Why Anarcho-Communism Is An Oxymoron
Why Anarcho-Communism Is An Oxymoron
I have been clearing up my thoughts about this issue for a few weeks now. Anarcho-Communism (or libertarian-socialism) has been on my mind for a while. The ideology can be broken down into the two words that make its name, Anarchy, and Communism.
Anarchy (according to the dictionary):
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
Anarchy (according to Proudhon):
A none-hierarchical form of organizing society
Much confusion has occurred based simply around the fact that different people decide to believe in the different definitions. The dictionary meaning states that the absence of government is related to the "absolute freedom of the individual", meaning that, in a libertarian sense, the lack of government aggression towards its citizens is freedom. The dictionary meaning leads me/us to believe that the absence of forced taxation and other government interferences, leaves the people with complete ownership of their property, and the liberty to do so with that property as they please, as well as voluntaryism. Naturally, a system that upholds to these ideas is a capitalistic one. Anarcho-Capitalism has been defined.
Proudhon's definition also hints towards the absence of government, and the liberties of the people, however, it is much broader, and can be easily twisted to suit the user of this definition. Many left-anarchists prefer to use this definition, as it fits in nicely with the absolute equality of communism, but only works with the idea that capitalism means hierarchy and the oppression of the proletariat, that it means less liberties and more slavery. Now, the best way to pull apart Anarcho-Communism is to use its other name, Libertarian-Socialism.
Libertarianism (according to the dictionary):
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
Socialism (according to the dictionary):
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Libertarianism advocates minimal government and minimal state intervention into the lives of citizens, basically meaning that citizens should have maximum liberties and rights, which to me, includes the right to private property and the right to free trade. Socialism on the other hand, states that the means of production should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole, which immediately eradicates the individual right to property and the right to free trade.
Already we have an incompatible set of ideas. How can one be a libertarian, or an anarchist, if they believe that no-one has the right to do as they so please? That no-one has the right to the fruits of their labor (property)? If you believe in anarcho-communism, you are as bad as the government that your goal was to dissolve. In order to instill these involuntary ideals on a population, their must be some kind of force, their must be some kind of aggression, some kind of hierarchical organization that sits on-top of the population, governing. If their was no aggression from a governing body, this ideology would not work, it would immediately dissipate into free-market capitalism, simply because socialism/communism is involuntary.
So, if you believe that you can be an anti-state communist, you are heavily fooled. Simply by believing that the best thing for the population is your anti-property and anti-freedom ideas, you are just as authoritarian as the government you hate, perhaps worse. You cannot be an anarchist if the first thing you wish to achieve is the total control of the population. Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron!
My Blog: Sailormann
Other Posts:
The Effects Of Keynesian Economics
Proudhon Letter To Marx: Proudhon To Karl Marx
I don't agree with communist ideology and wouldn't want to live in such a "community" although in many ways myself and most Americans already do.
That said, I think conflating hierarchy with government is a mistake here. The first test for any ideology is voluntary interaction. The definition given of libertarian says "minimal state intervention." So mininal violence and coercion.
I would argue that libertarian socialism is a statist ideology because libertarians still believe in government and the right to rule.
Whereas (logically consistent) an-com ideology would advocate individual freedom while aboloshing State hierarchical institutions and supporting, or at the very least ignoring any voluntary hierarchy.
Just my thoughts on the subject. I still don't really see how large scale would play out. I dont really think it would have to work large scale because there would be hundreds of thousands of communities and populations broke into their own respective areas living by thier own respective rules. They can think that my owning property is theft and start community where an-coms control the means of production and then trade with ancapistan for bitcoin.
Communism, socialism, any similiar ideology cannot advocate individual freedom, they just cant. The basic principal of these ideologies is that the people give up their rights and freedoms as indivudals, in order to gain democratic control of production as a collective.
I disagree. The government is a form of hierarchy. It forces itself to the top of society, and then uses aggression in order to tell people how to live. However, hierarchy can also be voluntary so I see your point. Relating to communism though, voluntarism is irrelevant.
Communist ideology cannot advocate individual freedom. I think an-com could. I'm not saying most of them do. The idea that a person of communist persuasion would do enough research and maybe think critically enough to add anarcho as a prefix shows at least some common ground.
Really for a communist to sieze the means of production, he/she must admit self ownership to be able to sieze anything in the first place. Thats where the anarcho comes in. There are a bunch of people who think rent is theft. So instead of begging the government for some law to be passed, they started living in vans and rv's and, by extension, participate in black and grey markets everywhere.
Im not agreeing with the ideology. Im just saying an-coms aren't the enemy.
I aggree with what your saying, but you have to understand the actual limits of individual freedom when it comes to any sort of communism. An anarcho-communist can advocate for more rights and freedoms, but eventually these rights and freedoms will conflict with communism.
Thats pretty much where im at too. I agree I just think if people want the changes they say they want, namely getting rid of the State or creating parallel voluntary systems, there needs to be more effort to work together and find common ground with people that may have different ideology but the same end goal.
Plus I just enjoy discussing these ideas. Thank you!
You summed it up nicely!
there are three kinds of people in the world
makers, takers, and fakers,
There are three kinds of
People in the world makers,
Takers, and fakers,
- everittdmickey
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
More definitions on the subject.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq
You cant know what you dont know, nor that you dont know it.
Just a Side note in the Kroptkin book:
"All is interdependent in a civilized society; it is impossible to reform any one thing without altering the whole. Therefore, on the day we strike at private property, under any one of its forms, territorial or industrial, we shall be obliged to attack them all. The very success of the Revolution will demand it."
That looks a little bit like rule by force.
Also in that last link:
"One last point: to state the obvious, this is not the final word on anarchism. Many anarchists will disagree with much that is written here, but this is to be expected when people think for themselves. All we wish to do is indicate the basic ideas of anarchism and give our analysis of certain topics based on how we understand and apply these ideas. We are sure, however, that all anarchists will agree with the core ideas we present, even if they may disagree with our application of them here and there. "
So using that as a source of definition is somewhat self defeating. (Plus the quotes by Tucker, who was typically seen as anti-communist, which is a really strange inclusion for defining anarcho communism)
Im pretty sure tucker is the english translator of that book, i may be confused.
Crapitalism is maintained by force, this makes any force used to counter it self defense.
I agree that these old authors were living in a different time.
There was more violence, and less leisure.
They didnt have the corporate structure of costco to exploit.
On any given tuesday the workers can just keep working supplying the costco shelves but stop paying for those supplies, and not much changes in the day to day life of consumerism.
Workers still work, but less.
The parasites get productive, or denounced as bums.
The shelves continue to be stocked.
Outlines are to give a general idea, specifics of who and how will have to be worked out locally.
If the workers work less there is less supply. Less supply means more demand, which cant be met. Prices go up and up and up and eventually you got an economic disaster based around the price rise of basic human needs. Look at venzuala, although its completely from your idea of anarcho-communism (they, are state socialist), they have this exact problem. The population became lazy and this had a similiar effect as to when you only produce what you need. What you need isnt much, but it sure helps with quality of life when you get what you want.
I also realize that you may disregard supply demand in your communist theory because commies saught to evaporate the economic cycle.
Well, maybe if we dont automate, but with my proposal there wont be any starving workers if they get replaced by automation.
So, we can bring on the robots.
Venezuela is a victim of corruption, even under crapitalism they could be doing ok on just oil exports, but their rulers pocket the procedes.
There is a disconnect somewhere, something doesnt add up in venezuela.
If they were actually starving business as usual couldnt go on, but, if you got money, life there is continuing.
The population is getting some minimum from somewhere or chaos would rule the streets, it would be mad max.
Delivery trucks wouldnt be arriving.
Normal people would be in the streets, too.
Nobody is reporting that, something isnt adding up.
Venezuela is suffering from the social construct of its leadership. The leaders separated people from their original means of production and tried to plug everyone in a social distribution of an oil economy.
It never works out when your economy is so dependent on one means of production, but it was a easy way to get the entire nation dependent on the government.
Many people have left the country, others work in black markets. Some try to survive off the government systems. The government system is based on queues:
https://steemit.com/busy/@cjao20/3-when-i-was-poor-in-capitalism
Did you see my comment on that post?
I absolutely agree that its a leadership problem.
Yes, i was agreeing with you in that part, but also mentioning the economy was based mostly in oil instead of decentralized into different areas of production.
If the population could have kept their own individual means of production, the cascade failure of the government system wouldn't created such a problem.
Invention and innovation doesnt occur in an economy based on surviving.
See, crapitalism makes you think that money is the only motivator, but if that was the case i wouldnt vote your comment, i'd front run a bot.
Dont blindly accept what authorities feed you, they have their best interests in mind, not yours.
Money is not the only motivator, but it is a big one. My point was that when there is no competition between innovative entities, there is less incentive to make the most efficient and most productive product. A company that makes crappy solar panels that work, isnt going to even be able to compete with one that makes solar panels that work and are efficient and better quality. The competitive nature of capitalism drives innovation, that's a fact that you cant argue with.
I have never understood the lefts view of capitalism as some kind of enslaving ideology, pushed alongside the agendas of politicians. Capitalism isnt like that, it wasn't invented by some enlightened 18th century philosopher. Capitalism has been around since the dawn of time and is naturally occurring in nature, humans included.