Comments on: Ask an Anarcho-Communist

By: Aranfan

Aranfan — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:56:00 +0000

No. There are several orders of magnitude. Having done some quick math on the back of a napkin, I'm honestly not sure that it would be possible to accumulate that much in an anarchist society. Even if it were, I'd think it'd be harder to do so in a commune where the dominant form of distribution was exchange rather than gift.

This was an enjoyable conversation.

By: db0

db0 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:14:24 +0000

I was talking about accumulating enough resources to abuse them during a disaster. There's an order of magnitude of difference between that and saving some for a rainy day.

By: Aranfan

Aranfan — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:38:43 +0000

There's less needless suffering than if the guy hadn't saved up and people starved instead. It's not optimal, but in any kind of hypothetical disaster scenario, nothing is.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:19:02 +0000

Depends on the famine or catastrophe and even then it can create needless sufferring, which I do not see why people should go through just to respect some notion of rights to accumulation.

As to inter-commune trade, can't surprise your partner with a fancy piece of expensive jewelry if it's going through the official commune channels.

Depends on how it's handled

By: Aranfan

Aranfan — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:43:22 +0000

That sort of power only lasts while the famine lasts. And starts getting eroded when food merchants from other communes arrive (yay competition). Also, I'd expect every commune to have an emergency store of food, which means it's unlikely the food guy will have time to consolidate his extortion into something sustainable in between the time when the food starts running out and outsiders arrive with food.

As to inter-commune trade, can't surprise your partner with a fancy piece of expensive jewelry if it's going through the official commune channels.

By: db0

db0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:46:17 +0000

I generally agree with you although it probably all depends on the context. If for example they are accumulating resources for the purpose of trading it to other communties in exchange for luxuries, then it's likely that the community would't have an issue unless they stop providing anything back to their own community or if the resources being traded away are adverselly affecting the community.

In fact, in the case of luxury goods, it's more likely that such trades will be done on a community level so that everyone who wants has a chance to enjoy them and what is being traded away for them can be brought into sync with the needs of the community.

It would also likely be an issue if someone is just accumulating core resources for some unspecified reason. Say if someone is accumulating food, in expectation of a natural disaster under the auspice of which they can extort everyone else in exchange for domination, it's likely that their accumulation will not be respected

By: Aranfan

Aranfan — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:20:36 +0000

That depends on the form this accumulation takes. If they're accumulating in the form of food, or clothes, or consumption items, or tools, then there really isn't anything to fear. The rest of the individuals in the community have ready enough access to means of production and subsistence on their own that any attempt to re-initiate wage-slavery via negotiation would fail hilariously. You had a great article on why primitive accumulation can't be peaceful. Given the prevailing social structure, they're more likely to be saving for some expensive luxury item that's only made in some communes that use money.

If they're accumulating weapons beyond what could possibly be reasonable for self-defense, then the people of the community should worry.

By: db0

db0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:18:45 +0000

Possibly not, but the necessary materials to create stuff don't just come by themselves, if someone starts to accumulate the surplus value created on these materials for some mysterious purpose, the community would be concerned.

By: Aranfan

Aranfan — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:05:46 +0000

"As for taking with you your own means of production (or at least an equal amount of wealth to start somewhere else), that would naturally be allowed since you would be considered to own them."

Cool. As to the oven example, I was thinking that Alice and Bob bringing their family oven with them when they move. Not the unilateral taking of tools used and hence managed collectively. That would be to deprive the other bakers of their livelihood (Can't consistently worry about Alice while not caring about Jack, who's also a baker).

By: Aranfan

Aranfan — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:02:06 +0000

Okay, I think there's been a miscommunication somewhere along the line. When I say people should own the value they create, I mean they should have control over how that value is distributed. That whether it be kept to themselves, exchanged under conditions of equality, or freely given as a gift to others, be purely up to themselves as the creators of the value in question. I do not mean the shunning of freely accepted obligations or anything like that.

And so what if people want to save up most of what value they make? People aren't so different that dangerous levels of inequality can develop without stealing from others.