How would an ancom society deal with one group of people bullying smaller/less powerful groups into giving...

How would an ancom society deal with one group of people bullying smaller/less powerful groups into giving materials/personal property through violence?

Tank syndicate stronkest.

Dr. Seuss was the original Ben Garrison.

OP, rather than asking questions that supposedly reveal a problem with anarcho-communism as being principally flawed without giving us evidence by anarcho-communists that it is as such, you could actually tell us what it is you think creates and demands bullying in general and whether it would occur under communism or not, and if it does in what form, institutionally or not, etc.

They can't, they're utopians.

Not only is there such a thing as social pressure, but I'd assume ancomistan means you have a federation of worker's councils. You cannot collectively manage the means of production without an apparatus which is or isn't a state depending on your definition.

So it's not anarchic?

I didn't want to show that it's flawed, but rather, I was asking for the general position (or particular position) taken by ancoms on this issue, as it's probably up for debate.

Bullying may occur for the purpose of gaining more wealth, for example a person may be bullied to hand over personal property, or a group of people bullied to hand over some material which is only found in that region, for example, a precious metal which is in short supply. I don't really see, unless I'm missing something (which I'm totally open to admitting and being corrected on) why that wouldn't occur under ancommunism.

I don't believe it's an institutional issue, but rather that some people can get greedy.


So your solution would be to use a state, or someone with a "legitimate" monopoly on violence, to stop people from being violent in the way I have described?

Well, Holla Forums doesn't believe in that, obviously, all people can be taught to be not greedy.

now this is idealism.

Well, communism is idealism at its core.

No.

Why does the power imbalance exist in the first place?

...

Yes, Karl Marl imagined communism, it wasn't realistic even for his time.

They get shot.

...

Some are born stronger/smarter than the other.

Right and communists are materialists.

By who?

How does that translate into institutional power or authority?

The strong form a group and bully the others, like in school.

But they don't believe in greedy people?

Do they believe greedy people exist now? Yes. Do they think greed is an immutable aspect of human nature? No. They believe our perception of reality and behavior are largely influenced by our material conditions because they're materialists.

Explain how the changing material conditions are going to stop greediness from existing?

By the smaller groups, duh.

It is necessary in a capitalist enviroment to be greedy in order to succeed, therefore under communism, a system that doesn't reward being greedy, people at the very least wouldn't be as greedy as often.

People have been greedy since the dawn of time.

In fact, if there's one thing that has been unchanging ever since the dawn of the human age, it's how humans behave.

Is it, or is it because of other causes, that people have been greedy? You can't just spout muh history, and expect us to take that for fact. You have to prove that greediness is inherent to the human condition.

I like how similar lefty/pol/ and Holla Forums are.
Instead of 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧jews🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 it's 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧nazis🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Care to explain this autistic shit?

(

Is this what 1200 active users looks like?

Guys? i just wanna talk.

Anarchism does not mean there will be no laws or social organization. This is a lame ass meme spread by people who don't understand anarchist theory. The most important thing to understand is that there are numerous conceptions of "the state", and when discussing anarchism we are using the anarchist definition. Unlike Marx, who views the state as the organizing comittee of the ruling class, anarchists see it more as a group of people making decisions unchecked by democracy. A system of representative "democracy" is a good example of this, as once representatives are elected they are largely not influenced by the opinion of their constituents. This is why direct democracy and decentralization are important post-revolution. Anarchists are not necessarily opposed to the Marxist state, but instead emphasize that it must exhibit libertarian characteristics to be legitimate.

Basically, communites would pass laws dictating the behavior they deemed acceptable and a militia would be employed to enforce them. It wouldn't appear too different from today on the surface but the authoritarian structures behind our current governments would be removed.

Everyone has an equal say in managing society, it's decentralized, federated, what else do you want? It can't get more free if you want to organize society on a large scale.

...

oops, meant to quote

show me the greed in pic related

meant to post this

jesus fuck its not working. it was an illustration of human tribes

user schoolyard dynamics aren't a good example of how society functions, besides that citing people just "being" stronger or smarter than others ignores other social factors like diet or quality of education.

I hate Anglos too.