Let's break the anti-communist taboo

[SigmatheZeta]

Hi, guys.

When I say "I am an anarcho-communist," that really translates loosely to "I'm running Linux." I really just like the basic philosophy that lies behind it. It is a creation that people share, and everybody that wants to contribute to making it better and more beautiful does. I wish that more things in life worked that way. It makes a deep, instinctive part of me feel incredibly peaceful and happy. If I could create my own heaven, everything would work that way, including how we grew our food and built our automobiles. People would create beautiful things because just sitting around doing nothing is boring, and it gets old.

In light of that, it might come across as provocative to call myself something that contains the word "communist," but the only reason that it might come across as provocative is that somebody chose to make communism a taboo set of ideas. People used to say that about alternative sexualities. They still say that about some alternative sexualities. I am zoosexual, and not everybody agrees that I have a right to say that. There are people that want you to think the FBI will come make you disappear just because you mentioned it. There are still many people in this world that think you should be treated as a criminal based on who you are or what you believe or do not believe.

I might not agree with Marxist communism, but I still think his ideas are valid in a discussion. If we just discussed it openly and honestly, without going into the usual toxic places, someone might eventually bring up the idea that Karl Marx was not the only communist philosopher. In my opinion, the best and most brilliant communist philosopher was Pyotr Kropotkin. As with Darwin's theory of Evolution, his original idea had a long way to go before it was really perfect, but I believe that Pyotr Kropotkin's idea of communism was substantially more noble and more pure than that of Karl Marx. Nevertheless, even Karl Marx might have been right about some things, and we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Even though "anarcho-communism" is not even close to being a thoroughgoingly comprehensive description of my views on political economy, I should have a right to be able to talk about those ideas openly. Those ideas are valid, and I believe they have had an overall benevolent influence on our way of life.

Some people call themselves "libertarians." I say, the real fallacy behind libertarianism is the idea that you should really need the government's permission to be free. Anarchy is the realization that you are free, and what the government doesn't know will not hurt them. Anarchy is the idea that if you don't want people to think they HAVE to make laws to stop you from living how you choose to live, then learn to coexist with people in peace. Learn how to just be kind to people. Whatever dumb laws they make, they will probably forget about those dumb laws when they realize that you are not really a scary person.

As an anarchist, I think that people write laws in the same way that a Catholic clings to a crucifix. They write laws in the same way that an orthodox Jew kisses a mezuzzah. They write laws in the same way that a Muslim kneels on a prayer mat. They like to go through life believing that if they make a law against something, it stops existing. Laws or no laws, though, people will accept just about anything if you can get them to understand that it's not really something they need to be afraid of. It's when you make people feel unsafe that they become dangerous to you, even if you never meant to make them feel unsafe.

As communist, I believe that it's not really true that people are inherently lazy. They are just taught a false belief that being unproductive is a reward, but if being unproductive is a reward, then why is retirement so terrible for a person's health and such a cause of depression? People are most happy when they are creating things. I think that people naturally like to share. It's not the fault of human nature that we are brainwashed into thinking we are obligated to enjoy idleness when it is so clear that idleness is bad for us. We might not be able to do it in one generation, but I think it's possible to deconstruct this brainwashing, and if we did, I think it would lead to people being happier.

Senator Kennedy, the word is not "comrade." It's tovarish. The meaning is subtly different.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Hi, guys.

When I say "I am an anarcho-communist," that really translates loosely to "I'm running Linux." I really just like the basic philosophy that lies behind it. It is a creation that people share, and everybody that wants to contribute to making it better and more beautiful does. I wish that more things in life worked that way. It makes a deep, instinctive part of me feel incredibly peaceful and happy. If I could create my own heaven, everything would work that way, including how we grew our food and built our automobiles. People would create beautiful things because just sitting around doing nothing is boring, and it gets old.

In light of that, it might come across as provocative to call myself something that contains the word "communist," but the only reason that it might come across as provocative is that somebody chose to make communism a taboo set of ideas. People used to say that about alternative sexualities. They still say that about some alternative sexualities. I am zoosexual, and not everybody agrees that I have a right to say that. There are people that want you to think the FBI will come make you disappear just because you mentioned it. There are still many people in this world that think you should be treated as a criminal based on who you are or what you believe or do not believe.

I might not agree with Marxist communism, but I still think his ideas are valid in a discussion. If we just discussed it openly and honestly, without going into the usual toxic places, someone might eventually bring up the idea that Karl Marx was not the only communist philosopher. In my opinion, the best and most brilliant communist philosopher was Pyotr Kropotkin. As with Darwin's theory of Evolution, his original idea had a long way to go before it was really perfect, but I believe that Pyotr Kropotkin's idea of communism was substantially more noble and more pure than that of Karl Marx. Nevertheless, even Karl Marx might have been right about some things, and we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Even though "anarcho-communism" is not even close to being a thoroughgoingly comprehensive description of my views on political economy, I should have a right to be able to talk about those ideas openly. Those ideas are valid, and I believe they have had an overall benevolent influence on our way of life.

Some people call themselves "libertarians." I say, the real fallacy behind libertarianism is the idea that you should really need the government's permission to be free. Anarchy is the realization that you are free, and what the government doesn't know will not hurt them. Anarchy is the idea that if you don't want people to think they HAVE to make laws to stop you from living how you choose to live, then learn to coexist with people in peace. Learn how to just be kind to people. Whatever dumb laws they make, they will probably forget about those dumb laws when they realize that you are not really a scary person.

As an anarchist, I think that people write laws in the same way that a Catholic clings to a crucifix. They write laws in the same way that an orthodox Jew kisses a mezuzzah. They write laws in the same way that a Muslim kneels on a prayer mat. They like to go through life believing that if they make a law against something, it stops existing. Laws or no laws, though, people will accept just about anything if you can get them to understand that it's not really something they need to be afraid of. It's when you make people feel unsafe that they become dangerous to you, even if you never meant to make them feel unsafe.

As communist, I believe that it's not really true that people are inherently lazy. They are just taught a false belief that being unproductive is a reward, but if being unproductive is a reward, then why is retirement so terrible for a person's health and such a cause of depression? People are most happy when they are creating things. I think that people naturally like to share. It's not the fault of human nature that we are brainwashed into thinking we are obligated to enjoy idleness when it is so clear that idleness is bad for us. We might not be able to do it in one generation, but I think it's possible to deconstruct this brainwashing, and if we did, I think it would lead to people being happier.

Senator Kennedy, the word is not "comrade." It's tovarish. The meaning is subtly different.

Anarcho-communism is not a feasible form of government. It will never work long term. If one wants to abolish the existing state, capitalism, private property, private business and etc, they will need a very powerful military to do all that abolishing! And then, the following poverty and distress that will follow after having an economy destroyed, will require a very powerful state with brutal police to maintain such a miserable economy and stop people from overthrowing the new system. Obviously having a powerful state is the opposite of Anarchy!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

An American Socialist in the very early 20th century said, and this is a paraphrase as I don't remember the exact wording, 'There is an inherent flaw in the human psyche that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' This was back when labor unions were having all sorts of troubles with the Government, militias, blacklisting, etc...

Anyone counting on the kind spirit and/or wisdom of human beings to make things work out are brutally naïve. Attempted utopian societies in the US all failed. Even weak centralized Federal governments failed in the US under the Articles of Confederation.

The idea that anarchism can work is just uneducated, naïve, bizarrely hopeful, and completely incompatible with history. That, oh... things would just work better if... is a fairy tale that'd be considered a fairy tale in a fairy tale.

Ultimately, our form of government is inefficient and flawed, but it seems to be the most stable and effective that can be put together shy of a Sci-fi public awakening that doesn't seem due at any time soon.

 

[bigfield]

When I say "I am an anarcho-communist," that really translates loosely to "I'm running Linux." I really just like the basic philosophy that lies behind it. It is a creation that people share, and everybody that wants to contribute to making it better and more beautiful does. I wish that more things in life worked that way. It makes a deep, instinctive part of me feel incredibly peaceful and happy. If I could create my own heaven, everything would work that way, including how we grew our food and built our automobiles. People would create beautiful things because just sitting around doing nothing is boring, and it gets old.

You know, you've got me thinking: we Linux cultists have been wasting our time trying to convert Windows users to Linux, or just as often, trying to convert other Linux users to our own choice of distro, but has anyone actually tried switching their country to Linux? It's less likely to suffer from the bloatware found in many governments. Instead of myriad military, police and spy agencies with vast overlap in capability and role, each agency would follow the Unix philosophy of doing one thing only and doing it well. Instead of the deep state, you'd have systemd. You could add a cronjob to automatically raise the debt ceiling every year. And best of all, Linux is naturally resistant to viruses, which means there would be no need for lockdowns or vaccines.

 

[Harry Bosch]

An American Socialist in the very early 20th century said, and this is a paraphrase as I don't remember the exact wording, 'There is an inherent flaw in the human psyche that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' This was back when labor unions were having all sorts of troubles with the Government, militias, blacklisting, etc...

Anyone counting on the kind spirit and/or wisdom of human beings to make things work out are brutally naïve. Attempted utopian societies in the US all failed. Even weak centralized Federal governments failed in the US under the Articles of Confederation.

The idea that anarchism can work is just uneducated, naïve, bizarrely hopeful, and completely incompatible with history. That, oh... things would just work better if... is a fairy tale that'd be considered a fairy tale in a fairy tale.

Ultimately, our form of government is inefficient and flawed, but it seems to be the most stable and effective that can be put together shy of a Sci-fi public awakening that doesn't seem due at any time soon.

I disagree! Anarchism would work just fine in a society where everyone has the exact same motivation and goals. Any individuality would quickly crush anarchy...

 

[SigmatheZeta]

An American Socialist in the very early 20th century said, and this is a paraphrase as I don't remember the exact wording, 'There is an inherent flaw in the human psyche that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' This was back when labor unions were having all sorts of troubles with the Government, militias, blacklisting, etc...

Anyone counting on the kind spirit and/or wisdom of human beings to make things work out are brutally naïve. Attempted utopian societies in the US all failed. Even weak centralized Federal governments failed in the US under the Articles of Confederation.

The idea that anarchism can work is just uneducated, naïve, bizarrely hopeful, and completely incompatible with history. That, oh... things would just work better if... is a fairy tale that'd be considered a fairy tale in a fairy tale.

Ultimately, our form of government is inefficient and flawed, but it seems to be the most stable and effective that can be put together shy of a Sci-fi public awakening that doesn't seem due at any time soon.

I disagree! Anarchism would work just fine in a society where everyone has the exact same motivation and goals. Any individuality would quickly crush anarchy...

Hi, guys.

When I say "I am an anarcho-communist," that really translates loosely to "I'm running Linux." I really just like the basic philosophy that lies behind it. It is a creation that people share, and everybody that wants to contribute to making it better and more beautiful does. I wish that more things in life worked that way. It makes a deep, instinctive part of me feel incredibly peaceful and happy. If I could create my own heaven, everything would work that way, including how we grew our food and built our automobiles. People would create beautiful things because just sitting around doing nothing is boring, and it gets old.

In light of that, it might come across as provocative to call myself something that contains the word "communist," but the only reason that it might come across as provocative is that somebody chose to make communism a taboo set of ideas. People used to say that about alternative sexualities. They still say that about some alternative sexualities. I am zoosexual, and not everybody agrees that I have a right to say that. There are people that want you to think the FBI will come make you disappear just because you mentioned it. There are still many people in this world that think you should be treated as a criminal based on who you are or what you believe or do not believe.

I might not agree with Marxist communism, but I still think his ideas are valid in a discussion. If we just discussed it openly and honestly, without going into the usual toxic places, someone might eventually bring up the idea that Karl Marx was not the only communist philosopher. In my opinion, the best and most brilliant communist philosopher was Pyotr Kropotkin. As with Darwin's theory of Evolution, his original idea had a long way to go before it was really perfect, but I believe that Pyotr Kropotkin's idea of communism was substantially more noble and more pure than that of Karl Marx. Nevertheless, even Karl Marx might have been right about some things, and we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Even though "anarcho-communism" is not even close to being a thoroughgoingly comprehensive description of my views on political economy, I should have a right to be able to talk about those ideas openly. Those ideas are valid, and I believe they have had an overall benevolent influence on our way of life.

Some people call themselves "libertarians." I say, the real fallacy behind libertarianism is the idea that you should really need the government's permission to be free. Anarchy is the realization that you are free, and what the government doesn't know will not hurt them. Anarchy is the idea that if you don't want people to think they HAVE to make laws to stop you from living how you choose to live, then learn to coexist with people in peace. Learn how to just be kind to people. Whatever dumb laws they make, they will probably forget about those dumb laws when they realize that you are not really a scary person.

As an anarchist, I think that people write laws in the same way that a Catholic clings to a crucifix. They write laws in the same way that an orthodox Jew kisses a mezuzzah. They write laws in the same way that a Muslim kneels on a prayer mat. They like to go through life believing that if they make a law against something, it stops existing. Laws or no laws, though, people will accept just about anything if you can get them to understand that it's not really something they need to be afraid of. It's when you make people feel unsafe that they become dangerous to you, even if you never meant to make them feel unsafe.

As communist, I believe that it's not really true that people are inherently lazy. They are just taught a false belief that being unproductive is a reward, but if being unproductive is a reward, then why is retirement so terrible for a person's health and such a cause of depression? People are most happy when they are creating things. I think that people naturally like to share. It's not the fault of human nature that we are brainwashed into thinking we are obligated to enjoy idleness when it is so clear that idleness is bad for us. We might not be able to do it in one generation, but I think it's possible to deconstruct this brainwashing, and if we did, I think it would lead to people being happier.

Senator Kennedy, the word is not "comrade." It's tovarish. The meaning is subtly different.

Anarcho-communism is not a feasible form of government. It will never work long term. If one wants to abolish the existing state, capitalism, private property, private business and etc, they will need a very powerful military to do all that abolishing! And then, the following poverty and distress that will follow after having an economy destroyed, will require a very powerful state with brutal police to maintain such a miserable economy and stop people from overthrowing the new system. Obviously having a powerful state is the opposite of Anarchy!

It is not really touted as a form of government, but it is touted as a means of organizing production. The open source community is a good example of a hybrid model that includes capitalist elements. Richard Stallman literally said as much.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

There has been a major misunderstanding. Anarcho-communism does not mean we are going to stop people from trying to sell stuff if they want to try to sell stuff. It is not a form of government, either. Instead, it a creative commons sort of community where people might create stuff for many different reasons, including just because they are bored or because they found a solution that worked for them and wanted to share and share alike. It is a highly libertarian concept.

Not all communists want to take away your right to sell stuff. It is time to abolish this stereotype.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There has been a major misunderstanding. Anarcho-communism does not mean we are going to stop people from trying to sell stuff if they want to try to sell stuff. It is not a form of government, either. Instead, it a creative commons sort of community where people might create stuff for many different reasons, including just because they are bored or because they found a solution that worked for them and wanted to share and share alike. It is a highly libertarian concept.

Not all communists want to take away your right to sell stuff. It is time to abolish this stereotype.

Not all vegetarians don't eat meat.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, but I'm being repressed by the violence inherent in the system.

The inherent problem with communism is requires people to take the concern they have for their children and other close members of their group, and extend this to society in general. In practice, it has never worked without instituting a strict police system to enforce communist altruism. This prime function of this police system quickly becomes the preservation of the communist system and the power of those in control.

As Will Rogers said,"Communism is like prohibition, it is a good idea, but it won't work.”

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, but I'm being repressed by the violence inherent in the system.

The inherent problem with communism is requires people to take the concern they have for their children and other close members of their group, and extend this to society in general. In practice, it has never worked without instituting a strict police system to enforce communist altruism. This prime function of this police system quickly becomes the preservation of the communist system and the power of those in control.

As Will Rogers said,"Communism is like prohibition, it is a good idea, but it won't work.”

I think that non-exclusionary communism can and does work. I think that we ought to be able to think about communism outside the box of abolishing capitalism. Richard Stallman's explanation was I think on-point.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

There has been a major misunderstanding. Anarcho-communism does not mean we are going to stop people from trying to sell stuff if they want to try to sell stuff. It is not a form of government, either. Instead, it a creative commons sort of community where people might create stuff for many different reasons, including just because they are bored or because they found a solution that worked for them and wanted to share and share alike. It is a highly libertarian concept.

Not all communists want to take away your right to sell stuff. It is time to abolish this stereotype.

Not all vegetarians don't eat meat.

False equivalence. There is nothing stopping people from having a collective creative commons, even if most of them also worked for a wage in a predominantly capitalist system. Only orthodox Marxist capitalism is exclusionary, and I do not even agree with Marx. Pyotr Kropotkin was more influenced by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualist idea. Anarcho-communism is not necessarily exclusionary.

Not all communists are Marxists, by the way. I am only conditionally sympathetic with even Frankfurt school, and adherents of that sometimes irritate me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, but I'm being repressed by the violence inherent in the system.

The inherent problem with communism is requires people to take the concern they have for their children and other close members of their group, and extend this to society in general. In practice, it has never worked without instituting a strict police system to enforce communist altruism. This prime function of this police system quickly becomes the preservation of the communist system and the power of those in control.

As Will Rogers said,"Communism is like prohibition, it is a good idea, but it won't work.”

I think that non-exclusionary communism can and does work. I think that we ought to be able to think about communism outside the box of abolishing capitalism. Richard Stallman's explanation was I think on-point.

If we just look past the exclusion of not eating meat, vegetarianism is pretty easy to handle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There has been a major misunderstanding. Anarcho-communism does not mean we are going to stop people from trying to sell stuff if they want to try to sell stuff. It is not a form of government, either. Instead, it a creative commons sort of community where people might create stuff for many different reasons, including just because they are bored or because they found a solution that worked for them and wanted to share and share alike. It is a highly libertarian concept.

Not all communists want to take away your right to sell stuff. It is time to abolish this stereotype.

Not all vegetarians don't eat meat.

False equivalence. There is nothing stopping people from having a collective creative commons, even if most of them also worked for a wage in a predominantly capitalist system. Only orthodox Marxist capitalism is exclusionary, and I do not even agree with Marx. Pyotr Kropotkin was more influenced by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualist idea. Anarcho-communism is not necessarily exclusionary.

The trouble is you are loosely tossing around meaningless terms, not actually describing the system you think should be adopted, and are not pleased with people handwaving the ideas you aren't actually describing.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, but I'm being repressed by the violence inherent in the system.

The inherent problem with communism is requires people to take the concern they have for their children and other close members of their group, and extend this to society in general. In practice, it has never worked without instituting a strict police system to enforce communist altruism. This prime function of this police system quickly becomes the preservation of the communist system and the power of those in control.

As Will Rogers said,"Communism is like prohibition, it is a good idea, but it won't work.”

I think that non-exclusionary communism can and does work. I think that we ought to be able to think about communism outside the box of abolishing capitalism. Richard Stallman's explanation was I think on-point.

If we just look past the exclusion of not eating meat, vegetarianism is pretty easy to handle.

Again, anarcho-communism is not inherently exclusionary. Asserting that it has to be is a "no true Scotsman" argument.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

There has been a major misunderstanding. Anarcho-communism does not mean we are going to stop people from trying to sell stuff if they want to try to sell stuff. It is not a form of government, either. Instead, it a creative commons sort of community where people might create stuff for many different reasons, including just because they are bored or because they found a solution that worked for them and wanted to share and share alike. It is a highly libertarian concept.

Not all communists want to take away your right to sell stuff. It is time to abolish this stereotype.

Not all vegetarians don't eat meat.

False equivalence. There is nothing stopping people from having a collective creative commons, even if most of them also worked for a wage in a predominantly capitalist system. Only orthodox Marxist capitalism is exclusionary, and I do not even agree with Marx. Pyotr Kropotkin was more influenced by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualist idea. Anarcho-communism is not necessarily exclusionary.

The trouble is you are loosely tossing around meaningless terms, not actually describing the system you think should be adopted, and are not pleased with people handwaving the ideas you aren't actually describing.

Examples of non-exclusionary anarcho-communism include open source software and Wikimedia. They have worked beautifully, and nobody involved in those projects wants to make a law against also profiting from their labors as long as you respect THEIR freedom.

 

[laughing dog]

My rather limited and slanted understanding of history is that the most sustainable societies are the ones that evolve without planning or mass coercion.

 

[Bomb#20]

In light of that, it might come across as provocative to call myself something that contains the word "communist," but the only reason that it might come across as provocative is that somebody chose to make communism a taboo set of ideas.

The 1950s called; they want their controversy back. There are taboos on several sets of ideas -- ideas people get seriously hurt for advocating -- but communism hasn't been one of those sets for a very long time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble is you are loosely tossing around meaningless terms, not actually describing the system you think should be adopted, and are not pleased with people handwaving the ideas you aren't actually describing.

Examples of non-exclusionary anarcho-communism include open source software and Wikimedia. They have worked beautifully, and nobody involved in those projects wants to make a law against also profiting from their labors as long as you respect THEIR freedom.

Okay, so open-source code is a reason to do what now?

 

[SigmatheZeta]

The trouble is you are loosely tossing around meaningless terms, not actually describing the system you think should be adopted, and are not pleased with people handwaving the ideas you aren't actually describing.

Examples of non-exclusionary anarcho-communism include open source software and Wikimedia. They have worked beautifully, and nobody involved in those projects wants to make a law against also profiting from their labors as long as you respect THEIR freedom.

Okay, so open-source code is a reason to do what now?

If you like it, you can take part in it if you want to. You could also try using a similar approach to do other kinds of things...if you wanted to and if you could figure out a strategy for application. It's entirely up to you. It's anarchy!

 

[SigmatheZeta]

In light of that, it might come across as provocative to call myself something that contains the word "communist," but the only reason that it might come across as provocative is that somebody chose to make communism a taboo set of ideas.

The 1950s called; they want their controversy back. There are taboos on several sets of ideas -- ideas people get seriously hurt for advocating -- but communism hasn't been one of those sets for a very long time.

I get harassed and negatively stereotyped more for my anarcho-communist views than for being transgender, so I disagree.