How the fuck is anarcho-communism even supposed to work?

>>135331265
Communists believe the state will "whiter away" after getting all the power and controlling the economy, so that's where their "anarchist beliefs come from. It's never quite expanded on how it'll work, communist rethoric is mostly complaining about capitalism and systems of oppression.

>>135331265
You need a fuckton of money, then you spend it and without any reliable system to replenish it, the whole thing would wither collapse, horribly.

That's basically how it would go.

>>135331265
Some people just want to see the world burn. The smart man is a facist.

>>135331265
They like to call themselves anarcho-syndicalists, probably because the communist brand kind of got ruined. Anyways, I've been ass to elbow through Bakunin, Proudhon, Chomsky, Luxembourg, and Rocker, and still don't have answers to basic questions that arent totally laughable. Most of the time these guys are making leaps in logic that are baffling. They offer some insightful critiques of capitalism but when it comes to actually explaining/defending syndicalism they're fucking lost.
To give you an example, this is how Proudhon starts his "What is Property?", which is considered a classic:

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?"

Yeah.

>>135331265
Anarcho communism is simply a religious commune
The governing body is non-binding and voluntary, due to the respect the population has for it's religious tenants.
It is the ideal society, which is why it's virtually impossible to maintain, as it fails if even a single person refuses to submit to the religious doctrine.

Um that's not real communism sweetie

>>135332285
reccomend more books to read. so far I've read das kaptial and society of the spectacle. I've admittedly not read hegel but I have a rudimentary on the concept of hegelian dialectics.
If you happen to know of any capitalist/anarchist/fascist literature as well I'd be interested, since I've never really read into those before.

>>135334626
*rudimentary understanding

>>135334626
Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism is probably the best. Proudhon's What is Property, despite starting on a logical absurdity, is worth a look. Chomsky is a tricky one because his major preoccupation is criticizing US foreign policy and not really in justifying his political ideology, but For Reasons of State and American Power and the New Mandarins are worth a look (if youre going to do Chomsky, stick to early Chomsky. Modern Chomsky isn't worth your time, though Chomsky on Anarchism is most relevant to the subject its also a pale imitation of For Reasons of State).