Political rants

I guess to start I should be clear that when I say leftist I'm referring to everyone left of the Democrats, who to leftists are centrists. "Contrary to popular belief. You don't need big brother to function as command style economy..." I'm assuming a bit here, sorry, that what you mean by command style economy is something similar to what happened in Venezuela where the government owned resources but the people never gained from those resources. Ultimately, Anarchists agree with this point. The solution they've come up with is changing the structure of power from a hierarchy (a lateral power structure) to horizontal power structures. while I won't go into detail here (because time is limited and I'm hoping you'll look into this more on your own) the idea is that no single person or group has more power than anyone else, with rare exceptions when needed the group chooses who, when, and for how long. "...With the abolition of capitalism. There is no free market to determine the supply and demand of things. No efficient way for buyers and sellers to determine price of an asset. A worker command style economy can be just as inefficient as a government command style economy..." That is the very point of abolishing capitalism and I'll explain further when answering your question about the car. Very true, the USSR proved that. Wise allocation of resources is important for any government's economic plan. What I didn't see from you was that capitalism fails at this. Cheap or overpriced crap made to break in short amount of time so that you have to buy a replacement, not made compatible with previous or future products that end up in landfills when the next product comes out or the current one breaks and is too expensive to fix but not as expensive to replace. Nothing in capitalism is made for efficiency but instead for profit, and it's profitable to be wasteful. "...With the abolition of wage labor. People are not paid for their labor. If people are not paid. Then money is essentially abolished..." That would be correct but not all leftists want a complete removal of money. I do though. "...Riddle me this. Let says I want to buy a car in an anarcho-communist society. Well, I technically can’t buy a car because money doesn't exist in an anarchist communist society. How then would I trade in a fast efficient manner for a car?..." Correct, it is impossible to use money that doesn't exist. Anarcho-Communist society doesn't function like a capitalist one, the goal isn't to work to sustain living until all the money is owned by a few oligarchs and the function of a job isn't to make money but to provide a service the community needs/wants. It would actually be faster and more efficient to use public transportation, such as buses, trollies or high-speed rail. There is debate among the left on how to handle luxury items but my favorite solution is to just treat them like any other item. So in that instance, you'd get a car by going to the car manufacturing guild/union and picking up a car to drive home with. More likely though there might be a wait list. More coming...

"...Now let's walk through a hypothetical. Let's go to an alternative universe. To fairy tale lala land. To an anarcho-communist world. Tomorrow most people wake up and they want be an anarcho communist. Anarcho communists get voted into power..." What a lovely lala land to imagine lol. Unfortunately Anarcho-Communism isn't something we can just wake up and put into action straight off the heels of capitalism. It's something we'd have to slowly transition to in order to ensure everyone's needs were met, nothing was being overlooked and for transparency with the public. A general socialism would need to come first. "...Anarcho communists get voted into power. Laws get codified. The constitution gets changed. Anarcho communism is now the law of the land!..." Very few leftists talk about changing the constitution. There are ways of keeping the constitution intact and still having Anarcho-Communism. I suspect given the general love of the constitution that when voting how to proceed, the people would vote it be kept as is. Keep in mind that you said in this lala land that Anarcho-Communism is the law of the land, it'll be important soon. "...Now a group of tenants for a large apartment complex get together. Most of the tenants want the apartment complex to be communally owned. Because you know. That would be the democratic thing to do. The owner of the apartment complex says to the tenants. "Go fuck yourselves. This is my property." What happens in a hypothetical society where most want Anarcho-communism. But some of the business owners and private property owners don't want it. There are a few paths that could be taken: Path A: Take the property forcefully. That's what Fidel, Mao and other communist leaders did. But you can't do that because you would be no different than the authoritarian communist regimes that employ force..." Collective ownership of private property is the law of the land in your lala land, of course path A is viable, did you think police or public watches wouldn't exist or would somehow be less moral under Anarcho-Communism? What would happen to the guy? Nothing, you didn't mention him getting violent and if he lived in that building he formally owned no one would take that from him (unless he formally owned multiple buildings and lived in them all. In that instance he'd probably get a summons to a court to ask him to pick one within a decent time frame). Though this means he cannot evict people and it also means he is not obligated to repair. "...What’s the conclusion? Anarcho-communism is a theoretical political delusion. The only way people give up private property is through force..." You know this happens under capitalism right? Civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain are things that can happen to you right now. It's not exclusive to socialism or communism is my point. Your last post was about local government. Anarchists generally have an issue with lateral power structures more than governments in general but some are anti-government. individual neighborhoods would make up local unions, that would vote on and send representatives to form a council of neighborhood unions. This concept spread to the entire country forming a horizontal pseudo government with democratically elected representatives. One of these bodies would decide how a court or court like system would function or exist.

Anarco-communism sounds like a complete contradiction since anarchy is about no government at its core and Communism is collective ownership.

@projectotakux "...What’s the conclusion? Anarcho-communism is a theoretical political delusion. The only way people give up private property is through force..." You know this happens under capitalism right? Civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain are things that can happen to you right now. It's not exclusive to socialism or communism is my point. Your last post was about local government. Anarchists generally have an issue with lateral power structures more than governments in general but some are anti-government.

@projectotakux Yup, complete contradiction

@twobananasshyofapumpkinpie Bruh, I lost brain cells reading your response. I don't know if you realize this. But your making arguments that make anarcho-communism sound even worse. I won't respond to everything, buts lets go over a few points. "Cheap or overpriced crap made to break in short amount of time so that you have to buy a replacement, not made compatible with previous or future products that end up in landfills when the next product comes out or the current one breaks and is too expensive to fix but not as expensive to replace. Nothing in capitalism is made for efficiency but instead for profit, and it's profitable to be wasteful." I don't think you fully understand what efficiency means. Nothing in this world is 100 percent efficient. I will say this though. Capitalism is way more efficient than any communist system. Capitalism incentivizes the production of goods and services based on supply and demand. The capitalistic supply and demand cycle is extremely efficient because companies know precisely how much to produce based on current market demand. Here's the beautiful thing about capitalism. If some company makes crappy products. Word of mouth gets out. People stop buying products from said company. Company goes out of business. The company with better products flourishes. There is always an incentive to innovate under capitalism. For that very reason. Over the past decades. All high technological advances came through capitalism. Whereas in communism. There is no economic incentive to make products any better. People in any communist system are not going to magically make the best products in the world out of the goodness of their heart. Why would a 5 star hotel provide high quality service if there’s no economic incentive do so? 5-star hotels provide high quality service because they are paid to do so. It is naïve and gullible to think that people will magically give away free high quality service out of the goodness of their hearts. No high end car manufacture will give out free cars like free candy. Yes, let me give out this high end Lamborghini just because it is the morally correct thing to do. That is delusional naïve thinking.

Doritos. That’s all that needs to be said.

“Of course path A is viable.” Take property by force. Comrade Fidel Castro would approve. An anti-government anarchist finds it viable to use police to strip people of their property. Police are state actors. Police act on behave of the state. You want to abolish the state. Because state enforcement is bad. Yet you find it viable for the state to use force, to strip people of their property. If you don’t see the irony in that. Then I don’t know what to tell you. Oh, but the comedy gets even funnier. “individual neighborhoods would make up local unions, that would vote on and send representatives to form a council of neighborhood unions. This concept spread to the entire country forming a horizontal pseudo government with democratically elected representatives. One of these bodies would decide how a court or court like system would function or exist.” You really don't see the contradiction, do you? “Send representatives to form a council of neighborhood unions.” A group of people democratically elected to govern a larger group of people. You know what’s that’s called? That is called the government. It is no longer an anarchy once you have a government. I already know what you’re going to try to do. You’re going to try and play word games. Well, it’s not really a government. Um no, the communist council is the government. A group of people elect amongst themselves to govern the communist community. Just because it’s a small government. Doesn’t mean it’s not a government. The court system is not horizontal power structure. Courts are state bodies. Courts have jurisdictions over people. Once someone has jurisdiction over you. It is no longer a horizontal power structure. But a vertical power structure. Anarchy means no state. Yet you have states bodies like courts and state actors like communist councils, which act as government officials. Anarchist communist society that abolishes the state, but the state still exist. Bunch of contradictory nonsense.

“You know this happens under capitalism right? Civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain are things that can happen to you right now. It's not exclusive to socialism or communism is my point.” You’re might be under the false assumption that the current economic system is 100 percent capitalistic. The current economic system is mostly capitalistic with some state intervention mixed in. Civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain are left wing constructs that crept its way into a mostly capitalistic system where the state forcefully takes property. Yeah, it happens. But it doesn’t happen to everyone. Eminent domain is not extremely rampant. Most people under capitalism are not subjected to eminent domain. Even if their property is taken under eminent domain. People are compensated under fair market value. Tell me, how much are people compensated when peoples’ property is taken under communism? They get absolutely nothing. Whereas in capitalism. They get something. I don’t know about you. But I’ll rather get fair market value for my property rather than nothing.

To be quite frank with you. This extreme left-wing ideology is completely delusional and not well thought out. Just as delusional as the extreme right-wing with their crazy conspiracy theories. Completely cucu for coco puffs bruh