Do you prefer anarcho-communism?

Do you prefer anarcho-communism? Living without private property and without GOVERNMENT!

 

I do not. Perhaps if we had far less people it would be nice, now it would guaranteed be total chaos.

 

large numbers make it unworkable.

 

Unfortunately yes.

 

So like communism, but the exact opposite of communism?

Communism, or anarchy, can lead to peaceful happy lives (or misery, depending on the people involved) for small groups. But they're opposites.

 

Isn't anarcho-commmunism just communism? I'm sure it's stateless anyway. How can you enforce a lack of property? If there's any authority it's not anarchism. This is why there is only anarcho-capitalism and subset that form voluntarily around it. Until technology is sifficiently advanced that resources are effectively limitless than communism is a pipe-dream.

 

No, there is Anarcho-syndicalism.


Chomsky;
"Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine.

There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will."

 

anarcho-communism=Somalia

 

I prefer good 'ol Marxism. Both would only work for small groups though. Large numbers would kill each other off in seconds.

 

I consider communism to be a form of anarchy..

 

And your consideration is quite incorrect.

 

lol, you beat me to it 'shack

 

Lol.
Gudun.

 

How so? Can you explain?

 

Yeah of course. In the ideal communistic state there is no government, the people should be good enough to control their selves and not to bad things, so it is a form of anarchy because there is no higher controller, there is only a middle class which controls itself without actually controlling it. In other words its kind of "programed" to act in a certain "good" way.

 

from wiki

The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism. Leninism adds to Marxism the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the working class, for the development of universal class consciousness and worker participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism.


By this definition I suppose you could call it a form of anarchy,
It's the Leninist angle, the 'Vanguard party" that I have trouble with...

It would of course be necessary for any form of Anarcho-(insert favorite term here) to succeed, but how do we pick them? how would it differ from the vulgar popularity contest we have now for electing officials?

 

Not always quoting something from the internet gives you the answer, I would recommend you read The Communist Manifesto, and Das Kapital, to create a more clear developed concept of communism, and then decide if you think that concept is the ideal concept. All political & economical system are idealistic, but some tend to crash themselves even if we consider talking about them in terms of utopia.

 

Who said anything about utopian or ideal concepts? We just need to make one work for the good of all.

No system can be perfect, theorys be damned.

A perfect form of govornment is one administered as a work in progress by and for honest people.

 

Well idealism is what makes a person to believe that one thing is possibly able to happen. And I explained how communism is a form of anarchy in the perfect usage of the word communism ( thats why i used utopia to explain it ).

 

Communism is a sham. It goes against human nature. People will always do whats in their own best interests, not the interest of some imaginary collective. (Which just so happens why statism is a sham too) Centralizing power and removing property rights are the easy first steps of a communist state. Unfortunately, expecting that power to magically dissolve into paradise is the fantasy that never happens. Only a fucking moron would be a communist. For a viable idea of anarchy, you should look towards how markets, or voluntary interactions between people work.

http://www.libertariantee.com