Kropotkin says share

Can you grow one f**king tomato?

🤓

performed by trade unions, associations of producers, labor councils, federations, committees, etc

That sounds like somebody in authority making something happen, i.e. government

So again, government gives authority, power and privilege to a ruling class. Anarchy entails a classless society where those who belong on labor councils, committees and so forth are delegated to temporary positions where they are always recallable and accountable. They are equals with their fellow workers and do not constitute a separate class. All associations under anarchism are voluntary, which means we voluntarily listen to the advice of management for example and voluntarily join different associations of producers in different workplaces. Government is based on force.

OK then, when a community’s population grows so big and it needs a new sewage treatment plant, who decides where it gets built, how it gets built, how big it is, who’s gonna build it and how it gets paid for?

I think it it affects the community, a general assembly might be held to discuss proposals. From there they can elect a delegation to plan out the new sewage treatment plant and direct construction. You would imagine there already are workers responsible for managing things pertaining to our utilities such as sewage, and also construction workers available for such a project. It’s not so hard.

I can’t imagine there would be any workers running an existing sewage plant because who would be paying them? I don’t think they would work for free. If there is no authority to make people pay for sewage workers, how are they going to get paid? You can add garbage collectors to that group of workers. Something tells me people are just gonna throw their garbage out in the street and leave it there. Maybe not everyone… But certainly quite a few.

Anarchism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Obviously nobody is paid. Wage labor is abolished because it is exploitative of working people. It does not produce the best work. People put in little effort because they are paid meagerly. Under anarchism, your contributions to the collective in turn grant you the necessities of life. You receive according to need, something our collective labor output can guarantee for all, and something wage labor will never guarantee for anyone.

So under your system I need a roof over my head and three square meals a day and new shoes twice a year and some new clothes once a year. And I’ll get all that even though I do nothing productive to contribute to society?

It's about free agreement. If we have those resources available, we will share them with you, if not and you don't contribute work, you will have to find another collective that is willing to cooperate and share goods with you.

The flipside of that is if I should work twice as hard as my neighbor, should I not keep the extra fruits of my labor?

“…elect a delegation…” is representative government.

You keep simply ignoring the difference between bourgeois government and anarchistic organization, which vary in many different ways. They aren't even remotely close.

I do get it. Star Trek Federation does not exist. But there are non-bourgeois communities where everyone lives under the same roof (or open skies) and eats the same amount of monkey (or kangaroo) bbq. It might work work on a small scale, but when a society reaches a certain size the whole cross section of human nature comes into play. Some people are naturally more ambitious than others. I didn’t say greedy, I said ambitious. If somebody’s content with living on the street and being homeless, that’s their choice.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/entertainment/tyler-perry-billionaire-trnd/index.html

I don't know what you mean about human nature as a factor specifically, but if tragedy of the commons is a concern for example, there can be a ration. There is nothing wrong with defending our commune from those who wish to do us harm.

The EZLN consist of 300,000 people and the Kurds in Rojava are about 2 million. They've each survived more than a decade (almost 3 decades for the Zapatistas). There were larger anarchist projects in the early 20th century where many more millions lived under anarchism.

It seems like a more rural agrarian society fits this better because the fruits of ones labor are tangible. As life becomes urbanized and work is more cerebral producing a less tangible product, a larger monetary system emerges, which requires structure, I.e. some form of government.

Except 38 week in the womb children.

What about a 25 week old baby inside a woman’s body? Does he/she have THE RIGHT TO LIVE?

A fetus’ right to live doesn’t triumph a pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy

Huh? It doesn’t? Then I’d go back and reread your meme over and over and over again until you get it through your skull what it actually means:

"We must recognize,
and loudly proclaim, that every
one, whatever his grade in the old
society, whether strong or weak,
capable or incapable, has, before
everything, THE RIGHT TO LIVE,
and that society is bound to
share amongst all, without exception,
the means of existence at its disposal.“

The quote means that regardless of a person’s position under the former capitalistic society, under the anarchist communist society we will be obligated to share resources and necessities that are available to promote the right to live or the right to existence (something you folks don’t believe in — right to food, water, shelter, etc).

You literally only read “RIGHT TO LIVE” and nothing else and are accusing me of misunderstanding it. Lmao.

Oy vey. However you want to interpret the quote to have it fit within your own narrative doesn’t change the fact that you are applying it as a hypocritical double standard.

Read The Conquest of Bread. It’s about establishing an anarcho-communist society. Kropotkin was not some fringe Christian fundamentalist right-winger and pro-birther. Abortion isn’t mentioned once in the book.

The lazy get nothing. Every person has an obligation to produce as much as they are able.
Sharing, by definition, is voluntary.
One cannot have charity without first prosperity.
Marxism kills prosperity.

Way to misunderstand the quote and Peter Kropotkin. He wasn’t a Marxist. He was an anarchist. He believed in voluntary associations and agreements and free exchange.

Have you noticed how much voluntary charity already exists? It usually goes to people that are deserving. There are court rulings preventing involuntary mental health treatment that would help some homeless. Many of the other homeless are drug addicts, which is a whole set of issues by itself.

Many homeless reject help because the shelters are terrible. Giving them a place of their own gives them some comfort, and the best program I’ve heard of gives them treatment right at home.

Charity is garbage and doesn’t fix problems. A lot of the money doesn’t go to the communities they claim to serve. Mutual aid is a better system that doesn’t rely solely on raising funds, but pursues the interest of mutual benefit by providing to those in need.

A robust system of mutual aid institutions is what we need to serve everyone.

So, you have a homeless person living with you?

I can only afford a tiny studio for myself. I love how conservatives always insist the poor, who have scarce resources, must solve each other’s problems and always leave the rich alone, who hoard wealth and housing.

I don’t care what he’s an anarchist or not. What he’s proposing is Marxism. And further, under anarchy there would be no governmental system to distribute anything. An anarchy free-for-all wouldn’t last long either.

Marxism advocates for a transition state on the road to communism, anarchism does not. Marxists have historical materialism, anarchists do not. Anarchism does not promote any governmental system, these tasks would be performed by trade unions, associations of producers, labor councils, federations, committees, etc. a government system upholds privilege and class rule, when anarchism does not.

Anarchy is also obviously not a free-for-all as the quote above clearly demonstrates.