Commies don’t want to move out on their own. They need someone else to supply the capital goods that oppress them and exploit their labour. I mean, really. You can’t be a good commie unless you are crying about exploitation. Unhappiness is the natural state of the exploited proles.
If they leave, whose capital goods will they use? We already know the commie system of capital is flawed and unsustainable…
I figure they are waiting around until they cantake away the capital goods, LIBERATE THEM, from the evil and vile capitalists and factory owners, then they can take the factories, and the owners cars and houses too, since it’s all product of exploitation.
You see, they never have to establish a commune. That would be risky and hard work.
I count them as individualist anarchists anyway, and they are respectful of property rights. But no, BP2 was referring more specifically to societies in which communists for instance are expelled. My point was that this can be achieved by way of restrictive covenants and the like, and that if the preference for dissociation is strong enough, that this will in fact come into place. It need not encompass a whole city even; just segments of it, though I guess it’s possible one could even see whole cities governed by interconnecting networks of such covenants. I also think most people will gravitate to communities servicing their preferences, and their view of the good life, so that conservatives will live apart from liberals and so on. Trade will still go on, and I would venture some commercial centres will be open to everyone. Those who dislike this can stick to enterprises in their own communities.
At a grander scale, anarcho-communists will form their communes, perhaps trading with other enclaves, perhaps visiting but it is unlikely they’ll reside in them. Why should they when they can put their vision into practice? So I do not think arrangements such as restrictive covenants would be difficult to put into place at all. It’s just necessary to realize it need not encompass an entire city, and that dissociative preferences need not entail isolationism.
I see anarcho communism quickly dying without the state. From what I can tell most of them only favour this type of organisation because they’re deluded enough to think that it can work. When they try to implement it only to see that it fails and they’re living in far less prosperity than their capitalist neighbours, I’d hazard a guess that despite their rhetoric they’ll choose material wealth over some silly notion of equality.
The fact is most anarcho communists are children with a Youtube account who don’t get out enough.
Funny, thats how they see us. Even though it seems that many of us just have normal lives and are busy getting an education or running our small businesses. [^o)]
Exploiters! Wage slavery! Normal lives?!? NO capitalist has a normal life! It is full of riches and excesses, all that profit and GREED, all that moniesss and EVILz1!1!! Karl Marx was dirt poor, no-one would publish him… Then you have Mises, and Rothbard - filthy rich!!!
LOL! Yeah but the real sad thing is that most of these idiots don’t even know that Marx never really worked a day in his life, he always mooched off his father or Engels, and in his day wasn’t considered that great of a socialist theorist. While Mises had his house burnt down by fascist and inspired F.A. Hayek, a nobel prize winning economist, and Rothbard was in his day was in fact very respected in his fields and had some of his essays published in very respected magazines and newspapers. Basically they follow a moocher who wasn’t relevent at the time of his contempories; while we follow a man who was respected when he was alive and already is gaining a following worldwide. [H]
BP, i think you were benign and constitent throughout this thread, good job. i still think all the anarcho-sydicalists that i’ve encountered can go fuck themselves, includes this guy from boston i met a couple weeks ago who was wearing a Mao Zedong t-shirt