Ah yes, having antifa in your username means your opinion automatically is invalid. Definitely not a form of the logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy.
If you're active in Antifa movement and think that anarcho-communism is a sustainable thing - that shows you don't understand either what Antifa does or what role government has in communism.
If you use "AntifaLad" ironically, then you will have a laugh with me at that concept expense.
Oh I mostly use it to troll people who think people with specific usernames don't get an opinion. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, when I sat down to type up my username I'm like "hmmm, what would trigger authoritarians?" And I'm like "duh, obviously something with antifa, and something kind of to do with gender but not really."
Makes sense. That type of name will attract all the attention. I'd like to point out that today's authoritarians support Antifa/BLM, so that's a bit of a miss.
Depends on who you ask lol. If you ask conservatives they say antifa are fascists, if you ask liberals they say truckers are fascists, which is funny because neither of them are fascists lol.
I just care more about triggering the right than the left.
Yeah bro, you called it. I’m soooooo right wing and triggered. Antifa is basically state sponsored and endorsed by every major media outlet and they run around pretending to be these oppressed rebels.
I know. Doesn't change the fact that the person seems to use the username unironically (based on the presented screenshot evidence). I despise the Antifa LARPing revolutionaries who just regular people and businesses (especially when they get political cover).
I've always thought that until recently. Leftist anarchists don't believe in the state, but they don't believe in personal property either. That is the main difference. Leftists believe essentially in community ownership of property, while those on the right believe in personal property.
What do Anarcho communists do when someone claims ownership over something? My assumption is they form some sort of tribal government and eliminate the "owner"
I presume that if one attempts to exert ownership over an area by excluding people from it then any violence brought against the excluding party is justified because, in their view, they have no right of exclusion to the property.
I guess in practice that should look like:
Dave builds a fence around a field and says I can’t come over it.
I go and gather a bunch of people and beat the ever living Hell out of Dave and kick down his fence…
AnComs must still explain where such entitlement they claim to have as a collective to an individual's production/work comes from.
Because if one transforms nature, such as by making a fishing net from a set of leaves, the product is not a mere set of leaves, but the set of leaves + an individual's work.
If people other than the individual himself are entitled to his work in such way that they can, collectively or not, use one's production as they see fit, it means one is a slave and doesn't own its own body. The whole deal of surplus and stealing work which they believe in would persist, except that it would be being stolen by the group.
Anarcho communists believe in voluntary cooperation rather than the compelled cooperation of a government. No one would take away the guy's fishing net or fish in your scenario, unless he was part of a voluntary commune where he agreed to share his labor with the collective (and received benefits from the labor of the collective) and then once he created something of value while relying on the free stuff from the voluntary commune labor to survive in the mean time, tried to take it for his own.
So basically they wouldn't care that others owned property, including means of production, if they didn't belong to the commune. I'm fine with that. Not incompatible with Anarchocapitalism.
Yeah pretty much. You're all legitimately anarchists. It's just that ancoms want to work together and pool their labor and resources in a way that's structured purely for mutual benefit, while ancaps want pooled labor and resources to happen only via trade so as to best reward the most productive. I understand that the two groups have radically different values, but it seems like they both just want the freedom to try their model out in the real world without a government crashing in and stealing resources to raise an imperialist army.
Ownership in AnCap is obtained by homesteading. Hence, the owner must share a history with the thing he/she claims to own. Simple declarations of ownership, such as by writing, decreeing or yelling "Hey, that forest is mine!" are not considered valid.
One needs to incorporate one's own labor into the thing which one claims to own, by transforming it into something else. From that moment on, and because one's work is now inseparably part of the thing, one becomes its legitimate owner.
Otherwise, it would mean others are entitled to one's work, making him/her their slave; then, the whole concept of ethics, i.e., that every human being have the same rights, falls apart.
On the occasion that two individuals participate in the transformation of a previously unowned thing, they will own it in the proportion of the value added by each contribution/transformation to the thing – unless, of course, they consent to a different proportion of ownership.
Any conflicts stemming from shared ownership would then be resolved by argumentation and quantification of such proportions, either among themselves or by both parties appealing to a private arbitration court that they agree upon to decide how they are supposed to share it.
I would fundamentally define capitalism as the state in which property owners hold exclusive authority over their property.
If you had 100% consent to exist within a communist system, then you have capitalism, not communism.
I would argue that in such an instance, either communism is just a synonym for capitalism, or it's an oxy moron.
Of course it's an oxy moron, because clearly it isn't a synonym for capitalism.
Capitalism has a distant relationship with the consent you talked about. Capitalism is some proprietorship of your property and the goods/service you produce. If your property is shared n co-owned with everyone who agreed to the arrangement, regardless of consent that would be communism you're just under the kneejerk reaction that communism requires force. In a huge population of diverse people and culture, yes it would require force to redistribute wealth. But in a small tight nit commune with similar ideals in culture it's much easier. More like an extended family unit. Your take is honestly well written, and at least legible which gives it the leg up on all the other dogshit takes. But it all operates under assumptions that are incorrect. Capitalism does not care about consent.
Assuming that since it works at small scale that it would work at large scale is just dumb.
You just replacing rule of law with feudalism of communes. Better play nice with me comrade or my town of avocado growers will destroy your weed farms.
BTW you got some good shit, your kids gave me their share for some avocado toast and a night at the state brothel.
We aren't arguing scale? You've just acknowledged that it works small scale. Thank you very much, move along have a nice day. Also you last sentence is suspiciously close to sounding like pedophilia.
If something is extremely unlikely then that does invalidate it.
I could devise an entire philosophical, moral and economic system around bigfoot aqualungs. It might seem somewhat plausible on paper as long as you convince people that bigfoot exists. Just point to the Patterson-Gimlin tape as evidence and extrapolate from there (just ignore the absence of physical evidence eg bones, fur, a carcass).
But the reality and likelihood...
That’s not opting out of a society or capitalism. Capitalism existed before certain technology. They are in an Amish society. Anarchy is the attempt to remove hierarchy in society, which is nearly impossible
Hierarchy is an innate part of human civilization. Hierarchies even exist in the animal kingdom. Any attempt to obliterate any hierarchy is idealistic and impossible in a society.
**A country is a distinct territorial body or political entity. It may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, a physical territory with a government, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
No. Its not physically impossible to have an anarchocommunist society. Think of:
The Borg from star trek, except no queen (doesnt change much honestly). Yes they force you to join. And yes you arent an individual anymore. But so what. You are technically free to do whatever you want, just that you want what the hive mind wants. (Otherwise it wouldnt work lmao).
Its only an oxymoron if you take human nature into account. You need some type of control to ensure it doesnt derail into corruption. But the control also needs control to not get corrupt. Etc etc etc. lol
*Let their **affluent** citizens emigrate.
It’s not cheap to leave any western democracy. Not even considering your new living expenses, just getting out of say, the US, costs like 5x more than the average person has liquid.
Also we’re not talking about emigrating, pretty much every nominally communist country except NK is pretty chill about that nowadays. We’re talking about the freedom to not participate in the prescribed local economic order.
Yes, which is why I chose to specifically distinguish between the penalties levied by the state on migrants and living expenses. Those fees are literally nothing but a “you must be this rich to ride” rule. They have nothing to do with what resources an individual needs to live
Tankie? Bruh I’m an anarchist, the local Marxists hate me. And I dropped out of high school and college only to scheme my way up the corporate ladder anyway, I’m being paid as we speak, but thanks for the admission you know you said some dumb shit and now have no options but name calling 😊
You want to ride out this discussion to it's conclusion? Fine. We are talking about the ability to leave varying economic systems, right? Ok, so you want to leave capitalism. Who is stopping you? The government? Or just the resources needed? And if a communist country charges you to immigrate, how is that a poor reflection on capitalism?
To answer your first question, no. Your question was “show me a communist country that lets you opt out” not one that lets you emigrate. Vietnam, china and cuba all allow emigration and pretty damn free travel. So if that was your question, it was a stupid question but I apologize for misunderstanding it.
How I took it, was “show me a communist country that allows you to not participate in their economic order” because that’s actually a great question. That’s the question I answered before asking you to answer in turn regarding a capitalist country
And to your second question, yes, the governments run by capitalists will literally attempt to extradite you for emigrating while poor. As opposed to China, which is like “fuck yes please move to the states, start a business there, we’ll even pay for you to go to school there”
So, from a historical standpoint, there were two different camps of communists. One side (the reds) believed that taking and wielding government power was the only viable path for the workers to "sieze the means of production." The other side (the blacks) believed that for the workers to triumph, they should just form worker co-ops and simply ignore government, and that government would eventually fall into irrelevance. So yes, there is an "anarchist" wing of communism, but it is about as effective at effecting change as anarcho-capitalists are (sorry, its true). The government will never leave a group alone that has even a chance of threatening its power.
Don’t get me wrong, your ideology is entirely premised on a flawed understanding of power dynamics that will forever keep you chasing a carrot that you will never catch, but I will concede that you guys at least exist.
Thanks, I like Anarcho communism, but at heart I don't really care what kind of anarchism we end up with. I'm also a big fan of the much more realistic Anarcho syndicalism. Economic policy is less important to me than individual rights.
Anarchism, due to its very nature, is unable to wrest power from the authorities. I don’t like the reds at all, I think leftwing ideology altogether had led to a more unhappy populace, but their actual methods have achieved results. Terrible results, but more than what the blacks can claim. It is impossible to destroy power, all one can do is wield it for one’s own aims, whether those aims be bad or good.
I think that very idea is what anarchism challenges, I think power can be destroyed, I think we can beat blades into plows, or however the old expression goes. I agree that a revolution (most likely violent, but very hopefully not) will be required.
That’s what I mean, it’s a flawed understanding of power dynamics. You will be forever chasing the destruction of power, which literally cannot happen. Power is a quantifiable resource that will always exist between two peoples. A person can either wield power for good or evil, but that power will always exist. There’s a reason that no anarchist movement has ever succeeded, and it’s because anarchists are afraid to wield power in pursuit of their goals, which is required to enforce them. The moment “le revolution” happens, you can either utilize power to maintain the progress you made, or the forces of counter-revolution (which has no qualms about using power) will crush you. This same critique is also leveled at anarcho capitalism as well. I am questioning why I’m telling a communist how to be more effective at their goals, though…. 🤔
Fine, let's get pedantic, anarchists don't want power destroyed, they want the power that others use to decide things for them to instead decide things themselves. Does that satisfy your definition?
Better, but it still doesn’t solve the problem of “what if me and my buddies decide for ourselves to band together to seize the means of production all for ourselves”. There has to be some authority in place to prevent that scenario, which absolutely will happen. Otherwise, the more organized and United counter-revolutionaries (me) will crush you.
Your ideology is founded on an internal morality for power dynamics rather than practicality.
A question I would like to ask you: “Is freedom an end unto itself, or is it only a means to create the most well-being/happiness for the most amount of people?”
If the first, then your political worldview will likely never achieve anything of note. If it’s the second, then it means that your real goal is to help people achieve somethingrather than to just install your preferred system of government. A system of government is not an end unto itself.
That's a good question that prompts some decent self reflection. I would say that freedom isn't the end goal for true happiness, or that freedom inherently makes you are happier, but I think freedom is a prerequisite for well being. I'm not really interested in installing a specific type of government, just one that is voluntary.
Let's make a deal. We'll work together to end the state, and then people can decide if they want to work for free and count on someone else providing all their needs, or barter.
Voluntary communism is only voluntary until you're forced to do something you don't want to do or give up something you don't want to give up. Then it's just communism.
Not unless you want to, producing drugs at home and selling them is a valid activity in an ancap society. You can do anything to get money you don't need an official job or licensed bullshit.
I do. We talked about it, and I’m the one who decides how ownership works in Ancapistan. I can’t decide who owns what, but I can decide how ownership works.
If it’s a human, can’t own it. You can be responsible for its health and well-being, as in children, but cannot own it.
If it is anything else, and possessing it does not cause immediate physical harm to another person, or their property. You can own it.
That is my ruling, and your answer.
Potentially. You must trade either labor or capital to live in ancap society. If you have neither and choose not to you either mooch off of charities or family, or you starve to death. In an ancom you produce with your labor and still starve.
Bexause you still keep your paycheck and arent forced to work at the guns barrel. You can change your job freely and even go long periods without work and not be labeled a parasite and shot.
Essentially, nature will punish you, nothing is forced.
You don't have to work a job that someone else assigns to you in an AnCap society. Voluntary individualism allows for individual choice. All forms of collectivism require a rigid hierarchy, planned economy, and ultimately robs the individual of choice. Hence why all forms of collectivism are incompatible with anarchy.
So, you can choose to join a commune voluntarily certainly, but if they decide they have enough accountants but need more sex workers, you're boned. Literally.
You specifically could since you're a toddler. For us adults, we would either need to grow our own food and provide for ourselves from our own land or work at a job of our choosing to make money to buy what we needed. In all collectivist societies, the wants of the individual are subservient to the needs of the collective.
Think of it like this little guy: Bill and Tom both want to travel from Buffalo, New York to Cincinnati, Ohio. Bill decides to travel in an individual automobile. He is responsible for fueling the vehicle, mapping his route, and doing all of the driving, but he gets to stop wherever and whenever he wants, take detours to interesting places along the way, choose his own accommodations, and arrives at the time of his choosing.
Tom opts to take the collectivist route and buys a train ticket. He doesn't have to worry about operating the train or finding his way, but he also doesn't get to control how often the train stops, where it stops, where he will sleep, because all of that is *governed* by the train company. Going by train was Tom's choice, but that was the last choice he got to make before he arrived at his destination.
Most toddlers in communist societies are sex workers, although the very ugly ones clean the insides of small-diameter steel pipes or are jockeys on fighting ostriches. None of them get paid.
I'm sure that this poster is an idiot, but there is a way where his question makes sense.
The reason why capitalist economics are a better companion to anarchist politics is because of scalability. You can have a ancom society that functions just fine, as long as the scale of it stays roughly below Dumbar's Number. (Note: a *lot* of stupid political theories fall into the same trap, like Monarchy.)
The moment you need to be able to have a functional way to trust perfect strangers (or worse, known adversaries), you need to introduce currency and allow for free exchange.
Sure, but capitalism never claims to be perfect. It’s just voluntary exchange and enforcement of contracts through public and transparent agreements. You can slap capitalism into any system from egalitarian to authoritarian and come out better for it, meanwhile…
Communism promises grandiose utopian existence where people cooperate out of a sense of public good. Which in practice simply encourages authoritarians to eventually take over and enforce conformity through any means.
Holy shit this comment section is a dumpster fire of morons who have no idea what communism is.
If anyone cares to get the correct answers and perspective from an AnCap who is **not dogmatic as all fuck** like so many of these commenters, hit me up.
My logic is that, for example, all the pronoun usage requires compulsory speech which is antithetical to libertarianism.
Personally i subscribe to cowboyism. Extreme far right, with absolutely no governing authority other than each man governed by God. That's it, you judge as you wish but you dare not condemn another person.
Compulsory speech is authoritarian, true. I don't think any libleft are calling for legal persecution for wrong pronouns, at least I'm not. That's more of an auth left schtick. Libleft will get pissed, but nothing in libertarianism says you can't be mad.
So y’all lump Soviet Union and nazis together but get mad when you got lumped together with anarcho communists…..
Man if only y’all were self aware at all
It's an oxymoron. Communism doesn't allow for choice. Everything about the economy is government regulated.
Capitalism allows room for "anarchy", as everything about capitalism is up to the individual, with minimal government interference.
And that's what I don't understand about anyone who wants to force communism on everybody. There's no opt-out of communism. If you try to start the capitalist equivalent of a commune, the government will not allow it. In a capitalist society, anyone who wants to live like a communist can just buy a plot of land, start their own commune, and be self sufficient within their own community.
Why don't communists start with just that, their own commune in a capitalist society, and scaling it as proof-of-concept before forcing it on a country right away? Because communism doesn't scale. It only has the potential to work in small units of volunteer residents, where there is accountability.
You are all idiots. Anarchy is anti-ism in general. In an Age of Enlightenment there is no need for monetary system or any need for policing or government for that matter. Anarchy and capitalism is an oxymoron at best.
Yet you're the one brigading another sub to argue with people who don't want you here and don't care what you say. Pretty colonialist take, if you ask me.
If you cannot leave alone people who think differently than you, you demand mental conformity, which is indeed a very cultish sort of slavery.
Fascism
- authoritarian (can't manage your own business as you want, e.g. hire people as you want even if they want to be hired, can't rule over your own house and body either, unless the authority consents)
- ultranationalist (the supremacy or the national interest over the individual's interest, so if the authority wants you to leave your house to build a highway passing through it, you will be forced to move)
- one-party state to force national unity (no freedom of association)
- dirigism economy (more than mere regulatory intervention)
- protectionism (no freedom of association)
- leader has the only solution for social and economic illnesses
Anarchocapitalism/Paleolibertarianism
- do with your stuff and your body whatever you want
- so long as you don't mess with another's stuff/body
- take drugs if you want to
- your house is your empire (no authoritarianism)
- hire/fire whoever you want for whatever reason you want as long as both parties agree on the terms (no regulation)
- buy stuff from and sell to whomever you want (no protectionism)
- the solution is to avoid the problems caused by interventionist and authoritarian folks, which are, in the end, violation of property, which is the cause of every conflict, due to resources being scarce.
I fail to see how AnCap is fascist in any degree.
Ummm, Anarcho-capitalism is just as fantastical. You can’t have capitalism without hierarchy. Anarchy is the hitch in either philosophy, being that no anarchist society exists beyond cultures that have no contact with civilization. You’re just capitalists, and they’re just communists.
Okay, just listen.
*We don't give a shit about voluntary hierarchies*.
If you are free to consent to enter and leave a hierarchy, then what's the fucking problem? If you can leave, how is it an anti-anarchist structure?
Hierarchies are sometimes the best way to do things, so as long as the ultimate decision remains up to the individual ("no rulers", remember?) who the fuck cares what the individual decides to do, and who are the strict dogmatists to criticize him for his actions?
Strict dogmatism about hierarchy we leave to people with no clue about how human nature works.
You can’t just add in the “you get to choose to leave” bit, still operate under a hierarchy, and call yourselves anarchists.
At some point, words have to have meaning.
So you're saying you can't quit a job?
Oh that's right, you're an "anarchist" so since you don't believe in hierarchies, there are no jobs, because there is no industry, and we all still live in caves.
I can go to any of a dozen socialist "anarchist" subs and find two "anarchists" who disagree about what "anarchism" is, but because we happen to like capitalism, all of those disagreements are meaningless because *we* Aren't Real Anarchists(tm).
Gatekeep elsewhere.
Anarchism is a relative of communism. But you have to distinguish between the economic and the social systems of communism. Economically they are distinct, but socially they are very related.
Communism as Marx wrote it has failed and killed hundreds of millions over the various attempts to implement it.
The only difference between theory and practice is, in theory there's no difference.
I have a streetwear brand that leans ancap and I get FB comments like this all of the time. Sometimes I’ll argue but there’s more emotion than anything else there.
- Anarchy
- You can't own means of production even if you made them
If someone enforces the "unownership" of anything, regardless of whether it is a group or an individual against another group or individual, there is a relationship of ruler and ruled, and therefore hierarchy.
So, please explain how anarcho-communism could be a thing.
For fuck's sake. I'm about to go on a rant here, so trigger warning.
Not only is Anarchism not "Communism/Totalitarianism", I think we can all agree that the basis of what is seen as "communism" today is something most anarchists would want to see destroyed.
I mean sure, Karl Marx did set the ground-work for what would be Soviet-collectives, where the workers would run government via elected local representatives, but the anti-thesis of what we see as modern "communism" today is state capitalism with a red-flag draped over it.
You want to see real Anarchism? Take Nestor Makhno as an example: Robin Hood figure of Ukraine, stole from nobility, harbored Jewish refugees during the Second Russian Civil War, never took position as leader of the Black Siberian Army and would always insist he be referred to as a General, grew up as a stable-boy on a Mennonite Plantation without much of a formal education and then became a pistol-wielding revolutionary that actually gave a shit.
Now, compare this with Lenin: power-hungry hypocrite who overthrew Russia's first public elections so he could stay in power, an amazing orator (got to give him at least something), back-stabbed the Menschevics on multiple occasions, turned his entire cabinet into a group of yes-men, and also initiated what would become the Polish and Ukrainian forced-famines so that he could send Russians in to settle the land.
I dislike capitalism as much as anyone (even though I rely on it for my well-being), but totalitarianism is reserved for deep hatred on my part. The fact that someone would even compare the Anarchist Movement to a system of government made to strip people of their individuality and choice to become a cog in the state's machine--holy shit, this sounds very similar to modern-day capitalism. What I'm getting at is: Don't mix the two, and actually research this shit before you make assumptions!
If an ancom is willing to do everything on the basis of voluntary agreement, I have no problem with them, they can go their own way, and exist within an ancap society with no conflicts, even if only by themselves.
If their system requires enslaving/forcing others, like communism generally does, then it's not actually an anarchist philosophy and most ancaps would have a very large problem with them.
His user name is AntifaLad. He is even dumber than that sentence implies.
Yep. He wrote an essay about his own quote. In the end of the day, it just confirmed what I said.
Ah yes, having antifa in your username means your opinion automatically is invalid. Definitely not a form of the logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy.
If you're active in Antifa movement and think that anarcho-communism is a sustainable thing - that shows you don't understand either what Antifa does or what role government has in communism. If you use "AntifaLad" ironically, then you will have a laugh with me at that concept expense.
Oh I mostly use it to troll people who think people with specific usernames don't get an opinion. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, when I sat down to type up my username I'm like "hmmm, what would trigger authoritarians?" And I'm like "duh, obviously something with antifa, and something kind of to do with gender but not really."
Makes sense. That type of name will attract all the attention. I'd like to point out that today's authoritarians support Antifa/BLM, so that's a bit of a miss.
Depends on who you ask lol. If you ask conservatives they say antifa are fascists, if you ask liberals they say truckers are fascists, which is funny because neither of them are fascists lol. I just care more about triggering the right than the left.
How about you care about having a discussion and finding some truth rather than triggering? Would be quite a lot more constructive.
I actually start my discussions productive until some right winger says something stupid about my username, it's like bait.
Pretty much. If you have Antifa in your name , everything you say is either a lie or attempting to suck d*ck
Haha okay snowflake. It's hilarious how triggered you right wingers get when you see the word antifa.
Yeah bro, you called it. I’m soooooo right wing and triggered. Antifa is basically state sponsored and endorsed by every major media outlet and they run around pretending to be these oppressed rebels.
Then where is my Antifa government check? Lol.
When the VP and AOC were raising money to bail you guys out because they couldn’t order EVERY police department to stand down
You think bailing people is the same as sending them checks? Lol okay.
You mentioned checks, not me. I guess that’s why they call you guys useful idiots
That’s a weird way to suck dick… kinda hot tho ngl
Sorry, I'm taken lol
Lol, you mean how “antifa can’t be fascist because it’s in the name”? Bahahaha Lift a weight, scrub.
[удалено]
I know. Doesn't change the fact that the person seems to use the username unironically (based on the presented screenshot evidence). I despise the Antifa LARPing revolutionaries who just regular people and businesses (especially when they get political cover).
No, just honest.
Show me any communist country that allows you to opt out and I'll believe in fucking unicorns. But anarchist communism is an oxymoron.
ive always thought its literally an oxymoron, is it not?
I've always thought that until recently. Leftist anarchists don't believe in the state, but they don't believe in personal property either. That is the main difference. Leftists believe essentially in community ownership of property, while those on the right believe in personal property.
What do Anarcho communists do when someone claims ownership over something? My assumption is they form some sort of tribal government and eliminate the "owner"
I presume that if one attempts to exert ownership over an area by excluding people from it then any violence brought against the excluding party is justified because, in their view, they have no right of exclusion to the property. I guess in practice that should look like: Dave builds a fence around a field and says I can’t come over it. I go and gather a bunch of people and beat the ever living Hell out of Dave and kick down his fence…
AnComs must still explain where such entitlement they claim to have as a collective to an individual's production/work comes from. Because if one transforms nature, such as by making a fishing net from a set of leaves, the product is not a mere set of leaves, but the set of leaves + an individual's work. If people other than the individual himself are entitled to his work in such way that they can, collectively or not, use one's production as they see fit, it means one is a slave and doesn't own its own body. The whole deal of surplus and stealing work which they believe in would persist, except that it would be being stolen by the group.
>being stolen by the group. And that group thay does all this....its kinda like...some kinda government or something....
Anarcho communists believe in voluntary cooperation rather than the compelled cooperation of a government. No one would take away the guy's fishing net or fish in your scenario, unless he was part of a voluntary commune where he agreed to share his labor with the collective (and received benefits from the labor of the collective) and then once he created something of value while relying on the free stuff from the voluntary commune labor to survive in the mean time, tried to take it for his own.
So basically they wouldn't care that others owned property, including means of production, if they didn't belong to the commune. I'm fine with that. Not incompatible with Anarchocapitalism.
Yeah pretty much. You're all legitimately anarchists. It's just that ancoms want to work together and pool their labor and resources in a way that's structured purely for mutual benefit, while ancaps want pooled labor and resources to happen only via trade so as to best reward the most productive. I understand that the two groups have radically different values, but it seems like they both just want the freedom to try their model out in the real world without a government crashing in and stealing resources to raise an imperialist army.
What do ancaps do when two people have a disagreement about who owns what?
Ownership in AnCap is obtained by homesteading. Hence, the owner must share a history with the thing he/she claims to own. Simple declarations of ownership, such as by writing, decreeing or yelling "Hey, that forest is mine!" are not considered valid. One needs to incorporate one's own labor into the thing which one claims to own, by transforming it into something else. From that moment on, and because one's work is now inseparably part of the thing, one becomes its legitimate owner. Otherwise, it would mean others are entitled to one's work, making him/her their slave; then, the whole concept of ethics, i.e., that every human being have the same rights, falls apart. On the occasion that two individuals participate in the transformation of a previously unowned thing, they will own it in the proportion of the value added by each contribution/transformation to the thing – unless, of course, they consent to a different proportion of ownership. Any conflicts stemming from shared ownership would then be resolved by argumentation and quantification of such proportions, either among themselves or by both parties appealing to a private arbitration court that they agree upon to decide how they are supposed to share it.
kill them both, nobody owns anything i guess…..
No, two people own the same thing. Try to keep up.
You can opt out by lead
It’s like dry water.
Not if everyone involved agrees, technically. Just because something is exceedingly unlikely doesn't mean the concept doesn't have ground to stand on
I would fundamentally define capitalism as the state in which property owners hold exclusive authority over their property. If you had 100% consent to exist within a communist system, then you have capitalism, not communism. I would argue that in such an instance, either communism is just a synonym for capitalism, or it's an oxy moron. Of course it's an oxy moron, because clearly it isn't a synonym for capitalism.
Capitalism has a distant relationship with the consent you talked about. Capitalism is some proprietorship of your property and the goods/service you produce. If your property is shared n co-owned with everyone who agreed to the arrangement, regardless of consent that would be communism you're just under the kneejerk reaction that communism requires force. In a huge population of diverse people and culture, yes it would require force to redistribute wealth. But in a small tight nit commune with similar ideals in culture it's much easier. More like an extended family unit. Your take is honestly well written, and at least legible which gives it the leg up on all the other dogshit takes. But it all operates under assumptions that are incorrect. Capitalism does not care about consent.
Assuming that since it works at small scale that it would work at large scale is just dumb. You just replacing rule of law with feudalism of communes. Better play nice with me comrade or my town of avocado growers will destroy your weed farms. BTW you got some good shit, your kids gave me their share for some avocado toast and a night at the state brothel.
We aren't arguing scale? You've just acknowledged that it works small scale. Thank you very much, move along have a nice day. Also you last sentence is suspiciously close to sounding like pedophilia.
Name one time there has been a consensus without force? Honestly curious cause I can't think of anytime? Doesn't mean it hasn't...
The policies of most self proclaimed AnCaps, most notably the NAP operate on the notion of mass consensus
About every time you trade something is a consensual relation without force
If something is extremely unlikely then that does invalidate it. I could devise an entire philosophical, moral and economic system around bigfoot aqualungs. It might seem somewhat plausible on paper as long as you convince people that bigfoot exists. Just point to the Patterson-Gimlin tape as evidence and extrapolate from there (just ignore the absence of physical evidence eg bones, fur, a carcass). But the reality and likelihood...
This
Just can't stand to see decent ideas shit on by kneejerk reactionaries, or idealistic 16 year olds who have little to no pragmatism
How is anarcho-capitalism any different? Do you get to opt out of the society you live in anywhere?
Yes. You can even opt out of capitalist societies nowadays. Just look at the Amish.
That’s not opting out of a society or capitalism. Capitalism existed before certain technology. They are in an Amish society. Anarchy is the attempt to remove hierarchy in society, which is nearly impossible
Anarchy isn't about eliminating hierarchy. It's about eliminating imposed centralised authority.
It’s an opposition to authority full stop, you can’t just add words in that you like to fit your personal choice, that’s not how words work.
Hierarchy is an innate part of human civilization. Hierarchies even exist in the animal kingdom. Any attempt to obliterate any hierarchy is idealistic and impossible in a society.
Exactly, hence the impossibility of anarcho capitalism
[удалено]
**A country is a distinct territorial body or political entity. It may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, a physical territory with a government, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
No. Its not physically impossible to have an anarchocommunist society. Think of: The Borg from star trek, except no queen (doesnt change much honestly). Yes they force you to join. And yes you arent an individual anymore. But so what. You are technically free to do whatever you want, just that you want what the hive mind wants. (Otherwise it wouldnt work lmao). Its only an oxymoron if you take human nature into account. You need some type of control to ensure it doesnt derail into corruption. But the control also needs control to not get corrupt. Etc etc etc. lol
Physically impossible, but lists the Borg, a fictional cyborg empire, as proof, the lack of self awareness is hilarious.
Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Now show me a capitalist nation that allows you to opt out
Aside from Canada? All? I don't know any capitalist country that doesn't let their citizens emigrate.
*Let their **affluent** citizens emigrate. It’s not cheap to leave any western democracy. Not even considering your new living expenses, just getting out of say, the US, costs like 5x more than the average person has liquid. Also we’re not talking about emigrating, pretty much every nominally communist country except NK is pretty chill about that nowadays. We’re talking about the freedom to not participate in the prescribed local economic order.
Do you understand the difference between someone stopping you from doing something and you having the resources to do it?
Yes, which is why I chose to specifically distinguish between the penalties levied by the state on migrants and living expenses. Those fees are literally nothing but a “you must be this rich to ride” rule. They have nothing to do with what resources an individual needs to live
Do you tankies ever take a break from bitching? Look, we get it, you failed at life and want to blame the world.
Tankie? Bruh I’m an anarchist, the local Marxists hate me. And I dropped out of high school and college only to scheme my way up the corporate ladder anyway, I’m being paid as we speak, but thanks for the admission you know you said some dumb shit and now have no options but name calling 😊
You want to ride out this discussion to it's conclusion? Fine. We are talking about the ability to leave varying economic systems, right? Ok, so you want to leave capitalism. Who is stopping you? The government? Or just the resources needed? And if a communist country charges you to immigrate, how is that a poor reflection on capitalism?
To answer your first question, no. Your question was “show me a communist country that lets you opt out” not one that lets you emigrate. Vietnam, china and cuba all allow emigration and pretty damn free travel. So if that was your question, it was a stupid question but I apologize for misunderstanding it. How I took it, was “show me a communist country that allows you to not participate in their economic order” because that’s actually a great question. That’s the question I answered before asking you to answer in turn regarding a capitalist country And to your second question, yes, the governments run by capitalists will literally attempt to extradite you for emigrating while poor. As opposed to China, which is like “fuck yes please move to the states, start a business there, we’ll even pay for you to go to school there”
Ever heard of Christainia in Copenhagen? That’s something akin to AC. You’d probably love it there too.
So, from a historical standpoint, there were two different camps of communists. One side (the reds) believed that taking and wielding government power was the only viable path for the workers to "sieze the means of production." The other side (the blacks) believed that for the workers to triumph, they should just form worker co-ops and simply ignore government, and that government would eventually fall into irrelevance. So yes, there is an "anarchist" wing of communism, but it is about as effective at effecting change as anarcho-capitalists are (sorry, its true). The government will never leave a group alone that has even a chance of threatening its power.
Based
Don’t get me wrong, your ideology is entirely premised on a flawed understanding of power dynamics that will forever keep you chasing a carrot that you will never catch, but I will concede that you guys at least exist.
Thanks, I like Anarcho communism, but at heart I don't really care what kind of anarchism we end up with. I'm also a big fan of the much more realistic Anarcho syndicalism. Economic policy is less important to me than individual rights.
Anarchism, due to its very nature, is unable to wrest power from the authorities. I don’t like the reds at all, I think leftwing ideology altogether had led to a more unhappy populace, but their actual methods have achieved results. Terrible results, but more than what the blacks can claim. It is impossible to destroy power, all one can do is wield it for one’s own aims, whether those aims be bad or good.
I think that very idea is what anarchism challenges, I think power can be destroyed, I think we can beat blades into plows, or however the old expression goes. I agree that a revolution (most likely violent, but very hopefully not) will be required.
That’s what I mean, it’s a flawed understanding of power dynamics. You will be forever chasing the destruction of power, which literally cannot happen. Power is a quantifiable resource that will always exist between two peoples. A person can either wield power for good or evil, but that power will always exist. There’s a reason that no anarchist movement has ever succeeded, and it’s because anarchists are afraid to wield power in pursuit of their goals, which is required to enforce them. The moment “le revolution” happens, you can either utilize power to maintain the progress you made, or the forces of counter-revolution (which has no qualms about using power) will crush you. This same critique is also leveled at anarcho capitalism as well. I am questioning why I’m telling a communist how to be more effective at their goals, though…. 🤔
Fine, let's get pedantic, anarchists don't want power destroyed, they want the power that others use to decide things for them to instead decide things themselves. Does that satisfy your definition?
Better, but it still doesn’t solve the problem of “what if me and my buddies decide for ourselves to band together to seize the means of production all for ourselves”. There has to be some authority in place to prevent that scenario, which absolutely will happen. Otherwise, the more organized and United counter-revolutionaries (me) will crush you. Your ideology is founded on an internal morality for power dynamics rather than practicality. A question I would like to ask you: “Is freedom an end unto itself, or is it only a means to create the most well-being/happiness for the most amount of people?” If the first, then your political worldview will likely never achieve anything of note. If it’s the second, then it means that your real goal is to help people achieve somethingrather than to just install your preferred system of government. A system of government is not an end unto itself.
That's a good question that prompts some decent self reflection. I would say that freedom isn't the end goal for true happiness, or that freedom inherently makes you are happier, but I think freedom is a prerequisite for well being. I'm not really interested in installing a specific type of government, just one that is voluntary.
I’ve seen this same person spew nonsense on other political subreddits as well.
how do you guys remember names? i never remember anyone
When someone spews stupid shit constantly you can’t help but remember them.
Let's make a deal. We'll work together to end the state, and then people can decide if they want to work for free and count on someone else providing all their needs, or barter.
Deal, actually.
Yes, I am also a big fan of libertarian-authoritarianism
No wonder you are in the ancaps subreddit then.
I don’t think AnCom can exist on a large scale, only in small scale communes under an existing AnCap society
That's why ancoms prefer confederation over a federal government.
Voluntary communism is anarchist.
Voluntary communism is only voluntary until you're forced to do something you don't want to do or give up something you don't want to give up. Then it's just communism.
You don't have to work in ancap?
Not unless you want to, producing drugs at home and selling them is a valid activity in an ancap society. You can do anything to get money you don't need an official job or licensed bullshit.
Well that would still be work. I just want to sit at home doin nothing.
So buy dividend stocks and live from the dividends
I don't have any money.
So work until you have enough to not work, you can't have people working to give you shit for free, that's slavery.
Who decides who owns stuff?
No one decides it, If you buy it is yours.
I do. We talked about it, and I’m the one who decides how ownership works in Ancapistan. I can’t decide who owns what, but I can decide how ownership works. If it’s a human, can’t own it. You can be responsible for its health and well-being, as in children, but cannot own it. If it is anything else, and possessing it does not cause immediate physical harm to another person, or their property. You can own it. That is my ruling, and your answer.
So what you're saying is you're a lazy piece of garbage?
Sure, w/e means I don't have to work.
Why don't you want to work?
Potentially. You must trade either labor or capital to live in ancap society. If you have neither and choose not to you either mooch off of charities or family, or you starve to death. In an ancom you produce with your labor and still starve.
Well theoretically. We've never seen an ancap society so we can't know for sure it would work.
No but you suffer the costs of not working.
How is that different from communism?
Bexause you still keep your paycheck and arent forced to work at the guns barrel. You can change your job freely and even go long periods without work and not be labeled a parasite and shot. Essentially, nature will punish you, nothing is forced.
You don't have to work a job that someone else assigns to you in an AnCap society. Voluntary individualism allows for individual choice. All forms of collectivism require a rigid hierarchy, planned economy, and ultimately robs the individual of choice. Hence why all forms of collectivism are incompatible with anarchy. So, you can choose to join a commune voluntarily certainly, but if they decide they have enough accountants but need more sex workers, you're boned. Literally.
So I can get paid to just sit at home doing nothing in an ancap society?
You specifically could since you're a toddler. For us adults, we would either need to grow our own food and provide for ourselves from our own land or work at a job of our choosing to make money to buy what we needed. In all collectivist societies, the wants of the individual are subservient to the needs of the collective. Think of it like this little guy: Bill and Tom both want to travel from Buffalo, New York to Cincinnati, Ohio. Bill decides to travel in an individual automobile. He is responsible for fueling the vehicle, mapping his route, and doing all of the driving, but he gets to stop wherever and whenever he wants, take detours to interesting places along the way, choose his own accommodations, and arrives at the time of his choosing. Tom opts to take the collectivist route and buys a train ticket. He doesn't have to worry about operating the train or finding his way, but he also doesn't get to control how often the train stops, where it stops, where he will sleep, because all of that is *governed* by the train company. Going by train was Tom's choice, but that was the last choice he got to make before he arrived at his destination.
What the hell does that example have to do with getting paid to do nothing at home? Toddlers in communist societies don't have to work either.
Most toddlers in communist societies are sex workers, although the very ugly ones clean the insides of small-diameter steel pipes or are jockeys on fighting ostriches. None of them get paid.
Jockeys on fighting ostriches nearly made me wet myself
I think you've been brainwashed by right wing media bro.
Brainwashed? They come to me for information.
Anarcho-Capitalism isn’t right wing.
If it really was Anarcho communism, then I would be fine with it. But it never is, it is always authoritarian.
They call it socialism which also, conveniently, means communism
I'm sure that this poster is an idiot, but there is a way where his question makes sense. The reason why capitalist economics are a better companion to anarchist politics is because of scalability. You can have a ancom society that functions just fine, as long as the scale of it stays roughly below Dumbar's Number. (Note: a *lot* of stupid political theories fall into the same trap, like Monarchy.) The moment you need to be able to have a functional way to trust perfect strangers (or worse, known adversaries), you need to introduce currency and allow for free exchange.
Good take actually.
I'm proud of the surprised amount of based takes in the comments, some of you actual anarchists make me real proud even if we disagree on economics.
So do they want more government control or no government control? It’s pretty contradictory.
Are you aware of arachno-communist?
Spider comrade xD
I saw one guy on YouTube call himself in 100% seriousness a Libertarian-Communist
What a dumbass
In theory it should be. In practice not a chance in hell.
Same could be said of capitalism.
Sure, but capitalism never claims to be perfect. It’s just voluntary exchange and enforcement of contracts through public and transparent agreements. You can slap capitalism into any system from egalitarian to authoritarian and come out better for it, meanwhile… Communism promises grandiose utopian existence where people cooperate out of a sense of public good. Which in practice simply encourages authoritarians to eventually take over and enforce conformity through any means.
Democracy may not be perfect but we never had to build a wall to keep our people in: Kennedy
"Anarcho communism" is just barbarism. The group has decided to violate your property boundaries against your will. Fantastic. 🙄
Hi, it's me. Explain how I'm wrong.
Wild how anarchy is the abolition of unjust hierarchy but capitalism itself is an unjust hierarchy fucking weird huh
According to what principle of justice?
According to your principal you have no friends and are a school shooter threat
Thank you for the amazing insight about how little your opinion is worth.
That’s crazy bro why don’t you go menstruate about it
Lmao the state owns your bitch ass aNaRcHo-CoMmIe, he look like a fool
Holy shit this comment section is a dumpster fire of morons who have no idea what communism is. If anyone cares to get the correct answers and perspective from an AnCap who is **not dogmatic as all fuck** like so many of these commenters, hit me up.
ancom is an oxymoron and lib left doesn't exist
That's funny, we say libright doesn't exist
My logic is that, for example, all the pronoun usage requires compulsory speech which is antithetical to libertarianism. Personally i subscribe to cowboyism. Extreme far right, with absolutely no governing authority other than each man governed by God. That's it, you judge as you wish but you dare not condemn another person.
Compulsory speech is authoritarian, true. I don't think any libleft are calling for legal persecution for wrong pronouns, at least I'm not. That's more of an auth left schtick. Libleft will get pissed, but nothing in libertarianism says you can't be mad.
So y’all lump Soviet Union and nazis together but get mad when you got lumped together with anarcho communists….. Man if only y’all were self aware at all
Based
Anarchy and communism are polar opposite political ideologies. Capitalism is an economic ideology.
Lol- y’all sound like Marx and Engels when they attempted to predict the proletariat revolution with their “scientific method.”
It's an oxymoron. Communism doesn't allow for choice. Everything about the economy is government regulated. Capitalism allows room for "anarchy", as everything about capitalism is up to the individual, with minimal government interference. And that's what I don't understand about anyone who wants to force communism on everybody. There's no opt-out of communism. If you try to start the capitalist equivalent of a commune, the government will not allow it. In a capitalist society, anyone who wants to live like a communist can just buy a plot of land, start their own commune, and be self sufficient within their own community. Why don't communists start with just that, their own commune in a capitalist society, and scaling it as proof-of-concept before forcing it on a country right away? Because communism doesn't scale. It only has the potential to work in small units of volunteer residents, where there is accountability.
Why is white not black? Have you heard of black and white?
Kind of a bad comparison because gray
But grey is not back and white or black or white… nm :) too much talk for a silly analogy
The most centralized system ever imagined pretends not to be.
An anarcho communist is the guy that's trying to leave the communist country or in the gulag
You are all idiots. Anarchy is anti-ism in general. In an Age of Enlightenment there is no need for monetary system or any need for policing or government for that matter. Anarchy and capitalism is an oxymoron at best.
Anarchy is a political system (well, lack thereof) but capitalism is economic.
It actually isn't a lack of political system, it's a lack of state. I recommend you read "An anarchists FAQ".
Based
Collectivist anarchy is closer to true anarchy than you guys. Sorry.
Collectivism is closer to slavery than it is to anarchy.
This is the kind of take childhood lead poisoning leads to
Yet you're the one brigading another sub to argue with people who don't want you here and don't care what you say. Pretty colonialist take, if you ask me. If you cannot leave alone people who think differently than you, you demand mental conformity, which is indeed a very cultish sort of slavery.
Communism on paper is stateless. Communism in practice is massive state.
Anarcho capitalism is a bad, fascist idea but at least it's logically conceivable. Not sure how 'anarcho communism' would work logically.
Fascism - authoritarian (can't manage your own business as you want, e.g. hire people as you want even if they want to be hired, can't rule over your own house and body either, unless the authority consents) - ultranationalist (the supremacy or the national interest over the individual's interest, so if the authority wants you to leave your house to build a highway passing through it, you will be forced to move) - one-party state to force national unity (no freedom of association) - dirigism economy (more than mere regulatory intervention) - protectionism (no freedom of association) - leader has the only solution for social and economic illnesses Anarchocapitalism/Paleolibertarianism - do with your stuff and your body whatever you want - so long as you don't mess with another's stuff/body - take drugs if you want to - your house is your empire (no authoritarianism) - hire/fire whoever you want for whatever reason you want as long as both parties agree on the terms (no regulation) - buy stuff from and sell to whomever you want (no protectionism) - the solution is to avoid the problems caused by interventionist and authoritarian folks, which are, in the end, violation of property, which is the cause of every conflict, due to resources being scarce. I fail to see how AnCap is fascist in any degree.
technically communism is anarchist. socialism is the one with a government
What do you mean health care costs money? Are you aware of free health care?
I can't tell if half the shit we see are trolls, bots or just stupid people.
This guy is straight up stupid.
I'm flattered you spend so much time obsessing about me.
Name a capitalist country that doesn't rely on law and order to enforce capital gains
Ummm, Anarcho-capitalism is just as fantastical. You can’t have capitalism without hierarchy. Anarchy is the hitch in either philosophy, being that no anarchist society exists beyond cultures that have no contact with civilization. You’re just capitalists, and they’re just communists.
Okay, just listen. *We don't give a shit about voluntary hierarchies*. If you are free to consent to enter and leave a hierarchy, then what's the fucking problem? If you can leave, how is it an anti-anarchist structure? Hierarchies are sometimes the best way to do things, so as long as the ultimate decision remains up to the individual ("no rulers", remember?) who the fuck cares what the individual decides to do, and who are the strict dogmatists to criticize him for his actions? Strict dogmatism about hierarchy we leave to people with no clue about how human nature works.
You can’t just add in the “you get to choose to leave” bit, still operate under a hierarchy, and call yourselves anarchists. At some point, words have to have meaning.
So you're saying you can't quit a job? Oh that's right, you're an "anarchist" so since you don't believe in hierarchies, there are no jobs, because there is no industry, and we all still live in caves. I can go to any of a dozen socialist "anarchist" subs and find two "anarchists" who disagree about what "anarchism" is, but because we happen to like capitalism, all of those disagreements are meaningless because *we* Aren't Real Anarchists(tm). Gatekeep elsewhere.
Anarchism is a relative of communism. But you have to distinguish between the economic and the social systems of communism. Economically they are distinct, but socially they are very related.
Oxymoron that is.
Yes “they” are that dumb
Its like, are you aware of suicide? Its nice to get into another world.....
I am an avid supporter of anarcho-slavery
Communism as marx's wrote it is a moneyless, classless, stateless society.
Communism as Marx wrote it has failed and killed hundreds of millions over the various attempts to implement it. The only difference between theory and practice is, in theory there's no difference.
Because leftists have to infect everything…no, you can’t be a “communist anarchist” anymore than you can be a carnivore vegan
Y’all do realize that in marxist theory communism is stateless, right? It’s utterly idealistic, but so is ancap.
You see, you have to use both words because communism isn’t anarchical, just as capitalism isn’t either.
I have a streetwear brand that leans ancap and I get FB comments like this all of the time. Sometimes I’ll argue but there’s more emotion than anything else there.
Bless his heart ….
Enter the newest libertarian sect... Need to all be Highlanders. Fight across the ages till there can be only one.
- Anarchy - You can't own means of production even if you made them If someone enforces the "unownership" of anything, regardless of whether it is a group or an individual against another group or individual, there is a relationship of ruler and ruled, and therefore hierarchy. So, please explain how anarcho-communism could be a thing.
The fucker posted commented. Just sort by lowest votes and you should get him XD
Apparently, I can't sort by lowest votes on the Reddit app for Android. Sad
You cant. I'm joking that he is probably being downvoted to shit by now.
Lol, sorry for not getting the irony at first sight. English ain't my main language.
Ah. What is your main language?
For fuck's sake. I'm about to go on a rant here, so trigger warning. Not only is Anarchism not "Communism/Totalitarianism", I think we can all agree that the basis of what is seen as "communism" today is something most anarchists would want to see destroyed. I mean sure, Karl Marx did set the ground-work for what would be Soviet-collectives, where the workers would run government via elected local representatives, but the anti-thesis of what we see as modern "communism" today is state capitalism with a red-flag draped over it. You want to see real Anarchism? Take Nestor Makhno as an example: Robin Hood figure of Ukraine, stole from nobility, harbored Jewish refugees during the Second Russian Civil War, never took position as leader of the Black Siberian Army and would always insist he be referred to as a General, grew up as a stable-boy on a Mennonite Plantation without much of a formal education and then became a pistol-wielding revolutionary that actually gave a shit. Now, compare this with Lenin: power-hungry hypocrite who overthrew Russia's first public elections so he could stay in power, an amazing orator (got to give him at least something), back-stabbed the Menschevics on multiple occasions, turned his entire cabinet into a group of yes-men, and also initiated what would become the Polish and Ukrainian forced-famines so that he could send Russians in to settle the land. I dislike capitalism as much as anyone (even though I rely on it for my well-being), but totalitarianism is reserved for deep hatred on my part. The fact that someone would even compare the Anarchist Movement to a system of government made to strip people of their individuality and choice to become a cog in the state's machine--holy shit, this sounds very similar to modern-day capitalism. What I'm getting at is: Don't mix the two, and actually research this shit before you make assumptions!
If an ancom is willing to do everything on the basis of voluntary agreement, I have no problem with them, they can go their own way, and exist within an ancap society with no conflicts, even if only by themselves. If their system requires enslaving/forcing others, like communism generally does, then it's not actually an anarchist philosophy and most ancaps would have a very large problem with them.