Add new comment

This essay, while at points providing a fair criticism of Anarchist Communism, is overall pretty baseless, and provides absolutely no viable alternatives to escaping the existential hellhole that is modern life. There's a lot of holes that I don't believe are explained.

For one, you seem to assume that capitalist production and distribution of food is 100% efficient. After all, that is the only logical reason you'd claim that providing enough food for everyone would require ecological destruction on a scale comparable to, even greater to industrical capitalism's. However, this is very much an inaccurate belief. With the current amount of farmland used by humanity, enough food could be produced for about 10 times the population. It follows that about 90% of farmland could be allowed to rewild and we could still feed everyone. This is because the vast majority of farmland today is used to produce feed crops - grasses and grains that exist solely to feed the atrocious population of cattle and farm animals we currently maintain. The cattle industry also happens to be the driving force behind deforestation, particularly in the amazon and already ecologically devastated areas such as my own Great Britain.

It stands to reason that were the population of a territory to embrace anarcho-communism and all of the struggles intertwined with it as a movement, then they would be aware of the costs of modern meat prodution, and proceed to abstain from most if not all of their meat consumption, cutting the source of the cattle industry almost entirely, allowing for the rewilding of most of their ecologically dead lands, and instead procuring a diverse, ecologically resilient food source through local permaculture. Of course the population of today would not instantly assume plant based diets, were we only to change the people in parliament. But this is not what we propose - anarchist communism requires the political participation and awareness of a majority of the population and the cooperation of the rest - it could not be brought about until the people were already willing for radical change to take place, already willing to embrace plant based diets and whatnot. By that measure, anarchist communism would be more than capable of protecting the environment from exploitation because exploitation would not be needed. Even forest sourced resources like firewood and paper (the demand of which can and is already dropping due to increased access to renewable energy) could be procured by entirely sustainable forestries, rather than the complete destruction of nature's rainforestx such as the amazon. I'll also tack on the fact that without a profit incentive, the profit incentive for farmers to destroy the environment in order to produce meat is gone in anarcho communism. With less production, people can take meat from the stockpile, but they cannot demand what has not been produced, just as they cannot demand the local commune supplys them with a spaceship or a time machine.

Your solution the problems you have put forward is.... what? From what I can gather you propose we return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle - there's no other way to sustain any form of human development without some form of agriculture. But this, outside of mere theoretics, has many of the same problems and many, many more. I'll list them, it's easier than trying to write them into a paragraph:

1. Anarcho-Primitivism would require that almost the entire population willingly submit to the destruction of their main food source, agriculture. A food source that cannot be replaced as;
2. The current population cannot be sustained on hunting and gathering alone, so what is essentially genocide would have to be conducted in order to protect the primitive lifestyle.
3. A large proportion of the planet has nothing to forage, very little to sustain. Britain has no forest left to forage. Shall we just die, in order to avoid the oppression that is... sustainable permaculture?