NationStates Jolt Archive

After seeing numerous criticisms of anarcho-communism, I decided to correct some:

If there is no wealth or poverty, then what would make people work?Work as we know it would be abolished. Workers would no longer sell their ability to work and freedom and would instead do what they enjoyed. People who worked in advertising, government, or the army would now be able to do productive activity.

Won't people waste products without money?There are plenty of examples were they don't. Many people don't use libraries and in school cafeterias, plastic utensils can be taken without charge but aren't wasted. If everything is free, then the thrill of getting something for free will wear off pretty quickly. As a last resort, a particularly lazy or wasteful member can be kicked out.

What about people who don't want to be members?They don't have to be. They can live off a plot of land and tools if they want, though any form of slavery, wage or otherwise, would be opposed. They have the freedom to associate with who they want. It should be noted that the communes do, too, and can kick people out.

Without money, how can we determine what to produce?Communication. The members of the commune would simply say what they needed and the organizations operating the means of production, sometimes known as syndicates, would take it into account.

What about syndicates that produce poor products?They would be denied the materials to make them by other syndicates. They would have a bad reputation, as well.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Theer is no inherent reason for Anarchism to be incompatitble with market forces. Obviously the one major change is that money can no longer exist as a universal value mechanism but simple priciples of supply and demand will still influence production decisions. For example if you have a lot of wheat and no fruit, you would have to a really dumb to plant another field of wheat as opposed to an orchard.

Theer is no inherent reason for Anarchism to be incompatitble with market forces. Obviously the one major change is that money can no longer exist as a universal value mechanism but simple priciples of supply and demand will still influence production decisions. For example if you have a lot of wheat and no fruit, you would have to a really dumb to plant another field of wheat as opposed to an orchard.

Good point.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

After seeing numerous criticisms of anarcho-communism, I decided to correct some:

If there is no wealth or poverty, then what would make people work?Work as we know it would be abolished. Workers would no longer sell their ability to work and freedom and would instead do what they enjoyed. People who worked in advertising, government, or the army would now be able to do productive activity.p
But how many people would want to be sewage pipe maintenance workers or plumbers?

Won't people waste products without money?There are plenty of examples were they don't. Many people don't use libraries and in school cafeterias, plastic utensils can be taken without charge but aren't wasted. If everything is free, then the thrill of getting something for free will wear off pretty quickly. As a last resort, a particularly lazy or wasteful member can be kicked out.
But who would decide who is being wasteful? Would there be a community vote? And taking plastic spoons is one thing, but taking someone else's car is something else. And how would you buy new, updated things when they came out? Would you just keep using Windows 3.1 when 2025 (v.2) comes out?


Without money, how can we determine what to produce?Communication. The members of the commune would simply say what they needed and the organizations operating the means of production, sometimes known as syndicates, would take it into account.
But what about backbiting and bickering? If one thing has been showing lately, it's that people can't communicate very well.

What about syndicates that produce poor products?They would be denied the materials to make them by other syndicates. They would have a bad reputation, as well.
But what about the syndicates that are more necessary than others? Wouldn't they just be in more control?



-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

And THAT never ceases to make me raise an eyebrow.

There's so many radical changes in the economy here that a country that does this won't be able to fit in our global market. It would either have to be a change in a small, rural, uninfluential nation - not too much of a difference - or the whole world - good luck.



Anarcho syndicalism is a way of preserving freedom, not destroying it!

But how many people would want to be sewage pipe maintenance workers or plumbers?

As it turns out, there is a simple answer to this question. Such jobs would be rotated between the members of a commune.

But who would decide who is being wasteful? Would there be a community vote? And taking plastic spoons is one thing, but taking someone else's car is something else. And how would you buy new, updated things when they came out? Would you just keep using Windows 3.1 when 2025 (v.2) comes out?

There probably would be a communal vote. As for stealing a car, you misunderstand, free distribution applies to products owned basically by everyone. It wouldn't be necessary to buy new things when they came out because there wouldn't be buying anymore.

But what about backbiting and bickering? If one thing has been showing lately, it's that people can't communicate very well.

What do you mean showing lately? Terrorism? War? Those are largely the result of hierarchy.

But what about the syndicates that are more necessary than others? Wouldn't they just be in more control?

No one has power over another. If you mean that they would be harder to deal with, then it should be noted that they aren't doing their job if they are producing poor goods.

There's so many radical changes in the economy here that a country that does this won't be able to fit in our global market. It would either have to be a change in a small, rural, uninfluential nation - not too much of a difference - or the whole world - good luck.



Anarcho syndicalism is a way of preserving freedom, not destroying it

Then why do you advocate anarcho-syndicalism?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

...

There's so many radical changes in the economy here that a country that does this won't be able to fit in our global market. It would either have to be a change in a small, rural, uninfluential nation - not too much of a difference - or the whole world - good luck.


From small things, big things grow!

:D

:shock:

I don't advocate anarcho-syndicalism...don't you recognize that as a Holy Grail quote?

:shock: :shock: :shock:

(Zoogie here, sorry)

Sounds like an exact clone of my thread.


If there is no wealth or poverty, then what would make people work?Work as we know it would be abolished. Workers would no longer sell their ability to work and freedom and would instead do what they enjoyed. People who worked in advertising, government, or the army would now be able to do productive activity.

After having worked for 12 years of school and a varying amount of college for a high paying job, how can you tell people "You can't be a [job wanted here], it is not needed for our society any longer. You must be this this and this, even if you enjoy that job." For example: if I worked all that time to become an officer in the army, how could you possibly support that arguement?


Won't people waste products without money?There are plenty of examples were they don't. Many people don't use libraries and in school cafeterias, plastic utensils can be taken without charge but aren't wasted. If everything is free, then the thrill of getting something for free will wear off pretty quickly. As a last resort, a particularly lazy or wasteful member can be kicked out. But if government is by your beliefs opressive-which I don't think it is because I am not being crushed underneath it-and it doesn't boot out lazy people, how could you then claim to be non-opressive when you yourself are doing things that are more opressive that the government itself?


What about people who don't want to be members?They don't have to be. They can live off a plot of land and tools if they want, though any form of slavery, wage or otherwise, would be opposed. They have the freedom to associate with who they want. It should be noted that the communes do, too, and can kick people out.

But if you are making this as a means to protect the people, be charitable, etc. etc. how can you then kick someone out of the village? Let's assume I am a lawyer. I've been working in this town my whole life. Your ideals then come into place and, because I don't like the idea of anarchism because I would be out of clients and thus a job I enjoy, and refuse to work in a commune, you kick me out. How is this fair?


Without money, how can we determine what to produce?Communication. The members of the commune would simply say what they needed and the organizations operating the means of production, sometimes known as syndicates, would take it into account. But how do you explain the failures of Russia's early communes, just after the Revolution? Millions starved in the streets.


What about syndicates that produce poor products?They would be denied the materials to make them by other syndicates. They would have a bad reputation, as well. Who judges who produces poor products when all state run/communist economies have produced poor products, even in Russia just after the revolution?

Another question can be raised: What is the reward for working? If I were a good citizen and worked all my life in a commune, other than simply saying 'you'd feel good,' what would I get? There must be an incentive for people to work otherwise they won't. Helping people motivates some, not all, so how would the majority be coerced into working?

After having worked for 12 years of school and a varying amount of college for a high paying job, how can you tell people "You can't be a [job wanted here], it is not needed for our society any longer. You must be this this and this, even if you enjoy that job." For example: if I worked all that time to become an officer in the army, how could you possibly support that arguement?

As though people always get hired when they apply for a job in capitalism. :roll:

But if government is by your beliefs opressive-which I don't think it is because I am not being crushed underneath it-and it doesn't boot out lazy people, how could you then claim to be non-opressive when you yourself are doing things that are more opressive that the government itself?

The members of the commune have the freedom to choose who they associate with and don't associate with. If someone doesn't pull their weight, there is no reason to force the commune to accept them. The government does kick people out, anyway. Heard of deportation? Happened to anarchist thinker Emma Goldman.

But if you are making this as a means to protect the people, be charitable, etc. etc. how can you then kick someone out of the village? Let's assume I am a lawyer. I've been working in this town my whole life. Your ideals then come into place and, because I don't like the idea of anarchism because I would be out of clients and thus a job I enjoy, and refuse to work in a commune, you kick me out. How is this fair?

You would have everything you need to survive. They would give you land and tools. That's how it worked in the Spanish communes.

But how do you explain the failures of Russia's early communes, just after the Revolution? Millions starved in the streets.

No, those were taken over by the Bolshevics. Heard of Lenin?

Who judges who produces poor products when all state run/communist economies have produced poor products, even in Russia just after the revolution?

This isn't a state-run economy. The people judge whether a product is good.

Another question can be raised: What is the reward for working? If I were a good citizen and worked all my life in a commune, other than simply saying 'you'd feel good,' what would I get? There must be an incentive for people to work otherwise they won't. Helping people motivates some, not all, so how would the majority be coerced into working?

The respect of others. That's ultimately what people seem to want. Why else do they want millions of dollars in stocks?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

As though people always get hired when they apply for a job in capitalism. :roll:
You ignore the arguement, and not all people would work in this.


The members of the commune have the freedom to choose who they associate with and don't associate with. If someone doesn't pull their weight, there is no reason to force the commune to accept them. The government does kick people out, anyway. Heard of deportation? Happened to anarchist thinker Emma Goldman. Which is unfair, wether it is Hitler being deported or Miss Goldman here. But now you are establishing sort of a dictatorship: 'You will work for us in the job we want you for or you will leave and be forced to do something else.' Under capitalism, where most people have jobs in western nations, I get the freedom of choice on what I want to be, assuming I work hard enough to get there.


You would have everything you need to survive. They would give you land and tools. That's how it worked in the Spanish communes. But what about comforts and such? I've worked almost half my life and then you tell me I must work the land, along with those who haven't worked for anything at all?

No, those were taken over by the Bolshevics. Heard of Lenin? Yes, but they still failed. The earliest of the communes (before the Soviets became more opressive) were failures too.


This isn't a state-run economy. The people judge whether a product is good. Well it certainly sounds like one, replace state with 'the people'


The respect of others. That's ultimately what people seem to want. Why else do they want millions of dollars in stocks? What respect does one get for being a slave to a communist type society? I get no free choice in this labor: I do this labor here with people, or I get kicked out and am forced to do it alone. It seems you would amplify the class differances. Now instead of money it's what job someone gets. "Lucky! I wanted to be a supervisor (what ws your word for it?), but I'm stuck on farm duty!"

You can not escape hierarchy in any political ideal. There will always be traits that will make someone better than someone else in the eyes of the rest of us. It doesn't need to be money (the 'cool' kids at school, etc.), but it is naturally occuring and seems to be in all societies from what I understand. We are a part of nature, right? Well how can you complain about parts of our nature (hierarchy, etc.), yet not complain about things in nature? It's colder in Antarctica that Texas. How is that fair? Why don't you argue against that? Why not argue against hierarchies in animal species?

What if I find a commune that offers wages? And I like the fact I can earn a wage. Now lets say this commune decides through friendly communal association that we have determined that the production and training in the finer arts of war are worth pursuing. Through an increase in population and augmentation of our population by luring people of a similar predisposition we decide that our neighboring communes are in the wrong and conquer them.

Such a system only requires a relatively small group of people that will push for such a course. I know I would. I don't want to live on a commune. I don't like the idea of "changing" jobs, I prefer choice and your system is the same old thing; someone else telling me what's good for me.

Edited for double post, my bad.

After seeing numerous criticisms of anarcho-communism, I decided to correct some:

If there is no wealth or poverty, then what would make people work?Work as we know it would be abolished. Workers would no longer sell their ability to work and freedom and would instead do what they enjoyed. People who worked in advertising, government, or the army would now be able to do productive activity.

Won't people waste products without money?There are plenty of examples were they don't. Many people don't use libraries and in school cafeterias, plastic utensils can be taken without charge but aren't wasted. If everything is free, then the thrill of getting something for free will wear off pretty quickly. As a last resort, a particularly lazy or wasteful member can be kicked out.

What about people who don't want to be members?They don't have to be. They can live off a plot of land and tools if they want, though any form of slavery, wage or otherwise, would be opposed. They have the freedom to associate with who they want. It should be noted that the communes do, too, and can kick people out.

Without money, how can we determine what to produce?Communication. The members of the commune would simply say what they needed and the organizations operating the means of production, sometimes known as syndicates, would take it into account.

What about syndicates that produce poor products?They would be denied the materials to make them by other syndicates. They would have a bad reputation, as well.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

purely theoretical.
-----------------------------------------
"Im defintely not stealing Letila`s sig!"
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

What if I find a commune that offers wages? And I like the fact I can earn a wage. Now lets say this commune decides through friendly communal association that we have determined that the production and training in the finer arts of war are worth pursuing. Through an increase in population and augmentation of our population by luring people of a similar predisposition we decide that our neighboring communes are in the wrong and conquer them.


Any commune that would act in such a manner is in fact not a commune but a state.

After seeing numerous criticisms of anarcho-communism, I decided to correct some:

If there is no wealth or poverty, then what would make people work?Work as we know it would be abolished. Workers would no longer sell their ability to work and freedom and would instead do what they enjoyed. People who worked in advertising, government, or the army would now be able to do productive activity.

Won't people waste products without money?There are plenty of examples were they don't. Many people don't use libraries and in school cafeterias, plastic utensils can be taken without charge but aren't wasted. If everything is free, then the thrill of getting something for free will wear off pretty quickly. As a last resort, a particularly lazy or wasteful member can be kicked out.

What about people who don't want to be members?They don't have to be. They can live off a plot of land and tools if they want, though any form of slavery, wage or otherwise, would be opposed. They have the freedom to associate with who they want. It should be noted that the communes do, too, and can kick people out.

Without money, how can we determine what to produce?Communication. The members of the commune would simply say what they needed and the organizations operating the means of production, sometimes known as syndicates, would take it into account.

What about syndicates that produce poor products?They would be denied the materials to make them by other syndicates. They would have a bad reputation, as well.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

purely theoretical.
-----------------------------------------
"Im defintely not stealing Letila`s sig!"
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpgso in other words you agree?

After seeing numerous criticisms of anarcho-communism, I decided to correct some:

If there is no wealth or poverty, then what would make people work?Work as we know it would be abolished. Workers would no longer sell their ability to work and freedom and would instead do what they enjoyed. People who worked in advertising, government, or the army would now be able to do productive activity.

Won't people waste products without money?There are plenty of examples were they don't. Many people don't use libraries and in school cafeterias, plastic utensils can be taken without charge but aren't wasted. If everything is free, then the thrill of getting something for free will wear off pretty quickly. As a last resort, a particularly lazy or wasteful member can be kicked out.

What about people who don't want to be members?They don't have to be. They can live off a plot of land and tools if they want, though any form of slavery, wage or otherwise, would be opposed. They have the freedom to associate with who they want. It should be noted that the communes do, too, and can kick people out.

Without money, how can we determine what to produce?Communication. The members of the commune would simply say what they needed and the organizations operating the means of production, sometimes known as syndicates, would take it into account.

What about syndicates that produce poor products?They would be denied the materials to make them by other syndicates. They would have a bad reputation, as well.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpgI agree that work is oppression and lack of work is a cure for laziness and underwear is a christian attempt at oppression against genital forms of expression

Is this like, a joke thread??? I'm still waiting for the lame punch line...

Is this like, a joke thread??? I'm still waiting for the lame punch line...this isnt a joke--its a REVOLUTION :x
everything starts as an idea

The members of the commune have the freedom to choose who they associate with and don't associate with. If someone doesn't pull their weight, there is no reason to force the commune to accept them.
But this system you're proposing sounds a lot like money -- not currency in the form on metal discs and pieces of paper, but general esteem among the commune. If you work, you get the goods necessary for life, courtesy of the commune. If not, you go 'bankrupt' (no banks in anarcho-communism, I assume) and are ousted from the commune. And banishment sounds like a serious punishment, especially for someone who didn't learn self-sufficincy skills. Why, it would would be such a powerful motivator that people would trade time that they would spend goofing off in exchange for the goodwill of others in the commune (and goods necessary for life). Seems like money to me.

Of course, you could make banishment seem less scary by training everybody as a farmer or hunter-gatherer. But that's voluntary penury.

I was under the impression that anarcho-communism involved actual anarchy. But you make it sound like rehashed Marxism. (Not that they're totally different, I suppose.)

Hang on, Let...you an Anarcho-Communist? Or an Anarcho-Syndicalist?

so... many... flaws.... The main one being gangs already in existence..

Yes, but they still failed. The earliest of the communes (before the Soviets became more opressive) were failures too.

You seem to forget that the russian peasants were starving BEFORE the revolution as well. In fact their poverty then was atrocious and the war was wrecking the russian economy. Anarchism doesn't claim to be able to magically produce plenty for everyone out of destitution, I hardly think an inability to work absolute miracles is an inditement of it as a political system.


Well it certainly sounds like one, replace state with 'the people'

Uhuh. Well, that's the idea of anarchism.

The main one being gangs already in existence.
Gangs that are set up in deprived areas in order to push drugs so the pushers can satisfy their greed and get rich. Peaceful means of even achieveing a decent living standard in the places where gangs exist are pretty much impossible due to the class system so people turn to extortion and illicit trades.

You seem to forget that the russian peasants were starving BEFORE the revolution as well. In fact their poverty then was atrocious and the war was wrecking the russian economy. Anarchism doesn't claim to be able to magically produce plenty for everyone out of destitution, I hardly think an inability to work absolute miracles is an inditement of it as a political system. The revolution didn't help them get out of this either; they produced less food per area of land even after the Revolution. But then again, no political system is perfect, yet this one has more flaws than most.


Uhuh. Well, that's the idea of anarchism. I suppose the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (was it Marx that said that?) applies here.


Gangs that are set up in deprived areas in order to push drugs so the pushers can satisfy their greed and get rich. Peaceful means of even achieveing a decent living standard in the places where gangs exist are pretty much impossible due to the class system so people turn to extortion and illicit trades. Hierarchy will always exist, wether it is Anarchy, Communism, Capitalism, Technocracy, etc. etc. in charge. People will always find something to be better or worse than someone else. The only way to correct this is to ensure everyone is exactly alike in looks, atitude, clothes, etc.

What if I find a commune that offers wages? And I like the fact I can earn a wage. Now lets say this commune decides through friendly communal association that we have determined that the production and training in the finer arts of war are worth pursuing. Through an increase in population and augmentation of our population by luring people of a similar predisposition we decide that our neighboring communes are in the wrong and conquer them.


Any commune that would act in such a manner is in fact not a commune but a state.

That's my point. Sparta functioned as an armed camped where men lived in communes. Do you see what I mean?

How can an anarcho-communist system/commune EVER stand up to a system which rewards hard work and skilled labour? On one side you receive evident reward while on the other you receive "respect", which is not substantial. These communes would have to compete for their very survival, and in all honesty, I think an authoritatian/capitalist system will always win out in the end.

Just a question to Letila; whose works do you base these propositions on? Bakunin? Marx? Nietszche? Mao?

The revolution didn't help them get out of this either; they produced less food per area of land even after the Revolution. But then again, no political system is perfect, yet this one has more flaws than most.
Russia was in a state of constant war from 1914- 1921, these conflicts were extremely damaging to the russian economy, pre and post-revolution. Never heard the term 'war communism'? It was the draining effect of fighting the civil war, coupled with drought, that led to the crisis in production and eventually the NEP.

I suppose the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (was it Marx that said that?) applies here.
What is democracy more than a 'dictatorship of the majority'?

Hierarchy will always exist, wether it is Anarchy, Communism, Capitalism, Technocracy, etc. etc. in charge. People will always find something to be better or worse than someone else. The only way to correct this is to ensure everyone is exactly alike in looks, atitude, clothes, etc.

That doesn't have much to do with the point I was making, but I'll answer. Equality and identicality are seperate and do not depend on each other. One is desirable, the other is not only undesirable but impossible. People are far more complex things than you seem to give them credit for.
The amount of quirks, differences and variations seen within humankind is so great that a general statement that one person is ever simply better than another is impossible and ignorant.

Russia was in a state of constant war from 1914- 1921, these conflicts were extremely damaging to the russian economy, pre and post-revolution. Never heard the term 'war communism'? It was the draining effect of fighting the civil war, coupled with drought, that led to the crisis in production and eventually the NEP. Yet even after the war, the collective farms never produced more food than the capitalist equivelants, poverty remained, even with the communist economy still in place (although other communist elements were wiped out)


What is democracy more than a 'dictatorship of the majority'? Problem here is, many democracies have actions in place to limit the power of government so that there can not be dictatorship; you can't just export me because I am lazy, or disagree, or whatever.


That doesn't have much to do with the point I was making, but I'll answer. Equality and identicality are seperate and do not depend on each other. One is desirable, the other is not only undesirable but impossible. People are far more complex things than you seem to give them credit for.
The amount of quirks, differences and variations seen within humankind is so great that a general statement that one person is ever simply better than another is impossible and ignorant. I never said that people were better than one another, but I said that there will always be a way to see someone as greater or lesser than yourself. For example, if there was no money to make someone seem better, it would be the amount of work you could do. People would feel better than others because they could work harder, they played games better, or they were cooler. Go into any highschool and you will see a hierarchy. The cool people at the top and uncool at the bottom. Society would divide like this in anarchy because there is no money to make one's self higher, so those who have 'cooler' attitudes would probably be considered better.

How can an anarcho-communist system/commune EVER stand up to a system which rewards hard work and skilled labour? On one side you receive evident reward while on the other you receive "respect", which is not substantial. These communes would have to compete for their very survival, and in all honesty, I think an authoritatian/capitalist system will always win out in the end.

one problem - those that work the hardest and whose skills are absolutely required to maintain the economy are also the least rewarded and most exploited group in the capitalist system.

the wealth divides in capitalist society are such that the wealthiest 1% owns around 40% of the total wealth, and the top 20% owns around 85% of it. which means that in a system with an equitable distribution of the wealth, the vast majority of people would be much better off. so respect by itself may be little, but respect and equality are all the reward we need to offer.

Is this like, a joke thread??? I'm still waiting for the lame punch line...this isnt a joke--its a REVOLUTION :x
everything starts as an idea

everything? including...JOKES?!

sorry pal, but if you say something and the room starts laughing then it was a joke, whether or not you were trying to be funny. myself, i am laughing my ass off because i can rest assured that this "revolution" won't amount to a hill of beans, but it will keep all the middle class suburban activists busy and out of my hair while i get educated, rich, and successful.

one problem - those that work the hardest and whose skills are absolutely required to maintain the economy are also the least rewarded and most exploited group in the capitalist system. But those people are people that you can grab anywhere. Anyone can do hard labor, but for things such as computer programming where you earn more, not everyone can do those.

But those people are people that you can grab anywhere. Anyone can do hard labor, but for things such as computer programming where you earn more, not everyone can do those.

maybe so, but without them you live in a cardboard shack and empty your garbage into the ditch that also contains your drinking water while you sit around starving to death.

Yet even after the war, the collective farms never produced more food than the capitalist equivelants, poverty remained, even with the communist economy still in place (although other communist elements were wiped out)
After the war there were still dire natural problems in the way of industry. That is beside the point, however, as by that time the USSR was becoming, or had already become an exploitative state-capitalist power. Thus the period when these communes could be used as an example of anarchocommunism had ended. They never had a chance, really.

Problem here is, many democracies have actions in place to limit the power of government so that there can not be dictatorship; you can't just export me because I am lazy, or disagree, or whatever.
Nothing limits the power of government more than anarchy. If it is limiting the power of the majority you are talking about, then that's a step towards authoritarianism. The government in a democracy retains the right to encarcerate people for crimes. Banishing someone for laziness is just the same as punishing someone for a crime. And a crime it is, seeing as this person's laziness hurts the entire commune.

I never said that people were better than one another, but I said that there will always be a way to see someone as greater or lesser than yourself. For example, if there was no money to make someone seem better, it would be the amount of work you could do. People would feel better than others because they could work harder, they played games better, or they were cooler. Go into any highschool and you will see a hierarchy. The cool people at the top and uncool at the bottom. Society would divide like this in anarchy because there is no money to make one's self higher, so those who have 'cooler' attitudes would probably be considered better.

Well, you seem yourself to realise than no one person is generally better. Why do you believe that other people can't?
A hierarchical society laden with status symbols, advertising and social climbing such as ours, is obviously going to condition people to look for ways in which they are better than their neighbours.
You call it 'coolness', Letila calls it 'respect' but it's the same thing really.

But those people are people that you can grab anywhere. Anyone can do hard labor, but for things such as computer programming where you earn more, not everyone can do those.

maybe so, but without them you live in a cardboard shack and empty your garbage into the ditch that also contains your drinking water while you sit around starving to death.
um, no, if all those laborers vanished then the rest of us would do their jobs because it doesn't take any skill and would need to be done. if all the computer programmers vanished then the laborers would be screwed because they would be unable to fill the roles of those who left, and the economy (and therefore their own livelihoods) would suffer.

that's the point. unskilled labor can be done by anybody, so if unskilled laborers vanished others could easily step in to do what is necessary. skilled labor is not anywhere near as easy to replace, and therefore people who take the time to acquire skills are at a premium while those who don't are less "valuable" in terms of their abilities.

"We're an Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of Executive officer for the week, but every decision made has to be ratified in a bi-weekly meeting..."
(note: the above quote was actually paraphrased)
May the fuzzy bunny be with you all, especially Dennis the Peasant 8)
(\ _ /)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Go into any highschool and you will see a hierarchy. The cool people at the top and uncool at the bottom. Society would divide like this in anarchy because there is no money to make one's self higher, so those who have 'cooler' attitudes would probably be considered better.

actually, if you look at high school status groups, what you see is largely a reflection of the existing class structure of the community. what exactly makes the 'cool' or 'popular' kids cool or popular? they aren't popular in the standard sense of the word, because while they are all friends with each other a closer look tends to show that they don't even necessarily like any of their 'friends'. they are friends by virture of being the 'cool' kids. and they usually don't have friends that are non-'cool' kids (or if they do, it is a relatively small number that is mostly kept seperate from the 'cool' kid friends).

but what is it to be cool? what identifies the 'cool' kids to each other and to the rest of the school has little, if anything, to do with personality. it has a lot to do with fashion. specifically a large selection of 'cool' (read 'expensive') clothes/shoes/etc that keeps up with frequent arbitrary style changes. and that is really just serving as a stand-in reading of your parents' economic class - your parent's have to have x level of wealth to be able to afford to buy you all this crap. the 'cool' kids are 'cool' because their parents can buy them expensive clothes, which act as a signal of class standing. they are popular because the non-'cool' kids want to be 'cool' kids - which is just basic class envy.

there are a few exceptions to this. there is a bit of room for poor kids who are good at sports to earn their place as 'cool' kids, though they still will have to somehow get in line with the cool kid dress code. and there is also a tiny of room for what i guess we could call 'actually cool kids' - certain punk rock kids sometimes fall here. they will rarely ever really be fully integrated into the 'cool' kid group, but they will be allowed to date the 'cool' kid women. i don't know if i ever saw a 'cool' kid guy date outside the group though.

(haha, damn, i feel like i should write a book about this. i'll call it "coming of age in america - an anthropology of high school")

How would education be handled?
Would low-level schooling be mandatory?
What about professional training, such as what is now med school?
Does learning count as working, or do you starve while you're in school?
Not making an argument (yet) just asking how it would even work

but what is it to be cool? what identifies the 'cool' kids to each other and to the rest of the school has little, if anything, to do with personality. it has a lot to do with fashion. specifically a large selection of 'cool' (read 'expensive') clothes/shoes/etc that keeps up with frequent arbitrary style changes. and that is really just serving as a stand-in reading of your parents' economic class - your parent's have to have x level of wealth to be able to afford to buy you all this crap. the 'cool' kids are 'cool' because their parents can buy them expensive clothes, which act as a signal of class standing. they are popular because the non-'cool' kids want to be 'cool' kids - which is just basic class envy.

there are a few exceptions to this. there is a bit of room for poor kids who are good at sports to earn their place as 'cool' kids, though they still will have to somehow get in line with the cool kid dress code. and there is also a tiny of room for what i guess we could call 'actually cool kids' - certain punk rock kids sometimes fall here. they will rarely ever really be fully integrated into the 'cool' kid group, but they will be allowed to date the 'cool' kid women. i don't know if i ever saw a 'cool' kid guy date outside the group though.

(haha, damn, i feel like i should write a book about this. i'll call it "coming of age in america - an anthropology of high school")
Though it may not be the norm, that's certainly not how it happened in my school. Sure, most of the popular kids wore brand name clothing, but I doubt more than 10% could comfortably afford it. Some of the most popular kids at our school lived nearly in poverty, but hey- as long as you're popular! At the same time, myself, and the other kids who were the most well-off were never fully integrated into the popular clique (ok, well I was never at all integrated because I hated them- although individually they would talk to me, mostly about how their friends were so shallow and stuff) Almost all of the "rich" kids at our school were the most well-rounded, with two exceptions I can think of.
Truthfully, I can't figure out what it is that all the "cool kids" had in common except a desire to be popular...I never got it...

unskilled labor can be done by anybody, so if unskilled laborers vanished others could easily step in to do what is necessary. skilled labor is not anywhere near as easy to replace, and therefore people who take the time to acquire skills are at a premium while those who don't are less "valuable" in terms of their abilities.

You are right, people undertaking skilled work are valued more however that value is not expressed in monetary terms. Just because you are lucky enough to be born smart and know lots about how to fix or build things that other people cant does not mean that you deserve more food than them. This is the meaning of equality.