can someone explain a modern conception of anarcho-communism?

Question

who are the major thinkers? how is it different from classical anarcho-communism  (that of berkman and goldman, for example)?
where is it popular? what has it attempted to do in the world? what are its criticisms of itself? what are its criticisms of other kinds of anarchists?

edited to add:
related to
http://anarchy101.org/8826/anarchism-and-equality

Comments

modern? um. errrrrr....

---

or...can someone explain a post-modern conception of anarcho-communism ? There will be some kind of decentralized and quasi-anti-state class struggle but ultimately it will have no value.

---

dot, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not sure that creating a distinction between "modern" and "classical" anarcho-communism is that useful. Is the Platform the dividing line between modern and classical? Are you making the case that the modern variety is more like the current constellation of NEFAC-like outfits, since the Platform was almost universally rejected by almost everyone who read about it in the 1920s and 1930s?

---

Here are a couple links to where I discuss this.
http://www.renewamerica.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17335
http://www.marcstevens.net/board/thread-7217.html

As long as the workers continue to work we can eliminate dollars as a means to account for goods and how much we work.
We have to have workers, we don't have to have dollars.

---

I think my comment about the robots was maybe still the most honest answer to this question, even if it was trolling a bit hard.

Answer 1

Robots, robot repair robots, robot repair repair robots, robot repair repair repair robots, unreparable robot recycling robots, and their attached organic allies who put in some time doing some things and reap the benefits of all of it (but equally).

Comments

there you go. now it's an answer.

Answer 2

Anarcho-communism could look just like the world today minus the corporate logos.

It can be had by simply taking from the shelves and not paying at the register.

As long as the workers produce the goods we don't have to use money to account for the labor.

We do need an objective measure to insure that we produce more than we consume in order to not parasite on the work of others.  
I have suggested hours of labor, though a better measure is sure to exist.

I have no clue who is preaching the message today, I haven't heard it from anybody, and found it in the writings of Goldman, Berkman, and Spooner.

Comments

downvoted because you used this answer somewhere else already, because you're using even the exact same wording, and because if you're going to cite folks, then you might want to give a couple quotations to explain where you're getting your interpretation.