Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

tnstaec wrote

@com is one variety of anarchism. Usually distinguished from anarcho-syndicalism and platformism. Personally I'm not that into any of these red @ tendencies, so I'll defer to someone else to give you a better description. In the mean time you can check out Pyotr Kropotkin who was the main theorist behind @com.

3

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

That is kindof redundant don't you think? Platformism is a strategy that uses syndicalism as a means of achieving communism. If anything platformism is a synthesis of syndicalism and communism.

5

aiwendil wrote (edited )

So, the way I look at it is that communism is an economic system and anarchism is a system for organizing society and decision making. Communism is a a moneyless system, where resources are more directly moved around, based on the collective ownership of resources including the means of production. This means that you I and everybody, inherent to our citizenship of a communist country would be just as entitled to any resource as anybody else. There are many ways this can be implemented, so far it has never truly been implemented, but attempts at it have combined communism with an authoritarian political system, which would often dictate where you would work by use of aptitude testing and things of the sort. This has often led to highly efficient, but extremely coercive systems in which the people have no true agency or autonomy. On the contrary Anarcho-Communism adopts anarchistic, non-hierarchal decision making practices to take a more egalitarian approach to communism. I personally believe that in order for a society to be truly classless, as communism was initially envisioned to be, you would have to also have no ruling class, which also means no vanguard. I think the nature of anarchy with adjectives, is that everybody has a different sense of what this means and whether or not a vanguard could work in this paradigm, but that is my take. I think within Anarcho-Communism nationalizing resources is completely unnecessary, but socializing them is in fact ideal. In that sense the computer I am using would be our computer, not my computer, but as a society we could decide to have as many computers as are needed to meet our computing needs. This might even change the way we computed. We could have a much more "cloud," centric design, where the units we would access would just be terminals that connect to a supercomputer. Re-imagining computing this way might make you think about how we might re-imagine other things: Transportation(could be much more communal public transportation rather than the individual driven idea of car ownership), housing, farming, what have you). Hope this all makes sense.

3

TOTaIleyAnTeWaxeCAmB wrote

while I agree with you on most of this, I think a public cloud and computers being treated as public resources creates a big threat to the individual

after all, anarchism/communism/socialism can remove the need for private property in many senses- but personal computing needs a huge update in order to embrace security AND privacy while allowing public contact on all physical nodes. Personally I don't feel any current security protocols, esp those easily understood and implemented by the avg individual, are a good fit for this.

4

aiwendil wrote (edited )

I agree with this in a lot of ways based on my non-idealistic understanding of the current world we live in. I think Anarcho-Communism is idealistic, I am not sure it can ever be implemented as it kind of requires all of humanity or at least large groups of humans functioning as a sort of hive mind. I am not sure what is innately human and what has been conditioned by capitalism, but I like to think that in a truely communist society we would have less need for the secure computing channels that our current world requires. I think in the current society we live in we need to hyper decentralize, but in other worlds with different rules it might be more efficient and thus advantageous to hyper centralize certain resources to make them more accessible. However you could obviously take another tack and that would be that each individual could function as their own infrastructure. Like we would all connect via mesh networks whose infrastructure was directly owned as in personal not private property, by the operator themselves. I was just kind of laying out possibilities and I think it is easy to think of computing that way and then extrapolate that sort of functionality to transportation and farming and housing, etc. I tend to think the best we as humans can probably do is to create hyper decentralized mesh services, both digitally and in the real world. Like we could all farm a little bit on our roofs or in our yard and specialize in whatever and then share those resources with neighbors and the community for example. That is just a structure we can create to make more autonomy for ourselves within a capitalist paradigm, but those things tend to get criminalized in hyper capitalistic countries very quickly.

6

aiwendil wrote

I want to clarify that I don't believe in the whole "nothing to hide," rhetoric. I just believe a lot of why we need to compute securely is because we have non-transparent government entities nefariously spying and criminalizing the people they spy on for simple things like sharing ideas or innovating to make their lives better or easier and also because we live in a coercive society that requires us to securely transfer funds, but in a society where money didn't exist and we freely shared resources, there may be no need of internet privacy as our private lives could go back to being lived out largely in person. To think of communism without trust as it would have to exist in out world is a huge undertaking.

4

TOTaIleyAnTeWaxeCAmB wrote

I love you.

I completely agree and honestly think the key would be to have some sort of public and private profiles? Honestly a nig part of my thinking foes tro human activities of flirting- sharing nudes has become a big part of technology and society. There's nothing wrong with that- but there are networks out there that are (mostly) outside monetary models and depending more on rep. Most of it still has to do with capitalist breakdowns of star and celebrity- btu I can still see a decentralized community still having an underground n00dz community, much more easily perpetuated by current models of "access tot eh device, access to the data" standards.

The proliferation of easy to use, secure FOSS is certainly helping with this though.

5

aiwendil wrote

The nudes thing is actually a really important thing I hadn't considered at all and I am sure it could apply to a lot of things, like even a love letter that you just want one person to read or the parlance of some embarrassing story or event that you vulnerably share to a confidant.

I certainly think if we all truly owned all resources collectively we would have less need of secure transport for things like scientific data, proprietary information, tax returns and the like, because some things just wouldn't need to exist like tax returns and social security numbers and particularly proprietary information, and scientific data would be collectively owned, so for profit repositories and journals need not be the gate keepers of such knowledge, but vulnerable sharing is certainly something that needs to be of paramount importance in designing systems. I appreciate that perspective a lot.

4

TOTaIleyAnTeWaxeCAmB wrote (edited )

That's the thing. I feel a lot of the reasons we currently need so many security mechanisms comes down to capitalism- an IPS/IDS seems like overkill in a decentralized system removed from an "economy"

but I do feel human nature doesn't remove certain aspects- some ppl will use other's physical selves as leverage. Creating systems to prevent that- much less in a totally free system where physical devices are shared makes certain kinds of privacy, which are really nice (albeit not necessary), very challenging

edit: just responding because I love this subject and would love feedback on this subject

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

ziq wrote

Communism just happens to be the largest variety of anarchism, at least from my perspective.

Just in the US. Individualists are the majority in most of the world.

2

tnstaec wrote

Really? I'd hazard to say most are of the firmly labor-left variety. At least they are the most prominent. Unless you're including insurrectionists under the the banner of individualism?

3

ziq wrote (edited )

In my experience, anarchists in Europe especially are what ancoms would call lifestylists. Living in squats and communes, engaging in direct action, dumpster diving, practising illegalism, etc i.e. we live anarchism now, in this world, instead of waiting for some utopian revolution to happen.

I personally live alone in the mountains (in West Asia) in a house I built, eating food I grow/steal/forage for and wouldn't be described as anything other than a 'lifestylist' or individualist by most ancoms I know.

But that doesn't mean I don't also support social anarchism, I'm still a worker (in a warehouse) so of course I'd prefer if we lived in an anarchist society. But it's out of our control and I don't like putting my faith in things I have no ability to effect.

I'm not personally compatible with collectivist society - so even if by some miracle the whole world embraced anarchism, I still would live alone in the woods.

Too many idealists have lived and died waiting for an utopian collectivist revolution - we have to make the most of the world we were put in. We can live anarchically right now, without waiting for the entire world to become anarchist.

-edited-

6

aiwendil wrote

I try to live this way also, but I think in the US, because it is hyper-capitalist makes it very difficult and the last 10 years here has seen a push to criminalize and enforce any behavior that would allow you to live outside the system in any way. I still spend a lot of time in the woods in shelters that I have built myself and try to live outside of the system in any way that I can, but I guess I don't feel that collectivism and individualism have to be so mutually exclusive that they become reactions to the other. I think it would certainly benefit everybody(save maybe the robber barons) if certain resources were collectivized, including individualists. I also think that anarcho-communism can allow for personal property, while collectivizing things that are currently considered private property. The distinction being that it is possible to own certain things, without denying those resources to other people. The classic argument here being the collectivized toothbrush thing that ancaps always bring up. I don't think anybody envisions a society in which we are all swapping one toothbrush because we've collectivized the toothbrush(maybe some tankies would be into this idea, but I'm certainly not). Like I think you can still have some sense of ownership of your home/shelter, provided that the way you've built it is not denying access to other people(like if you decided to build your home in the middle of a street for example, or you chopped down endangered trees to build it). I think maybe we need to make more room for things like this philosophically while allowing for collectivization of things such as the means of production.

2

stardust_witch wrote

Anarchists who participate in direct action tend to be the exact opposite of what I think most ancoms would consider "lifestylist."

As someone who's constantly decrying lifestylism, I don't think there's anything wrong with squatting, dumpster diving, illegalism, etc... I love all those things. But simply changing the way you alone live is not some kind of revolutionary praxis. Lifestylists are people whose response to oppressive systems is only to remove themselves from them, rather than attempt to alter or destroy those systems.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

How many ancoms are actually doing anything to destroy the system? What are they doing that's so much better than what so called lifestylists are doing?

At least by living in squats, not paying for anything, participating in projects like food not bombs and generally ignoring capitalism, we're showing anyone paying attention that the system can be effectively bypassed. Idk what you think acoms are doing that's so revolutionary but I'd be interested to hear about it. Exarcheia is a lifestylist project btw, since it's essentially an anarchist commune that exists inside a state.

People that belittle individualists for trying to live anarchically are infuriating, but you don't seem to apply the label 'lifestylist' the way most ancoms do by the sounds of it.

2

stardust_witch wrote

I really don't understand how you can try to claim FnB as a "lifestylist" project when it's probably the most well-known example of mutual aid in action. I basically consider any form of gift economy (the free software movement, really really free markets, anarchist disaster relief, etc...) to be an anarcho-communist project, regardless of how the people who participate in them identify politically.

1

Defasher wrote

I don't even believe that lifestylism is real, it's just what I've heard ancoms say.

2

[deleted] wrote

2

ziq wrote (edited )

It makes sense to me, since the status quo in the US is (capitalist) individualism, the natural reaction disenfranchised American radicals have to their oppressive culture is to embrace collectivism.

But people elsewhere in the world don't have that warped capitalist-cowboy everyone-for-themselves and fuck tomorrow culture Americans all have forced on them where you're either A) a robber baron or B) a robber baron's servant, so we don't shy away from regular-flavor anarchism.

Furthermore, a lot of us in other parts of the world live under various degrees of state-socialism and see its flaws first hand, so we're not so quick to embrace collectivism.

-edited-

2

blackrev wrote

Most anarchists are sympathetic towards or are ancoms.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

I think anarchism is more of a broad philosophy and ethics, whereas anarcho-communism is a specific tendency or tradition. But the two can often be used interchangeably.

Within Anarchism there are many sub-tendencies. Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, platformism etc. are extremely similar. For example, many self described syndicalists say syndicalism is a methodology whereas communism is the goal. Then there are the more individualist leaning tendencies: namely individualism and mutualism, who are more open to the market form as a possible alternative to capitalism. That being said all anarchists oppose capitalism and the state.

( the so-called anarcho-capitalists are considered a heretical tendency or a branch of neo-liberalism, most anarchists are left leaning or maybe post-left, but generally oppose capitalism.)

The names can somewhat be deceptive. For example many Insurrectionary Anarchists might see the end goal as communism but they don't explicitly identify as anarcho-communist because of certain philosophical differences with the tradition following from Kropotkin, Makno etc. For example, they have more affinities with the individualist tradition.