It is an unfortunate truth that most people who self-label as "anarchist" are actually totalitarians of one stripe or another.

This mislabeling occurs with both right and left "anarchists", but for this post I'll focus on those on the left, specifically the anarcho-communist.

I define a true anarchist as one who believes that individuals own themselves and that all human interactions should be voluntary. This means that people should be allowed to do as they wish with their person and property, as long as they are not using force or coercion against others. Another word for this philosophy is voluntaryism. The voluntaryist imperative of individual freedom holds true even when others do things with their person or property that we don't agree with or find reprehensible. As long as they are not initiating force against other individuals, we have no right to intervene with their activity.

Before going on, I'll note that there are some true anarchists, or voluntaryists, who like the idea of communism, and who favor it as their preferred economic system. Though few and far between, these anarchists believe that human equality and sharing are noble goals to strive for, and that doing things for monetary profit is not necessarily the best way to live your life. The difference between these types of anarchists and anarcho-communists is that the former allow that it is okay if others do not agree with them, and choose to live their lives making profit and participating in a capitalist economy.

In order to effectively argue against a bad idea, you must first evaluate the idea and try, as much as possible, to understand it as it is understood by the person who genuinely holds it as truth. So for most of the rest of this post, I'm going to explain anarcho-communism as I believe it would be explained by an anarcho-communist. The ancom rhetoric will appear in regular text, and my own commentary will appear in italics.

"Anarcho-Communism is totally different from state communism."

Whereas most of the well-known communist experiments in history were enforced through a state, actual communism, or "anarcho-communism", will be completely stateless. Money, profit, and property (apart from personal property) will be abolished. People will live in voluntary communes and everyone will do the work they enjoy doing, and have all of their needs voluntarily taken care of by society, regardless of whether or how much they produce. Everyone will be equal and no one will be able to exploit another's labor for their own personal gain.

But how will this ideal society be achieved? Many people (perhaps most) have no problem with money, profit, or property. In fact, most people probably want to keep their property and have the option to make profit with their labor or investments. In the absence of a state to force everyone to live in communes and exist without money, how will such a system be organized?

"Most people will agree that this is the best way to organize society, and will voluntarily transition into the anarcho-communist system."

Workers make up the vast majority of the world's population, and workers are the most oppressed and exploited class of people on earth. Once they realize that they can be free and have all of their needs met under true communism, they will voluntarily (and happily) accept the new system, even if it means giving up some of their property. When faced with the choice between slaving away at a nine-to-five for the rest of your life or being able to make art and have all your needs met just by virtue of existing, most will choose the latter.

But what about those who choose not to give up their property, who persist in trying to run businesses for profit, or who simply have no interest in joining a commune and being taken care of by "society"?

"They will have to be forced." OR "They will eventually come around, after they realize no one else wants to buy things from them or work for them anymore."

And if they don't, they will be outcast from society. That's the price you pay for opting out of the voluntary system.

Well then, it's not voluntary, is it? Anyway, who is going to do all the necessary work to keep society running and provide all of those necessities for everyone, if there is no monetary incentive to do so?

"Many of the tasks for which we currently use human labor can be more efficiently performed by automation. For those tasks that cannot be automated, individuals will perform out of a desire to see the society flourish."

One thing that would be different in an anarcho-communist society is that fewer people would specialize. Everyone would know how to do things like gardening, digging ditches, plumbing, etc. When a need in the local community arises for labor, people will voluntarily sign up to do it. Everyone will have their basic needs met regardless of whether they work or not, but those who do perform needed tasks for the commune or larger community will enjoy the appreciation and esteem of their peers. They will be rewarded with a sort of social currency, while people who don't work may be shunned to some extent.

It's important to acknowledge that no type of labor has any more or less value than any other type of labor. The work of the potter is just as valuable as the work of the doctor. A playwright who spends two thousand hours producing a play should receive the same compensation as a researcher who spends two thousand hours producing the cure for cancer. And just because someone is less competent at their work than another, doesn't mean that they should be compensated less. A carpenter who builds a shoddy house has just as much right to feed himself and his family as a carpenter who builds a sound house.

Without economic specialization or a pricing mechanism, how will people know what to produce or how much? For instance, in our current free-ish market, people choose to go into specialties based on a number of factors, one of which is "how much money can I make in this field". The amount of money to be made in a field generally indicates how much demand there is for that type of work. Without pricing of goods and services, how will labor and resources be adequately distributed?

"A supercomputer will figure it out." OR "A democratic advisory board will evaluate need and allocate resources."

What if someone tries out the anarcho-communist society, renouncing money and property, and then decides it's not for them? Can they then begin to use money, accumulate property, sell items for a profit?

"No. Property is theft, profit is exploitation, and money is oppression."

It's a common misconception that ancoms' prohibitory attitude against property extends to everything a person can possibly own, right down to their toothbrush. This isn't true. When we say "property is theft", we mean the means of production, not personal property. But you can only own what you actually use. Your toothbrush, clothes, and bicycle fall into the category of personal property. Other things, like land, houses, and machines that produce things would fall into the category of communal property, owned by all and used for the good of all. It would not be acceptable to own two houses and rent one out, or to own a piece of land that stays vacant. Things like tools and computers that are not used on a daily basis as part of your labor contribution should be commonly owned and kept in community libraries, to be "checked out" whenever someone has need of them.

Who will prevent dissatisfied individuals from using money, accumulating property, or starting businesses for profit?

"Society." OR "The Commune." OR "A Democratic Advisory Board."

What is the difference between a state authority and the authority of the commune or a democratic advisory board?

"The commune has everyone's best interests at heart and its edicts derive from the will of the people, rather than from some out of touch, exploitative, elitist pigs."

Okay, but what is the difference to the individual who is forced to abide by the edicts? It sounds to me like the same thing. An individual must submit to the will of the state on the one hand, or of the majority on the other. Either way, it's tyranny.

(At this point, the conversation usually turns to circular argumentation.)

There you have it. I've tried my best to outline what anarcho-communists believe, using their own language and avoiding conflations as best I can. Your critiques are welcome! If you think I've gotten anything wrong or missed anything, please let me know in the comments.

Hi, I'm Starr!

I love you, Steemit!