Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.

Categories

–6 votes
Most especially Marxism (state/compulsory collectivism), which calls for the utilization of the STATE as a means to "expropriate" the "property owning 'class?'" How can moving to RULE others (through 'government'), even if you have perceived them to be attempting to rule you previously, EVER lead to "no rulers" ?
---
If a group "collectivizes" their property voluntarily, and uses "democracy" ("majority RULE")  to decide what is to be done that day, etc.. and considers all of this property to be "owned by no one, and everyone" - by "the collective," how is that "no rulers" ? or, in in the case of the "anarcho" communist, "no bosses" ? if a person doesnt like what "the collective" decided, and can just leave.. how is that not a "boss" ? is not "the collective" exercising some control over "it's" property? how is that any different than working for a "capitalist" now?

edited to fix tags
by (70 points)
edited by
Where do "natural rights" come from? You keep talking about rights, which makes me think they come from the State, but if not, where? God? Do you believe rights come from God?
You forgot to put quotes around "property"

lol enkidu :)
Rights are inherent. they come from me, and stop at you. my self, my liberty - your liberty + the concept of moral reciprocity + ethics.. no rights = no reasoning = back to animals.. stirner was a communist. you dont have to value your self (consider yourself "sacred" - sitrner "realm of the sacred" etc_ or what you spent your time finding/claiming/trading for, but you surely better value my self and mine (as i do your self and yours).. if not, you're just another brigand, or tyrant.. (communist.)
You call out collectives for being intangible, yet you form the basis of your argument around the concept of "rights"?
touche.

what i mean, though, is that "the collective" is not an entity.. it doesn't have a will.. you cannot speak to the collective.. but you can speak to individual members of the collective... so even if a bunch of people got together and decided what they were going to do that day... any voting or anything of that manner in anarchy would be pointless.... otherwise it will just be some portion of "the collective" imposing it's will upon the others.. why vote on anything? why handle any decision "collectively" as an anarchist? if a group comes together and decides to each go out on their own, do whatever they want... why did they even come together? is everyone going to pool their resources and then take as equal a cut as they can? what if i got deer meat and you got apples... and id rather just keep the deer meat than get a cut of your apples? how many hours of "socially necessary labor" does it take to competely construct an automobile?

two people want to do the same thing... they settle that minor dispute.. one guy gets sick.. someone has to do extra work for the same cut of the collective pot? or do they get more? or do they get less because more has to go to the sick guy? Why even collectivize anything? Why not just get your own stuff?
what if i broke off into the forest and got a few cows and started getting milk.. and i started trading this milk to some other people for more stuff.. and i ended up with a bunch of milk, cheese and other food... and then i spend say 2 hours hours cutting up a bunch of wood, i ask a guy to come over and spend 4 hours making 2 plows in exchange for 3 wheels of cheese.. take the plows and trade them to another guy for 200 eggs, which he usually charges me 7 wheels of cheese for.. ...?

2 Answers

+1 vote
"Collectivism" -- preferring to fulfill the needs of the highest percentage of individuals where possible; the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. For example, if five occupants share a dwelling, a collectivist perspective would deem it illegitimate for one member to lock out everyone else, burn down the house, or sell it to a third party without obtaining the consent of the other interdependent occupants. Collectivists see such individualistic behaviors as authoritarian, and push instead for everyone having access to what they need, either through sharing or empowering each person to have their own (the latter reflecting a synthesis of collectivist and individualist thinking).

Marxism acts as a sub-category of collectivism in a similar way to how Constitutionalists do not have a monopoly on individualism.

Not all forms of collectivism use majority rule or democracy. The way I practiced anarchy with collectivism in a month-long outdoor band society, we used roughly this process: In the morning we checked in about our projects, and discussed what things the group needed (e.g. firewood, water) and agreed on it using informal consensus. We expressed our preferences and split the tasks into bundles based on what people felt like doing and where they would need to do them, trying to reach a balance so that everyone would feel like they had a meaningful day. Tasks that everyone felt disempowered by but that we felt we needed to do (gather firewood for the winter from across the far marsh) we tried to minimize down to what we actually needed, share the burden of by acting together, and play games while doing it. We informally rotated the tasks for variety, or did them together and told stories to pass the time. We always had our own more individual side projects as well. At dinner we gave an update and checked in on our feelings.

Because everyone had both a desire for autonomy and a desire for fairness, and we planned things creatively as a group, we routinely completed all the necessary tasks with lots of spare personal time: our group subsistence activities took only a few hours a day off and on at most. Individual side projects we could slack off on all we wanted, but that would have wasted our time since we determined those based on our own interest. Usually we had enough variety to prevent boredom, and talking and games always helped. No one forced anyone to do anything the entire time; we all agreed to everything knowingly and voluntarily when we made decisions.

Everything productive, such as tools, we held in common. We “collectivized” tools by keeping them in a common storage area, notifying others when we borrowed them for individual tasks, sharing them as needed, and returning them to common areas when not in use. We didn't use any tools that we could not repair or replace if needed, made sure everyone knew how to use all the tools, and understood that those who broke a tool would repair or replace it.

We didn't have any problems sharing raw materials either; once again, every improvement for an individual contributed to improving the capacity of the group. Since we tried to plan things such that people would only gather materials when they voluntarily decided to and felt fun gathering, we overcame a lot of the ego-attachment and disappointment issues that materialistic people have with sharing. People still had some personal belongings though: no one thought to take someone else's sleeping bag or clothes, though everyone made sure that everyone else had enough of those as it got colder.

So we held almost all of our possessions in common, including food. No locks or fences all month long. Some days we divided the food equally, other days we agreed to just take what we felt we needed. Both worked fine because we lived face-to-face, checked in a lot, and every person had an interest in every other person having their needs met. The more scarce a food item the more we divided it evenly; the more abundant the item the more we took as we desired. We stored the food in a communal structure and in a communal storehouse where everyone had easy access. Sometimes people would feel extra hungry and we'd just get more food. No one hid any food the whole time.

The closest instance we had of the collective overpowering the individual was when storms forced the group to have to move in to a shelter that one person usually slept in alone for our cooking. He moved his stuff over somewhat unhappily, but he would have had a worse time seeing us eat in the hail and snow. We then worked on another winter shelter so as to avoid that issue from recurring.
by (8.9k points)
constitutionalists, people who believe "congress [representatives of the percentage of people who voted for them] shall have the 'power' to tax" people in the "country" for "services" THEY have decided upon (enumerated 'powers'), and initiate violence for not paying.. are individualists???????????
What if someone in your collective ended up being designated, or ended up getting a task they didn't want to do (perhaps through elimination.. that is, everyone else went and did the other tasks... ), and didn't go do it.. would you kick them off your commune?
Who exactly did you notify when you took a "collectively" owned tool, and why? don't you own them just as much, and have the right to take them?  nobody owns them, right? and you are part of the "everyone" who you say owns them, and the "everyone" who you say doesn't own them,  right? xD
"the *political principle* of centralized* social and economic control, especially of all means of production. " - hard to be a collectivist and an anarchist...easy to be a collectivist and say you're an anarchist.
1. If we take a dictionary definition of "individualism" as "the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant", many Constitutionalists fit this much more than other people. I just brought up the point to show that statists and anti-statists exist in both the collectivist and individualist camps.
2. The result "ended up being designated" or "ended up getting a task" didn't apply to our process; we did everything intentionally, responsibly and with an understanding of the consequences. Everyone participated and agreed that every outcome was tolerable. We met in the morning precisely to avoid the situation of everyone just leaving and doing shit and having that not work out for someone who gets stuck with something. In the event that someone decided to both slack off when they could contribute AND externalize that burden onto others (e.g. collect no firewood ever AND use what everyone else had collected) we would dialogue as to why, explain the negative impacts upon us, see if we could compromise or sort things better (maybe they could do more of something they liked that no one else did to make up for not getting firewood), and if necessary we would shun them, withhold items, or expel them if they consistently refused to do more than act as a parasite. We had group norms for the four types of justice: distributive (preventing desperation and hierarchy by allowing everyone access to resources), restorative (rituals for undoing harm), transformative (allowing individuals to change roles and social norms), and punitive (shunning, withholding, exiling). I think in the case of expulsion we would have (since it never happened) still given the person a share of any divisible resources as best we could (e.g. if we have 10 people, they'd get 1/10 of the nuts, eggs, etc.) and access to means to support themselves (e.g. water). The "commune" as you call it would more re-divide than "kick them off", unless they person seemed prone to aggressive violence.
nobody who supports/believes in "government" is an individualists.. not even a constitutionalist. how can they be? "government" is involuntary collectivism.
"(maybe they could do more of something they liked that no one else did to make up for not getting firewood)"  - maybe they could do whatever they wanted as long as they didn't encroach on anyone's rights. that whole system is obviously authoritarian.. why someone who considered themselves an anarchist would ever join up to be part of some "commune" which thinks "they" have some sort of say on when an individual can/should be "allowed to change roles" is beyond me... there is already some group dictating roles! why even join up for that? pick your own role. if you want to be a communist, whatever.. i'd rather keep my property, thanks..... and as long as you don't want to "abolish" MY property.. then i guess we're okay.


 someone having more than you isn't encroaching on your rights (unless they gathered by force.. the only "capitalists" which appropriate land by force are socialists.. are people who try to "govern" others /trample their rights/take their property by force... lmfao) . taking stuff from people to give it to other people is.

not sure what centralized distribution of goods has to do with "justice," either.. communist just wish they were first people born on earth.. "that guy got here first and claimed that land that nobody owned.. that's authoritarian.. it's not fair that i dont have as much as him..." c'mon now.
I can tell that you are not arguing in good faith. I have not attempting to insult you or attack you at all, merely address the questions that you asked, and now you are starting to put words in my mouth and then laugh about it. I will still answer your questions, but if you want to start acting like a jerk I too can play that game.

1. Anyone would notify everyone in the area or leave a simple note when we borrowed a tool, so that we wouldn't lose track of them and everyone could still get access to them. Cooperative "ownership" does not mean everyone has the same right to keep something for themself, it means no one has the right to keep something from everyone always.
2. My dictionary includes the first definition of "collectivism" as "The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it" and I gave my own definition and a definition that many anarcho-communists would agree with and that describes our aspirations. Libertarian used to mean anarcho-communist for over a hundred years but now people think of it as something else because of the Libertarian Party. Words draw additional meanings over time.
3. I could just as easily describe the involuntary individualism of a minarchist capitalist state and ignore the possibility of voluntary individualism, but I won't since I think that collectivism (focus on the group) and individualism (focus on the individual) both have their place and can have authoritarian and anti-authoritarian expressions.
You are becoming more hostile. You don't need to do that.

1. "maybe they could do whatever they wanted as long as they didn't encroach on anyone's rights."
You ignored that the example was them acting as a coercive parasite in the example I gave.
2. You called it a commune, not me.
3. "pick your own role."
That's what we did if you read at all what I read. We picked our own roles through discussing who would do what and how that fit together. No one can live entirely without anyone else.
4. "and as long as you don't want to "abolish" MY property..."
You never explained what you mean by property. If you mean putting a fence around a fig tree, not eating the fruit and letting the fruit spoil, and depriving everyone else of access to it just because you got there first, then I will side with the hungry.
5. "someone having more than you isn't encroaching on your rights (unless they gathered by force.."
Stratification of wealth often leads to the wealthy inflicting servitude upon others, therefore anarcho-communists seek to prevent that by decentralizing access to productive things like tools and land.
6."the only "capitalists" which appropriate land by force are socialists.."
So the corporation Bechtel, which steals water from communities by privatizing rainfall and then charging them for what fell freely on their roofs is a socialist group? I don't think you understand the history of socialism at all, especially the libertarian varieties.
7. "not sure what centralized distribution of goods has to do with "justice," either.."
Decentralized. We have storehouses so that we decentralize access, not centralize it in the hands of a few.
8. "that guy got here first and claimed that land that nobody owned.. that's authoritarian.. it's not fair that i dont have as much as him..."
I never said that.
"The closest instance we had of the collective overpowering the individual was when storms forced the group to have to move in to a shelter that one person usually slept in alone for our cooking. He moved his stuff over somewhat unhappily, but he would have had a worse time seeing us eat in the hail and snow. We then worked on another winter shelter so as to avoid that issue from recurring."   you know what would have solved that issue? that person having their own private dwelling.
a corporation is a creation of the state.
"8. "that guy got here first and claimed that land that nobody owned.. that's authoritarian.. it's not fair that i dont have as much as him..."
I never said that"  you implied that unequal "distribution"/ownership of resources is "unjust"/unfair. it's only "unfair" if done so via force/"government"
"Stratification of wealth often leads to the wealthy inflicting servitude upon others" - through "government"/force. Which "wealthy person" "INFLICTS SERVITUDE" upon you? which "capitalist" demands you work for them against your will and threatens violence against you if you don't?
1. CAPITALISM IS A CREATION OF THE STATE. Do you know the history of primitive accumulation of capital in Europe via the Enclosure Acts? I don't think you've read much of the history of capitalism.
2. "you know what would have solved that issue? that person having their own private dwelling."
Maybe you didn't read the parts "a shelter that one person usually slept in alone" and "We then worked on another winter shelter so as to avoid that issue from recurring." Also, if by that you mean the person moving his stuff was more authoritarian than would be him aiming a weapon at us and making us freeze to death outside in the snow I cannot take your viewpoint seriously.
lol, it's clearly not their private dwelling if all of you decided he had to move out of it.....
"which "capitalist" demands you work for them against your will and threatens violence against you if you don't?"
I wrote you a long response a few days ago about this using several quotations of capitalists historically promoting a process of dispossession to deprive people of the means to support themselves so that they'd have to work to enrich capitalists.
No one moved out of it. We all made it together and we all ate in it together during the storms. He slept in it himself during the nights and mostly stayed in it just himself in the days except for that time.
capitalism is an economic "system" which entails "private property in the means of production" and free trade. that's all. it has absolutely nothing to do with the state... and the state has no regard for ANY private property whatsoever.. only for state property (which is everything in the 'country')
PEOPLE HAVING THEIR OWN MEANS TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES *IS*CAPITALISM.
without private property you WOULD NEVER EVEN HAVE THE CHANCE to support YOURSELF.
You obviously don't understand your own statement. "private property in the means of production" has meant that a group owns the means of production and a group does not. The latter group had their means of support stolen from them by acts of the state on behalf of capitalists during primitive accumulation, and must labor for the owners. The state took common land and gave it to rich barons. That's where capitalism came from in Europe. In America it came through the genocide of natives and the slavery of blacks, went to the wage labor of slaves and then children and then eventually poor whites who had been prevented from otherwise supporting themselves. The State acts as a capitalist, exploiting producers through theft and defining them and what they use as property. Artisan economies (everyone has their own forge or whatever) are different than capitalist economies (some people have to labor for those who own forges).
"without private property you WOULD NEVER EVEN HAVE THE CHANCE to support YOURSELF."
That makes no sense as I've described very specifically how I have in my real life lived outside of the regime of monopolies-on-tools-and-the-practice-of-wage-labor.
on BEHALF OF STATISTS! STOLEN ON BEHALF OF STATISTS. NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISTS. SOCIALISTS! WHO USE THE STATE TO TAKE EVERYONE'S PROPERTY everyone MEANS TO SUPPORT THEM.. SELVES...  BY FORCE.
anyone who commits genocide to take indigenous people's lands is doing the same thing as ANY "government"/STATIST/SOCIALIST.. RULING PEOPLE AND THEIR LAND BY FORCE!
Once again you're assuming the validity of your own definition of capitalism, ignoring that the term was invented by its opponents to describe a systematic alliance between Big Business and Big Government.
In 1817 a socialist economist by the name of David Ricardo brought the term "capitalist" into common usage. Anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840 expanded upon this critique in his treatise "What is Property?". No one called themself a capitalist, only the opponents, who described a system of exploitation and an coercive alliance between business and government.
""private property in the means of production" has meant that a group owns the means of production and a group does not. " - yeah, and that group is me/my family.. you/your family.. and the people who want to take it by force are the SOCIALISTS/"GOVERNMENT"/STATISTS/COLLECTIVISTS who want to "abolish" [claim as theirs] YOUR property!
Once again you ignore all history. Ricardo and Marx and Proudhon defined capitalism. Businessmen did not. They described it as one group claims legal title on stolen things, and uses the force of the state to force workers to have to enrich the thieves through surplus value. Murray Rothbard did not invent anarchism or capitalism.
yeha okay man well you keep on trading things that are only worth equal value.. to you...o.O
I'm not going to argue theories of value here, and I didn't even propose that, I just mentioned that you're ignoring history, which you are, making up new definitions to conceal processes, which you are, and ignoring several hundred years of anarchist theory.
And for the record I believe in gift economies, not trade economies. I don't have trouble with the mutualists practicing trade but I prefer gift economies.
"profit" is "bad" in general.. y/n?
I see that you want to bring up every possible different point you can all at once but I don't see that as a proper way to discuss anything. I do not want to get quagmired in theories of value or preferred economic constructs, I want to go to the root of the matter and address (1) the original question of collectivism, and (2) what capitalism has meant historically. If you have so many questions, you could try asking them as distinct questions in the question part of the website rather than as comments on something else and I will respond there if I still have any spirit left after this.
it's all the SAME "THEORY." ANARCHY. it's simple. NO RULERS. NO MASTERS. "i have the right to go out into the world and make/claim/trade stuff from nature. i have the right to trade things for other things which might be valued higher by others than what it took me to get the first thing. i can offer people something in trade to others if i need help doing something (like creating more stuff out of MY property to then trade for more than what you wanted to help me make them). you don't have the right coerce me, use violence against me, or take my stuff. you dont have the right to coerce me into some contract by threatening violence against me for non-compliance. you dont have the right to rule me, and i dont have the right to rule you."
I told you I did not want to discuss an issue outside of the original question of collectivism or what capitalism has meant historically at this time and in this thread on the response I posted, but you posted something unrelated anyway. Please do not continue to harass me by disrespecting my feelings when we discuss these things. No one else even takes your pro-capitalist viewpoint seriously so you might as well appreciate that someone took the time to read what you said and respond to it in a thoughtful manner without it degenerating into personal insults.
which insult?
I didn't say that you made a personal insult, I meant that anarchists are often prone to insult pro-capitalists rather than address their statements. You do have a habit of putting words in peoples' mouths though. It could be worse.
Right, i misread that.     but, I really don't understand how I "disrespected your feelings." or how i am harrassing you.. i mean, you're choosing to post... . ... . .
if i disrespected your feelings, sorry... but any "communist" anything basically already supports stealing everyone's stuff! they say "excluding people from the use of property/land is authoritarian.. so you cant own any property/land..." ?????????????
the point is.. a "collectivist" anything already supports serfdom... "no private property..." regardless of the so-called "definitions" of capitalism given by ricardo, marx, and proudhon (all COMMUNISTS) the concept of "legal ownership" is entirely a creation of the state.. "private property" as a concept exists regardless of the "state," due to inherent RIGHTS... if i cultivated a plot of land no one owned, who else could possible exlude anyone from it's use?? an "anarcho" communist says even i shouldnt be able to (even though "no one" owns it), and in doing so is claiming controlling influence.. claiming it as THEIRS... "property" exists regardless if a group of people act like it doesnt/operate it/pool it "collectively," and- as anarchy is a philosophy of NO RULERS, the only logical extension would be, "i myself have the right to own my own property, and exclude others from it as it is mine-" who else could possible tell me i can't? someone trying to rule me and claim all property as theirs.
I will respond to this and then nothing else here that's not on the two topics I mentioned. Any other topic you should post elsewhere if you want my response.
To repeat, anarcho-communists believe in decentralized access to productive things, voluntary sharing, cooperative possession, usership by need, contribution by ability, intentional communities, and gift economies. Anarcho-communism describes just one aspect of several that I identify with in my anarchism. You can discuss those parts elsewhere.
In response to your "stealing everyone's stuff" thing, two men walk to a faraway plant they see at the bottom of a valley. One of them needs to use the plant as medicine, otherwise he will die. The other man has no particular goal with the plant, but he arrives first, and fences the plant. He posts razor-wire around it and leaves, presuming the plant will just rot. The first man finally gets there, hurts himself getting over the razor wire, and as he approaches the plant the other man shoots him dead for trespassing. An anarcho-communist calls bullshit, seeing the act as authoritarian. The capitalist says "Finders keepers, first takes all" and calls it liberty.

In terms of "property ethics", I prefer by homesteading to by non-homesteading, by need to non-need, by what sustains the land to what exhausts it, but I won't go into it any deeper here because it's more complicated than I intend to discuss in a comment on what collectivism has to do with anarchy.

If you want to look further at this before I feel like discussing it again, here's links for the online Anarchist FAQ, section B:

*********B.3.1 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY AND POSSESSION?*********
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionB3#secb31

B.3.3 Why is property exploitative?
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionB3#secb33

B.3.4 Can private property be justified?
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionB3#secb34

B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them!

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionB4#secb43

B.1.2 Is capitalism hierarchical?
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionB1#secb12

*Proudhon was a mutualist (free market anarchist NOT a communist)
anyone who wants to "abolish private property" is a communist man! ;/ if you want to "abolish" your private property.. go for it.. to aim to "abolish" ALL private property is claiming to own all property! who can justly "abolish" property but the owner?
Even though a few supporters of capitalism recognise that private property, particularly in land, was created by the use of force,
what "private property owners" use FORCE AGAINST YOU?
person enters open forest, cultivates land, builds shelter, makes tools.. people come to his farm and say "we want to use that land you have cultivated.. " person says "no" - where is the USE OF FORCE? what claim do those people have on that land to use it as their own.. to then say "oh, you can't only use this for yourself, so we're going to take it..." violating their rights... and person DEFENDS against their encroachment... who is INITIATING FORCE? NO ONE! at that point the people demanding goods are about to commit theft.. fraud.. and the owner has the RIGHT to defend their property! to use DEFENSIVE FORCE, the only time FORCE IS JUSTIFIED. they created it (or trade for it), it is theirs and theirs alone.
land appropriated by force is land appropriated by "GOVERNMENT," by "GOVERNING" another, by INITIATINGFORCE.
"who can justly "abolish" property but the owner?"

It's hard for me to think of this as anything but a joke.  Property itself is "injustice" as its very existence is an act of theft.

Since when did property become an extension of the body?  If someone has $10,000,000,000 and I steal $200 from them, did I initiate force against a person?  You sound ridiculous.

Communism or gtfo
i sound ridiculous?? lmfao, how did anybody steal anything from you???! you don't even believe in property!!!!
"communism or gtfo" lmao, gtfo of what??? your commune?? some non-propertarian! baaahah
"nobody owns anything, but if you take something and claim it as yours, you stole it from me" i mean wtf.. are you even using your brain?
"Since when did property become an extension of the body?  If someone has $10,000,000,000 and I steal $200 from them, did I initiate force against a person?" 1. since humans have been able to create tools/cultivate land/create property by exerting their labor on nature. 2. you committed theft/fraud- you appropriated property which was not yours through theft/fraud.. by taking it without their consent ..

if nobody owns anything ... what gives you the right/claim to say i can't own it? you are claiming to own it.
"Collectivists see such individualistic behaviors as authoritarian" - because they have it completely backward. I HAVE AUTHORITY OVER MYSELF. NO ONE ELSE.
i go out and make farm.. no one was around.. i have lots of stockpile that i harvested.. communists come around and say i cant have so much 'cause some other people are poor. not "hey could you help" but "it's not right that you have so much" and "you CAN'T have all this JUST for yourself, even though you made it, you gave people stuff that they accepted to help you make more, etc etc" -- who's the damn authoritarian? who is ruling themselves, and who is trying to rule another?
i go out and use my mind/time/labor to make farm /tools/shelter/grow vegetables... you sit around and do nothing.. you DESERVE the things I HAVE CREATED?
you gather 5 apples.. your friends gather 5 apples.. you all put them in a pot... you can't take more than 5 apples out a piece and have more left over man! might as well just keep your own damn apples!
two men walk to a faraway plant they see at the bottom of a valley. One of them needs to use the plant as medicine, otherwise he will die. The other man has no particular goal with the plant, but he arrives first, and fences the plant. He posts razor-wire around it and leaves, presuming "the plant will just rot. The first man finally gets there, hurts himself getting over the razor wire, and as he approaches the plant the other man shoots him dead for trespassing. An anarcho-communist calls bullshit, seeing the act as authoritarian. The capitalist says "Finders keepers, first takes all" and calls it liberty."

  -- so the "anarcho communist" owned the plant before the first guy got there and built the fence? unfortunately for you, that IS liberty... what claim on that plant does the anarcho communist have if no one owns it, ? to say he CAN'T claim that property/build that fence? who is "exercising authority" over who in that situation? the anarcho communist already claims the "right" to exercise "authority" over ALL LAND, by claiming "no one can claim it as theirs..." ! and over all people's right/ability/decision to go out and claim unowned land, cultivate it, and live off it/be productive/trade.
maybe the anarcho communist should have asked to use the plant before trespassing.....of course, that is a bit of an extreme reaction/example..  if the guy fenced it to just with hold it from the sick guy/had no use for it, and then shot him for trying to get at it, i'd say he's a psychopath (and will probably end up in office at some point), but, that's life. taking everyone's property isn't going to fix it.... it's the problem.
Nothing at all.

The point of Anarchy is individual liberty and self ownership.
Personal sovereignty.

To STOP being subjugated and decided by the coercive forces of others.

Not merely to make your subjugation a more personal and pleasant experience, but to actually be free of that.

The only thing a collective has ever been.. is a group of Individuals.
–2 votes
Collectivism has nothing to do with anarchy.

Can there be ownership in anarchy?  I believe stewardship is a better and perhaps a more acceptable concept.  No one really owns anything except perhaps the body, mind, and one's own life, but then again seeing that we are stewards of these brings about more of the importance of how one uses what they have, than it is of ownership.   

Possibly a new definition of ownership could be offered and could be seen as "that which I am able to use."  This also would be a self-determined amount.  Without interference of others or by means of regulations or mandated distributions.
by (2.0k points)
...