Communism, Capitalism, Anarchy, and Honesty
Why doesn't anyone ever see the collapse coming in Communist countries? There are always red flags everywhere!
Jokes aside, I want to make a distinction between totalitarian regimes and communist anarchists. I think there is room for a clear separation of the concepts, regardless of my opinions about their respective merits.
I became involved in a rather heated discussion on the matter on another website, and would like to present my argument here for more clearheaded discussion. It is my contention that if you choose to voluntarily pool your property with others in a communal system, you're actually an individualist propertarian anarchist, because you are choosing the means by which you interact with others and dispose of your property. If people are free to choose how they dispose of their property and interact with others, it fits under the umbrella of individualist propertarian anarchism, even if some people choose a communal society, a syndicalist cooperative, etc. as their means.
I have been told in various discussions that even basic cooperative ventures are inherently communism, but this makes rational discussion impossible. I thus try to use the term "communal society" to describe a voluntary association of consenting individuals in a socialist model. In contrast, I try to use the term "Communism" to describe an authoritarian system of coercive central planning. These are distinct concepts, and I am trying to use distinct terms to describe them.
It's like the distinction between the free market and corporate collusion with government. Calling both "Capitalism" is deliberate dishonesty, since the ideas are antithetical. Free markets do not lead to government intervention as a necessary or inevitable result. Political plunder is parasitism, not the next stage of growth. Likewise, I am willing to concede that people are entirely capable of forming voluntary associations in other forms without necessarily resulting in tyranny.
The moment someone says, "Your property belongs to the collective whether you consent or not," they are statists. This authoritarianism is antithetical to anarchism, because the communal collective is treated as an entity with authority over the individual. That is the distinction I am trying to make, and far too many self-professed "anarcho-socialists," "anarcho-communists," and "anarcho-syndicalists" desire this power over others. It is also true that many self-professed "anarcho-capitalists" worship national borders, for example, so it's hardly a one-sided fault. That is why individualism and consent are the tools we need to make a sound distinction.
I know many an-coms who immediately retort with something along the lines of, "Well, you aren't a real anarchist either, because you support hierarchy!" However, in a voluntary exchange, both parties benefit. Absent coercion, the only way an employer gains his "authority" is by making an offer the other accepts.
"Hey, if you perform job X under conditions Y, I will pay you Z in exchange. Do you accept?"
This is an exchange based in mutual recognition of each other's individual autonomy and sphere of authority.
"Hey, want to pool your property with ours in a communal society? Do what you can, and take what you need."
This is also an exchange based in mutual recognition of each other's individual autonomy and sphere of authority.
As such, both are true expressions of anarchy. And that is because both recognize the individual right to life, liberty, and property while offering association and exchange based on mutual voluntary consent. All honest anarchism must be individualist. Our battle is not between the market and the commune, but between the individual and The State. Never forget that, no matter how much we may disagree on how we might prefer to interact with others in the absence of The State.
You get an upvote just for the red flag comment.
😆
No slaves no masters is fairly straightforward. I think many times confusion comes in where the definition of the word slave or master seems to vary between individuals.
Whenever discussing such things I try to immediately ask the other side of said discussion to define what they mean by ___.
It's best to find common ground where we can, eliminate the need for a coercive state, preferably through peaceful means and leave the infighting at the door. Much easier said than done when seeking the truth.
All too often we see the argument that, "if I disagree with your voluntary associations and exchanges, you are wrong to engage in them." This is statism, not anarchism. Similarly, "I don't like how you are using that property, so therefore it is illegitimate property." It is necessary to at least apply the NAP as a basic measure before such conclusions can be drawn.
Fantastic post - I agree with every word and thanks for the delicate dissection of AnCom philosophy. It still seems a contradiction in terms for me but I agree with your perspective - that individuality and consent are THE fundamentals.
i completely agree. I am first an anarchist and that means that all interactions should be voluntary and we stand together to face the people that try to impose control.
The capitalist comes second. It only means that once we achieve freedom I will try to interact with people on the basis of private property and free trade. Others can reject that and live in hippie communes. There is no conflict.
Of course I think that most of the communist communes will fail because the people will see that the capitalist are more prosperous. But there is no fight because these things will sort out on their own.
I don't see the logic in leftist anarchism. The distinction being in the 'social' aspect.
It takes the form of :
"We are going to make a social construct, but it will be peaceful and not do anything against X."
I describe the political landscape here:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@joesal/power-politics-of-the-left-and-the-right-why-it-matters
I describe/observe problems in Y-axis shifting here:
https://steemit.com/power/@joesal/y-axis-shift
The other problem in leftist anarchism is the tie to :
"...conquest of political power by the proletariat."-The Communist Manifesto
Considering many left anarchists are tied to this form of socialism, they are by default engaged in power politics and not in any type of voluntary social construct.
I don't see anti-market communities working either, but it's not my place to tell them they can't try it.
I agree, and as long as they don't run over anyone with the social construct they build, it might work out. I just hedge the perspective on what has been done in the past.
A very insightful and clear distinction & elaboration of concepts, dear @jacobtothe ...
I think you should include Fascism also in this distinction...but sometimes Communism and Fascism is not clearly separable...
What do you think?
Thanks for sharing...❤
Fascism is authoritarian through and through. Authoritarianism in the guise of "Communism" is still authoritarianism, and so despite the rhetorical differences, the end result is death and destruction.
Agree with you, dear @jacobtothe...
I also think that they are inseparable...
Thanks...❤
This is very true.
If a group got together and ordered toilet paper from the manufacturer, (you have to buy in pallet sized lots) they would get the toilet paper far cheaper than even Samsclub. So cheap, that one or two freeloaders are not a burden on the system.
It is very easy to form communal societies, we in fact, do it all the time.
However, the problem comes in when you get too large to know all the inputs and outputs. Too many freeloaders destroy the system.
And thus money came into being, to balance the load.
However, factory owners get money for free after a large investment of time and money.
And then banksters get money for free, just for printing it.
And then govern-cements start taxing it all.
Which makes the money system so onerous that many want to give it up.
Then we are back to communism...
Yes, the state is the enemy.
"However, factory owners get money for free after a large investment of time and money."
So it wasn't free. And if they fail to meet market needs, they lose it all. And if they fail to pay enough to satisfy their employees, they lose it all. Unless they rely on political plunder, they are hardly freeloaders mooching off anyone.
The problem comes in the form of the playing field no longer being level.
If i have a robot that makes X vs you who makes X by yourself, is our income the same?
This throws off the work/contribution equalization factor of money.
But, then, you also have that i am far more intelligent than you, and so i am able to produce 4x as much for the same work. Or, i am able to leverage that intelligence to build robots, and then i make 16x as much.
This throws off the work/contribution equalization factor of money.
It is one of the problems of the old money system.
But to say that innovation shouldn't earn you better rewards,
Or more work shouldn't earn you better rewards,
Or leveraging your intelligence shouldn't earn you better rewards
will stagnate the entirety of society, making everyone's life perfectly, evenly, miserable.
So, we really need a better money system. If money is going to continue to be used to represent acquisition of food and housing. Because in that system, a large portion of society falls below minimum levels without a massive monetary shakeup. (just look at the tent cities forming everywhere)
It's not a problem of the money system as a concept, but I agree that government fiat money is fundamnetally broken.
Mechanization doesn't replace labor, it multiplies the productivity of labor. When less labor is needed to serve old needs and wants, it means new needs and wants that were less urgent can now be satisfied. Unemployment is a consequence of political intervention retarding the economy, not technology replacing workers.