Any anarcho-communists?

[gizmoguy]

Any fellow anarchist communists/libertarian socialists/whatever lurking around Grasscity?

[Kylesa]

Anarcho-communists, eh. Sounds like a complete contradiction.

[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.

[Buddy Dink]

If you take the common definition for the word communism I wouldn't think it would make sense, but I believe anarcho-communism is in general a good thing. Working together as a community and supporting one another, much like extended family was not too long ago.

Now-a-days money is so tight amongst family members, and money is the only thing with any value in it. A while back entire families would grow up on farms and either grow into running the farm themselves as the elderly "retired" or make new farms themselves. I would consider this an anarcho-communist society, and I think it is great.

The reason it kind of sucks is because you need such a small group of willing individuals to actually care for one another. That is hard to come by, and I think it is hard to come by for a reason. Again, now-a-days some families don't even trust some relatives.

If I could wrangle up a couple of good friends and family members to go start something like this I totally would.

--

To go a little off subject, anarchy is pretty much freedom period. If it isn't freedom, it isn't anarchy. I am talking about freedom to choose. The only way you would participate in an anarcho-communist society is if you chose to do so. At this point you are weighing pros and cons and values to meet your satisfaction. This is just like choosing to live in a capitalist society. You are supporting one another to meet everyone's mutual satisfaction. In a capitalist society you are bargaining to meet everyone's mutual satisfaction. So what the hell is the difference?

Anarchy is freedom. Period. If it is truly anarchy then I deem it acceptable morally, not that my words mean much.

[Thrill]

That last part of Buddy's post is dead on. QFT.

[J. Watson]

nope
anarchist
we'll never see a real anarchist society
but with the right people its possible, i think

edit- high five Buddy Dink

[Craiggers]

how could anyone expect to have real progress(economic, technological, philosophical) without motivation to do so. with all the political ideologies described I see no motivation and no potential progress. Without a some kind of capitalistic government I don't think we'd advance much as a species. These might work on a small scale though.

[SpacedOut]

Originally Posted by Buddy Dink

A while back entire families would grow up on farms and either grow into running the farm themselves as the elderly "retired" or make new farms themselves. I would consider this an anarcho-communist society, and I think it is great.

Again, now-a-days some families don't even trust some relatives.

It's a common fallacy amongst first worlders to imagine a simple utopia of small family farms, but in truth it's nothing like that. There a reason people in the Philippines will leave small family farms if they can get a job in the city as a maid, driver, factory worker, etc... It's because working in city usually means you'll work less, enjoy a higher standard of living, and generally live a longer and healthier life.

And violent family feuding is nothing new in history either. If you've read Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond shows that lawless, less developed areas tend to be the most violent, it's just that often crimes are not reported.

[wackdeafboy]

Anarcho-communists??

How can that be possible?!

[TheDankery]

"anarcho-communist" appears to be an oxymoron on some level, since it would involve breaking down all systems of hierarchies; then re-organizing things in a communistic way.

I don't see how you can get everyone to voluntarily participate in this system without coercive tactics or setting up a new system of hierarchies - both which are completely the opposite of true anarchism.

I loosely consider myself an anarchist, but while I sympathize with anarchists and their own individual sects of anarchism, I recognize Each one has its drawbacks and positives - anarcho-communism is no different.

[sikander]

Like any anarchic system I think there are scales and certain groups of people it would work with.

It won't work for everybody, or even many people. No system works for everybody; anarchocommunism even more so.

[Buddy Dink]

Originally Posted by SpacedOut

It's a common fallacy amongst first worlders to imagine a simple utopia of small family farms, but in truth it's nothing like that. There a reason people in the Philippines will leave small family farms if they can get a job in the city as a maid, driver, factory worker, etc... It's because working in city usually means you'll work less, enjoy a higher standard of living, and generally live a longer and healthier life.

And violent family feuding is nothing new in history either. If you've read Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond shows that lawless, less developed areas tend to be the most violent, it's just that often crimes are not reported.

Some examples of good anarchist-esque societies are things like the original colonies or the wild west. What about Native Americans? What about society before written history? These are all anarchist societies loosely based around the family structure.

Violence is not necessarily a problem, either. I would like to see people actually being held accountable for their actions, and the only way that happens is when there is no one standing between you and your target. You know what happens to people who rape, steal, and kill others for less than legitimate reasons in a "lawless" society? They die in a wink of an eye compared to sitting on death row for decades. With violence comes accountability, and I don't mind that one bit. It removes peoples' sense of entitlement.

Robert Heinlein pretty much spells out in his books that frontiers are necessary for freedom to thrive. I think the "new world" is a perfect example of this, the colonies and the wild west and all. Exploration in general requires strength, determination, intelligence, and cunning. These traits are necessary because man needs to argue about some trivial something or other law in the middle of a massive bureau designated to legislate about this or that? Of course not. It is because man must battle the elements. He must defend from wild predators, face hardships like disease and famine, and get along well with his peers to better face these hardships. This is where man thrives.

For all I know, I wouldn't even be alive now if it were as lawless as I wish it was, but that doesn't make me want it any other way.

[SpacedOut]

Originally Posted by Buddy Dink

Some examples of good anarchist-esque societies are things like the original colonies or the wild west. What about Native Americans? What about society before written history? These are all anarchist societies loosely based around the family structure.

Exactly my point. When I lived in Indiana we learned about the Miami Indians in school, apparently the right of ascention for a young male is to kill someone from another tribe. It's not like native americans are inherently more violent than anyone else, you see this level of violence in many tribal areas around the world. My mom's from the Philippines, specifically from Baguio. That territory used to be held by the Igarot (sp?) tribe, which was known for kidnapping people, decapitation them and shrinking their head. Similar levels of tribal violence are recorded in European literature, Beowulf contains a back story of a feud between two families that led to tribal war.

Violence is not necessarily a problem, either. I would like to see people actually being held accountable for their actions, and the only way that happens is when there is no one standing between you and your target. You know what happens to people who rape, steal, and kill others for less than legitimate reasons in a "lawless" society? They die in a wink of an eye compared to sitting on death row for decades. With violence comes accountability, and I don't mind that one bit. It removes peoples' sense of entitlement.

Are you seriously saying we should abandon the concept of a fair trial and the rule of law? We should just have "justice" carried out by mobs? Or perhaps simple revenge killings are better, it not like that ever leads to cycles of violence.

What happens when Joe Smith is accused of raping Bobby Johnson's daughter so he kills him, but Mark Smith, Joe's father said Sarah Johnson's a lying whore? ...they'll probably work it out fine amongst themselves.

Not to mention it's rather easy to get away with a crime in an area with no one trained to do investigation as long as no one saw you commit said crime (or the people who saw you are on you side).

Great idea.

For all I know, I wouldn't even be alive now if it were as lawless as I wish it was, but that doesn't make me want it any other way.

Ah, an internet tough guy.

[Buddy Dink]

Originally Posted by SpacedOut

Exactly my point. When I lived in Indiana we learned about the Miami Indians in school, apparently the right of ascention for a young male is to kill someone from another tribe. It's not like native americans are inherently more violent than anyone else, you see this level of violence in many tribal areas around the world. My mom's from the Philippines, specifically from Baguio. That territory used to be held by the Igarot (sp?) tribe, which was known for kidnapping people, decapitation them and shrinking their head. Similar levels of tribal violence are recorded in European literature, Beowulf contains a back story of a feud between two families that led to tribal war.



Are you seriously saying we should abandon the concept of a fair trial and the rule of law? We should just have "justice" carried out by mobs? Or perhaps simple revenge killings are better, it not like that ever leads to cycles of violence.

What happens when Joe Smith is accused of raping Bobby Johnson's daughter so he kills him, but Mark Smith, Joe's father said Sarah Johnson's a lying whore? ...they'll probably work it out fine amongst themselves.

Not to mention it's rather easy to get away with a crime in an area with no one trained to do investigation as long as no one saw you commit said crime (or the people who saw you are on you side).

Great idea.



Ah, an internet tough guy.

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.

What happens when a "fair trial" takes place? Every tax paying citizen pays for your life. Free shelter, free food, free everything. Real fair...

Now if you were to think about a frontier society where people are getting diseases, having trouble finding food, and fending off giant predatory animals it wouldn't surprise me to see a murderer die on the spot. When people have to protect themselves they don't pussyfoot around. People are actually held accountable for their actions.

I don't understand why it is acceptable for the government to try people, but it isn't acceptable to remove the middle man called government? What is the government? I always thought it was made up of people... but if people can't make these decisions I don't understand why we trust the government so much.

Thanks for making yourself feel cool and make fun of me for my last statement as well. All I was saying is that I may not be fit enough for survival on a frontier, but I would love to see it anyway.

[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.