Then so be it, but it seems like it would be beneficial to do so
I could go out in the woods right now and try to live on my own, but I’d have a much better time in a community with other people
If an individual wants to gain an individual benefit from their work instead of giving it to the community, what would prevent them from bartering for more personal good than they’d get otherwise?
Sharing one’s fruits with the community not only benefits the community itself, but the individual as well. This is anarcho-communism. I’m not the best person to describe it since I’m not that knowledgeable about politics, but I’d encourage you to read The Conquest of Bread, it’s actually a pretty straightforward read: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
But why would some people not benefit more than average by bartering then by sharing? They would get benefit from both, but it seems like some people could get more benefit than the average community benefits through alternative channels, since not everyone will produce the exact same amount of value.
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”
Your focus on arbitrarily determining who creates more value is a by-product of our capitalist society
But it’s one that any slightly selfish person will realize. And if any one person is even slightly selfish, the whole system collapses
One selfish person wouldn’t cause the entire system to collapse – what? lol Read my other comments in this thread.
When your needs are met by the state, you tend to be less selfish. Or not selfish at all since you don’t need to hoard the item. Besides Conquest of Bread, I’d suggest reading Wage-Labor And Capital for more understanding. At least if you are legit wanting to learn.
Well then they do not get the benefits of society? Idk im not Communist but that seems like the best option to me
What keeps individuals from benefiting from society without contributing to it? Who determines appropriate contributions? I don’t know if you can do that in an anarchical framework
The community itself would make those decisions in a way that works for them. Us telling them in the future now from the past how to live their lives is tyrannical
Does the majority need to agree with the decisions? Or could the majority appoint people to make the decisions? Or could one person simply take charge and unilaterally make decisions as a dictator? Would any of those be acceptable?
See my comment above for answers to these questions
How would the community make the decisions? Would everyone have to vote on every issue that appears?
You do this already. If you are part of a church or friend group or organisation or whatever, you usually sort out issues when they come up by talking to one another. Saying people are going to vote is a weird framing of normal collaboration, because most of the time we agree on decisions by talking and compromising
I do agree in the small scale it works (ex: small village). But I don’t agree it scales to society as a whole.
See my comment above
Surely, with so many ways of making decisions that might work for each community, you can name one?
They would probably vote. How they’d vote idk, that’s not for me to decide.
I mean I should be able to name as many as anybody on the planet, including you. My point is that I am not going to say “well they might do X” because then from now on “X” becomes the focal point of the possibilities. I am not even going to hold my future self hostage to what present me suggests
So it’s basically “idk, but I know when we get there it’s going to be perfect… somehow”, got it.
The community themselves decide. If it’s enough of a problem, the community will organize to address it how they see fit. That’s the whole point of anarchism. We don’t have all the answers and we don’t claim to, the people that run into these issues will find the solutions that best suites their needs.
So does the community vote on everything then? If there are too many decisions, could they appoint someone to make some of the decisions on their behalf? Or does every little decision need to be voted on by everyone? If not, I don’t see how it’s different than democracy
Democracy and capitalism are not synonymous.
And about capitalism, rich people (and by “rich”, I mean people that don’t need to work to stay rich and stay getting richer) have more access and influence on decision making them anybody else. Decision power should be spread more evenly, your society can have people delegated to take decisions, but that decisions should reflect the interest of the society as a whole, not only who gets economic power.
Democracy and capitalism are not synonymous.
Agree, but are democracy and anarchy synonymous? The original post was taking about anarchical communism witch I thought was different than democratic socialism.
are democracy and anarchy synonymous? Idk enough of anarchy to answer that.
I thought was different than democratic socialism. AFAIK they are different indeed
Valid point… Didn’t account for the anarchy part
Than he/she keeps it. You just can’t keep others work…
I mean sure, but what we have now are people not sharing the fruits of other people’s labor. Your favorite billionaire did not earn that wealth through their own labor.
Communism isn’t just about division of labour so fruits are spread equally, and is far more about the worker getting screwed in the deal that is capitalism, and a better way to actually divide the fruits of labour so the people actually DOING everything get a fair share.
Capitalists and their supporters won’t read any actual books about this that aren’t written by other capitalists and their shills generally, and it’s far more complex and has many different ideas of how this works even within strictly communist circles, so whatever. People just gonna do buzz lines and memes because of what Ben Shapiro said on Joe Rogan this week or whatever, and I get why it’s so much easier to do that, because theory is boring and exhausting, but it is frustrating to see sometimes.
Wondering how they expect to have the ability to produce anything to be their fruits if they refuse to cooperate with society
They will be lined up with the other anti-revolutionaries.
I think “his labor” and how you define it is the key here. For example it’s different if it’s an individual or the manager of a factory.
I’m no specialist in communism or anarchism but it’s the first time I see the term “Anarcho-communism”. And AFAIK anarchism and communism are movements that are looking for different paths to their means (or even different means).
Is “anarcho-communism” a thing? Or is just a made-up term to be a counterpoint to anarcho-capitalist? or just strawman?
Well, that’s new.
Anarchism is a sub-ideology of communism that seeks to abolish all kind of unjustified hierarchy, including capitalism. It’s the farthest left ideology.
“Anarcho-capitalist” is a strange concept that’s very recent and only seem to exist in the USA, that tries to reimagine feudalism in the industrial age, meaning that very rich people are free to have their own army and own massive area of land, where people living there will subjected to the laws of that lord, with no possibility to remove them through voting. It really doesn’t have anything in common with anarchy.
You can read more on the wikipedia page, it seems to be pretty good.
Anarcho-communism is just the longer name of what came to be called anarchism by most observers. The tenets of anarcho syndicalism are fairly close to Marx’s ‘ideal’ communism in theory but obviously Marx, Bakunin and Kropotkin all had differing views on how to achieve those goals.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
This is my new desktop background.
Your goose will die if it tries to survive alone. Individualism doesn’t work.
But who would bare the cost of goods held in common to avoid the tragedy of the commons?
