eugenekop wrote:I still fail to see how an anarcho-communist society will be able to function. I mean people are different. They have different cultures, different values and so forth.
This is no more a problem for anarcho-communism than it is for capitalism. How can people possibly agree on the value of ownership? They have different cultures, different values, etc. It's not really a meaningful critique. Obviously anarcho-communists would have recognized that anarcho-communism is the better system within their own cultural framework. Maybe their justifications are different than the justifications promoted by people elsewhere. So what?
Since people in anarcho-communist society have a lot of positive rights such as the right for education, health care and such, who will be obliged to provide these rights? Who defines what are these rights? After all everyone has a different opinion about them.
Hold up a moment. I'm pretty sure you're operating under a misconception here. There is a difference between anarcho-communism and plain old regular communism, and the point you made is kind of at the root of it. All anarcho-communism does is make it possible for you to easily provide those things for yourself (or your children) by freeing up access to resources, capital, and communities. Changing the relations of production, as it were.
In an anarcho-capitalist society this is not a problem because no one is obliged to provide anything to anyone, so conflicts are minimized. But in anarcho-communist society it seems that conflicts will be constant and abundant. Who will for example oversee that people don't get acquire too much property without sharing it?
That doesn't even make sense. How can you have any property at all without a government recognizing your claim of ownership and granting you rights to use it, and defending that claim against disputes? Property claims require active defense to maintain--absent a government there
can't be any property at all so worrying about people acquiring too much of it without oversight is pretty nonsensical. Anarcho-communists mean to dispense with property entirely, not merely to make sure someone doesn't acquire too much of it. No oversight is required--eliminating property requires nothing other than a society that stops recognizing the claims.
What if someone hoards a lot of inventory in his home without sharing it? Who will be have the right to claim parts of this inventory? There are so many potential conflicts.
Are you going to suggest that there are not a lot of potential conflicts in a capitalist system? For a relevant example currently, take a look at Oracle v. Google in a property dispute over the ownership of intellectual property. So what if there are conflicts? Presumably the community would come up with some agreeable method of arbitration. Maybe that agreeable method is "Joe and Jane go before the local arbiter and ask for a third party ruling on the matter." Maybe that agreeable method is "Joe and Jane go out to the field and face off in a duel." So what? The point would be that the community would get to decide on what they would like to have as their preferred method of resolving disputes. I tend to think that most people would prefer the non-violent approaches in general. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if I am wrong about it, by what right do you have to suggest that the majority shouldn't get their way?