Anarchy =~ Communism

[hugolp]

I've noticed something similar.

AnCapist: The free market will solve everything.
Other: Well, we've had a very free market and it hasn't solved [issue].
AnCapist: That's because the market wasn't free enough. We've never had a free market.

Communist: Communism will solve everything.
Other: Well, it's been tried and it didn't solve [issue].
Communist: That's because we didn't go far enough. We never had real communism.

Social-democrat: Social-democracy will help everybody.
Other: Then why does it always concentrate the wealth in a few hands and hurts the poor?
Social-democrat: Because this is not a real democracy. We need a real democracy.

[btcLeger]

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

Your view seems typical of an ignorant middle-class square. Of course there are rules in anarchy according to many classical and modern theories of anarchism. Also of course there can be hierarchies in anarchism. Anarchy means rather freedom from command, sovereignty, state and order than lawlessness. Despite the common definition of anarchy may come close to the last named term, politcal theories of anarchism focus on absence of repressive dominance. Hierarchy and authority exist in anarchism as a voluntary choice (instead of being enforced (e.g. by government)).

Although its hard to imagine anarchism to organize our complex modern society, our life is full of anarchistic relations. Partnership, friendship, self organized leisure with your clique, many small cooperatives usually are of anarchistic character. Furthermore some indigenous cultures organize their society anarchistically.

Dont blame anarchism for your failed knowledge about it.

[J180]

Could someone link to a source which explains the difference between communism and anarcho-communism?

[LokeRundt]

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=difference+between+communism+and+anarcho-communism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[royalecraig]

Communism isn't about fairness, Communism has always been funded by the Banks, what they mean by redistribution is redistribution upwards into their vaults.
The Bankers funded the Communsuist in China and ther Soviet Union.

[J180]

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=difference+between+communism+and+anarcho-communism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I already have google, I was hoping for something more specifically recommended.

[em3rgentOrdr]

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

Anarcho-Capitalism/Voluntaryism isn't necessarily opposed to hierarchy.  We are just opposed to coercive hierarchies.  Read any Rothbard?

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to It and learn how to ride them.

In a sense, I am simply promoting an alternative method to control Justice Dragons.  Build up alternative non-taxable and non-regulatable markets, using tools such as bitcoins.  Learn to control Justice Dragons by forcing them to be subservient to the butte force of the unregulated free market. 

[JA37]

Social-democrat: Social-democracy will help everybody.
Other: Then why does it always concentrate the wealth in a few hands and hurts the poor?
Social-democrat: Because this is not a real democracy. We need a real democracy.

Oddly enough I've never heard any social democrat say something like that. "Most fair distribution" or "Least unfair distribution" perhaps.

Several posters on this forum have repeatedly said that whenever a flaw in a free market was presented it was because the market wasn't free enough because of government interaction.
And I've spent lots of time with left wing youth to know every angle of "Communism will help everyone when we get REAL communism", which is an equal amount of BS as "the market will fix everything" imho.

[billyjoeallen]

Social-democrat: Social-democracy will help everybody.
Other: Then why does it always concentrate the wealth in a few hands and hurts the poor?
Social-democrat: Because this is not a real democracy. We need a real democracy.

Oddly enough I've never heard any social democrat say something like that. "Most fair distribution" or "Least unfair distribution" perhaps.

They say things like that all the time; when they complain about the influence of money in politics, when they complain about representative vs. direct democracy, when they complain about judicial activism. This is of course unless the money, the activism or the representatives benefit them.

[smellyBobby]

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

[myrkul]

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

Anarchy (capitalist, anyway): Raise the price until someone sells;
Communism: bash people on the head until someone gives.

Yeah... all figured out.

[Anonymous]

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

Communism: bash people on the head until someone gives.

Psh, you are so idiotic. You make things seem worse than they actually are.  It isn't violence or force, it's just reminders that we are here for the common good.

[smellyBobby]

Just another random thought.

A good teacher is one that can train a pupil to defeat the teacher in any particular discipline. Since the market is full of competitive selfish agents, then what incentive is there to create another agent that can defeat you? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Maybe the market can not solve all of societies needs.

The ideal teacher is someone seeking defeat. Seeking to make someone stronger than themselves. Such an agent can not survive in a free market.

[Anonymous]

Just another random thought.

A good teacher is one that can train a pupil to defeat the teacher in any particular discipline. Since the market is full of competitive selfish agents, then what incentive is there to create another agent that can defeat you? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Maybe the market can not solve all of societies needs.

The ideal teacher is someone seeking defeat. Seeking to make someone stronger than themselves. Such an agent can not survive in a free market.

You neglect the fact that not all market entities derive value from just the collection of the most monetary profit.

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.

Also, such agents exist in the free market. They easily do. They are called charities and people who just like to build.

[myrkul]

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.

+1

[smellyBobby]

You neglect the fact that not all market entities derive value from just the collection of the most monetary profit.

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.

Survival within the ideal free market is based upon the ability to create monetary profit. If an agent does not function this way then it will not survive.

And yes I do believe that there are instances that an individual can not solve their own desires. A baby can not. Someone less educated in a particular topic cannot. It is false to assume everyone is an oracle of knowledge, which is what you imply. You imply that the baby has all of the knowledge of the mother. Or the economist has all of the knowledge of the scientist. Therefore there is no need to force anyone else to correct their decision making.

[Anonymous]

You neglect the fact that not all market entities derive value from just the collection of the most monetary profit.

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.

Survival within the ideal free market is based upon the ability to create monetary profit. If an agent does not function this way then it will not survive.

And yes I do believe that there are instances that an individual can not solve their own desires. A baby can not. Someone less educated in a particular topic cannot. It is false to assume everyone is an oracle of knowledge, which is what you imply. You imply that the baby has all of the knowledge of the mother. Or the economist has all of the knowledge of the scientist. Therefore there is no need to force anyone else to correct their decision making.

I don't know what reality you live in. Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.

A baby, an animal or any other organism that cannot sustain itself entirely is not truly an individual. It's a very dependent symbiote and in a lot of cases, a parasite.  

[smellyBobby]

Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.

If you generalize the meaning of "value" beyond monetary then your no longer talking about the free-market.

By allowing other types of value, then the meaning of "free market" is meaningless. We may as-well talk about the normal coercive world. If your going to generalize the meaning then I could incorporate things like "coercive force" value, etc.

The notion of "free market" is a human construct with value strictly defined as "monetary". As monetary value is a relative value between all goods and services within an economy, it is meant to symbolize the relative importance. If you start to incorporate other values, like say love, coercive, etc. then the "free market" construct starts to loss meaning.

Therefore unless I have been wrongly educated my assertion still holds.

[Anonymous]

Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.

The notion of "free market" is a human construct with value strictly defined as "monetary".

You have been terribly wronged --  by whomever taught you this.

[Anonymous]

In a free market, people should be able to produce in exchange for whatever form of value they may derive. Whether it be from the pleasure of helping another, building something grand or discovering our world.