[NSMeta]

> Idealism? Surely. But many anarchists would tell you that anarchism is an ideal, a goal, more than it is a destination to be arrived at in short order.

It always struck me, that so many people discard the idea of anarchism either as "a teenage rebel idealism", terrorism, or simply "not going to work". Hence they go back to capitalism or however things work today.

But in the end, what anarcho-communism is trying to achieve is what most of us would agree with: eliminate poverty and exploitation (via equal rights to access means of production), let people have control over their own lives, direct democracy and self-organization. And when people say it's not going to work, it saddens me that we are not even trying to move in that direction. Of course, it may not ever happen, but innovating in this direction surely could lead us to a better world.

Of course, don't take my word for it, as I'm obviously biased. Instead research the topic if you're interested.

[mmanfrin]

  But in the end, what anarcho-communism is trying to achieve is what most of us would agree with: eliminate poverty and exploitation (via equal rights to access means of production)

You can replace the words 'anarcho-capitalism' with every single other political system, and you'd reach the same ideal endpoint. Everything promises fairness. People don't simply dismiss anarchism as 'teenage rebel idealism' because they're unaware of your notions of endpoint, they disagree with it because of inherent flaws (namely that money tends to lead to more money, and any system devoid of oversight or regulation will inevitably lead to a power structure built around those already with power).

There is no panaceatic system -- only the continual tamping of natural power leavening. To claim that your system, above others, will achieve a system that brings about permanent fairness is to belie a shallow consideration for how power accumulates.

[NSMeta]

Note 'anarcho-communism', not -capitalism. In fairness, I am opposed to anarcho-capitalism for the reason you outlined above:

> namely that money tends to lead to more money

In general, yes - there is no such thing as "panaceatic system", instead I was suggesting to trying to find different methods, organization structures to lower the possibility of (or in ideal world eliminating) power accumulation.

[eli_gottlieb]

Actually, plenty of anarcho-capitalists basically do disagree on the nature of fairness, and therefore on the very metric on which we want the economy run.

[mason240]

The problem I have with anarcho-communism is that it is identical to the tribalism and village/clan based ways of organizing society that we have progressed out of.

The basic enforcement mechanism under every a-c system I have ever read is to "drive them out of town." Thieves, rapists, ect will be banished from group. We have only to look to the past to see just horrible of a system that can be for people who have a different skin color, sexual orientation, ect from the dominant group.

[oinksoft]

Anarchism without pacifism is a contradiction, and pure anarchism can only succeed as far as can pure pacifism. Neither are likely to happen, so again, they are more ideals that should influence a more virtuous way of living, and perhaps governing, than near goals to be achieved by force or distance. As such, it's pretty obvious that "driving them out" is as far from virtue or pacifism as you can get, and is totally counter to the spirit of volunteerism. Neither imprisonment nor exile are tolerable solutions for the pacifist.

[SkyAtWork]

> Anarchism without pacifism is a contradiction

Please expound on this - that statement sounds unintuitive and generally the opposite of what I'd expect

[oinksoft]

Anarchism rejects coercion. Pacifism rejects violence, including coercion. They go hand-in-hand. Why would you expect anarchism to be the opposite of pacifism?

[abruzzi]

Probably because its easy to conflate Anarchism, a clear ideology, with anarchy, a state of social/political/governmental organization that may coincide with Anarchist ideology, but may also more closely resemble Hobbes' state of nature: "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

[mason240]

So then how would an anarchist community deal with attacks one it's members?