Are there any Anarchist Communists here? If so, can you describe your ideology because I really don't understand it

Are there any Anarchist Communists here? If so, can you describe your ideology because I really don't understand it
Communism and Anarchism are polar opposites so I'm wondering how they fit together

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

in a perfect society communism would be the best right? But we can't ever trust government so anarchy is best. If both ideals could live alongside each other; it would be the most ideal form of government; no control but everybody does what they do best. more of a pipe dream than anything but i call myself a anarcho communist around hippie chicks

kys

I'm not a communist but communism does actually ultimately aim to get rid of the state, as well as private property. The latter is the problem.

>stirnerballs
Kek. Is spook man the memiest philosopher or is that Molymeme?

spain des like peple geing puss

IN an ideal world, Benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government.

>private property is the problem

Communism is for oppressive assholes who really just want to censor everything they don't like. They couldn't care less about how much the poor suffer.

If you arn't Whig, you arn't American.

who are the ones below the grid

Individuo-Anarchist and Anarcho-primitivist.

Communism was supposed to lack a nation state structure. So the left anarchist term "anarcho-communist" is actually tautological.
The only reason left anarchists had to make this distinction is because that fuck head Karl Marx thought that to get to stateless communism you'd first have to pass through a state based socialism (the "dictatorship of the proletariat").
Left anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin disagreed and argued for revolution immediately to stateless anarchism (like parts of Spain achieved in 1936).
This muddying of language that causes the need for tautology is the same reason we have to say "left anarchist" or "left libertarian" even though both terms originally implied purely extreme left positions held by people like Pierre Joseph Proudhon.
Left anarchism is one of the most tortured and defamed ideologies. Look at how often you hear terms like "If x, y or z is allowed to happen it'll be total anarchy!" in films and tv shows. The association between anarchism and disorder is as prevalent as it is wrong.
And unlike ancaps, the left anarchists don't endlessly talk about how great their system would be. They fucking enacted it and life was better for the ordinary people who lived under it.
youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

what's their rationale?

Anarcho-individualism has so many philosophies and branches that it's not strictly one type of anarchism. Most anarchist theories based off anind.

Anarcho-primitivism is complete self-removal from civilization (not society).

Google and read the Unibomber's manifesto, he is an anarcho- primitavist and the manifesto is good reading.

>yfw your life goal isn't finding a comfy cave, to kidnap some waifu and rape her by the side of your fireplace. then teach you brethren how to hunt and attract both megafauna and waifus

>literally hitler

So you're saying that nazism is authoritarian center?

But isn't that exactly how you guys live in Brazil?

says España... the literal toilet of yurop.


*Barcelona is awesome, gib independence.

Yup

It's authoritarianism collectivism but xenophobic, so it goes in the center.

Our government literally prevents us from living in caves.

Last white guy in Brazil found in cave

>Left anarchism is one of the most tortured and defamed ideologies. Look at how often you hear terms like "If x, y or z is allowed to happen it'll be total anarchy!" in films and tv shows. The association between anarchism and disorder is as prevalent as it is wrong.

That's because anarchy has always meant to imply disorder.

The very etymological root (without+order) wasn't associated with a particular political or ideological position until Proudhon. But it was used before to criticize the rabble-rousers.

The word "anarchy" precedes "anarchism" by centuries. You have no right to say it's wrongful to associate the word "anarchy" with no rules and chaos, when that's precisely the context in which the word has been used for centuries.

:^(

Basically just Hippy communes: the political ideology. Only seems feasible after chronic drug use

By the way, this is a VERY COMMON THEME you'll find among "anarchists" and "primitivists" and the like. This absolute delusional that if it weren't for the oppressive state, they'd be kings in their own lands, with an army at their feet and all the children they could want.

Absolutely pathetic cunts.

Nice strawman you got there, amigo.

As a democratic Socialist I think it's important to have balance.

The democratic party needs to shift further to the left for there to be an actual policy discussion.

I'm not a strict demo socialist. But the scale has gone too far to the right. That it needs to be leashed in. To make this country great again we need to move politics to the left.

look at this fucking man and tel me you wouldnt ride his helicopter


ps: death to commies and anarchists

>Canadian education
Communism and anarchism are very similar, you fucker confused socialism with communism
Bet you have never even read the communist manifesto

Pure anarchy is not possible.

The idea of anarchy is that everybody has unrestrained free will in a stateless society. What if a person uses their free will to enslave others or to create a power structure? The only way to stop this person is by use of force, which violates the principle of anarchy.

Like This user

it is true dou, only very few (often older) anarchists realize they would still live like neandethals without organized state and society.

So we appoint a group of people to use force to stop us from supposedly using force? Maybe we can call it... government!

Who's the I-ball on the bottom? Individual Anarchism?

Anarchy doesn't mean without order, it means without rulers, just like monarchy means one ruler

Exactly. Anarchy only works if every participant is perfectly adherent to anarchist principles.

On the other hand, I hate government as well, because it limits free will. But free will leads to government.

Maybe I should just kill myself.

>The very etymological root (without+order) wasn't associated with a particular political or ideological position until Proudhon
You mean 'anarchos'? Like this user said;
"Anarchy doesn't mean without order, it means without rulers"

I used to get so fucking mad (BUT SO FUCKING MAD!!!) when talking with anarchists because I'd point out everything around them is the result of hierarchy, capitalism, the state.

These fuckers use SMARTPHONES, COMPUTERS, CELLPHONES, HOSPITALS, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, AIRPLANES...

It's like these guys have NO CONCEPT of the complexity not only of the world around them but the complexity of human nature. And the THE ARROGANCE, the constant peddling of just ONE MORE BOOK that I need to read before I "get it".

It's a disease. I feel the same around far-leftists the same I feel around neo-nazis with their genuine hatred for non-whites, fags and so on. It's sick. It's a disease of the mind.

Except the neo-nazis are defended around here because the right-wing is also hypocritical as fuck.

... no. I think the olympic torch flames are cooking Brazilian brains at the moment lads. Oh no wait, every discussion about anarchism ever has consisted of one side who argues for anarchism and another side that doesn't even fucking know what it is. Like, not even close.

Anarcho communism is the idea that removing capitalism and hierarchical power structures will result in a more just and equal society. Workers would still work, but the means of production would be public, and resources would be shared according to need. The theory is that people would organize into affiliations similar to trade unions, and communities would act in ways that are mutually beneficial.Trade and economy would still exist, but in a way that is not exploitive.

>another side that doesn't even fucking know what it is. Like, not even close.

Like... you just don't get it, man. You're not even close. You might think like you're getting it but no... it's just like, this whole other dimension of knowledge you're dealing with here. I'm... I'm above you all. Intellectually, of course. You just don't have what it takes to debate ideas with a man of my gifted caliber.

That's a good concise explanation.

Can you believe anyone in their right mind with any world experience and a good knowledge of human nature would even entertain those ideas outside of a fairy-tale context?

No I'm sorry retard. This is quantifiable. This is demonstrable. Even in this thread there's people suggestion all anarchists want to be kangz n shit with rape waifus and literal personal armies. It's the whole "anarchy" vs anarchism gap that most plebs such as yourself fall into. It's not my fault you're arguing against something you know nothing about. That's a glaring character flaw you need to work on bud.

Hierarchy in human beings is unavoidable. With no state restrictions, some people will always be smarter, stronger, or more powerful than others. Forcing the equality of people is not anarchism.

Anarchism doesn't preclude scientific or technological advancement. Also public goods like hospitals would still exist. But yes, anarchists are mostly insufferable cunts who don't understand the world. Anarchism is a philosophy, not necessarily a set of rules about how to run a society. Part of the philosophy is basically that "humans will figure it out".

Not An/com, but I can explain it. Since there is no state, that's why it's anarchy. There's no property, that's why it's communism. Nobody has any property and there is no state.

No serious anarchist has ever argued otherwise. One of the 19th C. anarchists Mikhail Bakunin accepted that when in need of shoes, one HAS to defer to the authority of the shoe maker. Noam Chomsky tells a story about how he smacked his grand daughter and made her cry because she ran out on the road. These are examples of natural hierarchy that are at least arguably justified.

I think the idea of "human nature" is actually "human nature under capitalism". In a society where we weren't all chasing "scarce" resources, and being fooled into some dream of luxury goods making us happy somehow, human nature would be a very different beast.

Right. Fairy tale contexts like late 19th/early 20th C. Spain.
youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

There would still be crazies and genuinely bad people who break the system.

breddy gud OP

>implying people won't just form gangs and take the property they want

What's gonna stop them seeing as there's no authority?

"capitalism" evolved naturally and organically due to the progressive sophistication of the human society. It wasn't a magic thing which was created from the thin air and imposed to everybody...

Sooo, there's no "nature under capitalism"... there's only "our nature"...

at least our bantmaster here seems to have actually read some sauce and doesn't deny that we have a biological/natural system of organization.

In anarchism, hierarchy exists, but not power structures. Kropotkin wrote "when I need medical advice, I bow to the knowledge of the Doctor" (paraphrasing). But the doctor will also bow to the knowledge of the shoemaker when they need shoes, etc. The idea that some people are inherently better at all things than someone else is ridiculous. There is that illusion In capitalism because there are people better at maneuvering through the capitalist system

another gangs. just like your neighbours on madmax

But they would be in the minority, and easily dealt with by the majority. Think of it this way, if the government disappeared tomorrow, would you start raping and pillaging? Would most people you know?

There are plenty of other systems that evolved in different areas. Capitalism was one of them that ended up being spread by force because it was very efficient at creating the desire to expand and accumulate more capital. I don't believe there is some force in man or his nature that inevitably leads to capitalism. Anarchists actually believe the opposite, that inevitably, the inequalities of capitalism get to be unbearable to a large enough percentage of the people and they will revolt and overthrow the leaders

No, but a big enough minority could. By force of arms, they could suppress the majority and turn their gang into a new government.

Alternatively, the "good" people would rally together under the leadership of someone particularly competent or charismatic in the community. They would suppress the bandits. The masses would then look to this leader to re-establish some kind of organised power structure to prevent or reduce future incidents.

>What's gonna stop them seeing as there's no authority?
This isn't a hypothetical question you sheep fucker. It's already happened. When everyone got a slice of the pie in revolutionary Catalonia there was no reason for people to steal. The only thing that had been considered a crime or immoral which continued after the anarchist revolution was prostitution. The anarchists tried to educate and train prostitutes so they could find alternative paths in life but many opted to go back to prostitution so they were left alone to do their own thing. Anarchist Spain was pretty sexually liberal anyway.

I never said it was a good idea. In fact, I said I'm not an an/com.

Peaceful majorities are often dominated by agressive minorities.

But the man is part of nature. We are a natural agent, willing or not. We became what we are because of our sorroundings.

And just like animal evolution, capitalism devoured every other competitor until now. Note that i'm not saying capitalism is ideal, or the pinnacle of our economical organization... but only a natural step.

>When everyone got a slice of the pie in revolutionary Catalonia there was no reason for people to steal.

The revolutionaries stole the lands, they stole everything, they imposed taxes on land owners who wouldn't bow down to the will of the collective, fields were burned, violent strikes, mob intimidation.... What do you mean people didn't steal? There were no more possessions to steal!

How can anyone be this ignorant and naive?

>Think of it this way, if the government disappeared tomorrow, would you start raping and pillaging? Would most people you know?

ISIS is a minority.

If you believe ISIS's growth wasn't, in part, attributed to statelessness... and its containment a result of state intervention, then I don't know what to tell you. It's like talking to a wall.

>revolutionary Catalonia
>anarchy

Above all anarchism is about personal freedom. Attempts to limit it would be met by force. A community dedicated to anarchist ideals would defend itself to the death before they would allow themselves to be subjugated. Also, anarchists love guns, so there's that too

>The revolutionaries stole the lands
>Revolution (particularly an anarchist one)
>Stole, ie a crime
Sheeeeit, what's a dictionary again? This kind of faggotry is the same old "Revolutions don't count if my side didn't win" bullshit. It's why Haiti had to pay off a debt for freeing themselves from slavery. Their revolution happened in the 1800s. They only finished paying the debt off in the 1940s haha. Of course the game looks unfair if your side loses even though everything possible was done to rig it. It's called being a cunt user. Embrace your cuntiness.

Problem there broo?

The inability of locals to resist Isis was a result of the state limiting their personal freedom too, so there's that.

There's no reason the get pissy user, I'm posting in a thread explicitly asking for an explanation of an/com, so I'm doing that. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just explaining a point of view

You are beyond salvation. How long have you been studying the subject? I just hope one day you'll realize why you're being pathetic. Have you EVEN read "Homage to Catalonia"?

Go ahead. Stick with the surface. The pretty black and red flags. Le anti-capitawism xDD

I just hope one day you'll realize the barbarianism that it represented for anyone who wouldn't bow down to their new order.

So many peasants lost their lands, their animals, all the little they had... You're fucking cruel. You just don't give a fuck. Mere pawns they are, collateral damage. You idealists make me sick. WHEN WILL YOU STOP KILLING PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU??? STOP THAT SHIT!!! STOP THAT SHIT!!!!

Yeah... I had family killed in Catalonia at the time. My last name is Vega. Guess why my family moved to Portugal.

FUCK YOU!!!! YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN THE NEO-CONS!!! YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LITTLE PEOPLE!!! YOU AUTHORITARIAN HYPOCRITE!!!

SIEG

>Have you EVEN read "Homage to Catalonia"?
Yes, why? The rest of your post is emotional clap trap. This aint Oprah faggot.

The most effective fighters on the ground against ISIS;
Kurds from Revolutionary Rojava, a non-state, more or less left anarchist territory that western anarchists like David Graeber have long pointed to as a modern day Catalonia.

Noice