PDA

View Full Version : Anarcho-Communism



Ederico
Saturday, May 24th, 2003, 06:17 PM
The text below is regarding Anarcho-Communism taken from http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy dedicated to opposing what its advocates regard as illegitimate forms of authority and social hierarchy, most famously the institution of government. It has gone by various names: libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism, and, most commonly, anarchism. Libertarian socialists therefore believe in the abolition of private property in the means of production (communism) and abolition of the state as an unnecessary and harmful institution (anarchism/libertarianism).

Libertarian socialists usually call themselves anarchists except when necessary to disambiguate or disassociate themselves with others who use the same term. Libertarian socialism should not be confused with Libertarianism either: the two philosophies are only alike in their professed love of liberty, hence the similarity in name. In this article, the terms libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism and anarchism are used as synonyms.

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: adherents believe that management of the common good (socialism) is necessary, but that this should be done in a manner that preserves individual liberty and avoids concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Some libertarian socialists say individual liberty and societal harmony are necessarily antagonistic, and anarchist philosophy must balance the two. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society and vice-versa.

All the critiques that anarchists develop are based on principles of decentralization of power and authority. So, while anarchists have a critique of capitalism similar to Marxism, the basis for opposition to capitalism is that it leads to concentration of power (in the form of wealth). This critique highlights the distinction between libertarian socialists and Libertarians: libertarian socialists advocate freedom while denying, to a greater or lesser extent, the legitimacy of private property. Libertarians, by contrast, believe that liberty is impossible without the protection of private property.


Anti-capitalism
Libertarian socialists oppose "illegitimate" authority and social hierarchy -- some believe that all authority and hierarchy is illegitimate. They seek to replace authority and hierarchy with direct democracy and voluntary federation in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises.
Libertarian socialists believe that productive property should be held communally and controlled democratically. For them, the only moral private properties are personal possesions.

Within the socialist libertarian movement there is much debate about the exact delineation between moral "personal" possesions and immoral "productive" property. Most agree that hard capital such as real estate, machinery, etc., should be considered "productive" property, while one's lodging and clothing should be considered "personal" property. Disagreement arises about the proper way to characterize property such as one's home when it is used to carry out business, for example. Adherents of capitalism or Austrian economics would argue that the distinction between "personal" and "productive" property is specious, and that consequently such paradoxes are doomed to arise regardless of the delineation chosen.


Opposition to the state
Anarchists are most famous for opposing the existence of states or government. Indeed, in the past many anarchists refused to defend themselves in court because they did not wish to participate in what they viewed as illegitimate institutions, instead choosing to go to jail or die.
The critique of states is built on the same principle opposing concentration of authority, which according to anarchists inevitably leads to abuse.

In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary institutions (usually called collectives) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations. Others, however, have advanced strong critiques of federated systems, and these federations have rarely been carried out in practice. (For an example of anarchist federations, see spanish anarchism.)

Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been an utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example.

Anarchists often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. Critics counter that by refusing to explain how certain aspects of society would function under their system, anarchists are essentially avoiding questions that they cannot answer.


Anyone with knowledge regarding this Politico-Economic System enter the discussion.

Moody
Tuesday, December 16th, 2003, 05:56 PM
Interesting piece, Edric.
However, the advocates of such 'politics', despite being anti-theory, have spilt millions of words on its defense without being able to make the basic argument necessary for this forum; -
How does it further European racial/cultural preservation?

The anarchist-[add your own contradictory suffix]-ists have had a good crack of the whip, but they have not made their case.

In my opinion, this is because racial/cultural preservation is only promoted by Rule [Arch], not No-Rule [Anarch]. It is only promoted by Separation [Aparthood], not by Communism.

Braveheart
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 01:19 AM
Ummm....anyone who's studied political theory knows that libertarianism is completely opposed to socialism. A "libertarian socialist" is an oxymoron and makes as much sense as a round square.

Nihilist
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 05:11 AM
The naivity of socialists never fails to suprise me. Their premise is basically that people are by nature "good" (thats good in the judeo christian/bleeding heart commie sense), and it's their evil enviroment (they are inexorable that nurture prevails over nature) that turns people into self interested arseholes. Thus if we just crush the evil capitalist system, everyone will love each other and share the wealth and we'll all live happily ever after!
I think a more realistic anarchist society is exemplified by this site: http://anti-state.com
Like every society (or lack of society) hitherto, anarchy would possess a naturally enforced hierarchy, predatation system and power struggle somewhat resembling laissez faire capitalism, the exception being: no "off-limits", therefore everything ie: rape murder ect would be fair fame. Higher levels of exploitation and more rigid class separation would be expected; without a parasitical taxation system, free education, welfare and the minimum wage simply would't exist. Thus if you were a working class person and didn't have the means to either steal wealth (unlikely, the elites would hire pretty tight security), or trade something which others perceive as valuable, you would quite simply die out.

As you can see, a REAL proletariat utopia

Jack
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 09:32 AM
Interesting piece, Edric.
However, the advocates of such 'politics', despite being anti-theory, have spilt millions of words on its defense without being able to make the basic argument necessary for this forum; -
How does it further European racial/cultural preservation?

Anarcho-Communism has little to offer European racial/cultural preservation. Do tell what 'anti-theory' is. I have explained what Anarcho-Capitalism has to offer European racial-cultural preservation. I have no intentions of defending Anarcho-Communism. I wonder if there's a Kropotkin/Bakunin fan here.


The anarchist-[add your own contradictory suffix]-ists have had a good crack of the whip, but they have not made their case.

I made a case for racialised AnCap.


In my opinion, this is because racial/cultural preservation is only promoted by Rule [Arch], not No-Rule [Anarch]. It is only promoted by Separation [Aparthood], not by Communism.

Communism and Anarchism are by no means synonymous.

Moody
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 04:44 PM
Aloysha; "Anarcho-Communism has little to offer European racial/cultural preservation. Do tell what 'anti-theory' is. I have explained what Anarcho-Capitalism has to offer European racial-cultural preservation".

Moody; Read the initial post by Edric carefully; it states that theory is not a strong suit of libertarian-socialists, anarcho-communists, and all the rest of the oxymoronic grouplets.
The fact you have now changed tack and promote something other than AnCap, due to your inglorious failure in that area [see replies to your posts by Aethrei for example], shows that AnCap has NOTHING to offer European racial-cultural preservation.

Aloysha; "Communism and Anarchism are by no means synonymous".

Moody; True - they merely began in the same camp and then bifurcated.

Jack
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 11:37 PM
Aloysha; "Anarcho-Communism has little to offer European racial/cultural preservation. Do tell what 'anti-theory' is. I have explained what Anarcho-Capitalism has to offer European racial-cultural preservation".

Moody; Read the initial post by Edric carefully; it states that theory is not a strong suit of libertarian-socialists, anarcho-communists, and all the rest of the oxymoronic grouplets.

I take it you refer primarily to this paragraph:

"Anarchists often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. Critics counter that by refusing to explain how certain aspects of society would function under their system, anarchists are essentially avoiding questions that they cannot answer."

See 'Communism and Anarchy' by Peter Kropotkin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1900s/01_07_x01.htm), also Role of the Trade Unions: Anarcho-Syndicalist view (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/rocker-rudolf/misc/anarchism-anarcho-syndicalism.htm#s5).

I also know a Libetarian Socialist on the Phora, if you'd like I could ask him to come and explain his system (though he is not a racialist personally), he's pretty strong on theory.


The fact you have now changed tack and promote something other than AnCap, due to your inglorious failure in that area [see replies to your posts by Aethrei for example], shows that AnCap has NOTHING to offer European racial-cultural preservation.

I take it you wish me to respond to Aethrei's posts defending the position I formerly held?


Aloysha; "Communism and Anarchism are by no means synonymous".

Moody; True - they merely began in the same camp and then bifurcated.

http://www.forums.skadi.net/images/icons/icon11.gif Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Socialism are most definetly not in the same camp. Have you ever heard of laissez faire Capitalists and Communists working together?

Moody
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 05:19 PM
Aloysha; "I take it you wish me to respond to Aethrei's posts defending the position I formerly held?"

Moody; I suspect it was her destruction of your position that made it a "former" one!
Aethrei did the technical stuff - I just KNEW you 'former position' was wrong by ... instinct.
Problem for you is that you have not shed that former skin completely, and now flail around looking for a new mask.
I suspect that your present 'Neoromantic animal faith' is just another dead duck - whither next, methinks?
And howabout that name-change?

Jack
Monday, December 22nd, 2003, 04:42 AM
Aloysha; "I take it you wish me to respond to Aethrei's posts defending the position I formerly held?"

Moody; I suspect it was her destruction of your position that made it a "former" one!

It wasn't. I did most of the work myself. Aethrei's writing about the gold standard did little to make me move position, and her 'world government' stuff was irrelevant (anarcho-capitalism, key point - Government doesn't exist). I was waiting for someone to kill the philsoophy (two people I know online could have/would have done it: Nihilist and FadeTheButcher), not necessarily the economics (what you posted was great, Aethrei, keep posting http://www.forums.skadi.net/images/icons/icon14.gif). And because you didn't do it, I constructed a position that worked where AnCap/Objectivism fails (it works until I'm convinced by the private language argument, but I don't know if it will convince me).


Aethrei did the technical stuff - I just KNEW you 'former position' was wrong by ... instinct.

Instinct without logic is a mindless beast. You made it quite plain you knew I was wrong by instinct, and I found out the reasons why I was - but I did not find out via you.


Problem for you is that you have not shed that former skin completely, and now flail around looking for a new mask.

How so?


I suspect that your present 'Neoromantic animal faith' is just another dead duck - whither next, methinks?

Dunno. Want to place bets? Then, you're too elitist for gambling ;)


And howabout that name-change?

I'm considering that.

Abby Normal
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2003, 05:22 PM
Isn't than an oxymoron?

Moody
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2003, 05:57 PM
Jack; "I was waiting for someone to kill the philsoophy [of AnCap]...
And because you didn't do it, I constructed a position that worked where AnCap/Objectivism fails ..."

Moody; I haven't seen any new position from you since AnCap [which was so obviously doomed as a European Racial/Cultural/Spiritual philosophy that it REFUTED ITSELF!].

dacoit
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2003, 07:36 PM
The naivity of socialists never fails to suprise me. Their premise is basically that people are by nature "good" (thats good in the judeo christian/bleeding heart commie sense), and it's their evil enviroment (they are inexorable that nurture prevails over nature) that turns people into self interested arseholes.let's not forget that from ancient times to the present many thinkers have seen people in a state of nature (ie without a state or government) as being "good". see for example tacitus, locke, rousseau. although hobbes goes the other way, seeing people in a state of nature as being in a war of all against all.