thirdnature

2

thirdnature wrote

one response to this is that a lot of the 'hate for no reason' comes from psychosocial dislocations and socioeconomic inequalities caused by hierarchical social systems.

warlords might arise, all an anarchist community could do is form militias to resist them. hopefully warlords would have hierarchical militias, because the anarchist non-hierarchical ones would have a way better chance of winning. but it might lose too. that's just the way things go

1

thirdnature wrote

i actually find the idea that the history of all societies has been a history of class struggle pretty incredible hah i can't believe that idea isn't challenged more. i'd never shit on marx (i don't know his work that well, but from what i gather he was fuckin incredibly insightful/intelligent and anarchism has rly benefited from a lot of what he wrote), but that's just so obviously a case of projecting yr current situation into the past.

1

thirdnature wrote

i'm not entirely certain about ALL but most attempts at communism have been via marx's idea that a dictatorship of the proletariat would force a transition from capitalism to a communist society and once communism has been achieved/assured, the dictatorship would dissolve itself. anarchists have always thought it was bizarre to think a dictatorship would ever dissolve itself and historically they've been right.

these 'examples' of communist countries were definitively not communist. if there's a dictator, centralized authority, or a market economy it isn't communism- they might be intending to move in that direction, but they aren't communist countries-, no matter what you learned in school or hear on tv or from clueless politicians and political commentators.

communism isn't about a perfect world. it's about a different vision of so-called human nature. capitalism is founded on the belief that humanity is naturally greedy, competitive, and violent (see hobbes, see locke, the mainstream notion of human nature was articulated by a few cynical renaissance jackasses and jackass economists who were influenced by those two piles of trash). this selfish, violent humanity has to be kept in check by a state and our appetites regulated by or channeled into a market economy.

communism, anarcho-communism, and anarchism in general takes less of an ahistorical and less of a religious stance on human nature, one rooted in science, sociology, and anthropology, etc. it views the human as inherently social, not a mindless monster viciously pursuing the satisfaction of its appetites or manipulatively seeking out its own self-interest. anarchists and communists recognize the principle of mutual aid in human behavior, that we are capable of organizing and maintaining ourselves without a state to control or focus our self-interest in the right direction and anarchists/etc know we would do a much better job of it than a highly centralized, detached apparatus of coercion and exploitation. complex systems theory attests to this and almost affirms it as a fact, if you ask me.

communism isn't a one world government, you should probably research stuff rather than just accepting the bullshit perpetuated by public schools and the trash on the news as truth.

the idea that 'Muslims would destory it' is pretty fucked up. you should read about the recent history of the middle east and africa's relationship to colonial powers. you'll be surprised to find that most of the current social problems and warfare are a result of western imperialism. if you're under the impression that 'muslims and jews have been fighting for 100s of years' you should look into history. caliphates, while nowhere near utopic in nature, tended toward a high level of cultural tolerance. look into how britain manufactured israel's geopolitical situation and how the west supports the israeli government in its incredibly violent, racist campaign against the palestinians, how the west supports saudi arabia in- among other things- the horrifying bombardment of yemen, look into the war against the soviets in afghanistan and the us's occupation after the defeat of the soviets by propping up oppressive, violent puppet regimes.

2

thirdnature wrote

i'm not tryin to be annoying or pedantic hah i just wanna get my stuff straight: i don't see that over-emphasis on workers that would make communism irrelevant td. reading kropotkin, goldman, bookchin, graeber, among others gives me the impression that communism has always been an inclusive thing, it was moreso marx who elevated the workers as the primary concern rather than communist theory as a whole. anarcho-communism goes beyond the whole class analysis into psychosocial models of hierarchy which wouldn't allow it to restrict itself in that kinda way.

sorry if sound like a fuck hah like i said im just tryin to dot my i's and cross my t's. i've only been reading into this stuff for a couple of months, so i take every opportunity to try and straighten my shit out

3

thirdnature wrote

while i tend to agree with the first part (had a convo with a coworker about this the other night, they thought 'russia' invented communism), communism is more than just the workers isn't it? it's everyone in a community wanting to actively participate in the life of the community, especially anarcho-communism, it's about communities that foster freedom and evenly distribute power and resources to all its members and foster individuality/free choice.