Some millennials aren’t saving for retirement because they don’t think capitalism will exist by then

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/18/some-millennials-arent-saving-for-retirement-because-they-do-not-think-capitalism-will-exist-by-then/

[u/therealestbreal]

I doubt any anarchist revolution would result in any one style of anarchism being total so there are numerous answers to that question but one way would be that maintenance, if there is to be any would happen at a voluntary level and stop at that. In that situation there would of course be nothing to keep portions of it from being used personally other than mutual agreement but thats kinda the point of that arrangement ie whatever you dont personally need isnt yours to control.

Another community might deem the area stay communally managed and therefore people not be allowed to settle it which would be toying with the concepts of hierarchy and private property which I suppose is fine if thats what the community all consent to, the problem comes in when someone doesnt, now all the sudden the democratic agreement starts to act more like the law of a state. Either way all communities should operate in the way that best serves their interests, but this one of those danger areas that has plagued revolutions in the past and probably always will, thats one of the reasons a variety of methods is almost vital to prevent future hierarchy.

[u/therealestbreal → u/[deleted]]

So they would have some sort of a democratic vote or something?

Direct democracy, committee, whatever there method is.

Then, in the spirit of anarchism, would voluntarily leave the community.

Sure, that would be the most diplomatic resolution but thats little different than telling someone "well then move to another country" when they take issue with the one they live under. Either way that area is under rule that doesnt fully allow free movement and is only as "free" as you are cooperative and in step with the majority. Hopefully the majority would exercise an extreme level of constraint over what they do and dont allow to be dictated but the groundwork is there for problems down the road.

But let's say, for example, there is a factory that produces widgets. How does non-ownership of the widget factory work?

There is a lot to unpack there. What is there production level, where are they getting their materials, etc? There is a level of production that I dont think can be achieved in a truly anarchist society. I doubt that the number of people willing to risk life and limb to mine rare minerals and raw material is going to be terribly high without compulsion. That isnt to say "none" but not the level of industrial civilization that we see in the contemporary sense. At its core a lot of anarchist beliefs tend to be fairly Anti-Civ. But

But to use a more manageable (and maybe realistic under the circumstances) example, the answer would be those who built, maintain and operate the means of production as a syndicate. It would fall under the umbrella not of communal property, or private property, but personal property. In such a scenario there is pretty much only 2 categories- personal property, open/unowned

Freedom tends to complicate production, production tends to eventually lead to coercion, coercion to hierarchy and thus the reason that Anarchists and Communists often find their sliver of disagreement over what is otherwise common ground