Even fascists think ancaps are fucking stupid

ok but what if some communes is stronger then the others.
what stop one commune from wanting to enslave the peoples in weaker communes and become a new ruling class?

but that sounds very similar to what the ancap said

Magic. Anarchists are idiots who think power can be "abolished" whereas any sane person can see that power which goes unclaimed is just begging to be taken by someone else. This is why Bookchin abandoned Anarchism and focuses on creating legitimate structures of power controlled by the people instead of denying that power is a fact of life.

There's nothing stopping the communes from organising some sort of defensive militia which would be activated based on a certain set of pre-agreed conditions (ie marauders attacking your society) and then dissolved again after the conditions had passed. I'm not a ancom myself, but the meme that anarchists are against organisation itself needs to end.

so how is that different from what the ancap wanted?

No property rights, no hierarchy.

No hierarchy, ensuring that the ancom society collapses after a month rather than a week

Unlike ancaps, left anarchists don't deny that some regulatory structure will remain, just with as many unnecessary hierarchies removed/abolished as possible. Clearly some semblance of hierarchy would remain to maintain some sort of agreed upon order and I can't think of any historical anarchist movements that have completely done away with all power structures unilaterally.

"Anarchism = literally zero rules or authorities" is just a dumb liberal strawman of anarchism and the only "anarchists" who claim those qualifications for anarchist society are dumbass ancaps who don't realize that hierarchy by another name will still function as a state anyway.

Yeah yeah, sure, but how is it different vis-a-vis the point of discussion, namely the problem of one group deciding to dominate another?

Seems to me like ancom societies presuppose that all men first internalize certain precepts, because it offers no institutional barriers against pure Hobbesian assertions of force.

And yet that is exactly what the CNT did in Catalonia. They allowed the Republic to exist and did not seize power of the anarchist federation.

I'm specifically denying that such a power vacuum would exist in the same way it would in an AnCap society because AnComs aren't as agnostic about the need for societal structure, just insistent that the institutions as they currently exist need to be harshly pared down. So there will still be some semi-oganized force to defend society in this hypothetical AnCom scenario.

Forgive me but I'm not sure if this is a rebuttal or not? Can you elaborate how that relates to the points I've made?

Personally I'm a fan of just installing a benevolent dictator and giving them total control of all military force. Of course finding/creating a sufficiently benevolent dictator is hard.

So there is a state under AnComs?

There is of course a lot of contention on this issue and I'm sure some ancoms will come and tell me I'm wrong, but the general consensus is that the qualities of a state that are theorized to maintain the oppressive power structures (specifically monopoly over violence and authority over enforcing property rights) are what need to be abolished to keep it from being a proper state (and indeed most anarchists base their definition of a state largely on those two characteristics).

So most ancoms will tell you there is no "state" a such but there can still be managerial and facilitating functions managed based on democratic consensus. And those organizations will have some "state-like" functions inevitably.

I remain skeptical, because force follows its own logic. It is inherently authoritarian, and works best if it is organized by authoritarian principles. It's what Trotsky discovered in short order as he organized the Red Army. To be effective, you militias would have to become what they are fighting, and I could see it all end in a military dictatorship.

I mean, what you describe is very close to the Roman ideals of the citizen-soldier, and that institution was inexorably transformed into the professional soldier over time, ending in military dictatorship. Yes, it took the ambitions of unscrupulous politicians, but those will never be eliminated.

so basically "anarcho" monarchism?

Well that's where we really get into the weeds and run into contention among various schools of ancom or otherwise left-anarchist thought. There's a large body of debate about how to properly keep power as decentralized as possible, and a some of it centers on ideas of maintaining competing institutions of political power and influence, and a lot of it leans on assumptions of post-industrial infrastructure that was certainly not available to the societies you're discussing (note that plenty of socialist/anarchist philosophers indicated that capitalism and industrialization were necessary stepping stones to the societies they envisioned)

It's at this point I confess I'm not as well-versed on the minutiae of those debates as I'd like to be (currently in the process of reading several books on the subject to better inform myself), but you have stumbled on the fundamental debate within anarchist spheres of how a decentralized, "democratized" society they envision could be maintained.

Pretty much.

I'd argue that the monopoly on violence is the very thing that prevents the formation of a power vacuum. You can't on the one hand say that everyone is equally free to use violence to further their own goals, and on the other hand say that the bad guys won't be able to use violence to establish their own state.

With enough decentralization of decision making it's completely possible to both reserve the ability to dispense organized defensive violence and leave such an organization sufficiently answerable to the populace that they don't maintain an effective monopoly within society proper. And I don't think it's that controversial of a statement that that balance isn't even close to realized within western liberal democracy, and in fact it's evident that they law making and enforcing bodies are quite often completely at odds with the populace they are meant to serve.

I'm not saying those forces shouldn't exist in any capacity, but that the hierarchies that dissociate their goals with those of the general populace need to abolished.

I didn't vote for you.

Wow big government people don't like us big surprise

^ ^

yeah anything is possible in fantasyland but that doesn't invalidate anarcho-communist theory you blithering ninny

Source for that image ?

All these war scenarios have a of course a probability to happen. But in Ancomism it would be unlikely that someone could accumulate wealth to the point that he can create such an army, unlike Ancapism, especially because communism is a moneyless society. People having their material needs fulfilled will probably refuse to join your coup, and if you try to force them at gunpoint you will meet resistance, since everybody could have a gun. Also the spooks of nationalism and so on will be abolished, which is one of the factor of war.

Also all this imaginary thinking can work on any political proposal :
But yet we don't live in a worldwide kingdom because reality doesn't work like that.

Right, that isn't to say that no one has proposed solutions to this problem I'm just admitting that I'm not well versed enough in the nuance of the debate to confidently assert my own stance on the subject.

Just out of curiosity, given your flag, what's your take on the issue?

We don't? What is America?

a bourgeois corporate republic

…do you think America controls the whole world? Trump get back to work man you don't have time to troll the chans

So you haven't noticed the trend that whenever a country threatens America's economic stranglehold on most of the world they promptly get bombed to fuck by all of those "independent" nations to "liberate" them.

Despite neocon wet dreams, there are independent countries that aren't third world and can/have fought for their own interests.

Of course poor countries don't have their own autonomy but that's not really what's up for debate

In fact, merely suggesting that imitating the current state of geopolitics is a desirable goal for anarchism of any flavor makes me seriously question the validity of your ideology.

You really sound very similar to AnCaps.

What? I'm not moralizing and it's fucked that neocolonialism and imperialism still exist. I simply object to the americlap propagandist premise that America is the one infinitely powerful ur-country that has to answer to nothing and no one globally.

Pretty sure only Americans think of their country as that uniquely important, and it's why they're going to get fucked in the ass when they realize that there are other countries who can and will fuck america for their own interests, and america will absolutely deserve it.

so you haven't noticed that such actions don't make them a kingdom

I'm not American, but I've watched "my" government deepthroat US dick for the last few decades with no sign of stopping. Tell me about all the ways your government is standing up to America and fucking them in the ass.

Likely gonna be mostly China tbh, we'll see over the next few years who has a spine but I'm strongly optimistic that self-interest will soon dictate that other modern countries rely less and less on the US going forward and you will see backstabbing and manipulation happen as the US state dept. flounders in inefficiency under the new dipshit admin.

tbh of all the anarchists, ancaps seems to be the ones that are grounded the most in reality and consistency.

weak bait

You said that anarchism isn't opposed to hierarchy and power structures and whatnot, yet the CNT resolute refused to seize the power offered to them by the workers and dismantle the Republic in favor of some sort of federation of communes or whatever. They were pathologically afraid of power structures and hierarchy in exactly the way you claim anarchists aren't.

Sure, China can stand up to the US. Russia and the EU too, at least to an extent. The overwhelming majority of countries have to seek protection from one of those four though, and the price for that protection is obedience.

no seriously dude anarchism is of course all LARP but compared to syndicalism and muralists ancaps actually have some sort of fundament

My point is that anarchism as an ideology doesn't necessarily preclude managerial/facilitating structures that could be considered a form of hierarchy. I don't deny that different anarchist movements have varying degrees to which they accept these power structures internally and Catalonia was certainly on the vastly decentralized side of things.

Do ancaps not realize you can't just "opt out" because all the land would be owned by mega-corporations that will ask tolls or kill you?
Same thing with oceans probably

No argument from me there, the only possible antidote is antagonism between those main players.

Speaking from experience, serious ancaps usually think that an ancap """revolution""" will bring down the largest companies and put things back in the hands of small business and producers. They don't seem to understand that old farmer Bill can still use his wealth to buy up the other farms and lay the foundation to become the next Mosanto.

Bleating about "aggression" as some central tenant without even properly defining and categorizing "aggression" as anything more than a meaningless platitude is a spectacularly shitty standard for having "some sort of fundament"

...

According to them(mr. nod an agumend man) force is agresion

i know thats why i took enslavement as an example. there are alot of things that can motivate the greedy beyond money

The people's protection units, dumbass.

Replace dollars with goats or corn.

And yet 1/4 of the US voted for trump, despite polls showing they were fairly well off middle class. Don't underestimate the power of brainwashed political ideology.

But they won't. Unless we live in a video game where ancom societies are able to give everyone equal resources from the start, someone will have less than another. The asymmetry will compound on itself until you have a bunch of warlords ruling everyone else.

And be replaces by tribalism.

I think the problem has no solution. The "best" thing to do would be to create a worldwide monopoly of violence, too strong to be opposed by anyone, but there is no way to keep that Leviathan from becoming a great and terrible parasite, or from favoring a certain subgroup and turning them into an aristocracy.

I guess automation would be one solution; just have on huge robot army that crushes any attempt of people to dominate other people. Robots have no will to power, so they would not become parasitic, and barring some kind of wrongful programming, will not favor any group. Doesn't seem very palatable somehow, and very dependent on how you define things.

Is being an omnicidal manic really a bad thing? Or is it the most logical political doctrine to have?

Humanity was a mistake, all our problems are because we are conscious. NATURE NEEDS TO TRY AGAIN

...

Dollars can be exchanged and accumulated more easily tho. With your example you would have to find people who want it (corn or goat) and who also have the thing you want (soldier like capabilities), fast enough so that your goat/corn don't die/rot. Money is different because its precise goal is to be exchanged, not to be used. Even if I was some kind of corn autist why would I take the risk to join your army for corn if I can just go to the communal farm and farm it myself?

why are OPs with reddit links even allowed?