Is Anarcho-Communism an Oxymoron?
"You're an Anarcho-Communist? That's great! I'm a sex-crazed virgin!"
"I'm a masoginistic feminist!"
"And I'm a baby senior!"
This is a followup to yesterday's post, Is Anarcho-Capitalism an Oxymoron?
Just like with Anarcho-Capitalism, if I do a Google image search of Anarcho-Communism, I'll find plenty of memes discounting the very idea as inherently contradictory.
Like so.
Since most Anarcho-Communists think that they are aligned with the only true form of anarchism, it's possible that they are unaware of some of the criticisms against their ideology. To those of us who follow another creed, I'm sure we're all familiar with the arguments:
Communism requires the state to equally distribute wealth
Who's going to force me to give away my property?
That sounds a lot like government to me!
To repeat what I said in my last post, I'm a big fan of working through arguments rationally and without mudslinging, so I'm going to try to do that here. Many anarchists who throw these statements at Anarcho-Communists try to treat the latter as if they're unbelievably stupid for not realizing how contradictory their views are. But An-Coms obviously don't see it that way.
If you want a more thorough explanation of the differing views on capitalism, hierarchy and property, look at my previous article. For this post, I'm going to assume you're familiar with the different views of Anarcho-Capitalists and Communists.
Why do some say it's an oxymoron?
There isn't much more to say than what was said above. Free people won't always behave the way you want them to behave. It's easy to say that everyone will share with their neighbours; no wealthy businessman will claim ownership of the means of production; from each according to his ability... blah, blah, blah. We all know the rest.
What do you do when one person doesn't want to follow the rules or ideals of your community? Must he be forced to? As soon as you say, "yes, we must force him to adhere to our ideals," you are putting yourself into an illegitimate position of authority and you have yourself a government.
Why it doesn't have to be an oxymoron
Free people should be free to associate with whoever they want. If free people want to form a commune where wealth is shared equally, that's their prerogative. If free people want to trade and acquire capital, that's their prerogative. As long as no one is infringing upon the rights of others, they can be free to live however they want.
That's anarchy.
The problem is that so many people, even anarchists, will look at the world and say, "my way is the only way." I think many An-Caps would be happy to allow a neighbouring society of An-Coms to go about their business without interference. I'm not sure if the same could be said about the An-Coms. If they were my neighbours, would I be safe from them violently forcing their ideology on me and my friends?
I'm not so sure, but I hope so.
I want a future where we can all live in peace despite our differences.
Thank you for reading. I hope you enjoyed both of these posts.
~Seth
Well if it is not communism world wide it is not communism. Off course each individual community gets to decide, but if there are communities where everything is not shared then it's not really communism. As far as I understand what communists think. That there should be no private ownership period, not just in their community.
Yea, that's what I was getting at in my last point. I would be happy to say "live and let live" toward a communist community, but I think they would see my capitalistic community as an immoral regime that needs to be overthrown. No communism unless it's worldwide, like you said.
I think it is true, but there are 'good reasons' for it to be true. An-Cap is by nature closer to our current world. An-Caps want to abolish the state, but only reform the market. An-Coms want to abolish both our state system and our market system.
For the Commis an anarcho-cap society imposes a lot of danger. The same forces 'we' see responsible for todays society are still possible to exist. One rich man could have the same power as a whole community and because of the anarchism he is not bound by any law - at least when it comes to trade and property.
Anarcho Communism bears no threat to a coexisting Anarcho-Capitalist society as far as I can tell.
The rich really don't have much power without government backing. What we have today is barely a picture of a true free market.
What if someone claimed all food producing land and lets everyone else hunger unless they do his bidding, which aspect of anarcho-capitalism prevents that?
First of all, that kind of scenario doesn't even happen under our current, corrupt, corporatist system so I don't think it's likely. But I'll play nonetheless.
Generally, anarchists accept the "homesteading principal" of land ownership, meaning that you have the moral right to land that you've worked. If most people agree to this general guideline, people would not allow a single entity to claim ownership of all farmable land.
If people don't accept any basic moral principal that might limit a person from making such a grand, outlandish land claim, then you're in trouble no matter what system you live under.
Short version: Anarcho-Capitalism itself does nothing to prevent your scenario from happening, but the basic common sense and morals of individuals likely would prevent it.
sounds a lot like the will of the majority overruling the will of the individual :3
And I know i am condescending right now, but from what I read so far the homesteading principle is rather ridiculous, especially the extension by Rothbard. I only read the wiki summary tho. It is "the early bird gets the worm" as far as I understand it.
Btw how do an-caps think their system will establish? It sounds like you at least need a hard reset of ownership to make it possible.
Why and how?
First in your scenario you asked what's stopping an individual from claiming all the land, well first of it's like saying what's stopping an individual from claiming the universe, yeah, see there is no more scenario. Claiming and enforcing are two different things, he can claim all he want but if he cannot defend his claim it's a baseless claim, in argumentation and real life situations. But if it was the case, it is wrong for people to stand up against it because they are a majority imposing their will onto him? But if he claimed all the land, rightfully and could defend it, then the majority would be a bunch of whiners.
:P
It is "the early bird gets the worm" as far as I understand it.
Explain your self with words:
That doesn't mean anything, it's rather ridiculous, and it remains a baseless opinion until then, at least let us hear why and how it's rather ridiculous.
The system is the lack of a system. It's as if there are no more taxes, no more rules outside respect others as you would have others respect you, and people are free to pursue whatever they wish.
The system is not imposing "a reset of ownership", the anarchist system, is don't tread on me, and if I am treading on you I am not respecting you, and you have every reason to not respect me in turn as I would do to you if you didn't respect me.
ok, lets go without reset of ownership :
I live in a flat. I have no claimable land around me. Everything here is owned by someone. Since I got no land to claim I have to rely on people to provide me with food. Thus my very existence is now in the hands of my food providers. Does not sound like anarchism to me, it sounds like the same slavery I have today.
Further you got billionaires who can buy anything in this now totally free world. They can buy all the land in one state and thus become a state. They can also buy people, it might be immoral, but hey no laws, right?
I am actually a little confused if anarchy doesnt not mean to get rid of laws, does not mean to abolish rulership and does not reset ownership, what does it do then? Is anarchism just the golden rule to you? A rule that can be found in almost any philsophy and religion?
Well do you expect someone to fix your situation for you?
It sounds like you're doing a bunch of blaming instead of responsibility, you are a victim of your situation not a owner of it. Anarchy isn't for you, anarchy is for owning yourself, owning your choices, and not "relying" on someone else to do any of that.
They can do all that right now and there is plenty of evidence it is happening and has been happening.
Can they defend their claims and "property" they own without the help of the government, and furthermore have they not reached that level of wealth because of government, in spite of laws, and regulations?
They can buy all the land, if the people chose to sell it, and they cannot buy the land of the state, because that land is nobodies, so they would literally be compensating everyone for their land, what the hell is wrong with that?
Yeah, pretty much the golden rule to a t, the don't tread on me principle/non/zero aggression principle.
"the early bird gets the worm" only applies with a reset of ownership, but since everything is owned right now, there is nothing to be early about. Or does all state property become claimable?
Anyways, just to elaborate. Me and my buddy get to find some imaginery free land. I am lazy so I want to chillax a little before I start working some land. The next day I wake up and my friend worked all the land we found, there is nothing left for me. I guess I am just too lazy for anarchism ;D
just to adress this: With our technology (drones, automatic shooting turrets, etc.) a single person can have the same combat power as 1000 poorly armed peasants. If he wants to he can let them starve without any mechanism hindering him, right?
First part is one assertion backed up by logic if that assertion was correct, but nothing shows why and how that assertion is correct, or why a reset is necessary.
The second part puts the question of what does the state own, and can a state own anything any more than an imaginary creature can?
I think that is the theme, you'd rather have someone else wipe your ass for you.
He can have all the combat power in the world, the question is why are we still talking about the world when he could just take over outer space with a self replicating turret? Why do you want to prevent that, and how would that look like, because at the core of it you are saying that you want to prevent people from working very hard at claiming all the land in the universe? If someone has the power, and the determination and the perseverance to take over all the land then it's rightfully his in a few short generations and there is nothing that will prevent that, especially in a situation where positions of power are begged for in response to such a scenario of total domination, the position of power could just as likely take over all the world/multiverse.
You cannot prevent that with communism and still call it freedom.
P.S. The scenario you've laid out is actually a pretty good description of GOVERNMENT.
yes, in my opinion the erasure of government will lead to a new government eventually. That is why I am no anarchist ;).
The way the world is now, I agree. Government will continue to exist in some form or another so long as the majority believes that some people have the right to rule over others. If enough people abandon that superstition, the majority would never allow any party to set themselves up as a government. They'll see the aggressing party as nothing more than a gang of violent thugs and treat them as such.
So if there are people who want to rule and some who want to be ruled, it would be prevented by a majority? Sounds like the parlament majority system we have today, where the individual is ruled by the majority.
Yes. I'm explaining what IS, not what's IDEAL. All I'm saying is we'll continue having government so long as people want government. That's why I don't advocate violent overthrow (even though it would be justified.)
No, it means that those that want to be ruled will be ruled, but they won't impose their rules onto those that don't want to be ruled, just like the majority that don't want to be ruled won't impose their will/rules onto the minority and let them have their ruler and rules.
EDIT: Corrected typo want to won't impose.
You have not heard of Zomia, they live government free, have so for over 2000 years, and there's over one hundred million anarchists, who DON'T have any place for communism but practice free trade and have so for ever.
Too bad over here we have a bunch of people who are under the impression that delegating powers they themselves don't have, onto robots or people, is ok.
The problem with communism, is that it could only work if everyone is voluntary, and if it was global, so in reality, it could never work, and there is not one spot or spec of planet in this universe that practices 100% consensus. The first dissenter would suffer by being ostracized from consumption, and die or compromise, invalidating it's premise of "free people".
To think that a class of people should be in charge of the rest of society, and impose their will onto others, regardless of how large or small their will might be, is to invalidate the premise of equality in humanity but also disregard the golden rule and the principle of RESPECT which have been at the heart of human society.
The golden rule is not compatible with delegating powers you don't have onto others because it's not "rule over others as you would have others rule over you" as ruling over those that rule you kinda invalidates ruling altogether if authority means nothing. Respect on the other hand is not mutual, as there are some that cannot rule themselves and some that can rule those who aren't capable of ruling themselves, so respect is out of the question when you're seen unfit to your own free will. A child that says no, is asserting their authority, it's no wonder that the first word out of a child long before moma and dada is a resounding NO. AnDeYo!, not heeding the child's no will not earn you their respect as someone would not respect your no in turn you'd not respect them.
it does not need to be global you only need it to be large enough to cover all resources your people need.
I would like to have voluntary communism, but there are tons of other ways to make my interpretation of socialism become reality. Imagine if the state was the least powerful and the individual the most powerful instance in your society. Wouldn't An-Caps love that, even tho it is not a complete Anarchy?
There is also the classic anti-anarcho scenario of the boat and the captain. If you are all together on a boat it is best to have an authority instead of everyone doing what he wants. Authority is a vital part to society for me. Authority figures can be unrespectful, but they dont have to. Ruling over somebody with their best interests in mind is disrespectful how? Maybe they are much better cooks than me and I ask them to prepare my meals, are they disrespecting me then as well?
Why is anarchism in charge of preventing that?
Anarchism isn't in charge of preventing ANYTHING, period.
Anarchism doesn't even prevent rulers or rules!
Anarchism is about ENABLING more than PREVENTING.
If anything anarchism is not preventing. Anarchism is not impeding, anarchism is not a cure all for the human condition, or even a fix, anarchism is the reciprocal respect of others, and not the guaranteed respect of others. Anarchism is also the recognizing (read NOT PREVENTING) of rights, or more abrasively soul squashing, ethics.
I thought this was the very core of anarchism: To get rid of all rulers and all laws.
So in your mind anarchism is just a reset and will lead to whatever comes next?
No, in my mind Anarchism is what Zomia is under, and the reality is that it has been the LONGEST uninterrupted Social System human being have participated in, especially considering it's ALL voluntary, over one hundred million are part of it and they have done this for millennia. At their core there is the tenet that the individual is above everything, period, or non-aggression, don't tread on me, golden rule.
That anarchism cannot exist under the authority of anything but the individuals is not a declaration of war on rulers and all laws. Anarchy is the absence of rulers that impose their will onto people that never expressed consent to be ruled.
dude, we have A-bombs, the internet and Trump. Just because a system works for an isolated group of people does not mean it is working system.
Did you hear yourself?
Just because a system works it doesn't mean it's a working system. If that's not how you judge a system as working, because it works, then what do we use to judge that it's working?
Isolated group of people, its actually multiple, numerous groups of people, multiple, numerous cultures, and a region rivaling almost all countries, with a population that matches. And it's not a working system you say?
Dude, do you even read what you type, because you contradicted yourself while setting up the premise that a-bombs, internet and trump means anarchy is impossible, or that people cannot chose anarchy because of a-bombs, internet and trump?
Can we break down what the premise for these implied problems is?
A rich man could have the same power as a whole community and because he is not bound by any law or regulation over free trade he could have the same power as a whole
galaxy, multiverse? (it's one long question, not a question over multiverse)The problem is that power isn't equal, the problem is that isn't it?
No the problem is that the foundation of capitalism is to get endlessly more powerful, that strive is rather natural I admit that.
The easiest way to wealth always was and will always be trickery and immoral behavior. Your system lets the most immoral player win, but you expect morality of them all. There is too much temptation and with only guidlines instead of laws, too many grey areas.
When I think about you have point tho. A super rich individual imposes the same threat as a super rich community.
thanks for sharing
Thanks for stopping by and commenting :)
mu pleasure
Congratulations @sethlinson! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!
As you can see by the reaction, nobody is a fucking communist no property but communal property, (*necessary personal property aside, what the state/mob/robots/blockchain deems necessary)
Free stuff for more work than free stuff is worth, makes it free stuff and fair.
@freebornangel right?
giving labor in exchange for compensation means keeping the product of labor, or give means keep.
What prevents abuse and half efforts? The wonderful people that submit to all be slaves to an idea that everyone owns everything and nobody owns anything.
Did I surmise it good, or are you going to try and fail at making a fucking meme out of my response?
No, there is no such thing as communism, no there is no working and will never be working communism and least of all not under "voluntary" means, unless you live in the fantasy that everyone agrees to ANYTHING.