What happens when the Muslim majority commune takes a vote and decides it wants to handle its affairs with Shariah law...

What happens when the Muslim majority commune takes a vote and decides it wants to handle its affairs with Shariah law? What happens when the commune in Mississippi decides it wants to keep negros out and ban miscegenation? What happens when the Hasidic Jew majority commune decides doing nothing but studying the Torah constitutes socially necessary labor time and demands to draw from the common pool?

Why are your bullshit theories of empowering the average pleb so poorly thought out unworkable and contradictory?

All religion will be forcibly suppressed you moron.

I mean, if people want to form little insular communities I don't care
I'm against it under capitalism, because people don't have free movement or gauranteed access to the needs of life under capitalism
Although, I think their would still be a government with laws and a Constitution even after the establishment of all MOP as a Commons

this

It is up to the rest of the communities to associate with them or not. My feeling is mostly not. Probably I would still associate with the Jews though

...

kys

not an argument

Socialism is but one of the three legs on which society should stand, the others being democracy and human rights. You can't use one to violate the others, or else you get your teeth kicked in.

...

You sound like a child. Anyway, what would most likely happen, is that the other communes would vote on whether they wanted to trade with those particular problem communes. Maybe they say yes, maybe they say no. Maybe they decide to take more intense measures. Either way, they're voting on it, and they're the ones who are in control. As in, them and not a bunch of billionaires and opportunistic profiteers.

Anarchism isn't about perfection 100% of the time. It's about controlling the fate of your own community.

So anarchism would result in constant trade wars and/or actual wars?

Sounds familiar lmao

Let's think about what happens if a christian-majority country votes for banning other religions (hinduism, buddhism, etc.), and they get overwhelming majority.

It's easy to make light of them while you still have a few

The immediate thought is that the different communes, since they're all run by their own workers, would come to some agreements, instead of fighting over bullshit profits, like the capitalists. They're the ones who have to deal with the backlash, remember? They're not going to rush into shit when they're the first ones who have to deal with it.

But again, we're talking about childish "what ifs" here. Most communes aren't going to be "Saudi Sharia" or "KKK only". Most communes are going to be focused around making the best life for the people who live in them, which means that most communes are going to be focused around finding ways to get more product for less labor, and selling that product in a way that provides a good life to the people in the community. Since "Saudi Sharia" or "KKK Only" isn't going to get that for people, the stupid ideological stuff will get tossed in the trash very quickly.

How do you know?

Yeah yeah, spooks and shit, but I stand by it. Morality is an inevitability, and human rights are as universal a code as I can think of.

I'm going to pretend that you're arguing in good faith, and explain this to the people on the sidelines, who might be interested. The ones who don't have to play retard on the internet to get any human contact.

The reason why is explained in the last paragraph. It just wouldn't work, socially. The communes need one another to function, and communes, by definition, vote. If one of them is so abhorrent that the others will refuse to trade with it, the people of that abhorrent commune will vote to moderate the viewpoints of the commune as a whole. If they don't, they'll be living in destitution, by their own choice. Again, none of this is about "perfect system 100% of the time". It's about community choice. And again, these little "what ifs" are incredibly childish.

All their women will be dead in like a generation so theyll die out and nobody will worry


They'll die out in less than a generation because of the genetic faults of inbreeding

You're just calling them childish because anarchism collapses in on itself if you spend 30 seconds attempting to poke holes in it.

Federations and social contracts mate

You are just trolling or you are politically illeterate.

Google the concept secular state, separation of church and state, Enlightenment, intolerance towards intolerance. Also google how philosophers came to the idea that state needs to separated from churches (little help: protestant reformation and christian persectuing each other)

There is nothing holding back western countries from becoming theocracies.

...

Anyone who opposes that law will be welcome as a refugee, and if they are prevented from leaving then military action may be taken to extract them. If the libertarian communist utopia requires additional space to support those refugees, it will either use military action to acquire that additional space or, technology permitting, construct artificial habitats.

No really why would one commune refuse to trade with another because muh differing "problematic" values? Seem spooky. What benefit does it bring? Whu would one commune risk war to impose the "correct" values on another? Do western secular nations refuse to trade with KSA because it's an Islamic theocracy?

You're insane.

...

Western secular nations aren't run by their workers, and there's a hell of a lot of people in the US that would prefer to have nothing at all to do with KSA. One of the (many) reasons Hillary lost, is because Trump gave people the impression that he might do something different with them.

Free people love freedom, and hate oppressors. That's not insane. That's America. If people had a choice between trading and partnering with other freedom loving people, and a bunch of assholes, they're not going to pick the assholes.

Lol!

ancoms are trash

I live in a state that made it illegal for transexuals to use the bathrooms of the gender that they present as. Lots of other states, corps, and organizations are now boycotting the state, costing the economy millions of dollars in various lost revenues.

I don't give a shit. As long as private property is abolished and the immediate disaster as a result of climate change and full automation of labor is averted, humans can do whatever retarded nonsense they like.

Anarchists are just trash in general. I suppose their hatred of trashcans is just an expression of their inner self-loathing.

...

How's that working out? Is the ban lifted yet? How long until Springsteen decides it's worth doing a concert in NC after all?

Lots of people are pissed and the state continues to lose money. The ban remains unlifted, probably because the Republicans rigged the voting districts so that they're basically unable to be challenged until several years from now, when the Democrats get their turn to do it and will then do the exact same thing.

But the fact remains that trade is being refused based on "problematic values," so I guess it's really not all that insane that communes would do so for any number of reasons.

Democracymis bourgeois

What happens when trade pressure is not enough? One commune invades another?

For a philosophy rooted in materialism and direct democracy, you sure are reaching levels of contradictions that shouldn't be remotely possible.

Tbh fam

I dunno, what happens when you stop pretending like you've overcome something you disagree with by imagining endless hypothetical fantasy situations?

This all comes back to the problem of how to take a bunch of retards (humans) and make them into a competent and benevolent decision-making unit. It's an extremely hard and as-yet unsolved problem. Anarchism isn't the solution any more than liberal democracy is.

The simple answer is to remove the humans from the equation and build an AI instead.

Local, non-capitalist direct democracy (Anarchism) is not intended to be some ridiculous utopic ideal. It is intended to place power in the hands of local workers, and nothing more. If they use that power for good, great. If they fuck it up, that was their choice. If you weren't such a bootlicking little dumbass, you'd realize the importance of personal choice.

Which hypothetical fantasy situations? Elected officials in NC are more than than happy to take the economic hit by your own admission. And on the other side we all know porky is going to cave eventually.

Lol when did anarchists become about enforcing correct morality via trade wars?
Every thing you do to hurt the KKK Komune economically hurts you as well on the other side.

This is hilarious.

No really why would one commune refuse to trade with another because muh differing "problematic" values? Seem spooky. What benefit does it bring? Whu would one commune risk war to impose the "correct" values on another? Do western secular nations refuse to trade with KSA because it's an Islamic theocracy?

You're insane.

Yes so I guess this the part where one commune invades another. Right?

Do you understand what it being a spook means? Why do you need morality? Where do you base your morality? Why should I believe in morals?

...

It's been invaded by Holla Forumsfags. We need to liberate it.

Read North

History is absolutely overflowing with examples of people voting against their freedom. You just have to create a fictional outside threat to justify stripping them of their liberties. Just look at how much support their has been for anti-terror laws.

Read Bookchin, Read Apo

...

That ancom posting in this thread is fucking retarded. Fucking trade wars, that shit doesn't have the slightest thing to do with anarchism, not to say fucking anarcho-communism.
Also everybody saying shit like "duh just move lol" should fucking kill themselves. It's no different from lolbertarians telling poor people to move to the good jobs. You're not leftists, and if you aren't going to find that handgun you have somewhere, you need to take a serious look in the mirror and consider if politics is just another identity you carry.
Also this pic >>1306489 is hilarious, because it shows some obvious misunderstandings about anarchism. Anarchists aren't against governance, that's ancaps. Anarchists are against hierarchical governance. What the fuck is a commune / syndicate / confederacy of communes if not a system of governance?? It's a non-oppressive system of governance. The point is erasing the line between those who govern and those who are governed.
Your examples are also pretty fucking shit tbh, Sharia law the way most muslims use the word (afaik) refers to just theocracy in general. Like, non-separation of church and state, it's like asking devout Christians whether they think we should base our state and justice on the Bible and theological argumentation, and then going to the Bible to find instances of head-chopping, or looking at historical theologians supporting sewing the vagina shut on children. Those would be fucking tiny minority beliefs among crazies. While the minority might be bigger in modern day Muslim societies, it's still pretty small afaik. And if you're just talking about modern day justice systems in the ME, they're honestly not that much more backwards than modern day US. The US still has fucking capital punishment and slave labor.
Banning miscegenation and complete societal separation of whites and blacks have been fucking tiny minority beliefs across the US for decades now. And when they weren't they had some very fucking direct relations to both material conditions and class conflict.
Lastly, you don't understand SNLT, but in any case that shit shouldn't be a fucking problem lol. The communist belief is that people should have their needs taken care of. If there is a sufficient resources that some population can devote their time to cultural and moral research and thought, why is that a problem? It might be a more slowly developing society sure, but it's a sacrifice made in favor of personal freedom to do what you want. If on the other hand people are starving and their houses are falling down (extreme example), you wouldn't be able to convince even the fucking stupidest man on earth that studying the Torah is going to help that. And why would anybody even want to try and convince anybody of that?
Finally before I get to the general answer, the reason why people are pissed at the endless what-if's, even though they should be glad that someone is asking to their ideology, is that either you're interested in the subject, and you're just being obnoxious and intellectually lazy since there's tons of shit you could research about this on your own, if you're open to it, or it's the other case and you're antagonistic, trying to "debunk" a large school of political thought through your sick thought experiment that nobody ever thought of, which is condescending and not expressing goodwill.

With regards to your general question.
Short answer: got it right. Read Bookchin.
Longer and different answer:
Most of the problems that might result from the policies you expect to be enacted in choice communes, result from hierarchical exploitation. Meaning that your question is: What's to stop a pre-communist libertarian / anarcho-communist society from regressing into hierarchical society?

continued

2/2

First, we need to figure out what could drive political will to enact or strengthen hierarchies. And on this point I might be considered a silly dogmatic, but I actually tend to fall into the Marxist pit of all materialism everything. Despite being a libsoc, my thought is still shaped a lot by Marx.
In my opinion, most situations of populations "willfully" subjugating or enacting hierarchical oppression both historically and hypothetically can be attributed to material conditions, or class conflict.
The fiction of an outside threat to your society pressing you to give up liberties to the state results from the existence of the state, meaning that there is a conflict of interests between the state and the people.
The other fiction mentioned in this thread, that of an outside thread pressing your material conditions, also results from the fact that people are alienated from their labor.
If there is an "outside threat" that threatens your specific material life, does it not hold up to even the tiny bit of scrutiny that most Holla Forums-nazis grant their thought, that for this to make just a tiny bit of sense, somebody has to benefit from this subjugation of you.
Like, Jews are evil, look at how much money and control they have! Niggers are dumb and stupid, look at how little money and control they have!
There are probably other causes for this political will in class society, but I'm not writing a fucking book so fuck you, these are the ones I see as most pertinent.

Here I'm of course talking about true world anarchism, since otherwise there truly would be these class conflicts between anarchist society and repressive society. But on the other hand it's silly to talk about "regression to hierarchical society" when we're still living in hierarchical society.

So okay, let's just presume that I'm wrong here and that political will for repression arises in some ancom society, despite there being no material basis in the conflict. There's a will to establish hierarchy, despite previous eradication of this hierarchy. There are then two situations that lead to the establishment of hierarchy; that of a political minority who would benefit from hierarchy seeking establishment of hierarchy establishing with the help of self-subjugating minority of the larger majority of to-be opressed, that of a political majority who would benefit from the subjugation choosing to subjugate a political minority.
For the first case to happen it requires there to be a conflict between those to be subjugated, for some to refuse to stand in solidarity with the others, which I think is a very unlikely scenario. It might happen often today, but I think libertarian shapes of governance and culture will inherently help combat this.
In the second case, it would be a hierarchy just like that of the slave society (not in it's oppressiveness, but in the exploiter-exploited relationship).
In this case (and the first as well, should it happen), my opinion is that the rights of individuals to not be oppressed are more important that the rights to oppress, and I personally think that we ought fight to eliminate that oppression - no matter how it was enacted - and would push to end that oppression, violently if needed.

Finally, if you're actually talking about a near-future post-private property society, what would actually happen is a lot more simple. There would probably be a limited acceptance of their political will, so long as they don't start murdering people. People who feel repressed would either leave or fight against repression, and finally due to material conditions improving and no serious outside threats to security, society would socially progress not unlike modern society, it would just be a hierarchy just like any other cultural hierarchy already in place. Hegelian dialectics baby.
Basically, it boils down to two core facts that most socialists agree on, libertarian or not, that oppression generally results from material hierarchy (such as that of the capitalist and worker), and that (independent of the first fact) the absence of material hierarchy positively supports (Or more radically, enables) the fight to end non-material hierarchy.
That's my thoughts.

Also, before anybody starts responding to the sharia / miscegenation shit with statistics and questionnaires that disprove me: I don't care.
It's not central to my point, and I'm not going to respond to you, it's just to say that it's my impression that dangerous hierarchy such as OP's examples have a very low chance of relating to anything real, which I think is the case no matter the amount of people in the US who thinks blacks are icky, or the amount of psychos in Qatar that think hand-chopping is an appropriate punishment of slaves.

Is this the power of leftist intellectuals?

Sigh, I was debating whether or not to even make that post.
The point, in case you don't want to actually read the whole thing, is that the examples are shit, and any real case of hierarchy being enacted post-private property would:
1. be much less overt, more like '50s and '60s municipal property and financing policy in the US serving to segregate cities, as compared to Jim Crow or slavery, and
2. be rooted in actual biases and beliefs that people have. W hite genocide and religious fundamentalism are both minority beliefs even today. More like the trans bathroom thing, or medicating ADD and illnesses like it despite not having to, as compared to mandatory creationism in school or a return to the nuclear family.

I know morality is arbitrary, but like I said, I don't care. It's the proverbial line in the sand. An ancom society would be predicated in a humanist moral code to begin with, because morality is inevitable, whether you like it or not.

Only Saudi-backed Muslim communities push for Sharia law.
It won't happen under leftism, since any funding from non-communist foreign governments will be cut.

Also unlike the Western governments, the survival of leftist government won't be dependent on Arabian Gulf monarchies. We may get less oil from it and they gonna invest less in football, but so be it.

Those who don't want to follow shariah law leave


Blacks will have their own communes, what laws the white communes pass won't effect them


Their request to draw from the common pool is denied

Fucking no

Religion and racism are two evils that need to be stamped on and choked out of existence

*all religion except Orthodox Christianity.

literally retarded

I made that pic more than half a year ago to post in a thread where some user explained why NSDAP was retarded about its cultural policies regarding music, he posted le trashman. Wish I had the screencap.

I'm quite glad to see it posted.

as much as Holla Forums is better than Holla Forums you fuckers used to shit one of the few good boards on 4chan no idea how it is now, haven't been there for months

...

For once I agree with nazbol.