[clearthought]

I have been reading up a bit on anarchy lately, thanks to Wikipedia, my Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and a book in Oxford's Very Short Introduction series entitled — guess what — "Anarchism".

Anyone want to talk about communal anarchy? I'm dying to be educated haha.

[HoniSoit]

Do you have a specific question in mind?

[ingliz]

We should discuss "Platformism" as this would provide structure to the debate.

Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)

[JimmiBaez]

http://theantidote.wordpress.com/2007/0 ... anarchist/

A great read, and simple to understand. Anarchism should be performed every day by helping your peers, sharing, understanding.

[yourstruly]

Anarchism should be performed every day by helping your peers, sharing, understanding.

and do you imagine an entire society of millions of people functioning effectively because everybody is soooo NICE, and helps their peers, and shares? It seems somewhat more likely that a particularly clever man will amass a gang of thugs and take control.

[ingliz]

an entire society of millions of people functioning effectively because everybody is soooo NICE

There is no need for people to be ever so nice in an anarchist society for it to work. People will be the same as now and they will be subject to the same methods of societal control. Anarchy isn't people being allowed to do whatever they want when they want.

It is best summed up by the maxim 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you, with the additional provision that if others try to do things to you that violate your rights you have the right to stop them. In short, anarchist philosophy includes the 'golden rule', but does not include "turning the other cheek."

[yourstruly]

so if a rich guy with 100 men with SWAT equipment break into my house and take my stuff, i have the right to...stop...him?

[yourstruly]

i still seems to me like the guy with the most power wins.

[ingliz]

Society would hunt them down and fry their arses just as now. Why do you think anarcho-communism which is based on the collective would not act collectively against wrongdoers?

ps. And where did you get the idea that anarchists are pacifist hippies with flowers in their hair? An armed society is a polite society

[yourstruly]

in anarcho-communism, do i have the right to my property?

because if i do have property rights, then it seems like its more anarcho-capitalism than anarcho-communism.

[ingliz]

You have rights to your personal property: You have no rights to private property.

[Dr House]

THere's no difference, discounting Max's turgid, "self-evident" nonsense.

[ingliz]

There is a big difference if you are a 'collectivist' anarchist.

[yourstruly]

You have rights to your personal property: You have no rights to private property.

i don't get it.

if i own property, that means:

1) i have the right to do what i wish with my property, excepting in cases where i infringe on other people's rights to do the same.

2) i have the right to prevent others from using my property.

3) i have the right to bequeath ownership of my property onto whomever i please.

if i have all these rights, and other people have similar rights, then you are inevitably dealing with a free market. Capitalism is just the natural result of people with property rights serving their own self-interests.

If i DON'T have these rights, then i don't own any property, and someone somewhere must be in charge of determining which resources go where.

We either all own some things, and have to bargain with each other, or only some people own everything, and they decide how to use resources. We can't
ALL own everything because people will disagree about what to do with things.

[ingliz]

Communist Anarchists believe that subsistence, productive and distributive property should be common or social possessions while personal property should be private possessions.

[yourstruly]

which entity determines what posessions are considered vital to subsistence, productive, or distributive, as opposed to personal property? (And please define those three categories so i;m solid on what your talking about.)

and when something is considered to be in a category of things that private individuals don't get to retain, who is responsible for confiscating it?

also, you still haven't defined a method of organization that could allocate resources efficiently, while avoiding the issues i have already raised.

[ingliz]

I am not an anarchist and the answers to your questions can be easily 'googled', do some research.

[Dr House]

There is a big difference if you are a 'collectivist' anarchist.

Which is why I said there isn't one outside of Marx's retarded definitions of property.

[ingliz]

yourstruly:

..your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Actual use will be considered the only title - not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency . . . Collective possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit.

What types of Anarchism are there?

Anarchist FAQ

Please read the links they will probably answer most of your questions.

[HoniSoit]

What ingliz said and referred to.

Marx also talked about the distinction, for example, in the Communist Manifesto.