3 ms·

Communism is an anarchist ideology, and though some forms of anarchism stand opposed to it (such as Stirner's egoist anarchism) they are all in some sense again

Communism is an anarchist ideology, and though some forms of anarchism stand opposed to it (such as Stirner's egoist anarchism) they are all in some sense against property; Communism isn't only the common ownership of MoP, rather, the Communists contend that this follows naturally from the abolition of private property, not such that everything becomes everyone's property, but that it becomes the property of nobody. Marx once said (I paraphrase) that the theory of Communism can be summed up in one sentence: the abolition of private property. Engels also said that just as the slave frees himself by abolishing the human aspect of private property, so does the proletarian by abolishing private property in general.

waterhouse 9y ago
There is an ideology called anarcho-capitalism and it is definitely not against property. If there is any debate over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism—it holds that there should be no State, and I think that means it qualifies.
- etplayer 9y ago
  You are of course correct. I usually forget to include anarcho-capitalism for the simple reason that it does not exist in my consciousness as an anarchist idea as you note. Sometimes to avoid the ambiguity, I use "social anarchism" to refer to those espoused by the original anarchists and most organised anarchists today. The reason why anarcho-capitalism is not regarded as anarchistic is because of its nature as being what the Socialists regard as hierarchical and its institutions as non-voluntary by espousing a hierarchy seen in the class distinction, that is, one class owns the property, the other does not. This, to them, is a power relationship, and one which cannot be justified. The social anarchists are against unjutsified authority, not authority in general. Parapharasing Bakunin, in the matter of shoes I defer to the authority of the bootmaker, not because he is more powerful, but because it's my choice. To me it is clear that the mere abolition of the state is insufficient for human liberation, we must also stop the material conditions which manifest the state from coming into existence, that is, ownership of property, from which the state can derive its power most easily through the collection of tax or rent.
  - bytefederal-ceo 9y ago
    Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive, that life feeds on life and instead build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      >Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. This sounds awfully theological to me. >You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. I honestly have no idea where you get this idea from, and I've had to explain it so many times; it's a popular misconception about Communism but I simply have trouble understanding where it originates. If you don't mind me asking, where did you get this idea from? As far as I know, no Communist espouses it. For a counter to your point, take a look at Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution[0] however your very premise is flawed; Communism does not mean the absolute equality of everyone, as even a child can see that people are different and have different strengths. Communism is merely a more equal system in which people receive the product of their labour in fully. > To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive This is a tired point, the fact that it is still trotted out reeks of naturalistic fallacy, and the idea that humans are no better than the universe, ignoring the fact that the forms of oppressive have changed but the relationships remain roughly the same. You seem to suggest that capitalism, or at least some class society, is necessary. I see no reason to believe this is true. You assume that these systems are natural, deriving right from the universe itself; again, you expound theology. >that life feeds on life This is a funny point because even though this is unavoidable, humans have created ways to minimise the extent to which this occurs, by consuming less life i.e vegetarianism. Do you see how this thinking can also apply to, say, capitalism? We may not eliminate certain pressures but we can certainly reduce them. >build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence Not really. I'd say that capitalism does this instead, and the reason is that within capitalism we could only hope to do that if it brings profit to the speculators. This idea that capitalism is a promoter of human progress is obviously false given the great amount of pollution, false science etc. which happens in the name of capital itself. If we can't even care for this planet, what makes you think that capitalism nurtures prolonged interplanetary existence? The very idea seems ridiculous to me. In short, you've confused nature with a rather recent mode of production (which optimises for things that aren't natural at all) and used a theological argument to say that it must be this way or we'll be doomed to massive turmoil and never leaving planet Earth. [0] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua...

waterhouse 9y ago

There is an ideology called anarcho-capitalism and it is definitely not against property. If there is any debate over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism—it holds that there should be no State, and I think that means it qualifies.

etplayer 9y ago
You are of course correct. I usually forget to include anarcho-capitalism for the simple reason that it does not exist in my consciousness as an anarchist idea as you note. Sometimes to avoid the ambiguity, I use "social anarchism" to refer to those espoused by the original anarchists and most organised anarchists today. The reason why anarcho-capitalism is not regarded as anarchistic is because of its nature as being what the Socialists regard as hierarchical and its institutions as non-voluntary by espousing a hierarchy seen in the class distinction, that is, one class owns the property, the other does not. This, to them, is a power relationship, and one which cannot be justified. The social anarchists are against unjutsified authority, not authority in general. Parapharasing Bakunin, in the matter of shoes I defer to the authority of the bootmaker, not because he is more powerful, but because it's my choice. To me it is clear that the mere abolition of the state is insufficient for human liberation, we must also stop the material conditions which manifest the state from coming into existence, that is, ownership of property, from which the state can derive its power most easily through the collection of tax or rent.
- bytefederal-ceo 9y ago
  Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive, that life feeds on life and instead build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    >Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. This sounds awfully theological to me. >You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. I honestly have no idea where you get this idea from, and I've had to explain it so many times; it's a popular misconception about Communism but I simply have trouble understanding where it originates. If you don't mind me asking, where did you get this idea from? As far as I know, no Communist espouses it. For a counter to your point, take a look at Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution[0] however your very premise is flawed; Communism does not mean the absolute equality of everyone, as even a child can see that people are different and have different strengths. Communism is merely a more equal system in which people receive the product of their labour in fully. > To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive This is a tired point, the fact that it is still trotted out reeks of naturalistic fallacy, and the idea that humans are no better than the universe, ignoring the fact that the forms of oppressive have changed but the relationships remain roughly the same. You seem to suggest that capitalism, or at least some class society, is necessary. I see no reason to believe this is true. You assume that these systems are natural, deriving right from the universe itself; again, you expound theology. >that life feeds on life This is a funny point because even though this is unavoidable, humans have created ways to minimise the extent to which this occurs, by consuming less life i.e vegetarianism. Do you see how this thinking can also apply to, say, capitalism? We may not eliminate certain pressures but we can certainly reduce them. >build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence Not really. I'd say that capitalism does this instead, and the reason is that within capitalism we could only hope to do that if it brings profit to the speculators. This idea that capitalism is a promoter of human progress is obviously false given the great amount of pollution, false science etc. which happens in the name of capital itself. If we can't even care for this planet, what makes you think that capitalism nurtures prolonged interplanetary existence? The very idea seems ridiculous to me. In short, you've confused nature with a rather recent mode of production (which optimises for things that aren't natural at all) and used a theological argument to say that it must be this way or we'll be doomed to massive turmoil and never leaving planet Earth. [0] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua...