Are there any actual arguments against anarcho-communism that don't dismiss it's actual goals and methods?

Sure, but what i'm searching for is an argument against ancom itself and it's ideas, goals etc.

What happens when someone steps out of line, as in that they gain wealth

>it would dissolve in time
[X] Doubt

Well if a group has enough power and will to stage a revolution, i don't have a doubt they would be capable of throwing that someone out of their little community.

because it fails to take in to account the most important aspect of a society - human nature- primates crave hierarchy and power corrupts someone will get into power and abuse it then dictatorship follows

it's against human nature. We are social primates and hierarchy is deeply ingrained into our society. To deny it is to deny what we are.

>hurr durr human nature is a spook
no, it's not. It's a truth so basic that it needs no explanation, you either intrinsically understand this or you don't and cannot be convinced through a short exchange on Jow Forums.

Attached: 1505503631260.png (352x960, 139K)

I've said this once and Ill say it again.
the proletariat are the ones who are lazy and as soon as a law gets passed that makes a place communist then those "1%" will just fuck off to another country and do nothing there.
then all the people who are lazy will come move in with you and talk shit about how you are the 1%, having poor people is a thing that is going to happen you just have to deal with it.

Every anarcho-X is the exact same ideology and they are all retarded for the exact same reason:
>there should be no rules, but everyone will behave exactly how I want them to anyways

Attached: 46BE5B3F-5428-41D0-9F56-5AC7A982EBE3.png (645x729, 159K)

And then this goes back to the video i linked in OP discussing human nature. I reiterate, i am interested in seeing what you guys can come up with to directly challenge that.

But to answer you directly, such a community would be based on mob mentality. If someone has more food stamps than someone else and starts trying to buy slaves with them, the actual community and their anarcho communist values would just tell him to get fucked and never come back.

>It's a truth so basic that it needs no explanation
So said the judge to the holocaust denier, evidence either way be damned. I won't be convinced by someone who doesn't even try. Is the selfish gene a decent read on this subject? I heard it has some chapters on evolutionary psychology.

This is actually a good point, and reflected in modern society to boot. Thank you.

The idea is that rules would be enforced by the mob, the status quo. I can see how that might eventually bend and break. Although a more concrete bite into this topic would be much mroe useful to me than a mere mention.

Mob rule isn’t anarchy, it’s democracy.
Irrelevant as the first group to organize into a force will rape and pillage your shitty community.

Anarchy is classless democracy.
Well what is often cited is the spanish anarchist revolution (that was eventually squashed after ten months by bigger boys). The idea, again, would be that the anarchists would set up a society akin to that, except with a self-organizing militia.

Sure, lets use your food stamp point.

Until said party teams up with others who have many food stamps, and pay people with very little food stamps with some of their own food stamps, suddenly they have an army paid by food stamp capital, and the fucking spastic "community" has the remainder of their food stamps taken from them by force and food stamps and violence are used as a means to control them.

It's happened before, it'll keep happening, until your degenerate train of romantic thought is criminalized or you're all put into camps.

Attached: 1530409241065.jpg (460x367, 55K)

What happens when one little community gains wealth over another and conquers a poorer community? Who would organize these ostracizations? Wouldn't whoever is the ostracizer be, in effect, at the top of a new hierarchy considering he has the power to throw people out?

>Until said party teams up with others who have many food stamps, and pay people with very little food stamps with some of their own food stamps, suddenly they have an army paid by food stamp capital, and the fucking spastic "community" has the remainder of their food stamps taken from them by force and food stamps and violence are used as a means to control them.
Good point, and a great mental image.

I'll let you in on a little secret, i'm not actually an anarchist, i just correctly assumed larping as one would yield juicier responses than simply asking nicely. However, due to courtesy, i'm going to call you a degenerate faggot. That's the least i can do, faggot.

>degenerate train of romantic thought is criminalized or you're all put into camps
I'm still for personal liberty (which appears to conflict with ancom ideals too), meaning camps are a no-go, boss. Best i can do is "intolerance for intolerance", think what you want but when you start to actively sabotage society you can go fuck off to cuba or vueveuzela.

Again, supposedly these communities would live in communities and unions of communities, making it detrimental to themselves to go into these sorts of tangents.

UMMM NO FASHY, BECUZ HUMANS ARENT SELFISH BY NATURE THATS JUST A DUMB FASHY COP OUT.

Any military without CoC will be crushed

As an accelerationist, you have my full support.

Attached: aff91f85-8ba3-487e-89a7-63db7d4a13eb..jpg (500x534, 69K)

Both values contradict each other. H-how do you even?

To be fair if i were forced to take care of every aspect of my life myself, i would do it alone in the woods rather than in the midst of people, fickle as they are.

Maybe it's a misnomer, the point of it is that a community lives as a community, equal in all.

What happens if one community gains wealth and population and begins to dominate the union of communities, what happens then? Also you still haven't told me who would organize these ostracizations, who would bring people up on charges of creating inequality and et cetera. These are vital to your ideology.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to watch that.

Why not be ancap?

You can create a voluntary commune inside an ancap system, and trade with outside groups.

As far as I know you can't go ancap inside ancom.
Ancap is more free.

All these anarcho-blank ideologies believe that everyone thinks like them, have the same desires and motivations as them, et cetera. Human behavior is more diverse than that.

>What happens if one community gains wealth and population and begins to dominate the union of communities, what happens then?
Then the other communities would come together and cut out the tumor, so to speak.

>Also you still haven't told me who would organize these ostracizations, who would bring people up on charges of creating inequality and et cetera
Other people: whatever is the will of the land.

>Then the other communities would come together and cut out the tumor, so to speak.
Ok so who will lead these other communities in tearing down the dominant one? Speaking of military conflict will there be hierarchy there or will everyone just done what they want? Who goes into the military, will there be a draft? Who will decide it is time to destroy this other community? Who will get the land which will probably be rich in natural resources and arable?

>Other people: whatever is the will of the land.
Ok so everyone can bring up charges and organize them. So can one person ostracize whoever he pleases from the community or will there have to be consent from the community?

>goals and objectives of anarcho--communism

installing a communist dictatorship?

Wouldn't the coalition become a threat on its own so that someone else has to step in to stop them?

>Ok so who will lead these other communities in tearing down the dominant one?
The members of the community would organize on an equal footing.

>Speaking of military conflict will there be hierarchy there or will everyone just done what they want?
Here soldiers would also self-organize according to ability. There might be a general who is adept at planning, but he should not be considered any "better" from a footsoldier, and both would look themselves in the eye.

>Who goes into the military, will there be a draft?
This would be voluntary.

>Who will decide it is time to destroy this other community?
The members of the community.

>Who will get the land which will probably be rich in natural resources and arable?
Nobody would "get" the land, as much as people will be given the option to go there and set up another community.

>So can one person ostracize whoever he pleases from the community or will there have to be consent from the community?
If a minority becomes violent then that minority is a danger to the society, if the majority becomes violent, then something is threatening the community.

Yeah, real hilarious: Just cough up the arguments.

Send Jow Forums a postcard from central Africa.

Could you elaborate?

>The members of the community would organize on an equal footing.
What if some members the rival group is no threat and there is no need to attack them?

>Here soldiers would also self-organize according to ability. There might be a general who is adept at planning, but he should not be considered any "better" from a footsoldier, and both would look themselves in the eye.
Who would decide strategy and tactics and in what direction to march? What if there is disagreements and one band of soldiers goes off on their own and leaves the group?

>This would be voluntary.
What if no-one wants to fight?

>The members of the community.
Can you tell me the means by which they will decide? I keep asking but I never get a response.

>Nobody would "get" the land, as much as people will be given the option to go there and set up another community.
Ok, so what happens to the newly conquered people whose only crime was being too prosperous?

>If a minority becomes violent then that minority is a danger to the society, if the majority becomes violent, then something is threatening the community.
Who decides who is a danger or threat and by what means do you remove them?

Once people organize into structures there may be a general - which you mention above - who may see the coalition as a tool to gain power once you put in place a structure. See for example dictators in Roman history who would give up their power once a threat is dealt with. However then you did have Julius Caesar who wasn't so honorable even though you had a long tradition of this working.