Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

We will join them.

13

ziq wrote

If people are rioting then that "anarchist" commune needs to go.

11

lori wrote (edited )

Race riots are still riots and I don't think that communes would inherently solve racism either

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

7

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

[deleted] wrote

6

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

3

lori wrote

I was specifically thinking of Tulsa when I wrote it down, I don't actually know much of other events labelled as such.

4

Kaito OP wrote

The rioters can be in the wrong tho.

For example, what do you do If capitalists riot & want their means of production back?

−2

ziq wrote (edited )

actually a good argument for dismantling all production instead of just painting it red so it can keep us tethered to the machines

7

ziq wrote

laugh at them? what are they gonna do, destroy the means of production? lol good

4

Kaito OP wrote

vandalize them, break the factories windows...etc

Vandalize people homes, trash/burn people gardens...etc

there are so many ways...

−2

ziq wrote

so just kill them rhetorical rioting capitalists fam, it's not like there's gonna be an ancom revolution anyway

3

Kaito OP wrote

The revolution has already started, just look at /f/illegalism or ancom communes...etc It's just a matter of time. The capitalists will run out of labor, watch my words

−5

Majrelende wrote

Optimism and faith are a wonderful excuse for doing effectively nothing.

The problem with faith is that it makes you believe you and everyone around you are birds, newly fledged, being carried off by a great gust of wind to a faraway mountain peak, but when you look at yourself, you start to feel more that you hopping alone down a vast hillside, overgrown with tangles of trees and woody vines, and towards a deep stream far below, the air still— all with no idea how you are going to cross the river, let alone reach the peak on the other side.

Now, the answer is simple: flight. But how does one fly when there is no wind? By flapping their wings. It takes effort, and it is a new experience, but it is possible— we just need to try rather than wait for an outside force to do it for us.

Think about it— how many anarchists are there in your region? How many people will be willing to risk all of what they have to make a world that ensures that they and their family are safe and comfortable rather than just trying to keep themself and their family safe? Unless you live in an area on the brink of revolution, in which case your area is a glaring exception, I am guessing that there are very few.

This is a problem. There is no wind. Of course, you could fly across by yourself, but due to a copious amount of propaganda, few would pay attention to your efforts and follow you across to the other side. What we must do is to spread ideas and solidarity, subtly at first, and as we do so, put them to action— we must actively untangle people’s minds from the propaganda with which they grew up and let them recognise their own power as well as that of others.

(I myself am guilty of inertia. I know this makes me a hypocrite, but at least I know so that I can try to change.)

10

Kaito OP wrote

Think about it— how many anarchists are there in your region? How many people will be willing to risk all of what they have to make a world that ensures that they and their family are safe and comfortable rather than just trying to keep themself and their family safe?

There is no risk in anarchism, If done the proper way.

I can't know how many anarchists they are in my region, in the same way that I can't count the number of muslims/christian. Anarchism is in the heart. Anarchism is dodging taxes, living in communes and I can't monitor what is happening inside people communes. I don't know If they are buying scrap at stores are not...etc

−4

Majrelende wrote (edited )

There is no risk in anarchism, If done the proper way.

This would be true in an ideal scenario, where everyone is waiting for just the right moment, and even the police and military are in agreement.

I can't know how many anarchists they are in my region, in the same way that I can't count the number of muslims/christian.

I was not asking you to count, just to think, in general, about whether people are willing to oppose oppressive violence.

Anarchism is in the heart.

I cannot imagine where else it would be.

Anarchism is dodging taxes,

sometimes

living in communes and I can't monitor what is happening inside people communes. I don't know If they are buying scrap at stores are not...etc

For the most part, this makes sense as well.

3

Kaito OP wrote

This would be true in an ideal scenario, where everyone is waiting for just the right moment, and even the police and military are in agreement.

No, It's even true right now. All my money comes either from my natural resources or crypto, how can they tax me, explain me?

whether people are willing to oppose oppressive violence.

I don't know, how many but I know that more and more people are willing to defend themselves, yes. (Illegal) Gun ownership is skyrocketing in my town.

Anarchism is dodging taxes

sometimes

Always : taxation is theft, especially when It comes from an asshole authority

−4

Majrelende wrote

No, It's even true right now. All my money comes either from my natural resources or crypto, how can they tax me, explain me?

This makes sense — I just thought we were talking about open revolution.

I don't know, how many but I know that more and more people are willing to defend themselves, yes. (Illegal) Gun ownership is skyrocketing in my town.

Against whom?

Always : taxation is theft, especially when It comes from an asshole authority

This is true— what I meant is that authority is often the means by which taxes are evaded.

3

Kaito OP wrote

I just thought we were talking about open revolution.

Why do we need an "open revolution"?

Against whom?

Thugs, probably :)

what I meant is that authority is often the means by which taxes are evaded.

Even, then I don't find any problem with this. If people send a letter to the govt and ask them to stop taxing them, I don't see any problem.

Lobbying is the problem (people trying to pass stupid laws), not tax evasion.

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

Yes, It already started, but I don't understand why Majrelende was talking about an "open revolution"?

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

1

Kaito OP wrote (edited )

Who will seize them?

I own them

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

Yeah, but come and take It, I wait you with my guns. And If you (attempt to) kick me out of my house, I will call armed security guards...

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

4

Kaito OP wrote

It isn't against anarchism to call armed people. You won't ever be able to achieve your revolution alone.

And armed people can be anyone, whether they are friends, neighbors, strangers who want to help me...

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

Kaito OP wrote

If you can afford it! And If you're sure that they won't kill you too.

Check.

−4

[deleted] 0 wrote

6

Kaito OP wrote

From a rational point of view, I really don't see why we aren't making progress?

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

I mean just look at the numbers WE ARE GROWING

More and more people use crypto

Less and less people trust their govt/bosses/companies

More and more people like decentralization, It's so blatant

Technology is growing and growing

Anarchism will rule soon !

−4

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

3

Kaito OP wrote

Anarchism (the mindset/idea).

Tax evasion is also growing and It's easier and easier to dodge taxes.

Corporations are (sometimes) outperformed by startups...

I mean Idk what to say, It's obvious...

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

4

Kaito OP wrote

I mean, you don't prefer small ones over bigger ones?

−4

[deleted] 0 wrote

4

Kaito OP wrote

There won't be any (self-owned/coop) shop in an anarchist society?

A smaller business is closer to this, than big businesses, tho...

It's like saying that you aren't happy that a government stopped intervening in other countries...

−4

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

Kaito OP wrote

Anarchists are pro-markets (trades of goods) but against exploitation, don't confuse both.

I think that someone talked about a concept called "Markets, not capitalism"

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

1

Kaito OP wrote

"Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty" by Gary Chartie

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

I mean for example, do you think that mutualists are anarchists?

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

Kaito OP wrote

Are you serious? Why aren't they anarchists?

They are against hierarchy.

−1

Majrelende wrote

Markets may not always be necessarily hierarchical, but being anti-hierarchy is not the same as being pro-freedom.

3

Kaito OP wrote

We want a voluntary system, so ofc yeah we are pro-freedom.

Removing rulers isn't the first step towards freedom?

−1

Majrelende wrote

Deposing rulers is certainly necessary for freedom, but I would feel unfree personally with community-ownership markets— not to mention ownership by use.

In such a system of collective ownership, if necessities were traded for a certain type of labour, the person might make a habit out of that type of labour— maybe even a job. This means that as part of their routine, they would have to work proportionally to the amount of products they needed, which is better than capitalism, but as it is division of labour, it creates a world in which less voluntary labour is the norm. Of course, we could avoid division of labour by producing all our own food and housing and other necessities. Then, we would only be trading non-necessities, like books and luxuries— though if someone needed to learn how to build a house, they would have to work in order to buy a book on it. Now suppose things which are needed to create necessities, such as knowledge, are non-market. Now, there are only a few types of market products, including luxury items and art. But it might seem silly to trade these away.

It probably could work, but it is not as voluntary as I personally would be comfortable with. At least to me, it seems less complicated and more free to have a cooperative (in the general sense) communist society than a market one.

5

Kaito OP wrote

Why do you feel unfree, when people are trading goods a certain way in your community?

Do you want to be like the government/corporations? Playing the police? If someone is caught trading in this way in this community, then he is banned!

Doesn't go against freedom, btw : but hey, you're free to choose your commune, so no problem, as long as you don't want to attack MY commune.

though if someone needed to learn how to build a house, they would have to work in order to buy a book on it.

Or negociate with their neighbors and ask them how to build a house or telling them that you will pay for it later, borrowing money...etc

Now, there are only a few types of market products, including luxury items and art. But it might seem silly to trade these away.

No, because trading helps fuel innovation

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

Kaito OP wrote

They are not "anarchists", but they are not opposed to anarchism too.

There will always be trade of goods in an anarchist society, no?

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

Wut, what are your thoughts on government foreign policy?

−1

ziq wrote (edited )

Lol what

Facebook was a srartup. Amazon was a startup.

4

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

Kaito OP wrote

Even for poor/middle-class people. There are so many loopholes you can exploit and because you are under the radar, It's very easy to dodge.

−2

shanc wrote

ancom communes

Where?

4

Kaito OP wrote

Any village especially those focused on gardening/permaculture

−2

shanc wrote

So a village with landlords, police, a mayor etc is 'anarcho communist' as long as it has gardens?

You really need to go back to the basics with your reading, comrade. I recommend Colin Ward.

1

Kaito OP wrote

There is no landlord, because we own the land.

Police is not allowed to enter in the village

Why would there be a mayor? Each of us own our own parcel of land and we help together.

−1

shanc wrote

You said there are currently real living breathing 'anarcho communist communes', which you defined as villages with gardens and permaculture. I asked you where and now you've gone back to fantasy land.

Seriously, if you're interested in building anarchism stop daydreaming on the internet and go back to reading the basics. You have a very weak understanding of what it's about - no offence intended. Perhaps when your grasp on the principles is better you'll be able to bring a little anarchy into your own life, and see where it takes you from there.

2

Kaito OP wrote

Go in any fuckin' rural village/ecovillage and you will see that what I say exists and everything is entirely privately owned (the "authority"/govt isn't allowed in). Damn...

−1

shanc wrote

TIL every rural village is an 'anarchocommunist commune'.

Where is this fantasy land where the govt 'isn't allowed in'? You still haven't named a single place.

2

Kaito OP wrote

Anywhere. Why would they want to enter in the first place?

2ndly they don't know who is living inside the village, this means that they can't arrest people.

In any ecovillage/privately owned village.

Liberstad for instance.

−2

shanc wrote

Liberstad

'an'cap confirmed. Fuck off, bootlicker.

2

Kaito OP wrote (edited )

Explain? It's an ancom commune where people help each other.

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

aerofalcon?

Why should I try my posts aren't memes...

−1

shanc wrote

It's a gated hideaway for rich people. It has nothing to do with anarchism.

I honestly think you're trolling at this point.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

They are the same thing, for God's sake and It is subjective.

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

Yes there's a difference, It depends of the semantics.

On common law/normal language private property means everything that isn't government owned.

By anarchist standards Private property means = means of production

Personal property = everything that isn't a mean of production that isn't government owned

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

Personal property = everything that isn't a mean of production that isn't government owned

Do you agree, bro?

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

1

Kaito OP wrote

Define personal property, then

−1

[deleted] wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

Riot against the commune.

you fight back.

Yeah, but what about collateral damage? I don't want be a Cop 2.0 and hitting innocent people

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote

During pogroms, some of my ancestors in the ghettos would band together with weapons and attempt to fight off the nobles and their fellow travellers. Others left temporarily, and many others died.

I think the best solution is to form rapid response networks which can travel to provide defense upon receiving messages that an attack is incoming.

Unfortunately, anarchist modes of sociality will still have to deal with incipient fascism, racism, etc. So this is actually a very good question, how do we think about how to respond to acute events of mass racial & ethnic violence.

5