Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense, I've been an anarcho-communist since I read kropotkin in my grandmothers library (7 years old).
Since then I have changed my views somewhat, but I have nonetheless been morally consistent.
What about what I've said is false?
in your OP
you state your not a Marxist..yet Marxism is communism or the theory behind it, and you are a self admitted communist..therefore by definition you are a Marxist....
Communism is based on Marxism and the two cannot be separated.
Marxism is the theory and Communism is the practical implementation of Marxism.
The Marxist ideology is to prepare the society for communism.
Communism is the realization of a Stateless society where all are equal. On the other hand Marxism is the framework by which such a state is developed. While Marxism is a political ideology based on Karl Marx’s ideas, communism can be called as a political system, which is based on Marxist ideology.
Marxism is a system that analysis the different aspects of a state where there exists no difference between the rich and the poor. And Communism can be termed as a political system where all become one and the same.
The Marxist ideology is to prepare the society for communism
Marxism views that just as society transformed from feudalism to capitalism, it would naturally transform itself to socialism and eventually to communism, therefore, the difference, the only difference is...where as Marxism is the theory and believes that the practice of communism will occur naturally... The Communists (especially the anarchio-communists ) believe that the transformation will take place only through revolutionary means.
it still either way it (communism or its theory of marxosmis the slavery of the 99%
Last edited by workingclasshero; 11-19-2018 at 01:35 PM..
Wanted to quote this because it highlights a couple important things.
1) Giving Winterfall credit, his anarcho-communism thing gets the same bad rap anarcho-capitalsim does because critics and demagogues have decided Soviet Russia from Lenin to Stalin is "communism" (it isn't) and that Somalia or other militaristic dictatorships are anarchy/anarcho-capitalist (they aren't), and the debate/critique is against the straw man and not the actual theory. Very few who argue against anarchism (in whatever form) have the slightest idea about it what is they are arguing against so passionately.
Marx described communism as a philosophy...not an economic principle...at its core. He believed that a mental transformation would happen within the brains of humans that would allow the State to "fade away". It's extremely important to note this paradigm because it appeals to the free will of the individual to not yearn for a State. Something all anarchists wish for. This is why after some heated debates with Winterfall I realized there's no reason to argue with him because he is only advocating communism for himself (hoping others will join) if and when we find ourselves in that stateless society.
I do point out that he's going to have a tough road in doing so though for several reasons.
1. As the Larken Rose points out people who embrace non-aggression, capitalism, and a broader definition of property rights are not going to be keen on joining his syndicate. Rose says don't worry An-Com, I have no desire to associate with you. I second that opinion. I meet Winterfall on the street in a stateless society and he tells me he's an AnCom...I'm running the other way like he's on fire. That's NOT because I view him as a Lenin/Stalin/Mao disciple. It's because I have no desire to be bound by a stringent collective, even if it is voluntary. The freedom of individual contracts, private policing, private courts, and private dispute resolution councils is beyond orgasmic to me. I salivate at the idea of having that kind of wiggle room in my life without a gun to my head like I do now. I spent the first four hours of my day today doing crap in relation to government compliance. It's depressing.
2. While very much wrong, as you noted, people are going to associate communism with Lenin/Mao/Stalin unless they truly read and digest Marx's work. But here's the twist: even though I know that isn't what Marx intended/preached there is something to be said that those evil genocidal sociopaths were so drawn to the idea of communism in the first place. Unless you believe that they were simply using the philosophy to gain and hold power. Stalin I could buy on that. Even a decent amount of Mao. Lenin though is the exception. He thought Marx was the cat's meow...no question about it. Now would be a good time to point out that democracy has been sold to many as being essential to freedom and Western leaders have used that philosophy to do some pretty heavy damage to innocents as well. The common denominator in all of it is, of course, utilization of the State. It is the tumor that makes the whole body sick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
2) The one central thing the anarchists and anarcho-whatever folks agree on is the stateless society of voluntarism. In the No_Recess/rebeldor/Frank DeForest/Volobjectitarian anarcho-capitalist, all associations are voluntary, NAP is the central guiding idea, and the individual interacts with other individuals for mutual benefit according to their own rational self-interests. In Winterfall's anarcho-communism, SAME EXACT THING. The only tangible point of difference between the two is how property is defined, held, utilized, etc. Virtually every other aspect of the two allegedly "warring" philosophies is the same. The property thing is a very stark difference, but it is one of very few differences.
And this is why I have no problem with Winterfall or his philosophy. I wish I could find the video of Rose talking about how all anarcho-whatevers begin with a stateless society and voluntarism. It is only anarcho-capitalism that stays the course AFTER the stateless society is realized. This is why I referred to him as an anarcho-capitalist who THEN BECOMES an anarcho-communist after the State is undone. As noted, I'm not going to stop Winterfall (that's a NAP violation) but I won't join him either. I'm also going to keep a close eye on what he's doing from afar because the other anarcho-whatevers don't seem to concentrate on the NAP like we do and are more ends-based whereas we are means-based. When I see anyone striving for equality of outcomes I start to tense up and think about a State re-developing. It may not happen but it sounds like flirtation to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
3) Just as anarchists deny/denounce INVOLUNTARY collectivism, so too does actual communism. End goal communism is exactly as No_Recess describes - a VOLUNTARY communing AFTER the state has been dissolved and the individual finds themselves in the stateless society. People think the Communist manifesto seeks the destruction of capitalism, but as defined by Marx himself, it is more the destruction of the State's forced version and common authoritarian implementations of capitalism, which is more properly corporatism/cronyism/oligarchism/etc. Pure anarchists/anarcho-capitalists want the exact same thing, since proper free markets and individual VOLUNTARY exchange cannot function as a construct inside an authoritarian state.
I wish people knew that capitalism and the State can't coexist under ANY circumstances. It's a square peg and round hole paradigm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
4) Back to where we differ - property. Even here, the only real big debate boils down to a question of how much? In the communist worldview, if you work it, you own it. There cannot be a farmer-farm hand relationship where one farmer owns many acres which is worked by several/many farm hands. The farmer can only own that which they themselves can work, and since all of the farm hands are also working the land, they are not hands, but farmers themselves. Property, therefore, cannot be accumulated, it can only be worked. There are obvious questions, but the bottom line philosophy is essentially anti-accumulation.
The anarcho capitalist is more absolute about property. If you own it, it's yours, end of story. If you "own" 1,000 acres of farm land, then you do. You can then make voluntary arrangements and associations to make use of that property as you, the owner, see fit. The obvious question here, which Winterfall has posted many times is how does one person come to "own" something like 1,000 acres of land? Were they the first ones to "call it" like on the 3rd grade playground? How were the borders/area established? If someone else is in some far corner of that 1,000 acres and the "owner" never realizes it, who realy owns that far corner? Etc.
And here's where the state inevitably happens - defining property and ownership. In almost every example in all of recorded history, the answer is simple...the state owns it and everyone must apply to them to rent /lease that which is durable. Leninism/Stalinism power grabbing in the name of communism is exactly the same as the United States power grabbing under the banner of whatever we call out version of socialist corporatism. These are state power grabs, not stateless world's of voluntarism. Because Volobjectitarian and Winterfall cannot agree on how a stateless group of individuals should define property, the hell with both of them and we'll just impose 100% state authority over everything. Basically, since the kids cannot share their toys, destroy all toys and toy manufacture, nobody gets dessert, you're all grounded for the entirety of your lives....and stop crying or the State will give you something to cry about.
Here you are describing the flirtation I alluded to earlier and it being realized as a centralized involuntary authority stepping in and settling the dispute. The authority (a new State - hooray!) is going to put on its seals and in its edicts that it is fair and blind when it comes to justice. Outcomes will be equal under the "law".
Well, as we know when you make the rules, enforce the rules, and decide the validity of the rules they really aren't equal in implementation or outcome. You end up paying a tribute to simply live...if you're lucky. I have no interest in that and neither should anyone who isn't a masochist.
I don’t mind if he was ideologically uncentered, he was a good person who wrote extensively about the suffering of others.
The world is complicated, especially back then.
Just pointing it out.
I love Lysander Spooner (especially his ideas on a competing postal service) but I disagree with him on some things when it comes to slavery. I have the benefit of living in a post-slavery society (150 years removed) while he lived through it though.
Marx described communism as a philosophy...not an economic principle...at its core. He believed that a mental transformation would happen within the brains of humans that would allow the State to "fade away". It's extremely important to note this paradigm because it appeals to the free will of the individual to not yearn for a State. Something all anarchists wish for. This is why after some heated debates with Winterfall I realized there's no reason to argue with him because he is only advocating communism for himself (hoping others will join) if and when we find ourselves in that stateless society.
I do point out that he's going to have a tough road in doing so though for several reasons.
1. As the Larken Rose points out people who embrace non-aggression, capitalism, and a broader definition of property rights are not going to be keen on joining his syndicate. Rose says don't worry An-Com, I have no desire to associate with you. I second that opinion. I meet Winterfall on the street in a stateless society and he tells me he's an AnCom...I'm running the other way like he's on fire. That's NOT because I view him as a Lenin/Stalin/Mao disciple. It's because I have no desire to be bound by a stringent collective, even if it is voluntary. The freedom of individual contracts, private policing, private courts, and private dispute resolution councils is beyond orgasmic to me. I salivate at the idea of having that kind of wiggle room in my life without a gun to my head like I do now. I spent the first four hours of my day today doing crap in relation to government compliance. It's depressing.
2. While very much wrong, as you noted, people are going to associate communism with Lenin/Mao/Stalin unless they truly read and digest Marx's work. But here's the twist: even though I know that isn't what Marx intended/preached there is something to be said that those evil genocidal sociopaths were so drawn to the idea of communism in the first place. Unless you believe that they were simply using the philosophy to gain and hold power. Stalin I could buy on that. Even a decent amount of Mao. Lenin though is the exception. He thought Marx was the cat's meow...no question about it. Now would be a good time to point out that democracy has been sold to many as being essential to freedom and Western leaders have used that philosophy to do some pretty heavy damage to innocents as well. The common denominator in all of it is, of course, utilization of the State. It is the tumor that makes the whole body sick.
And this is why I have no problem with Winterfall or his philosophy. I wish I could find the video of Rose talking about how all anarcho-whatevers begin with a stateless society and voluntarism. It is only anarcho-capitalism that stays the course AFTER the stateless society is realized. This is why I referred to him as an anarcho-capitalist who THEN BECOMES an anarcho-communist after the State is undone. As noted, I'm not going to stop Winterfall (that's a NAP violation) but I won't join him either. I'm also going to keep a close eye on what he's doing from afar because the other anarcho-whatevers don't seem to concentrate on the NAP like we do and are more ends-based whereas we are means-based. When I see anyone striving for equality of outcomes I start to tense up and think about a State re-developing. It may not happen but it sounds like flirtation to me.
I wish people knew that capitalism and the State can't coexist under ANY circumstances. It's a square peg and round hole paradigm.
Here you are describing the flirtation I alluded to earlier and it being realized as a centralized involuntary authority stepping in and settling the dispute. The authority (a new State - hooray!) is going to put on its seals and in its edicts that it is fair and blind when it comes to justice. Outcomes will be equal under the "law".
Well, as we know when you make the rules, enforce the rules, and decide the validity of the rules they really aren't equal in implementation or outcome. You end up paying a tribute to simply live...if you're lucky. I have no interest in that and neither should anyone who isn't a masochist.
I disagree with the bolded.
Most of the public institutions already exist in every society. In fact they have since cave man have formed tribes, communities work together in mutual aid to help form public infrastructure that keeps everyone safe from externalities. As such institutions like schools and fire departments will decouple from the central state and organize based off of worker control. There would be no centralized currency so profit and privatization wouldn’t have the same force
The part I think we disagree (though I’m not sure) is the nature of business function. The way in my mind to stop tyranny of the business is to end its formation, which would end by nature of it no longer receiving state protection. Everything would become democratically controlled by the workers and some can agree to continue following orders of a capitalist for some compensation.
But the workers will always be the rightful owners so the second they stop consenting to capitalist rule is the second the capitalist loses all his excess control of land/production capacities.
Come on ken, you don’t have to look for a disagreement.
Intellectuals can be knowledgeable in one subject, but be out of their depth when they try an enter a new subject matter.
In a sense the social media age has ruined intellectual debate. If you were to challenge Jordan Peterson on his positions on philosophy and you are an expert in the field. Even if you know you can wipe the floor with him, you still have to contend with his army of rabid fans who will send you hate mail, death threats, etc. I suspect many folks would love to speak up but fear doing so due to the mob you have to contend with.
Most of the public institutions already exist in every society. In fact they have since cave man have formed tribes, communities work together in mutual aid to help form public infrastructure that keeps everyone safe from externalities. As such institutions like schools and fire departments will decouple from the central state and organize based off of worker control. There would be no centralized currency so profit and privatization wouldn’t have the same force
The part I think we disagree (though I’m not sure) is the nature of business function. The way in my mind to stop tyranny of the business is to end its formation, which would end by nature of it no longer receiving state protection. Everything would become democratically controlled by the workers and some can agree to continue following orders of a capitalist for some compensation.
But the workers will always be the rightful owners so the second they stop consenting to capitalist rule is the second the capitalist loses all his excess control of land/production capacities.
I don't know if you're disagreeing...if you are it's with the principle of motivation and that really doesn't matter at that point.
I disagree that the workers are the rightful owners, as we've been over, but that's not a problem because there are remedies in place to deal with someone like you. First would be (cue the Larken Rose quote) I don't even deal with you because I know you're a communist. If I do form a contract with you to work for me I'll require said contract and get insurance on our relationship. Being a communist, you'd be high-risk so the premiums would be through the roof. When you walk off with my tools (you saying that they are your tools) I don't stop you or kill you...I simply file a claim with the insurance company.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
