Communism is Fascistic in Principle

I was not trying to be pretentious, exactly. They phrase it better than I can most of the time, and I also feel that when defending anarchist communism it helps to point out that intelligent people have had these thoughts and defended them previously.The Rebuttal That Writes Itself, or Living Without Private PropertyMy opponent has not been particularly sporting in his first line of argument. It is clear that anarchist communism is not understood by the great majority of people, and is quite radically different from the status quo, so it is very easy to score cheap points by simply pointing out how unusual it sounds. Hopefully a line-by-line rebuttal will clarify why it is not a contradiction to be an anarchist and a communist, which is namely a clarification of why life is possible without private property. “1. No private property”. No right to assume absolute control over something.“2. No selling/bartering”. There is no control to transfer in the first place.“3. Noone having more then anyone else” This has already been dealt with. The ‘equality’ refers to equality of power, not ‘identical material wealth’. “4. Nobody having any kind of power over anything”. This is not exactly a straightforward issue, but the anarchist idea is accurately defined by Chomsky: “[Anarchism] assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them”.[1] There are cases where ‘power’ may be justified, e.g. preventing someone from unintentionally hurting themselves, reasonable self-defence, but those cases are far removed from private property and law. Furthermore, leaders do not need power. Leaders who rule over their followers are tyrants; if a leader is required, then all that should mean is that a group desires guidance or rapid organisation. “5. Nobody getting paid to work”. Indeed. You do not need to be paid if you recognise why something should be done. I am not paid to write this, after all. “I must then be able to produce and sell commodities, and through doing that make myself wealthy and successful”. I understand that this is the most important concern of people, so I shall dedicate a lengthy section to it now.As far as I am aware, the ‘must’ is unwarranted, insofar as it implies that private property is necessary for production and consumption. People like to refer to the word ‘my’ as if it proves that private property is a necessity, but I say ‘my opponent’ without stating that you are my slave. Similarly, ‘my house’ is the place I live, even if I do not claim the absolute right to control it. Anarchist communists, I admit, are conflicted over what rights we do have with regards to things like ‘my house’, but, as we can see from capitalism, such philosophical details are largely unneeded to establish a functioning praxis. How property is first established? Do I own the flakes of skin that fall from me all day long? These questions appear to never be raised in ‘reality’, and capitalism is the system in which we could expect the pettiest squabbling imaginable. Therefore, it seems hardly necessary to explain use under communism any more than to say that if we consider ourselves no more entitled to any object than anyone else, the rest should follow to anyone considering the issue sensibly. Take the example of the queue. To my understanding queues are not enforced by law, yet people still queue. Furthermore, if it is clear that someone greatly needs to skip the queue, people will oblige. This sentiment merely needs to be encouraged, and every social practice criticised continuously. The apparent failure of anarchist communism to provide an ultimate system to delineate what everyone may and may not do is one completely blown out of proportion, while the flexibility of our current practices and the vagueness of private property, specifically its acquisition, ignored. I am afraid that my opponent has the greater share of the burden in this argument. He must prove that it is impossible for human beings to live under anarchist communism, i.e. use things without claiming the absolute right to control them, freely organise and work together as equals, without there being, somehow, a dictator or harsh system of law enforcing it all. That is the impressive burden he brought upon himself when he states that it is ‘fascistic in principle’. “Could there be any system of existence which relies more heavily on men being good then your own, Sir?”I believe my opponent’s argument attempts to prove that ‘human nature’ is such that they are simply not good enough to live under anarchist communism. The best rebuttal I have so far seen comes from Kropotkin, who I briefly mentioned. Firstly, he pointed out that these are “Old words in a new shape”.[2] Hobbes believed that we had to submit to an “an absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power”, because, of course, humanity would otherwise descend into bloodthirsty chaos.[3] Somewhat amusingly, Kropotkin references the “practical people”, who said that instead of abolishing slavery, “the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained”.[4] Abolitionists were told that they did not understand human nature, and that the slaves needed to be whipped so that they would work. Similarly, “old negro slaves” would be brought out by the defenders of slavery who “were bewildered by a freedom which they didn’t know what to do with and who cried for their former masters”.[5] Would you not agree that both the defenders of absolute monarchs and the defenders of slavery were wrong to accuse their ideological enemies of being utopian dreamers? At least we have established some kind of precedent and awareness then. Kropotkin argues that if men were good, “Even a King would not be dangerous”.[6] We all believe, though, that kings are dangerous, and that men are not good. Why do we believe, then, that men are good enough to govern each other anyway and good enough to be trusted with absolute control over property, which is simply a localised form of governance? It is the potential for humans to behave wrongly that provides the necessity and urgency of anarchist communism. I should accuse capitalists of having their head in the clouds when they argue that we can trust others to take power over us.Power “Enforcing law or morality is power, ownership or the use of anything is power, and even raising one's children is a very direct form of power”Referring to the explanation given by Chomsky earlier, it is easy to see how we can reconcile anarchism, morality and children. I think we are far too authoritarian with how we currently enforce morality and raise children, but I accept there is such a thing as justifiable use of power and justifiable hierarchy. I also hope that my previous discussion illustrated how use is possible under anarchist communism. “As in the case of every "Communist Utopa" ever attempted on a large scale, power did rise, as is inevitable to maintain any order”Again, you have placed an enormous burden on yourself. Hierarchy is not necessary for organisation; this is apparent from our experiences every day. As far as I am aware, two prominent examples of libertarian socialist societies, Revolutionary Catalonia and the Ukrainian Free Territory, both had to be destroyed by the military action of real fascists. The statement that a police force is “an absolute necessity” is completely unfounded. Unless you can establish that organisation is impossible without some people having power over others, you ought to refrain from these statements – you cannot simply assume the principle that would destroy my argument if true. Frankly I am confused when you accuse anarchists of lacking “reasonable limitations” and “a healthy mistrust of authority”; we are of the opinion that allowing power structures to form shows both a lack of reasonable limitations and trust, rather than skepticisim, towards power. The Sanctity of Private Property“…have I no right to keep or use those as I see fit? May others make a claim of my food and water? Banning private property is fascistic in its absolutism”I hope to have already addressed the problem of use. Here, you are essentially claiming that it is somehow tyrannical to deny you the absolute right to deny others access to things. Though we are operating on some hazy definitions, it seems fairly clear that private property is the authoritarian idea. You are saying ‘I have power over this, you may not access it’; I am replying that you have no such power. Call me an idiot, if you would like, but ‘tyrant’ is just bizarre. I am hardly saying that you may not eat the food and that you must give it to others, I am merely being skeptical when you state that some moral law means that you alone have the right to eat it. It really is an important distinction.ConclusionI think you have failed to prove your case so far, because you have failed to prove that not accepting someone’s claim to authority is tyranny and that organisation requires hierarchies of power. Those are the two criticisms I would call ‘serious’. Arguing that I want to abolish privacy and that every hard working individual will have a thousand parasites descend upon him is the anti-communist equivalent of arguing that under capitalism, no one will ever do anything for anyone else unless they are paid to do it.[1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] Kropotkin, P.A., 'Freedom' June 1888[3] Lloyd, Sharon A. and Sreedhar, Susanne, "Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] Kropotkin, P.A., op cit.[5] De Beauvoir, S., ‘The Ethics of Ambiguity’, p.85[6] Kropotkin, P.A., op cit.