How would anarcho-communism work?

really how? if nobody owns anything how would the economy even function? and how would that be enforced? the only way i see is big government. soooo how?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3tvQ8-Bgb14
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

EBURYWUN WILL HOLD HANDS AN DERE WILL BE NO MUNNE OR FIGHTING
This is what they think.

as an oppressor you are not smart enough to understand such things. saged.

it wouldn't

Everybody would be a willing cuck

/thread

It wouldn´t, its an ideology from cucks for cucks. Sage for /leftypol/ thread.

if im not smart enough then educate me on it

Kill the weak. Spread the profit equally between the strong.

Capitalism - a system where 95% of the world's wealth is hoarded by like sixteen people or something and the rest of us have to scrabble about for a few crumbs from our masters table - is basically institutional cuckoldry and obviously requires big government to enforce it.

However anarcho-communism - where people share the worlds resources fairly - wouldn't require any government. People would be freer and much, much more prosperous than capitalism will ever allow us to be. People will naturally want to maintain the system which has given them so much, No need for government.

fucking kek, pretty much this

And then what

What about the human ego?

This

What's stopping the local gangs taking over the whole city? Who's going to stop them?
The police?
There is no police!
People teaming up against the gangs?
Oh you mean like a NATION? Fuck you, statist!

Who's going to protect those who can't protect themselves? The children, the sick, the elderly etc. Maybe we could assign some people to take care of them?
ASSIGN? Like WORK? Fuck you, government pig!

Anarchy fucking sucks if you're not one tough motherfucking survivalist warmachine of a man.

For the last fucking time: Communism, per fucking definition, is anarchistic. It's a case of anarchism, where the people voluntarily pool resources together, share, and see to each other's needs. The defining traits of Communism is literally that it's stateless, classless, and moneyless.

Fucking screen cap this or make it your desktop background. if you're thinking of something like Communism, but with a state, it's SOCIALISM.

Back to work Klaus. Remember to put lots and lots of effort in - Your boss wants a new Ferrari.

>niggers who can barely function in civilization being given out free handouts
>lazy fat feminist cows who refuse to do anything for their own wellbeing getting

"WAAAAH WAAAH WAAAH SOME PEOPLE HAVE MORE THAN ME!"
Face it, Jamal; Most people are poor and miserable because most people are lazy and stupid.

Why not just go with Distributism? Seems much simpler and would require less violence and authoritarianism.

you've never created anything in your life have you?

3rdPBP

repeat until there are no humans on earth
???
Profit

>me and my buddies have access to a cbc machine and metal, and a couple common chemicals
>start making guns and bullets
>start killing people if they try to "share" our shit with us
>start killing people and taking their shit
>people are afraid of us now cuz they don't want to get killed
>stay just giving us what we ask for
>other guys start joining us so we can threaten more people for their shit
>fuck other guys had the same idea
>now me and my giant posse have to fight for all the territory of the people we've been threatening to kill so we can take their shit, so these guys don't come in and threaten to kill them and take their shit in lieu of us

At this point we've got private property, government, taxes, and state borders. Do I need to say much more before anarcho - toddlers realize that their system has already failed, right around 10,000 BC?

The human ego is exactly why capitalism fails and anarcho communism is necessary.

Capitalism basically tells the majority of the population that they are worthless and deserve to slave away in poverty. It's a message which is at odds with the human ego.

Anarcho communism tells people that they deserve to have pretty much whatever they need. Much more in keeping with what the human ego tells us.

>Anarcho communism tells people that they deserve to have pretty much whatever they need
And yet human nature says that certain things are "ours", a home and shelter, food, tools and weaponry, and we do not share these things outside of a very small circle of trust people such as family.

Yet capitalist style societies have flourished while communist is only good for hunter gatherer tribes.

Really makes you think

In anarcho communism you can get free access to whatever you need anyway. Why would anyone bother going to all the effort of creating guns and fighting people when they could get whatever they need for free?

It is an oxymoron. Communism is totalitarian. They're polar opposites.

>Why would anyone bother going to all the effort of creating guns and fighting people when they could get whatever they need for free?
So what's to stop me from taking all your guns and ammo and then killing you all with them? Or I could take all your food, thus starving you?

A lot of what you call "human nature" is actually a result of growing up in a capitalist society and being indoctrinated with its values.

So what is the incentive to produce anything?

Why should the farmer bother to go and produce food when you communists just steal it from him.

And a lot of what you would call "human ego" is just growing up in a capitalist society and resenting its values.

read some good ol solzhenietchee son..

Radical shifts enforced on societies like forcing them into self sustaining anarcho-communes would not be possible using democratic means or democratic shifts in balances. People would vote the ancomms out, you see, and go back to doing what they thought was in their best interests.

There was one man who both realized this and understood the means to go about doing it.

His name was Mao, and he truly pioneered the example of ancomm in practice, a political philosophy that he called Maoism.

First off, the old cultural traditions of the people would invite hierarchy, capitalism and the bourgeois back into society, so they had to be erased. For similar reasons, those who carried knowledge of the past had to be liquidated as well.

Like this:
"Lord Humungus sees you have gas. But you 'ah greedeh'. All we want is yoah gas. You must share. Or you must die. We are too stupid to survive on our own. Gib me dat. Nummy nums for anarcho-commie."

Anarcho-communism is just butthurt little stupidasses, that want the government out of the way so they can gang up and steal. They can't hack it on their own. They can't now, they wouldn't in their own society.

...

Why would you want to do either of those things? There's no logical reason for you to attack me and take by force things the local community would freely give you anyway.

If you try to attack me, I will defend myself. This is true whether we're living in capitalism, communism, or any other type of society.

Anarchist unions. As an example to differentiate from communists, in Spain they gave capitalists the option of keeping their property. The compromise was that if they decided to keep their private property then they would not have access to the commons.

I suppose this means that it is like democratic municipalism, but with an economic focus.

A famous anarchist/primitivist joked that they were fools for not seeing this as a state. Kind of similar to the ancap meme.

It doesn't work. As demonstrated by the anarcho communist communities called the Kibbutzim, it will work in a mediocre way for about a generation before the next generations decide to abandon collectivism and begin to adopt currencies because they actually want to succeed and not have to rely on an external government's handouts just to keep existing. People are individuals, not hive minds like ants or bees.

UuUuh Don't you know that under capitalism 100% of the worlds wealth is owned by ONE midget. And no people wouldn't just make new governments. That would be illegal under anarchism!

Because you want me to share my stuff, and I don't want to share my stuff, since I'll need that stuff when your system collapses.

And your system IS going to collapse because there is no reason to work, you get the same reward no matter how much work you do so you might as well not work at all.

Mao was not an anarcho-communist, memestar. Spain is an example of how it worked, and the anarchists used a variety of tactics (not completely different to how capitalists/liberals rebelled against the monarchy). Riots, unions, sabotage, assassinations, massive demonstrations and literature, until they became the largest political opposition group in the nation.

It is essentially the collective ideology that replaces the state. Same as ancaps in practise I guess, just with different ends and political enemies.

>However anarcho-communism - where people share the worlds resources fairly - wouldn't require any government.
And how exactly would that all work with no government-like structure to oversee the process and ensure its fairness? Format you honestly believe that greed and self-interest will just disappear and the everything thing would just magically be redistributed, with people giving up their shit?

Hmm, but can you really stand on your own when there's a government?

Let's all just pretend tat this is the first post.

See The kibbutzim was the closest example of ancom at work as people in Israel formed a collective communist community and ingrained the philosophy into their children so they would be brought up to live in a complete commie environment. It didn't work, they decollectivized and proved individualism is natural.

Honestly it almost certainly wouldn't.

Small-scale communes, like the old Kibbutzes in Israel, are about the closest you'll get.

The only "successful" experiments (in Spain and Ukraine) with anarchism were only successful because they were overrun militarily before they had a chance to collapse by their own incompetence.

Ancoms make good cannon-fodder though.

If you're opposed to it you should come up with actual arguments. Anarchists have no interest in going through your collection of trap photos and redistributing them so that everyone has an equal share.

And nowhere do they suggest that everyone gets the exact same reward. In fact, that should be a charge against capitalism more than anything else. Even in Soviet society you would get extra money for hard work and potentially become a national hero. In capitalism you get increased taxes and contractual displacement until you are more poor than ever because MUH ANNUAL PROFIT GROWTH.

"Share your corn with us, and we'll share all the goods and services we produce with you" said the local community.

"Fuck off, I'm going to keep this field of corn to myself. I'll eat nothing but corn everyday. I'll build a house out of corn. I'll invent corn-based games to entertain myself. If I get sick I'll use corn-based remedies. This is my corn and I won't share it!" Said the farmer

"Ok cool bye" said the local community

Not sure where you're trying to go with this. First of all, industrialism is a powerful historical force which has taken over most of the world. And secondly, anarcho-communists are pro-industrialism, so the example is irrelevant.

>And nowhere do they suggest that everyone gets the exact same reward
That's literally what he's suggesting though, that everyone have access to ALL the resources, but if you want to propose an alternate system than go ahead. I recommend Distributism.

How does this world differ from regular anarchy or hardline libertarianism? What makes it communism, if people can opt out whenever they want? It's just voluntarism, there's nothing communist about it.

Successful because destroyed by 'our militaries'. Good Stalin larp.

Or the farmer, builder and doctor band together and demand recompense for their services from the poet, the dreamer and the commune massage girl.

Retard.

The farmer has no incentive to put in real work. As long as he gives the appearance of working hard and occasionally puts in a few boxes of corn into the local supply then he gets ALL the resources. He has no incentive to innovate, work harder, or make his farming more efficient.

The point is that if you try to make people work collectively, their children will go against that naturally and change society for individual rights and segregation from the group.

That's a complex deep philosophical question full of dialectics and nuances and few absolustes, and all sorts of crap to pontificate and debate over.

To find what degree to which one could, I'd more-so just ask simply, does one need to steal another person's shit, in order to make it along?

Dependency seems to me, the opposite of self-reliance and peaceful cohabitation. Communism in any sort seems to have that as a starting feature. So... naturally how well are they going to stand? Seems all the numerous cases indicate indeed, not very well at all.

Spooky

Who says this? Some rando on the internet?

And why would I propose a different system? I never said I was for or against. Your post literally makes no sense...

But in terms of distributism, isn't this just banksters larping as communists for the weekend. I mean, at one point it was considered mandatory to have 30 acres to live off of, but the distributists magically increased the land rations to 3 acres. Seems a bit of a head scratcher.

Have you ever worked on a farm? Having to eat and not having to work 10 hours a day in the rain, wind, and snow is a pretty good incentive for doing things right.

>Who says this? Some rando on the internet?
This guy: >isn't this just banksters larping as communists for the weekend
How so?

>mean, at one point it was considered mandatory to have 30 acres to live off of, but the distributists magically increased the land rations to 3 acres
I you're being a bit obtuse and literal with the "land" part of it, the point isn't to literally give everyone 3 acres and a cow, it's to give them enough productive property to make a living for themselves.

Get down to brass tack here...
they were going to steal the hell outta that corn anyway. Join the group and get leeched, or get plainly robbed.

Hah. What universe is a bunch of people who don't believe in property rights, going to respect that farmer's property rights? He's being a greedy capitalists, and we know what to do with greedy capitalists.
Collectivize'd. This here's some good corn.

Tell that to the farmers of all socialist countries who failed to produce the required resources to feed the population. And don't tell me there isn't enough food to feed everyone by natural agriculture when in first world countries there's enough food to go around to make every fifth person fat and eating more than one person's share of food.

And yet it works in Amish communities. The world isn't a deterministic state of certain outcomes.

The majority of history is collective sharing of resources. You're using a minor period of a few hundred years to suggest that the former state is unnatural.

>Having to eat and not having to work 10 hours a day in the rain, wind, and snow is a pretty good incentive for doing things right.
But I wouldn't have to do things right. I could put in the minimum amount of effort required and still get access to all the resources so why put in any more than I have to? Heck, just work 1 or 2 hours a day, put in a few boxes of corn, and then take 10 times as much as I'm putting in.

In a libertarian society some random asshole is going to decide that he owns the farmers land. He'll charge the farmer rent for the land by stealing a portion of his corn. If the farmer tries to stop the asshole from stealing some of his corn, the farmer will pay a few dudes to come and steal all his corn.

Yet the Amish aren't even anarchist, and they still use money. They are just bound by a religion which makes them want to work together more often.

>And yet it works in Amish communities
Amish aren't communist.

No random assholes in AnCom-country, though.
You're too stupid for this.

Interestingly enough though, communism tended to maintain traditionalist methods of labour which required more input, while the capitalist method is to lessen labour. An extreme example would be the Moscow Metro compared with the New York subway. Which one required more labour?

And if communists actually required more labour while the capitalists were trying to diminish it, who was really lazy? And wouldn't that make the capitalists the true thieves, since they wanted to not only steal the excess labour from the workers but also, in time, the very work that made people workers?

Let's not pretend that capitalism is without thievery and 'stealing others' shit'.

Small government, keep the military for defense, keep law and enforcement departments for defending your rights as a consumer, privatize almost everything else. Not sure if this counts as ancap.

>And if communists actually required more labour while the capitalists were trying to diminish it, who was really lazy?
You know what they say, work smarter, not harder. Inventing the wheel may make work easier, but it also allows me to get more work done.

people would be expected to share of their own free will

and then they wouldnt because people are greedy

there, perfect working communism as we know it.

You're a dipshit leaf. Capitalists want to reduce labor because they know people don't want to work if they don't have to. Capitalists automate, while communists and socialists try to keep people lingering on as workers past their prime just so they can say workers have a place in society.

It wouldn't work and let me explain why.

Let's say I have all I need in life due to the wonderful system working as intended.
But today I feel like getting Product X that I read about online. The only way to get Product X is to import it from a foreign country.
Since I can't travel there every time I see a product like that there needs to be a system in place where such a product will be delivered to me for a compensation.
But who will enforce it and how? How do you ensure it will arrive safely? What if I want it sooner rather than later? What if I want to get 10 of those products and my friends chip in so we can order them and I'm placing an order for it personally.

You see ... that's why capitalism exists. It exists because it accounts for all scenarios and adjusts itself accordingly.
Being "fair" can only get you so much, but there will always be that one person that wants things faster or better or more efficient and he's willing to pay more or demand more.
That's why capitalism naturally evolved as the dominant system in use. It accounts for competitiveness, for availability, for luxury, for convenience, for spending power and so on...

Communism on the other hand attempts to be "fair" but eventually societal needs again form a capitalist super-structure on top of it and/or it requires enforcing of "fairness" to the point of violence.

It's just not viable.

so hows consumer capitalism travelling these days...

a meaningless episode of work for the rich and "lets go shopping" as reward

but the fvey empire isn't so sound is it?

the problem with plutocracy is that no matter how well it trash talks any alternative to its triumphant rule

there will always be a flame of freedom burning in mans heart, something transcendent, beyond mere materialism and self induced slavery

Tribes in Africa do though. Read a post once about it, written by some charity group worker. Went something like this:
>Son of some tribe member that has 4 wives, 8 kids each wife, has authority, wants to make money and succeed for himself, too
>decides to sell bread
>saves and hides enough money over a quite long period of time, to eventually buy enough flour and materials
>bakes the bread, about 30 loaves
>sells on roadway passing by village
>cheifdad sees it.
>we need bread son-comrade
>takes about 20 loaves to feed his wives and children
>son financially ruined
>wasted all his fucking time
>never tries again
>yay communalism
>africa stays africa
>communal sharing caring paradise
>until next famine
>chief nutsalot prob still has shitty genes survive because reproduces like a rat

What did you have in mind?

If anyone has access to whatever they need, how would you react if something people need is not readily available, like food for example.
Imagine for example that I had a chicken that lays an egg every day for me to eat in a situation where there is not enough food for everyone. Does that mean anyone could come and take my chicken's egg for them to eat, even if that person never contributed to tend for the chicken in any way, shape or form?
I don't think I would be terribly happy about having someone take what I worked for to survive for themselves.
What would result is either:
1- I would fight anyone that tries to take my egg
or 2- I would hire someone to do it for me, providing he gets half of the egg for himself.
Isn't that fascin- oh wait, it's called capitalism and private property...
Communists are retarded

>Share your corn with us, and we'll share all the goods and services we produce with you

So it is a barter economy that you advocate for?
Doesn't seem like goods and services the local community is producing is available for free if the farmer has to trade his corn to access it.

Why should he bother working if he can access everything for free as you implied before?

Well said, nip.

So you understand that the farmer must put in hard work to produce the food?

Why would he put himself through that when apparently everything is available for free anyway?

It's sort of a barter economy, but it's an uneven one. It's "give us what you have, and we'll give you access to EVERYTHING".

As you can imagine, this creates problems when say, the local poet only has his poetry to offer, and there's a fucking famine going on and the people need more farmers.

He didn't say what you think he's saying.

They are basically just distributing what they can get away with. So over the long week of larping as communists they can give away thirty acres, but if crisis limits their larping to just the weekend that may have to be rethought and become just 3.

Distributism seems to me just a form of industrialist charity, giving away the excess capital so that it may spread further and democratise.

Also interesting because it is akin to one of the most extreme forms of marxism possible, which saw all economics as the shedding of excess, and the ideal form of capital in distribution as a mass gift economy.

All economic determinism seems to be cart before horse to me. Distributism, sure, okay. But before that give me a society of people striving for the best politics, philosophy, and art. Make it beautiful and lively, have a connection with nature, a traditionalist culture, and work defined by skillful creation. Find legitimate enemies to struggle against based on the word of the gods. After that, any question of capitalist or socialist economics seems banal and unimportant, and would hardly affect the society at all. Most would take either without a concern so long as the city dwarfed the image of the economic theory.

Just like communism

It wouldn't

God wills it. Have you not read the Parable of the Workers in the Field?

something beyond being born to simply be another mans dog.

You've lost the train of the argument...

>Distributism seems to me just a form of industrialist charity, giving away the excess capital so that it may spread further and democratise.
Yup, that's the idea, minus the democratization.

Thank for the refresher.

>Food runs out

"We're starving! We've already had 5 comrades die of hunger today" said the local community.

"I'll give you some of my corn provided you give me something valuable for the work I've invested in cultivating the corn" said the farmer

The local community would either
1 - Become capitalist and buy the farmer's corn
2 - Stay communist and starve
3 - Chimpout and likely get killed by the farmer defending his private property.

Amish are charitable capitalists, they have private property and they are allowed at any time to tell everyone else to fuck off, they willingly in a capitalist setting choose to be charitable to each other.

How about being a self-sufficient man with Distributism?

That's a parable about how you can accept Jesus at any time and you'll still get Heaven as a reward, it's not a fucking economic theory.

>created
i am fucking "creating" UI for shit apps you people are using

my father is a PhD chemist, he is "creating" new formulas for shit thing you will use to wash your hair

much of jobs in this fucking world are stupid shit nobody needs and it is of no importance
it takes no pride to do it. i am just getting paid for it.

you must be fucking idiot to think you are creating anything.

Was that due to people not wanting to work? No, it was because of forced redistribution at the hands of a tyrant.

I think you underestimate the power that ideology has in getting people to work hard. Or do you not realise that work ethic in Soviet Russia was actually greater than in America?

And not sure why you're talking about current food waste, that is a capitalist and globalist problem.

perfectly fine pixel art smeared with garbage for no reason
why do people do this?

youtube.com/watch?v=3tvQ8-Bgb14

>Imagine a situation where there isn't enough food

In a situation where there isn't enough food, pretty much any form of society will degenerate into desperate barbarity.

Yes, until your workers don't have any money to buy things so that you then must redistribute the capital redistribution among the machines so that they make more money for themselves and then you end up unironically espousing exactly what Karl Marx says, just as a farce instead of tragedy.

That is, until it becomes an even bigger tragedy.

Yours will degenerate into it far faster due to the fact noone gets any reward for working.

What do you mean? Where's the garbage in the pixel art?