Homage to Catalonia

[Anonymous No.7193360]

Who /anarcho-com/ here? Do you think we'll ever see progress in society towards what Revolutionary Spain strived for?

[Anonymous No.7193368]

I would join the Zapatistas if I wasn't too chicken shit to die.

[Anonymous No.7193372]

>anarcho-communism

Full retard.

The only form of anarchism worth pursuing is individualist anarchism.

I did enjoy Homage to Catalonia though,

[Anonymous No.7193396]

>>7193372
You have literally made no argument and amounted to saying nothing.
>Free Market anarchy
Guess what happens when you capitalism exists in an anarchy? You get a state.

[Anonymous No.7193465]

>>7193396
Anarcho-Capitalism is a bad joke and a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.7193485]

>>7193396
Individualist Anarchism has nothing to do
with Anarcho-Capitalism

[Anonymous No.7193487]

>>7193360
>>7193372
anarcho-communism is literally the worst ideology out there. in fact any form of anarchism is moronic.

[Anonymous No.7193531]

>>7193487
Yet you give no reasons. Thanks for the discussion.

[Anonymous No.7193543]

>>7193396
>Free Market
>a state

Spooks tbh fam.

[Anonymous No.7193546]

>>7193485
Individualist Anarchism would turn into a authotarian Republic/Monarchy quite quickly

[Anonymous No.7193553]

>>7193360
But anon, they weren't anarchists.

[Anonymous No.7193560]

I read this recently. It was really informative. I'll probably get vol. 2 sometime soon.

[Anonymous No.7193564]

>>7193465
>letting people have property and engage in trade and engaging in a voluntary society
>bad joke

Wut

[Anonymous No.7193579]

>>7193546
I don't think you understand individualist anarchism.

Then again, since you're an anarcho-communist you're most likely underage so it's understandable.

[Anonymous No.7193592]

>>7193564
we're already engaging in trade in a voluntary society. If you think the state doesn't exist in the best interest of dominant property owners, I feel bad for you.

[Anonymous No.7193597]

What's anarchist communism? I thought the implosion of capitalism would bring with it the implosion of the state.

Isn't "true" communism anarchist in nature? Unless you believe those Leninist/Stalinist abominations are to be admired...

[Anonymous No.7193602]

>>7193564
Money creates haves and have-nots, a class society. A rich man, no matter how un-authoritarian he thinks he is, is the boss man and the new king/state.

A society that's mature enough to uphold anarchism will have no need for shiny metals, ornate paper or electronic blips to move goods and provide services.

Black and yellow is a dead end

[Anonymous No.7193615]

>>7193597
I don't admire Lenin or Stalin. I don't know why you would think that. True communism is anarchist, but I just want to make that distinction for those who would confuse me as a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Castro-sympathizer.

[Anonymous No.7193619]

>>7193602
You literally don't know how people are economics work do you.

[Anonymous No.7193623]

>>7193619
*or

[Anonymous No.7193627]

I'm glad that there is a picture of a book in this thread, it really makes it lit.

[Anonymous No.7193633]

>>7193546
I suppose you know this from your extensive study of extant individualist anarchist societies

[Anonymous No.7193637]

>>7193619
Economics works to an authoritarian, hierarchical end. Tyranny of authority is a necessary outcome of wealth.
See: the world around you

[Anonymous No.7193642]

>>7193637
My god, you really are underage aren't you?

[Anonymous No.7193643]

>>7193564
Besides an anarcho-capitalist society would require a population completely loyal to its principles. What happens if someone decides to jump over the nonagression principle and take what they want by force or deceit? Does this not seem like

Capitalism as we know it is a product of state structures and their monopoly on force. Without the state to enforce them, stocks, shares and contracts are simply gentleman's agreements. Without the state, capitalism would probably degenerate into a pseudo-feudal system based on security and military power.

[Anonymous No.7193655]

>>7193642
Not the guy you're replying to, but spouting memes doesn't make you a grownup.

[Anonymous No.7193664]

>>7193642
You're not representing your corner very well. my child. Read further >>7193643

Again, why would we need cash when we're big enough to not degenerate into a semi-feudal system? The anarchist future that *could* develop would do away with the spook of value in chips before the organizers position.

[Anonymous No.7193688]

>>7193642
I have a degree in economics.
Admittedly it's a minor, but I am actually qualified to talk about this.

[Anonymous No.7193699]

>>7193688
And yet you don't know jack.

[Anonymous No.7193712]

>>7193699
Dude you're on a roll today. You're arguments are so clear and concise. You definitely don't use ad hominem at all.

[Anonymous No.7193724]

>>7193699
In this discussion, I've posted much more than you have. If you don't agree, feel free to construct an opposing argument, I'd love to be enlightened on the subject, if you believe I know so little. Or just keep memeing and posting adhoms.

[Anonymous No.7193808]

>>7193664
You cannot get rid of currency. We need currency because it creates an ease of use in trade. Are you going to relate everything to bater? What of larger resources and transactions? See the thing you are missing out on is that, economics is the allocation of scarce resources. This requires economic calculation that the system you propose, simply cannot provide.

[Anonymous No.7193829]

posting some pretty top kek comics

[Anonymous No.7193836]

[Anonymous No.7193841]

>>7193808
Please read "Post-Scarcity Anarchism".

[Anonymous No.7193842]

[Anonymous No.7193846]

[Anonymous No.7193849]

>>7193808
currency is also a product of the state btw.

[Anonymous No.7193853]

[Anonymous No.7193854]

>>7193842
>>7193836
>>7193829
These are funny to me and I consider myself an anarchist. Not saying you're trying to trigger anarchists, by the way.

[Anonymous No.7193857]

>>7193829
>>7193836
>>7193842
>>7193846
these are great

[Anonymous No.7193859]

[Anonymous No.7193864]

[Anonymous No.7193868]

[Anonymous No.7193875]

das all mayne

[Anonymous No.7193902]

>>7193853
kek

[Anonymous No.7193932]

Anarchism is the worse ideology ever thought of, advocating the anarchic condition to a political scale is disastrous, anarchist lack analytical imagination, there ideology would kill more than Mao.

[Anonymous No.7193937]

>>7193360
>>7193037

[Anonymous No.7193950]

>>7193875
>victim-doubting

I'm afraid to google this in case it's as retarded as it sounds.

[Anonymous No.7193975]

>>7193360
Spaniard here. I don't think the middle of the war is was the best time to start the revolution (especially if you're losing it)

[Anonymous No.7193982]

>tow the gommies come in and ruin everything

feel bad man

[Anonymous No.7194156]

>>7193854
Why? It's just spooked by sjws and illegalism the cartoon

[Anonymous No.7194229]

>>7193360
God OP you're such a faggot.

[Anonymous No.7194232]

>>7194229
Why am i a faggot?

[Anonymous No.7194292]

We already live in anarchy you fool. The government doesn't exist. There's no magical barrier that stops you from breaking the law. All that will happen is that people with guns will show up and throw you in a cage. Ideas like "An-com" "an-cap" and so forth are fairy tales, and so is nationalsim and the like. If you want to believe in something, believe systems rather than ideologies. I often get called an an-cap, but I'm not. Nothing of the sort. I simply believe in a free maket in currency and an adherence to the idea of non-initiation of force will lead to a better world. A better world than communism, the idea that we should replace money with exchange of labor, can provide.

[Anonymous No.7194313]

>>7194232
>basic your political beliefs on a single book

that's why.

[Anonymous No.7194321]

>>7193396
>Guess what happens when an anarchy exists?

[Anonymous No.7194326]

>>7194292
hahahahah this place is a comedy goldmine

[Anonymous No.7194331]

>>7193932
>there ideology would kill more than Mao.
How would it possibly do that?

[Anonymous No.7194341]

>>7194331
Starvation mostly, though I imagine fighting over food would contribute a lot.

[Anonymous No.7194344]

>>7194326

If the truth is funny then so be it. I'd argue you can't even be an anarchist if you believe states exist in the first place. Its like being an atheist while fighting against "God".

[Anonymous No.7194359]

>>7194292

[Anonymous No.7194361]

>>7193841
>It'll work once we alter one of the fundamental constants of reality!
Seriously?

[Anonymous No.7194369]

>>7193360
>Who /anarcho-com/ here?
Lolbertarian here. I have a question about what "anarcho communism" is.

So I guess this is anarchism with the means of production owned by the people in cooperatives, yes? But how the fuck do you enforce this "rule" that private property does not exist if you do not have a centralized government?

Are you actually moronic enough to believe that people will spontaneously forget their ingrained egoism and magically assemble in communes?

[Anonymous No.7194375]

>>7194341
Which didn't happen in the Free Territory in Ukraine which was one of the largest anarchist experiments in the world involving seven million people.

[Anonymous No.7194381]

>>7194375
While GP was talking about the condition of anarchy, probably talking about a mere lack of government rather than anarchic self-rule, the Black Flag Army was unable to defend themselves against the Soviets. The result of that was, ironically, mass starvation.

[Anonymous No.7194382]

>>7194375
>Which didn't happen in the Free Territory in Ukraine
It's absurd to judge the success of a governmental system on such a short time span.

If you looked at Nazi Germany during 1933 to 1936 you'd think "oh wow it's the best system ever".

And this is without mentioning the thousands of enemies of the people who were ruthlessly massacred under Makhno's rule.

[Anonymous No.7194386]

>>7194369
>workers own the means of production
>ownership no longer exists
>production no longer exists
I dunno man, seems logical to me.

[Anonymous No.7194391]

>>7194313
But i don't just because my post has a book doesn't mean it is the only influence.

[Anonymous No.7194396]

>>7194381
Not him, but I'd guess that depends on how you define whose fault it was.

Communism is responsible for famines because redistributing land directly caused the famine. But is it really the fault of Anarchism if Makhno lacked the resources and manpower (or just sucked) and ultimately lost, thereby leading to the Soviets starving everyone?

>>7194369
Some Commies think people will develop telepathy after Dear Leader expunges language from people as language is an artificial construct imposed by the Bourgeoisie, thereby turning humanity into one giant ant colony.

[Anonymous No.7194397]

>>7194386
>production no longer exists
What? So we're all cavemen?

>ownership no longer exists
My question being, what prevents someone from FORCING owernship.

Ownership is natural, otherwise the concept of ownership would've never arisen.

[Anonymous No.7194400]

>>7194369
Ingrained egoism is not true. We are not naturally capitalists. Please refrain from the appeal to nature when this is not fact. Understanding that the community provides the greatest option for living why wouldn't most join? You're acting like people haven't joined in on communes in the past.

[Anonymous No.7194406]

>>7194400
>Ingrained egoism is not true
Prove it.

>Understanding that the community provides the greatest option for living why wouldn't most join?
By community I assume you mean commune. Communes are notoriously inefficient and prone to disaster : refer to the utopian communes set up in Indiana in the mid 1850s.

Communes are only successful when they implicate a handful of nuts. Show me a large scale commune system and I'll stand corrected.

[Anonymous No.7194409]

>>7194400
>We are not naturally capitalists
Even spiders weigh decisions in order to provide themselves maximum benefit m8. The "People are naturally Soviets, they've just been brainwashed" meme is Soviet propaganda.

[Anonymous No.7194412]

>>7194397
How would an individual FORCE himself to own a factory?

[Anonymous No.7194423]

>>7194406
>>7194409
Altruistic traits in biology are favored when they favor community gains. Richard Dawkins proves this in "The Selfish Gene".

[Anonymous No.7194425]

>>7194412
>How would an individual FORCE himself to own a factory?
The same way entrepreneurs create factories.

If he only has the knowledge how to build a specific factory catering to a specific need, what is there to prevent him from enforcing his own rules when it comes to his factory organization?

[Anonymous No.7194429]

>>7194382
>If you looked at Nazi Germany during 1933 to 1936 you'd think "oh wow it's the best system ever".
No you wouldn't. It had a number of flaws that were explored in books like "The Wages of Destruction".

[Anonymous No.7194433]

>>7194423
>Altruistic traits in biology are favored when they favor community gains
I don't think this translates into "people naturally don't care about property".

Property is deeply ingrained in the human psyche. The property of land, and the property of the sexual partner are probably the most important.

I suppose in your commune there would be "free love"...

[Anonymous No.7194439]

>>7194412
Getting his bros to shoot anyone else that wants to use it.

[Anonymous No.7194446]

>>7194429
>No you wouldn't. It had a number of flaws that were explored in books like "The Wages of Destruction".
What flaws? I'm curious.

And I'm sure those flaws were minuscule compared to the wanton killing and massacres occuring in revolutionary ukraine and revolutionary catalonia...

[Anonymous No.7194473]

>>7194439
This would be a crime and would be dealt in a collective jury or what have you. I admit legal proceedings are difficult in anarchies, but I don't think they are impossible.
>>7194433
Relationships are far too trivial to anarchize, humans will be able to live in their own houses, they just won't own the means of production.

[Anonymous No.7194476]

>>7194382
>And this is without mentioning the thousands of enemies of the people who were ruthlessly massacred under Makhno's rule.

>>7194446
>compared to the wanton killing and massacres occurring in revolutionary ukraine and revolutionary catalonia

Statements like these are funny because with every other non left wing revolution or counter revolution like with Sulla people accept that oppression of one's foes after gaining power is necessary. However when someone left wing takes power everything they do is blown up to such a extent that even the anarchists in Ukraine/Catalonia are seen as doing vast massacres.

[Anonymous No.7194491]

>>7194473
>This would be a crime and would be dealt in a collective jury or what have you. I admit legal proceedings are difficult in anarchies, but I don't think they are impossible.
Sure, unless his bros are organized according to principles that are historically much better at making them the ones holding trials. Of course, technology might change that; have you ever read Adam Roberts' New Model Army?

>>7194476
Could you give me sources for Washington's massacres of the Tories? And are you implying that Hitler's massacres are seen as anything other than the absolute worst?

[Anonymous No.7194500]

>>7194473
>Relationships are far too trivial to anarchize, humans will be able to live in their own houses, they just won't own the means of production.
But why not?

What's to prevent someone from creating his own factory and then saying "hold up! I created that, it's mine"

>>7194476
>having to go back 2000 years to find a comparable example
Show me a conservative government as bad as pol pot.

And no, the nazis were not conservatives.

[Anonymous No.7194508]

>>7194446
>What flaws? I'm curious.
Some were agricultural policies that created more scarcity, poor use of land for agricultural purposes, and public projects like that looked far better on paper than in reality.

[Anonymous No.7194513]

>>7194508
I think that's rather tame compared to the track record of Makhno...

[Anonymous No.7194514]

>>7194476
Sulla's a poor example because of the whole "2000+ years ago" thing. He didn't gain power through or for ideology, he did it through being a badass and for personal gain. He had no intention of building a utopia (As Rome already was a utopia as far as he was concerned).

Compare this to "Left Wing" revolutions which always tout that they are doing what is good for "the people" because it is not only good for them but because they WANT it and then go off and kill a bunch of people. "Right Wing" revolutions and dictatorships are often very blunt about the fact that they aren't doing what the people want and that it isn't going to produce a perfect utopia. Compare Singapore to North Korea. Lee Kuan Yew outright said that people won't like him. The Kim family said that they were doing something good because people wanted them to do it.

And, y'know, you're on 4chan. If you go to plebbit or revleft you'll probably find the situation is reversed; people talking about how Pinochet and Salazar were evil monsters and Stalin and Mao only killed because it was necessary.

[Anonymous No.7194552]

>>7194500
If you created an entire factory and created the means of production then you are the worker and you own it, this is however highly unlikely scenario nonetheless it does not contradict.

[Anonymous No.7194564]

>>7194446
>And I'm sure those flaws were minuscule compared to the wanton killing and massacres occuring in revolutionary ukraine and revolutionary catalonia...
I guess the fascists who bombed innocent civilians including children were so much better.

[Anonymous No.7194566]

>>7194552
highly unlikely scenario??? How the fuck do you think companies are created? If you accept that a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, then your system will inevitably transition to capitalism.

[Anonymous No.7194568]

Another point of argument I want to bring up that if humans are not good enough, then this is a case for communism not capitalism. With communism you entrust the will unto a collective group of workers whereas in capitalism you entrust the will unto the ruling class. All hierarchies have the burden of proof to justify themselves. If a significant argument cannot be made for them they should be dismantled.

[Anonymous No.7194571]

>>7194514
>Compare Singapore to North Korea
Why not Compare North Korea to South Korea? On both sides people killed anybody suspected of being on the other side.

>>7194513
Unlike them Makhno had to fight in war against the whites and later against the Soviets who feared their power.

[Anonymous No.7194573]

>>7194564
>I guess the fascists who bombed innocent civilians including children were so much better.
Who did the nazis bomb between 1933 and 1936?

[Anonymous No.7194580]

>>7194571
>Unlike them Makhno had to fight in war against the white
I'm not talking about the enemies he killed, I'm talking about his own people he killed.

[Anonymous No.7194581]

>>7194566
Are the companies built physically by the capitalists? No. They are built off the work of the workers. Where do these capitalist gain their income? It's highly unlikely that a man can single handedly build his own corporation, that's what I was referring to.

[Anonymous No.7194599]

>>7194573
I'm talking about the Nationalists

[Anonymous No.7194602]

>>7194581
>Are the companies built physically by the capitalists?
In the case of some companies, yes. For example, the code of software companies is usually written (initially) by the founders of the company.

Bill Gates became the richest man in the world programming his own code (initially). Is it acceptable in an anarcho-communist society for someone to own 100 billion dollars (Gate's net worth in the 1990s).

>No. They are built off the work of the workers.
But this work is channeled by the enterpreneur. The worker, by himself, is useless, just like a computer without an operating system is useless.

>
Are the companies built physically by the capitalists? No. They are built off the work of the workers.
By being the people who channel the energy of the workers into something productive.

[Anonymous No.7194605]

>>7194571
Because South Korea isn't a dictatorship (any more).

>>7194581
The Labor Theory of Value is bogus.
>Where do these capitalist gain their income?
The laborer sells his labor to the factory owner. The factor owner then sells the product of the labor for an increased price. This is not "Surplus value" as the laborer is getting paid exactly what he is due (if he was not then the laborer would not be working there) and value is not an intrinsic property of matter. Someone else then buys this item which gives the factory owner money thereby covering the cost of paying the laborer and giving him a bit extra as profit.

Now where he gets the INITIAL seed money from is up in the air. Could be a loan, inheritance, counterfeiting, etc.

[Anonymous No.7194607]

>>7194599
And I'm talking about the nazis between 1933 and 1936, which is what I was talking about initially. Don't change the subject.

[Anonymous No.7194609]

>>7194580
>I'm talking about his own people he killed.
When? Where are you getting your information from?

>>7194514
>Compare Singapore to North Korea. Lee Kuan Yew outright said that people won't like him. The Kim family said that they were doing something good because people wanted them to do it.
When did he say this? The PAP had a socialist leanings for a long time initially adopting a traditionalist Leninist party organization

[Anonymous No.7194617]

>>7194607
Catalonia's sporadic killings were nothing compared to the ruthless bombings by the Nationalists.

[Anonymous No.7194622]

>>7194605
>Because South Korea isn't a dictatorship (any more).
Are you implying that Singapore is?

[Anonymous No.7194626]

>>7193849
Currency is a product of the limitations of a barter economy.

[Anonymous No.7194645]

>>7194622
Perhaps dictatorship is the wrong word. Singapore is certainly more authoritarian that South Korea however.

[Anonymous No.7194646]

>>7194609
>When? Where are you getting your information from?
Here, from a commie publication : http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

[Anonymous No.7194654]

>>7194605
>would not be working there
In many cases these factory workers have no choice, this is a simplistic view of how capitalism works. They must take on the job. This is wage slavery. Just because the capitalist took a risk does not mean he owns the factory. If that was the case governments should have no say in business practices.

[Anonymous No.7194655]

>>7194617
...and the ruthless bombings of the nationalists were nothing compared to the genocidal killing fields of Pol Pot.

See why I said not to change the subject?

[Anonymous No.7194661]

>>7194654
No, you don't have to take the job, no one forces you to take a job.

[Anonymous No.7194667]

>>7194655
I'm saying that civil wars aren't pretty and the anarchists definitely didn't have clean hands, but they were saints compared to the Nationalists who bombed fucking schools.

[Anonymous No.7194680]

>>7194661
What happens if I don't? The business owner finds someone else because it's a low skilled job he can find any amount of people who will gladly take it. Can you see how someone is intensely coerced into taking this job?

[Anonymous No.7194693]

>>7194680
You start your own business, substance farm, start a commune or socialist enterprise, or stay at home, or gain some marketable skills. Mix and choose really. But no, in the end no one forces you to get a job. You are however forced to work due to entropy.

[Anonymous No.7194701]

>>7194680
Intensely encouraged, yes, perhaps even with starvation as incentive. But the laborer has the choice to seek labor elsewhere, or to seek labor in another way. In fact, many laborers have done just that, resulting in many of us posting from a developed, prosperous nation that was mainly undeveloped wilderness as recently as when Marx was writing.

[Anonymous No.7194702]

>>7194693
>You start your own business

>be your average person and don't have to capital required to start a business
>assuming you have good credit rating and the bank accepts your loan, you take out a loan
>like 80% of new businesses, yours fails
>end up in huge amounts of debt, even poorer than you were before
>commit sudoku

[Anonymous No.7194709]

>>7194568
>If a significant argument cannot be made for them they should be dismantled.
Capitalism has made what we call "poverty" a condition so attractive that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in motion trying to obtain it right now. Communism... didn't.

Also
>whereas in capitalism you entrust the will unto the ruling class
There is a name for that and it's "aristocracy."

[Anonymous No.7194714]

>>7194702
So? In the end no one forces you to work.

[Anonymous No.7194718]

>>7194667
As compared to the Communists under Pol Pot who dragged people out of schools and suffocated them individually with plastic bags.

[Anonymous No.7194723]

>>7194714
Great so as long no one is forcing you to work everything is fine

[Anonymous No.7194724]

>>7194409
>Ingrained egoism
that in itself is a pretty good argument against anacho-capitalism. In an ancap world all people need to abide by the rules even when breaking them would benefit them and there is no higher authority to punish them if they do.

What's going to stop someone in in ancap system from going around scamming people, stealing and taking things by force? what do contracts, money and stock mean in a world where there is no state authority to legitimise them? are you really expecting people to play by the rules when they could profit more by breaking them?

[Anonymous No.7194728]

>>7194646
Here is a better source from a far better publication http://libcom.org/files/%5BMichael_Malet%5D_Nestor_Makhno_in_the_Russian_Civil%28Bookos.org%29.pdf

I not sure of the author's political leanings. You can find a partial review of it here http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036017?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Anonymous No.7194731]

>>7194723
Everything is not necessarily fine, but at least you are free.

Freedom, anon, you cannot put a price on.

[Anonymous No.7194732]

>>7194718
Except for the fact that I need a job to survive. They're not actively"forcing" you to work, but it's not something you can just opt of of (easily, at least).

[Anonymous No.7194740]

>>7194709
>communism didn't
I'm an anarchist communism so please do not refer to Stalin or Lenin or mao>>7194709
>poverty
>attractive
Maybe to those with terrible living conditions, but I'm sure those living in poverty in America don't see it as "attractive"

[Anonymous No.7194745]

>>7194718
Which is appalling, but you won't see many anarchists defending that or even speaking slightly positively about the Marxist states of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.7194754]

>>7194731
You are not free if you are subjugated by a state or capitalist and the only option is to be your own man and hopefully have a small chance of succeeding.

[Anonymous No.7194760]

All I see here is productivists arguing over which ideology will save their favoured social system, the ever-so disgusting civitas. Anti-civ for the win, yip yip.

[Anonymous No.7194765]

>>7193360
>Who /anarcho-com/ here?
Not Orwell, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.7194777]

>>7194765
Even if he wasn't full anarchist he definitely had a lot of nice things to say about it.

[Anonymous No.7194778]

>>7194718
>Pol Pot
>Not a Blood and Soil Nationalist
>Not paid by the US

[Anonymous No.7194783]

>>7194754
>You are not free if you are subjugated by a state or capitalist
And people like freedom, which is why good capitalists, like the ones that have proven successful, generally don't subjugate people.

>>7194732
>it's not something you can just opt of of (easily, at least).
Anon, that's called nature.

[Anonymous No.7194787]

>>7194765
While he wasn't an anarchist (he was a democratic socialist), he was very sympathetic toward the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War and said on second thought, he would've fought with the Anarchists.

[Anonymous No.7194790]

>>7193372
Egoists are trash memes get that shit out of here already its been long enough

[Anonymous No.7194792]

>>7194740
>I'm an anarchist communism
So your ideal government has zero real-world examples. Excellent. Let's tear down capitalism then.

>Maybe to those with terrible living conditions, but I'm sure those living in poverty in America don't see it as "attractive"
Sure. And they're alive to complain about it on their iphones. While they are eating warm, fresh food that costs a fraction of a day's labor.

[Anonymous No.7194795]

>>7194777
He wasn't even slightly anarchist. His interests in Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalism were conditional to his British Imperialism.

[Anonymous No.7194796]

>>7194754
Yes you are, anon, yes you are.

You are free NOT to choose to work for this or that factory. You are master of your own destiny.

[Anonymous No.7194798]

>>7193560
Thanks for the suggestion qt
Anybody else know about it?

[Anonymous No.7194799]

>>7194783
>Anon, that's called nature.
I see this argument quite a lot, and I think it's a misunderstanding of what leftists criticize about the wage system and capitalism in general. They're not saying they're upset with having a choice between working and dying, they're upset with working in the exploitative system of wage labor and having really no other realistic options out of it. Of course in their ideal society people would still have to work to survive, but the exploitative nature of boss/employee and wage labor would be entirely absent, and that's what they're seeking

[Anonymous No.7194803]

>>7193564
Yes; capitalism -- the ideology that is currently on course to eliminate all life on this planet -- is a joke.

[Anonymous No.7194808]

>>7194803

[Anonymous No.7194810]

>>7194803
nuclear warfare between the kikes and muslims it's what's going to eliminate life on the planet, not a bunch of protestant and chinese workaholics making cool phones

[Anonymous No.7194812]

>>7193597
Yeah but the word Communist has mainly been associated with Marxism-Leninism so Anarcho-communist has come up. I think it also describes people who would specifically be more libertarian in their way of managing shit.

[Anonymous No.7194818]

>>7193360
literally /pol/ you're not even talking about the book

[Anonymous No.7194828]

>>7194799
Your boss is nature. Nature demands work from you, from birds, turtles, trees, and gut fauna, and if any of these do not or are unable to work they will starve. Each of these receive wages for their labor. When a chicken scratches for insects, she is paid based on how many insects were there, how sharp her eyes are, how fast her neck is, and so on.

A human boss that pays you the minimum you will take to keep working for him, while allowing you to seek sustenance elsewhere is no more exploitative than this.

[Anonymous No.7194843]

>>7194796
You are the matter of your own destiny in an anarchist communism as well what's your point?

[Anonymous No.7194848]

>>7194828
>Nature demands work from you, from birds, turtles, trees, and gut fauna, and if any of these do not or are unable to work they will starve. Each of these receive wages for their labor. When a chicken scratches for insects, she is paid based on how many insects were there, how sharp her eyes are, how fast her neck is, and so on.
Wait.. what? We're selling our labor to nature in return for survival? I don't quite get this analogy. How can you sell your labor to nature? You're not working for a boss or nature when you dig for insects, you're working for yourself to feed your self and perhaps your family, assuming no one owns that land and extracts rents upon your labor you for working on it by taking some of your insects, otherwise you keep all the insects you get.

[Anonymous No.7194851]

>>7193465
No, it's not. Seeing the gnar-gnars getting co-opted by rentier parasites is the most glorious thing after your dumbfuckery let Franco win.

It's almost as good as watching them read books by the author they forced to read in highschool on their own, especially considering he was a snitch.

Chinese proverb say: "Shitty theory like shit, attract flies"

[Anonymous No.7194853]

>>7194828

The boss only exists because of our current economic model. You are not refuting anarchist communism.

[Anonymous No.7194856]

>>7194810
I'm curious, do you think there is a significant chance of nuclear war breaking out between Israel and its neighbors?

[Anonymous No.7194857]

>>7193846
this one is too real it isn't even funny anymore.

[Anonymous No.7194863]

>>7194851
>after your dumbfuckery let Franco win
After you kept attacking worker-owned enterprises and removed their democratic decision making, decrying them as "counter-revolutionary" (how ironic).

[Anonymous No.7194864]

>>7193932
>>7194331
>>7194341

Mao's socialist program literally doubled life expectancy and saved millions of lives from starvation by having peasants organize themselves into self-directed democratic communes you delusional fucks. Fucking "anarchists" are the best of all liberal shills.

[Anonymous No.7194868]

>>7194848
when a fox comes up behind the chicken scratching bugs out of the dirt and eats its ass and consumes all the protein the chicken converted from small bugs into muscle mass, the fox is taking "surplus labor". protip: marxism is fucking dumb and you're a dummy

[Anonymous No.7194871]

>>7194864
>mao's communes
>democratic
haha holy shit
fuck off mautist, shouldn't you be raising your fist to that fatass unruhe

[Anonymous No.7194875]

>>7194853
The boss doesn't exist because I went to the capitalist school and my capitalist professors told me we need to have bosses. The boss exists because here's a guy who's willing to give me what's worthless to him for what's worthless to me, so we both profit. What's your alternative? Seriously, can anyone give me a definition of anarcho-communism?

[Anonymous No.7194879]

>>7194331
It's really really not that hard.

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/mythsofmao.html

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bookstore/commie.html

[Anonymous No.7194880]

>>7194875
>Seriously, can anyone give me a definition of anarcho-communism?
Wikipedia would be a good start.

[Anonymous No.7194891]

>>7194863
Your immediacy is showing.

If you had bent over and let Koba taken over, you could have had them w/o fachos shooting at you.

[Anonymous No.7194899]

>>7194871
You don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about kid.

[Anonymous No.7194901]

>>7194868
labour is the means by which humans depart from nature. It's on the first page of any intro to Marx, breh.

[Anonymous No.7194908]

>>7194875
You are purely entrenched in capitalist ideology and you don't recognize it. Your explanation of why the boss exists is direct proof. Instead of concentrating wealth within the capitalist class, we should abolish currency and give the workers of the factory the ownership of the factory. With no intervention of a centralist government. That is anarcho-communism in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.7194911]

>>7194864
>saved millions of lives from starvation
That's why they were eating each other in the Great Leap Forward, huh.

>>7194880
So no?
>Google my argument for me

[Anonymous No.7194917]

>>7194879
>"Anarchists" actually believe everything that liberals say about non-anarchist communism
>Somehow shocked when communists call them out for counter-revolutionary principles and thinking

How do we reach them, comrade?

[Anonymous No.7194921]

>>7194911
It helps to have a basic understanding of a very large ideology. Especially if you want to have a productive conversation. That's why that anon redirected you to Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.7194925]

>>7194911
>That's why they were eating each other in the Great Leap Forward, huh.
Embarrassing. This is why no one takes anarchos seriously.

[Anonymous No.7194954]

>>7194901
>It's on the first page of any intro to Marx, breh.

>appeal to authority
>your authority is literally Marx

>>7194908
>Instead of concentrating wealth within the capitalist class, we should abolish currency and give the workers of the factory the ownership of the factory.
At which time the workers will barter with each other for things they need until someone invents currency again.

>>7194921
>It helps to have a basic understanding of a very large ideology.
In "basic understanding" would you include "awareness of the incredibly high standard of living created under capitalism and no other economic system?"

[Anonymous No.7194984]

>>7194917
If they're worthwhile they'll come to us.

Any anarcho-communist always has their foot in bourg. historiography, so we should isolate them as backwards.

We just need to focus on bringing that historical consciousness to the toiling masses. Tell people what's going on in India, Philipines, and all over the world. Tell them about what Tienanmen Square was actually about, and also 1993.

[Anonymous No.7194994]

>>7194864
Mao's program ended up being abandoned for Deng Xiaoping's program who drew heavily from Lee Kuan Yew, turning China into one of the fastest growing economies in the world for over 35 years and raising the standard of living of hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens

[Anonymous No.7195000]

>>7194925
Not him, but this is why no one takes commies seriously.

[Anonymous No.7195004]

>>7195000
Very weak rebuttal man, especially if you look at, like, history

[Anonymous No.7195009]

>>7194954
It's not the authority, it's just among the most important principles of a theory which you think is dum despite knowing fucknothing about.
Just, uh, spotting our some fallacies I don't need to keep a chart of.

[Anonymous No.7195018]

>>7195004
And remember what famine had been like in china before.

[Anonymous No.7195030]

The state will inevitably always work in favor of favoring the state.

[Anonymous No.7195041]

>>7194954
How do you know living standards wouldn't have been incredibly high if anarcho-communism was in place the last 200 years or so?

[Anonymous No.7195045]

>>7194994
after Mao's death, after the massive increase in life expectancy.

[Anonymous No.7195055]

>>7195041
The economic calculation problem and the fact that leftist ideals invetible result in a state.

[Anonymous No.7195065]

>>7195055
>and the fact that leftist ideals invetible result in a state.
Completely meaningless.

[Anonymous No.7195067]

>>7195009
>the most important principles of a theory which you think is dum despite knowing fucknothing about.
I know about Marxism and I still think it's dumb. Why should I listen to him? What makes Marx less discredited of a political philosopher than Hitler? Every state founded on Marxist principles has failed or has changed those principles to survive.

>>7195041
Because any attempts at anything similar to anarcho-communism have failed to compete. They just can't make it. Liberal democracy, sure, it was weird at first but now it's the default, because it competes. Corporate oligarchy, that's doing well. Marxist prophecy? Not doing well.

[Anonymous No.7195079]

>>7195055
>Leftist ideals invetible result in a state
This is not true.
>economic calculation problem
Common sense is a pretty decent response to this. Mises argues that price signals and currencies are important as measures of desires and needs. This is an interesting refutation of central planning, but not an argument for capitalism (the only two possibilities for political economy in Mises' stunted worldview). But there's no reason we couldn't have socialist markets, labor chits, or some replacement for price signals that is a non-circulating medium.

This doesn't even begin with the communist/nihilist critique of political economy, that we might not be constrained by it, that political economy (and its social science) is an ideology, not a science, and that we might abolish things like exchange relations, work, money, etc.

There's a pretty large body of work by various socialists arguing for different versions of these things. I'd start with Wikipedia's "Socialist Calculation Debate" and then read actual arguments and articles.

[Anonymous No.7195081]

>>7195045
Are you implying they directly led into each other when Deng's plan necessitated dismantling so much of Mao's program you have even non communists questioning if China is a communist state?

[Anonymous No.7195083]

>>7195067
Failed to compete to what. Our only problem have been being usurped by imperialist ideals.

[Anonymous No.7195088]

>>7195079
>But there's no reason we couldn't have socialist markets, labor chits, or some replacement for price signals that is a non-circulating medium.
And there are still a number of problems with that as articles like http://scholar.harvard.edu/shleifer/files/politics_market_socialism.pdf point out. Its a short read.

[Anonymous No.7195104]

>>7193643
You really have decided you know enough about this topic to argue it, but you have not heard an explanation of these questions?
Do you really think that in all the study of Austrian economics and individualist anarchist philosophy no one ever tried to answer "What if someone steals something?"
Are you serious?

I would love to chat about this, but the fact that you provide so basic of a critique as that which has been answered so many times by any work of literature on the subject has proven you are not ready to.

[Anonymous No.7195122]

>>7193849
currency is a product of the state. So is the wheel. Just because the state produced something does not mean it can not exist without it.
What is it about currency that makes it impossible to privatize?

[Anonymous No.7195146]

>>7195104
Not that guy but every single type of ideologue has to put up basic critiques of their ideology that has been responded to in some way by one of their own and if you want your ideas to spread you better get used to answering the same questions over and over rather then hoping people will read X or Y.

>>7195045
Short term one could argue that overall they were good.

[Anonymous No.7195188]

>>7193360
GET A JOB
JOIN THE UNION
SHOOT YOUR BOSS

[Anonymous No.7195205]

>>7195146
good point about the basic critiques, but I am not in real life, I am anonymous on an internet forum and I get to be an asshole here lol.
It's just that someone putting forward so basic of a critique and then immediately patting themselves on the back is such a typical uneducated response to market anarchism, and it gets me a little flustered to see someone supporting as dangerous and radical of an ideology as Anarcho-Communism without doing basic research on the alternatives, or even giving them thought.

[Anonymous No.7195308]

>>7195055
>The economic calculation problem
Why do you keep bringing this up when you already got BTFO about it days ago?

[Anonymous No.7195328]

>>7193372
you completely misred stirner if you think that egoist anarchism and anarcho-communism are mutually exclusive

[Anonymous No.7195350]

>>7193564
>letting people have property
How does one have property? your talking about owning property right? owning land on planet earth? how can a human born on this planet have any claim over another to a portion of land? If you own this land should you not pay every other human on the planet for not allowing them to use this land?

[Anonymous No.7195427]

>>7194433
>Property is deeply ingrained in the human psyche. The property of land, and the property of the sexual partner are probably the most important.
Property is deeply ingrained in the ego. My god if you think you own your sexual partner your fucked. your very sick if you think this way my god I wish I could dose with acid

[Anonymous No.7195472]

>>7194994
I'm going to go for an unorthodox opinion and say Deng was both right and wrong. The experiments of socialism under Mao's chairmanship resulted in huge gains and some errors (pests campaign, retracting the hundred flowers campaign), as to be expected in any and every revolution (an organic process), especially one where, despite amateurish liberal (and by extension anarchist) descriptions of this time evidenced in this thread, these were experiments almost exclusively in decentralized leadership. One need not look further than the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and its wide swathe of results, from organizing highly successful, self-organization through principled self-criticism in some places to fully chaotic, cult-like factional violence in other places (usual by younger hot heads).

I will not accuse Deng of being a liberal /exactly/- instead I think he was a loyal, but nihilistic, communist. Deng was also Leninist and a student of Russian revolutionary history, and saw this early era of economic development in China that created the base of both socialism and capitalism, both vertical and horizontal leadership, but concluded that China would not be able to continue this mutual development without a Mao to take the helm. And there was no other Mao, including Deng. In a world without a Mao, the Imperialist-Capitalist powers could strike at a China that is only semi-unified, only semi-directed, and still not developed enough economically and militarily to withstand them, even with Soviet aid if need be. Where then would the internationalist revolution be?

Therefore, from Deng's perspective, Post-Mao Revolutionary China needed to retract on Mao Thought and decentralization and take the Orthodox Marxist road, going through capitalism fully. This road, however, must maintain Mao's ideology and some of the social shifts already established, or else it will result in Khrushchevist counter-revolution. So, he lead a takeover of the party, took the structure that existed, and installed an authoritarian party-led accelerationist program, hence the bizarre modern mixture of country communes and city classed economies. It is not enough to simply say that Deng and the party that came after him abandoned Mao's program, nor can we say it is truly socialist or Maoist.

[Anonymous No.7195584]

>>7194795
It's like you haven't even read anything by Orwell.

[Anonymous No.7196698]

>>7193360
No

we are doomed to slavery forever.

[Anonymous No.7196718]

lol, even the Chinese hate mao, he killed millions and was dumb as fuck

[Anonymous No.7196723]

>>7195328
plebs usually think that individualism= egoism

[Anonymous No.7196784]

>>7196723
>>7195328
Exactly this, why do people become incoherent when they argue against anarcho-communism? Are we in love with our own wage slavery this much?

[Anonymous No.7196803]

>>7196784
Except I think you meant individual anarchism and not egoist anarchism.

[Anonymous No.7197370]

>>7195081
like dismantling in the luddite sense, lol?

[Anonymous No.7197383]

>>7195067
>I know about Marxism
The point is that you don't.

[Anonymous No.7197388]

>>7196718
Then how come all those peasants have fucking shrines and altars to him?

[Anonymous No.7197581]

>>7193360
In answer to the original question, check out the YPG/J and PKK in Syria and Turkey.

http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/r/kurdish/

http://pasewan.com/blog/2015/introduction-to-the-political-and-social-structures-of-democratic-autonomy-in-rojava/