The state owns literally everything

>The state owns literally everything
>But it simultaneously doesn't exist!

Can someone explain how anarcho communism isn't the ultimate contradiction in terms?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Anarchism: "Let's abolish the state and hope everyone voluntarily decides to act like good [ideology]s"

The people make up the state, so there for the people owns everything

No, politicians and bureaucrats own the state. That is why you can be punished for trespassing on government property. You don't really own it.

anarchy is a goal, not a practice. In truth, nearly everyone wants anarchy... they only differ in how to achieve it or how to define it.

Being able to fly is a goal, not a practice. In truth, nearly everyone wants to sprout magical rainbow wings and fly off into the sunset... they only differ in how to achieve it or how to define it.

This is how you sound right now. You're trying to justify an ideology based on pure fantasy.

...

>the state owns literally everything.
That is not what communism is, stop giving (((them))) ammunition by being so fucking retarded and not knowing what you're talking about.

Socialism = Public ownership of the means of production

Communism = CLASSLESS, STATELESS SOCIETY
>it really has never been achieved, BUT the part the leftists don't understand however is that it NEVER CAN be achieved because it's a fucking retarded pipe dream.
>every so-called 'communist revolution' leaves a power vacuum for (((them))) to seize power using the 'workers' that they have radicalized and organized. It ends this way every time because it was DESIGNED TO, not because 'hurrr real gommunism has never been tried'.

Anarcho Communism = the method of bringing about communism through the destruction of the current capitalistic state. (they are the alternative to the other denominations of marxists [[Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, etc]] that seek to bring about Communism through the implementation of 'Socialism' as a transitory phase between Capitalism and Communism.)

Here's a brainwashed leftist faggot to break it down for you, stop getting this basic terminology shit wrong it only creates more leftists because you make yourselves look dumb/ like liars.

youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs

They believe that human nature is fundamentally cooperative and homogeneous (provided the 'right' education system), and everything states force on people is unnatural. After all states are abolished, democratic control can be established where all disputes are resolved by consensus and all judgment calls are made by (Rational) policy and cooperation. Moreover, this state of affairs is so desirable, stable and natural that all societies will eventually evolve to reach that point. All the blood that's spilled along the way is only the blood of capitalists and statists, the children of the devil who do not have the ACTUAL kind-hearted human nature.

Humans already can fly, you fucking moron, because we evolved smarter brains and built airplanes.
>they only differ in how to achieve it
It's already been achieved and will continue to be improved, much like every step taken towards anarchy.
>antifag meme
I'm a right-wing libertarian in practice, because reality is racist and I like being white. Anarchy means no state to enforce progressive laws and of course the state would be redundant once whites understand race realism.
To use the "flying" example, we should work on introducing racial reality much like the Wright Brothers worked on introducing gliders to air currents.
tl;dr you're both retards that don't know what you're talking about

this is for you

(cont)
ALL 'COMMUNISTS' ARE ANARCHISTS.

>Anarcho-Communists
Anarcho Communists = want to just tear shit down now and think 'Communism' will spring from the ashes.

>Regular-Communists
M-Ls, Maoists, Trotskyists [insert other leftist nonsense here] = want to establish 'Socialism' first and they believe that the state will become useless simply fade away which will leave us with 'troo communism'

They're ALL useful idiots and it's a lot easier to deal with them if you have even a basic understanding of what they believe.

well said

Nice cartoon - can I ask if there's some historical precedent for the spear and scythe combo? I might have coloured that ball green, myself, given the actual "Green" rebellions the Bolsheviks put down in various rural parts.

God, if our useful idiots really DID end up having something like Soviet Communism imposed on us, I'd be so relieved. All the faggots and society-destroyers would be sent to starve off in some lager on the first night. Delightful. I don't mind having to pay lip service to Politburo decisions if I get this in exchange!

It was used by ancoms (flag should be black, not green). Remember that especially today most commies are not tankies and believe the revolution was hijacked by corrupt statists. That's also what that comic was about, although the bolsheviks always maintained that everyone was allied to them (like in the comic).

It's not green because it's meant to represent the average cannon-fodder within the bolshevik movement as opposed to the (((leadership figures))) with the classic sickle/star. The "greens" are a different matter entirely, though I suppose they could be substituted into the picture for a similar message.

well said again

The collective owns everything. There is no state.

It's like when a husband and wife share a bank account, house, car, ect. They both own those things together and decide what to do with those things together. You and your wife didn't form a state or hold elections or anything. You just discuss things and plan things together, and come to a mutual agreement.

Maybe you don't think is arrangement is a GOOD one, but a collective or a commune are the exact same concept just with more people. There is no state.

Doesn't change the fact that everything you just wrote is pure Utopian fiction. That is, it is so impossible that it can not even be called an 'arrangement' to be judged morally. OP is right to call it a contradiction.

Except when enough people get together and make a large enough "collective", that's called a state.

Anarcho communism is shit

It isn't
Marx literally calls for a Central Bank which can only be implemented by a state forcing a banking monopoly on everyone.

Anarcho communism is when your in the prison of your mind. Schizoid people are living embodiments of anarcho communism

I never said it was a good idea or actually possible to pull off - OP didn't say anything about that. OP is talking about there being a state, and there isn't one.
A state is an organizational structure where people live under a government.

A collective can't be a state because it has no government. All decisions are agreed upon mutually by everyone within the collective. All rules are self enforced because everyone agrees on them and wants to follow them. To call this a "government" is asinine, because no one is doing anything they wouldn't have done on their own anyway. Discussion was involved, consensus building was involved, but in the end everyone agrees.

This is different from a state, because in a state there is no such consensus. Instead, people have to follow rules they may disagree with, and if they don't they have to face the state's violence. The so-called "social contract". The people live UNDER their government, and the government is the one that makes the rules and enforces the rules. A government may allow input from its citizens, but it is ultimately its own entity with its own agenda and its own set of powers that make it separate from its citizens.

You are saying that a man and wife somehow magically are able to find a consensus to any conflict, simply by virtue of them being man and wife (definition). The whole problem in the contradiction is that there is no way for your commune to actually exist as something that does not have a state. It does have a state, because decisions need to be made. Look I can talk all day about "why don't we just reach a consensus?" but that doesn't mean we can actually do it. You simply posit this mythical "collective" that somehow defies the most basic human nature by always being able to find agreement about everything. Such a commune is your unicorn. That you insist that no state exists in such a scenario is why it's fiction.

>All rules are self enforced because everyone agrees on them and wants to follow them.
Hahahaah, oh man, this is a complete fantasy. You haven't ever been involved in any sort of leaderless group effort, have you? What happens when someone comes up with a rule that other people disagree with? Is there a vote? Then that's just a democracy. Does everything require 100% consensus? Because that's just impossible to achieve. What if there's a problem and two or more sides cannot agree on a solution, and there is no compromise? It isn't always possible to build a consensus. You need to understand that what you're talking about has been tried before and it doesn't actually work, and the larger the scale gets (and the more important the issues get) the less effective it becomes. Your analogy of a married couple or a family works, but when you start introducing even a dozen people, or you start introducing contentious issues with no opportunity for compromise, such a system begins breaking down.

Even the "marriage" analogy isn't all that great considering most marriages end in divorce. Which means the disagreements were so irreconcilable that the collective ended.

It is the ultimate contradiction. Communism is ultimate collectivism. Anarchism is ultimate Individualism.

But try explaining that to people with brain damage, aka marxists.

I'm saying compatible people in a voluntary relationship can resolve conflicts, and they can. It may take a long time, a mediator might need to get involved, and sometimes there can be no resolution and the issue is revisited later. Sometimes, people can just agree to disagree. Sometimes the disagreement is too fundamental and strains things too much and the relationship collapses, like a divorce.

Still no state and still no contradiction.
Actually, I have. I used to judge robotics competitions, and we had to reach a 100% consensus on every issue and we had no leaders. There were generally between 20-40 of us at any given competition.

How we solved situations where two or more sides could not agree or compromise was by having a separate consensus to recognize the will of the majority for that one issue. Then we'd hold a vote like in a democracy and the winner became what we all agreed on. After that one issue was passed, we went back to consensus building. It worked. You could argue we formed a quasi-state which only existed for the duration of that one vote, but that quasi-state was always immediately destroyed afterwards so there's still no contradiction.

You can point out niche situations all day if you want and you can argue that this isn't possible to sustain on a larger scale or longer term, but you're still wrong about there being any contradiction of terms.
>Even the "marriage" analogy isn't all that great considering most marriages end in divorce.
That's not actually true. This statistic comes from comparing number of marriages per year to the number of divorces per year. People who marry multiple times skew the numbers, and by a lot since someone who divorces once is likely to do it again.

>how do you do, fellow non-communists?
>communism dindu nuffin
>it's perfect in every way, everyone else is the problem
>this fairytale meme is totally a legitimate thing that actually exists, and not just the result of kids who weren't beaten enough and are still in middle school
this is a new approach, unfortunately people who aren't retarded communists are actually able to understand things they read so don't expect it to fool too many people

I want to brutally murder someone
they don't want to be killed
what happens, and how can we both get exactly what we want and agree with each other?
if I kill them anyway, what happens to me?
who's going to try to stop me from doing everything I want 24/7?
have you ever interacted with a human being before in your life?

>how do you do
I'm not a a goddamn communist you giant fucking retard
>communism dindu nuffin
except it did, it failed miserably (by design) and ruined/ended the lives of millions who fell for the (((ruse)))
>it's perfect in every way, everyone else is the problem
It is utopian nonsense, that doesn't make it "a good idea". Everyone else is (and always will be) the problem, which is exactly why gommunism is fucking retarded
>this fairytale is totally legitimate thing
I literally said it could never exist, learn to fucking read you mong.

>this is a new approach
Yes I agree, addressing the threat of communism with actual arguments rather than shouting nonsense catch phrases (that only make the leftists more sure of your idiocy/lack of knowledge on the subject) is a new approach. I certainly hope it catches on.

You're still not saying anything about why this would be possible in the first place.
>If conflict were unnecessary then it would be unnecessary.
It's a contradiction because your commune not only doesn't exist, but can not exist.

>How we solved situations where two or more sides could not agree or compromise was by having a separate consensus to recognize the will of the majority for that one issue. Then we'd hold a vote like in a democracy and the winner became what we all agreed on. After that one issue was passed, we went back to consensus building.
So basically you build consensus on things you can build consensus on, and vote on things you can't. So it's a democracy.

By the way, what happens when the people involved are indecent or corrupt and stubbornly refuse to recognize the will of the majority? Are you going to coerce them to do so? Or will you just let nothing ever get done?

>you can point out niche situations all day
On the contrary, you're the one doing so here. Anarchy is only viable in niche situations. If you want it to actually be viable on a societal (or even municipal, honestly) level then yes, it is a contradiction because the "collective" just inevitably ends up becoming a state, or is non-functional for too long and gets replaced by something else (i.e. a state).