Why not allow all kinds of communes?

Submitted by AeroFalcon in Anarchism

I know that statism, capitalism, authoritarianism are all very bad. But why not allow different communes? As long as people don't physically assault each other there, I don't care If someone is happy to live a life as a slave under a capitalist commune.

I mean yeah they may need to work more It may be mandatory for 'em but If anarchist communes exist, then they can always leave, no?

If someone creates a statist commune where no one aggress, yea I find it dumb but If people are happy to live there, It's good for 'em, no? Same thing with religion-based communes...etc

What do you think?

−9

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

There's no such thing as a 'capitalist commune'. The words cancel each other out. Capitalism depends on constant growth, constant exploitation. It doesn't restrict itself to a small area of land, it demands that all land belong to it and all people work for it.

Capitalism won't allow anarchy to exist because it's the biggest threat to its survival. If people have the choice to be free, why would they voluntarily submit to capitalism? And how would capitalists maintain their power if they can't exploit people for their labor and land for its resources?

9

AeroFalcon OP wrote (edited )

I mean how can they invade our anarchist communes? They can come with guns, but we'll shoot 'em :D.

And how would capitalists maintain their power if they can't exploit people for their labor and land for its resources?

Unfortunately they may still continue to do it. In the same way that people in statist communes will still be taxed... But as long as there isn't physical assault taking place and they are happy to live there whatever?

−4

rot wrote

when has a state not used violence on its populace? name one

6

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Corporations/companies, landlords, private cities/villages (rent)...etc

−7

rot wrote

many companies have abused/beaten/killed their workers. dole? coke? foxcom? sweatshops around the world? any of this ring a bell?

6

Alex wrote

yeah corporations used to (and still do) attack workers for trying to unionize, some of these attacks have killed people. all are violence.

5

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Yea, but there is at least one, who haven't abused people

−3

ziq wrote

How can they exploit humans for their labor and land for its resources without abusing people?

7

AeroFalcon OP wrote

How can they exploit humans for their labor

Yea that's why capitalism is bad. Wage jobs r bullshit. Work or starve is bullshit. But what If some people like it? What If some people like this danger? Why are there so many pro-capitalist people in the world then?

You can't exploit land? I mean don't see anything wrong with using land, right? As long as you don't pollute...

−1

Majrelende wrote (edited )

Why are there so many pro-capitalist people in the world then?

Propaganda— people are told that this is the best way to live, and for many, made to believe it despite what each of us experiences every day.
People are told they like capitalism, but that notion of “capitalism” is completely disconnected from their daily lives. You may hate your work, but work is necessary so that you can buy what you need. It is not capitalism’s fault you are at a job you hate— it is just your education. People may be poor, but this is a welfare problem, not a systemic one. In other words, we are told, “Don’t blame capitalism for anything. Blame yourself a or lack of regulations or bad luck or...”

The second paragraph was mostly paraphrasing ridiculous propaganda, not my own opinion.

4

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Yea, go ask people If It's ok to steal from big corporations & they'll all say "no".

Nobody likes this

btw

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Go ask 'em If It is immoral to smash stores, banks windows in a protest and they'll all say -> "No, they are thugs, It is immoral !"

Ask 'em If It is moral to loot, If u are sure to not be caught & they'll all tell u "no".

−2

rot wrote

and that would be....

I asked for states not companies but any co. that's been around long enough has abused it's workers.

3

ziq wrote

I"m really confused as to how that answers their question? Are you a voluntaryist or whatever you call yourselves nowadays?

3

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I'm an anarchist who supports decentralization and who'd like that people have more powers, less hierarchy, less violence. That's all !!

−1

ziq wrote (edited )

You're an anarchist who thinks capitalism is voluntary.

5

AeroFalcon OP wrote

It is not voluntary If there aren't enough anarchist communes. Once there are enough I don't see any problem...

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I mean If there are anarchist communes, why would you stay in capitalist communes If you hate them?

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Majrelende wrote

I am not sure if this is helpful.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Majrelende wrote

Nowhere, but since you were taking part in the conversation, it seemed like you were trying to have your voice heard for some reason.

1

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I mean u don't support the choice to not be free, for people who want it?

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

5

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I don't say bullshit I'm tired when different kinds of anarchist attack/hate each other when we r allies. It makes me sick when I see people hating (anarcho-) primitivism/transhumanism/communist...etc when we r allies. All fighting against the same ennemies

−4

[deleted] 0 wrote

6

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Not really they support hierarchy. But at the same time they said that they won't attack our anarchist communes, so...

−2

Splinglebot wrote

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you but people aren't always honest

2

ziq wrote

Authority is every anarchist's enemy. Capitalism is an authority.

3

rot wrote

but what if people volunteer to be robbed by me?

a capitalist commune is a contradiction. anarchism and capitalism can't co-exist without constant struggle. You think capitalists are gonna just let their workers leave for an anarchist commune?

9

AeroFalcon OP wrote

How can they prevent them from leaving?

−5

rot wrote

violence

8

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I mean let's say that I'm a slave at a 9-5 job. I don't work 24 hours a day at the workplace, right? they don't always monitor me, right? Then, I can leave & go in the ancom commune whenever I feel like during breaks, right?

−4

rot wrote

I want you to think about this a little more before commenting again. 😒

8

manc wrote

The same way you are prevented from leaving today: indoctrination, dependency, terrible violence etc

5

Majrelende wrote (edited )

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/

This article explains how hierarchy may have spread historically— it suggests as well that hierarchical “communes” would need to somehow spread to compensate for the draining of resources by the wealthy/powerful by expanding in search of more resources, which is worrying.

5

AeroFalcon OP wrote

The main problem wasn't capitalists/inequality, It was that hunter gatherers, from an efficient pov aren't that efficient.

With permaculture, u can grow much more things & there is much more food for every1 than in hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

People just left the hunter gatherers lifestyle and wanted to join the agriculture/wage job lifestyle, sadly...

The hunter gatherer weren't that advanced from a technological pov because of their inefficiency & some assholes decided to invade at this moment... Grr...

−2

Majrelende wrote

Did you read the article?

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Yea.

Egalitarianism doesn't mean that technological progress is forbidden

1

Majrelende wrote

I agree— it is fine as long as it is not hurting anyone in the process. However, this is irrelevant. Even if anarchist communes and micro-states were militarily equal, which is itself an unlikely scenario due to an anarchist society’s less violent tendencies, the rate of success for a micro-state invading an anarchist commune is theoretically 50%. The problem is that anarchist societies are naturally less expansionist due to their efficiency of resource distribution. Unless anarchists of different communes take back another for its inhabitants, they will eventually all be engulfed. It has nothing to do with technology.

Even then, who wants to live their life under the threat of invasion?

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

AeroFalcon OP wrote

No, colonialism is a dick move.

What I wanted to say is that the fact that they didn't have enough weapons/technology when their opponents were asshole was the problem.

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

AeroFalcon OP wrote

No, I am not victim blamin' at all (in fact I hate this).

But from an analysis/tactical point of view, that was the problem...

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Technological progress is not against anarchism

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Yea ofc It will always be wrong for a rapist to rape people. But unfortunately, they still exist & we have to find ways to defend ourselves...

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I really don't get it.

Cuz what happened b4 can't happen in the future bcuz :

I mean today we already have the weapons, defense, internet...etc It's unlikely that capitalists will succeed in invading ancom communes.

There are already a few ancom communes nowadays & not a lot of them have been invaded

And a lot of people will be aware that violence/invading is a dick move (meanwhile in the past, nobody really respected people/life)

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

AeroFalcon OP wrote

It's an indoctrination problem, not a strength problem.

If everyone had social/class awareness, the government would never be able to beat them.

Do u really think that the government can beat billion of people ? Gimme a break...

0

Majrelende wrote

There are already a few ancom communes nowadays & not a lot of them have been invaded

This is because it is unprofitable to invade anarchist communes. Try putting one right over the world’s largest known oil deposit and watch what happens.

Basically, they are not invading them because there are not enough of them to actually get in their way.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

0

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I mean today we already have the weapons, defense, internet...etc It's unlikely that capitalists will succeed in invading ancom communes.

There are already a few ancom communes nowadays & not a lot of them have been invaded

−1

F_x wrote

"What if" situations are just a vacuum and don't take account for the reality we are in. Are people happy to work under someone else or they enjoy their privilege and don't care for the suffering of others? Are they ignorant and have no idea of an alternative? Are they being lured by propaganda?

Capitalism can't exist contained. Just think about it, how can it does?

5

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Easy. Thanks to internet more & more people will know the truth and more & more people become strong enough to fight back/join anarchist communes.

So yeah, internet counter their propaganda.

But capitalism isn't the only problem the government and public schools too. Bad parenting is also a problem...

Just think about it, how can it does?

Capitalist live in their communes, we live in our communes -> end of story

−1

F_x wrote

Why would capitalists leave you alone? They need to produce things to keep their system, they need to expand and exploit. It cannot be contained.

We already have the internet and it's just a great tool for alt-right garbage.

Why only government and public schools? what about corporation and private/charter schools? I wonder what is "bad parenting" for you.

3

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Why would capitalists leave you alone?

Without governments doing their bs, war will be very (too) expensive. Like seriously, why would they hire a lot of people just to attack a random small anarchist communes?

Secondly, they can't oppress us, because they can't access our thoughts and they don't know who is & who isn't an anarchist. Do you really think that they will risk killing their capitalists mates/workers?

We already have the internet and it's just a great tool for alt-right garbage.

No, It's a great tool, for things like raddle and illegal content. Without the internet, I don't think that It would have been possible 4 me to learn about anarchism.

Why only government and public schools? what about corporation and private/charter schools? I wonder what is "bad parenting" for you.

Bad parenting -> Sending your children to school instead of homeschooling them. Teaching your children to respect authority/hierarchy...etc

−2

F_x wrote

You sound like an ayncap. Without government, capitalism is all cool!

Anarchism isn't just in your head...

I know, I was just pointing out that it's a tool and it can be use for shit and unfortunately there is more shit than good.

Not everyone can homeschool their kids, not everyone that homeschool their kids are good parents.

5

ziq wrote

I don't think that It would have been possible 4 me to learn about anarchism.

I don't think you've learned anything about anarchism. Seems like we should delete the internet if we go by you.

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I mean, why am I not an anarchist?

What do you want me to do instead?

Should I hate what consenting adults are doing?

What is wrong with me?

Fi-x, me, co-mman-der

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

You're acting like anarchists can't grow (from a material pov) and can't innovate...

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

states, corporations, and all institutions of hierarchical power, need to constantly expand otherwise they perish.

So you see, it is not possible for such an unstable social formation like a government, to coexist with an alternative to it. Even if it chose to engage in a policy of detente, it is still both ideologically and materially in total opposition not only to anarchist social spaces, but indeed anything besides itself: including other institutions of hierarchical power.

This is why you see the proliferation of nuclear weapons, industrial exploitation, environmental degradation, etc, even when it is clear that by engaging in these activities the states are heading towards their own destruction. Unfortunately, the logic of statism and hierarchy does not allow for the resolution of these contradictions internally, so they are externalized upon the rest of the social space around them-- which makes the anarchist struggle against hierarchies a permanent one. So long as anarchism is alive, hierarchies will attempt to encroach and sabotage and destroy such projects and communities from all sides-- strategically minded anarchists will keep this in mind, rather than retreating into idealistic conceptions of ideological diversity which have no material basis in reality or history.

5

Chylan wrote

I'm not a good speaker, but I'll give it a try:

It seems, that you are thinking, that it's possible for anarchist commune to peacefully coexists with capitalism and statism. All the historic and modern days examples show as that isn't possible. Every time, when anarchist commune emerges - it takes a land, property and autonomy out from a state and capital. Obviously, a state and capital treat it as a crime, branding said commune as enemies. It takes a constant struggle from a commune to defend its existence. So, no peaceful coexistence.

Maybe, you are talking about some hypothetical situation, in which current world order somehow collapsed, and, on shards of the civilization, different "communes" arose. Then, sure, it can be fun to discuss some fictional setting from time to time, I really enjoy some fantasy worlds. Are you talking about some kind of a fiction?

So, in your imaginary world anarchist communes universally considered legitimate, and you are asking, should those communes try to wage a war with different kinds of "communes", or what?

3

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I mean he is happy, I can't judge for him. Yea It's dumb, but like the stockholm syndrome If a crime victim still want to love their kidnappers, what can I say? I won't kill 'em for him.

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

5

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Being born into slavery isn't a choice. However people willingly seeing criminals and asking them to torture 'em is a choice. Yea terrible choice, but still a choice

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I mean people can be weird & enter in "slavery contracts" (bdsm) or like capitalism. Do you really think that none of these capitalist bootlickers like capitalism?

−3

ziq wrote

Just fyi and I'm not trying to be a dick: you have to be 16 or older to use this site.

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Correct and I am... captain !

−1

ziq wrote

Good, then we won't have to go easy on you going forward.

2

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Pretty sure that It was AT LEAST ONCE for AT LEAST ONE PERSON in the whole world. There are billions of people on the planet...

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

4

rot wrote

Like, yeah there are people who think hitler was a great leader and people who worship kim jong un's great accomplishments. capitalism having a fan club isn't a defense of capitalism

4

ziq wrote

How did you find this site and when did you decide you're an anarchist?

3