Religious Fundamentalists, Fascists and Borders

I think most anarchist-flavored intentional communities (communes and so on) democratically decide who to let in. I personally can't fathom there ever being a "let-anyone-in" policy for any kind of society or community, so I think borders are necessary in that sense.

If a communist society does not strive to be inclusive and people are free to partition off land for their exclusive use (I’m not talking here about someone wishing a plot, to grow their own food), then the stage would be set for a competition for resources. So we’d be back to square one, my land, my border, my property. To hell with transition phases - they last forever.

after a successfully anarchist revolution anarchism would be global, where would you expel reactionary to, where would you prevent them coming from?
if anarchism had only succeeded in one territory or a limited number of areas ie the revolution was still ongoing, the the kind of measures that are necessary to prevent against military invasion are completely unlike those required to check the papers of every ordinary traveller.
its impossible to be sure what measures would be necessary in such a situation because they would be determined by the circumstances of the time which we cant know. I do think that expelling reactionaries would be a terrible idea since reactionary who flee during revolutions they tend to come back with cia guns, far better to keep them where you can see them.

zugzwang

I think most anarchist-flavored intentional communities (communes and so on) democratically decide who to let in. I personally can't fathom there ever being a "let-anyone-in" policy for any kind of society or community, so I think borders are necessary in that sense.

you cant fathom something that exists within virtually every country in the world? do you need a visa to travel to the next city? do you have to show your passport when you enter?

radicalgraffiti

zugzwang

I think most anarchist-flavored intentional communities (communes and so on) democratically decide who to let in. I personally can't fathom there ever being a "let-anyone-in" policy for any kind of society or community, so I think borders are necessary in that sense.

you cant fathom something that exists within virtually every country in the world? do you need a visa to travel to the next city? do you have to show your passport when you enter?

Well, there are still police in every city. You can't just move to another city and begin working or living on someone else's property. I suppose what I was getting at is defending an anarchist society/community. I don't think it would be wise to allow outside fascists, people who are hostile to the very idea of an anarchist vision, to integrate into a community and potentially sabotage what's being done. Most intentional communities don't just allow anyone to join; new members are assessed, interviewed, voted on, etc. Wouldn't there need to be some kind of assessment of anyone trying to work and live somewhere? Didn't the Free Territory of Ukraine have a protective army to fight against the Bolsheviks and other fascist forces?

Spot on, radicalgraffiti.

Zugzwang #7
‘Didn't the Free Territory of Ukraine have a protective army to fight against the Bolsheviks and other fascist forces?’

The example you give is a good one, as it describes the dangers if the revolution does not quickly spread and instead becomes isolated.

‘Free communism’ is impossible to sustain if the revolution is contained, and it then requires a ‘protective army’ to withstand its enemies. The revolution must be worldwide, or the same fate which befell the Ukrainian anarchists (and also in a different fashion the Bolsheviks) would eventually smother it. Capitalism and free communism cannot co-exist. I believe the ruling class must be overcome quickly as a protracted revolutionary war even if successful, would leave the new society scarred. Capitalism in the pursuit of profit ignores borders and so must the working class.