"anarcho" communism is an oxymoron

[Philjia]

So I can make some absurd demands for way more food then I'll eat.

No. All transactions must be voluntary. Few would want to voluntarily give you more food than your gonna eat.

The easiest basis for voluntary transactions is a fair trade. Of course, not every commodity or service a person can provide is relevant to the other party at all times. This means that having an arbitrary commodity that is not consumable is necessary to make trade work more simply. You could fix the price of all services, which would prevent competition, but eliminating money is a bad idea.

[Conscentia]

Why would you? There's no money, so you can't sell the surplus for a profit and there'd be no-one to buy.

Because I like to eat when I'm bored. Unhealthy I know but I do it

Well then it's not more than you'll eat, since you expect to eat it.

Who said you receive less?

Logic. Either he receives what he needs and I less, or I receive more then I need.

It's not a rationing system. You don't receive less. You take less. You could take more than you need, but, again, why would you? There's no money, so you can't sell the surplus for a profit and there'd be no-one to buy.

[Chestaan]

Actually it's anarcho-capitalism and right-wing libertarianism that are the oxymorons. Under such systems, the state is basically being replaced by corporations which act in exactly the same way as a state does to reduce liberty. There is no freedom in such a system, and it is essentially going to lead to neo-feudalism.

[Ayanka]

No. All transactions must be voluntary. Few would want to voluntarily give you more food than your gonna eat.

So then I'm getting less

AFAIK you get paid according to your needs. That's what Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means.

But it's not fair is it? For example, I cannot have children. So I don't need as much as somebody who does. But if we are working the same job, why do I receive less?

Monetary incentive stops being the main reason you go to work in a stateless, classeless and moneyless society. So no, you wouldn't be complaining about how you're getting paid less than the guy who has three children and you have none, mainly because the extra payment he gets he's gonna spend it on them. At the end you both are going to have the same.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Because I like to eat when I'm bored. Unhealthy I know but I do it

Well then it's not more than you'll eat, since you expect to eat it.

Logic. Either he receives what he needs and I less, or I receive more then I need.

It's not a rationing system. You don't receive less. You take less. You could take more than you need, but, again, why would you? There's no money, so you can't sell the surplus for a profit and there'd be no-one to buy.

Because, like I said, I eat a lot. And then I throw away what I don't eat, because I'm really just a an unhealthy dick like that. Meanwhile, Davie is struggling to feed his family. You haven't eradicated the problem, you just got rid of steps

[Conscentia]

So then I'm getting less

AFAIK you get paid according to your needs. That's what Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means.

Firstly, that quote refers to the higher stage of communism wherein people have free access to non-scarce resources. You don't get paid. No-one get's paid. The wage system is abolished.
Secondly, the thread is about anarchist communism, so there's not much point quoting Marx.

[Nekoyama]

Dictionaries are not useful tools for defining complex political ideologies, it's the main reason that appealing to them is a fallacy.

[Chestaan]

Well then it's not more than you'll eat, since you expect to eat it.


It's not a rationing system. You don't receive less. You take less. You could take more than you need, but, again, why would you? There's no money, so you can't sell the surplus for a profit and there'd be no-one to buy.

Because, like I said, I eat a lot. And then I throw away what I don't eat, because I'm really just a an unhealthy dick like that. Meanwhile, Davie is struggling to feed his family. You haven't eradicated the problem, you just got rid of steps

We already waste like 40% of all produced food before it even hits the shelf. Do you really think that people who overstock up on food like yourself will be greater than that? The problem with your thinking is that there is no lack of food, so giving some people more than they need isn't a problem.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So then I'm getting less

AFAIK you get paid according to your needs. That's what Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means.

But it's not fair is it? For example, I cannot have children. So I don't need as much as somebody who does. But if we are working the same job, why do I receive less?

Monetary incentive stops being the main reason you go to work in a stateless, classeless and moneyless society. So no, you wouldn't be complaining about how you're getting paid less than the guy who has three children and you have none, mainly because the extra payment he gets he's gonna spend it on them. At the end you both are going to have the same.

Yeah but why should I want to switch to that? As is, I receive cash for my work, which I spend on things like clothes I only will wear on certain occasions, video games, and other frivolities. I lose incentive as my lifestyle is lessened.

[Roma Uc]

anarcho communism, and communism itself at some extent refers to a passive "State", in the ancient age sense of this word properly, as a working entity made of relations, wich is focused in a "passive rule of right", while others who contradict refer to "State" as a built thing, an active subject wich echoes in classical, active, "rule of right". They pretend not understanding each other, after some thing is simple. I t may can t be solved that it is

[Internationalist Bastard]

Because, like I said, I eat a lot. And then I throw away what I don't eat, because I'm really just a an unhealthy dick like that. Meanwhile, Davie is struggling to feed his family. You haven't eradicated the problem, you just got rid of steps

We already waste like 40% of all produced food before it even hits the shelf. Do you really think that people who overstock up on food like yourself will be greater than that? The problem with your thinking is that there is no lack of food, so giving some people more than they need isn't a problem.

The food is really not the point, I kinda got stuck on it. The real point is, a lot of people will lose quality of life

[Chestaan]

AFAIK you get paid according to your needs. That's what Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means.


Monetary incentive stops being the main reason you go to work in a stateless, classeless and moneyless society. So no, you wouldn't be complaining about how you're getting paid less than the guy who has three children and you have none, mainly because the extra payment he gets he's gonna spend it on them. At the end you both are going to have the same.

Yeah but why should I want to switch to that? As is, I receive cash for my work, which I spend on things like clothes I only will wear on certain occasions, video games, and other frivolities. I lose incentive as my lifestyle is lessened.

Unless you are incredibly, incredibly wealthy your lifestyle will not be lessened.

[Genivaria]

Anarcho anything is stupid really, Libertarian Socialism is where it's at.

[The New Sea Territory]

0/10 stale meme.

[The New Sea Territory]

Anarcho anything is stupid really, Libertarian Socialism is where it's at.

The difference is semantic unless you're a bookchinite.

[Conscentia]

Because, like I said, I eat a lot. And then I throw away what I don't eat, because I'm really just a an unhealthy dick like that. Meanwhile, Davie is struggling to feed his family. You haven't eradicated the problem, you just got rid of steps

I doubt you're so wasteful that you'd deprive the city.

[Trumpostan]

Why should a banker be paid more than a first aid responder anyway? Bankers don't really do anything or add value, they just leech off of other peoples work.

If bankers didn't do anything of worth, no-one would bother to use them. They are paid according to the value of their labor as determined by society, and apparently society tends to like bankers.

Which I find very strange, because we can do without bankers a hell of a lot easier than without first aid responders or farmers.

[Goldwater Coast]

It's not a rationing system. You don't receive less. You take less. You could take more than you need, but, again, why would you? There's no money, so you can't sell the surplus for a profit and there'd be no-one to buy.

Someone might take more because they could potentially trade it to someone who wanted more than they'd normally take, but wasn't able to for whatever reason. Sex for extra food or something like that. Whatever they'd be willing to trade for it.

So no, you wouldn't be complaining about how you're getting paid less than the guy who has three children and you have none, mainly because the extra payment he gets he's gonna spend it on them.

Unless he decides to starve them. In which case, who takes care of this problem, exactly? Some sort of citizen's militia?

[Genivaria]

Anarcho anything is stupid really, Libertarian Socialism is where it's at.

The difference is semantic unless you're a bookchinite.

Libertarian Socialism doesn't exclude things like currency, government, and wage labor for one.
And unless I'm a what?

[Nekoyama]

There is no such thing as anarchism. Removal of the state would in no case end tyranny; rather it would exacerbate it, either by the power of the majority or by the power of the wealthy. Luckily, any society under anarchy wouldn't last long, as power would, as usual, centralise.

That's a poor argument, I'd rather bring up the fact that anarchist forms of social organization (i.e communes) were states in all but name, with armies, laws, and elected delegates.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yeah but why should I want to switch to that? As is, I receive cash for my work, which I spend on things like clothes I only will wear on certain occasions, video games, and other frivolities. I lose incentive as my lifestyle is lessened.

Unless you are incredibly, incredibly wealthy your lifestyle will not be lessened.

So you're saying that restaurants will stay open? That I'll be able to just grab clothes I don't need? And what of my transition? Is somebody going to still offer me my hormonal treatments? These are all things I have trouble believing will continue to just exist without me paying for it

[Internationalist Bastard]

Because, like I said, I eat a lot. And then I throw away what I don't eat, because I'm really just a an unhealthy dick like that. Meanwhile, Davie is struggling to feed his family. You haven't eradicated the problem, you just got rid of steps

I doubt you're so wasteful that you'd deprive the city.

No, but a couple thousand like that...

[The Union of Continental States]

Merranium-Webster defines communism as:

a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

Anarchy is the complete lack of government. How can government be abolished under communism if communism is when the state controls the economy?

Usually less government regulation would lead to a CAPITALIST, FREE MARIET SYSTEM, NOT A REGULATED COMMUNIST ONE.

These "anarcho" communists don't understand how anarchy work. Who are you to tell people they can't voluntarily live under a wage system? What right does "the community" have to dictate what people should do?

I just can't wrap my head around it.

THANK YOU! You CAN'T have both communism and anarchy. Its an obvious contradiction!

[The New Sea Territory]

The difference is semantic unless you're a bookchinite.

Libertarian Socialism doesn't exclude things like currency, government, and wage labor for one.

Some forms do, some forms don't.

Collectivism have "wage labor", but not the state. Communalism (Bookchin's thing) has a state, but not wage labor. Communism has neither. Syndicalism has labor vouchers as currency, but mutualism doesn't.

[Genivaria]

Merranium-Webster defines communism as:

a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

Anarchy is the complete lack of government. How can government be abolished under communism if communism is when the state controls the economy?

Usually less government regulation would lead to a CAPITALIST, FREE MARIET SYSTEM, NOT A REGULATED COMMUNIST ONE.

These "anarcho" communists don't understand how anarchy work. Who are you to tell people they can't voluntarily live under a wage system? What right does "the community" have to dictate what people should do?

I just can't wrap my head around it.

THANK YOU! You CAN'T have both communism and anarchy. Its an obvious contradiction!

Actually according to the original definition of communism, anarchy is the only real means of it.
"class-less, state-less society" and all that.