Laid Off

[Osomir]

That doesn't make much sense seeing as how the current system is completely different from the one you are espousing. The current system has a centralized government that levies taxes and enforces regulations and can control for externalities. Take the government away and that regulating capability as well as the base monopoly on force which promotes security within a given space all go away with it. Shrugging off these very real problems while simply saying "it wouldn't be a problem" without offering up why it wouldn't be a problem doesn't really make sense to me.

Anarchist societies existed with strong trade unions, and the people weren't stupid enough to let murder happen.. Yeah, it wasn't a problem In the examples I've given, sorry.

Not a problem? Based on what supporting evidence? What data are you basing that assertion on? We have literally seen this problems occur on a daily basis throughout the world. We especially see it in communes and in anarchist societies.

Based on how long they survived against a massively superior force and that the people were still chugging on. I can't claim anything is perfect, everything has problems, but it's certainly an improvement.

So far you haven't given me any data on these people through which an honest analysis of how well they were doing can be made. So I ask again, what are you basing your assertion that these were successes that should be emulated beyond a base affinity for your anarcho-communist ideology. Why should these examples convince someone like me who isn't an anarcho-communist that anarcho-communism is a good way to go?

Yes I have, you just didn't want to look deeper into it, but none the less, I'll help you out.

The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територія vilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территория svobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a stateless anarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertarian communes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]

The territory was occupied by WhiteRussian forces under Anton Denikin and a temporary government of Southern Russiaformed, but, by 1920, Denikin's forces had been driven out of the area by the Red Army in cooperation with Makhno's forces, whose units were conducting guerrilla warfare behind Denikin's lines.

As the Free Territory was organized along anarchist lines, references to "control" and "government" are highly contentious. For example, the Makhnovists, often cited as a form of government (with Nestor Makhno being their leader), played a purely military role, with Makhno himself being little more than a military strategist and advisor.[4]
7 million people... With constant attacks against them, think about that.
Keep in mind I also follow anarchist syndicalism to help achieve anarchist communism.
Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.
From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists established an anarchist society run by peasants and workers in Ukraine. The territory under their control stretched approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Alexandrovsk (later known as Zaporizhia), and Yekaterinoslav, (Sicheslav, later Dnipropetrovsk). According to Makhno, "The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same time both peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do". (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine, 1936).

According to the leaders of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which lead Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education followed the principles of Francesc Ferrer, and the economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crops and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin.

The Makhnovists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets"[6] and opposed the central government. Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[6] The Makhniovists called various congresses of soviets, in which all political parties and groups - including Bolsheviks - were permitted to participate, to the extent that members of these parties were elected delegates from worker, peasant or militia councils. By contrast, the Bolshevik territory, after June 1918, no non-Bolsheviks were permitted to participate in any national soviets and most local ones,[7] the decisions of which were also all subject to Bolshevik party tutelage and veto.

A declaration stated that Makhnovist revolutionaries were forbidden to participate in the Cheka, and all party-run militias and party police forces (including Cheka-like secret police organizations) were to be outlawed in Makhnovist territory.[8][9] Historian Heather-Noël Schwartz comments that "Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees".[10][11] The Bolsheviks, however, accused him of having two secret police forces operating under him.[12]

The Bolsheviks began their formal efforts to disempower Makhno on 4 June 1919 with Trotsky's Order No. 1824, which forbade electing a congress and attempted to discredit Makhno by stating: "The Makhno brigade has constantly retreated before the White Guards, owing to the incapacity, criminal tendencies, and the treachery of its leaders."[5]
Makhnovists The Russian Revolution
Lots more..

I do want to look deeper into it which is why I have been requesting data from you. I saw the wiki pages you don't need to copy and paste them, they don't provide data on the conditions of the society. Once again I ask you why you feel like these examples are successes that should be emulated (specifically) and why they should convince someone like me that anarcho-communism is the way to go.

 

[Osomir]

I already have what I need in a capitalist society, I live a decent life and have nothing to complain about there, you're wrong.

Have you achieved your goals at establishing and experiencing this wonderful society you promote?
Have you escaped the Capitalistic State of oppression to fully enjoy the proceeds of your labor in a community or society that shares your ideas?

If you support a stateless, labor driven society ... Then why aren't you doing that?
All I want you do is progress towards achieving your goals ... Provide for yourself and your family ... And enjoy the fruits of your labor to the fullest of your abilities.

.

Oh yeah, I can just up and leave my family to establish a stateless society. It's clearly that easy.

This actually rather exemplifies a major flaw within anarcho-communist thought in practice. The simple fact is that people have competing priorities and desires within a society, and anarcho-communism demands that those living under it put the society and the principles of anarcho-communism above that. Yet even you, an ardent supporter of anarcho-communism, aren't even willing to do this.

 

[Marxist]

The free rider problem exists under capitalism as well, and you fail to realize structures would still exist, just not in the way you think.

It absolutely does. The difference is that we have evolved governance and regulatory structures that address it in critical areas through taxation, government provision, subsidization, etc. I'll give you an example. In a large city in India there was a trash collection service that existed and depended on people paying it for its services. Some did, and it went along fine until people realized that they could just throw their garbage into an apartment dumpster without contributing to the payment of the trash company and just rely on the fact that someone else would pay them. They became free riders. This eventually snowballed until the trash collection system collapsed and the government was forced to step in tax people directly for the service and then provide it themselves.

And you assume that unions or a security force comprised of the people/democracy wouldn't exist. Yeah, nothing is perfect, but you assume people are stupid when the system worked fine.

Not at all: once again a security force can exist and at the same time be massively underproduced relative to societal needs. that is the nature of what a free rider problem does to public goods such as security - it causes under production of them. Also, what is to prevent trade unions and security forces from accumulating a monopoly on force and install themselves as a defacto controling government? What's there to prevent the rise of warlords? Without a monopoly on force force is left with the ability to concentrate into the hands of whoever can concentrate it. I'm not too eager to live in a society that hasn't undergone that process yet. Talk about high risk.

What is to prevent the current states from taking... Oh wait. The problem with your assessment is that the common people truly have a massive say in everything.

So in other words nothing. You are merely shrugging off a huge problem as a non-issue because it is inconvenient to you. The people who you would advocate for deserve better than that.

I'm not shrugging it off at all, I've addressed it multiple times.

 

[Osomir]

It absolutely does. The difference is that we have evolved governance and regulatory structures that address it in critical areas through taxation, government provision, subsidization, etc. I'll give you an example. In a large city in India there was a trash collection service that existed and depended on people paying it for its services. Some did, and it went along fine until people realized that they could just throw their garbage into an apartment dumpster without contributing to the payment of the trash company and just rely on the fact that someone else would pay them. They became free riders. This eventually snowballed until the trash collection system collapsed and the government was forced to step in tax people directly for the service and then provide it themselves.

And you assume that unions or a security force comprised of the people/democracy wouldn't exist. Yeah, nothing is perfect, but you assume people are stupid when the system worked fine.

Not at all: once again a security force can exist and at the same time be massively underproduced relative to societal needs. that is the nature of what a free rider problem does to public goods such as security - it causes under production of them. Also, what is to prevent trade unions and security forces from accumulating a monopoly on force and install themselves as a defacto controling government? What's there to prevent the rise of warlords? Without a monopoly on force force is left with the ability to concentrate into the hands of whoever can concentrate it. I'm not too eager to live in a society that hasn't undergone that process yet. Talk about high risk.

What is to prevent the current states from taking... Oh wait. The problem with your assessment is that the common people truly have a massive say in everything.

So in other words nothing. You are merely shrugging off a huge problem as a non-issue because it is inconvenient to you. The people who you would advocate for deserve better than that.

I'm not shrugging it off at all, I've addressed it multiple times.

Link?

 

[Marxist]

Anarchist societies existed with strong trade unions, and the people weren't stupid enough to let murder happen.. Yeah, it wasn't a problem In the examples I've given, sorry.

Not a problem? Based on what supporting evidence? What data are you basing that assertion on? We have literally seen this problems occur on a daily basis throughout the world. We especially see it in communes and in anarchist societies.

Based on how long they survived against a massively superior force and that the people were still chugging on. I can't claim anything is perfect, everything has problems, but it's certainly an improvement.

So far you haven't given me any data on these people through which an honest analysis of how well they were doing can be made. So I ask again, what are you basing your assertion that these were successes that should be emulated beyond a base affinity for your anarcho-communist ideology. Why should these examples convince someone like me who isn't an anarcho-communist that anarcho-communism is a good way to go?

Yes I have, you just didn't want to look deeper into it, but none the less, I'll help you out.

The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територія vilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территория svobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a stateless anarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertarian communes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]

The territory was occupied by WhiteRussian forces under Anton Denikin and a temporary government of Southern Russiaformed, but, by 1920, Denikin's forces had been driven out of the area by the Red Army in cooperation with Makhno's forces, whose units were conducting guerrilla warfare behind Denikin's lines.

As the Free Territory was organized along anarchist lines, references to "control" and "government" are highly contentious. For example, the Makhnovists, often cited as a form of government (with Nestor Makhno being their leader), played a purely military role, with Makhno himself being little more than a military strategist and advisor.[4]
7 million people... With constant attacks against them, think about that.
Keep in mind I also follow anarchist syndicalism to help achieve anarchist communism.
Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.
From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists established an anarchist society run by peasants and workers in Ukraine. The territory under their control stretched approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Alexandrovsk (later known as Zaporizhia), and Yekaterinoslav, (Sicheslav, later Dnipropetrovsk). According to Makhno, "The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same time both peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do". (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine, 1936).

According to the leaders of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which lead Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education followed the principles of Francesc Ferrer, and the economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crops and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin.

The Makhnovists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets"[6] and opposed the central government. Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[6] The Makhniovists called various congresses of soviets, in which all political parties and groups - including Bolsheviks - were permitted to participate, to the extent that members of these parties were elected delegates from worker, peasant or militia councils. By contrast, the Bolshevik territory, after June 1918, no non-Bolsheviks were permitted to participate in any national soviets and most local ones,[7] the decisions of which were also all subject to Bolshevik party tutelage and veto.

A declaration stated that Makhnovist revolutionaries were forbidden to participate in the Cheka, and all party-run militias and party police forces (including Cheka-like secret police organizations) were to be outlawed in Makhnovist territory.[8][9] Historian Heather-Noël Schwartz comments that "Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees".[10][11] The Bolsheviks, however, accused him of having two secret police forces operating under him.[12]

The Bolsheviks began their formal efforts to disempower Makhno on 4 June 1919 with Trotsky's Order No. 1824, which forbade electing a congress and attempted to discredit Makhno by stating: "The Makhno brigade has constantly retreated before the White Guards, owing to the incapacity, criminal tendencies, and the treachery of its leaders."[5]
Makhnovists The Russian Revolution
Lots more..

I do want to look deeper into it which is why I have been requesting data from you. I saw the wiki pages you don't need to copy and paste them, they don't provide data on the conditions of the society. Once again I ask you why you feel like these examples are successes that should be emulated (specifically) and why they should convince someone like me that anarcho-communism is the way to go.

They should be emulated due to the inherit flaws of capitalism and the destruction it brings, the fact that capitalists focus on short term profit, the contradictions, the systemic poverty... And workers need to own production, but that's my opinion. The living conditions were certainly good, the only ones saying bad things were the Bolsheviks.. Makhnovists
I can't find any documented starvation or problems that were major, and I'm trying to.

 

[Marxist]

And you assume that unions or a security force comprised of the people/democracy wouldn't exist. Yeah, nothing is perfect, but you assume people are stupid when the system worked fine.

Not at all: once again a security force can exist and at the same time be massively underproduced relative to societal needs. that is the nature of what a free rider problem does to public goods such as security - it causes under production of them. Also, what is to prevent trade unions and security forces from accumulating a monopoly on force and install themselves as a defacto controling government? What's there to prevent the rise of warlords? Without a monopoly on force force is left with the ability to concentrate into the hands of whoever can concentrate it. I'm not too eager to live in a society that hasn't undergone that process yet. Talk about high risk.

What is to prevent the current states from taking... Oh wait. The problem with your assessment is that the common people truly have a massive say in everything.

So in other words nothing. You are merely shrugging off a huge problem as a non-issue because it is inconvenient to you. The people who you would advocate for deserve better than that.

I'm not shrugging it off at all, I've addressed it multiple times.

Link?

Go back through my posts regarding the common people, democracy, a preexisting state not already being in place, strong unions and security forces run by the people.

 

[Marxist]

I already have what I need in a capitalist society, I live a decent life and have nothing to complain about there, you're wrong.

Have you achieved your goals at establishing and experiencing this wonderful society you promote?
Have you escaped the Capitalistic State of oppression to fully enjoy the proceeds of your labor in a community or society that shares your ideas?

If you support a stateless, labor driven society ... Then why aren't you doing that?
All I want you do is progress towards achieving your goals ... Provide for yourself and your family ... And enjoy the fruits of your labor to the fullest of your abilities.

.

Oh yeah, I can just up and leave my family to establish a stateless society. It's clearly that easy.

This actually rather exemplifies a major flaw within anarcho-communist thought in practice. The simple fact is that people have competing priorities and desires within a society, and anarcho-communism demands that those living under it put the society and the principles of anarcho-communism above that. Yet even you, an ardent supporter of anarcho-communism, aren't even willing to do this.

People have competing priorities in capitalism as well. Anarchy communism demands none of the sort, it demands nothing, I'm not willing to do it? Telling me to go start a stateless society in America is fucking hilarious, and more of a personal stab.

 

[Marxist]

And you assume that unions or a security force comprised of the people/democracy wouldn't exist. Yeah, nothing is perfect, but you assume people are stupid when the system worked fine.

Not at all: once again a security force can exist and at the same time be massively underproduced relative to societal needs. that is the nature of what a free rider problem does to public goods such as security - it causes under production of them. Also, what is to prevent trade unions and security forces from accumulating a monopoly on force and install themselves as a defacto controling government? What's there to prevent the rise of warlords? Without a monopoly on force force is left with the ability to concentrate into the hands of whoever can concentrate it. I'm not too eager to live in a society that hasn't undergone that process yet. Talk about high risk.

What is to prevent the current states from taking... Oh wait. The problem with your assessment is that the common people truly have a massive say in everything.

So in other words nothing. You are merely shrugging off a huge problem as a non-issue because it is inconvenient to you. The people who you would advocate for deserve better than that.

I'm not shrugging it off at all, I've addressed it multiple times.

Link?

Good read.
An Anarchist FAQ - Appendix -- Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism Infoshop.org

 

[Osomir]

Not a problem? Based on what supporting evidence? What data are you basing that assertion on? We have literally seen this problems occur on a daily basis throughout the world. We especially see it in communes and in anarchist societies.

Based on how long they survived against a massively superior force and that the people were still chugging on. I can't claim anything is perfect, everything has problems, but it's certainly an improvement.

So far you haven't given me any data on these people through which an honest analysis of how well they were doing can be made. So I ask again, what are you basing your assertion that these were successes that should be emulated beyond a base affinity for your anarcho-communist ideology. Why should these examples convince someone like me who isn't an anarcho-communist that anarcho-communism is a good way to go?

Yes I have, you just didn't want to look deeper into it, but none the less, I'll help you out.

The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територія vilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территория svobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a stateless anarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertarian communes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]

The territory was occupied by WhiteRussian forces under Anton Denikin and a temporary government of Southern Russiaformed, but, by 1920, Denikin's forces had been driven out of the area by the Red Army in cooperation with Makhno's forces, whose units were conducting guerrilla warfare behind Denikin's lines.

As the Free Territory was organized along anarchist lines, references to "control" and "government" are highly contentious. For example, the Makhnovists, often cited as a form of government (with Nestor Makhno being their leader), played a purely military role, with Makhno himself being little more than a military strategist and advisor.[4]
7 million people... With constant attacks against them, think about that.
Keep in mind I also follow anarchist syndicalism to help achieve anarchist communism.
Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.
From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists established an anarchist society run by peasants and workers in Ukraine. The territory under their control stretched approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Alexandrovsk (later known as Zaporizhia), and Yekaterinoslav, (Sicheslav, later Dnipropetrovsk). According to Makhno, "The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same time both peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do". (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine, 1936).

According to the leaders of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which lead Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education followed the principles of Francesc Ferrer, and the economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crops and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin.

The Makhnovists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets"[6] and opposed the central government. Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[6] The Makhniovists called various congresses of soviets, in which all political parties and groups - including Bolsheviks - were permitted to participate, to the extent that members of these parties were elected delegates from worker, peasant or militia councils. By contrast, the Bolshevik territory, after June 1918, no non-Bolsheviks were permitted to participate in any national soviets and most local ones,[7] the decisions of which were also all subject to Bolshevik party tutelage and veto.

A declaration stated that Makhnovist revolutionaries were forbidden to participate in the Cheka, and all party-run militias and party police forces (including Cheka-like secret police organizations) were to be outlawed in Makhnovist territory.[8][9] Historian Heather-Noël Schwartz comments that "Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees".[10][11] The Bolsheviks, however, accused him of having two secret police forces operating under him.[12]

The Bolsheviks began their formal efforts to disempower Makhno on 4 June 1919 with Trotsky's Order No. 1824, which forbade electing a congress and attempted to discredit Makhno by stating: "The Makhno brigade has constantly retreated before the White Guards, owing to the incapacity, criminal tendencies, and the treachery of its leaders."[5]
Makhnovists The Russian Revolution
Lots more..

I do want to look deeper into it which is why I have been requesting data from you. I saw the wiki pages you don't need to copy and paste them, they don't provide data on the conditions of the society. Once again I ask you why you feel like these examples are successes that should be emulated (specifically) and why they should convince someone like me that anarcho-communism is the way to go.

They should be emulated due to the inherit flaws of capitalism and the destruction it brings, the fact that capitalists focus on short term profit, the contradictions, the systemic poverty... And workers need to own production, but that's my opinion. The living conditions were certainly good, the only ones saying bad things were the Bolsheviks.. Makhnovists
I can't find any documented starvation or problems that were major, and I'm trying to.

The problem here is that isn't a very compelling argument in favor of the societies that you are trumpeting. Especially since they were so very short lived. You haven't demonstrated that these societies were in any way better than what say we have in the US or western Europe. Why on earth would I want to transition into such a society?

 

[Osomir]

Not at all: once again a security force can exist and at the same time be massively underproduced relative to societal needs. that is the nature of what a free rider problem does to public goods such as security - it causes under production of them. Also, what is to prevent trade unions and security forces from accumulating a monopoly on force and install themselves as a defacto controling government? What's there to prevent the rise of warlords? Without a monopoly on force force is left with the ability to concentrate into the hands of whoever can concentrate it. I'm not too eager to live in a society that hasn't undergone that process yet. Talk about high risk.

What is to prevent the current states from taking... Oh wait. The problem with your assessment is that the common people truly have a massive say in everything.

So in other words nothing. You are merely shrugging off a huge problem as a non-issue because it is inconvenient to you. The people who you would advocate for deserve better than that.

I'm not shrugging it off at all, I've addressed it multiple times.

Link?

Go back through my posts regarding the common people, democracy, a preexisting state not already being in place, strong unions and security forces run by the people.

So in other words you don't have one.

 

[Osomir]

I already have what I need in a capitalist society, I live a decent life and have nothing to complain about there, you're wrong.

Have you achieved your goals at establishing and experiencing this wonderful society you promote?
Have you escaped the Capitalistic State of oppression to fully enjoy the proceeds of your labor in a community or society that shares your ideas?

If you support a stateless, labor driven society ... Then why aren't you doing that?
All I want you do is progress towards achieving your goals ... Provide for yourself and your family ... And enjoy the fruits of your labor to the fullest of your abilities.

.

Oh yeah, I can just up and leave my family to establish a stateless society. It's clearly that easy.

This actually rather exemplifies a major flaw within anarcho-communist thought in practice. The simple fact is that people have competing priorities and desires within a society, and anarcho-communism demands that those living under it put the society and the principles of anarcho-communism above that. Yet even you, an ardent supporter of anarcho-communism, aren't even willing to do this.

People have competing priorities in capitalism as well.

Right, and we have a state that regulates the extremes of those competing priorities and ensures a monopoly on force. Your system doesn't.

Anarchy communism demands none of the sort, it demands nothing, I'm not willing to do it? Telling me to go start a stateless society in America is fucking hilarious, and more of a personal stab.

There are several communes in the United states that strive for communal living and independence and they get to piggy back off of US government production. It is a pretty nice set-up for them. Have you even donated towards such communes?

 

[Marxist]

What is to prevent the current states from taking... Oh wait. The problem with your assessment is that the common people truly have a massive say in everything.

So in other words nothing. You are merely shrugging off a huge problem as a non-issue because it is inconvenient to you. The people who you would advocate for deserve better than that.

I'm not shrugging it off at all, I've addressed it multiple times.

Link?

Go back through my posts regarding the common people, democracy, a preexisting state not already being in place, strong unions and security forces run by the people.

So in other words you don't have one.

Maybe I didn't address it correctly, but it's done now.

 

[Marxist]

Based on how long they survived against a massively superior force and that the people were still chugging on. I can't claim anything is perfect, everything has problems, but it's certainly an improvement.

So far you haven't given me any data on these people through which an honest analysis of how well they were doing can be made. So I ask again, what are you basing your assertion that these were successes that should be emulated beyond a base affinity for your anarcho-communist ideology. Why should these examples convince someone like me who isn't an anarcho-communist that anarcho-communism is a good way to go?

Yes I have, you just didn't want to look deeper into it, but none the less, I'll help you out.

The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територія vilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территория svobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a stateless anarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertarian communes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]

The territory was occupied by WhiteRussian forces under Anton Denikin and a temporary government of Southern Russiaformed, but, by 1920, Denikin's forces had been driven out of the area by the Red Army in cooperation with Makhno's forces, whose units were conducting guerrilla warfare behind Denikin's lines.

As the Free Territory was organized along anarchist lines, references to "control" and "government" are highly contentious. For example, the Makhnovists, often cited as a form of government (with Nestor Makhno being their leader), played a purely military role, with Makhno himself being little more than a military strategist and advisor.[4]
7 million people... With constant attacks against them, think about that.
Keep in mind I also follow anarchist syndicalism to help achieve anarchist communism.
Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.
From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists established an anarchist society run by peasants and workers in Ukraine. The territory under their control stretched approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Alexandrovsk (later known as Zaporizhia), and Yekaterinoslav, (Sicheslav, later Dnipropetrovsk). According to Makhno, "The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same time both peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do". (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine, 1936).

According to the leaders of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which lead Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education followed the principles of Francesc Ferrer, and the economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crops and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin.

The Makhnovists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets"[6] and opposed the central government. Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[6] The Makhniovists called various congresses of soviets, in which all political parties and groups - including Bolsheviks - were permitted to participate, to the extent that members of these parties were elected delegates from worker, peasant or militia councils. By contrast, the Bolshevik territory, after June 1918, no non-Bolsheviks were permitted to participate in any national soviets and most local ones,[7] the decisions of which were also all subject to Bolshevik party tutelage and veto.

A declaration stated that Makhnovist revolutionaries were forbidden to participate in the Cheka, and all party-run militias and party police forces (including Cheka-like secret police organizations) were to be outlawed in Makhnovist territory.[8][9] Historian Heather-Noël Schwartz comments that "Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees".[10][11] The Bolsheviks, however, accused him of having two secret police forces operating under him.[12]

The Bolsheviks began their formal efforts to disempower Makhno on 4 June 1919 with Trotsky's Order No. 1824, which forbade electing a congress and attempted to discredit Makhno by stating: "The Makhno brigade has constantly retreated before the White Guards, owing to the incapacity, criminal tendencies, and the treachery of its leaders."[5]
Makhnovists The Russian Revolution
Lots more..

I do want to look deeper into it which is why I have been requesting data from you. I saw the wiki pages you don't need to copy and paste them, they don't provide data on the conditions of the society. Once again I ask you why you feel like these examples are successes that should be emulated (specifically) and why they should convince someone like me that anarcho-communism is the way to go.

They should be emulated due to the inherit flaws of capitalism and the destruction it brings, the fact that capitalists focus on short term profit, the contradictions, the systemic poverty... And workers need to own production, but that's my opinion. The living conditions were certainly good, the only ones saying bad things were the Bolsheviks.. Makhnovists
I can't find any documented starvation or problems that were major, and I'm trying to.

The problem here is that isn't a very compelling argument in favor of the societies that you are trumpeting. Especially since they were so very short lived. You haven't demonstrated that these societies were in any way better than what say we have in the US or western Europe. Why on earth would I want to transition into such a society?

It is a compelling argument. They were short lived due to violence against them, and the reading I've given you recently literally addresses almost everything you've been asking me about. They were better for the working people, and remember, this was In the early 1900s. Why not?

 

[Marxist]

I already have what I need in a capitalist society, I live a decent life and have nothing to complain about there, you're wrong.

Have you achieved your goals at establishing and experiencing this wonderful society you promote?
Have you escaped the Capitalistic State of oppression to fully enjoy the proceeds of your labor in a community or society that shares your ideas?

If you support a stateless, labor driven society ... Then why aren't you doing that?
All I want you do is progress towards achieving your goals ... Provide for yourself and your family ... And enjoy the fruits of your labor to the fullest of your abilities.

.

Oh yeah, I can just up and leave my family to establish a stateless society. It's clearly that easy.

This actually rather exemplifies a major flaw within anarcho-communist thought in practice. The simple fact is that people have competing priorities and desires within a society, and anarcho-communism demands that those living under it put the society and the principles of anarcho-communism above that. Yet even you, an ardent supporter of anarcho-communism, aren't even willing to do this.

People have competing priorities in capitalism as well.

Right, and we have a state that regulates the extremes of those competing priorities and ensures a monopoly on force. Your system doesn't.

Anarchy communism demands none of the sort, it demands nothing, I'm not willing to do it? Telling me to go start a stateless society in America is fucking hilarious, and more of a personal stab.

There are several communes in the United states that strive for communal living and independence and they get to piggy back off of US government production. It is a pretty nice set-up for them. Have you even donated towards such communes?

The system does have people who regulate it, they're called the majority who unite behind the common good, or the trade unions... Etc, etc..

 

[Wry Catcher]

The idea that manufacturing in China has lifted millions out of poverty is laughable. The workers aren't paid enough to lift themselves out of poverty. The Chinese oligarchs are making massive amounts of money but not the workers.

And yet through a combination of higher level manufacturing and the green revolution in agriculture China has seen millions lifted out of abject poverty.

Millions ain't much in a nation of 1.4 billion. How many remain in abject poverty?

 

[Marxist]

The idea that manufacturing in China has lifted millions out of poverty is laughable. The workers aren't paid enough to lift themselves out of poverty. The Chinese oligarchs are making massive amounts of money but not the workers.

And yet through a combination of higher level manufacturing and the green revolution in agriculture China has seen millions lifted out of abject poverty.

Millions ain't much in a nation of 1.4 billion. How many remain in abject poverty?

Let's also keep in mind how they define the poverty and how they skew it..
Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English

 

[LogikAndReazon]

For the "common good".....

The rally cry of thieves and tyrants

 

[Osomir]

So far you haven't given me any data on these people through which an honest analysis of how well they were doing can be made. So I ask again, what are you basing your assertion that these were successes that should be emulated beyond a base affinity for your anarcho-communist ideology. Why should these examples convince someone like me who isn't an anarcho-communist that anarcho-communism is a good way to go?

Yes I have, you just didn't want to look deeper into it, but none the less, I'll help you out.

The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територія vilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территория svobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a stateless anarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertarian communes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]

The territory was occupied by WhiteRussian forces under Anton Denikin and a temporary government of Southern Russiaformed, but, by 1920, Denikin's forces had been driven out of the area by the Red Army in cooperation with Makhno's forces, whose units were conducting guerrilla warfare behind Denikin's lines.

As the Free Territory was organized along anarchist lines, references to "control" and "government" are highly contentious. For example, the Makhnovists, often cited as a form of government (with Nestor Makhno being their leader), played a purely military role, with Makhno himself being little more than a military strategist and advisor.[4]
7 million people... With constant attacks against them, think about that.
Keep in mind I also follow anarchist syndicalism to help achieve anarchist communism.
Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.
From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists established an anarchist society run by peasants and workers in Ukraine. The territory under their control stretched approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Alexandrovsk (later known as Zaporizhia), and Yekaterinoslav, (Sicheslav, later Dnipropetrovsk). According to Makhno, "The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same time both peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do". (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine, 1936).

According to the leaders of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which lead Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education followed the principles of Francesc Ferrer, and the economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crops and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin.

The Makhnovists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets"[6] and opposed the central government. Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[6] The Makhniovists called various congresses of soviets, in which all political parties and groups - including Bolsheviks - were permitted to participate, to the extent that members of these parties were elected delegates from worker, peasant or militia councils. By contrast, the Bolshevik territory, after June 1918, no non-Bolsheviks were permitted to participate in any national soviets and most local ones,[7] the decisions of which were also all subject to Bolshevik party tutelage and veto.

A declaration stated that Makhnovist revolutionaries were forbidden to participate in the Cheka, and all party-run militias and party police forces (including Cheka-like secret police organizations) were to be outlawed in Makhnovist territory.[8][9] Historian Heather-Noël Schwartz comments that "Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees".[10][11] The Bolsheviks, however, accused him of having two secret police forces operating under him.[12]

The Bolsheviks began their formal efforts to disempower Makhno on 4 June 1919 with Trotsky's Order No. 1824, which forbade electing a congress and attempted to discredit Makhno by stating: "The Makhno brigade has constantly retreated before the White Guards, owing to the incapacity, criminal tendencies, and the treachery of its leaders."[5]
Makhnovists The Russian Revolution
Lots more..

I do want to look deeper into it which is why I have been requesting data from you. I saw the wiki pages you don't need to copy and paste them, they don't provide data on the conditions of the society. Once again I ask you why you feel like these examples are successes that should be emulated (specifically) and why they should convince someone like me that anarcho-communism is the way to go.

They should be emulated due to the inherit flaws of capitalism and the destruction it brings, the fact that capitalists focus on short term profit, the contradictions, the systemic poverty... And workers need to own production, but that's my opinion. The living conditions were certainly good, the only ones saying bad things were the Bolsheviks.. Makhnovists
I can't find any documented starvation or problems that were major, and I'm trying to.

The problem here is that isn't a very compelling argument in favor of the societies that you are trumpeting. Especially since they were so very short lived. You haven't demonstrated that these societies were in any way better than what say we have in the US or western Europe. Why on earth would I want to transition into such a society?

It is a compelling argument. They were short lived due to violence against them, and the reading I've given you recently literally addresses almost everything you've been asking me about. They were better for the working people, and remember, this was In the early 1900s. Why not?

How are you defining "better for the working people"? What data are you basing that claim on? life expectancy? standard of living? Purchasing power? class mobility? Service provision and availability? Economic output and productivity? Security and stability? I haven't seen anything along any of those lines except a note that their stability and security mechanisms failed to allow the survival of the community. I haven't seen any argument from you that they were better off outside a general statement that they were "free from capitalism". That doesn't tell me anything useful.

 

[Osomir]

Have you achieved your goals at establishing and experiencing this wonderful society you promote?
Have you escaped the Capitalistic State of oppression to fully enjoy the proceeds of your labor in a community or society that shares your ideas?

If you support a stateless, labor driven society ... Then why aren't you doing that?
All I want you do is progress towards achieving your goals ... Provide for yourself and your family ... And enjoy the fruits of your labor to the fullest of your abilities.

.

Oh yeah, I can just up and leave my family to establish a stateless society. It's clearly that easy.

This actually rather exemplifies a major flaw within anarcho-communist thought in practice. The simple fact is that people have competing priorities and desires within a society, and anarcho-communism demands that those living under it put the society and the principles of anarcho-communism above that. Yet even you, an ardent supporter of anarcho-communism, aren't even willing to do this.

People have competing priorities in capitalism as well.

Right, and we have a state that regulates the extremes of those competing priorities and ensures a monopoly on force. Your system doesn't.

Anarchy communism demands none of the sort, it demands nothing, I'm not willing to do it? Telling me to go start a stateless society in America is fucking hilarious, and more of a personal stab.

There are several communes in the United states that strive for communal living and independence and they get to piggy back off of US government production. It is a pretty nice set-up for them. Have you even donated towards such communes?

The system does have people who regulate it, they're called the majority who unite behind the common good, or the trade unions... Etc, etc..

We saw that theoretically in Libya under Gaddafi. where the government wasn't concerned with much of the political economy outside of the oil sector and so gave the rest of it "to the people" and even provided security gauntness against the formations of subversive entities. Even with overarching protection from security underproduction and massive financial infusions from a more open oil sector the economy completely failed. The only reason why it didn't collapse almost immediately is because it was able to be artificially propped up by oil revenues.

 

[Osomir]

The idea that manufacturing in China has lifted millions out of poverty is laughable. The workers aren't paid enough to lift themselves out of poverty. The Chinese oligarchs are making massive amounts of money but not the workers.

And yet through a combination of higher level manufacturing and the green revolution in agriculture China has seen millions lifted out of abject poverty.

Millions ain't much in a nation of 1.4 billion. How many remain in abject poverty?

The poverty rate declined from about 85% to about 33% so we are talking about hundreds of millions of people. not that i am entirely trusting of Chinese numbers.