't go your way. And that's fine.
- Your Gadaffi reference was really quite odd.
Obviously, this is all a bit vague; since we don't live in an anarchist society it's not really possible to describe how such a society would function in detail. Each of the above would likely have countless permutations and exceptions, which we'd only be able to find out by actually doing stuff, finding what problems might arise and how we can best deal with them. Which I guess ties into the idea of dissenting minorities having the freedom to experiment as needed, provided it wasn't to the detriment of others.
Apologies for any lack of clarity as I'm still trying to clear this up in my own mind tbh.
So it is a leaderless 'hyper-communism' that you either take part in and have any decisions you dissagree with forced on you anyway (for example if a plumber dissagrees with the concensus of plumbers about which tool to use he is not able to get the tool he preferes and use it anyway) or you have to cut yourself off completely and live in a cave?
Why not? what is there to stop said plumber from using his prefered tool anyway?
also my Gadaffi reference was quite appropriate, I'd suggest the reading of 'The Green Book' (it's free on google) to make better sense of what I meant when I mentioned Direct Democracy (mistakenly called pure democracy in my first earliest post).
Plus, I've been very good so far - I haven't even mentioned the other posters' crap responses about 'individualism'!Oops...
Well, what I've said, for instance, is nothing more than a theoretical basis... I am quite sure that they will be fringe minorities, if we ever get to see them at all.
And even if... their loss, innit? By the individualism spoken of here I'm not speaking of Stirners and Tuckers and their solipsism but rather people not affiliated with a commune. And as said, I think it's neither desirable nor likely, though at least the former is surely subjective.
I am seeing "individualism" as some kind of residue of highly atomized capitalist society which will wither away with time post-rev.
So it is a leaderless 'hyper-communism' that you either take part in and have any decisions you dissagree with forced on you anyway (for example if a plumber dissagrees with the concensus of plumbers about which tool to use he is not able to get the tool he preferes and use it anyway) or you have to cut yourself off completely and live in a cave?
It's an odd argument, we all make compromises on a daily basis in regards to the tools we use in our work. I have been known to take my own keyboard into an office to use with a company's computer system, but there is a certain friction involved when it comes to bringing my own monitor to work.
So it is a leaderless 'hyper-communism' that you either take part in and have any decisions you dissagree with forced on you anyway (for example if a plumber dissagrees with the concensus of plumbers about which tool to use he is not able to get the tool he preferes and use it anyway) or you have to cut yourself off completely and live in a cave?Why not? what is there to stop said plumber from using his prefered tool anyway?
Well, um....nothing, really. Freedom for experimentation, dissent and all that; provided it didn't cause any particular harm to others, our hypothetical plumber would be able to use whatever sort of wrench they chose. Trial and error and all that.
That said, as Pikel pointed out, we all make compromises on a regular basis. While an anarchist society would likely allow for much more diversity in terms of how we get things done, if you don't get to use the exact tools or methods you'd like it's hardly the end of the world.
also my Gadaffi reference was quite appropriate, I'd suggest the reading of 'The Green Book' (it's free on google) to make better sense of what I meant when I mentioned Direct Democracy (mistakenly called pure democracy in my first earliest post).
Fair enough; not read it myself. For the aid of this discussion, what specific parallels do you see between it and anarchist communism?
Reading between the lines of your question, you seem to be an 'individualist' who wishes to remain 'outside' of society and its democratic processes.Of course, if you personally 'do not want to take part in these democracies', just hand back everything that society has given you, start from scratch, and be on your way with our blessings!
The divorce from collectivist and more individualist lines of thinking tends to revolve around the exact source of compensation and method of labour in society. For instance, society has hardly given us (or anyone) anything at present, without a complementary debt. The things we have at present are achieved through a system of exchange, through the exchange of labour or debt. An individualist in our present society, if exhorted to give back "everything society has given them", would therefore give back nothing.
Obviously this would be different were one born into a collectivist society to begin with. But if an individual in a collectivist renounced such "gifts", say, and merely obtained what they desired via the exchange of their labour value, what would they have to "give back"?
I am seeing "individualism" as some kind of residue of highly atomized capitalist society which will wither away with time post-rev.
The individual is the human as such. Any society is built on a constituency or federation of individuals. Posing some abstract collective above the individual is ludicrous. Collectivity begins with the free-association and voluntary interaction of individuals. And unless it does, it is necessarily a tyrannical collectivity.
Interesting stuff on the question, is communist-anarchism compulsory?
A bit long-winded, and maybe a little hard to understand if you're not used to the jargon used there but I find the FAQ to be decent material...
Railyon wrote:
I am seeing "individualism" as some kind of residue of highly atomized capitalist society which will wither away with time post-rev.The individual is the human as such. Any society is built on a constituency or federation of individuals. Posing some abstract collective above the individual is ludicrous. Collective begins with the free-association and voluntary interaction of individuals. And unless it does, it is necessarily a tyrannical collectivity.
Why, I have never said otherwise. I am just saying that the way we relate to each other on a social level will most likely change in a communist setting, whereas "individualism" seems to have an allergy to social interaction, in a way. I'm not throwing the words "right" and "wrong" around here (I do not believe in these words anyway).
@pikel: So your saying there should be something to prevent said plumber from using different tools?
@Jonthom: So Anarcho-communism is being allowed to work as a collective within an Anarcho-capitalist 'region'?
as for the green book it was just in relation to his proposed concept of small local level democracies to decide all matters of relavance to those in attendance.
@railyon: Thank you for the link It seems again to re-enforce my question to Jonthom.
For instance, society has hardly given us (or anyone) anything.
How strange! I swear I did not build this house I live in nor could I have done, no matter how hard I tried. I have laboured in order to exchange, it's true, but my labour in isolation could never have produced the array of commodities I have at my disposal. I would have had to be architect, engineer, technician, herbalist, chemist, musician, electrician, mechanic, doctor, glass-blower, weaver, farmer, carpenter, philosopher, book-binder, boot maker, silversmith... I won't be exhaustive, but I simply do not have the time to live as an individual.
Why, I have never said otherwise. I am just saying that the way we relate to each other on a social level will most likely change in a communist setting, whereas "individualism" seems to have an allergy to social interaction, in a way. I'm not throwing the words "right" and "wrong" around here (I do not believe in these words anyway).
Ah, that's fair. I think I misinterpreted your rejection of individualism per se for an individual basis for collectivism. Sorry about the aggressivity (I'm very new here).
@pikel: So your saying there should be something to prevent said plumber from using different tools?
Of course not. The argument is specious.
Edit: Actually it's not specious, it's just nonsense.
@Jonthom: So Anarcho-communism is being allowed to work as a collective within an Anarcho-capitalist 'region'?
Just FYI, no one around here considers "anarcho-capitalism" to be a valid form of anarchism because it does not get rid of anything we have now, not even the state. They just get atomized even further, each corporation would be its own state including military.
And I can't see why we wouldn't disagree with that.
@Jonthom: So Anarcho-communism is being allowed to work as a collective within an Anarcho-capitalist 'region'?
what? you've lost me I'm afraid...
as for the green book it was just in relation to his proposed concept of small local level democracies to decide all matters of relavance to those in attendance.
Understood; however, given the man's reputation, it does seem like a needlessly provocative example to use for something that's fairly straightforward.
How strange! I swear I did not build this house I live in nor could I have done, no matter how hard I tried.
Probably then you either bought the house, are renting the house, have mortgaged the house, or a significant other or parent has done one of those things. And whoever built said house has been compensated in kind. I hardly count that as a "gift".
I have laboured in order to exchange, it's true, but my labour in isolation could never have produced the array of commodities I have at my disposal. I would have had to be architect, engineer, technician, herbalist, chemist, musician, electrician, mechanic, doctor, glass-blower, weaver, farmer, carpenter, philosopher, book-binder, boot maker, silversmith... I won't be exhaustive, but I simply do not have the time to live as an individual.
Don't get me wrong --I'm not an individualist. But all of the things you've listed most likely have been paid for. Meaning it was not and never was a gift. That a plethora of specialized objects can persist is of course because groupings have allowed for such a system, but that is no objection to the point that none of this at present has been given to us.
@railyon: Care to elaborate on that? as far as I can percive the purest form of anarchy is capatalism (as in true free market capitalism as opposed to the state-sponsered capatalism/corporateism/consumerism we have at present).
@Jonthom: If AC (annarcho-communism) is volentary and those who dissagree with it are free to live seperate from it but still interact with its members via barter and trade (free-market capitalism) for goods and services then surely AC is just a collective within a group of Anarcho-capitalists?
As for the 'provocative nature of the man's reputation' it's irrelivant to the points he made, and there is a lot more to it than the simplistic, offhand explination I gave.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short account of the West Siberian uprising against the Bolsheviks.
Michael Heinrich argues that Marx was not after a “Marxism” as an identity-defining “truth.” Rather, he was more interested in the critical business of undermining certainties.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
this brief intro and this pamphlet are good introductions. the first link includes lots of links to related ideas or history. welcome to the site