What is it?

As i said in my starting statements, i want to look into some more side-divisions of anarchism even though im sectarian.

In s brief starting summary, or a long informative out writing, can some Anarcho-Communist please explain how this would work?

Rename wrote:

As i said in my starting statements, i want to look into some more side-divisions of anarchism even though im sectarian.

In s brief starting summary, or a long informative out writing, can some Anarcho-Communist please explain how this would work?

Well, in an anarcho communist society, private property and money would be abolished. This would be replaced with a gift economy(moneyless) derived from Marx's each according to his/her need. ummm.... I am still learning about it though so I may sound vague.

Would it be communistic socialism?(aka, with a dictatorship and a ruling official/officials)?
Considering anarchy and socialism would be stateless and state, i always had trouble finding the standing ground of how it could be achieved.

Rename wrote:

Would it be communistic socialism?(aka, with a dictatorship and a ruling official/officials)?
Considering anarchy and socialism would be stateless and state, i always had trouble finding the standing ground of how it could be achieved.

It would be voluntary communism.

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

voluntary communism.

...What?

Rename wrote:

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

voluntary communism.

...What?

Something people don't have to submit to, unlike plain orthodox communism. Thats where we disagree on Marx, the dictation of the proletariat. Eh... like I said I'm still learning. Ask someone like Anarchist Dagger or Kencat.

lol, uhh, i'll come back later and post up the main points that i think make up anarchocommunism =D

what he's getting at is "free association", one of the main points of anarchism in general - i.e. you can decide which commune you associate with, and communes can decide which communes they associate with, without penalties from not associating (other than...not being granted whatever they might gain by being associated with that commune)

apparently, bakunin (he's more of an anarcho-syndaclist i think, but he still made many good points - i'm going to study up on kropotkin later (he's THE anarchocommunist =D)) wrote a whole explanation for how free association and communalism would work hand in hand, what rules would exist, how punishments would be handled, etc...

the basics of the basics is that, assuming a revolution is successful, the world is now composed of independent communes (just...towns basically) that are ruled through direct democracy...people can come and go as they please...they may work wherever and however they please, and so long as their work is socially necessary, then they may take the benefits of the commune they live in...


correct me if i'm wrong, and i'll add more later

In short

Anarchism is a de-centralized society of workers communes that are connected via federations. All action is purely participatory and self managed there are no centralized institutions of rule and 'all' social decisons are made on a democratic level. All property/capital is public ie the means of production, factories and so on. We propose a system where capital is entirely public and can be availed of by any person whenever they wish in order to fulfill their needs and wants. Within the workplace we oppose hierarchy and propose horizontal organization based on freedom of association ie - no concentrated power, no bosses. Essentially we are against minority rule concentration of power and the authoritarian condition they lead to. Unjustified authority being the root of social relations based on domination, subjugation and oppression therefore smothering to the human spirit that is invariably drawn towards freedom.

Anarchy does 'not' propose personal property/possessions be done away with - personal property being defined as that which lacks 'exploitative value' such as houses, cars, tvs ect. Anarchists generally maintain that the worker is entitled to whatever he produces by his own labor. On money and wages - Different factions of Anarchy propose different solutions, Mutualists and syndicalists for instance think money and wages should be maintained, while anarco communists and primitivists propose money and wages be abolished.

Inkus2000 wrote:

propose money and wages be abolished.

How do you "abolish" money? How would you get needed items? You said you are entitled to what you create, but how do you create it without money nor the items to use to create the final solution IF im making any sense at all.

Rename wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

propose money and wages be abolished.

How do you "abolish" money? How would you get needed items? You said you are entitled to what you create, but how do you create it without money nor the items to use to create the final solution IF im making any sense at all.

Wouldn't it be abolish from a revolution. How do you get needed items? Well thats simple, from the worker who made them, the shoes you wear are done by someone who labored, the sidewalks are done by labor of someone and the very computer is done by the person who labored from it and thats how we get the needed items from.

Rename wrote:

You said you are entitled to what you create, but how do you create it without money nor the items to use to create the final solution IF im making any sense at all.

Yes, you are entitled to what you create, you own the fruits of your labor and means of production. The other question I really didn't understand.

Well, I hope I made sense, if not oh well at least I tried.

[quote="InsurgenteCujo"]

Rename wrote:

Wouldn't it be abolish from a revolution. How do you get needed items? Well thats simple, from the worker who made them, the shoes you wear are done by someone who labored, the sidewalks are done by labor of someone and the very computer is done by the person who labored from it and thats how we get the needed items from.

Two more questions:
a. If someone created shoes..and the world needed shoes..they would be mobbed by everyone to make them more shoes, for no money nor accomplishment considering you will give what you created to them. But i thought we keep what we create? Are you speaking of trading, like trading your tv for a pair of shoes (For example)? that would turn out to be a somewhat like state deal itself.

b. How do you get it? Mail? who regulates the mail? Just normal people? Who can say that the mailer would not be corrupt and take your item, if he needed it and for some reason could not get/make one himself/herself

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

Yes, you are entitled to what you create, you own the fruits of your labor and means of production. The other question I really didn't understand.

What about janitors? What do they create?
And what if were in a shoe workshop..and only make shoes, cant keep million of shoes so just give what you create to strangers because they need them? Im so confused right now

This is my example which has worked for this topic before...

Money is abolished.
Oh no, how can I buy my things without money??
You don't, they're free.
How can someone 'afford' to give away things for free??
By getting things for free in return.

Over simplistic? Not necessarily... I'll go into this more.
A man works on a production line for making cars. He is allowed to take as many cars that he made as he needs and after that, he can simply give away the rest for free. How can he do all that for free? He doesn't need money to buy a car because he got one or two cars for free in the first place -- he made them. This goes for EVERYONE, so the baker will receive his clothes, car, food, etc for free while he keeps enough bread for himself and his family while giving away everything else for free.

What will stop people from making money? Money would be useless in a money-less society!
No money = no greed for money.

The absence of money will also greatly reduce crime because necessities will be given to everyone who needs them and it will encourage those who do not work to work. Some say people would stay on their asses and collect free things all their life but people would see what these people are doing and stop giving until he gave as well.

In an Anarcho Communist society, people could survive without contributing to the society as long as they could supply for themselves. I suppose you could call these people Individualists, though the collective way is a way of giving and sharing -- much better, in my opinion. =]

KenCat wrote:

This is my example which has worked for this topic before...

Money is abolished.
Oh no, how can I buy my things without money??
You don't, they're free.
How can someone 'afford' to give away things for free??
By getting things for free in return.

Over simplistic? Not necessarily... I'll go into this more.
A man works on a production line for making cars. He is allowed to take as many cars that he made as he needs and after that, he can simply give away the rest for free. How can he do all that for free? He doesn't need money to buy a car because he got one or two cars for free in the first place -- he made them. This goes for EVERYONE, so the baker will receive his clothes, car, food, etc for free while he keeps enough bread for himself and his family while giving away everything else for free.

What will stop people from making money? Money would be useless in a money-less society!
No money = no greed for money.

The absence of money will also greatly reduce crime because necessities will be given to everyone who needs them and it will encourage those who do not work to work. Some say people would stay on their asses and collect free things all their life but people would see what these people are doing and stop giving until he gave as well.

In an Anarcho Communist society, people could survive without contributing to the society as long as they could supply for themselves. I suppose you could call these people Individualists, though the collective way is a way of giving and sharing -- much better, in my opinion. =]

Thank you, cleared some thigns up, but still having one question/problem.
IF someone got everything he wanted..he has no need to continue making for strangers, so the car industry ends. Than no one can get cars, than shoe ends, than even the chance of people not wanting to make food, so no more food?!. So what about the people that do not get what they are entitled? I sure wouldn't want to make random things for strangers when i already have everything i wanted.

And what about people like janitors, they don't make anything, so how do they get anything?

(Edit: Oh and i have the freedom to not continue to work in anarchy, as individual freedom entitles)

Rename wrote:

KenCat wrote:

This is my example which has worked for this topic before...

Money is abolished.
Oh no, how can I buy my things without money??
You don't, they're free.
How can someone 'afford' to give away things for free??
By getting things for free in return.

Over simplistic? Not necessarily... I'll go into this more.
A man works on a production line for making cars. He is allowed to take as many cars that he made as he needs and after that, he can simply give away the rest for free. How can he do all that for free? He doesn't need money to buy a car because he got one or two cars for free in the first place -- he made them. This goes for EVERYONE, so the baker will receive his clothes, car, food, etc for free while he keeps enough bread for himself and his family while giving away everything else for free.

What will stop people from making money? Money would be useless in a money-less society!
No money = no greed for money.

The absence of money will also greatly reduce crime because necessities will be given to everyone who needs them and it will encourage those who do not work to work. Some say people would stay on their asses and collect free things all their life but people would see what these people are doing and stop giving until he gave as well.

In an Anarcho Communist society, people could survive without contributing to the society as long as they could supply for themselves. I suppose you could call these people Individualists, though the collective way is a way of giving and sharing -- much better, in my opinion. =]

Thank you, cleared some thigns up, but still having one question/problem.
IF someone got everything he wanted..he has no need to continue making for strangers, so the car industry ends. Than no one can get cars, than shoe ends, than even the chance of people not wanting to make food, so no more food?!. So what about the people that do not get what they are entitled? I sure wouldn't want to make random things for strangers when i already have everything i wanted.

And what about people like janitors, they don't make anything, so how do they get anything?

(Edit: Oh and i have the freedom to not continue to work in anarchy, as individual freedom entitles)

People don't get everythig they need for life, so they'll continue working. If they stop working, others will assume they can supply for themselves and they will discontinue the process of giving the person necessities.

So in other words, if you stop working (and don't have a reason beyond laziness), goods won't be sent to you anymore. It's different than other forms of Communism where people could be lazy and still get money. If they're lazi and selfish here, the goods stop going in for that person.

So anyone who had common sense would work to help others.. haha

And you may think 'all this work' is too much, but it's a lot less stressing when you're doing it out of goodness for others.

About the janitors... They do a job and because of that, they will get their necessities and goods as well. As long as he helps out with what he's doing, he'll get these things. Same goes for secretaries, teachers, etc -- they don't directly create goods but they help out society.



That clear things up?

So, i was talking with one of my friends about anarchocommunism, and they had an excellent question:

"how do you ensure the division of labor?"

as in...how do you ensure that enough food, water, clothes, houses, etc, are being created?

i tried to argue that it would all work itself out because everyone is different and enjoys doing different things....but it just didn't seem to click, even with me

so....anyone mind helping me out? ^_^;;

solpacvoicis wrote:

So, i was talking with one of my friends about anarchocommunism, and they had an excellent question:

"how do you ensure the division of labor?"

as in...how do you ensure that enough food, water, clothes, houses, etc, are being created?

i tried to argue that it would all work itself out because everyone is different and enjoys doing different things....but it just didn't seem to click, even with me

so....anyone mind helping me out? ^_^;;

I really don't understand the question... How do we make sure enough people get goods in todays society?
Personally, if I needed something I'd ask for it and I'm sure I could get it in an Anarcho Communist society.

For example, if you needed a car, I'd go to the people who gave out cars and I'd show them records to show that I need a car (not having a car) and that I was currently a worker.

Thanks

KenCat wrote:

I really don't understand the question... How do we make sure enough people get goods in todays society?
Personally, if I needed something I'd ask for it and I'm sure I could get it in an Anarcho Communist society.

For example, if you needed a car, I'd go to the people who gave out cars and I'd show them records to show that I need a car (not having a car) and that I was currently a worker.

no, making sure there are ENOUGH goods

like....what if no one wanted to make cars anymore.....just as an example....

how do you ensure people get the right division of labor?

like...in capitalist society, division of labor is determined by supply and demand (supposedly...)

and in socialist society, its determined by the government...

so...how is it ensured in a gift economy? or...actually...is it?

Rename wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

propose money and wages be abolished.

How do you "abolish" money? How would you get needed items? You said you are entitled to what you create, but how do you create it without money nor the items to use to create the final solution IF im making any sense at all.

[quote="Rename"][

Ok First - Im a syndicalist so I don't propose an end to money, personally I think it serves it's function quite well and people would be foolish to do away with it 'in haste'. Time would be required to consider alternative means of transaction.

That said it is entirely possible to find prices without money, trade/barter could be used as a viable alternative in the case of small goods, or coupons representing work hours as used in the Spanish revolution - although I consider this another form of money. Under Anarcho communism decision-making would determine the best use of resources based on things such as need, efficiency, cost ect therefore setting value.

You should also ask yourself if under capitalism prices actually reflect 'real costs'. Also consider the fact that supply and demand leaves no room for resource allocation based on needs making it hugely inefficient. Although Capitalists generally don't consider malnourished children a matter concerning the efficiency of the system - rather the generation of large profits reflects 'efficiency'.

solpacvoicis wrote:

KenCat wrote:

I really don't understand the question... How do we make sure enough people get goods in todays society?
Personally, if I needed something I'd ask for it and I'm sure I could get it in an Anarcho Communist society.

For example, if you needed a car, I'd go to the people who gave out cars and I'd show them records to show that I need a car (not having a car) and that I was currently a worker.

no, making sure there are ENOUGH goods

like....what if no one wanted to make cars anymore.....just as an example....

how do you ensure people get the right division of labor?

like...in capitalist society, division of labor is determined by supply and demand (supposedly...)

and in socialist society, its determined by the government...

so...how is it ensured in a gift economy? or...actually...is it?

If someone decided to stop making cars for others, they're income of goods would be ceased by the people giving the goods to him or her.

[quote="Inkus2000"]

Rename wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

propose money and wages be abolished.

How do you "abolish" money? How would you get needed items? You said you are entitled to what you create, but how do you create it without money nor the items to use to create the final solution IF im making any sense at all.

Rename wrote:

[

Ok First - Im a syndicalist so I don't propose an end to money, personally I think it serves it's function quite well and people would be foolish to do away with it 'in haste'. Time would be required to consider alternative means of transaction.

That said it is entirely possible to find prices without money, trade/barter could be used as a viable alternative in the case of small goods, or coupons representing work hours as used in the Spanish revolution - although I consider this another form of money. Under Anarcho communism decision-making would determine the best use of resources based on things such as need, efficiency, cost ect therefore setting value.

You should also ask yourself if under capitalism prices actually reflect 'real costs'. Also consider the fact that supply and demand leaves no room for resource allocation based on needs making it hugely inefficient. Although Capitalists generally don't consider malnourished children a matter concerning the efficiency of the system - rather the generation of large profits reflects 'efficiency'.

I used to be a syndicalist, but with money there would be greed for money, even if everyone was guaranteed jobs.

I was stating that if they already had all the goods they need, they could stop working and helping others until they needed more (lets say food in a few weeks) this could cause massive economic problems for people that needed their items at the time, but couldn't get it.

KenCat wrote:

If someone decided to stop making cars for others, they're income of goods would be ceased by the people giving the goods to him or her.

no - you still don't get the question...

say no one built a computer ever again.

not that people were like "oh we won't work", they still worked, its just no one built computers ever again - yet most people still want to keep getting new computers....

how would you address such a problem?

solpacvoicis wrote:

KenCat wrote:

If someone decided to stop making cars for others, they're income of goods would be ceased by the people giving the goods to him or her.

no - you still don't get the question...

say no one built a computer ever again.

not that people were like "oh we won't work", they still worked, its just no one built computers ever again - yet most people still want to keep getting new computers....

how would you address such a problem?

I always confuse people, it is my destiny.

Rename wrote:

I was stating that if they already had all the goods they need, they could stop working and helping others until they needed more (lets say food in a few weeks) this could cause massive economic problems for people that needed their items at the time, but couldn't get it.

So what is the mechanism which makes producers accountable to consumers in a libertarian communist society? Firstly, communes would practice their power of "exit" in the distributive network. If a syndicate was producing sub-standard goods or refusing to change their output in the face of changing consumer needs, then the communal stores would turn to those syndicates which were producing the goods desired. The original syndicates would then be producing for their own stocks, a pointless task and one few, if any, would do. After all, people generally desire their work to have meaning, to be useful. To just work, producing something no-one wanted would be such a demoralising task that few, if any, sane people would do it (under capitalism people put up with spirit destroying work as some income is better than none, such an "incentive" would not exist in a free society).

Continued

I.4.7 What will stop producers ignoring consumers? @

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci47