Now call me Mr Picky (call me anything you like really , I don't mind -except Bernie Sanders, please don't call me that.)
I digress....
IF you are going to write a book, some intellectual arguments to explain and illustrate all your brilliant thoughts, concepts and visions, you would think that in starting your works, it would be pretty logically 'tight'.
While dubious arguments may well become apparent in your chapters, the very beginnings - before you actually start chapter 1, - is not the place to put them...
I mean, that seems to me at least - to be the most a minimal kind of requirement. Start solid.
Or am I being too picky?
I don't think so.
If you see more holes in the introduction than an average Swiss cheese, it hardly inspires you to take the rest of it too seriously, does it?
......Or am I being too picky?
I don't think so.
I decided to avoid that rabbit hole of discussions with ideologues.. It goes nowhere...
"No Patriot, I said to myself, "Stay away from that black hole. "
Did I?
nahhhh!
I then suddenly realized that the IDEOLOGUE - in whatever T-shirt it turns up in, to the party - is as much 'the enemy' as is the establishment itself. One crazy replacing another.
To ordinary people getting on with life with a sense on morality and rules who are NOT bound by an ideology, they are all whack jobs..
....The sandal wearing hippy who bludgeons you to death for not believing in pacifism, kind of thing...
...So enjoy my tongue in cheek take on..anarcho communism this time. Same shit, different ideology.
I didn't get as far as chapter one....
I was pointed in the direction of a book, written back in 1929.
Title: What Is Communist Anarchism?
Author: Alexander Berkman
Date: 1929
...... a book recommended to me by 
(Much less fun than looking at a board game).
OK, always one to give the benefit of the doubt, (see the months long agonizing conversation with @smidgeTV )...and with an open mind, I clicked.... ready to be blown away by watertight arguments that would leave me struggling for retort..
I like it when that happens....
That did not happen....
Here is the link if you wish to read it yourself, I will take some excerpts out of it.
Not to argue the anarcho communism ideology - for or against . I had stopped reading waaaaaay before that.
All credibility was gone.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
Here are some excerpts.
....Not to ridicule the author, no. He does that all by himself quite admirably.
It's much more like ridicule of people that use this book as this as some kind of coherent understanding of an ideology.
The gullibility of the ideologue....'Willful blindness' is the only way I can describe it...
Should we crowdfund a care center for them, or something?
' the hospice for the ideologically mentally infirm '.... that kinda has a nice ring to it...
I digress, back to ripping this guy a new one...
Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present-day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism. Progress consists in abolishing what man has outlived and substituting in its place a more suitable environment.
Oooooh, we are not off to a good start here..(we are only on the second paragraph).
Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just.
This can only be in reference to Government, political authority, and legal compulsion...
So mixing together capitalism with institutions of government as though they are the same thing....?A dodgy assumption there.
If this is being set up as 'a truth' to be later built upon, I see a collapse occurring...oh no , this isn't good... this isn't good at all...
The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present-day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism
Why this obsession with governments and capitalism being connected?
The only connection is that government creates crony capitalism.
Lets hope we are not conflating those two complete opposites - capitalism and crony capitalism - as the THE SAME ANIMAL.
That would not be a good start for a book of this kind...
We are still on the Forward, not even into chapter 1 yet.
(This book was written in 1929, btw - so there are many references to the Russian revolution and the West - some of which are are sharp observations... Respect on that score. )
Enough of being nice.......
They have always claimed that the State is destructive to individual liberty and social harmony, and that only the abolition of coercive authority and material inequality can solve our political, economic and national problems
But their arguments, though based on the age-long experience of man, seemed mere theory to the present generation, until the events of the last two decades have demonstrated in actual life the truth of the Anarchist position.
.....and that only the abolition of coercive authority and material inequality can solve our political, economic and national problems
Material inequality? How does that work then...? You will need an authority(coercive?) to decide what exactly is inequality...mmmm.
but their arguments, though based on the age-long experience of man,
Arguments based on the 'age long experience' of man? 5000 yrs worth of history - of which none of it based on anarchy as a social system-seems quite a strong base, from which to argue any position.
Considering that 'the age long experience of man' has not been anarchic in it's construction, (a brief transitory state at most) would mean that it is not based on anything at all.
seemed mere theory to the present generation, until the events of the last two decades have demonstrated in actual life the truth of the Anarchist position.
Seemed mere theory? They _are _ mere theories, that would be why.
The truth of the anarchists position being the one of 'age long experience of man', ISN'T - actually true, only wishful thinking..
Look! Over there - Is that a seismograph needle I see? Is it starting to tremble.....?
Phew, we made it to....
I want to tell you about it in such plain and simple language that there will be no misunderstanding it. Big words and high sounding phrases serve only to confuse. Straight thinking means plain speaking.
The most intelligent thing I have read in this so far. Truly intelligent..
Promising....but in the very next sentence....he lets himself down, oh so badly.
But before I tell you what Anarchism is, I want to tell you what it is not.
Why?
I know it's not a ping pong ball, or a zebra. I know it's not lots of thing, to be quite honest. Telling me what it is not does, not tell me what it is...So much for plain speaking.
Doesn't plain speaking mean telling us what it is?. Not, what is isn't?
....That is necessary because so much falsehood has been spread about Anarchism.
So what ? Telling us what it is not in no way helps to tell us what it is , now does it?
Even intelligent persons often have entirely wrong notions about it.
Oh, a lovely introduction to the reader, suggesting that if you do not understand
'....If I doesn't understand the argument, then I mustn't be intelligent...'
Oh dear.
A good subtle mind trick of the disingenuous, or insecure - to make sure that it must be the reader not understanding this plain speak that he talks about.
It has nothing to do with his arguments being total bollocks.
OK then....
Just now I can tell you that neither your political boss nor your employer, neither the capitalist nor the policeman will speak to you honestly about Anarchism.
but...but...but I am a capitalist , and am an employer, and I will happily talk about anarchism...and have done so on many, many occasions with my employees...
But you're telling me I will NOT do that.
One of us must be lying then.... Let me go check....
Nope it's not me - I just went and had an honest chat to an employee about it....
... and all of them hate it
I don't hate it at all - I thinks it's an excellent topic to discuss...I feel an insecurity fissure starting to appear. We are still on the introduction...
Their newspapers and publications — the capitalistic press — are also against it.
Is this that conflation with crony capitalism and capitalism rearing its ugly head again?
He really does need to clarify that in his own head.
Perhaps he doesn't make any kind of delineation?
Oops.
It's like trying to play a game of chess, but both players have identical pieces, and both of the same color.
It doesn't work.
It is it most certainly not a clear position to take while still on an introduction to a book....
(I made that bit darker - 'cos it's important, see.)
He does point out how ignorant and dishonest Marx and Engels were, so it's not all bad...
After the list of what Anarchism isn't , he then tells you what it should be.
(he never mentioned ping pong balls or Zebra's though, which does worry me a little).
Ah, the ideologues safe space, the comfort blanket.
The shield of infallibility.
The shield of 'should'.
What it should be...
Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you.
It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you don’t want to do.
It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of a life you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.
It means that the next fellow should have the same freedom as you, that every one should have the same rights and liberties.
It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony.
That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man.
We are still on the bloody introduction ....
In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible life.
‘Can that be?’ you ask; ‘and how?’
Lots of drugs, mate...lot's and lots of drugs to perpetuate your delusions..
Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you.
No one is. You're not compelled to go to work, you choose to. You are not a slave, (excluding Libya of course, but generally speaking).
A wage slave is your own imposed slavery, no one is imposing it on you.
It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you don’t want to do.
But after puberty, life isn't like that. Sorry .
As an adult our life is filled with choices of doing what you don't want to do and vice versa. Adulthood.
This is juvenile day dreaming..
It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of a life you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.
We do already with exception of pesky governments - but only if you choose to. Many prefer much harder lives, living away from any government control. Freedom isn't equal, just like everything else in life...
But i digress...
It means that the next fellow should have the same freedom as you, that every one should have the same rights and liberties.
That's pretty much already been covered, so nothing new. See magna carta, constitution, and bill of rights etc....
It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony.
Are we singing in a coca cola add here...?
That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man.
That is to say...
all of human history was a mistake. All our actions were 'wrong'. We all got it wrong for 10000 years or more?
Maybe, (whispers ) just maybe, your model is TOTAL BULLSHIT??? ( I shouted that bit).
Just sayin' ...either that - or I'm not intelligent enough to understand........ahhh, ! verrrry clever...!!!!
People still read the rest of the book?
After reading 'the Forward', and then 'the introduction'...
they are sold on the wisdom of this author?
How is that even possible, with logical inconsistencies, silly assertions, and shown in only a few paragraphs? Seriously?
What does that tell you about the readers who continue to reading this 'Swiss cheese logic', and make it a foundational aspect of their truth? ,
( ....and then use it as a reference of.......wisdom?).
I am really starting to see ALL ideologues as all just as dangerous as one another...
....after destroying this little utopian rant, I' ll leave it there..... for now..
I actually had great fun doing this!
(I hope that isn't act of aggression....or something.).