Dead-end of Anarcho-Communism, and the impractical theories.

The venerated creation he bestows upon the world is none other than bread; a culinary gem that, in its meteoric rise, has supplanted the once flourishing indigenous flora of the region, whose existence was ruthlessly sacrificed to accommodate the proliferation of wheat fields. The bakery serves as a source of pride for the villagers as it draws in visitors from near and far, thereby opening up additional avenues for them to generate income. The village council, democratically chosen, grants the baker unrestricted autonomy, recognizing the profound impact his establishment has on the livelihoods of many. In the relentless pursuit of efficiency, the baker promptly trims down any trees that dare to exceed the stature of humankind. This unfortunate practice prevents the trees from attaining a size conducive to bearing fruit, thereby inhibiting the propagation of their seeds and hindering the growth of new arboreal inhabitants.

Gradually, the once flourishing forest succumbs to the dominance of pine trees alone, rendering it incapable of sustaining a myriad of animal species. As a consequence, the environment undergoes a series of distressing transformations: the climate becomes increasingly arid, the soil experiences erosion, and the atmosphere grows stagnant and deprived of life-sustaining oxygen. Within the dwindling expanse of remaining woodlands, those spared from the relentless bulldozing for wheat cultivation, a barren wasteland of sterile pine trees remains as the sole vestige of what once thrived.

In all likelihood, the esteemed baker shall soon undertake the noble endeavor of persuading the esteemed village council to grant him permission for harvesting the majestic pine trees. For it is undeniable that the cherished bakery's functionality shall be imperiled once the lawful reservoir of trees has been depleted.

In the span of a mere handful of years, the sustenance that had nourished the inhabitants of this region for countless generations - encompassing an array of succulent fruits, delectable nuts, and luscious berries - has been utterly eradicated. In its stead, a commodified creation derived from a solitary grain crop now reigns supreme. This once-thriving ecosystem, teeming with diversity, has been supplanted by an ominous monoculture of wheat, precariously poised on the precipice of potential collapse, endangering the very lives it once nourished.

It is of considerable significance to acknowledge that the baker, akin to the majority of individuals inhabiting my village and, indeed, the majority of inhabitants on this island, perceives himself as a staunch advocate of communism. Within the village, a veritable bastion of the ideology, a clubhouse has been designated as the headquarters for the "Communist Party," wherein they consistently bestow their trust upon "communist" leaders at the local level and exercise their democratic right by casting their ballots in favor of "communist" politicians during national elections.

Any self-respecting anarchist harbors no patience for these pseudo-communists, or "tankies," and their concoction of collectivist-capitalism, for they remain firmly attached to the allure of wealth, governing bodies, and authority figures. Their affinity for Stalinist ideologies, one suspects, stems primarily from the enticing prospect of securing lucrative governmental positions for themselves or their kin.

The Stalinist statesmen boldly engage in the procurement of votes through the pledge of employment within the public sector, thus securing unwavering support from their followers. Within this realm, a position in the public service bestows a lifetime of privileges upon both individuals and their kin, comprising salaries that far exceed those of the private sector, accompanied by an extravagant array of benefits. Notably, numerous pensions are bestowed unto them, corresponding to each governmental sector they served, and the most well-connected bureaucrats undergo a rotational scheme encompassing various sectors during the concluding months prior to retirement, thereby ensuring the utmost remuneration possible.

It is widely understood among discerning readers that the ideology of Stalinism serves to empower the bureaucratic elite, granting them absolute dominion over the populace. Any astute observer can readily recognize that such a system diverges significantly from the true principles of communism, as no anarchist would ever perceive it as such. Yet, within the realm of an authentic communist society, one characterized by anarcho-communism, wherein the constructs of currency, government, and social hierarchy have been effectively eradicated, the local baker would inevitably continue his craft of creating bread. However, in light of the fact that this bread would be distributed freely and equitably among all members of society, the baker would undoubtedly be compelled to augment his production, necessitating a greater supply of wood. Consequently, an increased number of trees would be felled to sustain the ongoing production of bread.

All inhabitants of the village, as well as travelers passing through, and even those residing in distant urban centers, anticipate indulging in an abundance of delectable artisan bread. As the cities below exhibit an escalating demand for such culinary delights, an influx of bakeries would inevitably emerge on the mountainside, while the diligent rural populace diligently fulfills their duty by nourishing the famished urban dwellers.

Throughout my contemplative years, I have dedicated considerable pondering to the prospect of laborers seizing control of the means of production as a means to curtail the ecological calamity inflicted upon these tranquil mountains by the realm of bread manufacturing. Regrettably, I find myself grappling to envision any conceivable circumstance where the advent of communism would effectively arrest the wanton destruction presently inflicted upon this delicate ecosystem. Alas, the ceaseless decimation of forests to sustain uninterrupted production appears to remain an unyielding reality.

The provision of complimentary bread to all individuals today shall ultimately result in a dearth of sustenance for the masses in the foreseeable future. This impending outcome is rooted in the erosion of fertile soil, the exacerbation of climatic conditions, the irreversible extinction of diverse fauna, and the expeditious desertification of the encompassing mountainous terrain. Inevitably, the cultivation of wheat itself shall cease to thrive within the vicinity of this rural settlement.

Irrespective of the prevailing economic structure, the villagers' unrestricted indulgence in an abundance of freshly baked bread leads to the decimation of nearby forests, eventual depletion of fertile fields, crop failures, and ultimately, widespread starvation. This dire situation is already well underway, and transitioning to a communist mode of production would provide no respite from this impending catastrophe.

"So how are you going to feed people, genius?" I hear you scoff. The answer is simple: Tried and tested over thousands of years. I can't feed people. People would feed themselves instead of expecting the labor of others to feed them; a right that arose with industrial civilization. If people picked their food directly from the forest every day, they would be more inclined to protect the forest than to bulldoze it for the convenience of industrialized food production.

In their unwavering commitment to the preservation of the enchanted woodlands, these valiant souls would defend their lush abodes with an unyielding devotion, recognizing that the bountiful sustenance provided by these sacred forests was indispensable for their survival. In a world where the reliance on impersonal agribusinesses, bakeries, and factories has obscured the destructive ecological devastation they inflict, these courageous individuals resolve to shield their communities from such concealed atrocities, concealed just beyond the meticulously groomed avenues.

The consumption of bread and other manufactured goods has distanced us from our natural environment, leading to a lack of concern for the origins of our food, as long as it is readily available. Returning control of food production to individuals is the sole method for safeguarding our ecosystem. Direct involvement in food production represents the only anarchistic approach. When others are responsible for growing our food, they may take shortcuts, as it does not directly impact their own sustenance or that of their loved ones. Food cultivation ought to return to being a fundamental part of every capable individual's lifestyle, rather than an obligation solely for industrial farmers serving a privileged class of disconnected office workers. Across the globe, ancient and intricate polyculture food-forests, which sustained countless generations, are being obliterated due to the arrogance of industrial production. In their place, temporary monocultures of wheat or corn spring up, allowing individuals to conveniently acquire bread from nearby establishments rather than foraging for sustenance as their ancestors once did. This perceived progress, embraced by civilized societies, ultimately leads to the infertility of vast wheat fields and transforms farms into desolate dust bowls. The abandonment of a sustainable way of life, which nurtured our existence for centuries, is now replaced by a fleeting pursuit of industrial convenience—a catastrophic failure that pushes humanity and all other life forms to the precipice of extinction. The sustainability of industry remains a pressing concern, as its destructive nature permeates various systems such as communism, capitalism, and fascism, all of which are rooted in ecocide. The prevailing authority granted to the baker symbolizes society's preference for consuming industrially-produced bread, despite its short-term allure, over the essential task of unlearning detrimental consumerist behaviors. In order to navigate the perilous era of ecological collapse and secure our survival, it is imperative that humans rediscover the wisdom of our ancestors by cultivating expansive food forests. Through the self-sustaining practice of producing and gathering our own nourishment, we can break free from the cycle of ravaging the very ecosystems that sustain our existence, all in the name of opulence and convenience "People's Power": How "Anarcho-Communismist" Is Formed

If individuals continued to cut down trees for baking bread, it would be necessary for the community members who rely on the forest for their survival to intervene in order to prevent the loggers from damaging the forest and consequently harming their means of living. In present times, rainforests witness a situation where indigenous communities, who feel betrayed by the government's decision to grant licenses to corporate loggers and overlook illegal logging activities, choose to take matters into their own hands by peacefully intervening to halt the loggers' operations. These individuals courageously risk their lives to pursue this endeavor, unfortunately, many of them fall victim to the loggers who prioritize their financial gains over the well-being of indigenous communities. It is their profound understanding that if they fail to intervene and halt the loggers' actions, their cherished forests will be completely devastated, irreversibly jeopardizing their traditional way of life.

Consequently, they will be compelled to relocate to overcrowded urban areas and endure relentless labor in order to afford basic necessities, such as bread and beef, which were once abundantly provided by their now depleted forests. How would an anarcho-communist society handle the situation where someone cuts down all the trees for baking bread? Would anarcho-communism not promote environmental consciousness and sustainable consumption? It seems that engaging in critical thinking would reveal otherwise. Loggers have the ability to impact forests at a rapid pace, but it is due to the authority granted to them by society. If they lack this authority, there is a possibility that others may resort to force in order to halt their exploitation of our natural resources. In the absence of societal backing, loggers possess significantly reduced power and lack the incentive to jeopardize their lives for the purpose of tree felling.

Anarcho-communism is a belief that says we should all work together to control the factories, power plants, and other important places where things are made. Even though it seems strange, some people who believe in anarchy (no leaders or rulers) actually support this idea. They think that the way things are made now is like a bossy ruler, but they want to change it so that everyone can have a say in how things are done.

In a society where people all work together and share things, like toys, it is important to cut down trees for many reasons. We need trees to make things like wooden furniture, paper, and to create space for growing food and raising animals.

In the industrial society, people think cutting down trees for wood is very important. But there are some people called "anarcho-communists" who don't agree and want to protect the forests and the people who live there. To do this, they have to make rules to keep the loggers safe from the indigenous people who might get angry. These rules are like a government, even if they don't call it that.

But because the loggers are helping people in big cities who are used to getting lots of fancy things delivered to their homes, they may face trouble from people who live in the forest and don't want the trees cut down. To protect the loggers, some strict rules might have to be made. The people who want to cut down the trees can think of good reasons for these rules, even though it might seem like they are using their smart thinking to make themselves in charge.

When confronted with the dilemma of the anarcho-communist metropolis requiring vital resources such as timber, paper, corn, and meat, with only a handful of indigenous tribes standing in the way of production, the Anarcho- will adopt their anarcho-Spock mindset and proclaim: "the needs of the majority surpass the needs of the minority". Similar to how contemporary capitalist and socialist nations oppressively suppress indigenous communities who resist the destruction of their traditional way of life by logging and mining operations, the anarcho-industrialist will mobilize a crimson-and-ebon army to safeguard their crimson-and-ebon bulldozers and discipline those who impede the desires of "the populace".

The native populace, disinterested in the political nuances, remains unconcerned as their ancestral woodlands face deforestation, regardless of whether it is orchestrated by communists or capitalists. This apathy extends to the fact that the machinery responsible for the destruction is now collectively owned, and that the land they have inhabited for countless generations is now deemed the possession of "the people" - the majority of civilized voters - rather than the state or capital.

The ancient woodland, which serves as a sanctuary for the indigenous community and their progeny, continues to be ravaged in order to sustain the heedless urban populace and their detrimental way of life. These individuals, considered an archaic and obstructive minority hindering societal advancement, are tragically dispensed with. Their existence poses a threat to the civilized masses, impeding the evolution of a harmonious and egalitarian civilization. The enlightened, progressive majority triumphs over their opposition. Indeed, anyone who has engaged with a fervent advocate of radical anarchism is aware that these primitive beings are tainted by their regressive beliefs, displaying a disdain for inclusivity and impeding the establishment of essential facilities for the mobility-impaired and those in need of medicinal aid.

Throughout history, enlightened minds have ardently advocated the primacy of the "greater good" over the needs of individuals or minority factions. This age-old conviction, first articulated by the illustrious Aristotle in his timeless masterpiece "The Aim of Man," has endured as an enduring pillar of civilized society.

“It is of greater and more fundamental importance to achieve and preserve the good of the state. Securing the welfare of an individual is cause for joy, but securing the welfare of a nation or city-state is nobler and more divine.”

Communism fervently upholds the notion that the "supremacy of the majority's will" holds utmost importance, boldly asserting the industrial-worker class as the sole authoritative voice, compelling all individuals to embrace membership within the working class as a means to eradicate societal divisions.

The rationale behind the implementation of collectivization by the likes of the USSR and China, and subsequent atrocities committed against self-sustaining indigenous communities, bears a striking resemblance to the works of renowned authors. These nations resorted to coercive measures when faced with resistance from individuals who were unwilling to relinquish their ancestral territories in order to contribute to the industrialization of farmlands and factories responsible for the devastation of their homelands. Such dissenters were unjustly labeled as "kulaks," "counter-revolutionaries," or "reactionaries," subjecting them to a systematic eradication of their livelihoods, primarily through the annihilation of their vital food sources.

The modern industrial society prioritizes the worth of manufactured goods above the wellbeing of the natural world and its inhabitants. This is primarily driven by the desires of a domesticated population, who crave sustenance like bread and microwaved pizza. Unfortunately, the detrimental consequences of these products, such as environmental degradation, hold no significant weight in the concerns of industrial society. Merely occasional displays of support, like the rallying cry to "save the rainforests" or adopt a vegan lifestyle, serve as empty gestures amidst this prevailing mindset.

The denizens of the woodlands and their peculiar exotic customs remain too distant from the bustling metropolises for the ordinary urban dwellers to engage in their predicament. Even the refined rural populace residing in the vicinity of the forests incessantly endeavors to urbanize their hamlets, relentlessly pursuing upward social mobility. From my personal encounters, they willingly exchange every arboreal entity within their purview for a haute cuisine bakery, an emporium of technological marvels, or a purveyor of caffeinated elixirs, thus attaining a sense of civility akin to that of the urban elites who often condescend upon them as "hillbillies" or "country bumpkins".

“People in the big cities of São Paulo and Rio expect us to pick Brazil nuts for a living,” said one farmer. "It's not getting anyone's kids through college."

The settlers-turned-farmers, ablaze with determination as they scorch the remnants of the Amazon rainforest, ardently proclaim their actions as a sacrifice for the betterment of their progeny. Driven by the desire to secure financial means for their children's education and prosperous urban careers, they justify their controversial decision. For it is an undisputed truth that individuals of refined society prioritize their own cultured existence, invariably placing the needs of less developed entities in a subordinate position.

In the realm of societal harmony, individuals of refined disposition find solace in the company of like-minded neighbors who share their common tribulations: the conscientious discharge of financial obligations, the cultivation of their progeny's intellectual development, the procurement of reliable insurance coverage, the meticulous cleansing of their esteemed automobiles, the contemplation of idyllic vacation destinations, the refurbishment of their culinary sanctuaries, and the discernment of the next captivating Netflix series to indulge in... Thus, it comes as no astonishment that these civilized denizens will earnestly exert themselves to bolster their brethren, while resolutely admonishing those uncouth souls who impede their unwavering pursuit of ever-escalating industrial comforts.

As I type, I can already see the denial phase on some of your faces: "But we anarcho-communists are not like capitalists, we are good, caring people." Humane people. We will make industry green, we will manage forests in a sustainable way using direct democracy, unions, unicorns and equality!”

Why would an individual willingly accept such a fallacious notion? What would prompt individuals accustomed to the luxuries of a detrimental industrialized society to forgo those comforts in the name of democracy? Could it be conceivable for the entirety of the global population, totaling 7.7 billion, to undergo a sudden transformation in their way of life simply due to the proclamation of anarcho-communism? Furthermore, how could an A-C civilization possibly strive towards environmental sustainability within an industrial framework, when it is undeniably evident that all forms of industry inflict harm upon the environment and indigenous populations? History has repeatedly demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of basing societal structures on industrial systems, irrespective of the ideology affiliated with it. Throughout history, the establishment of controlled mass-societies, whether in the pursuit of communism or otherwise, has inevitably resulted in the rise of authoritative figures who wield power over their fellow citizens. Over time, this power becomes increasingly entrenched, leading these so-called "communist" societies further and further away from their initial revolutionary ideals. It is apparent that even in the context of industrial anarcho-communism, authority would persist. This is largely due to the inherent reliance of anarcho-communism on industries that are destructive, exploitative, alienating, and domesticating, as well as the control and domination of a global workforce. The liberation of the world through anarcho-communism remains an unattainable aspiration! Free distribution of all industrial products would be disastrous!

In communism, everything is up for grabs and resources are treated as if they're never-ending. If you want something, you just grab it from the shared stash. According to Kropotkin, nobody has the authority to decide how much someone needs, except for the individuals themselves.

Since most reds think that resources should be distributed based on "need," we would have to figure out who in the community needs the most resources.

I know most Anarcho-communists, like Kropotkin, believe that individuals will simply take whatever they "need" (or want) from communal stores, but I have to disagree because it's just not realistic in our modern society. Resources aren't unlimited, and it's unlikely that someone would spend their life doing hard manual labor only to give away everything they produce to a stranger who shows up with a truck and demands the entire monthly output of goods. They seem to think that jerks would magically disappear in a communist society. But why would anyone work tirelessly, wasting their life on tedious tasks, just to have some jerk drive off with everything they've produced because they claim they "need" it?

"But as awoke anarcho-communists in a progressive, fully automated, luxury communist society, the work will actually be quite limited and fun because we can share the duties between all our comrades!" And profit will no longer be an issue since everything, what we make is made available free of charge to anyone who wants it. So we don't have to worry about marketing our products and that will further minimize the amount of work we have to do. This gives us enough free time to enjoy the fruits of our production!”

Just for the sake of mocking, let me rephrase something an Ancom said when they read an early version of this. Seriously though, what world are these Ancoms living in where they think getting rid of profit and marketing will magically solve all the huge problems caused by industrial production, like the extinction of countless species on Earth?

I keep repeating this in my writing, but here I go again: In a society that's all about making sure everyone around the world has the same access to stuff they want, industry doesn't go down; it goes up. If suddenly everyone in the world has free and equal access to all the unnecessary junk that Western consumers think is essential for life, not only would we need to produce a whole lot more, but we'd also use up our resources much faster.

It is worth considering whether individuals would be willing to work in mines and factories in a society that claims to be equal, especially if they no longer feel coerced. After all, once their freedom is attained, why would anyone willingly return to such labor-intensive and potentially hazardous environments? It is important to reflect on whether the Congolese children, for instance, truly care about our access to the latest technology. Is it fair to expect them to sacrifice themselves for our comfort and convenience, just so we can continue living in luxury?

In a real-world application of industrial communism, it is likely that communities will establish restrictions on the amount that can be obtained from communal stores, as some individuals may take more than their fair share, leaving others without the necessary resources, despite their hard work in producing those goods. While Kropotkin may argue that we will find satisfaction in dedicating our days to producing consumer goods only to give them away to strangers, it is important to consider that his perspective may be influenced by his privileged background as a scholar who never experienced the laboriousness of daily work.

Currently, the industrial society heavily relies on the continuous labor of numerous individuals in the Global South who unfortunately face exploitation. These individuals, including children, are compelled to work in mines from a very young age in order to acquire the necessary materials. Subsequently, these materials are assembled into consumer goods in factories, again by people, including children. It is disheartening to note that the wages received for such labor are barely enough to sustain a basic livelihood. This type of work is not only physically and mentally draining, but it also deprives these individuals of their youth within a few short years.

In order to better understand my next point, let's briefly consider the concept of communist mythology. In an ideal communist society (where minerals are distributed evenly across the globe, rather than being predominantly located in the Global South as they are in reality), it is presumed that the exploitation of workers in distant lands would be eliminated. Therefore, production would need to be localized and goods would be distributed based on individual needs.

In order for resources to be allocated based on need, it would be necessary to establish a fair and impartial entity that can evaluate the specific needs of each individual and determine the appropriate allocation of resources for them.

There are numerous factors to consider when determining someone's "needs", such as their proximity to work and the store, the level of physical activity they engage in, the size of their family, any dietary restrictions they may have, potential disabilities, their unique metabolism, social commitments, religious and cultural practices, the size and insulation of their home, and the fuel efficiency of their vehicle. While there are many more factors to mention, I will refrain from listing them all.

Granting bureaucrats with such authority undoubtedly entails the inevitable favoritism towards certain privileged groups or individuals, while neglecting or even penalizing the less desirable ones. Such is the intrinsic essence of wielding power. A cohort of dedicated bureaucrats would be indispensable to compile and assess the extensive data required to ascertain one's rightful portion of resources, yet these individuals are inherently predisposed to biases. Even if the task were delegated to a computer, the programmer would inevitably imprint their own biases onto the system. Moreover, the presence of bureaucrats would still be indispensable to gather and input the data into the computer, thereby leaving room for the dissemination of flawed or selectively chosen data based on their biases.

The notion of a bureaucracy assessing one's value has always struck me as a breeding ground for corruption and exploitation. Perhaps this is precisely why Kropotkin ardently advocated for individuals to autonomously determine their own needs and freely acquire them from communal resources.

Naturally, the true resolution would entail abstaining from establishing one's envisioned utopian society upon industrial production from its inception... Pledging boundless industrial production by virtue of unanimous and diligent labor within factories, mines, and slaughterhouses, with goods seamlessly disseminated to all corners whilst upholding an ecological and sustainable solar-economy heaven, merely renders one an arrogant and deceitful fabricator. No distinct from a beaming politician vowing to bestow upon us emancipation, autonomy, and affluence contingent upon our electoral support.

In my contemplation, the sole crimson anarchist inclination that held a semblance of pragmatic rationale was anarcho-collectivism. It presented an appealing notion wherein laborers would directly reap the fruits of their toil, rather than having their worth and value determined by external entities.

If one were to dedicate their existence to the arduous work of manufacturing or farming, contributing to the production of goods for the benefit of others, would it truly be desirable for their remuneration to be determined by a bureaucrat, a committee, or even a collective body of voters? Furthermore, is it justifiable for someone engaged in the same occupation, or even a less demanding one, to receive greater compensation due to potential biases?

Notwithstanding, anarcho-collectivism continues to primarily prioritize the workers who exhibit the greatest readiness to acquiesce to the arduous routine of factory labor and dedicate the most time to it. Furthermore, anarcho-collectivism perpetuates the prioritization of ecological industry and urban luxuries over the wellbeing of all living beings on Earth. Thus, this 19th-century ideology proves futile in offering respite. It would be wise to discard it alongside the influential "bread book," as this pretense of reforming industrial society provides no solace amidst the burning crisis that engulfs our planet.

In the event that industrial communism were to materialize in reality, it is highly probable that the establishment of some form of governing body would be imperative to safeguard against the occurrence of unscrupulous individuals seizing an entire month's worth of a community's production from stores. It would be incumbent upon individuals to assume the role of vigilant overseers, discerning the merit of one's entitlement to their consumption. Consequently, they would be entrusted with the mantle of authority, serving as staunch guardians of lawfulness and dispensers of what they perceive to be "justice".

Allow me to elucidate, for I am well aware that a multitude of crimson-clad anarchists shall endeavor to rationalize this exercise of power as an imperative for the betterment of society, as they are wont to do. The act of regulating the allocation of sustenance and determining its quantity is undeniably an exercise of authority. However, let us not be misled, for it is a fallacy to deem it a "justified" authority, as the very notion of such an entitlement is but an illusion.

This approach to store regulation should not be confused with the anarchist strategy of "direct action," as it is often misunderstood by red anarchists. It is important to clarify that the establishment of a police force is unrelated to engaging in direct action.

Behold, an illustration of direct action unfolds: the forceful collision of my fist against a logger, ceaselessly felling my beloved arboreal companion. This audacious act, devoid of any affiliation with prevailing systems of authority, bears no witness to my possession of power or influence. No entity grants me sanction or confers upon me the exclusive rights to employ violence. My capacity for force remains confined within the realm of my own physicality. Alas, the legal code decrees assault as an unlawful endeavor, while granting the logger unhindered permission to engage in his timber-related pursuits. Thus, any endeavor I undertake to contest this authoritative supremacy manifests as an act of resistance against an elevated force. It is the valiant struggle to rectify a glaring imbalance of power. It is the embodiment of anarchy.

In this civilized society, I risk severe legal consequences for employing physical force to halt the destruction of a forest by an individual granted authority through a logging permit. Each tree he fells is a forceful blow to the essence of nature. He personifies the embodiment of oppressive power. Unlike him, I lack the support of the state, the judicial system, or law enforcement should I choose to obstruct his endeavors. My act of physically impeding the logger's destructive actions represents a solitary exertion of force in defiance of a system of dominance. Driven by the logger's profit-driven annihilation of life, my intervention seeks to prevent the transformation of the forest into an arid wasteland. Yet, I do not assume the role of a governing body or any form of authority based solely on this decision to resist.

Establishing a police force and a bureaucratic structure to oversee and govern a sanctioned communal establishment, while also assigning officials to determine individuals' entitled food allocation, inadvertently establishes authoritative systems and a monopoly on violence. This paves the way for the emergence of a state, or at the very least a precursor to a state, which will inevitably evolve into a fully-fledged entity as the bureaucratic apparatus expands.

In the eloquent words of the esteemed German philosopher Max Weber, the state, by virtue of its exclusive control over the rightful application of physical force, can be characterized as a monopoly. Whether executed by a political figure, a judicial representative, a law enforcement officer, or even a laborer, state-sanctioned violence inherently assumes the status of legitimacy. Any act of violence perpetrated by the state is instantaneously deemed "justified," simply due to its execution by an authorized agent who acts in the best interest of the state and its authoritative power.

In the eyes of society, a logger who possesses an official permit to dismantle a forest is thereby authorized to inflict as much damage upon the woodland as the granting authorities deem necessary.

In the realm of governance, a state materializes when an authoritative body sanctions and endorses the use of force. For an adherent of anarchism, it is inconceivable to "validate" a coercive and authoritarian entity like a police force, which undoubtedly exhibits prejudice against marginalized communities and facilitates the consolidation of power among the dominant faction, thus fostering instances of power abuse within the ranks of law enforcement. Even if minority factions are included within the police force, the majority will invariably subject their groups to oppression.

In spite of Kropotkin's unwavering belief in the voluntary nature of work and unrestricted access to communal stores, it is undeniable that a society engaged in mass production and distribution will inevitably assume the form of a state. The notion of industrial labor being truly voluntary finds no practical ground, especially in a world where the law of diminishing returns prevails, and the necessity of policing free stores becomes apparent to prevent the unjust hoarding of goods by individuals and groups deemed less deserving by the governing authority.

The essence of anarcho-communism lacks true revolutionary potential when we persist in depleting our resources through the mechanisms of industrial civilization. This ideology, centered around the advancement of society through labor and resource extraction, fails to embody the spirit of revolution. It is disheartening to witness the continuation of global ecocide in the name of democracy. Anarchists should possess a profound understanding of the disparity between force and authority, yet few self-proclaimed social anarchists demonstrate interest in this concept. Instead, they engage in discussions regarding "justified authority," the viability of an anarcho-communist police force, and eagerly embrace Chomsky's latest endorsement of a lesser-evil neoliberal politician.

In the depths of my disillusionment, I find myself increasingly disenchanted by the vast majority of red anarchists I encounter, whose disconcerting demeanor intensifies as the relentless march of industrial society persists, while the imminent perils of our world inch ever closer to our very existence.

Anarcho-communism, though proclaims itself as a means to combat authority, is nothing more than a superficial facade, akin to a fresh coat of paint. The subtle inclination of numerous ancoms to rationalize authority is indicative of their disinterest in pursuing genuine anarchy.

Direct action is the independent exertion of force that operates independently of established structures of authority. Those who partake in such action do not seek validation from a higher power. Their actions remain unendorsed and unsupported by any authoritative figure, leaving them devoid of protection or recompense. In the absence of an authority bestowing upon them a monopoly on violence, these individuals are left vulnerable to potential reprisals in the event of success or failure.

In the face of an authority's existence, direct action serves as a defensive measure to rectify the power imbalance that has already been established. By safeguarding oneself, one's ecosystem, or one's community, no institutional power-imbalance is being initiated, but rather redressed.

Direct action, a quintessentially anarchist strategy, stands in stark contrast to the practice of bestowing badges upon individuals, granting them official status and the power (including a monopoly on violence) to oversee and restrict access to essential resources, be it food or products, based on arbitrary grounds. Creating such a hierarchical structure is inherently antithetical to the principles of anarchy.

The presence of police officers and judges exerting control over a shared marketplace displays unmistakable signs of authoritarianism. It is crucial to distinguish an organized police force from the isolated exertion of force by an individual or a limited collective, in their pursuit to protect life and challenge oppressive rule through direct action.

Establishing a police force, even under the guise of volunteerism or democratic election, where decisions are made collectively and officers don red and black uniforms with regular rotations, inherently embodies an authoritarian nature. The notion of an "anarchist cop" stands as an unparalleled paradox, defying any semblance of logic or coherence. Former of Authority, it is always defectively Communism's misfortune?

Within the confines of my thoughts, I have reached a resolute conclusion that communism can solely thrive in an environment removed from the clutches of industrialized mass society. A cozy enclave, where a close-knit assembly gracefully cultivates resources and wholeheartedly disseminates them amongst their brethren. These microcosmic communities, in turn, engage in a mutually beneficial exchange with their counterparts. Remarkably, Marx and Engels bestowed the moniker "primitive communism" upon this archaic, yet enduring societal construct that has pervaded human history, albeit with a hint of irony. They advanced the notion that this antiquated manifestation paled in comparison to their elevated industrial communism, which fervently celebrated the prominence of factories and the centralized urban existence above all other considerations.

The proliferation of industry necessitates the concurrent expansion of agriculture, labor, transportation, resource extraction, construction, policing, and military efforts on a massive scale. This collective society, in its unwieldiness and propensity for authority, inevitably veers towards the domains of capitalism and statism. Indeed, any communist inclination founded upon the exploitation of industrial systems will inadvertently engender convoluted hierarchies and ultimately propel us back into the unsettling status quo of apocalyptic proportions.

The encounters I've had with communists on this matter have revealed a certain reluctance to acknowledge the persistence of unsavory behavior even in the absence of capitalism. While I may have found their steadfastness somewhat charming under different circumstances, their own pronounced unpleasantness prevents me from fully embracing their revered ideology. It is disheartening to witness their dismissal of my audacity in questioning the flawless logic of their revered philosophy, labelling me a privileged reactionary. They maintain an unwavering belief that the eradication of capitalism will miraculously transform all individuals into selfless beings, citing the notion that selfishness only exists due to capitalism's divisive nature.

Even in the hypothetical scenario where marketing, consumerism, and wealth are eradicated overnight, the deeply ingrained patterns of authoritarianism will persist, as they have been deeply embedded across generations. Such societal indoctrination cannot be easily erased. Moreover, even in the absence of consumer culture, individuals possess the inherent capability to exhibit unkind and selfish behavior. Throughout history, predating the advent of mass society, acts of violence, plunder, abduction, and conflicts arising from territorial disputes and cultural disparities were prevalent. These innate human tendencies are not exclusive to capitalism and cannot be eradicated solely by the declaration of communism.

The inherent nature of individuals cannot be simply categorized as just or unjust, good or bad. Each person is unique, shaped by their own experiences, motivations, and traumas. Communism assumes universal altruism, while capitalism assumes universal greed and self-preservation. However, both are narrow perspectives that seek to dictate human behavior based on their respective moral codes. In reality, people possess a range of qualities, including greed, generosity, kindness, and mean-spiritedness. No individual can be reduced to a single personality trait throughout their entire life.

I often find myself reflecting on the mistakes I've made in the past and acknowledge that I may make more in the future, despite my sincere efforts. It's important to recognize that everyone is capable of making errors. While mutual assistance is valuable, it should be earned. In our lives, there are individuals whom we trust and enjoy being around, as well as those we may not. It's crucial to discern that not everyone deserves the rewards of our hard work. Unfortunately, there will always be individuals who attempt to take advantage of others, even if they already possess everything they desire. On the other hand, there are people who display kindness towards us, regardless of our flaws.

I have been criticized by some individuals who hold communist beliefs for my skepticism towards the idea that humans are inherently good and can only express their goodness through the implementation of a specific industrial system.

I have concerns about being part of a society that expects me to simply observe as a logger destroys the ecosystem, even if it is justified by the concept of the "greater good". I prioritize my personal autonomy over the needs of workers who may be experiencing trauma while performing repetitive tasks in a distant city. Rather than passively witnessing the destruction of my environment, I would prefer to take action, such as disarming the logger. I do not support the bureaucratic processes that grant him the authority to devastate the forest in order to provide for the workers. I am critical of the workers, their reliance on bread, their vision of fully-automated luxury communism, and their belief in divine democratic rights.

There is no evidence to suggest that exploitative individuals will cease to exist if communism is ever implemented.

There will always be individual I am acquainted with who frequently takes advantage of my efforts, and I consistently comply with his requests. He consistently entices me with the prospect of connecting me to his well, enabling me to access complimentary water for my trees, after I assist him. This commitment has been ongoing for an extended period of time.

I have dedicated a significant amount of time to performing risky tasks for individuals without receiving any form of compensation. On numerous occasions, he has failed to fulfill his promises and conveniently disappears after I complete the work. The following week, he disturbs my sleep by honking his horn at 6am on a Saturday. He offers apologies for not having connected me to the well yet, citing his excessive workload, health issues, or urgent family matters as excuses. He assures me that he will tend to it this week. However, I find myself once again hanging off dangerous edges, such as cliffs or roofs, while undertaking plumbing repairs under his commanding instructions.

I tend to be very accommodating and find it difficult to refuse requests from others because of my overly generous nature. However, whenever I request something from him, he often seems unsure or changes the topic abruptly, providing me with excuses.

Communism may not necessarily address the issue of this individual taking advantage of my abilities. Even in a different economic system, he would still require assistance with various tasks such as fixing his plumbing, operating his generator, pruning his olive trees, and constructing unstable structures. He would continue to share stories about his painful ulcer, expecting me to take on the laborious tasks to alleviate his discomfort. The implementation of democracy in the workplace would not change his exploitative behavior or encourage him to engage in mutual support. It is evident that he actively avoids any form of work and relies on others to fulfill his responsibilities.

Red anarchists express their disapproval towards me and use strong language when I express my doubts about their nostalgic ideologies. They criticize me for being critical of the revered figure Kropotkin or the influential figure Professor Bookchin in the field of "green industry". It is challenging for me, as an indigenous anarchist, to share my perspective with individuals who are unfriendly towards any worldview that does not align with their comfortable industrial lifestyle and their strong desire to make it more democratic in order to gain a greater portion of the benefits.

Amidst the exchanges of harsh words such as "reactionary lifestylist" and "dirty primmie," I make an effort to calmly express my viewpoint to them. I observe the presence of suffering in the world and genuinely seek understanding. It is not enough for me to dismiss it without proper consideration or hold onto idealistic notions from the past that were meant to motivate factory workers in Europe centuries ago. I do not have faith that a solely revolutionary approach will completely solve society's problems or liberate humanity from its constraints.

The warehouse where an average layperson have been employed for over ten years would not experience a sudden transformation towards a more liberating environment even with the implementation of democratic practices. It would continue to remain an unpleasant place, plagued by the presence of harmful pesticides that pose a gradual threat to their own well-being.

It is possible that some Anarcho-Communists may respond to this article with arguments that are solely based on the belief that anarcho-communist industry will be a utopia because Kropotkin said so. They may refer to various literature that promises industrial egalitarianism, written by European philosophers who are no longer alive. I must admit that I have become quite impatient with this line of thinking. It resembles a 7 years old's attempt to win an argument by simply asserting "because my dad said so." However, in reality, this is the extent of what most reds can do. They rely on quoting their heroes and holding onto the hope that they will eventually be proven right. It is this hope that drives them forward, even as their civilized lives contribute to the destruction of the world. They believe that all their suffering will cease once democracy is established in the workplace. These individuals are truly pitiable, yet filled with misguided hope.

Based on my understanding, it seems impossible to make the industry environmentally friendly, just like it is difficult to make capitalism completely ethical. Throughout history, all societies that relied on agricultural and industrial practices have inevitably led to the destruction of ecosystems and eventual collapse. The extraction of resources, burning of fuel, manufacturing of goods, and their distribution to large populations have caused irreversible harm to both the environment and human lives. It is important to acknowledge that adherents of anarcho-communism cannot magically avoid the consequences of these actions, simply because they strive for goodness and equality.

If anarcho-communism were ever attempted, it is likely that some of the "nuances" it encompasses would need to be reconsidered due to their impracticality and difficulty to implement on a large scale in an industrial society. In order to create a functional system, compromises would need to be made. It is important to acknowledge that numerous claims have been made about communism, but when implemented in real-life models, very few of these claims have proven to be successful and it is unlikely that they ever will.

Regardless of any efforts to ensure labor democracy, it is important to acknowledge that individuals are not working out of genuine desire, but rather out of necessity imposed by the system. Even with increased democracy, the system will continue to exert control over individuals within its confining boundaries. The elimination of territorial borders will not address the oppressive nature of industrial civilization, which restricts our freedom and punishes any resistance. If we are unable to break free from civilization, the entirety of the world becomes akin to a vast prison.

Polite individuals dedicate their efforts to produce consumer goods due to the limited alternatives provided by the current system for mere survival. In a hypothetical "communist society," individuals would only engage in labor within factories and warehouses if compelled to do so by the system. It is unlikely that any independent hunter-gatherer would willingly surrender their freedom to operate a monotonous assembly line, solely for the benefit of others' access to everyday products like Corn Flakes, weedkiller, and AAA batteries. This transition to labor-intensive work is a result of human domestication and the coercive measures of violence and scarcity that sustain the industrial system.

The industry holds a prominent position, and it seems that anarcho-communist theory fails to acknowledge this fact. Anarcho-communism can be seen as an endeavor to subtly alter the oppressive nature of civilization, but it may not bring about the desired results. It is akin to how Barack Obama promised change but ultimately delivered more of the same, expecting people to embrace and applaud it. Take control of the destructive tools! (And burn it down...)

Ancoms strongly believe that in an anarcho-communist society, people would voluntarily produce only what they consider necessary. However, the term "needed" is somewhat subjective as individuals can define various things as necessary, even if they are not truly essential. This is why industrial communism may not align perfectly with anarchy, as people might label many things, regardless of their potential to form authority, as "needed" in order to continue their consumption habits. This is a result of the democratic nature of decision-making, where the collective's chosen narrative becomes the accepted one, and anyone who questions it may be viewed as a potential disruptor of order and common values.

The argument for the importance of this industry is similar to the argument for justified authority that some individuals who identify as anarchists use to support various authorities, including the state, prisons, and the police.

Typically, these authorities tend to rename themselves as "the commune," "the social re-integration facility," and "the peacekeepers," thinking that they have made a significant change. However, this is essentially meaningless. People who are accustomed to living within societal norms are often unable to see beyond the artificially constructed and isolating world they have inherited. Regrettably, only a small number of well-mannered individuals are willing to take the chance of relinquishing the perceived comforts bestowed upon them by industrial civilization.

Even though they acknowledge the detrimental impact of these "comforts" on themselves and the environment, rather than outright rejecting them, they devise intricate strategies to improve the production and distribution of these "comforts". However, upon closer examination, many of these plans can be simplified to merely adding the prefix "anarcho" to everything and assuming that this alone will resolve all issues, as it becomes anarchized.

Throughout history, humanity has successfully flourished without relying on industry and agriculture for countless years. Unfortunately, the advancements of civilization have resulted in the devastating extinction of numerous species on our planet. It is worth mentioning that a vast majority (99.9%) of industrial goods are not essential for our survival, but rather desired.

Ancoms may not immediately choose to relinquish their phones, Doritos, and washing machines upon discovering their environmental impact. Instead, they may label these items as "essential", "eco-friendly", "sustainable", or "green" to justify their continued use. As a result, we may be expected to persist in our unfulfilling jobs and accept them as the new norm, given the presence of anarcho-employment, anarcho-society, anarcho-exploitation, and anarcho-leaders.

Ensuring that individuals remain in the mines and factories to produce the consumer goods that are deemed necessary by the majority will necessitate a substantial level of authority, which, in essence, resembles capitalism. Similar to the examples of "communist" Russia, China, and North Korea, there will be no remnants of true communism once industrial civilization has consumed everything. Anarcho-communism will not be exempt from this fate. It is contradictory to claim opposition to authority while upholding the authoritarian structures of industrial civilization and workerism, along with other authorities that ancoms collectively deem acceptable.

A bureaucracy is typically established in an organized mass-society, which is why industrial communism is not feasible. Whenever industrial communism has been tried, it has essentially become a distorted form of collective-capitalism with even more centralized power than regular capitalism. The bureaucracy will rapidly transform into a state, causing the society to no longer be truly communist. However, it will continue to label itself as "communist" and blur the distinction between capitalism and communism, making it difficult for people to imagine a more desirable world than the harsh industrial landscape we have all grown up in.

Any system that allocates resources and polices people can be considered a state, regardless of its self-identification.

All implementations of industrial society have not succeeded in liberating people; rather, they have increasingly made their lives more difficult with each stage of industrialism. To assert that adding "anarcho" to an industrial system will bring about any meaningful change is quite absurd.

Historically, communism hasn't been successful in achieving liberation, and it is unlikely to suddenly succeed solely based on your promise to be better than other communists. Additionally, the idea of you and your fellow super-libertarian ancom comrades painting chimney stacks bright green may not lead to the desired outcome.

The repetition of authoritarian behavior can occur when society is organized around institutions such as industrialism and democracy. Both Marx and Kropotkin's communism are based on the idea of bureaucratic control over individuals. Whether the bureaucracy is decentralized and democratic or centralized within a party, the outcome remains the same: the presence of authority and control.

In the absence of this bureaucratic system, society would inevitably spiral into a state of anarchy. Anarchy, though feared by many, holds an intriguing allure of liberation and boundless possibilities. It is the ultimate threat to those who cling to their dogmatic ideologies, as it would dismantle their ability to impose their beliefs and exert control over others. Meanwhile, individuals, confined within the confines of their domesticated existence, find themselves ensnared in sterile environments, nourished by a monotonous diet of harmful substances, and trapped in a cycle of labor, consumption, and eventual demise.

This existence we find ourselves in is far from the essence of life. Rather, it resembles a surreal and nightmarish realm, where our minds have been manipulated to embrace its twisted norms. Labelling it as "communist," "libertarian socialist," "democratic," "egalitarian," "decentralized," or even "anarcho-communist" will not bring an end to this harrowing ordeal. Nor will the shift of power over the instruments of devastation from industrial leaders to the laborers themselves halt the widespread destruction of our planet and its living beings.

The act of seizing factories and implementing democratic management, a desire shared by all those with communist leanings, will prove ineffective in our pursuit to escape the clutches of violence, suffering, detachment, and ultimately, annihilation.

In order to dismantle authority, one must eradicate industry entirely before it consumes the very essence of every living being on this planet.

In the face of imminent ecological collapse, our sole hope of enduring lies in dismantling all factories, shuttering all ports, and obliterating all roads, reducing civilization to ruins.

However, to be completely frank, we shall not pursue such a course of action. Instead, we shall partake in the leisurely activity of watching television and indulging in the refreshing pleasure of sipping iced tea, all the while patiently anticipating the inevitable conclusion. It is my intention to silently observe as the local baker, with each swing of his scythe, brings about the demise of the final vestiges of untamed nature.

Perhaps, after the passage of countless millennia, the planet may experience a partial resurgence, and perchance the subsequent lifeforms that emerge shall possess a higher degree of sagacity in comparison to the creators of desolation. It is this final glimmer of optimism that I fervently embrace.