Submitted by ziq in Anarchism (edited )

Since most social anarchists hold that resources should be allocated according to 'need', decisions would need to be made to determine who in the community has 'need' of the biggest shares of resources.

I know ancoms claim every individual will just take whatever they 'need' (want) from communal stores, but I'm going to ignore that because it's really not practical in an industrial society - resources aren't infinite and no one is going to spend their life doing gruelling manual labor and then just give everything they produce away to some random asshole who shows up at the communal store with a dumpster truck and says "I need the community's entire monthly output today, load it up". For some reason ancoms think assholes would cease to exist in a communist society.

In a real world implementation of industrial communism, communities will quickly impose limits on what can be taken from communal stores after a few people take way more than they have any right to and other people go hungry as a result, even though they labor 8 hours a day.

So for resources to be allocated according to need, you'll need some kind of deciding body in place to judge what each person's needs are; what resources each person should be given.

Giving that body this power will mean certain favored groups / individuals will be rewarded and less desirable groups / individuals will be neglected, or even punished. It's always felt like a recipe for bureaucracy, corruption and exploitation to me.

The only social anarchist tendency that made a modicum of sense in my mind was anarcho-collectivism, because at least the workers would receive the direct value of their labor hours instead of having external bodies decide how much value / worth to assign to them as a person.

If you're gonna spend your life toiling in a factory or farm to produce goods for other people, would you really want a bureaucrat or a commitee or even a direct voter body deciding how much you deserve for that labor, while giving someone who does the same job more than you because of potentially biased reasons?

18

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq OP wrote

For years I've watched a guy drive his pick up truck into the forest around me and cut down literally every single tree that isn't legally protected for firewood. So every tree that isn't a pine or oak. The moment a carob or olive or mastic or strawberry tree grows big enough to burn, he cuts it down and drags it away. I had to put fence up to stop him from cutting down trees I've planted.

He uses the wood to fuel his traditional bakery which has large earthen ovens. Because he cuts everything down as soon as it reaches human height, the trees never get big enough to fruit, so they don't spread their seeds and grow new trees. The forest slowly dwindles to nothing but pine trees and can no longer sustain most animal life. The climate dries up, the soil erodes, the air grows stagnant.

In a communist society, he would presumably still bake that bread, and since it would be free to everyone, he'd probably bake a lot more of it and need more wood.

So how does communism make things better? Free bread for everyone today means no bread for anyone tomorrow.

Industry is not sustainable. Industrial ideologies are all destructive. Communism, capitalism, fascism, it's all ecocide.

13

[deleted] wrote

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Also who says some need more than others?

Kropotkin, Marx, all communists.

I think an automated program to decide need would be better, say a human being needs 2000 to 3000 calories a day to survive. So you figure out a persons height and weight and whatnot into that and bam

There are lots of other factors like how far they live from work, how far they live from the store, how many calories they burn doing the labor they do, the size of their family, their dietary restrictions, disabilities they might have, their particular metabolism, how many parties they throw, how many friends they have to invite to the parties, their religious and cultural practices, the size of their house, the size of their garden, the type of insulation their house has and how quickly it loses heat, the fuel efficiency of their car... I could list hundreds more things. The point is you'll need a body of full-time bureaucrats to collect all this data and decide which of these things should determine your share of the pie, and those bureaucrats are going to have biases. If a computer does it, the programmer will have biases. And you'd still need bureaucrats to collect the data and feed it to the computer. And they could easily feed incorrect data to the computer because of their biases.

8

db0 wrote

Your guy lives within capitalism and all the warped motives and incentives it creates.

In a communist society he would bake this bread but then the people around the forest would ask him to stop cutting down their goddamn forest! They wouldn't have to rely on an arbitrary authority (which can and will be corrupted) to declare how the forest can be cut and what makes a healthy forest.

Therefore, a guy who's drive it just to feed people, will just feed people with as much resources as he can provide sustainably and naturally he will not want to imposing on other people in order to feed them if his intentions are just altruistic. He does not have a profit motive to drive them to do it unsustainably.

3

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

db0 wrote

You need to work on your trolling though, you're getting more upset than your target.

−1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

No one lives in the forest except me. Everyone else lives in the village and they fucking love his bread and the prestige the traditional bakery brings to their community. The community council gave him a license to harvest as much wood as he wants.

Under communism the villagers would depend on his bread more than ever to survive because there would be no imported food. So again they'd take up arms if anyone tried to shut down the bakery.

They wouldn't have to rely on an arbitrary authority (which can and will be corrupted) to declare how the forest can be cut and what makes a healthy forest.

Under communism, they wouldn't need the village council, they'd just vote for bread directly. Each villager would become the collective authority.

He does not have a profit motive to drive them to do it unsustainably.

The profit motive is no different than the motive to feed the village. The more bread he bakes, the more bread people have to eat. Communism doesn't change that just because he stops getting paid.

1

db0 wrote

Under communism the villagers would depend on his bread more than ever to survive because there would be no imported food. So again they'd take up arms if anyone tried to shut down the bakery.

Why would there be no imported wood?! These are weird-ass assumptions you're making there.

Nevertheless, let's assume there's some world-wide hostile blockade against them for some reason and they cannot produce wood, and that forest belongs to the village, and there's not an impending climate catastrophy which requires not to cut down forests. OK, so the village is short-sighted enough to allow widespread exploitation of their local forest, then their forest at some point is exhausted and reality shows them the error of their ways? Or they realize before it's too late that their luxury bread is destroying their nature and now they have to deal with more flooding and less nature, so they put a stop to it? And the latter becomes much more likely when the decisions about the forest are taken by the community, rather than corrupted politicians.

Under communism, they wouldn't need the village council, they'd just vote for bread directly. Each villager would become the collective authority.

You cannot be a hierarchy on yourself. And sure, if all the village votes to burn down their forest, they can do so (which is unlikely as the forest is more likely to be considered a shared commons to an extend). But you're arguing that a community which collectively owns a natural resource will opt to destroy it for short-term luxuries, which like, literally will never happen! Even within capitalism people go against the profit motive to preserve their natural beauty! It's absurd to think it will actually be worse within anarchism!

The profit motive is no different than the motive to feed the village. The more bread he bakes, the more bread people have to eat. Communism doesn't change that just because he stops getting paid.

Like, if in your hypothetical example, the options are burn down the forest or starve, then the people would do that regardless of the political system around it, so I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

There's no imported food (I didn't say wood, but that too) because Kropotkin's ideas heavily (and rightfully) emphasize local production. If you're importing food / labor then you really are just replicating capitalism by outsourcing production so you can ignore its effects / exploitation.

These aren't my definitions, I didn't invent anarcho-communism or the idea of a gift-economy. You're asking me to ignore all the definitions of anarcho-communism in my critique of anarcho-communism.

The communal stores are filled with goods by the workers and then anyone can take what they want from them. Including people who don't work. That's what anarcho-communism is.

Anarcho-collectivism, on the other hand, uses labor notes that expire as soon as they're used (they don't continue circulating like money), which is much more tenable because then limits are placed on what each person can take from the store, and people who work more hours get more stuff. It doesn't pretend scarcity doesn't exist or that everyone will labor equally and voluntarily like anarcho-communism does.

Or they realize before it's too late that their luxury bread is destroying their nature and now they have to deal with more flooding and less nature, so they put a stop to it?

It's too late at that point. The dust bowl means the area is no longer habitable and it'll take several generations for the top-soil to recover (assuming it doesn't all turn to desert).

You cannot be a hierarchy on yourself.

A collective is perfectly capable of being a hierarchy. If you have a group of 10 people, 8 of them are men and 2 are women and they all take a vote to decide whether rape should be legal: the 8 men all vote yes, the 2 women vote no. The men have just created authority using collective democracy.

But you're arguing that a community which collectively owns a natural resource will opt to destroy it for short-term luxuries, which like, literally will never happen!

What do you think Brazilians just did when they collectively voted for Bolsonaro who promised to decimate the Amazon to create economic opportunities for them?

Short term luxury is what industrialism is all about. The entire concept of industrial society is short-term luxury in exchange for long term ecocide.

Even within capitalism people go against the profit motive to preserve their natural beauty! It's absurd to think it will actually be worse within anarchism!

It's naive and dangerous to expect "anarchism" to be some kind of utopia just because some theorists promise it will be. Authority doesn't just go away because you declare your society to have achieved anarcho-communism.

Like, if in your hypothetical example, the options are burn down the forest or starve, then the people would do that regardless of the political system around it, so I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.

It's not a hypothetical example. He's already been given a license to cut down the trees by the village council, who prize his bakery more than they prize the trees he cuts down. The council is made up of people who live in the village, they are elected by all the villagers, they see each other everyday. A communist society would not change the outcome at all. The people would still opt for bread over wild fruit trees, making the bread free wouldn't change their minds.

The villagers justify the logging to themselves by saying 'those maquis trees aren't important, only the pine and oak trees are important'.

A forest with nothing but pine trees is a pine desert - dry, eroded soil and no life. The villagers don't understand this. All they understand is they get fresh bread everyday.

3

db0 wrote

There's no imported food (I didn't say wood, but that too) because Kropotkin's ideas heavily (and rightfully) emphasize local production. If you're importing food / labor then you really are just replicating capitalism by outsourcing production so you can ignore its effects / exploitation.

Just because Kropotkin said it, doesn't make it law. And anarchists can easily import other goods from other anarchist countries, the same way an anarchist commune can exchange with another commune, or a communist household can trade with another household. It's the same principle in the macro scale. And we wouldn't be anarchists in the first place if we didn't care about the exploited people.

The communal stores are filled with goods by the workers and then anyone can take what they want from them. Including people who don't work. That's what anarcho-communism is.

And? How is that relevant to someone emptying the store? You seem to try to trip communists based on some "letter of the law" concept which makes no sense to me.

It's too late at that point. The dust bowl means the area is no longer habitable and it'll take several generations for the top-soil to recover (assuming it doesn't all turn to desert).

OK. So that (very realistic) community with no scientists and no opposing voices as their habitat is destroyed by their own actions is destroyed. Other communities learn from it and avoid the same mistakes?

A collective is perfectly capable of being a hierarchy. If you have a group of 10 people, 8 of them are men and 2 are women and they all take a vote to decide whether rape should be legal: the 8 men all vote yes, the 2 women vote no. The men have just created authority using collective democracy.

Yeah, no. That's not how anarchistic democracy works. The democracy we propose means that the people who are most affected by a decision have the most impact on that decision. And there's nobody more affected by your own bodily autonomy than that person.

Come on, are you making some authoritarian hot takes on democracy now?

What do you think Brazilians just did when they collectively voted for Bolsonaro who promised to decimate the Amazon to create economic opportunities for them?

Do Brazilians live under anarcho-communism and I didn't realize?

Short term luxury is what industrialism is all about. The entire concept of industrial society is short-term luxury in exchange for long term ecocide.

Capitalist industrialization...

It's naive and dangerous to expect "anarchism" to be some kind of utopia just because some theorists promise it will be. Authority doesn't just go away because you declare your society to have achieved anarcho-communism.

You have it the wrong way around: We won't have achieved anarcho-communism until we have done away with hierarchies.

It's not a hypothetical example. He's already been given a license to cut down the trees by the village council, who prize his bakery more than they prize the trees he cuts down. The council is made up of people who live in the village, they are elected by all the villagers, they see each other everyday. A communist society would not change the outcome at all. The people would still opt for bread over wild fruit trees, making the bread free wouldn't change their minds.

It's a hypotherical example because A) This village won't starve without bread. B) It can import wood or other goods and C) IT IS A CAPITALIST EXAMPLE

I don't understand why you think an example of capitalist failing is a mark against anarcho-communism...

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Yeah, no. That's not how anarchistic democracy works. The democracy we propose means that the people who are most affected by a decision have the most impact on that decision. And there's nobody more affected by your own bodily autonomy than that person.

Come on, are you making some authoritarian hot takes on democracy now?

I'm literally describing direct democracy. The very direct democracy your own r/anarchism sub is governed by.

Do Brazilians live under anarcho-communism and I didn't realize?

Brazilians don't need to live under anarcho-communism to use democracy to destroy the Amazon. The point is they opted to destroy the Amazon for selfish short-term gain; something you claimed is impossible.

Capitalist industrialization...

https://truthout.org/articles/china-s-communist-capitalist-ecological-apocalypse/

You have it the wrong way around: We won't have achieved anarcho-communism until we have done away with hierarchies.

We never do away with hierarchies. There is no way to permanently end authority.

It's a hypotherical example because A) This village won't starve without bread. B) It can import wood or other goods and C) IT IS A CAPITALIST EXAMPLE

The village will starve because of erosion and climate change caused by their industrialization. Importing wood doesn't stop deforestation, it just outsources it. It's an example of industry causing ecocide. The economic system would not change the outcome because people would still want his bread under communism more than they want the trees.

I don't understand why you think an example of capitalist failing is a mark against anarcho-communism...

Because my argument is that anarcho-communism doesn't address any of the problems in my example. Industry is the problem, not economics. Communists like bread too.

3

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

ziq OP wrote

Yeah I don't get the "we can just import our wood" point.

2

db0 wrote

I'm literally describing direct democracy. The very direct democracy your own r/anarchism sub is governed by.

Anarchism is not simple "direct democracy". I mean stuff like these are even a FAQ. And as we say pretty visible in the sidebar, /r/anarchism isn't (and cannot be) run like an anarchist society.

Brazilians don't need to live under anarcho-communism to use democracy to destroy the Amazon. The point is they opted to destroy the Amazon for selfish short-term gain; something you claimed is impossible.

They do not use anarchist democracy, they use capitalist "democracy". I don't know why you want me to keep repeating that flaws of capitalism are not flaws of communism.

https://truthout.org/articles/china-s-communist-capitalist-ecological-apocalypse/

China is Anarcho-Communism now? China isn't even communistic!

We never do away with hierarchies. There is no way to permanently end authority.

Hierarchy =/= Authority. And we can easily do away with hierarchies, humans lived without them for miliions of years before agriculture and regularly avoid them outside of enforced standard (e.g. in friendships)

The village will starve because of erosion and climate change caused by their industrialization. Importing wood doesn't stop deforestation, it just outsources it. It's an example of industry causing ecocide. The economic system would not change the outcome because people would still want his bread under communism more than they want the trees.

Why would those who export their own wood, do it at the expense of their habitat? And again, you continue with this absurd scenario where it's either starvation of ecological catastrophy. It's not a false dichotomy.

Because my argument is that anarcho-communism doesn't address any of the problems in my example. Industry is the problem, not economics. Communists like bread too.

I already told you how communism addresses your example, but you now posit that it's either destroy the forest or starve, in which case no socioeconomic system could ever address this "problem"

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Every "communist" society started with good intentions and ended up much like China. There's a reason anarcho-communism has never been enacted - Industrial society breeds hierarchy and kills anarchy.

There's no "anarchist" democracy. Democracy is an authoritarian institution designed to control people by giving them the illusion of free will. w/democracy

Hierarchy =/= Authority. And we can easily do away with hierarchies, humans lived without them for miliions of years before agriculture and regularly avoid them outside of enforced standard (e.g. in friendships)

Hierarchy creates authority. Even pre-agriculture, hierarchy existed within tribal societies. But you're basically arguing we need to do away with agriculture / industry / civilization to find anarchy... Which I agree with. Anarcho-communism doesn't agree with that tho. Anarcho-communism mistakenly argues industry and agriculture are compatible with anarchy.

Why would those who export their own wood, do it at the expense of their habitat?

There's no way to know how the food was produced unless it was produced locally. How do you know the exporters aren't enslaving people to grow the food and polluting their habitat? You have no way of knowing; which is why locally produced goods are so emphasized by Kropotkin. The environmental strain caused by transporting the goods long distances is also a problem. Also, in the world we've inherited, there is no such thing as sustainable logging. We need every single tree we have and trillions more if we're going to avert ecological catastrophe.

no socioeconomic system could ever address this "problem"

Nope. Just anarchy. Which is to say civilization collapsing and the memory of the old world burned from the human consciousness.

2

db0 wrote

Every "communist" society started with good intentions and ended up much like China. There's a reason anarcho-communism has never been enacted - Industrial society breeds hierarchy and kills anarchy.

Every Maxist-Leninist society you mean. I can't believe I'm hearing liberal talking points from an anarchist.

There's no "anarchist" democracy. Democracy is an authoritarian institution designed to control people by giving them the illusion of free will. w/democracy

Not all all, but just for the sake of discussion, what is your preference instead of democracy?

Hierarchy creates authority. Even pre-agriculture, hierarchy existed within tribal societies.

You are confusing your concepts. Hierarchy IS authority, but it's unjustified authority. Anarchism has no issue with authority as long as it's justified. E.g. the authority of your doctor or the engineer in their respective fields.

So that fact that authority existed in tribal societies is a non-issue. However they did not tend to have hierarchies.

But you're basically arguing we need to do away with agriculture / industry / civilization to find anarchy... Which I agree with. Anarcho-communism doesn't agree with that tho. Anarcho-communism mistakenly argues industry and agriculture are compatible with anarchy.

No, I'm not arguing that. I just said that the lack of hierarchy comes naturally to humans.

And technology is compatible with anarchism, yes.

There's no way to know how the food was produced unless it was produced locally.

Assuming you're trading with anarchist communities, it's a safe bet to make that it wasn't produced exploitatively or at the expense of the environment of the commune producing it.

Also, in the world we've inherited, there is no such thing as sustainable logging. We need every single tree we have and trillions more if we're going to avert ecological catastrophe.

If that is what is needed, then anarchists will do that out of self-preservation.

Nope. Just anarchy. Which is to say civilization collapsing and the memory of the old world burned from the human consciousness.

You're arguing something else now. In the context your example, humanity would go extinct because they would starve. Nothing you can propose would deal with your example.

0

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Every Maxist-Leninist society you mean.

They didn't start out as Marxist-Leninist societies. They started out trying to establish communism but ended up with Marxist-XCompromiseism because authority reared its ugly head as it always does when you try to structure people into a mass society.

Just because I'm an anarchist doesn't mean I have to buy into ancommunism. If every attempt at an industrial communist society in history started with noble intentions but resulted in rampant abuse, then there's no reason to assume a so-called anarcho-communist society would actually result in anarchy.

If no one's managed to do it in 120 years, it's pretty much a lost cause.

All the interesting anarchist movements today are post- left, indigenous, post-colonialist and green. If anarchists keep clinging to late 1800s factory life, anarchy will stagnate in exactly the same way as Marxism.

Anarchy is about people standing together against authority, that's something that is timeless and doesn't need 19th century ideology holding it down.

What you call liberal talking points - a healthy scepticism of stale ideological structures is something every anarchist should strive for or we'll just keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Not all all, but just for the sake of discussion, what is your preference instead of democracy?

Like I wrote in w/democracy, I favor people doing what they want to do with people that share their ideas instead of asking the entire community for approval and then compromising their plan and all their values to get that approval.

You are confusing your concepts. Hierarchy IS authority, but it's unjustified authority. Anarchism has no issue with authority as long as it's justified. E.g. the authority of your doctor or the engineer in their respective fields.

No, I'm really not.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-anarchy-vs-archy-no-justified-authority

Please read this, it'll take too long to explain it here, but you couldn't be more mistaken about this. There is no justified authority.

So that fact that authority existed in tribal societies is a non-issue. However they did not tend to have hierarchies.

It's only a non-issue if you don't care about anarchy. They literally have/had tribe rulers in most cases, as well as patriarchy and in some cases slavery.

Assuming you're trading with anarchist communities, it's a safe bet to make that it wasn't produced exploitatively or at the expense of the environment of the commune producing it.

A lot of shitty people call themselves anarchists without having any idea what anarchy entails. Just like all the fascists that called themselves socialists or the state capitalists that called themselves communists. Calling something anarchist doesn't make it so.

If that is what is needed, then anarchists will do that out of self-preservation.

Anarchists are people. People do shitty things everyday, including destroying their own ecosystem for temporary comforts. Them deciding to call themselves anarchists won't change that.

Nothing you can propose would deal with your example.

Humanity might go extinct due to climate change, yes, and it is completely outside my power and your power to change that.

1

Splinglebot wrote

They didn't start out as Marxist-Leninist societies. They started out trying to establish communism but ended up with Marxist-XCompromiseism because authority reared its ugly head as it always does when you try to structure people into a mass society.

That's not really what happened, though? The bolsheviks succeeding in taking over because they promised communism, they were already marxist-leninist before any attempt of "establishing communism" took place in Russia. Contrast that with ukraine in which the anarchic revolution led to many communistic communities forming - authority and hierarchy came when the bolsheviks invaded, not from their attempts to establish communism.

I'm not convinced that authority inevitably emerges in mass society, I think it's more that most people think they need authority thanks to millennia of authoritarian socialisation.

4

lori wrote

they were already marxist-leninist

That's not entirely accurate - they were just Leninist or Bolshevist. The term 'Marxist-Leninist' specifically refers to thought after Lenin died, y'know, Stalinism. Just a nitpick.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

The bolsheviks didn't fight the revolution, the people did. The people fought for communism. And then authority (Lenin and the bolsheviks) fucked it all up.

The bolsheviks weren't MLs, they were just Marxists. Stalin coined the ML descriptor later. Lenin was a Marxist who tried to actualize Marx's theory into praxis.

When you try to actualize communism, the problem is Marx said it could only happen in an advanced industrial society. Russia was agrarian with barely any industry to speak of. So Lenin tried to rapidly industrialize and of course it created a series of authoritarian atrocities.

I write more about this is one of my anarchistlibrary pieces. I think the 'fuck your red revolution' one. Edit: prob the tankies and left unity scam one

2

db0 wrote

They didn't start out as Marxist-Leninist societies. They started out trying to establish communism but ended up with Marxist-XCompromiseism because authority reared its ugly head as it always does when you try to structure people into a mass society.

I suggest you look into the actual history of those revolutions instead of the abstracted notions you assume. Also look into the lessons anarchists learned and why we most of us don't believe in "leftist unity" anymore.

Just because I'm an anarchist doesn't mean I have to buy into ancommunism. If every attempt at an industrial communist society in history started with noble intentions but resulted in rampant abuse, then there's no reason to assume a so-called anarcho-communist society would actually result in anarchy.

The reason to assume it is the actual theory of praxis that they suggest we follow and then you evaluate whether that makes sense.

If no one's managed to do it in 120 years, it's pretty much a lost cause.

Nonsense.

What you call liberal talking points - a healthy scepticism of stale ideological structures is something every anarchist should strive for or we'll just keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Anarchists HAVE learned of mistakes of the past. But the actual praxis we've supported didn't have to change a lot because it has been shown to work. What has changed is more our understanding on who is an ally and how to maintain e revolution.

You're just hand-waving everything because it hasn't happened yet.

Like I wrote in w/democracy, I favor people doing what they want to do with people that share their ideas instead of asking the entire community for approval and then compromising their plan and all their values to get that approval.

Then you already favour democracy among smaller groups and eventually normal democracy assuming you ever interact with people outside your circle. Or do you think you'll never have a disagreement with people with whom you share ideas?

Please read this, it'll take too long to explain it here, but you couldn't be more mistaken about this. There is no justified authority.

I started reading it and quickly realized it's an exercise in equivocation. You call it 'expertise', I call it 'authority'. Same thing and just because you follow expertise/authority, it doesn't mean it's a power-differential.

It's only a non-issue if you don't care about anarchy. They literally have/had tribe rulers in most cases, as well as patriarchy and in some cases slavery.

Slavery was impossible before agriculture. I suggest you re-examine the actual origins human social structures.

A lot of shitty people call themselves anarchists without having any idea what anarchy entails. Just like all the fascists that called themselves socialists or the state capitalists that called themselves communists. Calling something anarchist doesn't make it so.

Who said that anarchists are going to judge people based on their self-identification. We can judge by actions.

Anarchists are people. People do shitty things everyday, including destroying their own ecosystem for temporary comforts. Them deciding to call themselves anarchists won't change that.

Again, there is no motive within anarchist society to do that. I have to keep repeating that faults of capitalism are not faults of anarchism.

Humanity might go extinct due to climate change, yes, and it is completely outside my power and your power to change that.

This is Irrelevant to our discussion

2

Splinglebot wrote

I started reading it and quickly realized it's an exercise in equivocation. You call it 'expertise', I call it 'authority'. Same thing and just because you follow expertise/authority, it doesn't mean it's a power-differential

why call it authority, though? Honestly it just encourages the conflation of the two

3

db0 wrote

Thew conflation of hierarchy and authority?

1

Splinglebot wrote

no, I mean the conflation of authority and expertise - they're 2 distinct things so I don't think we help ourselves by using "authority" to describe both

2

db0 wrote

An expert has authority on their area of expertise. I.e. when building a house, the workers don't collectively decide how to build it. Instead they defer to the authority of their civil engineers during that task. They can collectively decide who is a civil engineer, but once it's decided, you have to defer to their authority.

This is not a conflation, this is how we understand this concept.

1

Splinglebot wrote

this is exactly what I mean, complete conflation. The civil engineer doesn't have authority over the workers, they have no coercive power to enforce their authority and the workers have no obligation to listen to them. They might find it wise to listen to their expertise, but this isn't authority

3

db0 wrote (edited )

But they DO have coercive power to enforce their authority. They have coercive power based on the peer pressure the other workers would put on objecting workers to defer to the group decision already taken. They can of course just choose to oppose the peer pressure coercion for any number of reasons, but just because you oppose a form of coercion does not make it any less coercive.

1

ziq OP wrote

I suggest you look into the actual history of those revolutions

I've researched and written in depth about both Russia and China's failed attempts to establish communism.

The reason to assume it is the actual theory of praxis that they suggest we follow and then you evaluate whether that makes sense.

7 billion people aren't going to act in unison to put some dead man's theory into practice exactly as he envisioned. In the real world, theory doesn't play out the way it does on paper because people are unpredictable and impossible to control.

You call it 'expertise', I call it 'authority'.

Anarchy literally mean "against authority". It's baffling to me that any anarchist would be pro-authority or try to redefine authority into something positive.

Slavery was impossible before agriculture. I suggest you re-examine the actual origins human social structures.

The first slaves were women captured during raids by non-agrarian tribes. They raided settlements, killed the men and took the women and children.

Who said that anarchists are going to judge people based on their self-identification. We can judge by actions.

You by assuming anarchists in some faraway land aren't exploiting anyone when you import their goods out of convenience.

Again, there is no motive within anarchist society to do that.

There is no anarchist society. That would require all hierarchy to cease to exist. Anarchy is a perpetual struggle against authority. The moment you declare you've achieved anarchist society is the moment you become Mao.

This is Irrelevant to our discussion

It really isn't. You think everyone will act the way you want then to act because communism. You have no control over the direction society will take. Declaring anarcho-communism won't mean everything will work out.

2

db0 wrote (edited )

I've researched and written in depth about both Russia and China's failed attempts to establish communism.

And yet you claim that it was an anarchist failing...So you blatantly disregard how in Russia that the chaos of the World War and the inexperience with Authoritarian forms of Socialism led the soviets to accept Leninist rule and how Anarchists were slaughtered for opposing it?

7 billion people aren't going to act in unison to put some dead man's theory into practice exactly as he envisioned. In the real world, theory doesn't play out the way it does on paper because people are unpredictable and impossible to control.

That's why anarchists don't suggest everyone to learn of the "good way" and then start doing it at the same. This is what you expect however since you think you can somehow convince 7 billion people to choose death for some primmie ideals...

Anarchists actually propose changing people via praxis. By using organizations that actually improve their lives and in the process radicalize them.

Anarchy literally mean "against authority". It's baffling to me that any anarchist would be pro-authority or try to redefine authority into something positive.

Anarchism literally means "without leaders", which effectively means "no hierarchical authority". Not to mention that political theories are not defined by dictionary.

The first slaves were women captured during raids by non-agrarian tribes. They raided settlements, killed the men and took the women and children.

Those women/men/children were not slaves in the modern understanding of the word as that was literally impossible due to the realities of subsistence hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

You by assuming anarchists in some faraway land aren't exploiting anyone when you import their goods out of convenience.

Are we going around in circles now? Not if they're importing from anarchists.

There is no anarchist society. That would require all hierarchy to cease to exist. Anarchy is a perpetual struggle against authority. The moment you declare you've achieved anarchist society is the moment you become Mao.

Why are you even running an anarchist forum? Dafuq?!

It really isn't. You think everyone will act the way you want then to act because communism. You have no control over the direction society will take. Declaring anarcho-communism won't mean everything will work out.

Are you just declaring your frustration now? This is both irrelevant to the example we were discussing ("starve of exploit") and not what I actually believe.

1

Splinglebot wrote

Those women were not slaves in the modern understanding of the word as that was literally impossible due to the realities of subsistence hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

lol what the fuck. are sex slaves not a type of slave in the modern understanding of the word?

Are we going around in circles now? Not if they're importing from anarchists.

I think the question is how're you going to decide whether your trade partner is or isn't anarchist? I think ziq is interpreting this as "if they call themselves anarchist" but I don't think you're suggesting this, so how would you know? are you going to send someone to investigate?

3

db0 wrote (edited )

lol what the fuck. are sex slaves not a type of slave in the modern understanding of the word?

Man I fucking knew y'all were going to get hung up on this particular quote. Look, in a theoretical hunter-gatherer society which is patriarchical and does raids for "sex slaves" (which is a big-ass theory, as early human societies tended to be polygamous and matriarchical with little reasons to raid others for "sex slaves"), these women would not be able top be kept in captivity because they would need to work as much as everyone else to produce enough to survive on, because that lifestyle required everyone pulling their own weight. In that context, they would not even be "sex slaves" in the first place. But again, this is a fucking ridiculous scenario made out of patriachic-as-fuck context with little to no regard for actual anthropology. But very good at doing "gotcha"s

I think the question is how're you going to decide whether your trade partner is or isn't anarchist? I think ziq is interpreting this as "if they call themselves anarchist" but I don't think you're suggesting this, so how would you know? are you going to send someone to investigate?

Yes? I mean, shit's not nuclear science. It's not like human exploitation can be hidden when you're supposed to be an anarchist society.

1

ziq OP wrote

Why are you imagining that every community of hunter-gatherers in history, across diverse landscapes and cultures acted the same? Why do all ancoms imagine there's a distinct human nature that can be easily defined and understood? You see the world in such binary terms and I suspect that's why you think 'communist society' will automatically be a utopia.

3

db0 wrote

Because of the discoveries of anthropology on how early humans tended to organize. Because extreme cooperation is the most beneficial tactic in nature.Because of historical examples of how much violence was required to force societal structures to accept hierarchical authorities and they still never achieved it completely. Because the human brain instinctively rejects inequality.

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Mutual aid is something that exists all over nature and human history for sure, but it doesn't stop opposing communities from having conflicts. A community or even a set of communities using mutual aid to better their lives doesn't stop another community with a different culture from also using mutual aid to cross the sea and attack them all.

2

db0 wrote (edited )

yeah, of course, but mutual aid is a core part of anarchism but not the only directive. C'mon now.

Look, our anarchistic tribal ancestors fucked each other up until they discovered agriculture and allowed a state to develop because they didn't actually have any understanding of why oppression and hierarchies are bad.

We do have that understanding and it's a core part of anarchist theory. Therefore anarchists would not have a reason to conflict with other anarchists by definition! If they would, then they wouldn't be anarchists because they go against anarchist theory! Such people would not achieve an anarchist revolution in the first place, but would likely just remain within capitalism or other oppressive systems.

Honestly, I don't even know what we're arguing anymore at this point. I think our core disagreement comes down to the classic "human nature" thing, where you think humans are inherently evil and need constant supervision to not fuck everything up, and I think humans are inherently good and need constant conditioning from childbirth to go against it.

1

ziq OP wrote

Therefore anarchists would not have a reason to conflict with other anarchists by definition!

But look at all the infighting we do as anarchists everyday. You're saying I shouldn't even be an admin on an anarchist site because you define authority differently than I do. We don't have real reason to conflict, yet somehow we manage to do it anyway. How many anarchists do you honestly get along with? There's very few I get along with tbh.

If they would, then they wouldn't be anarchists because they go against anarchist theory!

Sure, but when you're applying 'anarchist society' to 7 billion people, who's to say they'll all be good anarchists? They could end up being the kind of anarchists that consider cops to be a 'justified authority'. And then you have an 'anarchist society' that has cops, prisons and a state because a bunch of clowns decided those things are justified.

Honestly, I don't even know what we're arguing anymore at this point. I think our core disagreement comes down to the classic "human nature" thing, where you think humans are inherently evil and need constant supervision to not fuck everything up, and I think humans are inherently good and need constant conditioning from childbirth to go against it.

I don't think humans are inherently evil. I think there is no human nature. Everyone is different.

3

db0 wrote (edited )

But look at all the infighting we do as anarchists everyday. You're saying I shouldn't even be an admin on an anarchist site because you define authority differently than I do. We don't have real reason to conflict, yet somehow we manage to do it anyway. How many anarchists do you honestly get along with? There's very few I get along with tbh.

You misunderstood: I wondered why you admin an anarchist forum when you seemed to reject anarhy as an end goal :)

And we're still within a capitalist society, talking in a privileged format about armchair subjects. People who organize in meatspace tend to be much more cooperative and that work itself, feeds their sense of fulfillment, making them want more of it. I'm sure you already have experience with this.

Sure, but when you're applying 'anarchist society' to 7 billion people, who's to say they'll all be good anarchists? They could end up being the kind of anarchists that consider cops to be a 'justified authority'. And then you have an 'anarchist society' that has cops, prisons and a state because a bunch of clowns decided those things are justified.

*No! You still didn't get what I'm saying! Alright look I am getting too distracted by my obsessive mental need to correct wrong assumptions about my position, so I'm going to stop here, for my own sanity. OK? I've already burned though the whole day almost constantly distracted and refreshing this discussion, so it's getting unhealthy for me.

I don't think humans are inherently evil. I think there is no human nature. Everyone is different.

There are some common things that are evolutionary hard-wired into our brains though. Surely you acknowledge that?

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I reject end goals because I see anarchy as an unending process, not a goal. Do any of us expect to see global communist society in our life time?

People who organize in meatspace tend to be much more cooperative and that work itself, feeds their sense of fulfillment, making them want more of it. I'm sure you already have experience with this.

Some. But more bad experiences than good ones.

There are some common things that are evolutionary hard-wired into our brains though. Surely you acknowledge that?

Like survival? Sure. Unless you happen to be suicidal anyway.

3

ziq OP wrote

And yet you claim that it was an anarchist failing.

No, I say it's a communist failing. I don't consider anarchy to be the same thing as communism because I'm not an ancom.

So you blatantly disregard how in Russia that the chaos of the World War and the inexperience with Authoritarian forms of Socialism led the soviets to accept Leninist rule and how Anarchists were slaughtered for opposing it?

I did? No.

This is what you expect however since you think you can somehow convince 7 billion people to choose death for some primmie ideals...

Uh? Why would I want to die?

Anarchists actually propose changing people via praxis. By using organizations that actually improve their lives and in the process radicalize them.

I'm all for that. But 2000 anarchists aren't going to radicalize 7 billion liberals and even if we did they wouldn't be perfect people just because they've been educated.

Anarchism literally means "without leaders", which effectively means "no hierarchical authority". Not to mention that political theories are not defined by dictionary.

Anarchists have always had leaders. It's rulers we don't have. Anarchy means without authority, not without leaders. Certain personality types tend to take the lead / be more vocal in any group but that's no reason to give them authority.

Those women/men/children were not slaves in the modern understanding of the word as that was literally impossible due to the realities of subsistence hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

I don't even know how to respond to that. They meet every definition of the word 'slave'. Nothing says slaves have to be agrarian.

Not if they're importing from anarchists.

Anarchists in Spain murdered nuns. Calling yourself an anarchist doesn't make you perfect or incapable of doing harm.

Why are you even running an anarchist forum? Dafuq?!

Anarchy and communism are two different words. How can you be an anarchist for this long and not know ancoms aren't the only anarchists? Declaring ancoms to be the only real anarchists isn't very anarchistic.

Are you just declaring your frustration now? This is both irrelevant to the example we were discussing ("starve of exploit") and not what I actually believe.

The difference in opinion we're having is really very simple. I don't believe people can be controlled or defined by the society construct they're boxed into, I don't believe they will always act as they're expected to act just because they exist in a self-proclaimed ancom society. You think them being in that society is all it takes to ensure liberation happens; that communism is a permanent cure for all of the planet's ills. I don't. I don't believe people can be controlled by ideology or society or "revolution". Revolution isn't a goal you achieve one day, and everyone is immediately free - it's a neverending process.

Your anarchy is a clear singular goal - a communist society where you grant authority and control to people you think deserve it using democracy.

My anarchy is a perpetual struggle against all authority and control.

2

db0 wrote (edited )

The difference in opinion we're having is really very simple. I don't believe people can be controlled or defined by the society construct they're boxed into, I don't believe they will always act as they're expected to act just because they exist in a self-proclaimed ancom society. You think them being in that society is all it takes to ensure liberation happens; that communism is a permanent cure for all of the planet's ills. I don't. I don't believe people can be controlled by ideology or society or "revolution". Revolution isn't a goal you achieve one day, and everyone is immediately free - it's a neverending process.

Nah, you still don't get it. I claim that the society will only turn anarchistic if via the struggles to improve our lives (and avoid ecological disaster) people radicalize enough via their own struggles to start using anarchist praxis (i.e. mutual aid & direct action in a horizontal power structure) because it works. If enough people start doing this within capitalism, then capitalism itself will collapse due to its inherent instability and if we manage to survive the counter-revolution, we will have an anarchist society.

The people who are still clinging to hierarchical and oppressive norms, will by definition at this point be in the minority, at which point they will either discard their existing way of thinking, or be ostracized. With the former being the most likely due to peer-pressure. Historical examples back me up on this, even in their nascent forms.

Once at this point, of course, society will further evolve their structure to match current issues they face (ecological or social), so in that sense, yes, anarchism is a perpetual movement which will evolve, but nevertheless, as long as the society is using a majority anarchist praxis, then it will condition people to enforce those norms, because this is the natural way for humans to live happily.

Humans instinctively reject hierarchies and unjust authorities which is why capitalism and religion requires conditioning from childhood to accept (and it required immense violence to enforce in the first place), and you still have a buncha anarchists popping up regardless.

Your anarchy is a clear singular goal - a communist society where you grant authority and control to people you think deserve it using democracy.

I keep telling you that you're just assuming what I believe and you keep missing the mark.

2

ziq OP wrote

Nah, you still don't get it. I claim that the society will only turn anarchistic if via the struggles to improve our lives (and avoid ecological disaster) people radicalize enough via their own struggles to start using anarchist praxis (i.e. mutual aid & direct action in a horizontal power structure) because it works. If enough people start doing this within capitalism, then capitalism itself will collapse due to its inherent instability and if we manage to survive the counter-revolution, we will have an anarchist society.

Yeah I agreed until the last couple words. I think as soon as you declare it an anarchist society, then you've lost; because you can't permanently beat authority. It'll always keep coming back and you have to keep fighting it.

If you declare you've achieved anarchy then you're basically announcing you've retired from the struggle, and will just ignore all further authority that pops up because authority no longer exists in your mind because we have an anarchist society now.

The people who are still clinging to hierarchical and oppressive norms, will by definition at this point be in the minority, at which point they will either discard their existing way of thinking, or be ostracized. With the former being the most likely due to peer-pressure. Historical examples back me up on this, even in their nascent forms.

You have faith in humanity and you're hoping for the best, which is great, but my cynical ass is not so convinced humans will do the logical thing when so many people crave the high of power.

I'm also not convinced the anarchist way of thinking is the default after seeing how selfish, cruel and spiteful small children can be when they haven't even experienced the horrors of the world yet.

I keep telling you that you're just assuming what I believe and you keep missing the mark.

Sorry, I did my best to understand what you were saying.

5

db0 wrote

If you declare you've achieved anarchy then you're basically announcing you've retired from the struggle, and will just ignore all further authority that pops up because authority no longer exists in your mind because we have an anarchist society now.

I don't agree with this, but let's agree to disagree for now because this has gone on too long, aight? :)

You have faith in humanity and you're hoping for the best, which is great, but my cynical ass is not so convinced humans will do the logical thing when so many people crave the high of power.

Yeah, as I said, this is usually the core disagreement if you really get down to it. However experience shows us that humans change their characteristics according to their environment and have an innate rejection of inequality. So you don't have to convince people to do the logical thing. You just have to convince them that some specific forms of praxis work best for their benefit, and we already know that those praxis tends to radicalize.

I'm also not convinced the anarchist way of thinking is the default after seeing how selfish, cruel and spiteful small children can be when they haven't even experienced the horrors of the world yet.

You'd be surprised how early children pick things up.

Sorry, I did my best to understand what you were saying.

It's cool. Look if you're not sure what I really suggest, it's better to ask me to clarify than to put words in my mouth :)

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

ziq OP wrote

This is not an assumption or a theoretical scenario. This is my life.. The villagers don't give a shit about the maquis trees, they only care that the pine trees remain so they can continue to hunt the pheasants. The pheasants are released in the forest every year by the government. The pheasants can no longer sustain themselves naturally because of deforestation / over-hunting so they have to be bred in cages and then released. As long as the government is doing that, the villagers don't even notice that anything is wrong because the only thing they use the forest for is hunting. A pine tree desert is fine with them.

And btw, everyone in the village is a member of the communist party and they even have a communist social club that everyone socializes at...

2

[deleted] wrote

2

ziq OP wrote

I'd argue they'd be functionally the same if anarcho-communism were ever actualized because mass society, industrialism and majority rule democracy are all authority forming systems.

1

db0 wrote

You. Live. Under. Capitalism!

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote

Their own wellbeing already makes people care about the environment, and they live in friggin' capitalism!

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote

You wouldn't even reach communism unless you banded with your neighbours to fight against capital. And after that, they wouldn't dump chemicals in their yard because A) They would have no profit incentive to use chemicals in the first place and B) Because their community will kick their ass for polluting the commons.

1

ziq OP wrote

profit incentive

You mean they only have a lawn to maintain their property values? I think they'd still want to kill weeds even if capitalism went away. It's just part of being civilized.

2

videl wrote

can confirm. kno somebody who understands how clear cut lawns are bad and they still insist on doing it for whatever reason.

2

db0 wrote

Plenty of natural ways to kill weeds mate, and without WASP-y standards to care, this would not be an issue anyway.

0

ziq OP wrote

Most anarchists don't care about 'natural ways'; they fetishize science.

3

db0 wrote

Natural methods don't have to be unscientific. Science merely tells us what works or not.

1

ziq OP wrote

True, but I've seen far too many anarchists on r/anarchism defend Monsanto and it's Roundup product to have much faith in them opting for natural solutions.

2

db0 wrote

It doesn't matter what pseudonymous people inside a forum within a capitalist system say. You have to think about what the incentives within an anarchist society will be and why something like Roundup might be used.

You keep transposing the incentives of the capitalist system into a hypothetical anarchist society.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote (edited )

You're living under the magical assumption that communism will suddenly make everyone band together by the campfire and love and care for each other. It's pure magical thinking.

That's not my assumption at all, lol :D

These people aren't doing it for profit, they're doing it so there fucking yards stay looking nice and I don't know if forcing them to stop very good, but like all good communists, you will simply kill them and bam, now more people think like you!

Not at all, but prey tell, what is your solution for those problems you posit?

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

db0 wrote

You know, there can be no discussion if you only negatively criticize other's positions (badly) without you ever presenting your own. I understand how easy it is to do so though, as you avoid making yourself vulnerable.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote

Not at all. But you do seem to have trouble grasping what others are saying in favour of what you'd like them to have said.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

0

db0 wrote

You seem upset that I have an actual argument.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

db0 wrote

I mean, you couldn't be more wrong about me, but then again, you're nor really here to discuss, but just to create conflict. Are you sure that's a good use of your time?

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote

You must be really good at stretching to come to this conclusion from what I said.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote

I don't think I ever prescribed any magical powers to communism. That's what you're asserting on your own. But it seems like you're just itching for a flamewar so I will just bow out here.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

db0 wrote

Not at all. I don't know why you keep asserting what you think I assume...

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote

Well, I guess it's good that you're able to know me better than I know myself within 6 comments. That's some amazing powers there.

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote

Whom did I make assumptions about?

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

db0 wrote

It was a very simple question and it should have been easy to answer all you had to do is link to it, and you couldn't. Instead you insulted some more. But I am not surprised :D

0

Majrelende wrote

What do you think would be a better way to feed people?

2

ziq OP wrote

Communism can only work outside of industrial mass society. A small community gathering or growing supplies and freely sharing them with the rest of the community. Each community trading with other small communities.

Mass industry requires mass agriculture, mass labor, mass transport, mass resource extraction, mass construction, mass policing, mass military... mass society and will only lead right back to capitalism because it's so unwieldly and authority forming.

The better way to feed people is for people to feed themselves instead of expecting others to labor to feed them; an entitlement that arose with industrial civilization.

9

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

So it isn't that that the ideals of anarcho-communism (a society without a state or currency that thrives from mutual aid) would lead to some sort of authority, it's that because ancoms and anarcho-communist theory presume that the harm that industry causes can be lessened or, in the cases of the most naive, eliminated entirely and that civilization isn't a hierarchical construct? Do you believe that if it weren't for those two (admittedly major) factors, that an anarcho-communist society would "work"? Or would a form of authority arise from that?

2

ziq OP wrote

sure but it wouldn't be anarcho-communism since it wouldn't have anything to do with factories or controlling the means of production.

2

CaptainACAB wrote

Alright. So I can assume that your definition of Communism inherently involves industrialization and that it can't be separated from industry? If so, then I think I understand your argument against anarcho-communism better; if not, feel free to correct me.

2

thelegendarybirdmonster wrote

What would stop the dude from cutting away all the trees in an anticiv/anprim society?

1

ziq OP wrote

Spike the trees, throw his chainsaw over the cliff.

3

black_fox wrote

throw his chainsaw over the cliff.

never thought i’d see you endorse littering 😤

3

ziq OP wrote

The cliff is already a garbage dump :(

1

comrade_pikachu wrote

You know the answer to that. Ziq and the rest of the zealots would arson his bread factory or more likely just kill him.

−2

rot wrote

so what would you do?

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

they're a tankie, they'd have red guards escort him to the forest and shoot anyone that stands in the way of the chainsaw for interfering with production.

3

ratbum wrote

In a communist society, he would presumably still bake that bread, and since it would be free to everyone, he'd probably bake a lot more of it and need more wood.

Surely that depends on the policies of the local area? I imagine there'd still be some sort of local council to decide these things and they may well put up restrictions on this behaviour.

1

ziq OP wrote

My village already has a democratic council and they voted to give the baker free reign to cut down the trees.

1

black_fox wrote (edited )

i don’t disagree with you, but i will say this.. i think you’re not taking into account the things that motivate people to act like assholes. if you take those things away (advertising, marketing, consumer culture, money, wealth) what do you have left? if all my needs are being met, what reason does that give me to want more? sure i don’t need a reason to be an asshole, but most people have one even if they don’t realize it.

like i said though i don’t disagree with you. industry isn’t sustainable.

8

ziq OP wrote

It's easier said than done, we have generations of indoctrination in authoritarian behavior to contend with. That doesn't go away overnight.

But even without consumer culture, people are still assholes. Going back to before civilization even existed, people would murder each other and take their stuff. They'd raid each other's settlements, they'd steal their children, they'd fight over territory and cultural differences. These aren't things that were invented by capitalism.

6

shanc wrote

even without consumer culture, people are still assholes.

Am currently rereading The Iliad. Can confirm.

2

ziq OP wrote

They made us read that in high school in the original language.

1

shanc wrote

Schools are relentless in their ability to take something interesting and turn it into a boring chore

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Hm. this seems based in the logic of scarcity, which is fundamental to capitalism/malthusian thought

I'm not saying the general point you're making is illegitimate. But you're not engaging with the nuances of the argument you're opposing (ancom).

For example, a key anarchist communist argument is that waste/endless growth imperative is created at least partially by capitalism. If decision making was localized in workers or in some other collectivized social unit, where a discourse of environmental consciousness was cultivated, ancoms might argue that people would choose to produce only what is needed and then split up equitably the needed produce. Thus producing a lot less waste, and a lot less work, than a commodity based consumer economy.

But you don't really acknowledge this in the OP. didnt read this entire thread, maybe someone else brought this up and you acknowledged it. However I'm just saying that the initial OP is weaker for having chosen to not engage with the actual ancom argument, and instead mischaracterize what a lot of those people are saying.

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Arguments like this basically come down to "no, actually, anarcho-communist industry will be a utopia because Kropotkin said so".

I reject that line of thinking because it's wistful idealism that has had no real world model since Kropotkin wrote about it in 1892 that has come close to demonstrating its feasibility.

Industry cannot be made "green" any more than capitalism can be made ethical. All agricultural industrial society in history has resulted in ecocide and eventually collapse. When you extract resources, burn fuel, manufacture goods and distribute them to millions / billions of people, you do real irreversible harm to ecosystems. Ancoms are not magical beings that can somehow escape the consequences of this because they're supposedly "good".

But you don't really acknowledge this in the OP.

I don't acknowledge it because, much like the "we'll all dedicate our days to laboring and give the results of our labor away for free to any random stranger that wants it" claim, I don't consider it at all realistic. If anarcho-communism were attempted, half the "nuances" it supposedly has will be thrown out the window for being fantastic. Compromises will be made to make the system functional.

A lot of things have been claimed about communism, but whenever its been attempted in real life models, almost none of those claims have come to fruition and they never will because a) resources aren't infinite, b) industrial output has a high 'hidden' cost and most importantly: c) labor isn't voluntary.

People labor to create consumer goods because the system gives them no other option if they want to survive. The only way people will continue to toil in the factories in "a communist society" is if they are forced to by the system. No hunter gatherer will voluntarily give up their freedom to stand at an assembly line pushing buttons so other people can have Corn Flakes. It's something that needs to be forced on humans by domestication and the joined threat of violence and starvation that props up the industrial system. Industry is a clear authority and anarcho-communist theory is completely oblivious to that.

ancoms might argue that people would choose to produce only what is needed

That word; "needed" is really useless. Anyone can define anything as being "needed" when almost none of the things defined as such are actually needed. This is why anarcho-communism isn't tenable: anything and everything will be defined as "needed" by civilized people, no matter how authority-forming the things are if it means they get to keep consuming.

This "needed industry" argument is a lot like the "justified authority" argument modern ancoms keep making to justify everything all the way up to states and police forces. It's meaningless. People thrived without industry and agriculture for millennia.

Industry and agriculture have led to the extinction of near everything on the planet. 99.9% of industrial goods are not "needed", they're wanted. Ancoms aren't going to suddenly decide to give up their smartphones, Doritos and washing machines when they find out they're environmentally destructive. They'll just rubber-stamp all the things they want as "needed" and call it a day.

Keeping people in the mines and factories building those consumer goods that "the people" decide they "need" will require massive authority that will be just another iteration of capitalism.

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote

"no, actually, anarcho-communist industry will be a utopia because Kropotkin said so".

I actually don't really care about kropotkin, i think they are an interesting historical figure but my politics don't follow from hero worship like that.

Really all I'm saying is that anarchist communist praxis toward the problem of work is to put workers in the decision making seat. The reason this may result in less work and industry, is that there would finally be an option for working people to work less-- they have collective power over their working environment, and money has been eliminated or otherwise marginalized from its current central role.

By attacking and contesting the alienation of labor, and giving working people more choices over how their day is spent, a lot of people would probably decide to work less. For example, David Graeber's work on Bullshit Jobs is an interesting window into this repressed social conversation around unnecessary work.

But of course, as an anarchist communist i reject the silly MLM kind of trajectory, where the teleology is a foregone conclusion. Even if worker control over industries is achieved, that by no means guarantees good ecological outcomes. Within anarchist communist controlled spaces, there will be additional political work needed in order to ensure that environmental concerns are centered. The same goes for confronting racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. Anarchist spaces can be quite shit if you aren't white, middle class, etc. I don't see that changing fundamentally, at least not to the point that these conversations will be unneeded, anytime soon. Similarly, in a more worker-controlled society, it will have to be a further ongoing push to make sure that decisions are being made in the ways we want to see them made. Any ancom, or anyone at all, who says that political effort is unnecessary "after the revolution" is trolling or totally foolish. I would join you in ridiculing that idea.

I would nod to your earlier writing and posts, where you speak about the false idea of "revolution". Change usually doesn't happen at one moment we can forecast in the future. It's a process, or a series of processes, usually not linear and always occurring in unpredictable and complex ways. I think that promoting worker control of industry will probably result in less hours worked for a higher standard of living, could feasibly undermine capitalist commodity markets and consumer culture, and will reduce the amount of overall production and labor which is conducted (helping to avert some destruction of the biosphere). So i see it as worth working towards, because I see how it will help the people around me and the environment.

Of course, it's not enough, an the world is ending. But i don't see how i can really do anything on a sufficient scale to destroy the entire industrial systems of the earth, so i just try to make things less better on a scale I can actually take part in

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Really all I'm saying is that anarchist communist praxis toward the problem of work is to put workers in the decision making seat. The reason this may result in less work and industry, is that there would finally be an option for working people to work less-- they have collective power over their working environment, and money has been eliminated or otherwise marginalized from its current central role.

And I'm saying that's completely incompatible with anarcho-communism because production needs to meet demand. People need to be able to take everything they 'need' from the communal stores which means the goods need to be manufactured everyday or people will go without. This is what anarcho-communism is by definition. Saying you don't care about Kropotkin doesn't change that. In a real life application, it'll all be thrown out the window and limits will be put in place to slow down consumption, but on paper, anarcho-communism has unlimited consumption hardcoded in.

By attacking and contesting the alienation of labor, and giving working people more choices over how their day is spent, a lot of people would probably decide to work less. For example, David Graeber's work on Bullshit Jobs is an interesting window into this repressed social conversation around unnecessary work.

In anarcho-communism, the bullshit jobs may go away (though they certainly didn't go away in other socialist societies), but instead everyone will be expected to do menial labor so that industrial labor is no longer outsourced to the global south / migrant workers.

Without capitalism outsourcing food production, the local populace will have to pick up the slack. Everyone will have to work in the fields and factories to maintain industrial civilization's expected living standards.

And if you don't maintain the living standards the people are used to, they will revolt and bring back capitalism so they can go back to their old jobs / lifestyles.

Everyone in the West who is used to easy work sitting in air-conditioned cubicles will be given a shovel or a pickaxe and be expected to do gruelling manual labor to feed society. If they don't work, everyone starves.

This isn't giving people "more choices over how their day is spent". Instead of migrant laborers and people in faraway lands doing all the work, everyone in the local communities will need to produce real goods immediately or ancom society will collapse.

How many American and European office workers do you think would even be willing to forgo their immense privilege to muddy their hands growing beets and potatoes for the communal stores? How many of them will actually do this manual labor when they can just choose not to and wait for other, darker skinned people to pick up the slack like they do now under capitalism? Except those people will no longer be chained up by capitalism, so they can say no to industrial work too. If everyone can say no to industrial work and just stay home and draw or play videogames, how does industry continue to operate?

You claim people will be able to "choose to do less work" in an industrial anarcho-communist society when every indication is that anarcho-communism would give them far less options since all the bullshit jobs would go away.

So with communism, jobs will actually be meaningful, hard work to feed, clothe and shelter society. The vast majority of jobs will be farm, mine, kitchen or factory work because without imported products, everything we're used to having under capitalism will need to be produced locally.

There's ZERO indication that people would have more choices for how they spend their day. There will be no accountants. There will be no bank clerks. There will be no cashiers. There will be no fashion boutiques. There will be no taxis. No advertisement firms. No online retailers. No warehouses. No car dealers. 99% of the jobs people have today will go away and be replaced with manual labor jobs and communal kitchens to feed the manual laborers.

And ancoms assume people will just be able to choose not to work and the society will take care of them anyway. Fuck that. Why should I work my ass off in a factory all day so other people can sit at home all day watching TV and eating snacks? Why should I sacrifice my health hitting rocks with a pickaxe while other people just get to declare they're artists and make a couple of shitty paintings a year? Don't you see how authority-forming a society separated between artists/intellectuals and laborers is?

Either everyone works or no one works. If you have an industrial society, constant labor is needed to keep it afloat. If people are able to opt out of work because they don't want to do it, then the whole society will cease to function. A work-based society only functions if people are forced to work by people who have a monopoly on violence. Industrialists went through great lengths to force us to switch from being hunter gatherers and peasants to being workers. At first people kept leaving the cities because they hated their new industrial jobs and they went back to the forests, so the rulers made new laws so it was illegal for people to live in the forests. People will not work the machines out of the goodness of their hearts. Every one of us who works in industrial labor will tell you that it is is a fucking shitty existence and we would bail in a split second if we had the ability to.

The only reason I work in the chemical warehouse now is because I'm forced to in order to survive. If you tell me I no longer have to work to survive, I will stop working. Anyone that spends their life laboring in industry for "the common good", sacrificing their life so other people can sit at home writing poetry is a fucking tool.

It's just another class system except with nothing to actually keep the system in place since it lets everyone decide what class to join. Why would anyone join the laborer class if given a choice?

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

key anarchist communist ideas

  1. Automation has reduced, and will continue to reduce, the need for menial labor. Increasingly, factories have fewer and fewer workers, and the productivity of the average laborer has risen over time. In the future, there will be so many people without jobs, the only choice even within capitalism will be to create UBI or some other way of discoupling the direct yoke of social value from labor. The wage system is dissolving itself as we speak, and it doesn't have to be such a terrible thing if we consciously shape our society to adapt to these changes.

  2. The elimination of unconsensual labor can only happen if unconsensual consumption is also eliminated. It seems a bit unfair to anarchist communist ideas, the way that you assume that any industrial society is also a consumerist one-- it's incorrect that "unlimited consumption is hardcoded into anarchist communism". We're not going to see a ton of LEGOs or credit cards being produced, but there will always be people who create medicines and food-- and some of them will use industrial processes to create these things, because in those cases the results are meaningful and the means are humane.

  3. What menial labor which is felt to be socially necessary, will be shared and disaggregated throughout society. For example, caretaking work, or farming. 4-hour days would become easily feasible when this burden is shared equally by the dissolution of class differences. Currently, only a tiny fraction of people in western societies work in these contexts where the labor is actually socially useful.

  4. With the elimination of commodities, the needs for goods will be determined by working people who create them, not managers whose only motivator is profit. This will decrease the need for goods, because people who work will only do so if the work is meaningful and humane.

  5. You shouldn't have to work in the chemical warehouse, but it's not unreasonable to ask that in exchange for the product of other folks' labor you participate in some aspect of society which is needed by others. However, no serious anarchist communist would seriously ask you to work somewhere you are miserable. The point is that you find opportunities to do labor which allows you to do things you want to do, rather than only things which you don't want to do. There will always be undesirable things that need to be done, but it shouldn't and won't be the only thing you do everyday anymore. That's the goal.

  6. The use of so much menial labor under capitalism is unnecessary to a technological society. It is only necessary for a commodity society.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

It seems a bit unfair to anarchist communist ideas, the way that you assume that any industrial society is also a consumerist one-- it's incorrect that "unlimited consumption is hardcoded into anarchist communism". We're not going to see a ton of LEGOs or credit cards being produced, but there will always be people who create medicines and food-- and some of them will use industrial processes to create these things, because in those cases the results are meaningful and the means are humane.

Because I know that 7 billion people aren't going to behave the way anarcho-communism wants them to behave. Including the people actually calling themselves anarcho-communists, who are almost without exception domesticated, elitist, materialist and consumerist as all fuck. And almost all of them insist they won't actually do any of the hard labor because they'll be too busy writing theory or playing with their train sets.

You're honestly just saying "but this is how people will act under communism because Kropotkin / Bookchin / Bakunin / etc say so". People won't act the way they're told to act by dead men.

The billions of people who are used to industrial capitalism will not suddenly be okay with going without fashion, junk food, designer shoes, cars, iphones, game consoles, robotic vacuum cleaners, heated swimming pools, air-conditioning, etc, etc, etc. They'll expect anarcho-communism to give them everything capitalism gives them or they'll reject it. This includes the hundreds of anarcho-communists I've argued with over the years who insist they won't have to give up anything and the only thing that will change is there will be no more inequality in the world.

If you tell civilized domesticated industrial people they have to give up everything capitalism gives them and switch to basic bread and water so that industrial communism can work they'll just tell you to fuck off. That's why ancoms promise fully automated luxury communism. One giant walmart where everything is free of charge.

When Kropotkin wrote his theory, mass consumerist culture didn't exist. The products people made in the factories were much more limited than what people are used to now. So when he promised everything would be free at the communal stores, he wasn't talking about macs, macbooks, iphones, ipads, ipods, iwatches, apple TVs and playstations. But the modern consumer absolutely expects all those things and if you think ancoms have any intention of giving up their consumer tech, you're not being honest with yourself. Every ancom on reddit will swear up and down that all this garbage will be free under ancommunism.

What menial labor which is felt to be socially necessary, will be shared and disaggregated throughout society.

Felt by whom? By "the people"? So the same people who are accustomed to an endless list of snacks, electronics, entertainment and so on? They get to decide what is "socially necessary"? Yeah good luck with that.

4-hour days would become easily feasible when this burden is shared equally by the dissolution of class differences.

This has no basis in reality. You have no way to quantify how much local labor would be needed to replace outsourced labor.

I'm telling you right now that I'm not working so you can have industrial consumer goods. I'll take everything I want from the communal stores and never devote another day of my life to furthering industry / ecocide. Instead, I'll sit at home all day writing angry rants about how much everyone annoys me.

Currently, only a tiny fraction of people in western societies work in these contexts where the labor is actually socially useful.

But if they suddenly need to produce everything they consume locally, that will obviously change so I'm not sure why you think you can quantify how much labor would be needed to maintain industrial civilization without outsourcing. It honestly seems like you're just making an assumption based on other people's assumptions.

With the elimination of commodities, the needs for goods will be determined by working people who create them, not managers whose only motivator is profit. This will decrease the need for goods, because people who work will only do so if the work is meaningful and humane.

The needs will be determined by society at large, not the workers. If the workers don't give society what they want, society will reject communism and the system will collapse. Society becomes the manager. The workers labor to keep the system afloat.

You shouldn't have to work in the chemical warehouse, but it's not unreasonable to ask that in exchange for the product of other folks' labor you participate in some aspect of society which is needed by others.

Anarcho-communism doesn't do that though. It assumes most people will want to work, and allows anyone who can't or doesn't want to work to abstain from work.

Someone has to work in chemical storage in order for industrial society to function. If no one will do it, society fails.

However, no serious anarchist communist would seriously ask you to work somewhere you are miserable.

Literally no one would voluntarily do this job, which is exactly why anarcho-communism is untenable. Without authority to force me to be here, without capitalism bulldozing the forests so we can't be self-sufficient, I'll ran to the forest and lever look back.

The point is that you find opportunities to do labor which allows you to do things you want to do, rather than only things which you don't want to do.

Then industry will collapse. No one wants to do menial labor. We do it at figurative and sometimes not-so figurative gunpoint.

There will always be undesirable things that need to be done, but it shouldn't and won't be the only thing you do everyday

How would I be able to leave and do other stuff under communism? Then this job wouldn't get done. It's highly dangerous full time specialized work. It's not something you can just walk away from because the economic system shifts from industrial capitalism to industrial communism. I can't even take sick days or it would affect dozens of people.

The use of so much menial labor under capitalism is unnecessary to a technological society. It is only necessary for a commodity society.

Bullshit. My job won't cease to be menial just because the workers take control. I'm not going to stop taking safety precautions and take other shortcuts that make things much more hazardous so I can save time and go home early.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Nah you're putting words in my mouth. Ya got an axe to grind, so keep grinding. A lot of us can see a world where free association gets the goods-- and we're slowly making it happen. If you want to run off to the woods, or others do, go for it. The rest of us will be doing our own thing

1

ziq OP wrote

It annoys me when people make empty promises about how work will change under communism with literally no evidence to support it. Soviet and Chinese workers worked way harder than anyone on this forum can even begin to imagine. Industry will not be made ethical, voluntary and fun because you say it will be made ethical, voluntary and fun. Your promises are no different than Elon Musk promising ethical, fully-automated space capitalist industry.

If you want to run off to the woods, or others do, go for it.

I can't "run off to the woods" as long as industry exists to turn those woods into desert.

The rest of us will be doing our own thing

Your thing actively prevents me from doing my thing.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Your thing actively prevents me from doing my thing.

Does it? Or does your boss & the system of wage labor do that?

At most, the potential theoretical consequences of anarchist communism prevent you from doing your own thing. But we don't live in an anarchist communist world, not even remotely. We live in an industrial capitalist mass society. Most anarchist communists I've found in my area aren't even wanting to continue most forms of industry, like private cars or fossil fuels or roads, most toiletries, foods grown out of season and trucked in, etc...

I think you have this ultra oppositional way of talking about your type of politics, which doesn't really lend itself to finding the ways in which you can work with others. On the contrary, you are looking for ways in which you can poke holes or critique others, and put down what they are thinking or doing. This can be a useful skill, but as a mode of creating a political reality it has serious drawbacks. The creation of a different social and economic world will require people to look for ways to cooperate concretely, not prove abstract points. If the words anarchist communism offend the people I'm talking to, I tend to just let you have your way and explain whatever I was going to explain without using those words. Inevitably agreement is reached on the matters closest to hand. You know?

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Does it? Or does your boss & the system of wage labor do that?

Industry does that. Communist industry wouldn't stop the ecocide. Communist theory does nothing to face the reality of our situation. All it does is promise workers a fairer share of the industrial spoils.

Most anarchist communists I've found in my area aren't even wanting to continue most forms of industry, like private cars or fossil fuels or roads, most toiletries, foods grown out of season and trucked in, etc...

Those people are all irrelevant. The other 7 billion people would decide the trajectory of society, regardless of what economic system is in place.

I think you have this ultra oppositional way of talking about your type of politics, which doesn't really lend itself to finding the ways in which you can work with others. On the contrary, you are looking for ways in which you can poke holes or critique others, and put down what they are thinking or doing.

It's not that I'm trying to be oppositional, it's that I see the world around me through deathly sober eyes and know the proposed "solutions" offered by blissful ancoms would do exactly nothing to address the ecocide that is crushing everything I see around me. No one in this thread has said anything that isn't simply a rewording of "everything will be okay if we just get communism because communism is good". It both infuriates and frightens me that no one seems to understand that the solution to industry killing the ecosystem is not to make industry more 'democratic'. Industry with a smiley face painted on is still a giant fucking boulder crushing everything in its path. It's like everyone is on acid or something and I'm the only one who can't share your high because I'm numb to its effects.

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

It's like everyone is on acid or something and I'm the only one who can't share your high because I'm numb to its effects.

I mean this is a very elitist perspective...

1

ziq OP wrote

You're being smug and intellectually dishonest and that really doesn't warrant any response other than 'fuck off'.

2

Splinglebot wrote

I mean it's understandable, this is pretty much my experience being an anarchist surrounded by liberals

1

Splinglebot wrote

wouldn't the same logic apply to any type of anti-social behaviour in any group of people?

not a fan of industry but this honestly reads like a classic "authority is needed because people can't be trusted without being controlled" argument

3

ziq OP wrote

How is that the argument I"m making? I'm arguing authority will always continue to be manifested with communism, meaning communism fails to liberate people and has never succeeded historically and will never succeed.

Authoritarian behavior can only be repeated if society is structured around authoritarian institutions. Institutions communism always manifests because it requires that people be controlled by the authority of bureaucrats.

All controlled mass-society creates authority; bodies of people that hold power over others. That power grows over time and takes the society further and further away from its revolutionary origins.

"Anti-social" people (which btw is a bullshit term that could apply to any anarchist or anyone that doesn't conform to the white supremacist status quo) are only a problem if the society imbues them with authority. If they have no authority, there's nothing stopping others from dealing with them if they try to oppress. If someone kept cutting down all the trees to bake bread, they'd just get their ass kicked until they stopped.

2

Splinglebot wrote

If they have no authority, there's nothing stopping others from dealing with them if they try to oppress. If someone kept cutting down all the trees to bake bread, they'd just get their ass kicked until they stopped.

right so why does that stop being the case in a communistic society? isn't the woodland like the communal stores?

0

ziq OP wrote (edited )

because in a communist society, much like in a capitalist society, baking bread is legitimized and he is provided legal protection from having his ass kicked since he's providing a service to the community. his industrial output / work / goods / production is valued over the forest and its inhabitants because the people in the village want to eat his bread and the cost of that bread (environmental degradation) is not valued in industrial society.

2

Splinglebot wrote

legal protection on whos authority?

I meant why can't the communal stores be dealt with in the same way the woodland is? Why can't the asshole taking everything from the communal stores be dealt with in the same way the asshole cutting down all the trees would?

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

legal protection on whos authority?

"the people's" authority.

why can't the communal stores be dealt with in the same way the woodland is

because that isn't communism. in communism everything is free for the taking and resources are treated as if they're infinite. if you decide you need something, you take it from the communal store. Kropotkin said no one has the right to judge how much an individual needs, except the individuals themselves.

if you start beating up people who take more than you think they deserve, then it's no different than installing a bureaucracy to manage the resources. in fact, the beatings would probably be the trigger for installing the bureaucracy if it's somehow not installed from day one. the beatings become institutionalized and legitimized and suddenly every community has police who decide what each person is worth.

but the bureaucracy will happen no matter what and this is why communism isn't tenable. the bureaucracy will quickly morph into a state.

any system that allocates resources and polices people is a state in everything but name.

2

Splinglebot wrote (edited )

if you start beating up people who take more than you think they deserve, then it's no different than installing a bureaucracy to manage the resources

in that case why would beating people up for cutting down too much woodland be any different to installing a bureaucracy? you claimed "anti-social" behaviour was "not a problem" because they could be stopped, but if the communists do it then it'll become a bureaucracy? you said earlier:

If they have no authority, there's nothing stopping others from dealing with them if they try to oppress. If someone kept cutting down all the trees to bake bread, they'd just get their ass kicked until they stopped.

if this leads to authority in the communist case then surely it also leads to authority in the woodcutter case. This is what I mean about it sounding similar to a generic "people need authority" argument, it's seems to boil down to a "well what if someone's an asshole" that could be applied to pretty much any instance where there's a group of people without authority. You then claim that in order to deal with the asshole the community will create authority and form bureaucracy - but again surely that same logic would apply to any anarchic community that has an asshole among them? Unless you're gonna argue that humans aren't even capable of forming communities without authority?

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

in that case why would beating people up for cutting down too much woodland be any different to installing a bureaucracy? 

There's a big difference between legitimized institutional violence and the isolated use of force by a lone actor unconnected to social institutions. The later isn't authority forming. Direct action against a logger isn't the same thing as forming a police squad to judge how much people deserve to eat.

Every anarchist should understand the difference between force and authority.

2

Splinglebot wrote

I don't think the logger case creates authority but I don't see how it's fundamentally different to the asshole taking everything from communal store. If some asshole is taking everything for the sake of being an ass and I tell them to fuck off and stop being an ass I haven't suddenly created a police squad to decide how much everyone is allowed to eat

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Because it's authority-forming. One person taking too much from the store is just the trigger that leads to authority being installed by the community. It starts with you telling one guy to fuck off, but it doesn't end there. You then have to police the store 24/7 so he doesn't come back when you're not there and ultimately you'll need to give everyone who comes by the third degree if they're taking more than you think they have a right to. Especially when food is scarce and the people who actually live in the community and grow the food need it to survive.

How likely is the community to give their food away to strangers and then watch their children go hungry? Kropotkin assumes food and other resources will be unlimited because he was rich and never had to work a day in his life to get fed. But in the real world, in an industrial society, scarcity isn't something that goes away when you declare communism. People will still need to acquire scarce resources to manufacture anything, and they'll have to do backbreaking labor both to acquire the resources and manufacture the goods. So they're going to naturally be incredibly defensive if someone undeserving tries to take the fruits of their labor from them.

Unlike taking direct action to stop loggers from destroying a forest, policing who can use a communal store and how much they can take is something that's officiated and legitimized by the community. It requires that authority be instituted and authority figures be given the power to make decisions for the whole community. It's a replication of statism.

Here's an example closer to home - what happened to f/shoplifting. A couple of people from that forum were bad actors, so it led to outrage in the community and demands for collective punishment. The forum was deleted as a result despite my loud objections (which got me branded a reactionary). All it takes to create authority is a couple of shitty people and resulting collective outrage.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq OP wrote (edited )

It's an example of people (and anarchist people at that) being flawed. People don't stop being flawed because someone announces society is anarcho-communist now.

2

[deleted] wrote

2

ziq OP wrote

People in this thread are even claiming we can easily make hierarchy go away altogether. There's nothing fallacious about me bursting that naive utopian bubble.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq OP wrote

I'm not claiming I have the power to recreate global society in my image so I have no "view" that needs to be realized.

2

rot wrote (edited )

industrial society

well there's the problem

this is why we need full community input so that someone doesn't cut all the fruit and olive trees and why simply redistributing goods is not enough to bring about anarchism.

1

shanc wrote

Can't really argue with this tbh. The problem we have is that most IRL anarcho groups lean ancom, so if you want to get involved with local comrades you kind of have to go along with the communism (obsessing over structure, romanticising the Spanish civil war etc)

1

db0 wrote

We're not robots to blindly give away all resources because someone declares it their need. If someone declares that they need as much as 10 people for their "needs", we're entitled to ask why. Then there's the question of why would someone take away as much as 10 or 100 people actually need for themselves. Since there's no money, they cannot sell it.

If they're trying to hoard it in order to enforce hierarhies, then anarchists will naturally reject it and claim it back, like they already did to reach this point in the first place.

And garbage jobs will either be automated, or shared communally, same way we do within families or friend circles. This is not a new concept.

0

ziq OP wrote

The dumpster truck example was an extreme example. In reality it'll be as simple as someone who does no work coming to the store and taking the fruit of other people's labor. People will resent having to work to produce goods for someone who refuses to work and just takes from them.

Then there's the question of why would someone take away as much as 10 or 100 people actually need for themselves.

Okay. He says he's taking a truckload of produce so he can make a year's supply of pasta sauce. It's not hard to find reasons. I freeze or dry crates full of fruit when they're in season.

The point is, he didn't do the work to grow all that food, so the people who did do the work are not going to be happy that he's taking it all and leaving them with nothing. But anarcho-communist theory says he's fully within his rights to take whatever he needs and no one else in the community has a right to judge how much he needs.

And garbage jobs will either be automated, or shared communally, same way we do within families or friend circles. This is not a new concept.

Sharing an undesirable job communally really means very little. The vast majority of jobs are undesirable. There aren't enough volunteers to share all those jobs. Undesirable jobs are the jobs that would need to be maintained in a communist society. Desirable jobs are the jobs that would go away because they're not necessary. Anything necessary is hard work and thus undesirable.

If those jobs could be automated, capitalism would have done it already to save money.

2

db0 wrote (edited )

The dumpster truck example was an extreme example. In reality it'll be as simple as someone who does no work coming to the store and taking the fruit of other people's labor. People will resent having to work to produce goods for someone who refuses to work and just takes from them.

They can come to the store as much as they want, but they don't reserve the right to do whatever they want. The commune(s) producing the goods in that store have a good reason to deny someone this. And again, why would someone do this in the first place? This is the question you need to answer first.

Okay. He says he's taking a truckload of produce so he can make a year's supply of pasta sauce. It's not hard to find reasons. I freeze or dry crates full of fruit when they're in season.

Fine, so people will expect a year's supply of pasta sauce at some point? And if they don't get it, that person doesn't get any more? I fail to see the problem here.

But anarcho-communist theory says he's fully within his rights to take whatever he needs and no one else in the community has a right to judge how much he needs.

Erm, no. They're anarcho-communists, not anarcho-simpletons.

<Sharing an undesirable job communally really means very little. The vast majority of jobs are undesirable. There aren't enough volunteers to share all those jobs. Undesirable jobs are the jobs that would need to be maintained in a communist society. Desirable jobs are the jobs that would go away because they're not necessary. Anything necessary is hard work and thus undesirable.

The vast majority of jobs are undesirable in capitalism. There's no reason why they would stay the same way in an anarchist society and not be made to be fun. You have completely the wrong impression on why people do not like working. It's not because the work is hard, it's because of the hierarchies enforced within them. People have no issue at all doing hard work, even less desirable work, just for the recognition of their peers.

And again, works which simply cannot be automated away, or not made more fun (and they will, because necessity is the mother of invention) will simply be communal. It doesn't matter if there's enough "volunteers". Either you do your part, or you're ostracized from the community for being selfish. And trust me, there's very few things more powerful than peer-pressure.

0

shanc wrote

You have completely the wrong impression on why people do not like working. It's not because the work is hard, it's because of the hierarchies enforced within them.

Pls don't romanticise work. I hated my old job because it meant wiping backsides all night, not because I had a boss. I would've hated it even it was a horizontally ran co-op. Also let's not pretend that jobs like my old one will ever be automated.

1

black_fox wrote

Either you do your part, or you're ostracized from the community for being selfish.

what do you mean by ostracized? like they can't obtain any food or basic survival items from the community? could i still help them as an individual or would i be ostracized or made to feel bad for doing that?

1

videl wrote (edited )

sorry but all your talk of and reliance on what you call peer-pressure makes your anarchist society sound very undesirable.

0

ziq OP wrote

I think it's very honest actually. That's how a 'society' works. It needs some kind of authority like that to keep it running. in communism the authority is the authority of the collective.

3

db0 wrote

There's always going to be some coercion involved to make people fit into the standards a community has decided for themselves. Peer-pressure is the most natural and inescapable. I.e. it happens anyway, all the time, regardless of systems.

But feel free to suggest a better alternative if you have one.

1