Here, look at this and tell me what you think, just the chapter titles,...
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
All the others
Somehow I doubt that you have encountered 'all of them'.
Mine meets all them requirements, and can be summed up in keep working, stop paying, and rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.
With those two axioms I resolve most of society's ailments, but nobody listens to me, because I hurt their little feelers, too much.
It appears that Berkman at least also gets it. He disagrees with the Individualist Anarchists, but he also sees them - rightfully so - as part of the Anarchists. The compulsion not to own private property is somehow not considered compulsion.
"All Anarchists agree on this fundamental position: that government means injustice and oppression, that it is invasive, enslaving, and the greatest hindrance to man’s development and growth.
They all believe that freedom can exist only in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind. All Anarchists are therefore at one on the basic principle of abolishing government.
They disagree mostly on the following points:
...
I think PJ did a poor job deliniating what private property is.
Nobody wants to take anybody's stuff.
My solution moves us forward from where we are now.
If you have a mansion and servants they are yours to keep, any private jets, too.
However, it would be my guess that the servants would leave, and the mansions fall into disrepair, when anything anybody wants is theirs for the asking.
The workers only have to continue to do the work while refusing to pay to get that work back from the crapitalusts.
The crapitalusts can lock us out of 'their' factories, but that is just a hurdle that the crapitalusts can erect, it wont stop anything once the workers decide to toss off the money masters.
Workers do all the work, dollars dont do crap, except see to it that workers are slaves of those that control it.
As the workers figure this out i expect a mess, they are gonna be upset for a while.
That is exactly why us crapitalists are automating now, so we get to keep our stuff, plus a place to keep it, and we may watch the workers hang themselves with their own rope.
Well, that is kinda depressing, can't we find a win win?
Isn't privately owning your own property and labour a win-win? Plus you get rid of the conundrum of communal ownership that is done by consensus, which is nothing but a government by another name.
So, do you own your own labor when you are paid in currency that's value is derived by others, or are you a slave to a system that doesn't answer to you?
With full automation only a tiny fraction of the population is going to have to contribute even 20 hours a week to keep the shelves overflowing, hell they are lucky to get 30 hours now.
What do we do with all those displaced workers?
Call them bums and gas 'em?
Soft kill them with vaccines and environmental toxins?
Mouse Pox?
What?
I say we let them lives lives of leisure growing their on food and making homemade crafts so the neighbors don't think they are bums.
At that point we could begin to populate the other heavenly bodies.
Do you really think we are going to get to mars by financing debt to the banksters?
A paradigm shift is needed, and if you explore mine, it doesn't look so bad.
You can vote for me, here.
Income tax in my country is around 40% so I own exactly around 60% of my own labour.
I'm no slave to the system beyond being forced to pay tax and being forced to answer to the often corrupt police. Why is that? Because we still have private property, although that is changing in this country in favour of communal land ownership.
What do we do with displaced workers? Why are they our responsibility?
I've encountered that one, it's one of the most obviously logically inconsistent ones.
Of course it is,...
Yes, of course it is. It's rather obvious and easy to see how you can clearly not be both anarchist and communist.
Depends on your definitions.
Both words have their roots in PJ Proudhon.
No, it does not really depend on the definitions. Proudhon's idea of private property being theft is pretty much the same kind of lunacy that is a nail in the coffin of any dyed in the red anarchist. This while most anarchists make an arbitrary distinction between private property and personal property. So you're allowed to have stuff, you're just not allowed to own the capital goods that produces that stuff, nor are you allowed to own a place to keep everything.
Yep, died in the wool.
I don't like to get lost in the rhetoric, when I can.
As rule by force is the disease, who and how are symtpoms, what does it really matter who owns what as long as the work gets done and the needs get met?
On any given Tuesday the workers can unite.
They can short circuit the paradigm by continuing to fill the shelves with crap, while refusing to buy it back from the banksters.
Keep working, stop paying.
The day is coming, it is only a matter of the ideas being spread.
As rule of force is the disease, ancaps at least have the non-aggression principle. Most anarchists have no issue with using force and many in fact encourage smashing the machine and so on.
What does it really matter who owns it? Would you mind working for someone without owning the means of production or the fruit of your labour? If you do not mind that, then isn't that exactly how Berkman and most anarchists view the capitalist system? Surely, being exploited for your labour is acceptable if it doesn't really matter who owns what as long as the work gets done and the needs get met?
The ideas are widely spread, they're just not widely accepted because most people like to own stuff.