My other inquiry thread on libertarian socialism got swept away in a sea of confusion, so I’m creating this new one.
From what I have read about it, anarcho-communism advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, and private property.
I would like to make this as simple as possible: how could you abolish capitalism and private property without coercion from things like the state? Or better yet - how is anarcho-communism compatible with voluntaryism?
New socialist man.
Yep, that about sums it up. The assumption of anarcho-communism is that people will voluntarily act against their own rational self-interest, which requires people of a very different sort than have ever lived, aka New Socialist Man.
Fortunately, libertarianism / anarcho-communism does not require anything like a “new libertarian-humankind.”
It is for this reason that socialism is utopian (in the sense of being unachievably utopian), because it requires a species of human being that does not exist in order to work. In contrast, libertarianism is not utopian but eminently realizable, because it’s designed to work with humankind as they are now.
I’m not going into detail here, too tired, but I’ll say that I think that anarcho-communism has thusfar been utterly misrepresented in this thread. Here’s the wikipedia page. I have a particular soft spot for Kropotkin in my heart. I’ve written about how the left and “right” anarchisms are compatible and may well even complement each other. Any socialist anarchist who does not believe that their interests ultimately align with the formation of a voluntaryist world is sadly mistaken, for if their theories are correct, and if their system would come about anyway, it is in their best interest to see the free market world a reality.
I have to say that it’s interesting to contrast the left and right conceptions of the state, for socialists see the state as a tyrannical system which enforces capitalism, while the anarchists see that it is a violent institution which is evil exactly because it violates property rights.
EDIT
It should also be noted that I am talking about the strictly “anarchist” version of anarcho-communism, not the “Marxist” version of this tradition, which does require a change in human nature brought about by the new changes in the new production structure of socialism.
In other words, anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are simply two possible structures of society in an anarchist world.
Also, when looking at history, it seems like an-commies don’t support the NAP. They really pioneered “propaganda of the deed.”
It’s true that these are simply two possible structures. The fact is that a stateless society based on voluntarism would be tolerant of nearly endless forms of societal structuring.
You could, in an anarch context, create a system very similar to existing American cities. You could create socialist systems full of people voluntarily living communally.
There’s only one requirement: voluntarism.
If that’s in place, whatever else follows is merely a matter of free association between adults.
I want to create a way for people to easily experiment and build such systems and group together within them, using online identities and concepts involving law-as-code which would take up far too much space here 
Depends of the defition of coersion, or more preciselly, the definition of property. Being that AnComs don’t see private property as legitimate property
With voluntaryism as a capitalist system, it is not. With voluntaryism in the sense that people will not be forced into communes, it is the core of anarcho-communism, but that doesn’t means that AnComs would tolerate capitalism or feudalism or slavery, no matter if they are voluntary or not, it just means that AnComs are socialists. Socialism means establishing mutualism where some (or all) people voluntarily decide to form Bakuninist collectives or Kropotkian communes.
Difference in view of what is rational self-interest. Collectivist anarchist, as opposed to capitalists, see cooperation and solidarity as being in the ration of self-interest of people involved, not competition.
Yet socialism has been successfully established.
Does anarchism require “perfect” people to work? The next chapter on the link is also related.
That’s exactly right, my mistake. Strictly speaking, a person always acts in his self-interest, because his self-interest is whatever he believes it to be, and he always acts in what they believe to be his self-interest. So, let me rephrase my original comment; the assumption of anarcho-communism is that people will view certain things as being in their self-interest which historically people have not viewed as being in their self-interest: e.g. working even though they could live just as well on the product of others without working (the classic incentive problem, which can only be solved by creating the New Socialist Man).
Kropotkin did a nice job in responding to this kind of view by saying that cooperation has historically been seen by all beings, including people, as being in their self-interest, in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
Well, this is considered by socialist as immoral, someone’s preference for it in no way justifies it.
So basically, anarcho-communism is not possible without force, although this force will not come from a “state.”
And technically, isn’t a kibbutz an example of a socialist yet voluntary society?
thats utter nonsense, socialism always involves forcing productive people to support non-productive people. Its in their charter.
“So basically, anarcho-communism is not possible without force, although this force will not come from a ‘state.’”
Society is impossible without some degree of force. Technically it all comes down to definitions of legitimate property
“So, let me rephrase my original comment; the assumption of anarcho-communism is that people will view certain things as being in their self-interest which historically people have not viewed as being in their self-interest: e.g. working even though they could live just as well on the product of others without working (the classic incentive problem, which can only be solved by creating the New Socialist Man).”
As stosc stated Anarcho-communism has nothing to do with the “new socialist man” as such. While it does employ an unrealistic view of man, especially involving the effects of democracy, it’s view of man is not extremely unrealistic, as most individuals, when put in the communist situation, will cooperate with each other.
I am dissatisfied with the level of discussion that has thusfar been advanced in this thread.
Then how is An-comm compatible with voluntaryism?
MY HEAD HURTS
Yes. Being that socialists consider that capitalism is based on theft, and that private property as recognized in capitalism is not legitimate property, we would not see it as an unjustified use of force to violently abolish capitalism and expropriate the capitalists.
Our charter is diametrically the opposite. Two main pillars of socialism are no unearned incomes (rent), and workers’ self-management.
I repeat: With voluntaryism as a capitalist system, it is not. With voluntaryism in the sense that people will not be forced into communes, it is the core of anarcho-communism, those who don’t want to join a commune but to be self-sufficient, barter or form mutualist markets or bakuninist collectives, they would be able to do that without any problem.
You sound like you are an anarcho-communist.
Strict anarcho-communism isn’t because it has a different view of property rights, however if they said “here, we’re gonna form communes where we treat property the way that we want it to be treated” and they indeed do this, then there is nothing contradictory between voluntarism and anarcho-communism. In this way the systems could exist side by side and people could choose how they wanted to live. As I expressed in the above link, I think these sorts of societies could play complementary roles for people who don’t necessarily enjoy the capitalistic lifestyle. The fact that the two systems exist side by side would keep both more “competitive” and could help compensate for the problems with either one.
“those who don’t want to join a commune but to be self-sufficient, barter or form mutualist markets”
Those are all forms of capitalism.
But as I said, it doesn’t look like the NAP is appreciated by anarcho-communists. Again, “propaganda of the deed.”