I’ll bite. Anarcho-communism and ML are distinct in theory, but in practice would converge to generic authoritarian communism.
Let’s think about anarcho communism. Anarcho Communists call for the abolition of private property and collectively owned goods items and services. In a utopian society that would be pretty sweet, but in practical circumstances there would have to be someone enforcing this order (i.e. a state for all intents and purposes even if you don’t want to call it that). This makes the entire theory paradoxical and fundamentally equivalent with ML which is a more honest version of communism which recognises that the boot of the state is required to create any kind of societal order.
The state is needed to enforce private property, not the lack of it.
Critically, you assume that authority is required for order, so obviously you’re unable to envision whatever it might be that anarchists are getting at.
Sure, communism is an ideal that does not exist in practice currently, but the point of an ideal is to work towards it. The “anarcho” part specifies complete opposition to authority in praxis as well. Strategies could include unionising, community building, mutual aid, permablitzing, FOSS, copyleft, and whatever else can undermine the current power structures while maintaining anarchist principles. Which explicitly excludes Marxist-Leninist strategies of coopting the state, or forming any other kind of heirarchy.
It would also be needed to enforce the lack of private property as that implies it would be illegal for private individuals to own their own property, unless everybody in the world agreed anarcho communism was the way forward of course. But as human beings are still arguing about religion I can’t envision a world in which we agree on something as profound as that collectively.
In your scenario the mechanisms you listed such as unions will become a de facto state.
Using the state to make private property “illegal” might be a possible strategy, but it certainly isn’t an anarchist one.
Hypothetically, the moment that the state doesn’t exist, private property would be unenforceable/meaningless. How the state might be abolished is another question. While marxist-leninists might opt for a “trust me bro the state will dissolve once we reach true communism” strategy, anarchists again would not. Obviously it’s a tough question and an even tougher endeavour but it’s not something anarchists don’t have answers for.
Anarchist praxis is more grassroots focused, because obviously anarchy/anarcho-communism can’t happen overnight, and requires a profound change in social values. If you choose to believe that it’s impossible, I can’t blame you, but I would like to ask why.
Also you use private property and “property” interchangeably, but there’s a difference between personal property and private property. Abolishing private property isn’t about taking away your personal house and toothbrush, it’s about abolishing landlords, factory owners, and other “private” ownership of public/communal spaces.
Regarding unions, it depends whether or not they’ve been structured specifically without hierarchy in mind. In any case the point is that anarchist praxis is diverse and decentralised.
Sounds pretty good, but it wouldn’t be sustainable. Someone would eventually consolidate power. There would be a union that oversees and regulates the local unions and you’re right back where you were. Humans are shitty and will make power grabs when presented with the opportunity.
That is why for any such society to exist there must be a widespread cultural belief in opposing authority. All of the members of society need to call out those who try to consolidate power. The entire community must be opposed to any individual power grab. They must not be given the opportunity. That is the only way to sustain the system.
I’ll bite. Anarcho-communism and ML are distinct in theory, but in practice would converge to generic authoritarian communism.
Let’s think about anarcho communism. Anarcho Communists call for the abolition of private property and collectively owned goods items and services. In a utopian society that would be pretty sweet, but in practical circumstances there would have to be someone enforcing this order (i.e. a state for all intents and purposes even if you don’t want to call it that). This makes the entire theory paradoxical and fundamentally equivalent with ML which is a more honest version of communism which recognises that the boot of the state is required to create any kind of societal order.
The state is needed to enforce private property, not the lack of it.
Critically, you assume that authority is required for order, so obviously you’re unable to envision whatever it might be that anarchists are getting at.
Sure, communism is an ideal that does not exist in practice currently, but the point of an ideal is to work towards it. The “anarcho” part specifies complete opposition to authority in praxis as well. Strategies could include unionising, community building, mutual aid, permablitzing, FOSS, copyleft, and whatever else can undermine the current power structures while maintaining anarchist principles. Which explicitly excludes Marxist-Leninist strategies of coopting the state, or forming any other kind of heirarchy.
It would also be needed to enforce the lack of private property as that implies it would be illegal for private individuals to own their own property, unless everybody in the world agreed anarcho communism was the way forward of course. But as human beings are still arguing about religion I can’t envision a world in which we agree on something as profound as that collectively.
In your scenario the mechanisms you listed such as unions will become a de facto state.
Using the state to make private property “illegal” might be a possible strategy, but it certainly isn’t an anarchist one.
Hypothetically, the moment that the state doesn’t exist, private property would be unenforceable/meaningless. How the state might be abolished is another question. While marxist-leninists might opt for a “trust me bro the state will dissolve once we reach true communism” strategy, anarchists again would not. Obviously it’s a tough question and an even tougher endeavour but it’s not something anarchists don’t have answers for.
Anarchist praxis is more grassroots focused, because obviously anarchy/anarcho-communism can’t happen overnight, and requires a profound change in social values. If you choose to believe that it’s impossible, I can’t blame you, but I would like to ask why.
Also you use private property and “property” interchangeably, but there’s a difference between personal property and private property. Abolishing private property isn’t about taking away your personal house and toothbrush, it’s about abolishing landlords, factory owners, and other “private” ownership of public/communal spaces.
Regarding unions, it depends whether or not they’ve been structured specifically without hierarchy in mind. In any case the point is that anarchist praxis is diverse and decentralised.
Actually an entire state made out of democratic worker unions sounds pretty good. Although I personally would prefer no state.
Sounds pretty good, but it wouldn’t be sustainable. Someone would eventually consolidate power. There would be a union that oversees and regulates the local unions and you’re right back where you were. Humans are shitty and will make power grabs when presented with the opportunity.
That is why for any such society to exist there must be a widespread cultural belief in opposing authority. All of the members of society need to call out those who try to consolidate power. The entire community must be opposed to any individual power grab. They must not be given the opportunity. That is the only way to sustain the system.
Sounds like council communism I think?