I ' m cracking up . <| sep |> I can see the universe through its eyes <| sep |> badass duster bro you look like lorenzo lamas <| sep |> There is no such entity as the community . I can ' t gain leverage over an imaginary entity . That was a shorthand for the rest of the people in an area who are affected by your actions . It seems a bit crazy to me to say communities don ' t exist . But yes there are people around you who will be affected by you hoarding up vast amounts of a resource in an area . This is how private property works . It ' s social power . A capitalist can manufacture scarcity essentially and thus the worker who does not own an MoP has to obey their commands . Communists seek to free the worker from this power dynamic . Is wanting to grow crops to trade to other people attempting to gain some sort of social leverage ? No . I should clarify that by consumption I meant use . I ' m not sure how farming would be an issue if it was done collectively . This objection just seems a bit outlandish to me . It wasn ' t even remotely what I was talking about . Now of course collectivizing agriculture is difficult to do properly , but if I remember correctly , the anarchist collective farms were fairly successful in Catalonia . Crop yield throughout the country increased , in many areas by as much as 20 % from the previous year which was a particularly good harvest iirc . There may be other successful examples we can learn from as well . I don ' t know where Marx or Proudhon or Mao came up with this , but this seems like insanity . Mao seems a little out of place there , just because he wasn ' t really influential so much as a pretty trash from what I ' ve heard theorist as he was as a revolutionary and dictator . In the context of anarchism he seems especially out of place . I ' ve yet to meet an anarchist who likes Mao . So if I ' m a primitivist and believe the world would be better off without machines , it is legal for me to go around and smash all the machines ? I can burn down factories , bomb warehouses , etc . and there will be no legal repercussions ? There are no rules concerning the usage of machines . Not sure where primitivism comes from here . They ' re a meme ideology though . They ' re one of the few anarchist groups whose views I find more disagreeable than ancaps . If you bomb warehouses you ' ll have to deal with all the people using the warehouse . There will be repercussions . I suppose in a technical sense it wouldn ' t be illegal because illegality doesn ' t make much sense in a stateless society . Everything you ' re saying is radically different from what the other socialists tell me . They usually say that either there will be a community vote to determine how the machines are used , and that this vote will be binding on the communities members , or they say that there will be a market where machines are bought and sold , but that the machines are owned by the workers who use them rather than by some absentee capitalist . As I stated earlierI ' m not against planning how property will be used , though I ' m not sure how binding this sort of planning would be . I ' m explaining the rationale behind the communist position on private property . It ' s not that the MoP is up for grabs to be stolen or destroyed but rather the community owns it and those who want to use it properly , can . I suppose if there are a ton of people who want to misuse and destroy shit , it would be in a community ' s to make sure people don ' t break shit . I don ' t foresee anprims being a major issue tho . The point is that people are free to use MoP provided they maintain it for the community those exist , trust me , boyo . Commies want property held in common , and more or less free access to the means of production . Where did Marx or Proudhon or whoever say that ? Let us now picture to ourselves , by way of change , a community of free individuals , carrying ontheir work with the means of production in common , in which the labour power of all thedifferent individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community . Allthe characteristics of Robinson ' s labour are here repeated , but with this difference , that they aresocial , instead of individual . Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his ownpersonal labour , and therefore simply an object of use for himself . The total product of ourcommunity is a social product . One portion serves as fresh means of production and remainssocial . But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence . A distributionof this portion amongst them is consequently necessary . The mode of this distribution will varywith the productive organisation of the community , and the degree of historical developmentattained by the producers . We will assume , but merely for the sake of a parallel with theproduction of commodities , that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistenceis determined by his labour time . Labour time would , in that case , play a double part . Itsapportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion betweenthe different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community . On the otherhand , it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual , and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption . The socialrelations of the individual producers , with regard both to their labour and to its products , are inthis case perfectly simple and intelligible , and that with regard not only to production but also todistribution . Marx , KapitalKropotkin ' s Conquest of Bread is also pretty good if impractical at times . I don ' t have any notes from it , sadly . I read it a while ago , back when I considered myself an anarchist . Might be worth a read to familiarize yourself with anarchism .