Anarchist Communism literature
 

I am sorry if there is another thread on this or a similar subject, but I wanted to know, and I was unable to send personal messages to people like Godslayer Jillian for some reason, so I am posting a thread.

I am incredibly interesting in Anarchist Communism. I know the general idea and am very intrigued by it. As far as my understanding stems, I love this ideology. My question is simple: What literature would you recommend that could expand my knowledge of Anarchist Communism? I am already intending on getting Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread Is there anything else that anyone recommends?

Kropotkin also wrote Fields, Factories, and Workshops, so I'm assuming you'll enjoy that as well. The Abolition of Work by Bob Black is an interesting read. Proudhon's What is Property? is a good all around read, and I think everyone should read it.

Edit: To be clear, Proudhon wasn't really a communist, and in some cases really went against them. However, it's still a very damn good read for any anarchist. It'll change your perspective on a lot of conceptions of the idea of property.

Malatesta was also an anarchocommunist.
And, I'll be honest, I don't know if Nestor Makhno ever wrote anything, but you might want to look into him. If he didn't write anything, to me he is still the Anarcho-communist par excellence. He was a revolutionary during the Russian revolution and created the Machnovshchina in the Ukraine, which was the right form of Bolshevism. Daniel Guérin talks about him in the book Anarchism: From Theory to Practice.

http://www.struggle.ws/
http://libcom.org/library/internationale-situationiste
http://www.infoshop.org/
http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_...nia/index.html

Just a few links for you to get your gears grinding.

Thanks guys, library here I come!

You know what I find confusing about Anarchy? After there is no government people would come together in smaller bands to protect themselves and find food. In fact, everyone would become hostile and the strong would conquer the weak, so why is it the people most likely to die are the ones promoting anarchy?

The Anarchist Cookbook

Sweet Jesus, I cannot take you seriously that you believe if it weren't for a motherfucking government we'd be starving as scavengers.

Well you know what I'm really trying to say here.

Not really. The whole idea of the Left, particularly anarchism and communism, is that no man will ever oppress a fellow human.

Communism is total government control and anarchy is no government control. That works for you?

Communism is a economic system not a political one. Good job proving you have no idea what you are talking about.

^Listen to her. She's smarter than you.

Seriously! No offense, Catch, but human beings have been surviving fine, long before government was even established.

It is an economic system where all people have a stack in the government and supposedly share everything. However, what usually happens is a dictatorship. China is supposed to be communist, but there is a ruling class and the went through and killed all their known enemies before beginning.

I know it's obvious, but no one is perfect. Government is not perfect, there's bound to be some bad apples that ruin everything.

You don't know what a economic system is do you? And how its INDEPENDENT from a political one.

What about:
Vietnam
Indonesia
Grenada
Cuba
Nicaragua
Guatemala
Southern Mexico during the revolution
Chile
Honduras

All of which supported communist ideals by a majority (2 to 1 in many cases)
In Nicaragua, Indonesia, Chile, and Grenada, communism even improved drastically the welfare of its people.

A system that relies on the a good economy?

What are you talking about?

That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

No I'm serious. Your sentence made no sense.

It really doesn't, I know. I wasn't really paying attention when I typed that last post.

You know what... you fucking fail. I TRY, I really do, to take you seriously.

Tell you what. You must be incapable of governing yourself. Let me be your boss. I can at LEAST assure you that I wont abuse you.

Forget the fact that political and economic theories are two seperate things.

For all sakes of practicality, there is no one definition of Communism. China was never supposed to be the traditional "Soviet" sense of Communism. Nor was it a 1 to 1 copy of Marxism either. China, as we know it today, was supposed to follow the ideas of Mao, who was the head of the Communist Party of China. This party had very distinct properties from other Communist parties along the world, including, but no limited too:

- Three Worlds Theory
- Mass Line
- "New Democracy"

So they held the title of "Communist", but they don't speak for all "communists", nor are they accepted as "C/communists".

Soviets weren't even communists, they were socialists. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not the point. I was under the understanding that there was no central government in communism, though perhaps I'm a bit mixed up. I know that's the idea in Anarchist Communism. Hmm...


Oh and Catch, I won't insult you, that's childish, but I would advise either researching what you're going to talk about before speaking, or don't use such strong wording. Ask if you don't know, talk when you do.