Any anarcho-communists?

[Buddy Dink]

Originally Posted by lovetobtokn

AnyOne else think this is kind of rediculous? Sure it would be "cool" to live like an indian or in a wild west fashion but its way too impractical and wouldnt promote growth. On a small scale maybe hundreds of years ago sure, but as advanced as we are as a civilization and with as many people populating the world as there are there is no way this could happen.

On another note if we inhabited space and things were kind of like start trek or star wars i could see futuristic colonies that were run this way. But its pretty farfetched.

It isn't far fetched. It is as far fetched as flying was hundreds of years ago, or even long distance sea travel. The technology is being driven by private consumers now. Private space travel. This is a huge step in the right direction.

Read Robert Heinlein's Time Enough for Love. It is a great book and explains this idea pretty well. Frontiers are necessary for freedom, and space is a supply of endless frontiers. The only question about this happening is if we get to the point of interstellar space travel anytime soon. After we have interstellar space travel planets will start to be colonized on a massive scale. The great human diaspora.

[maxrule]

Originally Posted by Craiggers

From Wikipedia
"the members of such a society would spontaneously perform all necessary labour because they would recognize the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid."
Lolz @ this in practice.
So my answer is...no, I'm not.

"spontaneously perform all necessary labour " wtf?

Pure weapons grade bolognium.

Ignorant liberals in America will now gladly line up and vote for the same exact communist bullshit that millions of people were shot dead trying to escape in the twentieth century.

[gizmoguy]

I think the problem is that it only works if everyone chips in and helps it works. When you start getting leaches, it all breaks down. I don't have much faith in humanity ATM, we're not ready for it. I think Marx's idea of "true communism" (which is anarcho-communism) coming after the post-socialist stage was right. It's going to take a long time before we see it.

Not to say there won't be a few autonomous communities popping up here and there (let's found a real GrassCity! )

For all those saying it's an oxymoron, we don't mean anarchism with a Communist government, we mean the "let's be nice and share stuff" attitude from communism, the community!

[wackdeafboy]

Community and communist are completely different.

[EbencoyE]

ello! Good to have another on the board!

You American too?

[SpacedOut]

Originally Posted by Buddy Dink

I am saying that people are not held accountable in today's society, and they would be held accountable in a society where everyone needed to own a gun to protect themselves.

No, whoever has the most people with guns on their side gets to do whatever they want. This becomes especially concerning when you consider in history that in government-less societies the people who tend to have the most weapons tend to be the most culturally-backward/crazy people. Look at the people in the US right now who are stockpiling the most weapons. Sure people will probably have a gun to protect themselves, but the average person probably won't be stockpiling automatic weapons and jeep-mounted gattling guns like skin-head militias do.

If you want to see what a country with no government looks like, look at Somalia.

[TheDankery]

Somalia is actually not an example of anarchism in action. I don't know why Somalia is brought up in discussions of anarchism when the current situation there is basically the antithesis of anarchism. Your understanding of anarchism is lacking. There are and have been numerous successful societies without a formal government.

[Buddy Dink]

Originally Posted by SpacedOut

No, whoever has the most people with guns on their side gets to do whatever they want. This becomes especially concerning when you consider in history that in government-less societies the people who tend to have the most weapons tend to be the most culturally-backward/crazy people. Look at the people in the US right now who are stockpiling the most weapons. Sure people will probably have a gun to protect themselves, but the average person probably won't be stockpiling automatic weapons and jeep-mounted gattling guns like skin-head militias do.

If you want to see what a country with no government looks like, look at Somalia.

I guess having fewer guns, rations, ammunition and people lost us the Revolutionary War? What is the only thing that stops people from arming themselves? THE ONLY THING?

The government. Government either makes you feel secure under their blanket of "protection" or straight up takes your guns. Either way you are disarming the masses, and it works best when done simultaneously because the people who are actually getting their guns taken away are being laughed at by the people who are okay with the government and their "security."

Not to mention... how big of a population are the skinheads? How many Nazi youth do we have running around? How quickly do you think they would get shot and killed in a society filled with armed people? How many people would want to be intolerant in a society where they need to work together to survive? Survival instincts will usually overcome racial bias, safety in numbers kind of deal.

[SpacedOut]

Originally Posted by Buddy Dink

I guess having fewer guns, rations, ammunition and people lost us the Revolutionary War? What is the only thing that stops people from arming themselves? THE ONLY THING?

No, what won us the Revolutionary War was the colonial government, specifically the Continental Congress.

Not to mention... how big of a population are the skinheads? How many Nazi youth do we have running around? How quickly do you think they would get shot and killed in a society filled with armed people? How many people would want to be intolerant in a society where they need to work together to survive?

Small groups of well trained, well armed people bent on fighting almost always win against large groups of lesser-armed civilians.

Survival instincts will usually overcome racial bias, safety in numbers kind of deal.

...are you serious? The more people have to struggle to survive the more racist/intolerant they tend to be. Please, just open a history book.

[undertheice]

to espouse anarchism one must be incredibly patient or absolutely insane. i like to think i'm a little of both. to maintain an anarcho-communalist society, an overwhelming majority of its members must have not only a common goal, but a common and highly developed morality. at the very least they must have an enlightened sense of self-interest that allows them to understand that the success of a society depends on the success of all its members. anarchism is not about a society that lacks rules and regulations, but one who's members are all responsible for abiding by and enforcing those rules. law does not break down, but becomes the business of every citizen. control does not simply evaporate, but becomes more a matter of self-control and personal responsibility.

all the elements necessary for a successful anarcho-communalist society cannot come through force, but are a matter of individual growth. the notion that any communalist society can grow from the socialistic stance of an authoritarian state, as forwarded by most proponents of marxist theory, is patently absurd. forcing the productive to care for the indigent only breeds contempt and rebellion. allowing the charitable nature of men to come forward and rewarding such behavior is the surest path to creating a citizenry capable of self-government.

the wild west scenarios and the somalia references depict a rather bleak and utterly false concept of anarchism. these are more feudal societies than anarchistic ones, where a strong central government has broken down through failure and been replaced by the power of arms and wealth. in such societies, central control is replaced by petty tyrants and warlords and the people themselves have little or no power. successful anarchism is all about the people maintaining power and using it productively of their own accord.

[TheBriManFoScho]

i am anarcho-capitalist

[EbencoyE]

Originally Posted by SpacedOut

If you want to see what a country with no government looks like, look at Somalia.

Anarchism is not the lack of government, it is the lack of a state. There's a difference.

Somalia is not anarchist. Chiapas, Mexico, and the Whiteway Colony in England are though.

In the past: Catalonia and Aragon in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, The Free Territory of Ukraine, The Paris Commune, the Tolstoy Communes in Russia, and the Shinmin region of Korea were all (collectivist/communist) anarchist.

[kstigs]

Originally Posted by EbencoyE

Anarchism is not the lack of government, it is the lack of a state. There's a difference.

What's the difference between a state and a government?

[SpacedOut]

Originally Posted by EbencoyE

Anarchism is not the lack of government, it is the lack of a state. There's a difference.

Somalia is not anarchist. Chiapas, Mexico, and the Whiteway Colony in England are though.

In the past: Catalonia and Aragon in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, The Free Territory of Ukraine, The Paris Commune, the Tolstoy Communes in Russia, and the Shinmin region of Korea were all (collectivist/communist) anarchist.

All those places you mention have one thing in common, they live within the territory with a central government which prevented things like warlords/foreign powers from taking control. That's the difference between them and Somalia.

[kingmonkey]

I've got nothing against anarcho-communist, so long as they remain anarchist. That is, they continue to recognize that the use of force is immoral and maintain a truly voluntary collective. I doubt that an anarcho-communist collective would be able to maintain itself though. Without private property their economy would remain rather basic, in my opinion.

Also, the problem with Somalia isn't a lack of government but too much government. The Somali people would be just fine if the United States and its agents would leave them alone. The warlords would be taken care of in due time. They already have a very effective private system of law and justice called the Xeer and their economy is really starting to do well.