Communism VS Capitalism - Anarchists Unite

in #anarchy8 years ago (edited)

 photo anarcho_capitalism_vs__anarcho_communism_by_mechaghostman2-da50r0j_zpsijveg4fc.jpg

If an anarchist is someone who rejects illegitimate hierarchies then anarchy cannot be purely communist or capitalist, as both contain hierarchies that may be considered legitimate or illegitimate by an individual, and the only real difference between the two is the duration you subject yourself to the hierarchy, and the method of value exchange. In a communist society it is expected that everyone would just do whatever they want and find ways that they like to contribute to society. Through this, all needs will be met by the cooperation of the collective. I feel the need to make the case that there are only small and insignificant differences from capitalism.

The first and most legitimate hierarchy is the one you have over yourself. You cannot be autonomous if you do not own yourself, therefore having a hierarchy over yourself. If you own yourself, every action you take is one that you own, therefore you own the benefits and consequences of those actions. If this is not true, then you are not responsible for anything that you do. If you hit someone without reason it would not be your fault with this understanding, which is not compatible with either ideology, so it must be that you own yourself. When you begin life you start out with only the tools given to you at birth, your body and mind. If you use those tools to learn, acquire, and build, anything that comes of those actions is a direct result of you and you must decide how to benefit from it. From there you can either choose to submit to a collective system where the community is the hierarchy, and constant, or you can choose to be an individual and sell your labor to acquire property for yourself, where the property owner or boss is the hierarchy, and only lasts as long as you are on a persons property, or handling their property. As an individual you are free to do as you wish with and on your own property. You have acquired it and therefore you get to rule over it. When you work for someone it is likely that they own the property and all materials within that property, therefore you must use it in a way specified by the owner. If you sign a type of contract of employment stating how you will act on the property and how you will use the property, then that is of your own free will and implies you have decided that the hierarchy is one you find legitimate enough to submit to. In a collective no one owns anything and therefore no one can make rules of their own and all must agree to live similarly and share the benefits of their labor, this is the hierarchy of the collective, and you must accept that as a legitimate hierarchy to submit to it.

In capitalism the method of value exchange is simple and understood. In communism it’s said there wouldn’t be an exchange in value, but that isn’t true. For instance, a man is hungry so another man gives him food. If the man then does something in return for the man because he gave him food, that’s a trade. If he doesn’t, it doesn’t matter, it’s still a trade. In communism you don’t need to trade directly because it is assumed that you have created value in some way. Sometimes you may do something that has directly helped that person. Sometimes you may help other people, who then go on to help the person you are dealing with. The chain can go on and on, but it doesn’t matter how far it goes it is still a trade. Value is just assumed to have been traded by each individual rather than the trade of physical value.

Capitalism is seen to be the more hierarchal because people with no property to sell must rent their self out to people who do. I don’t see it that way, I see it not as renting yourself out, but selling your labor. It’s like a glass half empty or glass half full kind of thing, they both are saying the same thing, it’s just your personal perspective, but I think the wording matters. Renting yourself out seems to imply wage slavery, while selling your labor implies that you are trading labor for capital freely. You can also use your labor to grow food and trade it. You have used your time and energy to acquire food and can then trade it while accounting for your physical labor, therefore selling labor. It is a choice to work for another and sell your labor to them rather than laboring for yourself, but if it what you would prefer to do, then you should be free to do so. Not everyone in an individualist society would choose to gain property to be traded and will resort only to selling their labor as a means of providing for their self. Others will horde property and turn it into more value for their self, to do this they will have to also buy labor from others, allowing others to obtain property for their self. Individualism/capitalism is hierarchal in the sense that those with property rule the property they own, and therefore can impose rules upon their property which others must follow, but not in the sense of wage slavery since there are more ways to create value and gain property other than working for someone else. Also the hierarchy over the individual ends when they leave the property of another person, or the contracted agreement has been fulfilled.

On the other hand, collectivists/communists see no need to own property for their self and prefer to cooperate without the need for direct trade, assuming that all other members of society are helping in some way and deserving of all benefits of the society, there is no need to sell your labor and to submit yourself to the rules of one individual for a duration of time. However, if the good of the community depends on you to take action, even if you didn’t want to, you would have to. If you are the only one around that can solve a problem, the collective will turn to you. You get nothing extra for having specific skills, being more motivated, or providing more than others. It is said that the desire to help others will be the driving force of those people and will compel them to help, therefore the majority has control over the minority. Without the exceptional individuals in a collectivist society being compelled to provide for those that cannot the system wouldn’t work. Those who are intelligent and compassionate would be controlled by the urge to provide for those who are not. The average person will still be contributing in helpful ways but not to the extent of others, and some would contribute even less. You are also unable to escape the hierarchy of the collective, if you wish be your own person outside the collective and grow your own food and build your own house it still wouldn’t belong to you because society would reject your claim of ownership. One individual cannot stand against the collective and would be taken over by force or forced to assimilate to gain access to what they need to survive.

In conclusion I think that what is important is for anarchists to realize that there is more than one way to do everything. Multiple ways work, and multiple ways don’t work. Fear and violence don’t seem to provide a peaceful and productive world, so governments are out. We can all agree on that. But when it comes to where we go from there we can’t agree. We call ourselves intellectuals and yet bicker like statists do during elections. Mindless arguments propagating our preferred system with attacks on the other. If in this essay it seems that I lean more towards capitalism, that’s because I do, but I still appreciate that there are others who would rather do things differently and I see the potential for communism to work. If that’s what makes sense to you then make it happen, be the best communist you can be, and I mean it. We don’t have to fight over who is right and wrong. Both ideologies are systems of exchange and organization where each individual works in a collective system and helps grow society. The methods that we use are irrelevant and all similar systems should exist. We should not say you must make money to provide for yourself, you must work within the collective, or make anyone choose between one or the other. The lesser of the two evils is still evil. Let everyone decide their own way. Without communism you are a wage slave, without capitalism you are a slave to the collective, and if you are forced to decide one way or the other with no alternatives you are a slave to the systems constructed by individuals before you that should have no control over how you live your life. Anarchists are changing the world right now, now is the time to set aside our differences and unite if we ever wish to succeed.

If you made it through this essay please share your thoughts below. Even though I am hoping for upvotes what I really want is to get a conversation started. We need to figure out ways to come together and make a real change. So please, if you think I’m wrong on something, call me out and lets talk about it. If I have missed something, add it in below. Don’t miss a chance to make a difference, no matter how small it may be.

 photo lib-soc-and-ancap_zpsqepgng4f.jpg

Sort:  

Capitalism and Communism are both not what you say they are. That's why I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist.
But I'm also not stupid, so I'm not the type of person you (ironically?) placed on the left.

Cooperative Agorists -- And Anarcho-Capitalists at large -- have got no problem with welfare, as long as noone is forcefully penalized for not entering into it.

Im not quite understanding what you mean. I wasn't trying to define capitalism or communism, I know I loosely gave my own perspective on them but the intention of this essay is to show that the differences between the two are only small and really irrelevant. In either case you must choose to submit to a hierarchy of a sort that you find legitimate that dictates your method of exchange. Neither is necessarily more or less moral than the other.

To show that the difference is "irrelevant" you would have to properly define both terms and prove your point. With all respect, I don't think you did.

Capitalism is "free trade"; So in other words it is "allowed trade, period". Socialist Anarchists consider free trade harmful and unnecessary, so they want to "abolish it, period". ---Not merely "avoid it if; my current employer, the worlds industrialists, the rest of society and their unborn children will all sign a contract and let me, until the next newborn comes along".

No, the traditional "Anarchists" want to prevent free trade. They may not like "the state", but they see no problem with using their own bodies for the same purpose of preventing a capitalist from being a capitalist, if necessary.

Hierarchy is not the problem. There are all sorts of hierarchies, both good and bad. It's the really bad ones that we have to avoid. The state is such a hierarchy and anarcho-capitalists want it out of the way completely. Anarcho-Syndicalists are against the traditional state, but they are not really for freely choosing your own protection agency or way of life without being influenced by democracy. They won't let you choose free trade, if they can have a say in the matter.

You're right I didn't properly define the terms, I kind of assumed that anyone interested in this subject will have an understanding of them already. I'll use your definition of capitalism and add in my definition of communism, which I see as a collective of individuals freely associating to better the collective. From there I would point out that free trade and free association are essentially the same thing. Communists remove the physical trade of goods and assume that one another are benefiting each other in some way, where as capitalists exchange value directly. In the end they are both systems of exchange and both can work in their own way.

That is still an improper definition of communism, but let's have a look here.

"Communists remove the physical trade of goods" you say. Well, they intend to and they have had partial sucesses, but they never fully succeed because that would be impossible. What they do is try to prevent certain kinds of "trade".

"free trade and free association are essentially the same thing" Well they are connected, but not the same. However, as you pointed out the "communists" "remove (physical) trade of goods". How they "remove" such trades and why, is why they are called socialists.

Anarcho-Capitalists don't necessarily want to run a bussiness, work for a traditional employer or work the land. -- They can be part of a cooperative if they want to and they can enjoy welfare services as long as they are not at the expense of someone who didn't approve of them. As long as they don't oppose the freedom of trade, they are not socialists. A "Capitalist" must not necessarily desire trade or contracts in all ways they could possibly take place.

Still though, I do like the fact that you made an effort to compare the systems and that you found similarities. Because there are similarities and I know this, because I used to be an "Utopian" socialist and later became more of a Marxist radical; So I've seen "both" (that's an extreme oversimplification of course) sides.

""Communists remove the physical trade of goods" you say. Well, they intend to and they have had partial sucesses, but they never fully succeed because that would be impossible. What they do is try to prevent certain kinds of "trade"."

Yes, in reality it is impossible as every one in the collective would be contributing services or physical goods in some way, I should have specified monetary trade.

""free trade and free association are essentially the same thing" Well they are connected, but not the same. However, as you pointed out the "communists" "remove (physical) trade of goods". How they "remove" such trades and why, is why they are called socialists."

Free trade requires free association and vice versa. You can not freely associate with someone if you are restricted from also trading with them if you would like to. Again, I think this comes down to specifying removal of monetary trade. I don't have the experience that you have as being a marxist radical, as you say, but from what I understand is that they reject these types of trades for reason of opposing submission to an individuals hierarchy to gain monetary value, which I find to be a legitimate reason if that is your perspective.

As for your last point, I understand those things but that wasn't what this article was focused on. I'm not trying to promote capitalism over communism, I am attempting to show the similarities, as you pointed out. All we ever do is point out the differences and try and say who is right or wrong when there is no real answer. I am more capitalist minded, so I like to make money. But I also like to help people out just because. I have done this in the past by feeding the homeless, donating to charities, and just helping strangers that I don't know because they needed it. There are forms of capitalism and communism in both systems and your preferences will guide you to the system that works for you, and we should all be free to choose.

I am enjoying your input btw

they reject these types of trades for reason of opposing submission to an individuals hierarchy to gain monetary value

That could certainly be one way of saying it, but this is very hard for me to say "yes" or "no" to considering how many things could be implied/disregarded in such a statement.

try and say who is right or wrong when there is no real answer

There is always right and wrong. Objective reality doesn't consider the subjective mind, but the mind must consider objective reality. --Of course, this doesn't mean that one of two people has to be wrong and the other right, that's true.

I also like to help people out just because. I have done this in the past by feeding the homeless, donating to charities, and just helping strangers that I don't know because they needed it.

Even as an Objectivist (some would disagree with that label, as I'm also an "Anarcho-Capitalist" but I find it's just another way of "government" without "a state" or "the government") yes even as an Objectivist, I'm very much in favour of helping others. As I said, Capitalists don't need to reject all forms of "welfare" in order to be capitlaists, but modern "welfarism" and statism.

A "Capitalist" in the philosophical and political sense, doesn't have to work for physical money. That's not the essense of life and actually not the essense of Capitalism.

I'm busy right now, but If you wan't more details I suggest you read my earlier comments made at https://steemit.com/cryptocapitalism/@cryptogee/cryptocapitalism-vs-cryptocommunism-the-battle-rages-on

(By the way, the tiny format of the comment window is killing me....Devs really have to change that.)

Also, if you have the time I do have an essay I have written purely on anarcho capitalism. If you go to my blog it is the post just under this one. You could read that and give your perspective on my thoughts that do promote capitalism and I would appreciate it. I am here to share perspectives and grow and I welcome your criticisms

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.16
JST 0.029
BTC 62284.56
ETH 2424.79
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.58