Myth: anarcho-communists are advocating a new and untested idea and want to force it on everybody.
Reality: organizational types influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy have been around worldwide for several generations, and in the USA, there is already a regulatory structure for them. While they are still a continuously evolving concept, they are also well established institutions that have their own company culture. Not all of them are particularly liberal, though most are, and members often have strong libertarian views of one kind or another. Only a few are edgy enough to call themselves anarchists, though the term would be somewhat accurate in dome cases if one merely acknowledged that there could be such a thing as a "moderate anarchist."
Reality: Slapping new labels on things that have failed doesn't make them work any better.
I would hardly call the success of Android's underlying software a "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. The open source community that took part in designing that software is literally influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Alcoholics Anonymous was influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. The gay rights movement, the broader free love movement, and feminism have all been influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Those movements have done what had appeared, at one time, to be impossible.
It might sound odd that I call the gay rights movement an example of anarcho-communism, by the way, but gay rights advocacy is really an energy-intensive process. That process has nevertheless created an outcome that the entire LGBTQIAA community share in common, which is political and social change that has made our lives substantially easier and more fair. We own that consequence of our labors in common. Nobody and everybody owns it. It might not be a good or a service in the traditional sense, but this is why I am trying to educate people on the idea of a hybrid economy: anarcho-communist strategies can get things done that otherwise would barely even be possible, but I do not necessarily recommend it as a Maslow's hammer.
The open source community has successfully hybridized the concept of a creative commons with capitalism: the contents of the creative commons are treated a little bit like fish in ocean currents. Access to those ideas is shared collectively, but the ideas are turned into goods or other ideas that can be sold for profit. This has been a highly successful idea.
However, you cannot really participate in this discussion,
@Loren Pechtel, until you acknowledge that anarcho-communism owes more to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon than it does to Karl Marx. What I see you doing, here, is trying to treat everything that has the word "communism" in its name as if it were a remix of the
Communist Manifesto, and it's like nothing else really exists in this conversation for you. Until you actually acknowledge all of the pieces that are in play, here, then you are going to struggle to keep up. I really feel like I am having this conversation without you, at this point.
Also, you have been implying the assumption that I must be advocating anarcho-communism as a Maslow's hammer. Like most ignoramuses that I have attempted to talk to about this topic, you cannot accept the idea that a variety of different strategies for production or bringing about change can exist in the same economy. In a way, you remind me of a homophobe that thinks I am trying to force homosexuality upon him just by being openly queer. It's childish and autistic thinking.
Catch up with the adults, and I will continue to have this discussion with you.