NationStates Jolt Archive

You decide.

Anarcho-Communism. Simple.

Anarchism is a wide spectrum: at one extreme you have the economic rightists that are anarcho-capitalists (*spit*), at the other you have the economic leftists that are anarcho-communists. Thus comparing 'anarchism' as a single entity to communism is like asking 'which is more leftist: communism or authoritarianism?'. Apples and oranges.

Communism is as far left as you can go, if you take the central tenet of "leftism" to be state control of industry and redistribution of wealth.

Anarchism is a lawless kind of capitalism, private property exists as long as you're strong enough to kill anyone who steals it. So in a sense anarchy leans to the right.

How the hell is anarcho-communism supposed to work? Communism is about state ownership, anarchism implies no state/rulers/interference. God damn I hate all the "anarcho-" isms. PICK A REAL IDEALOGY WILL YOU.

Anarchy is a real ideology. It just tends to degrade into despotisms rather quickly, due to the strong surviving and all.

:confused: :sniper:

How the hell is anarcho-communism supposed to work? Communism is about state ownership, anarchism implies no state/rulers/interference. God damn I hate all the "anarcho-" isms. PICK A REAL IDEALOGY WILL YOU.
Wow. You're even stupider than I thought. You don't know the first thing about politics do you?

Wow. You're even stupider than I thought. You don't know the first thing about politics do you?

Wow. You're so right! I DONT know the first thing about politics, plus I'm stupid. Your penis is large. Very large. I am awed by the size of your penis; awed, frightened and ashamed. I'd argue with you, but your penis is just so intimidating I literally have nothing further to say.

How the hell is anarcho-communism supposed to work? Communism is about state ownership, anarchism implies no state/rulers/interference. God damn I hate all the "anarcho-" isms. PICK A REAL IDEALOGY WILL YOU.

*sigh*

Look, here's a short intro. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

And here, do some reading on this fellow, while he does have some vices like anti-semitism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

Wow. You're so right! I DONT know the first thing about politics, plus I'm stupid. Your penis is large. Very large. I am awed by the size of your penis; awed, frightened and ashamed. I'd argue with you, but your penis is just so intimidating I literally have nothing further to say.

WTF?

And to what you said, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism)

Edit: Damn, beaten to it by 2 minutes... stupid internet.

Edit: Damn, beaten to it by 2 minutes... stupid internet.

Hehe :) Well, you can keep it up, 'cause i'm going to bed.

Wow. You're so right! I DONT know the first thing about politics, plus I'm stupid. Your penis is large. Very large. I am awed by the size of your penis; awed, frightened and ashamed. I'd argue with you, but your penis is just so intimidating I literally have nothing further to say.

He has a point. Communism is about collective ownership, not state ownership.
Sheesh, read up before you try and debate something.

Ya know, I hate when people throw wiki articles at me like I'm an idiot.

I asked a question, and the question was not "where could I find an article attempting to define anarcho-communism." How is it supposed to WORK?

The article clearly defines what an anarcho-communist society IS, but I am asking how you get to that mythical reality where everyone accepts the gift economy, profit no longer motivates anybody, all workers are self-managed, etc.

Anarcho-communism seems like a fancy word for the economic systems of pre-state societies. Unfortunately, we don't live in pre-state societies where gift economies (and egalitarianism) works as a form of government. How does anarcho-communism work then? How to get from here - massive industrialized global societies - to there - small self sufficient disorganized independent communities that have a universal dislike of capitalism and government?

You don't. Anarcho-communism has as much worth as a political idealogy as advocating Ancient Egyptian Theocracy. Sure, you may be really keen on it, but...

He has a point. Communism is about collective ownership, not state ownership.
Sheesh, read up before you try and debate something.

:p

I hope that was a joke since he just said I was stupid, and not actually debated or made a point.

:p

I hope that was a joke since he just said I was stupid, and not actually debated or made a point.

Communism = no state.
Kinda hard to have state-ownership when there is no state.
You're confusing Communism with Socialism.

Communism = no state.
Kinda hard to have state-ownership when there is no state.
You're confusing Communism with Socialism.

Communism in practice = state.

Any way, that doesnt have anything to do with the guy who flamed me. HIS point was: Santa Barbara = stupid. Is that your point too, Moderator?

Communism in practice = state.

Any way, that doesnt have anything to do with the guy who flamed me. HIS point was: Santa Barbara = stupid. Is that your point too, Moderator?

No, my point was that your statement appeared to show that you hadn't read up on the differences between statist Socialism and Communism/Anarcho-Communism.

No, my point was that your statement appeared to show that you hadn't read up on the differences between statist Socialism and Communism/Anarcho-Communism.

Nah, I intentionally lump them in the same group is all. Whether Ive read up on them or not however, does not make me stupid.

Communism is furthest left. Because everything is forced shared.

Anarchy, well.. it's kinda everywhere. You can give or you don't want to.

Nah, I intentionally lump them in the same group is all. Whether Ive read up on them or not however, does not make me stupid.

no, just ignorant. you see, your crazy friend never heard of the 'political compass'. just ask this political scientician.

Bump

You decide.

Well considering a self righteous person decided to place the label of left and right to a self righteous political system... how do we know that they are not both far right as well.. Only the label (name changes).... All the same... just different letters in the words

Interesting thread, i just finished a sci-fi novel a few days ago where there was a lot of talk about 'anarchy' 'communism' and 'anarcho-communism'. Interestingly, at the end of the novel we're introduced to two completely different 'anarcho-communist' societies; both have no government but one is a survival-of-the-fittest-but-we-help-each-other-out-anyway; and the other was a (much larger) society where all material needs had been eliminated by technology; people still technically lived in a state of nature (in the communities sense that there is no government etc) but some organisation still existed, formed for mutual benefit, such as a group which defends the Solar System from possible attack.

The way i see it, Anarchy and Communism are not by any means mutually exclusive, as some people would like to imply. They both, for example, require an absence of state and government of any kind. I could go into a little more detail, but i think it's enough to say that they both go against general human nature, and therefore would never really work, seperately or together.

As for which is more 'leftist', i think it has to be communism, as that at least by definition requires some cooperation 'for the greater good' (eg you dont have to do EVERYTHING by yourself to survive).

Communism in practice = state.

Communism in practice = unknown, since it has never happened. The original idea behind the socialism that occurred in the Soviet Union and other "communist" states was to bring about communism, something that never actually happened because of leaders like Mao, Stalin, etc.

Well considering a self righteous person decided to place the label of left and right to a self righteous political system... how do we know that they are not both far right as well.. Only the label (name changes).... All the same... just different letters in the words

Actually the left/right political idea came from the old french "parliament" the Estates-General/National Assembly, which was organized so that the more liberal members were on the left-wing of the hall and the more conservative members were on the right-wing of the hall. Hence the terms, left, right, left-wing, and right-wing.

Interesting thread, i just finished a sci-fi novel a few days ago where there was a lot of talk about 'anarchy' 'communism' and 'anarcho-communism'.

which novel?

which novel?

Sounds like a somewhat scrambled The Dispossessed to me.

which novel?

'The Stone Canal' by Ken MaCleod (sp?); it's the second of 4 connected books in the 'Fall Revolution' collection.

this author has a serious thing about socialist theories in particular. I've read 6 of his (i think 8) books and i'm reading a 7th now, and all of them have involved either socialism, or a character obsessed with socialism or anarchism. He promised that he wouldnt do that anymore before his last book came out but apparently it's just as 'bad' :) (not read it).

Communism in practice = unknown, since it has never happened. The original idea behind the socialism that occurred in the Soviet Union and other "communist" states was to bring about communism, something that never actually happened because of leaders like Mao, Stalin, etc.

Right. They tried to 'bring about communism' and the practice of doing so fell short of the mark.

Some say its because of certain individuals, and probably 'poor implementation' - I say its because of individuality, and a flawed objective.

'The Stone Canal' by Ken MaCleod (sp?).

Ah, that makes sense.

Actually the left/right political idea came from the old french "parliament" the Estates-General/National Assembly, which was organized so that the more liberal members were on the left-wing of the hall and the more conservative members were on the right-wing of the hall. Hence the terms, left, right, left-wing, and right-wing.

Exactly my point! '-)

Communism is about state ownership,
Wrong. It isn't.

The goal of Marxist communism is a relief of the state from the people after socialism, thus granting complete freedom to the people.

You children of the Cold War seem to have problems recognising the differences between socialism and communism. Socialism (at least in the case of the Soviet Union) is simply a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Just in case you can't figure it out:

Capitalism (control by businesses) -> Socialism (control by the state in order for a redistribution of wealth) -> Communism (a stateless society where all are completely free and equal)

Make sure you stop spouting Cold War-era bullshit and actually take the initiative and read Lenin, Marx, Mao, etcetera.

Right. They tried to 'bring about communism' and the practice of doing so fell short of the mark.

Some say its because of certain individuals, and probably 'poor implementation' - I say its because of individuality, and a flawed objective.

I think you're partially right. The problem with the most well-known 'communist' states of history was that they didnt really attempt communism at all. The Bolsheviks in Russia were (despite their name which means 'majority') a minority faction of the communist party which grew impatient for revolution in Russia, and so moved too soon. Marxist theory, I believe, requires several phases of history; one of which involves a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which is what Lenin hoped to achieve. Anyway, knowing that Communism as Marx defined it required an industrialised society, Russia embarked on a programme of industrial expansion, for which it needed a strong centralised government.

You're right to say it failed because of individuality - the individuality of certain people who managed to rise to the stop, most notably Stalin himself. To this day, Communisn in the true Marxist sense has never been attempted on a large scale, and I dont think it ever will be, at least not for a long time. Marx hoped for Communist society to be the end-point of all history... moving from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. Nowhere has got further than socialism, to my knowledge.

A lot of this is probably incorrect. My sincere apologies if so.

I see someone else made the point about capitalism, socialism and communism just before I finished my post :)

Communism and socialism are mainly economic systems. Communism is also anarchist, but it is primarily an economic concept. Socialism is a catch-all term for numerous economic systems and can exist with or without a state. Anarchy is a political system, though.

How the hell is anarcho-communism supposed to work? Communism is about state ownership, anarchism implies no state/rulers/interference. God damn I hate all the "anarcho-" isms. PICK A REAL IDEALOGY WILL YOU.
You always seem so angry in your posts...there's help for that you know ;) .

Right. They tried to 'bring about communism' and the practice of doing so fell short of the mark.

Some say its because of certain individuals, and probably 'poor implementation' - I say its because of individuality, and a flawed objective.

Whatever your stance on the feasibility of communism (I believe that it might be possible because I think humans may be able to go beyond their basic biological instincts), it is obvious that certain individuals brought about the failure of these states, namely those men in power. It is for this reason that many people who believe in the feasibility of communism are also anarchists; because the nature of power is that it corrupts, or if you listen to some, those who seek power are easily corruptible.

If you would have a look at Marx:
first was capitalism, followed by socialism, followed by communism, followed by anarchy.
ergo: anarchy is the leftist!

If you would have a look at Marx:
first was capitalism, followed by socialism, followed by communism, followed by anarchy.
ergo: anarchy is the leftist!

Actually, the communism that Marx was talking about was anarchist. He believed that after socialism, government would dissolve and the resulting society would be communism.

'The Stone Canal' by Ken MaCleod (sp?); it's the second of 4 connected books in the 'Fall Revolution' collection.

ah, yes. good book. i suspected it was going to be one of his. ken's an interesting guy. apparently what happens when you take a trot and mix in a dash of american libertarianism is that you wind up with something very much like an anarchist.

Anarchism is a lawless kind of capitalism, private property exists as long as you're strong enough to kill anyone who steals it. So in a sense anarchy leans to the right.Actually, this kind of ignores the interpersonal relationships that occur between people naturally. An anarchy would, theoreticaly, be sustainable if there were nearly unanimous agreement that official government is a serious negative, and those who attemped to erect a system of government beyond informal, consensual agreements would be mobbed and disbanded by a group of concerned citizens, probably being labelled by most as an evil cult. One's property would be defended by members of one's community. I'm not entirely certain whether or not an anarchy is capable of working, but I don't think that it is likely that even a model anarchy would be favorable under realistic conditions.

Oh, you know what I love? A bunch of ad hominems from angry liberals thumping their failed economic idealogies.

Wrong. It isn't.


Oh NO! I failed to precisely define communism as accurately as you'd like! I'm so very very sorry. Let me try to make it up for you, since I see this has hurt you a lot and forced you to make your post, which, of course, tells me how wrong I am to mistakenly confuse communism with communism.

Communism is about state ownership in that you require a phase of state ownership in order to bring about your lovely totalitarian communal paradise. Communism's implementation both in practice and apparently in theory necessitates state ownership. Therefore, I have taken the liberty to assume that communism is to an extent "about" state ownership.

Better? Good.


You children of the Cold War seem to have problems recognising the differences between socialism and communism.

...children of the Cold War? What are you, the father of it? Do you predate the Cold War? Or do you just like sounding like a condescending asshole?


Make sure you stop spouting Cold War-era bullshit and actually take the initiative and read Lenin, Marx, Mao, etcetera.

Meaningless ad hominem ending with a free advertisement for your pro-totalitarianism writers. No thanks. Hey, also, stop spouting Russian Revolution era bullshit (bourgeoise, Marxism etcetc). Thanks!


You always seem so angry in your posts...there's help for that you know .

You shouldn't read so much into text. Not that thats what you're doing. You've ran out of intelligent things and can only comment on my personality at this point in a vain hope of making me "look bad." Since apparently how I "look" on this fucking forum matters to anyone but you.

Anyway. I'm not a "herself" either. What was it, the "Barbara?" Again you shouldn't read so much into text. It makes an ass out of u and me.

Whatever your stance on the feasibility of communism (I believe that it might be possible because I think humans may be able to go beyond their basic biological instincts), it is obvious that certain individuals brought about the failure of these states, namely those men in power.

So you are saying that they were totally unique and that without the seemingly random intervention by those particular individuals, communist states would or could have succeeded?

ah, yes. good book. i suspected it was going to be one of his. ken's an interesting guy. apparently what happens when you take a trot and mix in a dash of american libertarianism is that you wind up with something very much like an anarchist.

Yeah. I must apologise though - my earlier post about anarchic societies was slightly misleading. On further investigation, one is anarcho-capitalist, where people are free to do as they please and can own what they want, as long as they have the power to keep it, which leads to the formation of defense companies and courts as totally independant bodies; the other (larger) is anarcho-Communist, where everyone owns both everything (the entire universe) and nothing at the same time, and can do what they 'think they can get away with' :)

Please to find someone else who's read it :) Incidentally, I bought it on the same day I bought Jennifer Government which I read first... ;)

Anarchy

Am I the only one who sees communism as a right-wing concept? The economic problems of communism don't begin to compare to the authoritarian big brother mentality. John Ashcroft for dictator of Cuba '08

On authoritarianism: "Have they ever seen a revolution? There is nothing more authoritarian. It is one group of men [sic] imposing their will on another by force of arms."-Frederick Engels

This was part of his critique of anarchists ... who opposed the "authoritarianism" of the communist movement. If by 'left' you mean 'radically opposed to the family, private property, the state, and organized religion,' the anarchists are definitely to the left of communists, but this is not to their credit. Communists are willing to use these authoritarian organs of class society against it, as dictated by the science of revolution ... anarchists are afraid to get their hands dirty, and are ironically more likely to get into opportunism when they realize that practicality requires some kinds of compromise of their ideals.

Communist leaders like Lenin (who had two choices, to lead the revolution or to betray it) and Castro use the state as a tool, to defend the conquests of the workers' movement against the power of world imperialism until such a time when the working class is able to take power worldwide and establish what anarchists and communists alike aim for ... a classless, stateless society.

Leaders like Stalin and Mao made the state an end in itself, instead of an organ of class power. However, the problem is not that Stalin is a rotten person; nor is it a problem inherent in the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in fact, capitalist countries have been taken over by bureaucratic regimes many times--setting the model for Stalin et al.). The problem is that the world revolution in his time was weak, which required the creation of a huge bureaucracy for defensive purposes ... a bureaucracy which eventually was able to seize control of a hitherto democratic state. The 14-nation invasion of the Soviet Union (led by Japan) in 1918, the Civil War financed by the imperialist powers, and the total blockade on the Soviet Union helped Stalin rise to power, as did the unprincipled support of liberals and anarchists. The regime in the USSR itself helped establish and maintain other Stalinist regimes in power in China, etc.

Today, Stalinism's hour seems to have passed. The dictatorships in the Warsaw Pact nations and Yugoslavia are crumbling (although Putin is still the political successor of Yeltsin, Gorbachev, etc. ... back to Stalin). No influential party in the industrialized world today takes its political line from Moscow or Beijing. China and Vietnam still have potential to cause a lot of trouble, but eventually they are headed for the same sort of collapse as the USSR. And Cuba has maintained a revolutionary communist government for decades.