• Anarcho Syndicalism Has Its Legacies

    Sure, it could work. This form of governance is highly localized. One might argue that this sort of idea has already trickled into the capitalist world, already. Co-ops and trade unionism can trace it's its political underpinnings to anarchist political philosophy. Anybody who ever said "anarchist organization" is oxymoron doesn't know anything about the history of the philosophy.

    Posted by: rpr
  • Yes, because it has before.

    The anarchist-communism type of society is vastly different from capitalism but it has worked before in the past. History buffs can tell you that this type of communism was used in the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Revolution. There are potentially a million different ways a country can be ran, but there is not just one correct answer.

  • Yes, it could function in theory.

    I really don't have time to type a full explanation. For the most part, the above and following comments say what I believe. Hopefully an Anarcho-Communist society will be formed one day, but few people seem to be interested in achieving it. Have the kind of day you deserve, people!

  • Its already worked

    Look up the Ukrainian and Spanish variants. Both worked for years (both for appx. Three, actually) and both were only brought down through conflicts with a superpower (read: USSR). To those that claim that its never been done before, you simply need to apply yourself and research only slightly into the surface of these topic in order to understand that this could potentially be successful.

  • What he said...

    I'm not sure if I can add much on top of the fantastic arguments fellow brothers and sisters of the anarchist movement have already made. You've pretty much already said what I would have. Like you say, there really is no other logical way for our society to move. Effectively, there have always been anarcho-communist societies at different points in history and no reason why it cannot happen again. The problem that we face in this modern world is that we have somehow allowed those that would deny us our liberties to grow very strong indeed. Is it perhaps that in our Western societies where we might not face as strong an oppression as other societies that we've allowed ourselves to become lazy? It is not for me to say I suppose. However, I do know that we'd best begin to get properly organised because I cannot see how we can hold off the revolution for too many more years...Especially if the neo-nazis of UKIP invade British politics...

  • Yes it could work due to the fact

    That there are no classes. Another reason is that it is a localized form of Govt. It would also make us more united than we have ever been plus there is a possibility that it could get us out of debt to foreign country's. So in short this is why it could work.

  • Yes it could work due to the fact

    That there are no classes. Another reason is that it is a localized form of Govt. It would also make us more united than we have ever been plus there is a possibility that it could get us out of debt to foreign country's. So in short this is why it could work.

  • It could work better than capitalism and statism sometimes do

    Anarchist communism has been known to work in the past where statist communist revolutions have failed to create true communism. Take, for example, the Makhnovist movement at the time of the Russian Revolution, which not only created an anarchist communist society successfully without the need for a vanguardist transition, but also organised a militia which held off German and Austrian militaries, Ukrainian nationalists, and the White Army. Another example is the anarchists during the Spanish civil war, the Mexican Zapatistas, etc. It works because the Anarchist revolution does not involve the establishment of a new state, and a new tyranny with it - the state is inherently hierarchical, which leads to new inequality (if at first social, rather than economic), which to maintain itself requires, once again, oppression of the masses.
    Anarchism and socialism also look to be the only way for modern society to escape the current systematic exploitation of the environment, as attempts to reform the capitalist system into a more environmentally responsible one have failed so far (e.G. Since the Kyoto protocol, CO2 emissions have continued to increase, in a 'business as usual' way). State Communism (or is that state capitalism?) demonstrably did not work to protect the environment - an example of this is how the USSR was one of the most polluting countries on the planet, as Stalin believed that the state was superior to the natural world. The state creates a hierarchical relationship between humanity and nature, reinforcing the perceived difference between the two, and Marx's 'metabolic rift' between them. The systematic exploitation of natural resources will cause major problems in the future through scarcity and high cost of resources we, as a technological civilization, are reliant on, and the damage done to the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and, most importantly, the biosphere by the reckless consumption of those resources. Civilization, fragile from the number of people (10 billion by 2050) who form it, will probably be seriously adversely affected by it. The only way out of the systematic exploitation of the natural world which I can see is anarchist socialism.

  • It is the best alternative

    Just looking at the current state of our government, anarcho communism would most definitely work. For one, it would unify the people who have like goals, and they would give the world what they can offer. Second, who really wants to live in a police state? No one, thats who! In my own defense, I would survive and thrive in a society that not only would cater to me, but also cater to those who need me as well. Sure, anarcho communism has its drawbacks, but the second we realize the benefits, we obviously flatten out thr kinks. In conclusion, I want to live in a country where I am free to do what I think and have no one to stop me otherwise. If not that, then what will happen to my kids? Or yours?...

  • Of course it could work.

    If we look at history the Inca a south american civilization that even challenged the Maya, were an almost ideal anarcho-communist state, where ever it has been done it has worked, however the biggest flaw with it is that all that keeps people in order is a moral code, but if the code can be kept it is a solid solution to all problems.

  • No, it wouldn't work because they are opposites.

    I don't think it would work. They are almost polar opposites in their qualities. There can't be more government restriction when there's anarchy. Communism and anarchy have trouble being stable on their own, let alone together in the same government. I think it would cause utter chaos and would ruin the country.

  • No, archo-communism can never work, it can never be completely fair.

    No I do not believe that archo-communism, or any form of communism can ever work. Even with a centralized government component of archo-communism, it still would not be completely fair and just to all workers and would instead stymie a burgeoning economy if ever implemented. Only true capitalism can help a country progress.

  • If you like civil war then yes

    - not the same a socialism
    - contrasting idea , it clashes against itself on a fundamental level
    - would destroy an economy through too much freedom
    most people are followers by nature , sorry but true, people need authority to keep them going not a popular opinion but a factual one

  • Confusion of Ideology

    Proponents of new ideas like these confuse practicable principles with a picture in their heads. The picture, I believe, is that of communitarianism (one which existed and still continues to exist). Anarcho-communism, however, is a theoretical bastard child between anarchism and communism, containing impracticable principles. The very wording of it is contradictory, and, indeed, the principles intermingled are likewise contradictory. For instance, the idea favors direct democracy. However, they also favor the abolition the state. This is impossible. In order to democratize certain needs of the people in particular places, there would necessarily have to be divisions of districts. And who determines where a one district ends and where another begins? A recognizable authority that distinguishes itself above billions of people, perhaps. In other words, abolition of recognizable regional authority, i.e. state, cannot happen if we were to sustain direct democracy.

  • Anarcho Communism doesn't address unsavory mandates of society

    Anarcho-Communism can never work for several reasons. First and foremost, the goal behind Anarcho-Communism is to eradicate the alienation and exploitation of labor. However, if everyone were entirely free to follow their own passions, whose passion would be to clean publicly shared spaces, such as public restrooms, streets, sewers? There are literally countless jobs in society that no one in their right mind would voluntarily pursue out of the sheer desire to do so.

    Furthermore, in addition to unsavory job requirements, without a strong governing body, how do we keep the peace? Sure, people could band together to stop the occasional bully/sociopath, but how would one keep the peace from a military organization without a strong military force which then provides the means to shift said political system to a totalitarian regime.

    Because of these obvious shortcomings, any attempt to realize anarcho-communism will always result in a communist dictatorship. It does not provide the strength to defend against tyranny, and if it does, that defensive might inevitably becomes the dictatorship itself. History has proven, time and again, any attempts to realize anarcho-communism inevitably fails, and brings about an era of unprecedented exploitation in it's wake.

    From an ideological aspect, it sounds great, but it cannot and will not work because it relies on unanimous adoption of a moral code that many people have proven, time and again, that they are incapable of adhering to. In small closed systems, such as the communes seen in the 60s, it can work, but once it is transferred to mass society, where anonymity, and the ability to blend into the productive populace present themselves, it falls apart from a practical standpoint.

  • No it will not work in this world

    Anarcho communism will never work in this world. On the surface it sounds like a great and fair plan but the way people live and think it simply won't work. You will never find a society that will actually conform to this lifestyle and stick to the rules. There will be too many issues to ever have it work.

  • No it couldn't work because Marxism has failed.

    All Anarcho-Communism is is just the formation of the stateless society predicted by Marx, while skipping over the centralized socialist government. Marxist Ideals have failed in nearly every state it has been implemented in (in the form of Socialism, Stalinism, or other Marxist-based philosophies) either through collapse or having a low standard of living. Only traces of "Socialist" programs exist today, in Welfare Capitalist states (such as Norway), and the State Capitalism in China. Anarcho-Communism hasn't even been experimented with on a large scale, like Anarcho-Capitalism has, such as in Iceland, the American West, Pennsylvania Colony, Rode Island Colony, and Celtic Ireland. I could go into the flaws of Marxist Ideals more, but Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Eastern Europe are the best examples of Failure. People may argue that these states aren't Marxist, but they were originally meant to be and were hijacked by totalitarian-socialists. Plus, government run services are always inefficient and wasteful (many American Government Agencies).

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.