Whats the difference betwen an anarkiddie "commune" and a state?

Communes are far more localized, giving more direct power to the individual members of the commune and participation in the commune is voluntary.

youtube.com/watch?v=S30cBkGu1tc

Not really since those who are going to anarchist forced labor camps don`t get to vote.

That's actually the only way to build an "anarchist" society. I mean, humans were in charge so they did it in a horrible, brutal, unethical way, but the principle still stands. There needs to be some powerful entity which keeps the playing field level and prevents anyone else from rising up and seizing power. I hope that in the future that job will be done by AI.

anarchists don't even read their own fucking theory. it's about no unjustified hierarchies. you can still have hierarchies if they make fucking sense to have them

kek but he have a pointalso he liked one of the dore's videoI wonder if he isn't secretly browsing leftypol

Since when can you call a group of a few hundred people a state?

what's the difference between disneyland and a state?

Funny thing it was the exact opposite during the early to mid 1800s. Proudhorn consides himself to be in favor of abolishing government, but not the state.

The state has a monopoly on violence which is pretty spooky. Remove the state from the bottom up and replace it with something more democratic.
shut up muke

Nothing says civilisation like blood feuds and honour killings I guess

Considering that still happens in places that still have a state I don't see the argument

Theoretically. wouldn't this principle also be applied to the commune? Voting is still technically an act of violence because the majority is imposing it's rules on the minority and it's decision is backed by force. A commune doesn't sound much different than a micro-nation tbh. That's part of the reason I'm a national-syndicalist. We can't really get rid of the state but we can mold it in a way that it serves the interests of the workers.

states exist

Any agenda that tries to restore and amplify the classical meaning of politics and citizenship must clearly indicate what they are not, if only because the confusion that surrounds the two words…. Politics is not statecraft, and citizens are not "constituents" or "taxpayers." Statecraft consists of operations that engage the state: the exercise of its monopoly of violence, its control of the entire regulative apparatus of society in the form of legal and ordinance-making bodies, and its governance of society by means of professional legislators, armies, police forces, and bureaucracies. Statecraft takes on a political patina when so-called "political parties" attempt, in various power plays, to occupy the offices that make state policy and execute it. This kind of "politics" has almost a tedious typicality. A "political party" is normally a structured hierarchy, fleshed out by a membership that functions in a top-down manner. It is a miniature state, and in some countries, such as the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, a party constituted the state itself…

… Politics, by contrast, is an organic phenomenon. It is organic in the very real sense that it is the activity of a public body – a community, if you will – just as the process of flowering is an organic activity of a plant. Politics, conceived as an activity, involves rational discourse, public empowerment, and the exercise of practical reason, and its realization in a shared, indeed participatory, activity. It is the sphere of societal life beyond the family and the personal needs of the individual that still retains the intimacy, involvement, and sense of responsibility enjoyed in private arenas of life. Groups may form to advance specific political views and programs, but these views and programs are no better than their capacity to answer to the needs of an active public body….

… The immediate goal of a libertarian municipalist agenda is not to exercise sudden and massive control by representatives and their bureaucratic agents over the existing economy; its immediate goal is to reopen a public sphere in flat opposition to statism, one that allows for maximum democracy in the literal sense of the term, and to create in embryonic form the institutions that can give power to a people generally … In short, it is through the municipality that people can reconstitute themselves from isolated monads into an innovative body politic and create an existentially vital, indeed protoplasmic civil life that has continuity and institutional form as well as civic content. I refer here to the block organizations, neighborhood assemblies, town meetings, civic confederations, and public arenas for discourse that go beyond such episodic, single issue demonstrations and campaigns, valuable as they may be to redress social injustices. But protest alone is not enough; indeed, it is usually defined by what protestors oppose, not by the social changes they may wish to institute. To ignore the irreducible civic unit of politics and democracy is to play chess without a chessboard, for it is on this civic plane that the long-range endeavor of social renewal must eventually be played out… - Murray Bookchin

This. People don't understand that authority is okay as long as it is temporary, oriented "from the bottom up," and is justified to benefit the victim of the authority….fuckin people never read books and they're baseless explanations distort actual anarchist theory.

Communes are a voluntary collections of people without force or coercion.

You're forgetting "no force and coercion" also.

No, because democracy in a commune is not like democracy in a state. No one is forced to obey the majority's decision in a commune; you're not going to be kidnapped, caged, or stolen from if you don't want play along. Worst case scenario and everyone just refuses to associate or help you because you're being a selfish asshole.

Either you don't understand the definition of authority or you're a very poor anarchist. Authority is the right for someone with authority to tell someone who they have authority over what to do, and to force them to do it if they don't comply. Usually the authority comes from spooky concepts like God, the state, property rights, etc. A key aspect of Anarchism is that authority doesn't exist under any circumstances, no one ever has a right to force anyone to do anything.

there was a war going on there was a need to conifne people of were pows spys, or criminals.
also these work camps where optional,
you could spend time in prison, or you could get sent to a work camp, and get time off your sentence

Daily reminder that the last time anarkiddies succeeded in overthrowing the bourgeoisie they wasted all their time arguing, killing priests, and putting more people into prison (yes, even in """anarchy""" there were prisons) instead of building a better society.

That's not necessarily true though.

and you don't think people will use violence on the ones that don't follow the collectives will? sound like ancaps and their autistic NAP

That's not necessarily true though.

whats the point then? if its not ending coerceion

The point is that you're not going to be held to rules that you weren't given a choice in deciding on.

Having no force or coercion is desirable but it's not hard to show that this isn't sustainable in all circumstances.

Not the user you're replying to, but I'd say that coercion is only anarchistic when combating other coercive institutions or actions. It's coercive for a slave to violently overthrow their master, it's coercive for prisoners to engage in a prison break, and its coercive to seize the means of production, to undermine state authority using violent means, and to defend yourself or your community against murderers and rapists. All these acts of resistance require violently enforcing your will on another person, but ought not be viewed as authoritarian as Marxists claim when they assert that all revolution is authoritarian, as it is rather the subversion of authority, using the most effective method one has to defend themselves against violent actions and hierarchies, physical self-defense.

If the commune decides to act like a state then they've become a state and are no long anarchists. That's not a problem with the ideology, it's a problem with people not following it.

How is it not? What's the point of statelessness if someone can still hold a gun to your head and tell you to do something?

So, you're saying coercion should only be used if the person agreed beforehand to the rules they're presently being coerced into following? That might be necessary in certain times, like in forcing a soldier to follow orders or not desert during war, but that doesn't change the immorality of coercion or the eventual goal of ending it.

Saying those acts are coercive just broadens the meaning of "coercion" into meaningless. I don't think it's coercion to defend or free yourself since it's ultimately preventing someone else from coercing or using force against you.

Daily reminder that the labour camps were already a part of the Republican government and that García Oliver actually did reform them by abolishing torture.

If you're against the labour camps then your problem is with the Popular Front strategy and the CNT's collaboration with the government, not anarchism.

People who post this webm actually do support labour camps outside of the context of just collaborating with a government that has them.

kek

The Second Spanish Republic wasn't anarchist, so blaming things that its government does on anarchism for the sake of bitter, resentful polemics and a shallow view of history doesn't help anyone.

Because the form of coercion that the state takes is always one-directional. The state sets the terms of coercion and it also enforces it. Statelessness allows you to choose the terms of your own coercion and to what level it is enforced. If no coercive laws or enforcement are required, then that is what you may set the terms to. It is also perfectly agreeable to set up a constitutional limitation on what is allowed to be voted on.
Yes. Obviously less coercive enforcement is desirable but it's not always feasible. It's a nasty tool but sometimes there is little other choice.

Friendly reminder the atrocities of the soviet uniom were many more times worse than anything that happend under "anarcho"-communist catalonia

Tankies a shit, im glad they will always fail

...

soviet union existed for 70 years and "anarchist" catalonia only existed for 3 years
top kek

Catalonia was contaminated with marxists

Kek faggot, read a book

it was you who brought it upp. my point is that it's disingenuous to compare the soviets with catalonia when the soviets existed much much longer
nice non argument.
why not just give an example of succesfull anarchism instead

No? I si ply pointed out the fact that is is hypocritical from tankies to complain about it

Nice, thanks for letting me know you are ignant

Feel free to read a book before you end up looking as a retard

...

I fucking posted a .pdf you fucking faggot

Further proof nazbol are fucking trash

im not interested in reading a 200+ pages pdf file about the history of piracy.
i just wanted an example of anarchism being succesfull, something you fail to give.

Reported for shitposting

This should clear things up.
youtube.com/watch?v=SLMJpHihykI

wew

Uphold Bob Blackism tought!

...

...

Good, screencapped for posterity