Ancom Q&A

I occasionally see threads here asking very basic questions about the philosophy of anarcho-communism, how an ancom society would work, etc.. if you have any questions, please ask them here and a rookie ancom will try to answer them to the best of my ability.

How are you going to get capable people to share their wealth with lazy parasites? How are you going to get multinational corporations that provide necessary services around the world? What's the difference between ancom and communism? Why are all ancoms talentless fags?

Why has communism failed everywhere it has been tried?

Do you think there will ever be a real communist society?

>be me
>see an-com
>think anti communist
>read post, notice image and flag
>opiniondiscarded.jpg

>what's the difference between ancom and communism
As I understand it, most other forms of communism, such as Stalinism, involve a dictator, and an oppressive state that promises to redistribute wealth, but instead hoards it for themselves. Stalinists want to overthrow capitalism and then establish a ruler who slowly fades the country into communism. But power corrupts, so the ruler ends up going mad with power and killing a bunch of his own people. Ancoms want to abolish the state, and establish communism immediately via direct democracy.

How does an anarcho-syndicalist government structure create and maintain an army large enough to defend against a statist military without taking on those aspects of the state that inevitably & irrevocably taint the syndicalist government back into traditional statism?

Also who had the better beard, Kropotkin or Bakunin?

It worked for a while, from 1910-1912 I think, but that experiment, like most other socialist experiments in the past century, was crushed by western imperialism. Most forms of communism suck because they involve a dictator. I consider the concept of a "communist state" to be oxymoronic.

There has been, but I consider all forms of non-anarchist communism to be complete garbage.

Theanarchistlibrary.org has some good articles on how an anarchist military would successfully function

Do you think anarcho-communist societies are capable of standing up to foreign resistance?

Refer to

I read that tome fucking years ago. I'm not rereading it. Makno failed. Catalonia failed. Modern Kurds are going to either get fucked by Assad right now in the Deir Ezzor oil fields or their current structure will be gutted in post war reconciliation. And they only survived as long as they did becausce of significant foreign air support in Kobane.

How do you think an anarchist military survives against Russia, China, the United States, or even freakin' Rwanda with it's semi-decent paratroopers.

But so far all anarcho-communist societies have failed one way or another. Usually either a statist socialist government takes over or they are crushed by fascist/capitalist forces. Why will the future turn out any different for anarcho-communism?

But without organization and leadership, how do you propose that the proletariat will overthrow the bourgeoisie?
Direct democracy is a bullshit term for mob rule.
Your ideology of Anarcho Communism is an impossibility without some form of centralized leadership to steer the anarchy.
At which point it no longer becomes anarchy.
Which is precisely why I laugh in the face of anyone who claims to be an anarchist.
It's the pipe dream of teenagers who think the world will accept their bullshit over other's when the world is thrown into chaos.
Look at every single revolution in human history. It results in a temporary loss of power by the existing structure, followed by the establishment of a new order that runs counter to the goals of the revolutionaries and more closely resembles the upset order that was.

Humanity craves order. Where there is a lack of it, there is a need that will be fulfilled by whosoever picks up the torch.
You are an idealistic communist.
You think that people will all accept communism without leadership.
They might, for a year or two.
But sooner or later your bandaid solution to civil order will fall off and chaos will reign again until someone with the strength to bring order rises up.
Eventually you will grow up and realize this teenaged fantasy of yours is just that.
An unworkable fantasy.

Even if an anarcho-syndicalist government can self perpetuate and produce in a way that doesn't cause it to collapse (which it can't. The advances made in Catalonia have more to do with basic industrial gains than gains from an anarchist organization structure. Checking all costs by hours worked instead of the value and demand of a product is retarded) that system still has to be able to survive against a viciously aggressive regime. And it has to do that all while keeping a system that prevents authoritarianism from developing and establishing persistent privileges.

And of course that's all before we address technological progress, anarchism, and modern day anarcho-feminism. I've seen those books. They are the product of a broken mind. The 'metaphysical concept of the dildo' is not going to replace 'male' and 'female' ever.

>multinational corporations
That's more of a capitalist thing, because they exploit the natural resources of developing nations. If we can work around that, companies can do whatever they please, as long as private property is left out of the question
We would need a strong military, which would be provided if we were to, say, turn America ancom tomorrow.

Remember an anarchist company or military is still allowed to elect a leader, just as long as there is no economic exploitation. Political leaders such as presidents are also out of the question.

>feminism
Anarchist philosophers seldom espouse the idea that different groups of people are equal in any way other than their right to natural liberty. Of course, the so-called patriarchy, if it does exist, would count as an unjustified hierarchy and would therefore need to be abolished.

Say what you really mean then.

An anarchist abolition of 'patriarchy' has traditionally meant a free love society that shuns and shames two person partnerships in a committed relationship.

We can trace this back to Emma Goldmann and her bohemian socialites embracing european 'free love'. We can also hilariously read about Goldmann growing jealous, freaking out, and having a mental breakdown over sharing her man.

And of course we can see it today. It's not called free love anymore. It's called polyamory. And if you've ever met a polyamourous person you know how quickly they go from 'this is what works for me' to 'anything except polyamory is patriarchy domination and must be dismantled for true freedom to exist'

The Natural Liberty ideas of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Proudhon are dead user. Anarchism as a modern movement has been taken over Critical Theory fashionable nonsense. And the direction that Critical Theory demands WILL reinstate a new hierarchy.

Did you assume that because I favour collectivism over individualism, I must support the ideas of every other """anarchist""" you mention, who are likely just third-wave feminists in political LARP? You can have a relationship with literally whoever you want, it's not like anybody's going to arrest you.

Nah i'm saying the modern movement is completely tainted by ideologies that inevitably re institute authoritarianism.

For completeness I'm also saying that Anarchism lacks an efficient price mechanism which in turn creates crazy inefficiencies in both production and distribution.

Also that anarchism is a piss poor government structure for technological progress compare to statist directed development.

And that it fails to account for the Security Dilemma. It would be the Meads in the parable of Thucydides. And that it's reliance on democratic peace theory fails to account for racist societies and civilian leaders who lead their society into xenophobia and eventual aggression.

Basically i'm saying that it fails to maintain the ideological purity needed for it not to collapse, it fails to maintain a reasonable economy to not collapse, it fails to maintain a proper army needed for it not to collapse, and it fails to keep pace with the rate of technological change other societies will be experiencing for it to avoid demographic collapse as people voluntarily return to statist societies that can treat them better.

So you admit that anarchism is ideologically pure

Only in isolate to specific thinkers. When I say ideological purity I mean a focus on class struggle and work improvement over identity issues. Of course that 'ideological purity' has been criticized rightly even ever since Voltarine De Cleyre pointed out the authoritarianism of the household and the relation between the sexes. And so anarchism naturally drifts in identity politics. Once the authoritarism of the Boss is taken care of it inevitibly starts addressing and then 'dismantling' the supposed authoritarian relations between individuals. And there is a ripe tradition there for it to fall into utter crazytown.

There is also the fatal flaw of anarchism inability to deal with naturally authoritarian religions like Catholicism, all forms of Islam that actually pay heed to the Quran & Hadith (even going no further than Bukhari. The second most important source of hadith and our wonderful little source for Mohammed's practise of marrying 6 year old's and raping them at 11.), and all forms of Judaism that arn't Reconstructionist. "They'll stop believing it eventually" only goes so far. There are always holdouts. And they are going to want to live in accordance with their religion. And that will in turn recreate authoritarian social structures.

At best anarchism is only possible in primitive societies in Zomia, a temporary autonomous community, a literal pirate ship, or post scarcity star trek sub 250 population villages.

>anarchism's inability to deal with naturally authoritarian religions

Surely you should know, by now, what we like to do with fascists?

Yeah, you guys claim to fight fascists (which for the most part are in your head or created by you) and to do that you act like actual fascists. You people and your posts are so very tiring, you never accomplish anything

and the anarchist is now advocating seeking out individuals with 'bad thought' and beating the shit out of them until they comply. when all they wanted to do was live in accordance with their own beliefs.

wow. that didn't take long.

Can't wait until i find out that the christian tolstoy pacifist anarchists in your society who refuse to be drafted to kill market liberals are also fascists.

Can't wait until you start purging fellows anarchists who defend them as well as being "fascist allied traitors"

I seem to recall a certain Union of Committees in eastern europe doing just that to all the anarchists in it's land.....weird how that works.

Your ideology cannot convince the people to support it and naturally slips back into authoritarianism to survive. It's an ouroborous.

Thankfully us Americans will never surrender our guns.

Don't worry. They literally can never succeed. Anarchism relies on people identifying on the basis of class. But people will literally always identify more strongly on the basis of ethnicity, language, political beliefs, family, and just about every other grouping before class.

Of course to identify with your ethnicity before your supposed class is interpreted as being a literal fascist. which then results in anarchists totally alienating 99.99% of people.

There is a reason no one hates the Kurds more than the Assyrians.

So when people march through the streets screaming that they want to kill Jews, Blacks and gays, and thereby directly threatening anybody who belongs to those groups, is it not justified to use violence in order to stop them? Why? Is it unreasonable to assume that they are being serious? Bare in mind that I am not affiliated with antifa or anything of the sort.

You wouldn't need to surrender your guns, unless of course you were a servant of the state in which case your weapons would be seized and given to the workers.

I am merely stating my belief that, if somebody threatens you with violence (by advocating genocide against you) you are then justified to use any means necessary to stop them. This should be uncontroversial, i think.

I'm a blue collar guy, but other day I paid my neighbor to change the oil in my truck because I was too drunk to put it on the ramps. Do I need to kill myself when the glorious revolution begins or can I just go to gulag?

Didn't you just accuse me of being an "identity politician" five minutes ago? And now you're talking about how we must respect how people identify? WEW

Gulag is for Stalinists, and no, paying another person to do something for you is not necessarily objectionable, but problems begin to arise when you hire somebody to produce a marketable good for you.

You know what. I agree.

And as someone who believes that ownership of private property and the ability to do with that property as you will constitutes as key aspect of my culture and identity I do believe that you are advocating genocide against myself and all those like me. I also sincerely believe that if you were to ever succeed that it'd result in a genocidal purge society that constantly consumes new supposed threats. That it'd be the french revolution all over again constantly finding new enemies.

So, now that we've established that i sincerely believe you're ideology to be inevitably genocidal, and since you've established that violence against such believers is acceptable, please tell me.

Whats your address so that I may defend myself?

Show me someone marching down the street screaming they want to kill Jews blacks and gays.

You can't because these things are only happening in your deluded psyche

I never said, nor do I believe, that people like you should be killed or injured. Also, are you aware of the distinction that we make between personal and private property?

You are right, just the other day I had a fever dream where I hallucinated about neo-nazis marching around Charlottesville. Us commies are so silly, huh?

>a group of people of gathering is violence

Do you not see how demented you are? Rhetorical, I know you don't

I'm aware of it. I've read the various anarchist founders. This shit isn't foreign to me it's just wrong. Personal vs private property is a distinction without a difference. It's a quaint distinction to consider in the safe space of not having to put it into actual practice. It breaks down rapidly once anarchists attempt to actually enforce their ideas. Spanish Civil War Catalonia being a perfect example.

>So when people march through the streets screaming that they want to kill Jews, Blacks and gays, and thereby directly threatening anybody who belongs to those groups, is it not justified to use violence in order to stop them? Why?
If you believe in free speech, then no, it is not justified to use violence to stop them. If you don't believe in free speech, then by all means feel free to use violence, although keep in mind that people will also use violence on you, as everyone who isn't a communist will view your ideology as a direct threat to their life.

Why would someone build a road?

Since there is now no planning in communism, how would people in a society devoid of it be able to listen to needs of various districts? Does that not imply a director is needed to plan everything?

How much material wealth will people enjoy under communism? Is everyone an agrarian or a magistrate?

If capitalists want to maximize profits, and communists want to maximize efficiency, then does that not imply that the capitalists are using the most efficient methods? If yes, why would we, the proles, want communism?

Just don't exploit others by owning the means of production and you're not doing anything that is against my ideology. And please show an example of me specifically stating that I wish to kill capitalists (you can't, because I don't)

Directly threatening somebody is already illegal under U.S. Law. What's wrong with doing yourself, what the police do all the time?

Appointing a director of that sort is not necessarily precluded by anarchism, I believe.

People would have as much wealth as their labour creates.

So I hoard all of my labour?

Whew! I'm glad I don't have to gulag.

But while we are on the topic, if gulag is for Stalinists then does the gulag guards collective own and operate it. Do the turn-keys each get an equitable share of human misery and slave labor? How can it be said that they don't profit off the labor others if all the collective produces is beatings and escape preventions? How do they provide for themselves?

The current law allows for the police to arrest someone for saying "I'm going to kill that guy", but saying something like "someone should kill that guy" or "he deserves to die" or "I wish he was dead" is perfectly fine.

There's also the matter that the police merely arrest the threatener and don't harm them if they don't resist, whereas the only thing for the citizen to do is assault the threatener.

How do you mean?

Essentially, we believe that labour is entitled to all that it creates. We want to create a society that reflects that. Under capitalism, a portion, usually a majority, of the capital that is produced by the workers gets distributed to the capitalist, which is also the beginning of how we form the idea of the two classes that Marxists believe in. One for every gender.

I am not sure, try asking a Stalinist.

All anarchist ideology is rife with 'death to the exploitive class' 'down with the bourgeoisie' rhetoric. And of course once the famines start becausce anarchism lacks a price mechanism then suddenly we start looking to hoarders and evil crypto capitalists for expunging.

I want to get a thing done. I have stuff. I would like to give you some of that stuff in exchange for you helping me get a thing done. But i don't have perfect knowledge that the stuff I want done you'll do properly. So instead I offer to give you less stuff than you would strictly create if everything went perfectly. You agree that this is a reasonable requirement to hedge against risk and you decide that you want my stuff enough that you don't mind losing some of the value of your own labor to someone else. Both parties agree that this is great and they'll both benefit.

And then you step in and explain that we can't do what we agreed to because i'm exploiting him of the value of his labor. And that I can either pay him fully or not pay at all. And so not wanting to risk myself I decide not go through with the agreement. And now everyone is poorer. And me and the guy i wanted to hire both walk away wondering why our mutual consensual agreement was stopped by the non-authoritarian with the gun threatening violence against either us if we followed through.

I agree with this, but I am not talking about "that person should die"; I am talking about "I will kill that group of people", wouldn't you agree that this counts as a direct threat towards a group of people? I fully understand that many anarchists take the "punch a nazi" thing too far, which is also why I dislike antifa.

Why do you attack working class people and justify it by calling them fascists?

>all anarchists are accountable for the actions and beliefs of every other anarchist

No one says that though, it's all advocating for not wanting to be replaced in their own countries

When I see dozens of ancom flags at every single one of these events then yes they're representing your ideology

Why do you counter protest literal free speech rallies when you're supposedly anarchist and against laws such as limits on speech?

What's stopping a group of people from leaving the commune and BTFOing everyone else?

What's keeping the cities from devolving into absolute chaos?

I cannot see how anarcho communism could work unless we revert back to prehistoric man.

The problem, I think, with the "agreement" argument, is that it's often the case that the worker has no choice but to work for such a system or he cannot afford the things that he needs, and so the decision to agree to your commission is not actually a meaningful choice. If you still find this questionable, mutualist anarchy is pretty cool too I guess.

As long as nobody says that, I have no problem with allowing them to speak their mind. People *do* sometimes say it though.

How can you call it anarchy when you have laws against capitalism?
Under anarchocapitalism people are completely free to start communist communes if they want, but under communism starting a capitalist commune gets you the bullet

But they aren't representing *me*.

Under capitalism, you are free to leave whenever you want, same thing is true under my ideology, except choosing to leave will often result in starvation under capitalism. Again it's not a meaningful choice: wage-slavery or starvation, which would you choose?

I bet you don't even know anarchism beyond a few slogans, a cursory skimming of the anarchist FAQ, and some fellow degenerates in Eugene telling you that 'their all the same man. democrats and republicans are just the same coin man.'

In "God & The State" Bakunin explains why he believes a technocratic system of pure souled men working on the best knowledge of science as a source of government would fail. What does he believe would be the result of such a system and what does he propose as a replacement?

Kropotkin was inspired by a specific ecology in a specific region for his concepts. What ecology did he experience and what ideas did that ecology help him develop?

Or if you like I could ask you about the others. Tell me user. Have you even read your own supposed ideology?

Capitalistic systems cannot be anarchistic, since it involves the unjustified hierarchy of a few people owning the means of production, and other people needing to work for them. If it has capitalism, it *cannot* be anarchy.

Yeah but since everything is so decentralized what's gonna start people from going out and rebuilding society? Wouldn't a post revolution world just evolve into micro states?

I said I was a rookie anarchist in the OP.

*what's gonna stop people

Anarchy
-(uncountable) The state of a society being without authorities or an authoritative governing body.

Yeah nah, you're a cunt.
Why do leftists always try to redefine words to suit their agendas?

Anarchism isn't inherently against social structures, nor does the abolition of the state involve the abolition of civilisation as a whole. Worker's cooperatives and unions are fine. Paying somebody to do a service is also Fine, as long as private property isn't involved.

Come on, user. You can't just crack open a dictionary and expect a centuries-old ideology to adhere to whatever definition you find.

Are commies afraid of heights?

You got curbstomped by Franco. You get stomped by every military power. Even Stalin rekt you fags.

You are the most utopian of utopian ideologies.

Have you ever had a job?
Who recruited you? And what were they to you?

>everybody I don't like gets a helicopter ride

Then do everyone here a favor. And I mean this sincerely. No sarcasm. From one ex anarchist to a current one.

Shut the fuck up and read.

Read God and the State and read The Conquest of Bread. Read Road to Serfdom. Read Thucydides and the Melian dialogue. Study basic economics not in it's moralist 'this is what should happen' form but in it's empiricist 'this is what does happen' form. Study International Relations theory, both Systems World Theory and Neorealist. Start with "the Tragedy of great power politics" by John Mearsheimer. Read and study and self doubt yourself for 5 years straight. Try to prove yourself wrong. Try to break your own ideology no matter what that becomes over that time.

It can do nothing but make you a better person in the end. And you'll either be able to defend your ideas better or you'll understand why it is that everyone here finds your ideology to be abhorrent. There is honor in humility and in being observant of your own ignorance. You should be asking yourself always 'what the greatest flaw in this idea.' be that idea capitalism, anarchism, or fucking monarchism.

But don't expect to win over literally anyone if you can't do that much for yourself.

Sorry about that rant. Here. have some anime titties.

Thanks for the titties, I guess I will read more into it.

I think he's doing the right thing coming here.
Sup Forums has this habit of redpilling tourists

Agreed. The fact that he came here and argued his point is why I have any hope at all. I respect his gumption.

Most anarchs wallow in self pity and find the ideology an easy explanation to explain why life is so mean to them. If he honestly believes it to be the best system and can stand to argue that here than he should have the self drive to challenge that belief. To read multiple sides and self improve until he knows he's grown as a human being. Whether he acts on that potential to grow now is up to him.

The 'an hour of reading before bed trope' exists for a reason btw user. It's the easiest way to get a good habit forming.

>a group of hippies was crushed by powerfull states

Jee what a surprise, might is right babyboi

So here is my question. How do you manage to denie natural law?

That's literally just the choice to live life. In a state of nature where you are the only party you must do something or accrue resources or you starve.

Do you believe that people are innately entitled to goods without demonstrating or providing value? How much are the unproductive entitled to from the productive? If I refuse to participate in this scheme how does this differ in any way from the situation you just described as problematic?

>attack those who disagree with their extreme political position.
>suppress those opposing views with violence and threats of violence.
>thinks that they are the 'Anti' Facists.
You are more authoritarian than you want to admit.
You want everyone to agree with you and follow your vision of how the world should be.
You are the fascist.

Yeah but the North American continent is a big place. If a coalition of people in a region all voluntarily enter a societal contract in which property is allowed in their own private community, what power do you have to stop that since your own ideology prohibits you from any sort of enforcement?

...

what is difference between ancom and an-syndicalism.

When I have read the title, I wanted to take you serious op, but upon reading more stuff, I must say, you are talking nonsense.

First,
Isn't adding communism redundant? I mean, every anarchist would agree with me and in same breath would disregard ancaps as anarchist. Are you LARPing? or just new into it?

Don't listen to OP, he is plain retarded.

>what's the difference between ancom and communism
>As I understand it, most other forms of communism, such as Stalinist, involve a dictator.
You understand it wrong. Marxist-Leninism (correct term) does not involve dictator, and every good tankie will tell you, that Stalin was not dictator.
>want to establish ruler
No they do not want to establish ruler - they want vanguard party, which job is to bring revolution and establish dictatorship of proletariat, which will transition towards communism.
>promises to redistribute wealth, but instead hoards it for themselves.
Do you imly Stalin, Mao hoarded wealth for themselves?

Pleaseee kys op. Thats retarded.

Anarchist used to be smart, now they are plain restarted.
pic related.

>what's the difference between ancom and communism

All leftists (no, liberals are not left) want same thing, communism. They only disagree how to achieve it.

Marxist-Leninist
Want to take state (bourgeoisie) power and turn it into socialist state. They believe that is only achieved with revolution -. Revolution is achieved via vanguard party, which builds revolutionary sentiment and leads into revolution. With socialist state in their hands - dictatorship of proletariat (workers and peasants) they will oppress bourgeois class (nationalisation, excessive taxation) all that so classes will vanish, with it state and communism will be achieved.

Social-democrats/democratic socialist
They want to achieve communism with democratic changes - reforms, often called reformists. They are against violence - revolution amd oppression of classes. They want slow transition.

Anarchist
They want revolution and end of state in same moment - no taking power of state and transitional period. With free association of individuals. To be honest, I have no idea how that will work - probably would not - it did not.

>Ancoms want to abolish the state, and establish communism immediately via direct democracy.
That immediately devolves into sectarian warfare.

kys tankie cuck

Not really, more of a Luxemburgist.
I've just tried to be fair and objective.

How do you solve the geographically-specific resources problem?

By that, I mean the fact that key resources are located in specific areas of Earth. If anarcho-communism is essentially tribes of of labor unions where the lazy proles don't have to work if they don't want to - then what force compels iron miners to keep mining? An iron mine "labor union tribe" could decide to just mine enough iron for themselves and a few neighbors, then fap for the rest of the year. Meanwhile, other regions of the network of labor union tribes would go without steel. What are you going to do, form a state and send an army to take the iron by force?

Also, how can you compel vast populations of niggers to do anything in general under anarcho-communism? What's stopping them from going tribal and turning everything into a Detroit-style ghetto?

What if I live in an anarchist commune and I don't work? Will people force me to?

right pic should be labeled (((Revolution)))

>Anarchism lacks an efficient price mechanism
Have I got a solution for you! Now for the low, low price of your vote, we can keep doing something close to a safer form of anarchocapitalism and keep the dollars and high standard of living rolling.
>an-com
>=
>Communist
>Read OPs dissembling bullshit and come to the bright side

>somebody threatens you with violence (by advocating genocide against you) you are then justified to use any means necessary to stop them. This should be uncontroversial, i think.
Free speech is the liberty to tell someone they should be killed to their face. Fuck you, you pink piece of shit. Go choke on your teriyaki seitan.

>Read Road to Serfdom.
Hayek is all you need to understand the situation.

But how do you expect businesses to operate without the concept of private property?

>Anarcho capitalism
>Remove NAP
>Real anarchism
you nerds

Could you point me to a history of or a book/article explaining in death how you guys come to the distinction between personal & private property and hopefully the basis for property/ownership that you guys use you know like from first principles and a string of logic built from the ground up that sort of thing?

I've heard hundreds of times what people think the difference is but not the concept behind it exactly and the logical basis for it.

If that was the case, then how do you come to the decision that not allowing the agreement to happen is the best outcome? He still cannot afford the things he needs. Not only that you also made the other guy less likely to be able to afford the things he needs.

Were you born with an extra chromosome or did you steal it from someone?