Yes

Nun killing democrat? What do American liberals have to do with nun killing?

Social anarchists don't mind people being reclusive. Funny enough I live off in the woods by a mountain too.

Also modes of production aren't something that exist just because people "support" it. Just because someone doesn't support the capitalist mode of production doesn't mean they no longer operate under it.

Also you keep using the slaves and general talking point to deflect. This was an event that happened in reality. It happened in history. A fascist army was attacking and anarchists organized and fought back in response. What do you think should've been done to the POWs in this situation? Do you think people shouldn't have organized to fight back against fascists?

A community fridge isn't meant to force people to share food wtf? It's a method of dealing with food insecurity in a community. You understand that correct?

Also you are aware of the concept of abolishing commodity production and how that factors into things such as work abolition and moving away from extractivism?

You seem to be describing collectivized industry operating under the capitalist mode of production.

Again you're deflecting from the actual point. We are discussing history right now not hypotheticals. A war occurred where a fascist military was sweeping across the country. In response anarchist militias organized against this military. The anarchists were not perfect but that is what happened. Now how exactly does this liberal view of yourself as an isolated individual fit into this? Do you think that people shouldn't have come together to fight the fascists at all? What do you think should've happened to the POWs?

As an anarchist you of all people should be aware generals are often not the ones to actually fight and die in these wars.

Also I'm done with the slavery nonsense you keep trying to accuse me of supporting slavery because you have no actual response.

No I didn't I pointed out that the only other options you present as an alternative to POWs is to either outright murder them or set them loose. Then when asked further you retreated into this idea that all situations only ever occur on an individual level like a childish liberal. Oh not to mention you still haven't provided any actual case for why democratically running a community fridge is apparently an equivalent to enslaving people which seems to be your only weasel method of holding a discussion with me instead of reading what I have to say is to falsely claim that I was arguing in favor of slavery.

Or you know you could just understand that the context being surrounding the organization of a community fridge project which apparently everyone here thinks will somehow lead to slavery if done in a democratic manner because they're too up their ass with Bob Black's bs.

Your position is nonsensical and contradictory. People don't live in bubbles. They're inherently social creatures. You as an individual inherently rely on other individuals. We are not talking about a single individual trying to kill you. We are talking about a full blown fascist army. It's not up to you as an individual to decide if there's a conflict or not. Conflicts have existed even before the state. Individuals survive and protect their autonomy best when working with other individuals.

This is practically a liberal take to focus on this issue from a purely individualist perspective with no regards for other outside systemic factors.

Also again with the slave argument. No one is defending slavery. I'm simply pointing out that in a conflict it's unreasonable to either execute all your POWs or just set them loose.

What do you consider a third position between communism and capitalism? Do you propose we preserve markets? You're being extremely vague with your terms. There is a point where rejecting binaries is a good step but only when you are actually specific on what policies or views are transcending these binaries. Otherwise it's no different from empty statements from a politician trying to court the broad support of people with no actual solid position.

It's not a question of anarchism needing to be communist it's a question of what anarchism itself means. Working against the structures of capitalism and the state means radically changing the very way resources are extracted and consumed. What forms of noncommunist anarchy exists besides either market anarchism or anarchist capitalism? The former preserving the coercive forces of capitalism but collectivizing the system and the second being a contradictory concept.

The two versions of anarchism that claim not to be communistic are often either capitalist in nature or despite their best intentions only reforming capitalism and preserving the very coercive forces that need to be abolished. Mutualists have their contributions to the theory but are even more archaic than the syndicalists. The agorists only react to the mechanisms of capitalism but still don't actually exist to abolish it.

A system operating without markets and the coercion of work would be by definition communistic since commodity production would be abolished and markets would be replaced with marketless systems. When it comes to the issue of market systems under anarchism this poses several problems. One being growth for the sake of growth. Meaning that sustainability, the abolition of work, and the growth of a ruling class through monetary wealth would still be existent issues. Another being the preservation of competition and domination over cooperation and mutual aid. The workplace exists to generate profits not to meet the needs of people. Artifical scarcity as such would still exist and resources would have to arbitrarily be denied based on whatever method of calculating value they use. Simple issues like shoplifting would still be reinforced and preserved as "crimes".

Defining yourself only by what you are opposed to and not solutions you seek is how you end up falling down paths that can be detrimental to both yourself and others. Also this ignores the fact that anarchism is very much based in finding solutions to the forms of coercion and exploitation that exist.

I never promoted slavery and it's hypocritical of you to claim you denounce slavery but not see the issues of putting the entire lives and autonomy of others into the hands of other individuals. At that point it's just a rule of might makes right. Arguing from the position that you are opposed to the imprisonment of POWs in the name of freedom just to then claim you support killing them anyways is completely contradictory.

I personally stop every now and then to remind myself to not get too greedy. Since it's better to take just a little overtime instead of taking very risky gambles that increase the chances of getting caught.

So do you think a capitalistic system or one based around markets and competition is compatible with anarchism? If not then such a solution would be communistic. If not then the alternative is just going to still retain the same coercive hierarchical issues carried over from capitalism regardless if the workplace is collectivized.

Why would your mind jump directly towards making someone your slave? You do realize it's possible to resolve a situation without 1. taking it upon yourself to just murder an individual 2. letting them loose to overall harm both your own individual autonomy and that of others 3. turning them into only a slave with no ability to actually reintegrate in a society if they so desire

Again you're reading from a more confrontational viewpoint refusing to actually understand what I'm typing. The killing of nuns is not at all what I was saying lacked nuance. However describing an entire libertarian movement that very much was influenced by organizing outside of the state and orienting towards nonhierarchical forms of organization and collectivization as just a bunch of nun killers with prison camps plays right into both Stalinist and fascist propaganda. They showed in terms of organization and methods that it was entirely possible to exist and organize outside of the state. That these methods can and did work. They collapsed not because of their organizational flaws but due to a combination of isolation, attacks by fascists, and betrayal by Stalinists.

Also I said specifically in that quote of myself that it's more human comparatively to let a fascist keep their lives than execute them as a prisoner of war. Let me be even more explicit in saying that I personally believe focusing on a form of reintegration over imprisonment makes a lot more sense since A. it gives even fascists a choice to participate voluntarily and B. I am of the opinion that prisons ultimately serve to harm the ability of people to learn or reintegrate properly. So please stop trying to assume I agree with every single aspect of this image you have of a "red anarchist".

On the issue of war you as an individual are not likely to survive against an army. However get a group of people together to organize and fight against an army you have a better chance but you also have a war. Even as an individual however it's still extremely authoritarian for you to take the life of someone in your hands and just discard it. Killing is an extremely permanent solution. At that point you're not pushing for a free society if it's one where individuals can just take it upon themselves to execute individuals. That's very much a society based around domination.

This depends what you mean by government since often government itself is still conflated with the state and hierarchical organization. People being opposed to government is a step but if they're just going to go off and form something for example like a white ethnostate that is both restricting the rights of nonwhites and laying claim to an area of land with a monopoly on violence then that would be a case where an enemy of an enemy is definitely not a friend.

What is this even making a parody of?

When did I justify slavery as a "justified hierarchy" now you're leaping to assumptions. Let me remind you this was surrounding the organization of a community fridge. Though I'm curious in what useful capacity you plan to fight for your own freedom if those who seek to suppress your freedom are either people you will choose to just set free at your own detriment or outright execute with no respect for their autonomy to life.

Have you considered that maybe people could take lessons and learn from the past to apply what did work and what didn't? Also you seem to be going heavy on the CNT-FAI aspect but two factors remain in the fact that while there where cases of labor and killings of nuns that does not uniformly describe or judge the overall situation that occurred and again over simplifies what occurred. Also I'm pretty sure I already stressed I'm not saying the CNT-FAI has to be emulated in every aspect so I'm not too sure what you're getting at.

Also wars and conflict are issues that anarchists of any kind will eventually have to confront. If your choice when interacting with a fascist actively participating in a movement to suppress your freedom and you admit you will either just let them go to further suppress and murder anarchists or just outright execute them I'd say it's a lot more human to just let them keep their lives. Also I'm not even going to bother justifying slavery since I agree coercive labor shouldn't be required though again I will say if your choice is between executing a fascist POW or letting them keep their lives and further having them aid in efforts against fascism I think regardless it's less authoritarian to just outright murdering POWs.

Communism is not exclusive to Marx though. If anything Peter Kropotkin went in a completely different direction from Marx who very much had centralizing tendencies and attitudes towards communism. At least from my own experience reading Malatesta he himself stressed the importance of the relationship between anarchism and socialism. Mutual aid is the basis for pushing for a system free of the competition and domination of states and capitalism. It's not a matter of ideology but of what conditions are to look like when complete freedom for all is pursued.