>>704677037 Then riddle me this, if Anarcho-Communism is a political ideology, and the definition of politics is: "the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power."
Then, pray-tell, how in the fuck do Anarcho-Communists still call themselves "Anarchists" if by the very definition of their ideologies, they can't be anarchistic?
You're either an anarchist, or a communist, you can't have any system of political ideology that revolves around anarchy, because then it's not a political ideology... it's just anarchy. And with anarchy comes the total loss of government, as we all know.
Then there's the communist part, communism is the relinquishment of your property and wealth to the state to be shared among the people of that state, which implies a sense of order and organizational structure in order to achieve said equality, meaning you can't be a communist in any sense while also claiming to be an anarchist.
What you are, is a pretty edgy cool guy who probably really likes black clothes... a lot. As in, an unnatural amount of affection for black clothes.
As an anarcho-communist, could you elucidate upon your stance thereby of being something that in essence is counter intuitive? Furthermore, how do you reconclie your bullshittery with being a crypto-facist?
Furthermore - could you enlighten us to the possibility of you vacating the premises immediately for the purposes of migrating to that most abundant of places full of likewise faggots - reddit?
>>704677657 Marx wrote that an ideal form of communism eventually abolishes the state. Also, your entire argument seems to be playing a semantic game about how the thing you defined it as doesn't work.
It's not a political ideology, it's a philosophical one that may just happen to involve political upheaval.
>>704676446 In a capitalist system its the only way modern economies with lots of automatised jobs could keep the necesary consume levels so yes In a socialist system it's just social justice so I would say yes also
So how does the state continue to produce anything without the leadership required to guide said production?
Or are they planning on sharing the means of production without actually doing anything with it? At the end of the day, someone needs to pull a lever, or till a farm, and that person is going to feel cheated and worked more than someone who doesn't.
>>704678777 Judged from every single communist state to date, I'd say, the government makes the rules, owns everything and people are just slaves to the idea "each for their ability, each for their needs". So you're not even allowed to work more and gain more.
Come on, everyone knows the only form of communism that works is Chinese communism, which is not really economic Communism. Politically it is with the whole vanguard party thing. I think that works because people are too stupid to elect officials who govern them. They have socialist flavor too with social shit.
Well donne, preteen, you've been tricked with simplistic rhetoric.
You picture is hilarious : equality / freedom.
What you call "equality" is actually promoting the abolition of all differences between individuals, making them all similar and equally exploitable by capitalists who have the "freedom" to turn them into globalized slaves.
Congrats, kiddo, you just achieved to support the capitalist project. Lenine had a word for you : you're the "useful idiot" of the capitalism.
Anarcho Syndicalist here, anarcho communism is not an oxymoron, it is a philosophy that defines what one may consider forceful action, consider this;
A man walks onto another mans lawn in Ancapistan, and the man is shot by the lawn owner because by the man trespassing onto his land he has initiated force, thus giving the land owner moral permission to act forcefully against the intruder.
In ancomistan however, a man can walk amongst any mans lawns as he so pleases because the land belongs to society, and there is no private property. Thus, if another man shoots a man for trespassing on his lawn, the shooter will have committed an act of force and will probably be dealt with by the rest of society.
Both ancapistan and ancomistan have no ruling classes or any hierarchy whatsoever, yet they have different definitions of what is a forceful act and what is not.
>>704680357 Same syndfag here, It also defines a hell of a lot of other things, but that's what Wikipedia and books are for. Start with Rocker if you want to learn more about syndicalism, Kropotkin for mutualism, Rothbard for libertarianism/liberal anarchism, and Bob black for funny quotes.
>>704680626 The only real reason I dislike vanguard is within a revolutionary movement is what if a reactionary (cough cough Lenin) comes into power and fucks everything up? Feel free to tell us about vanguardism though I'm listening
>>704680744 Not the guy you replied to, but honestly the vanguard party has to remain ideologically unified, and I think that's the primary reason communism slips towards totalitarianism so often. Only Mao did it right, and then it all got reversed after his death and now China's a supercapitalist hellhole for the working class.
>>704681451 I'm not saying hur dur communism fails every time but it's vanguardism that eventually turns things bad. Ideological unification can be so tough, why take a chance? I say all anarchists work towards their main end (Destruction of the state, and all hierarchy) and then sort things out after the revolution.
>owner of a corporation works 204 times harder No he don't. But corporations cannot make money from a thin air. That is people who pay all the bills. Therefore people need business even if it does not dedicated to fulfill needs of people but to get more money and power to business owners. Communists all around the world has failed except for mutated chineese version of communism/confucianism That failure prooves it main concept of people can run busuiness without business owner that gains profit from it is totally wrong. No profit to man in charge - no desire to run it effeciently. No effectiveness - no progress.
Lol OP here, I thought this thread wouldn't go anywhere and would have died HOURS ago. Let me answer you guys, sorry for the wait.
>>704674218 Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism,and communist anarchism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour, and private property (while retaining respect for personal property). ^ Textbook definition.
>>704678070 Fascism? I'm for the abolishment of the state, that's the polar opposite and you're proving how much you have no idea what you're talking about. I feel like you're throwing out a bunch of words that you regurgitate from other people without actually thinking about it yourself.
>>704684366 And the people who don't want them? The people that would prefer if they were able to build their movie theatre, grow their crops, or otherwise have the land used for anything other than a road as they personally have no desire to utilize roads or the services that those roads would benefit towards?
>>704684797 Right, but I wasn't talking about personal property. You said that roads would continue to be built by the people who need them.
I'm stating: What is to stop the people who don't need them, and therefore would be more on the side of 'no roads we need more food to feed our childrun we have a drought' from simply destroying the road and building over it?
I'm not saying either has personal property, as that generally requires some legal recognition from some force, like a government or a coalition. So, with no coalitions or governments at play to stop, what is to prevent this person from banding with his inbred children and destroying the roads and paving over them with some crops?
Is it some other community/coalition that believes roads are better for the welfare of society? Or is this anarcho-communist society intended to work on a 'we set the jobs for people with a government first, then we get rid of government and everyone keeps their jobs/work to maintain what exists'? Wouldn't that come with a drawback of stagnation?
>>704685081 Exactly, let's look to the future and not keep to broken systems that hold us and pull us further into the past.
>>704685190 I am for peaceful protest, and it wouldn't be a luxury, nothing is easy when it comes to politics and government systems.
>>704685155 All of your questions can be answered by simple google searches of what we view. You seem to be going with the assumption that I just want no laws, just because I want to abolish the state doesn't mean I want a completely lawless society. I am a firm believer in "No victim, no crime" which includes interference with the rights of others.
>>704685171 That's not a good analogy, at all. Try to research what I am talking about, that's too everyone who keeps asking these common questions.
I was expecting questions that relate to me as an individual. Am I some edgy teenager that knows nothing about what I am talking about? No. Am I a crazy mother fucker who wants to go around and ruin society? No.
>>704685410 >I want no government, but still want no laws.
How exactly are the laws going to be enforced? Laws are meaningless statements without the force in order to back them up; a government offers this, but so too do people maintaining their ground in a personal property sort of way. The lack of personal property, however, interferes with that.
>No victim, no crime which includes the interference with the rights of others.
What rights, exactly? What crime is being committed by destroying the roads that are built by people who believe they are needed by those who believe they are not needed? As you stated, you do not believe in personal property as that leads to capitalism. From that, what rights are being violated? It is not their land, meaning it is not their decision to make on whether the land is a road or is a farm.
>>704685576 >I was expecting questions that relate to me as an individual. I do not give a fuck. You introduced yourself not as a person but anarcho communist wich even sounds ridiculous.
And that analogy of me still exists. If some busines or big piece of property do have owner that gets a profit from it it will not be destroyed until it stop being profitable. If such entity do not have an owner - it doomed to be inefficient. I told you so here >>704683244 but you prefer to ignore it and live in your fucked up rainbow dream bubble.
>>704685171 Not OP, but strictly speaking, private property is a human concept. If there were no humans, or no society to tell you that "This is my ball", then there would be no personal property.
The concept of personal property is informed by social contract theory, and reaffirmed by our current laws which consider personal property an extension of one's material being. It's not some magical tag that you can place on an object to make it yours forever.
>>704685737 Again, look this up for yourself, there's a whole Wikipedia page on Anarchist Communism with in detail information on what we believe in. These aren't the kinds of questions I was going for making the thread.
>>704686008 The point is that we'd want to lessen the need for money and profit to nothing. That's what I believe, the rest of what you said is pointless in an Anarcho-Communist society.
I'm pretty sure that spiders and many other animals with some form of a nest have their own concept of personal property. If another spider is found on a spider's web, there is likely to be a fight over it. The same can be said for many other animals that make their own dens and then fight over their territory. Or even animals, like wolves, which would fight over food - another form of private property.
As humans, we have created governments which act as agencies in the form of proxy for the initiation of force. Instead of us having to defend ourselves against attacks, we use society and other people to defend it for us, in exchange for goods and services.
However, they are only proxies, and it still boils down to the fundamental understanding of private property being a concept of most intelligent or semi-intelligent species, and not just humans. This much is obvious to see.
>>704686231 >we'd want to lessen the need for money and profit to nothing And what will be a motivation to do anything? Pure altruism or what? >the rest of what you said is pointless in an Anarcho-Communist society. It still exists IRL, you dickhead. Deal with it.
>>704674218 You know how Reddit has those kids with upper middle class parents who always think their lives would be so much better without government and they think that they would be the sole survivors in a zombie apocalypse? It's pretty much those people
>>704686455 >I'm pretty sure that spiders and many other animals with some form of a nest have their own concept of personal property. If another spider is found on a spider's web, there is likely to be a fight over it. The same can be said for many other animals that make their own dens and then fight over their territory. Or even animals, like wolves, which would fight over food - another form of private property.
If this is true, why don't we have laws protecting animals from other animals? We only have laws protecting animals from humans, and even then we don't consider animals to have personal property, only "habitat".
To say that animals have "personal property" seems more like a convenient re-labeling for territory and resource control. Spiders can make a web, but we don't know if they can make a well-crafted pleasure-web that serves no purpose except to make other spiders jealous.
>>704686455 Governments start to initiate force that begin to hold freedoms back and that's why I believe in Anarchy. Wolves don't set up governments, they defend themselves for their survival.
>>704686569 Violence would only give us a worse name and make us look like terrorists. Peace is the ultimate goal, for people to live in peace. That's what I will practice to achieve what I feel is right for humanity.
>>704686493 uh... you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about as I believe in complete freedom and equality.
>>704686575 I don't want to spend my time explaining the same thing over and over while you ask the same questions while there are more questions by the second that are relevant to what I was going for.
>>704686855 >If this is true, why don't we have laws protecting animals from other animals? We only have laws protecting animals from humans, and even then we don't consider animals to have personal property, only "habitat".
Because animals do not hold the capability to defend themselves sufficiently from us in our search to rob them from their 'private property' forcing for certain humans to recognize it for them as a form of agency preventing their death as an avenue of altruism.
Lets say that you find a spider that over a period of a few days set up a nest within your home. It doesn't recognize your 'private property' until you either escort it out or mercilessly end it for treading upon your 'private property'. Much the same could go for an equally human example of people not respecting private property until there is a sufficient application of force. Your neighbor's dog has a nasty habit of shitting on your lawn, so you solicit someone who can institute an act of force, in this case a police officer, who fines the man a number of money that he must pay. If he refuses to pay, there will be applications to -force- him to pay one way or another, eventually.
>To say that animals have 'personal property' sounds like a convenient re-labeling for territory and resource control
I don't see how it isn't in some way related to that. The land you're living in, hopefully, is your territory. The food you're eating, the utensils you use to eat with, the TV you're watching that gives you a dopamine rush - all can be boiled down to a resource that you enjoy. No private property exists without in some way being a resource or territory.
If you're trying to say that 'serves no purpose except to make others jealous' doesn't count as a resource, then you'd be incorrect. That is a resource; making others jealous.
>>704687042 It is an argument because I've shown how severely flawed the logic is here. Calling someone stupid is obviously not an argument, nor do I try to present it as such, you stupid fuck. Also, you can't believe in equality while getting rid of the best means we have of upholding it. Anarchy means survival of the fittest which is the opposite of communism. Your beliefs are a contradiction.
>>704686896 >>OP, how do you feel about libertarian ideologies such as your being skewed to favor cis males? Isn't that inherently unfair? >uh... you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about as I believe in complete freedom and equality. If it's true that there's nothing to stop others from interfering with your rights except your own self-defense, then that puts physically weaker women at a disadvantage by forcing them to rely on others for physical defense. It also puts people at a disadvantage if they can't raise a family, and if they form some other sort of group through the use of resource-based incentives then isn't that just capitalism?
>>704686896 >Governments hinder freedoms and that's why Anarchy. Wolves don't set up governments. Wolves do set up packs, however. And wolves do hinder the freedoms of their other wolf pack members. Those who do not assimilate to the pack leader will end up dead, or ostracized and left for dead. Their pack is a form of governing body.
Anarchy can work as a form of pure freedom, and potentially a form of moral high ground, but that doesn't mean it's correct or can work. I can believe that cigarettes do not increase my chance of lung cancer, but if I smoke them I'll likely have issues with my lungs.
>>704687737 This is actually a real argument, but it's usually kind of hand-waved away due to family as a non-capitalist construct. You take care of your family, and your family takes care of you, since you share the same blood. Your family understands you on a personal level, but if they don't then you separate from them which makes them weaker as a unit; this usually happens when a family gets too big.
>>704686896 Naw. You've decided already that your political sys won't evolve into something worse. I have no time to google examples of what happens when basics like safety, nfrastructure and regulations are optional
>>704687753 Or they will learn to very efficiently use those resources and keep their population in tandem with the carrying capacity of their environment like many human tribes do and have done for millennia.
>>704688466 Had oral sex with a guy twice back in high school and dated him for a bit, I'm bisexual. I have a wife now, in my late 20s.
>>704688610 Yeah man, just expressing my thoughts while trying to educate people that we are an actual group to be taken seriously while maintaining an intelligent discussion, it's hard for people to do that on here now. Thanks for the thumbs up, I appreciate it.
>>704688674 >Or they will learn to very efficiently use those resources Lets say you have a population that enjoys eating 100 units of bread. However, the requirements of sustenance while keeping work levels optimal requires that they eat only 70 units of bread. Efficiency has bread at a 75 unit with additional saved for emergencies. A drought hits. Units drop down to 40. They require for optimal survival a 70 - they're nearly halved on the number they need.
They can work together to expand their food and enjoy the surplus that exists, however expansion will take several months, and their food stores only maintain optimal efficiency or even survival alone for less than half of those several months.
Is good-will and efficient resource usage going to keep them from acting out for food? >Keep population in tandem Do you believe people are willingly going to let themselves die for the sake of a group instead of fight for continued survival?
in theory it sounds nice OP, In reality we would still want more then others, want what they have, hate them for being happy, have more power and all wimins would still be subject to our relentless desires which probably is the biggest problem of us humans.
removing or adding theoretic freedom does not stop al of this.
>>704689575 Birth control has absolutely nothing to do with a sudden influx of a major problem.
I'm not talking in the realm of years of constant population issues; I'm saying things were good, until a major string of bad stuff happened and resources became scarce.
Now people are dying in the streets from starvation, and most are not capable of directly surviving. Efficiency of everyone getting a fair share would state that everyone would maintain this limited share of the pie until enough had died that the shares were capable of keeping those alive that had managed to survive.
However, when faced with the option of dying of starvation, or attacking an equally weakened neighbor, taking his food, and increasing your chances of survival what would the common human take? In anarchy there is no application of force to stop him. Would people not turn on eachother?
This has nothing to do with birth control. This is a problem hitting population much quicker than a gradual shift would work for.
>>704689723 Except that's wrong. -Learning- to not be subject to hate, wanting what others have, hating them for being happy, etc. is not the same as it not being a natural state for humans to be in. We didn't learn them from society, otherwise we'd never have to -learn- not to let them control us.
>>704689723 Buddhism as you refer to it needed more then a thousand years of entire nations working things out slowly until some form of collateral cohesion was forming. can't force people into anything, removing/adding freedom does not make for enlightened people.
and those feelings are still within Buddhist and/or in Buddhist countries. just ask Tibetans how the monks treated them for hundreds of years, truly appalling, 3rd grade citizens, rape, power, etc.
Buddhism cannot be forced either, its an individual path where its spiritual leaders can only point in directions and how you see it and learn.
>>704689868 There's literally been thousands of famines, many during the capitalist time period and guess what? They passed and the society recovered, if something like that were to happen in my hypothetical community I'd organize a team of people to go and move elsewhere, hunting and foraging along the way, resort to cannibalism if need be.
>>704689923 It comes in that instead of typical corporations and private property the society would (agree to) instead do worker owned cooperatives and share access to resources instead of hoarding them and charging for their use.
>>704690635 >many famines during capitalist time period I'm unconcerned with capitalism. I'm talking of anarchy + communism. The discussion is on how will people not attack eachother and destroy the foundation of the communist anarcho society. >organize a team of people And how would this team of people protect their resources of their own food? The application of force against the others who are trying to stop this? Is this not a government now?
Your way to fix an anarcho-communistic society in which there is a sudden famine is to create a government to tide things over until it's no longer shitty?
>>704691380 Not really, again I have a wife and I am pretty social. My political views are just a perfect matchup with the definition of Anarcho-Communism and after looking into it and studying for myself I confirm that I am an Anarcho-Communist. Just like one would identify as a liberal, or a republican, conservative, socialist, etc.
>>704678532 ehhh, meh....most /b/tards dun even know what in the fuck "Anarchy" is. Those that post on /b/ these days have been educated by a system...and it is funny, a system of a down -syndrome.....chemtrails and all that.
>>704685737 can i introduce the distinction between personal and private property? Communism is about the abolishing of private property, which lead to capitalism. Personal property is a natural resource, we're not coming for the toothbrush.
Another libcom here, OP. I'd help you comrade but trying to explain what anarcho-communism is to children on /b/ is a wasted effort.
/b/tards barely know capitalist economics, they can't be asked to understand the philosophical tenets of anarchism and communism.
If anyone is really interested go read Marx's Capital vol.1 and Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread and Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles. They're easily readable and very accessible texts. Find them on Marxists.org and theanarchistlibrary.org
Or if you want a more modern 'intro to anarchism' CrimethInc.'s Days of War, Nights of Love is entertaining (but don't listen to it too much cause it's mostly post-left lifestyleism, although I like the rhetoric in it) and Invisible Committee's The Coming Insurrection.
>>704692017 >not all anarchy is equal >socialists trying to distance themselves from NSDAP socialism by calling it democratic socialism or national socialism You crazy millenials and your fucktarded ideologies invented by a Jew and forced upon millions by a German-backed saboteur.
Fucking 18-yo know-it-alls who think they can bring down a philosophy and negate the work of dozens of philosophers and economists by asking a few dumb questions. >who's gonna clean the toilets in your utopia bro?
>>704692819 Not a good relationship with my mother, she sexually and physically abused me, stood up to her when I was 14 and managed to break free. I am well attached with my Dad and his side of the family though, as well as my Wife and her parents.
>>704692797 If they're so easy to answer, you'd be able to quickly answer them. The fact that you Commie faggots always dismiss these types of questions shows that you don't have the answers you claim.
This was mostly a good thread, learned a lot from you guys. Thanks for this! I have to go to work now so I won't be on 4chan again until like... 4 PM western pacific time? Traffic is a bitch so, yeah. Again thanks for the educational experience.
Sorry if I missed your questions, the thread has been going way out of control and I am surprised it's still fucking up and not pruned yet.
>>704692365 first the edge second what will be your money in a anarcho-communist society, as anarchism is the lack of government and communism is the total control of a government and you can't control the production of money under anarchism and, there is total control over the production & distribution of money under communism
>>704693736 Yes, but the method of production of all the items of property we are to own cannot be in private hands, for that is capitalism. So I can't start or own a business to make things, but I can own the products that the method of production manufactures
>>704693005 The reason I don't want to answer them is because they've been answered already, a thousand times over.
I don't know why but I'll indulge you.
>>704692568 Personal property is property that you use. For example, if you have a piece of land and you're planting potatoes on it, i.e. working it, that land is 'yours' for the time being. No one is going to come in and take it from you.
The difference arises in the fact that you cannot sell that land, lease it, pay someone to work on it or leave it to someone in a will after you die. That land is yours as long as you work it, when you stop someone who will work it comes and takes over.
Regarding toothbrushes and other toiletries, there would be people whose 'job' would be to work in a factory making these things, although it wouldn't be a job as we know it today.
Anarcho-communism works on the maxim 'All is for all!' coined by Kropotkin. It relies on a gift economy. Basically, everything is free.
So let's say you're a toothbrush maker, and you enjoy that job because it keeps people's teeth clean and contributes to hygiene. If you want bread, you go over to the bakery and take as much bread as you need, same with potatoes, onions from a farm, etc.
If you need a car for work then you have a personal car that you use. No one is going to take that from you. You use it until you need it. Although at a later stage ancom society there would be a pool of unused cars people could take to go on trips, dates, a drive somewhere, etc.
Your house would be yours as long as you live in it. If you die, your family will continue to live in it. If there's a spare room, and someone needs that spare room, that person would be allowed to live there. You'd allow them to.
Anarchism relies on people being 'up for it'. That's why I believe an ancom society can't come before we've had a socialist/communist society teaching and socialising kids/people into this way of life (same way capitalism has done for its own way of life).
>>704694272 OK, so if I can start a business to make things, that would mean I could sell them to people so, setting aside the question on where the customers would get their money, I could make things, sell things and make a profit? All in an anarcho-communist state?
>>704694748 Well thanks for the answer and, amazingly, this time without the ad hominems.
The biggest issue I see with all of this is that it does not take into account the nature of mankind. As a species, we are both competitive and cooperative and we evolved to live in small groups that will readily reject or compete with other groups.
Philosophies like this cannot be argued with as an ideal, but they are impractical and will never happen. They are the result of navel-gazing by idealists.
In your example, why would I allow someone who needed a room to live in my house? And if I could take what I wanted, it might be more than I needed.
I'm sure you'll now tell me to go read another book, as the answers to all these questions have been writ large by greater brains that mine.
>>704672447 How would you, if you could play god for one day, change our current capitalistic system to a more equal, peacefull and liberal system? Which steps would you take to fulfill your ideological goals? Iam interested in the whole anarcho communist way of thinking, but for me this whole movement will never work besides on paper...
>pic related, it's the slap that you get when you realize that there will never be an utopian society on earth.
>>704694975 So I'd have to give away anything I made? Or, I could do nothing and just get stuff? OK, the latter then. And clearly, I both need and want Jermyn Street shirts and Saville Row suits to dress in, as well as a Rolex to tell me the time.
>Why are the most anarchist stupid? and this coming from an anarchist. 80% of the anarchist i've met over the years have a really deformed idea of anarchy, they just following others prople thoughts or they're trying to be edgy. Also why do we have to be divided into more and more categories? OP you are anarcho-commie I am anarcho-syndicalist for example, why do we divine in this teams and not be one? Anyway you got pretty good ideas and you know your shit, glad to see this.
>>704678080 >Marx wrote that an ideal form of communism eventually abolishes the state. >ideal form of communism eventually abolishes the state. >ideal nigga nothing in this world is IDEAL all communist states turned into dictatorships
>>704696435 >Also the first school of though of anarchism was egoistic I'm not sure about that, but I'm aware of the invidualist anarchism. I've it as a part of my individual philosophies. It's very interesting. As an apolitical movement it's really hard to guess what would happen. So when I don't want to play a game anymore i quit playing. If needed I can explain it further
>>704696481 Sorry to disappoint you, but no. Anarchy is the last and best society it can exist. But people are to stupid and propangated to see it, because muh money, muh country, muh me and stuff. The ultimate society is a society without leaders and solidarity/teamwork, but i'm to bored to explain you over the Internet.
>>704695463 There is no such thing as 'nature of mankind'. And if there is, it's altruistic. Only because we've been socialized into a competitive lifestyle doesn't mean we are competitive. Movies, school, work, it all teaches us to be competitive and think of one another as rivals, not allies.
>we evolved to live in small groups Exactly. Anarchism wants to do away with national States and States of any kind. An anarcho-communist society would composed of loosely federated communes. Each commune would be slightly different, and one could move freely from one to the other until they found a comfy place to live.
Anarchism and anarcho-communism is all about freedom (real freedom, not McFreedom) and doing what you want with your life and time.
>>704695791 However hard this might be for you to comprehend, the vast majority of humans want to work. Because doing something you enjoy is very fulfilling.
>>704695104 You have skills. You can be taught skills. It's all about finding what you want to do.
>>704695027 Incentive comes from doing a service to your fellow man (and by extension, yourself). You provide a service or a product others need and in turn you are provided everything you need.
>>704696833 >The ultimate society is a society without leaders and solidarity/teamwork Having no leaders in a communist is impossible. Humans are egoists by default. If you don't agree then instead of spending your money on superfluous things, use that money to give to the charity.
>>704696830 I get you mate. But anarchism in general comes from nihilism, not through history just who first wrote about anarchism. But in general after you have zeroed everything you can build your own self bariers, ethics, e.c.t and then comes the collective anarchism.
>>704672447 Why do you think the two are compatible with each other? if you're a Communist then you're not an Anarchist.. Anarchy is the lack of a governing body, and Anarchist values include personal freedom and a free market. Communism relies on a system of government to regulate the free market and personal income.
There is no such think as an "Anarcho-Communist" By definition it simply cannot exist.
And calling yourself an "Anarcho-Capitalist" really isn't much better since Capitalism and a free market are simple byproducts of a free society, they evolve naturally when people are allowed to interact with each other without a government placing obstetrical in their way. Which is exactly what Anarchism strives for.
In short. If you're an actual Anarchist then you don't believe in governmental authority or the initiation of force against innocent people.
If you're a communist then you desire a government to regulate the market and control what people can earn.
>>704697050 >humans are egoists No man, society taught you that, even in our primal form we were co-operatimg, and even if we didn't we are civilized now and we can throw this away from us. But yeah since the educational system is theirs and not ours..
>>704696980 >There is no such thing as 'nature of mankind'. And if there is, it's altruistic. That has to be the most naive thing I've ever read. And your idealism and denial about the true nature of some, if not all men is why you have been taken in by this stuff.
Education will not change the nature of mankind; the savage lies just beneath the surface and above it in some cases. You can't just blame current movies/school/work.
>>704697238 Not an argument. >>704697229 No you didn't, you conveniently ignored them. Specifically, the second and third. You don't actually address the base concern, you just say "no, it's fine though.".
>>704696980 > Movies, school, work, it all teaches us to be competitive and think of one another as rivals, not allies. Because the "best" prevail. If there was no competition people wouldnt do anyhting. They would be like the black slaves in brazil after slavery was banished. They (men and women) grouped in dozens in a house and fucked all day and all night. >Each commune would be slightly different, and one could move freely from one to the other until they found a comfy place to live. So a commune has more natural resources then another commune. What impedes the commune more poor in resources from conquering the other commune? In the current system the law impedes. >Anarchism and anarcho-communism is all about freedom (real freedom, not McFreedom) and doing what you want with your life and time. >doing what you want with your life and time. You can do that in a capitalist society >However hard this might be for you to comprehend, the vast majority of humans want to work. Want to work but complain about the work.
>>704697756 >Money is only an incentive in a money economy and even in capitalism it isnt the strongest incentive. Money is a necessary tool to live in our modern society, what the fuck are you talking about? And what you're ignoring is the base concern raised by them: How will your "free, open communist paradise" deal with people who REFUSE to work?
>>704697900 I was talking about natural resources like water, iron, coal, etc... But the poorer commune could conquer the other by employing more of its resources to production of weapons. In the case the richer commune notices that the poorer commune is planning an attack, then how will it defend itself? By using their resources to produce weapons. And the cycle goes on. In the end whos more bellic wins.
>>704695484 Simple, tell others about it and once a significant percentage of people know about it and want it we can coalesce together to put pressure on the powers that be in order to force them into at least compromise measures (such as universal income) which will eventually ready us to take the final step after a few decades.
>>704699432 >why would they need to fight when the other commune is more than happy to share (or trade) its surplus. How can you know if the richer commune would like to share? Supppose it shares and the poorer commune gets greedy and wants more? What now? The richer commune will still be more than happy to share even more resources?
>>704697429 There's no human nature, only human behavior which is shaped both by genetics and the environment/memes. Humans are incredibly adaptive and can learn to live in thousands of different ways.
>>704699432 >Art is necessary for a healthy society. Even the Soviet Union had paid artists. But what if everyone wanted to do this sort of activity? No one wanted to dig ditches and fix drains, or build houses, or farm? Wouldn't the ideal society collapse?
>>704699483 but if people that reflect a topic or philosophy as much as you will still exist. And if these people think for example, something more facist into the whole idea then what? There will always people that manipulate facts and ideas to their favor. And there will always people that don't think much for themselves and like fast and easy answers to complicated things. Look at trump followers. Sure, more people would buy your idea and start to follow it immedeatly and also people who would follow anything else. And there surely, after some time, would be something else to follow.
>>704701794 After enough people want it there would be pockets (cities or small town/regions) in which 80% or so people would want it, and pockets where the opposite would be true, 80% or so don't want it and the rest do/don't care, what could be done in that case is that an agreement is achieved in which the minorities of each pocket trades their possessions and moves into the pockets in which the majority shares their ideology, after that the non Anarcho communists can govern themselves as they will, as long as they don't bother the AnComs, and vice versa, if conflicts arise, such as for pollution, trafficking and immigration issues they can use diplomacy like countries do today.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.