"Kill Capitalism.Kill the market.Kill the economy".
Goes back to at least the Diggers in English civil war.
No state. No market.No Money.No private property(which is a social relationship different from mere possession). No wage system.No bosses.No landlords.No money.
No markey.No rent, No profit,No intellectual property, No debt.
Only necessary minimal voluntary work.No wage labour. Worker self management in what work exists. No market in land.Gift or barter economies.No market competition.
no wage labour
no compulsory work
no over production?
absentee ownership leads to
capitalist work ethic
a profit driven money economy leads to
which leads to
sexism that sells
Debt is a form of social control.One capitalist society is founded on.
Capitalism tries to co-opt feminism,by telling them to be a boss and so feminism can become pro-capitalist.
Capitalism feeds consumerism which plays on body image/sex sells.
Capitalism works on sweatshops often due to sexism worked by women which is another way that makes sweatshops and anti-capitalism a feminist issue.
Capitalism and Patriarchy do not necessarily go together insofar as Patriarchy is older than Capitalism. But Capitalism feeds on Patriarchy well and vice versa.
Anarcho-Communists oppose having to work x hrs just to live somewhere.It's essentially having to work to earn a right to live,to eat,to shelter etc.You have to buy a right to exist as a human being in society.That's pretty sad.
If a place involves production for society then the group is responsible for it.Land is not sold or bought. Vacant land could be used by anyone. There's collective usage and personal possessions.
Anarcho-Collectivism potentially sees Anarcho-Communism as an end state to process to. There maybe could be labour vouchers for luxuries preventing over accumulation.
Marx. There's nothing necessarily anti-Marxist about Anarcho-Communism. We filter out the rubbish in Marx and keep the good stuff of which there is a lot.
Why no state?(some economic based arguments)-- In a society with money , those who have most will have most voice,most influence,most respect and most power.Those with the least will have the least voice ,least influence,least power and not even be able to survive.
In a society with money those who have the most economic influence will have the most political influence and so it's very likely the state will be captured by capitalist interests and bend it's decisions to suit the requirements of the capitalist economy.
Role of The State: The state is the maintainer of Capitalism.It's twin purposes are to prevent the overthrow of capitalism(by way of police,army, ideological apparatus like the media ) and to prevent it's collapse from capitalist greed e.g. bailouts.
Laws are influenced by those with the most money(the capitalists) and are market focused-focused on maintaining and extending the influence of the market. The G8 and it's equivalents exist to coordinate policies for global capitalism.
There was a state before capitalism but there has never been a free market capitalism and there never could be. Capitalism developed with help from the state and requires state protection and enforcement.The irony of so called free market policies and programs is that massive resistance to the consequences of them requires police state levels of suppression- practically Fascism.
Politicians: A free marketeer is a potential dictator or police state thug. The rightwing is only the more blatant 'honest' political represensation of capitalism and the capitalist.
The 'left' or centre 'left' parties and politicians are more subtle and manipulative.As with all manipulators,lie to their face with a smile and feined kindness and stab them in the back with malice. The right is better at appealing to those deluded by capitalist mythology while the 'left'/centre 'left' appeals more to those who want reforms but fear revolution but veils it in a benevolent skin. When the mask slips the 'left'/centre 'left' can be revealed as just as capitalist as the rightwing but just better at hiding it or making ideologically driven apologetics and justifications which 'seem reasonable'.
Reforms:- Reforms are breadcrumbs.They can be rolled back anytime if it suits those in power.They are implemented to prevent dissent and revolution.They alter the society capitalism is working in but do not alter the fundamental relations of capitalism otherwise the state would not allow it.State healthcare(and welfare) was accepted since it prevented revolution even if it did lessen the burden of wage slavery.However state welfare is capitalist in that it pushes capitalist work ethic and wage slavery.It's complict too.
Anarcho-communists begrudingly prefer state healthcare,state welfare etc to privatized alternatives. We do so however well aware and fully admitting the problems these institutions have, such as being hierarchical,capitalist etc. state healthcare,state welfare etc is closer to communism than privatized alternatives.
Rejection of the market. The abolition of a market economy.Trade itself is not evil but the consequences and implications of the social context in which it is carried out can be. simple A to B trades are not immoral generally speaking.
Currency and the market divide people into classes based on contributions and wealth. Money leads to division and ranking of people according to wealth they have .As well as the ownership of means of production(which creates Capitalist vs proletariat), money divides people into groupings too.
It leads to profit driven society. If profit is focus of society then those who do not make profit nd who do not have money are seen as lesser.In a world where you need money to survive you need wage slavery(wages,compulsory work)those without end up homeless ,starving.A society with money will inevitably have inequality,crime,homelessness,starvation,poverty,consumerism,environmental degradation,
Mutualism. There could be market socialism or non-capitalist markets since capitalism has not always existed while markets have.So Mutualism is a valid form of anarchism.However it would have to not involve capitalist types of relations.
Anarcho-Communism is the rejection of mutualism and market socialism as not sufficiently radical enough though we need not be anti-mutualism or syndicalism. They reject anarcho-syndicalist goals of wages based on contribution.Economic contributions are not measurable since they are a collective product. Any system with wage labour and private property requires a state.
Even in an anarchist society(say Mutualism) with wages based on contribution,those who didn't work would starve,there could be poverty,inequality,overaccumulation,consumerism,environmental degradation,waste etc. Anarcho-Communism denies these possibilities but abolished the need for them or the possibility of them.
Also the anarcho-communist critique is that if money existed, if wages were necessary to live, if work was compulsory to live(wage slavery) then this would have problematic complications and lead to many of the problems an anarcho-communist society could avoid e.g. a society with money could still have massive accumulation and so a wealth divide/inequality or have consumerism.
anarcho-communism favours production and distribution for need only, "From each according to their needs".The basic necessities of life would and should be freely available.
Working for a wage even with worker self management just means the workers are wage slaves to each other. The problem of wage slavery is more correcly, the compulsion in needing to work for a wage at all.The compulsion that you either work or starve i.e. the existence of the wages system, of wages being necessary are themselves the problem.
Anarcho-Syndicalism or marxist or mutualism lays the blame on the capitalists ownership of the means of production but if the workers own and run the factory, wage slavery still exists just it has changed form. So wage slavery is tied to wages not wage labour though of course that worsens the situation.The class struggle is only ended by worker self management.
Is an anarcho-communist society possible? I believe so. Is it likely? I don't know.I don't believe it's guaranteed to happen but I also don't think we can rule it out and say it will never happen. Is it necessary? without doubt!
So regardless of whether it's likely it's necessary and so there must always be a push towards it no matter how small those steps are.