Explain Communization

Basically we're not working for that anymore. We're trying to create a Negro Uprising and enslave white people for later extermination.

So Manson was right all along?

its anarchism for leftcoms who want to feel intellectually superior to anarchist

after all the niggers and spics die, white people use the extra land for agriculture. can't have communism with subhumans anyway

(you)

You habs to go bag

It means that a revolution is only communist if it changes all social relationships into communist relationships,and this can only be done if the process starts in the very early days of the revolutionary upheaval.
Really any faggot saying "Communization is hard fancy too intellectual etc…" didn't read about it

When people want things, they do them. the best part is that they actually do them in a community as it is proven anthropologically.

k? here have a faggot.

Literally has never happened in history in such a pace, even capitalism took its fair share of time to evolve out of feudal relations, and as Marx said: The old lives on in the new. It also completely ignored the conditions out of which a revolution will develop, since its not going to be global at once it can't suspend on state institutions to defend itself nor on productivity to diversify its economy. You can't just state a fictional perfect scenario with a priori statements about how should it happen, that's unscientific.

fuckin lold

100% accurate

The Conquest of Bread one hundred years later and with its head up its own ass

I have no blog or even a twitter.
And CouncilCom is communization tbh

We already have communist forms of telecommunication participation and administration "the internet", labor is easily done away with via automation and under production we live in a world of too much commodities we don't need more production but a right redistribution of what we have "read the accursed share by Bataille " etc..

When The door for full communism is open, any fight for socialism is regressive comrade.

Mate they are literally theoretically the same. Having read both Dauve and Kropotkin, I can tell you this with absolute certainty.

I used to believe in anarcho-communism and believe basically what you have said, However I have come to realise that the idea of an instant revolution is fundamentally ridiculous and it was reading Dauve that cemented this idea. You cannot possibly hope to have global communisation (the only real communisation) fast enough to feed everybody while you do it, without first implementing a lower stage. Even the physical logistical structures in a communised society would be entirely different. You cannot communise over only one area, particularly if you plan to rely on automation, which will require rare minerals and such, so will the vast amounts of energy which will need to fuel this. You need to have total expropriation before you can even think about totalised free distribution, and you simply cannot achieve this without having an intermediary stage to provide materially for the sustenance of the revolution

And no one disputes this, including Ancoms. I wonder how many former anarchists bothered to read even Bakunin.

We can also get free healthcare. Free telecommunication isn't communism.
We are far from even close to be doing that, and automation is most likely to create new fields of work.
Redistribution isn't communism either. Our production is specialized but certainly not unverisally sustainable, just because the West has switched to service economies doesn't mean that food comes out of the replicator, that doesn't even mention the problematic of resource depletion which has to be solved by developing new ways of production.

You also didn't address the problem of revolutionary praxis that revolution is not going be occurring globally at once. The world economy is extremly specialized, for your scenario to go down smoothly we need intrinsic cooperation between the First and Third World, which are dealing with distinctly different material conditions.

I'm not a former anarchist, I'm just now an anarcho-communist in the usual sense.I basically believe in using collectivism/mutualism as the lower stage. Go look at the surplus value thread for the full explanation. Its funny Bakunin was what first brought me to anarchism, then I went away into other things, put off by what I thought were crazy ideas, like invisible dictatorship and now as I go on I realise that such ideas actually have much more merit.

*not an anarcho communist in the usual sense

Ok but what does it mean if you're an orthodox marxis/ "luxemburgist"

It means you are a special snowflake with a cool favourite author of small pamplets

You the guy who had a three week argument with that leftcom?

three weeks, and counting, yes

I'm pretty sure its a different guy now.
I think he's kind of right tbh

think who is right?

peter hitchens was such a cutie. how did marxism go from balliol to the basement?

Jason is cool though.

if the creators of bibleman would create a communist villain it would be jason unruhe.

Not sure how this is supposed to make him come over as less cool.

via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communization

Sounds based.