"anarcho" communism is an oxymoron

[Pergamon Politeia]

Nice words, very fancy. But, what are you saying?

(I m not english mother language, how do you say it)

[Xelsis]

I cannot speak for the actions or arguments of others. The action you describe, however, is still defensive, if less "purely" so than defense of the body. The action is triggered directly by the encroachment or advancement of another, which you respond to by force. Taking property, on the other hand, requires force actively directed at someone, despite that person's passivity-hence, aggression.

Your definition of "inherently hostile and aggressive act" would have humanity starve. If it is inherently hostile and aggressive to exclude others from any natural resource, then picking berries would be "inherently hostile and aggressive", as would cutting down a tree, or catching a rabbit in a snare. Pure communalism is simply impossible.

My definition would not have humanity starve. The ideal would be to have most property, except that which it's necessary to have otherwise, held in common. So the berry bush is common property but its fine to pick individual berries.

Another example:

"I need to cut down a tree to make some tools" is fine

"This is my forest, I found it first so all these trees are mine and the rest of you can all fuck off" is not fine.

So why is the berry bush common property, but the tree is not? Would an apple tree be common property in the vein of the berries, or private property in the vein of other trees?

A definition that needs to be changed on a case-by-case basis isn't a definition at all, it is simply a series of subjective judgements. In this sort of society, that series of a person deciding what is and is not to be private property, and seizing the property when it is decreed to be in common is very much a State actor, and certainly not anarchism.

[Chestaan]

My definition would not have humanity starve. The ideal would be to have most property, except that which it's necessary to have otherwise, held in common. So the berry bush is common property but its fine to pick individual berries.

Another example:

"I need to cut down a tree to make some tools" is fine

"This is my forest, I found it first so all these trees are mine and the rest of you can all fuck off" is not fine.

So why is the berry bush common property, but the tree is not? Would an apple tree be common property in the vein of the berries, or private property in the vein of other trees?

A definition that needs to be changed on a case-by-case basis isn't a definition at all, it is simply a series of subjective judgements. In this sort of society, that series of a person deciding what is and is not to be private property, and seizing the property when it is decreed to be in common is very much a State actor, and certainly not anarchism.

I thought we were talking about how force, and offensive force at that were inherent to property rights? I'd still like this point addressed if you would be so kind.

But to answer your question, anarchists, of which I am not one, generally distinguish between private and personal property. Private being the means of production and personal being toothbrushes etc.

And how do you mean that seizing property that is declared to be common is only done by state actors? This is literally what happens with homesteading. Something which previously was free to use by all is now not free to be used by all. State actors may have seized common areas in the past, but non-state actors do the same.

[Nekoyama]

Same, I support corporatism, with the workers owning the enterprise along with their bosses.

I find that system fascinating. I find the system of "the workers control the means of production" part interesting. I don't think corporatism is the word though, since that might have connotations of elitism and such. But I do it fascinating nonetheless. My only concern is if say you are young, disabled, or unemployed...do you not have any control over something? Are your rights guaranteed?
(but i like Neko Neko)

Corporatism unfortunately has connotations with corporatocracy because people don't understand "corporate" etymologically derives from the Latin word "corpus" which simply meant "body," and not specifically to private enterprise. It's not necessarily elitist, there were proposed models which were bottom-up, though because different authoritarian countries such as Italy and Portugal followed a top-down approach, it has been seen in that light exclusively.

In regard to the unemployed, young, and disabled, that's more a question of government than economic system. Social democratic countries which are corporatist are also welfare states for instance.

[Xelsis]

I thought we were talking about how force, and offensive force at that were inherent to property rights? I'd still like this point addressed if you would be so kind.

Did I not address it? That was the first paragraph of my response, the second of which had to deal with starvation. I recall you responding to the second, but not the first, here it is once again.

The action you describe, however, is still defensive, if less "purely" so than defense of the body. The action is triggered directly by the encroachment or advancement of another, which you respond to by force. Taking property, on the other hand, requires force actively directed at someone, despite that person's passivity-hence, aggression.

Defense of property is a generally defensive action-it is triggered directly by the active actions of another, unlike active aggression, which is commenced even if the target is passive.

But to answer your question, anarchists, of which I am not one, generally distinguish between private and personal property. Private being the means of production and personal being toothbrushes etc.

And that distinction needs to be ironclad. Is a car a means of production? What if it is a semi-truck? Would that be considered personal? If so, is a container ship? If not, is a bicycle?

If there is a distinction, it needs to be clear-and whenever I ask of what the distinction is, there is no real consensus on what it is-and, more importantly, on who gets to decide.

And how do you mean that seizing property that is declared to be common is only done by state actors? This is literally what happens with homesteading. Something which previously was free to use by all is now not free to be used by all. State actors may have seized common areas in the past, but non-state actors do the same.

Homesteading is taking property that was, at least ostensibly, of the commons (though depending on the situation, this is a somewhat silly distinction, given that they are likely the first one there, and that there was no collective to use the resource), state-actor force is taking property that is private, in order that it may be made common-that is the distinction. It is the distinction between homesteading, as you say, private actors seizing (ostensibly) "public" resources to make them private, and what I suppose ought to be called "eminent domain", state actors seizing private resources to make them public.

[Libertarian nationalist]

That is absolutely ridiculous and completely false.

Tell that to all the "peaceful" black block protesters

[Mavorpen]

That awkward moment when "anarchist" and "libertarian" were terms originated to refer to socialists/communists.

[Libertarian nationalist]

That awkward moment when "anarchist" and "libertarian" were terms originated to refer to socialists/communists.

Anarchist, maybe. Libertarian? Not really.

That's the socialist propaganda that's being crammed down your throat

[Randsbeik]

That awkward moment when "anarchist" and "libertarian" were terms originated to refer to socialists/communists.

"Liberal" used to mean something else too :^)

[Xelsis]

That is absolutely ridiculous and completely false.

Tell that to all the "peaceful" black block protesters

Certainly-because the vast majority are. Claiming that every leftist resorts to violence because of a handful of vagabonds in certain groups carries just as much validity as claiming that every CEO and businessperson is corrupt and wicked because of the actions of a few.

[Mavorpen]

That awkward moment when "anarchist" and "libertarian" were terms originated to refer to socialists/communists.

Anarchist, maybe. Libertarian? Not really.

That's the socialist propaganda that's being crammed down your throat

No. The first recorded use of libertarian was by a socialist, and it was used to refer to socialist/communist anarchists due to anarchist having a negative stigma.

[Philjia]

That awkward moment when "anarchist" and "libertarian" were terms originated to refer to socialists/communists.

Anarchist, maybe. Libertarian? Not really.

That's the socialist propaganda that's being crammed down your throat

What you call libertarianism is essentially the extremist version of classical liberalism.

[Libertarian nationalist]

Tell that to all the "peaceful" black block protesters

Certainly-because the vast majority are. Claiming that every leftist resorts to violence because of a handful of vagabonds in certain groups carries just as much validity as claiming that every CEO and businessperson is corrupt and wicked because of the actions of a few.

As you were saying

[Threlizdun]

That awkward moment when "anarchist" and "libertarian" were terms originated to refer to socialists/communists.

Anarchist, maybe. Libertarian? Not really.

That's the socialist propaganda that's being crammed down your throat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque

That awkward moment when "anarchist" and "libertarian" were terms originated to refer to socialists/communists.

"Liberal" used to mean something else too :^)

The difference being that social liberalism still fully believes in private property rights, market capitalism (albeit regulated), and representative democracy, and is obviously just a slight alteration of classical liberal principles. Meanwhile, libertarianism arose as an ideology radically opposed to the institutions of capitalism, private property, and the state, and sought a society utterly devoid of social hierarchies. This is wholly incompatible with the ideas of right "libertarianism", which is really just rebranded classical liberalism.

[Xelsis]

Certainly-because the vast majority are. Claiming that every leftist resorts to violence because of a handful of vagabonds in certain groups carries just as much validity as claiming that every CEO and businessperson is corrupt and wicked because of the actions of a few.

As you were saying

Indeed, my thanks for proving my point quite directly. You have slightly under one hundred and fifty attacks there. Now, let us, for the sake of absurdity, say that each one of those attacks had one thousand persons planning them, and that each attack was authored by an entirely distinct group of persons.

We now have one hundred and fifty thousand leftists who are terrorists. Now let us, for the sake of absurdity, say that only French leftists are true leftists, and simply take Holland's vote total from 2012 to encompass all leftists in Europe.

For those eighteen million, divided by that one hundred and fifty thousand, we find that one in every one hundred and twenty leftists actually resorts to violence for their goals, using the most absurd over and underestimations in your favor possible.

Your claim, then, even being generous well beyond the point of absurdity, is wrong by orders of magnitude.

I suggest you retract it.

[Viscondy]

Anarcho-communism is not an oxymoron, and that perception comes from misunderstandings about what communism is.

Anyway, it's weird seeing different types of anarchists argue about things like this. "Anarchism" is like the kingdom Protista of ideological groupings. All forms of anarchism have totally different origins and histories, and almost nothing in common, yet they get shoved into a group together because they don't really fit anywhere else.

I can quote directly from Marx, if you like.

"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."

"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."

Now, of course, there is a single, simple question, and that is how you intend to abolish property without the apparatus of the State. If you let the property be retained, it is not communism. If you create a state to take that property, it is not anarchism.

Hence-oxymoron.

Anarchism isn't the absence of the state- anarchists don't reject organisation. Please see the anarchist FAQ:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html
Besides, Marx intended to do away with traditional property by using the state to place the means of production of property in the hands of the collective. After that, the state isn't needed.

[Viscondy]

Certainly-because the vast majority are. Claiming that every leftist resorts to violence because of a handful of vagabonds in certain groups carries just as much validity as claiming that every CEO and businessperson is corrupt and wicked because of the actions of a few.

As you were saying

Does that graph include Islamic terrorism? Of course it doesn't, but Islamic terrorism is killing in the name of a fundamentalist view of a religion. Religious fundamentalism is a very conservative thing and, if we were to pull ourselves out of our political-ideologies-revolve-only-around-what-Americans-who-hold-them-think bubble, it would be obvious that theocracy, whatever its religious affiliation, is conservative.
-Oh, but Islamic terror attacks only comprise 0.3 percent of all European terror attacks
1. Then why do you want to ban all muslims?
2. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBCxAv6kJQ

As you were saying

Indeed, my thanks for proving my point quite directly. You have slightly under one hundred and fifty attacks there. Now, let us, for the sake of absurdity, say that each one of those attacks had one thousand persons planning them, and that each attack was authored by an entirely distinct group of persons.

We now have one hundred and fifty thousand leftists who are terrorists. Now let us, for the sake of absurdity, say that only French leftists are true leftists, and simply take Holland's vote total from 2012 to encompass all leftists in Europe.

For those eighteen million, divided by that one hundred and fifty thousand, we find that one in every one hundred and twenty leftists actually resorts to violence for their goals, using the most absurd over and underestimations in your favor possible.

Your claim, then, even being generous well beyond the point of absurdity, is wrong by orders of magnitude.

I suggest you retract it.

This is the better argument, I just wanted to see people on the right wing arguing that Islam is not that bad.

[USS Monitor]

So communist would have to resort to violence

All leftists at some point use violence as a political tactic, even when it hurts innocent people.

*** Warned for trolling ***

I know right-libertarian ideologies tend to mix with communism like matches and gasoline, but you still need to stay away from this kind of sweeping generalizations. You can read the rules here if you need more info about what's allowed on the forums and what's not.

[Xelsis]

I can quote directly from Marx, if you like.

"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."

"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."

Now, of course, there is a single, simple question, and that is how you intend to abolish property without the apparatus of the State. If you let the property be retained, it is not communism. If you create a state to take that property, it is not anarchism.

Hence-oxymoron.

Anarchism isn't the absence of the state- anarchists don't reject organisation. Please see the anarchist FAQ:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html
Besides, Marx intended to do away with traditional property by using the state to place the means of production of property in the hands of the collective. After that, the state isn't needed.

That is hardly a comprehensive source, is it, a pageabode website? The general definition of anarchism is based around the concept of a stateless society. You can reject that definition, but then it is questionable if it is still considered anarchism.

As for Marx, the obvious question is why the state is no longer needed. Let us say that things go splendidly, the means of production are now in the hands of the collective, and the state dissolves. Outside of simple administrative issues, perhaps we can touch on them later, the simple question is-what happens if someone begins to privatize the means of production, or construct new ones? Who is able to stop them, if not the State?

[Conscentia]

Anarchism isn't the absence of the state- anarchists don't reject organisation. Please see the anarchist FAQ:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html

Organisation doesn't necessarily constitute a state. There are non-state forms of organisation. Also, the Anarchist FAQ contradicts you...

"As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary."

[Conscentia]

That is hardly a comprehensive source, is it, a pageabode website? [...]

The Anarchist FAQ covers quite a lot, actually. If you don't like the host, there's a copy here too: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ.

[Xelsis]

Anarchism isn't the absence of the state- anarchists don't reject organisation. Please see the anarchist FAQ:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html

Organisation doesn't necessarily constitute a state. There are non-state forms of organisation. Also, the Anarchist FAQ contradicts you...

"As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary."

Yes, I am aware that it believes otherwise, the issue is that it is hardly an authoritative source. You'll also note how it rather casually dismisses anarcho-capitalism out of hand.

But, even saying that I accept that source as a sort of definitive guide to anarchism, control by the state is very clearly, within your own quote, rejected. Later on in the FAQ, in one of their quotes, it is made even more clear:

"Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority"

That is about as explicit a rejection of the State as you can have, but also a rejection of any sort of government, or coercive authority. Even if we assume your organization to not be a State, for whatever reason, if it is coercive (which it is), it is rejected.

[Conscentia]

Yes, I am aware that it believes otherwise, the issue is that it is hardly an authoritative source. You'll also note how it rather casually dismisses anarcho-capitalism out of hand.

It doesn't dismiss anarcho-capitalism casually or out of hand. It dedicates an entire section, of approx. 44,000 words, and an appendix to arguing it's case.

But, even saying that I accept that source as a sort of definitive guide to anarchism, control by the state is very clearly, within your own quote, rejected. [...]

... Yeah, that's why I quoted it. To show Viscondy's claims otherwise to be incorrect.

That is about as explicit a rejection of the State as you can have, but also a rejection of any sort of government, or coercive authority. Even if we assume your organization to not be a State, for whatever reason, if it is coercive (which it is), it is rejected.

Not all organisation is coercive. People are able to organise voluntarily.

[Libertarian nationalist]

What? I'm not trolling.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

If you're going to define something, you better include the full definition instead of trying to intentionally misinform and mislead people with what amounts to sheer bias, and intellectually dishonest bullshit.

From Merriam-Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

Definition of communism
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2

capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively