[| I, CWAS |]

While not a Libertarian, I disagree in part, If abolition of the state is the end, then anarcho-communists are an indirect ally. This however does not mean there is an alliance or even unity, anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists can recognise the great problem (the state) and ancillary issues (capitalism, and coercive anarchism). Although anarcho-communism is nothing but skipping the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarcho-communists will never get to engage in a fruitful non-violent battle as long as the state is in the way.

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists
by Murray N. Rothbard

Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.

Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.

And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.

It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one's own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.

Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.

If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.

They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.

Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence — all of which are corollaries of each other — anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."

The only good thing that one might say about anarcho-communism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary. Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually, and to engage in market activities, would remain unmolested.

Or would they?

Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.

Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.

On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd.

Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.

At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism", an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity.

Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice — all this in the name of "freedom". The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.

Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.

Fifty years ago, Ludwig von Mises exposed the total inability of a planned, moneyless economy to operate above the most primitive level. For he showed that money-prices are indispensable for the rational allocation of all of our scarce resources — labor, land, and capital goods — to the fields and the areas where they are most desired by the consumers and where they could operate with greatest efficiency. The socialists conceded the correctness of Mises's challenge, and set about — in vain — to find a way to have a rational, market price system within the context of a socialist planned economy.

The Russians, after trying an approach to the communist moneyless economy in their "War Communism" shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, reacted in horror as they saw the Russian economy heading to disaster. Even Stalin never tried to revive it, and since World War II the East European countries have seen a total abandonment of this communist ideal and a rapid move toward free markets, a free price system, profit-and-loss tests, and a promotion of consumer affluence.

It is no accident that it was precisely the economists in the Communist countries who led the rush away from communism, socialism, and central planning, and toward free markets. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. Yet this sort of aggressive ignorance is inherent in the creed of anarcho-communism.

The same comment can be made on the widespread belief, held by many New Leftists and by all anarcho-communists, that there is no longer need to worry about economics or production because we are supposedly living in a "post-scarcity" world, where such problems do not arise. But while our condition of scarcity is clearly superior to that of the cave-man, we are still living in a world of pervasive economic scarcity.

How will we know when the world has achieved "post-scarcity"? Simply, when all the goods and services that we may want have become so superabundant that their prices have fallen to zero; in short, when we can acquire all goods and services as in a Garden of Eden — without effort, without work, without using any scarce resources.

The anti-rational spirit of anarcho-communism was expressed by Norman 0. Brown, one of the gurus of the new "counter-culture":

The great economist von Mises tried to refute socialism by demonstrating that, in abolishing exchange, socialism made economic calculation, and hence economic rationality, impossible … But if von Mises is right, then what he discovered is not a refutation but a psychoanalytical justification of socialism … It is one of the sad ironies of contemporary intellectual life that the reply of socialist economists to von Mises' arguments was to attempt to show that socialism was not incompatible with "rational economic calculation" — that is to say, that it could retain the inhuman principle of economizing. (Life Against Death, Random House, paperback, 1959, pp. 238-39.)

The fact that the abandonment of rationality and economics in behalf of "freedom" and whim will lead to the scrapping of modern production and civilization and return us to barbarism does not faze our anarcho-communists and other exponents of the new "counter-culture." But what they do not seem to realize is that the result of this return to primitivism would be starvation and death for nearly all of mankind and a grinding subsistence for the ones remaining.

If they have their way, they will find that it is difficult indeed to be jolly and "unrepressed" while starving to death. All this brings us back to the wisdom of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset:

In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not "just here," it is not self-supporting.

It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization — you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)

Source

[Gnosis]

Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.

There is no need(or ability) to confiscate or abolish, and the movement might be better off if it didn't try. I would think that doing so might reenforce the delusion, not cure it at all.
There is no need to do anything more than point out the truth. Property is an illusion, ownership is a belief system, a way of conducting relationships and nothing more. That is not the problem of the physical things, it is the problem of the mind which is interacting with those things. Take those things away and you've still got a delusional mind. Cure the mind, and those things are still as they were, not a problem. The people who would conficate have no right to do so, and to act as if they do is to act of delusion. They have no power, the power they are attributed is an illusion, just like the illusion of ownership. No one has any rights or privilages ever. Ownership is one of those privilages, it doesn't really exist.
Change the ideology and change the way in which the relationships are conducted. Change the way in which people go about viewing and conducting their relationships and you've changed the world. Its not that hard, it doesn't require any physical changes in order to happen, though I wouldn't be suprised if many physical changes happened as a result. I would think that the physical changes which would happen after the delusion is cured would be far healthier than those which might come before the change. I'm not sure about that, though I would discuss the possibilities and probabilities...

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Let's turn this on it's head and write a similar thread against anarcho-capitalism.

[Garibaldi]

You can try, but you have to be crazy not to see the benefits of money and private property. I'm a nuclear engineer in the Navy, and I've worked my ass off for the last year just learning and qualifying. If it wasn't for the money I'm gonna make when I get out(and trust me, I can't wait for my enlistment to be up), I would've quit a long ass time ago. It's the same thing with any other job. Humans are teenagers, if we didn't have private property, all we'd want to is party. I'm not gonna make the normal "No-one would flip burgers or sweep floors" arguement, because, well, I'd sure as hell rather be flipping burgers or sweeping floors than working in an office doing paper work. The problem is, you wouldn't find people to do the really important things. Who'd want to organize? Who'd want to study and operate nuclear reactors? Who'd think to mine or pump oil? A few people would go for the glory, but where's the glory in pharmacy? I'd rather take it easy than put in hard, unstatisfying work, and the only thing to make me act differently is a higher standard of living.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

You can try, but you have to be crazy not to see the benefits of money and private property. I'm a nuclear engineer in the Navy, and I've worked my ass off for the last year just learning and qualifying. If it wasn't for the money I'm gonna make when I get out(and trust me, I can't wait for my enlistment to be up), I would've quit a long ass time ago. It's the same thing with any other job. Humans are teenagers, if we didn't have private property, all we'd want to is party. I'm not gonna make the normal "No-one would flip burgers or sweep floors" arguement, because, well, I'd sure as hell rather be flipping burgers or sweeping floors than working in an office doing paper work. The problem is, you wouldn't find people to do the really important things. Who'd want to organize? Who'd want to study and operate nuclear reactors? Who'd think to mine or pump oil? A few people would go for the glory, but where's the glory in pharmacy? I'd rather take it easy than put in hard, unstatisfying work, and the only thing to make me act differently is a higher standard of living.

I am against all forms of anarchy, beacause anarchy places power in the hands of private individuals, which act according to private motives and vendettas, rather than a neutral third party that can deal out justice in the sidelines.

Ironicly, I don't agree with you on the economics bit though about anarchy.

The benefits of money and private property, are only oppression without the state. In anarcho-capitalism the rich have unlimited power, which is far more terrible than even that which exists in a dictatorship. A dictator at least has some responsability as a ruler, a ancap tychoon on the other hand, rules nothing, is responsable for no-one, but has unlimited power.

I'm amazed at the fact so people actually invoke this as an argument.

One person has 1 million pound. For that 1 million pound, they can hire a certain number of soldiers to do their bidding. The poorer man cannot hire that number of soldiers to do his bidding, when the millionare's forces turn up, any soldiers the poorer man hired, will desert, beacause being outnumbered, they will not see the cost/gain assesement to be favourable. Indeed the millionare might even bribe them to desert. If for some higher reason they fight, then they will be killed and their wealth will go to the millionare and his soldiers.

You make the flawed assesement about "importance". All wortwhile jobs are equally "important" to other jobs beacause they are all needed for societies functioning. With the death of capitalism, all we'd see is people only doing the important jobs, and superfluous jobs would not be done, as people would see that the benefit that they do, would not meet the rewards. So the true value of a job would be paramount.

However I do not in fact advocate anarcho-communism either, beacause the essential problem with that, is whether people can be relied upon to act justly in vigilante mobs.

[Garibaldi]

If a millionare did that, he'd loose all business. Who wants to support the guy who'se footsoldiers will kill you, your family, and take all your shit? The people would also, most likely, rise up in "revolution" against the oppresser.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

If a millionare did that, he'd loose all business. Who wants to support the guy who'se footsoldiers will kill you, your family, and take all your shit? The people would also, most likely, rise up in "revolution" against the oppresser.

In which case, he'd simply enslave those who oppose him and force them to work. Slavery is also quite a feasable prospect. And why would the tychoon not find people to work for him, since he's rich and has money to pay out?

I do not mean the ancap tycoon goes around killing random people. Simply people who might have done something to "offend " him.

Most people would learn social deference to a tychoon very quickly and would basically become the tychoons serfs. Stuff like "demanding higher wages", or threatening to strike would result in bieng killed quite likely.

As for the revolution point, merceneries do not work for ideals, they work for pay. As far as they are concerned, the more people rise in revolution against their pay-master, the more of their master's wealth they will be paid to kill them and the more wealth they will be able to sieze over the dead bodies of the would be revolutionaries. Revolution and civil chaos would attract eager merceneries, like flies to a carcass. And they aren't going to side with the poorer faction, that's for sure.

[Garibaldi]

That's assuming the rich guy could maintain his wealth; how much would people buy his services or goods knowing it's going to take their services? And, pressumably, any anarchist society would rather die fighting for their freedom than be taken as a slave. So, even if he could pay for mercernaries, he'd loose his wealth because of him being ostrocized. Same thing with silencing them when they protest for higher wages or press unionizing. Especially if they're unionized(more able to pay for their own merceneries, and not so disablished for source of wealth)

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

That's assuming the rich guy could maintain his wealth; how much would people buy his services or goods knowing it's going to take their services? And, pressumably, any anarchist society would rather die fighting for their freedom than be taken as a slave. So, even if he could pay for mercernaries, he'd loose his wealth because of him being ostrocized. Same thing with silencing them when they protest for higher wages or press unionizing. Especially if they're unionized(more able to pay for their own merceneries, and not so disablished for source of wealth)

If you own all the shops in the vicinity, then they have no choice but to buy from the monopolist owner. They would not have the resources to challenge to monopolist as any monopolist would form exclusive contracts with other monopolists to ensure that all resources produced go to him. Plus by keeping them underpaid, they don't have the wealth to compete.

Remember, this is an utterly unregulated market here. Nothing stop the establishment of cartels and agreements between rich people.

And the last thing the rich person would allow to happen, would be a union.

He would simply sack anyone trying to orginise a union, as a union threatens his wealth. There would be an utter ethical equivilance between crushing a union and killing thieves threatening his property in his eyes.

People do not tolerate things which threaten them with destitution. Nor would the trade contacts of the rich person.

Anyone who managed to orginise a strike, would disrupt the buisnesses of many, a miner's strike, would threaten the smelter's business. And vica versa. If the buisness goes bust, everyone suffers, even the workers of that buisness.

Thus there would quickly become a system of alliances, formed against any threat to livelyhood of the tychoons involved. A threat to the tychoons buisness, like a strike, or some kind of new buisness bieng established in their catchment area, would find armies of not only merceneries, but also volunteers from other buisnesses sent to crush it.

The point is, strikers have less resources than the tychoon and his allies. Thus a strike, can just be waited out until the strikers starve, or are forced to try and collectivise by force, at which point they have a "justification" to crush them by force for "theft".