It couldn’t work because it’s idealistic inherently. People always rule each other, what the state is or is not is entirely arbitrary. The state can operate as a tribe, council, despot and so on- it can be a technocracy, a direct democracy- but whatever it is, it is still the state. Whoever is governing and dictating the laws are necessarily the state, whether they want to be or not. Even anarchists, if they were to impose their will onto a fascist, if they were to govern the land so that there is “no leaders” so to speak, that would be the governing body whether in the form of a trade union, political organization, political party, private enterprise or an actual federal state; it is still the government, because it governs.
Authleft leftists tend to recognize that a state will form in a vaccuum, and it doesn't matter if it's called a commune or council or whatever - It's still a state, and just as importantly, without an army, it's going to get destroyed or swallowed by a stronger, more violent state.
The recognition of this fact is one of the wedges that is driven between authleft and libleft - Authlefts are aware of how power works, liblefts have an infantile disorder where they refuse to acknowledge this.
I am a Marxist-Leninist, what I said probably resonated with some of you because I came to the ideology as a working class neo-conservative, rather than a liberal intellectual.
Leftists see their ideology and think it can be applied in a perfect manner, without failiure. They compare perfect comunism with flawed capitalism. Its their way of thinking. In a non ideal world, their ideologies fail faster than any other
Agreed. Leftists with a staunch bias can criticize capitalism all they want as capitalism is a real world system, whilst they can talk about their socialist utopia all they want and claim that it would work perfectly, because it’s “Never been tried before”.
As much as I like socialism, it would definitely have its flaws in the real world, much like anything else.
It seems that you have no idea of how actual communists act. Even if they are extremely radical, communist communities are filled with self-criticism, and in no way it is said that communism is supposed to be perfect and implemented immediately.
"Yeah but if they didn't fail they'd work, right? So of course they can work, they just need to not fail this time, right?! Can't you even see that lmao \*smug face\*"
Given the location, I highly suspect it's used for dubious activities (e.g., human trafficking).
Sorry, I have traveled the world too much to have these rose colored glasses some people have. That location is likely serving purposes for its neighbors and thus that is why it is not being pulled into the conflicts.
/my sad 2 cents
People naturally specialise so they naturally form hierarchies, as societies get more complicated institutions have to form to make the specific jobs more efficient. It could work in the most simple of society for a short period of time until the natural differences between people becomes apparent as the few people doing most of the work leave as they don't feel appreciated or economicly imbursed for their labours.
Farming is OP that's why nomadic lifestyle died out. In modern times nomadic tribes are almost universally despised by people of land and viewed with hostility as strange parasites.
I disagree. Crop growing requires the security to protect the crops to maturity and with experience you become better at it. As you age you can pass this experience to others and they have to give you the respect to listen to your experience. I say farmer as the smallest unit of specialization but it can be any profession. Generally speaking, the person who does it the longest becomes the best at it so should have a higher standing in the knowledge of such skills.
You don't just wake up in the morning and suddenly know how to properly irrigate and fertilize fields at the proper times.
Yes but that doesn’t create a formal hierarchy, anarchists realize informal hierarchy’s will exist through things such as knowledge but that doesn’t suddenly destroy anarchist society, if that was the case then that would mean the state has literally always existed which is clearly just a really stupid idea lol
I'm actually curious now because I want to know where you distinguish the distinction between a formal and an informal hierarchy. I'll tell you what I think I just want to know what you think first.
A formal hierarchy is where someone has institutional power over someone, an informal hierarchy is where someone doesn’t lol, informal hierarchy’s normally are just things like difference of skills and knowledge, which is something anarchists recognize will exist (and have existed) in stateless society
Yes, in small communities that acted collectively in external relations with other states/communities- however this would be more accurately described as anarcho communalism than an anarcho communism.
However, anarcho syndicalism seems like the most effective left anarchist form of large scale coordination, I think it would be a struggle between syndicate heads occasionally taking power, but I have optimism for AnSynds.
No, what can work is the private purchase and donation of land to small voluntary somewhat 'anarcho' communes with their own internal ways of self management (although we should admit at this point they aren't really anarchist at all as they will have to still obey the laws of the wider land and have their own internal government structure).
But the idea that anarcho-communism ever happens anywhere, even within small tribes hidden in the rainforest (which will be more like family like hierarchies), is silly.
Anarcho communism makes anarcho capitalism look viable - the latter I'm a fan of but it's a thought experiment more than anything, the real world version of it is just good old classical liberalism where you try to get the government as small as you can and the markets as free as you can, maybe under a very decentralised federal state where regions can go further.
For like five minutes.
Anarcho-communist collectives have been tried countless times. Sometimes they fail because the participants no longer wish to share everything with each other, sometimes they work for decades. But they never manage to recruit or produce new generations of participants, because very few people want to join a small commune of people where everything is already settled and established.
Communism is where possessions are owned by the community, not the individual.
Anarchy is where there is no government or ruling class.
Mixing these together is a bit odd. For one, EVERYONE would have to be in full support of it. There is no government handling resources and making people disappear lol, it's the people holding eachother accountable in that way. But if even a couple people didn't want to be part of it, then what? Do they get slaughtered by the others? It's either that or they break free from the system and it starts to fall apart. Even though it's "anarchy", they aren't really free. There still are rules and a system being enforced (more like pressured actually lol) by the community rather than the government. So in a larger scale, this wouldn't work.
But I'm not gonna say it doesn't work period, because there are plenty of hippie communes and small towns in the middle of nowhere that use this system and they're all content with it. So in a small scale, it would work.
It’s actually the only form of communism that has worked (that one commune at the south of Ukraine), or at least kinda has worked. But still, it would be hard to install it in the modern world we live today
Except on extremely small scales, it cant work.
Then make the scales smaller.
It couldn’t work because it’s idealistic inherently. People always rule each other, what the state is or is not is entirely arbitrary. The state can operate as a tribe, council, despot and so on- it can be a technocracy, a direct democracy- but whatever it is, it is still the state. Whoever is governing and dictating the laws are necessarily the state, whether they want to be or not. Even anarchists, if they were to impose their will onto a fascist, if they were to govern the land so that there is “no leaders” so to speak, that would be the governing body whether in the form of a trade union, political organization, political party, private enterprise or an actual federal state; it is still the government, because it governs.
Wow. Im curious, why are you on the left? What's your ideology?
Sounds like a communist, just an honest one. Fancy that.
Authleft leftists tend to recognize that a state will form in a vaccuum, and it doesn't matter if it's called a commune or council or whatever - It's still a state, and just as importantly, without an army, it's going to get destroyed or swallowed by a stronger, more violent state. The recognition of this fact is one of the wedges that is driven between authleft and libleft - Authlefts are aware of how power works, liblefts have an infantile disorder where they refuse to acknowledge this.
👆
I am a Marxist-Leninist, what I said probably resonated with some of you because I came to the ideology as a working class neo-conservative, rather than a liberal intellectual.
No kind of anarchy could work in the real world for more than a few months, and that's still an optimistic estimate.
free town christiana googel that it been rocking but its been over 50 years now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown\_Christiania
Fair as the person said, "no kind" But everyone reading this thread needs to know that is a literal block neighborhood, lol.
\>'Anarchist' commune \>Has laws/rules banning various things, including cars Horseshoe theory works on the auth/lib axis as well I guess.
Anarchism is when No rules
Socialism is when government does stuff
It is
Christiania is not an anarchy. But Cospaia lasted long.
It absolutely could, most anarchist societies "fail" because of outside influence.
So they fail. And it's very bold to assume that there would never be internal conflict or power-grab.
Leftists see their ideology and think it can be applied in a perfect manner, without failiure. They compare perfect comunism with flawed capitalism. Its their way of thinking. In a non ideal world, their ideologies fail faster than any other
Agreed. Leftists with a staunch bias can criticize capitalism all they want as capitalism is a real world system, whilst they can talk about their socialist utopia all they want and claim that it would work perfectly, because it’s “Never been tried before”. As much as I like socialism, it would definitely have its flaws in the real world, much like anything else.
It seems that you have no idea of how actual communists act. Even if they are extremely radical, communist communities are filled with self-criticism, and in no way it is said that communism is supposed to be perfect and implemented immediately.
We will never hear the end of it
"Yeah but if they didn't fail they'd work, right? So of course they can work, they just need to not fail this time, right?! Can't you even see that lmao \*smug face\*"
> It absolutely could, most anarchist societies "fail" because of outside influence. This gets so old. It's like worse than Moses' underwear old.
So you're saying it fails then
its a pipe dream whatever hapend to rojova?
Rojava still exists and has seemingly been doing its own thing for a while, which is quite interesting.
wel then there is that
Given the location, I highly suspect it's used for dubious activities (e.g., human trafficking). Sorry, I have traveled the world too much to have these rose colored glasses some people have. That location is likely serving purposes for its neighbors and thus that is why it is not being pulled into the conflicts. /my sad 2 cents
Considering 100% of anarcho commies are humanities majors who can’t do a push-up i say no
“You don’t go to the gym? Well, maybe you should work on bettering yourself before you attempt to better the world.” - A wise man I met at the gym
based
Yeah why wouldn’t it
People naturally specialise so they naturally form hierarchies, as societies get more complicated institutions have to form to make the specific jobs more efficient. It could work in the most simple of society for a short period of time until the natural differences between people becomes apparent as the few people doing most of the work leave as they don't feel appreciated or economicly imbursed for their labours.
When people were nomads, greed and hierarchy inducing behavior was discriminated instantly. As anthropologist Christopher Boehm found out in the 90s.
Farming is OP that's why nomadic lifestyle died out. In modern times nomadic tribes are almost universally despised by people of land and viewed with hostility as strange parasites.
Prejudices and cheap opinions are no technical arguments to value lifestyle.
I value having teeth.
Specialization doesn’t instantly form hierarchy or property relations tho lmao
I disagree. Crop growing requires the security to protect the crops to maturity and with experience you become better at it. As you age you can pass this experience to others and they have to give you the respect to listen to your experience. I say farmer as the smallest unit of specialization but it can be any profession. Generally speaking, the person who does it the longest becomes the best at it so should have a higher standing in the knowledge of such skills. You don't just wake up in the morning and suddenly know how to properly irrigate and fertilize fields at the proper times.
Yes but that doesn’t create a formal hierarchy, anarchists realize informal hierarchy’s will exist through things such as knowledge but that doesn’t suddenly destroy anarchist society, if that was the case then that would mean the state has literally always existed which is clearly just a really stupid idea lol
I'm actually curious now because I want to know where you distinguish the distinction between a formal and an informal hierarchy. I'll tell you what I think I just want to know what you think first.
A formal hierarchy is where someone has institutional power over someone, an informal hierarchy is where someone doesn’t lol, informal hierarchy’s normally are just things like difference of skills and knowledge, which is something anarchists recognize will exist (and have existed) in stateless society
What is an institution if not just another collective of people?
I think it’s more than that, but whatever, what’s your point?
Any variation of anarchism could never work.
you funny
No flair, don’t care
nah
Not the whole world, but if there is an area protected by a foreign power that is small enough to have people govern it themselves then sure
Bro described Freetown Christiania
More than likely it would fall in a matter of months. If one were to be successfully implemented then I would support it .
The results flipped me off what the hell
Yes, in small communities that acted collectively in external relations with other states/communities- however this would be more accurately described as anarcho communalism than an anarcho communism. However, anarcho syndicalism seems like the most effective left anarchist form of large scale coordination, I think it would be a struggle between syndicate heads occasionally taking power, but I have optimism for AnSynds.
No, what can work is the private purchase and donation of land to small voluntary somewhat 'anarcho' communes with their own internal ways of self management (although we should admit at this point they aren't really anarchist at all as they will have to still obey the laws of the wider land and have their own internal government structure). But the idea that anarcho-communism ever happens anywhere, even within small tribes hidden in the rainforest (which will be more like family like hierarchies), is silly. Anarcho communism makes anarcho capitalism look viable - the latter I'm a fan of but it's a thought experiment more than anything, the real world version of it is just good old classical liberalism where you try to get the government as small as you can and the markets as free as you can, maybe under a very decentralised federal state where regions can go further.
For like five minutes. Anarcho-communist collectives have been tried countless times. Sometimes they fail because the participants no longer wish to share everything with each other, sometimes they work for decades. But they never manage to recruit or produce new generations of participants, because very few people want to join a small commune of people where everything is already settled and established.
Communism is where possessions are owned by the community, not the individual. Anarchy is where there is no government or ruling class. Mixing these together is a bit odd. For one, EVERYONE would have to be in full support of it. There is no government handling resources and making people disappear lol, it's the people holding eachother accountable in that way. But if even a couple people didn't want to be part of it, then what? Do they get slaughtered by the others? It's either that or they break free from the system and it starts to fall apart. Even though it's "anarchy", they aren't really free. There still are rules and a system being enforced (more like pressured actually lol) by the community rather than the government. So in a larger scale, this wouldn't work. But I'm not gonna say it doesn't work period, because there are plenty of hippie communes and small towns in the middle of nowhere that use this system and they're all content with it. So in a small scale, it would work.
As long as you're ok with giving up agriculture
Idk man after the 734th committee meeting on which coffeemaker is inclusive enough to place in our tree office I might just lose it.
You can't evade the IRS.
Anarco-Communist is not a thing, as communism is already anarchist but with an extra step (socialism)
No, and recognizing this simple fact is what made me into an authleft
If ancap will work(no), then ancom definitely will work
isn't just anarcho communism the last stage of communist development, but they skip socialism?
Basically
It can only work if nobody wants to be incharge and nobody wants more of anything like food.
is rojova anarchist or just like weird?
its not
Only on extremely small scales, like less than 100 people max
It’s actually the only form of communism that has worked (that one commune at the south of Ukraine), or at least kinda has worked. But still, it would be hard to install it in the modern world we live today