Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Habman on April 3, 2009 at 2:36pm

This is because of a couple of reasons.

First Anarcno-Communism is an oxymoron. You cannot be free of rulers by implementing a form of totalitarian rule.

An anarcno-communist is in all truth, just a communist. Which is fine with me if you want to be subjected to the wants, whims and wishes of others, but I prefer No Master, No Rulers.

Permalink Reply by Tedster on April 10, 2009 at 5:16pm

tbi

Permalink Reply by Double Standards??? on December 30, 2009 at 12:51pm

Anarcno-Communism is NOT an oxymoron. Here is a definition taken from Anarchism and the Black Revolution by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin

Anarchist-Communists are revolutionary Anarchists who believe in the philosophy of class struggle, an end to Capitalism, and all farms of oppression. Contrary to Anarchist-Syndicalism it does not limit itself to workplace organizing. The philosophy is based on the theories of Peter Kropotkin, another Russian Anarchist. Kropotkin and his fellow Anarchist-Communists not only envisaged the commune and workers' councils as the, proper guardians of production; they also attacked the wage system in all its forms, and revived the ideas of Libertarian communism. This type of Anarchism is known as Libertarian Socialism also, and includes Mast Socialists who are also opposed to the State, dictatorship, and party rule, though they are not Anarchists.

Since the 1870s the principles of Anarchist-Communism have been accepted by most Anarchist organizations favoring revolution. This Anarchist or Libertarian Communism must, of course, not be confused with much better known communism of the Marxist-Leninists, the communism which is based on state ownership of the economy and control of the both production and distribution, and also on party dictatorship. That form of authoritarian communist society is based on oppression and slavery to the state, while we favor a free, voluntary communism of shared resources. Libertarian Communism is not Bolshevism and has no connection with or support for Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao Tse Tung. It is not state or private control over the essentials of life we seek, and we oppose all forms of dictatorship. Anarchist communists seek to foster the growth of a new society in which freedom to develop as one see t is integrated to the fullest extent with social responsibility to others. http://lemming.mahost.org/abr/abr3.htm

Permalink Reply by Habman on January 27, 2010 at 10:33am

Proper Guardians of Production I love that phrase, and what happens when some want to guard production to gain personal advantage? What happens then? Anyone care to enlighten me?

Communism on the surface was a great idea, problem with it was it ignored the fact that people were involved in it, and that people will always strive to better their situation. Once someone dictates what will or will not be done, true anarchism stops.

So if this means the subjugation of others, so be it. This is why Anarchist-Communism is a flawed idea as it denies the human factor of the equation.

Permalink Reply by Db0 on January 27, 2010 at 10:37am

and what happens when some want to guard production to gain personal advantage?

In LibCom, that's impossible.

Communism on the surface was a great idea, problem with it was it ignored the fact that people were involved in it, and that people will always strive to better their situation.

Not at all. In fact it works precisely because it recognises that people can better their situation by striving collectively better than by striving against each other.

This is why Anarchist-Communism is a flawed idea as it denies the human factor of the equation.

Not at all. It works precisely because it takes the human factor into account.

Permalink Reply by Ian on January 3, 2012 at 11:58am

Although I'm not a communist myself, there are several things wrong with what you're saying.

First, not all communists are collectivists.  William Godwin would be one example, but there are also those who think that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is an expression of individualism, since "ability" and "need" are both self-determined.

What happens if some want to guard production?  If the means of production they're guarding is their own, that's perfectly fine.  If the means of production they're guarding is not their own, but belongs to someone else (or possibly belongs to the collective), then that's not fine.  I could just as easily ask what happens under anarcho-capitalism if someone wants to guard the production of somebody else's things.

Besides, you seem to be under the impression that anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are the only possible forms of anarchism.  They're not; many anarchists are anti-capitalist, but pro-free market.  I myself, for example, consider myself a mutualist.

Permalink Reply by Aggiememenon on July 26, 2009 at 5:04pm

I heard on the Non-Prophets Podcast (put out by the Atheist Community of Austin) that Michael Shermer's speech was basically "Hey, if you're a Skeptic, you should be a Libertarian". When he did a poll by show of hands, only a small percentage indicated strongly libertarian (even smaller conservative), while most were liberal Democrats (and presumably further Left). Still, there are many vocal public atheists who are also Libertarian. And I will give credit where it's due...they've done a lot of grunt work to advance the cause of secularism. Sometimes I agree with the editors of Reason magazine. Other times I think they're full of crap.

I consider myself a democratic (state) socialist, but I have sympathies with some anarcho-syndicalist ideas (especially workplace democracy). I prefer experiments like Tito's Yugoslavia, which really tried to move forward with aspects of workplace democracy, or the Mondragon communities in the Basque region of Spain. There are some aspects of the "nanny state" mentality that annoy the crap out of me, and I'm vigorously pro-2nd Amendment, which alienates me from many otherwise well-meaning Lefties.

Local autonomy, anarchist communes have existed, but where I see problems would be situations like the old Jim Crow American South. American schools down there were de-segregated by force of state arms, against the wishes of the majority of locals. That's statism I approve of, frankly. Coercion? You bet. Justified? I think so.

The elder Paul Kurtz of CFI was once a proud Socialist and is definitely still on "The Left".

I enjoy reading the blog Lenin's Tomb, but boy, he likes poking fun at the "New Atheists" and I think all too often turns a blind eye to the threat of militant Islam. You can oppose the Iraq and Afghan wars and still oppose radical/militant Islam in society at large--which is an option that both Lenin's Tomb (anti-war) and ex-Trot Christopher Hitchens (pro-war) seemingly fail to recognize.

Permalink Reply by Db0 on November 17, 2009 at 1:57am

It is not strictly related to A|N it's more of an online phenomenon. Rest assured IRL they are as marginal as ever. Nothing to worry about.

Permalink Reply by Double Standards??? on December 30, 2009 at 12:57pm

Capitalist are ahead of Libertarian Socialist pretty much everywhere in the United States. Its not exclusive to A/N.

Permalink Reply by Klaus Motan on January 8, 2010 at 1:34pm

Well, who cares ? Capitalists have been ahead all the time, and almost everywhere, but does this change my mind ? I guess, no !