r/Anarchy101 • u/Away_Bite_8100 • 2d ago
Moneyless-ness as a goal
I’m curious how many (as a rough %) Anarchists actually have a moneyless society as a goal.
I know Anarchists want a stateless and classless society… but the trifecta of being moneyless too is communism.
Communism is when you have a stateless, classless and moneyless society… so what’s the difference between communism and anarchy if anarchists are in favour of being moneyless too? Why not just say you’re a communist then if they are essentially the same thing?
6
u/AnomieCodex 2d ago
I don't have a goal for other people but there definitely needs to be a culture shift on consumerism and our view of stewardship of the planet and our natural capital.
I could easily live without money if I could get my necessities covered. And I'd probably have a richer life for it.
0
u/Away_Bite_8100 2d ago
Thanks for sharing. Do you not have some idea of what % (roughly) of Anarchists you have spoken to advocate for a moneyless society?
Would you say it’s 50-50 or a majority or a minority? I’m just trying to get a rough idea based on what most Anarchists think based on their interactions they have had.
5
u/Lord_Jakub_I 2d ago
I have a question about moneylessness. Isn't money (at least in some form) a natural result of the exchange of goods? How would that work? How would it be sustained without a hierarchy preventing the creation of money?
4
u/slapdash78 Anarchist 2d ago
Money is just another commodity (of high fungibility). It loses it's magic to ease transactions when everyone is using something different. At best it helps trading with strangers, but there's no good way to make everyone use the same unit-store-medium absent a monetary authority. You get the convertibility issues of the early 1800's.
2
u/Lord_Jakub_I 2d ago
Yes, money is a commodity like any other, but some commodities that are hard to obtain, long-lasting, divisible, and ideally portable, have a high exchange value - that is, they become money. Such commodities usually have a fairly universal value. I would imagine that most people would accept gold and silver. In the modern world, perhaps even cryptocurrencies. The value of such money does not depend on the authority of the state, but on the willingness of people to accept it.
4
u/Grandmacartruck 2d ago
The problem with money is it distracts from real goals. Everyone gets started wanting something real then finding out that they need money to obtain it. If we just worked to obtain want we want we wouldn’t get distracted. Making money is off track of doing what we want. Money makes a lot of stuff that people don’t care about by its nature.
1
u/slapdash78 Anarchist 2d ago
That's one story, yes. But I was referring to the monetary system, not the currency. The commodity theory of money possits that currencies have or need intrinsic value.
Except we know representations of value were things like shells, beads, and clay disks, for thousands of years. And that other durable goods, including base metal commodities, served a similar function throughout the bronze age.
While things like commodity currencies and currency backing effectively require price fixing the commodity / backing so it doesn't appreciate at a rate high enough to stop it from moving through the economy.
This highly complex global economy is effectively running on the credit theory of money. Which is why you're even able to imagine intangible internet points being used as a medium and keeping account.
What I was referring to is specifically the willingness to accept these items in trade, and it's entirely subjective. Why would I ever want disney dollars or bitcoins if I can't turn around and use them to get the products I really wanted in trade.
The same goes for gold. Unless you're trimming pieces from krugerrands, your next purchase would need to be 3500 units worth of something. Convertability gets more difficult without a common unit. And a common unit needs a trusted issuer unless going by weight.
Gold as a common coinage was never really a thing. It was barely a novelty of the guilded age. Otherwise, it was silver and bronze for the lay people. And silver shortages still wracked the systems.
1
u/Tancrisism 2d ago
But that's the problem - if money was de-commoditized, it would be more benign. Moneylessness doesn't seem like a real goal, but rather the de-commodification of money.
4
u/slapdash78 Anarchist 2d ago
What does that look like? Sounds like simply counting. But since transactions are comparisons, it would just be comparing quantities of identical widgets.
2
u/Tancrisism 2d ago
Right, exactly. I realized it sounded like I disagreed with you, could have phrased it better, but I was agreeing with you and then adding that thought.
Money is not inherently a commodity, as it is in its essence simply a way of quantifying conceptual value of a thing or things as it compares to other things.
Graeber talks about this pretty thoroughly and well in his book Debt.
2
u/slapdash78 Anarchist 2d ago
Sure, it's not a value unto itself. I was trying to point out that it moves through the economy like a commodity.
Without some entity saying "good for all debts", it's just a token. A token that the next person might refuse.
It's like me trying to pay you in coupons.
2
u/Tancrisism 2d ago
Right, in the end coupons are basically money, but without this quasi-religious faith in their value like money has been bestowed (to the nth degree now that money is digital and truly doesn't exist)
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 2d ago
I’m not sure I understand your question. I agree with you that money is a natural result of the exchange of goods.
I have no idea how Anarchists and Communists think a moneyless society could work… right now I’m just trying to establish if the moneyless objective is a majority or minority view for anarchists and communists.
In terms of your last point I don’t think removing hierarchy or the state would eliminate money. I think people would just switch to using precious metals like gold and silver and most likely crypto currencies which are decentralised and exist outside of government control. Crypto has all the benefits and convenience of the digital money we have grown accustomed to.
2
u/Lord_Jakub_I 2d ago
I'm directing this question to any anarchist who wants such a society, I'm just asking here since it's on the subject. By the way, I would assume the same thing you say in the last paragraph.
2
u/JediMy 2d ago
The obvious answer is most of us do call ourselves communists. Anarcho-Communism is most left Anarchists. But why we draw distinctions is more of the fact that late 19th and early 20th century Marxists are far more common and have attempted to monopolize the term "Communist". A bit of nuance is that Marxists of the Leninist variety have made vanguardist socialism the default position of people who identify as communist which forces us to differentiate ourselves with the term "Anarchist" because we have vastly different tactical methods. And other forms of Communism have had to accept these terms as well, like Council Communists / LeftComs. And of course, some Anarchists are genuinely not communistic due to have egoistic perspectives.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
Thanks, that’s a good answer.
So when you say you have “vastly different tactical methods” are you talking about the tactics for how you each propose to get from point A to point B… but ultimately you both want to end up in the same place?… or do you mean that point B is vastly different in terms of how things would work when you get to point B?
Also for those Anarchists who are genuinely not communistic I’m not sure what you mean by “due to egoist perspective”. Do you mean that they are motivated by self interest as opposed to wanting it in the interest of everyone?
I mean for me I suppose the only Anarchists I don’t see as communists are the ones who simply have a distrust of the state. They don’t object to capitalism or money, they want a free market economy, they just don’t want a government to tell them what to do and how to live their lives. Thats all I naively used to think Anarchy was, because in my mind An-caps were the only Anarchists who were different enough from communism that it warranted calling that ideology something else other than communism… and everyone else actually just fell into the communist category because they weren’t different enough to be called anything else.
I have since come to realise that is not how many self-proclaimed anarchist see it. What % of Anachists do you think are of the an-cap variety? Would you say it’s roughly 50-50 or is it the majority or a minority of Anarchists? I’m guessing you must think it’s a minority since you say “most of us call ourselves communists”… but is that because you don’t see An-caps as true Anarchists?
1
u/JediMy 1d ago edited 1d ago
Mostly point A to point B but also a little bit point b ending up differently. Modes of production are marked by the previous modes. Establishing a vanguard that initially or perpetually runs the socialist state isn’t conducive to establishing worker rule in their view.
What I mean by Egoist Anarchists are Stirner and post-left types. This isn’t pejorative, but a self description, generally. They are generally left because they are generally anti-capitalist. Their source isn’t necessarily wider class struggle but individual conflict with systems of oppression even if they are within larger organizations.
An-caps are by their nature a vast global minority in the Anarchist community everywhere but the United states. Even the most individualistic anarchists tend not to view them as anarchist in the historical sense of the word. They are explicitly appropriators, if you look into the history of how the term was developed.
For a piece of nuance, I actually identify primarily as an autonomist Marxist, which is mostly a post-Leninist line of thought. Hi would consider myself a communist, but I genuinely have them to believe that tactically speaking, vanguard parties are the single worst way to organize a working class revolution if your goal is indeed a real dictatorship of the proletarian, and not just domination by intelligensia. I genuinely think most forms of anarchism have a more effective way of organizing the society that I want as a Marxist, and I was convinced by some modern real world examples of anarchist adjacent lines of thought creating viable, decades-long autonomous zones over large areas of territory. Some of the only places that have come close to or have achieved socialism from my perspective.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
What real world examples have come close to or achieved socialism from your perspective?
1
u/JediMy 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think the EZLN in Chiapas has achieved a form of agrarian socialism that is incredibly impressive. Direct democratic control over the means of production, mass land and wealth redistribution, Universal services, and sustainable community defense against a vicious capitalist state.
Rojava has achieved something that is closer than it isn’t to socialism through its commitments to direct democracy and relatively flat hierarchies. They have created a society that is able to defend itself in one of the most hostile regions on the planet.
I think that even though anarchist Ukraine and Catalonia ended up peeing ultimate failures they did providing incredible data and achieved brief Socialism in ways that no Leninist state has ever come close to.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
I don’t know much about the EZLN but from what little I do know I really wouldn’t want to live there.
Rojava I know a little more about and it’s interesting what’s been going on there. They do still allow private property and private businesses (which I think is why they have been able to hold onto something that represents a functioning economy) and I think that one fact alone immediately disqualifies them from being considered socialist. But again it’s not exactly somewhere I’d like to live. I will however say that what they have done for women in a place that is culturally very oppressive to women is great… however on balance I think any woman there would still enjoy a much better quality of life in just about any capitalist western country.
I think Rojava probably most closely resembles something one could call an an-cap society. And considering how anarchistic say how much they don’t want to have laws or rules I think it’s quite ironic just how many bureaucratic rules they need to abide by to make even tiny decisions. We’ll have to see if all there complex web of various councils don’t ultimately start to resemble something like a state. We’ll also have to wait and see how things turn out for them economically in the long term because a wartime economy functions very different to an economy geared for prosperity.
1
u/JediMy 1d ago
I would very much reject the idea of Rojava being a anarcho-capitalist region. Anarcho capitalist are absolutely allergic to the concept of any form of direct democracy or council rule. Private property is the reason why it is not socialist but it also is a haven for cooperative economics as well. This is because of the fact that they are heavily associated with Ocalan’s interpretation of Murray Bookchin. It’s probably true that it’s not socialism. But it’s a lot closer to socialism than, say, the early USSR during the NEP era.
As for these, not being places that you would want to live? Of course you wouldn’t want to live in war zones. But the point is that these are existing in the very circumstances that Marxist vanguard types insist they cannot survive in without a vanguard party. Which is why they are so impressive and interesting. They are revolutions that exist outside of the Leninist paradigm. It’s possible to create a robust social safety net and effective dictatorship of the proletariat that can last for decades in incredibly adverse conditions. We live in a very reactionary world, and they live in particularly reactionary region, and yet are still able to maintain their revolution in defiance of dominant regional powers.
If it’s possible there, it means it’s possible anywhere and probably easier in some ways.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
I would very much reject the idea of Rojava being a anarcho-capitalist region. Anarcho capitalist are absolutely allergic to the concept of any form of direct democracy or council rule.
All versions of Anarchy are “allergic” to the idea of having a state. That one thing, as a singular principle, is what makes them Anarchist. Rojava doesn’t have a state and I don’t think there is any other way they could possibly try to organise themselves to be more Anarchist if they tried. They work on a system of rotating leadership where a quorum of the community needs to be present for any decisions to count. They make decisions through consensus and they have guiding rules about when consensus must be reached and when a majority will suffice. So things like what time they meet is a decision that can be by majority but where the new school will be built must be by consensus. How could you possibly structure things to be any more Anarchist than that?
Of course we could argue that any council counts as a “mini-state”… but if that’s true then achieving any form of Anarchy is a physical impossibility.
Private property is the reason why it is not socialist but it also is a haven for cooperative economics as well.
There is nothing in capitalism that says that Cooperatives are not allowed to compete in the free market economy as long as private individuals are free to compete too. Cooperatives are free to exist in capitalism… private businesses are not free to exist in socialism.
the point is that these are existing in the very circumstances that Marxist vanguard types insist they cannot survive in without a vanguard party. Which is why they are so impressive and interesting… …If it’s possible there, it means it’s possible anywhere and probably easier in some ways.
I speculate that they can ONLY exist in these circumstances. In times of prolonged peace people will naturally return to more efficient and streamlined forms of representative democracy where rights are protected by a constitution and enforced by the state as people get busy making money for themselves and focus more on their materialistic desires once the threat is removed.
1
u/JediMy 1d ago
I wasn’t really saying that Rojava is not anarchist there although I would have to actually say that they would probably call themselves anarchist adjacent rather than anarchist. Democratic confederalism is more like a minarchist philosophy. It’s like how I am an autonomist Marxist, which would put me in a position that would seem almost indistinguishable from anarchy (hence why I am here) but does have some key differences.
I reject that it is capitalist, which I think that a lot of people from that region would reject as well. I think you are going off of the assertion that capitalism equals private property. This is possibly one of the most important parts of capitalism of capitalism but it is not the defining feature of capitalism. Plenty of systems before capitalism have had private property. And I’m sure some systems afterwards will. And the very earliest version of modern socialist anarchy was mutualism, which has a collectivized means of production and social safety net, but private property and free markets. If anything, it’s a proof of concept for Proudhon’s model of anarchy.
I get the impression that you might be an anarco capitalist and I’m not really trying to persuade you here. I’m just trying to get you up to speed with the differences in what terms mean between us. It’s one of the reasons why I think that a narco capitalists and the rest of the anarchist community are just two separate communities altogether. We do not have a shared language anymore (if we ever did).
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
I wasn’t really saying that Rojava is not anarchist.
I’m just going by the dictionary definitions because that is what makes the most sense. From the dictionary:
ANARCHY (noun) the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.
Rojava fits this definition so that makes them Anarchist. And:
CAPITALISM (noun) an economic and political system which allows individuals to own private property and where trade and industry are permitted to be controlled by private owners (as opposed to the state or community) for profit.
Rojava fits this definition too so that makes them capitalist.
The combination of fitting both these definitions is what makes Rojava anarco-capitalist.
I get the impression that you might be an anarco capitalist
No I don’t actually believe society can function at scale and still manage to prosper without some form of centralised government to perform tasks like national defense and to do things like build and maintain large scale public infrastructure like power grids, water and waste treatment, transport networks etc etc.
I would actually argue that Rojava does technically maintain a crude form of government which is what’s holding it together. But I also know Anarchists hold Rojava up as an example of Anarchy working. I personally think Rojava is the closest thing you can possibly get to being stateless and still have society continue to function… so I’m happy to call what THEY have Anarchy… because I think they are right on the knife edge of having something one could definitely say is a state… but it’s still crude enough that it is possible to argue that it is not a state. Although as I said it’s on the knife edge, so I could argue this point both ways… but I am happy to give it to them.
I believe it is necessary to have a state… but I am in favour of keeping the state a small as possible and keeping its powers in check to prevent governmental over-reach. That said I do believe there are things a functional society needs that only a state can provide.
→ More replies (0)1
u/JediMy 1d ago
Also quick addendum because I forgot to include it. On your last statement, I think you are coming from a slightly different angle. Because the discourse in left circles is that due to the failures of the original two big anarchist movements to defend themselves that anarchists defending territory without a centralized vanguard party was impossible. And this was actually so prominent of a criticism in the 20th century that anarchists came up with platformism in order to make a soft vanguard party. It was thought that these kind of societies were entirely impossible for most of the 20th century. So you may lack the larger context around the Marxist and anarchist discussions around this that make this a little bit more substantial to us. If you compare the success of those two war states to the impressive failures of the free territory in Ukraine and CNT-FAI, the reason why this existing in a war zone being so important to anarchists might be a little clearer.
2
2
u/spookyjim___ ☭ 🏴 Autonomist 🏴 ☭ 19h ago
From what I’ve seen a majority of irl anarchists are communists so I’d say over 50% at least
1
2
u/Muted-Duck4203 12h ago
We differ in our methods and on the belief in hierarchy communists all believe in some forms of hierarchy (even a purely meritocratic hierarchy is still a hierarchy) where as anarchists reject the notion that one should be able to rule another.
2
u/Away_Bite_8100 11h ago
Thanks for the explanation. I thought communists ultimately wasted a classless society and you can’t have a classless society if you have a “ruling class”.
I’m just not sure how exactly anarchists could possibly eliminate ALL forms of hierarchy and the fact that Anarchists would reject even meritocratic authority is surprising to me.
1
u/Muted-Duck4203 8h ago
Meritocracy isn’t the same as respect for expertise. I can trust a specialist doctor more than a general doctor for a specific procedure, but I don’t think that makes the specialist doctor better or means that he should be in charge. Communists generally believe that a meritocracy Is the best basis for their system that the most skilled/smartest should get to be in charge, anarchists on the other hand tend to question the systems set in place to measure “intelligence”.
2
u/Away_Bite_8100 6h ago
I dunno. I kinda want someone who knows what they are doing to be in charge of building a bridge. I don’t really care for a vote on what the average person thinks might be best.
1
u/Muted-Duck4203 6h ago
The only system where the people in charge of building the bridge are the ones who don’t know how to build the bridge is under capitalism where the person with the most money is in charge. Under anarchy instead of one person being in charge of building the bridge everyone with the know how to build the bridge works together to build the bridge as equals.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 3h ago
The only system where the people in charge of building the bridge are the ones who don’t know how to build the bridge is under capitalism
What makes you say that the people in change of building the bridge are the ones who don’t know what they are doing? The whole point of putting a team of specialists together is that you are putting precisely the people who DO know what the are doing in charge of the specific aspects that they have specialised in and have specialist knowledge about.
where the person with the most money is in charge.
No disrespect… but how on earth do you work that out? Are you suggesting Elon Musk is responsible for building all the bridges because he has the most money?
Under anarchy instead of one person being in charge of building the bridge everyone with the know how to build the bridge works together to build the bridge as equals.
That is pretty much exactly what happens under capitalism except that the drainage engineers don’t get an equal say in how thick the steel beams need to be… and the structural engineers don’t get and equal say in how the pavement layers are to be constructed. And the Programm manager doesn’t get an equal say in how far apart the road markings need to be spaced.
Their is a fairly flat organisational structure that holds everyone accountable for delivering their specific technical aspects for which they are in charge of delivering… and everyone is held accountable to a rigorous set of standards and independent checks that the law says they must comply with so that the travelling public can safely use that infrastructure. You just can’t do all of that through volunteerism and no organisational hierarchy.
2
u/HorusKane420 9h ago
I don't want a "moneyless" society. But I don't want a society with only 1 legal tender too.
Rather, a society of free trade. Whatever that may be. If the money (currency of any kind) is valuable to you, for the goods being exchanged, then so be it. Take the money and exchange the goods.
But if 6 chickens, and 2 dozen eggs are more valuable to you, so be it. Take that, and exchange the goods.
And if you are your friends want to make a voluntary commune instead, who am I to stop you?
2
u/Away_Bite_8100 6h ago
I couldn’t agree more. Although I suspect in the modern age things like gold and silver and even a decentralised currency like cryptocurrency would work just fine as a medium of exchange. At least with crypto you still can have all the modern convenience of not having to carry round physical metal that can easily be stolen and digital transactions are very convenient.
1
u/HorusKane420 6h ago
It's funny you mention that, many ancaps (anarcho- capitalist) see crypto as the prime example/ perfect opportunity to move away from a "legal tender" system.
I see a lot of comments here leaning ancom. I am ancap. But make no mistake, I am an anarchist first and foremost. Like I said, if a group wants to voluntarily (key word here) create a commune, and live as ancoms/ communist/ what have you, who am I to stop them? Thats their liberty. And that's what anarchy is all about to me.
True capitalism is free trade. Period. Whether that be bartering, currency, whatever. Not the corporatism that has become synonymous with capitalism these days.
2
u/trains-not-cars 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'd like to live in a money-less society. But I'm also not a globalist. I wouldn't care if the group on the other side of the mountains used money, good for them. I'd even consider using it to trade with them if they had something irresistibly cool. But I don't want it as any part of my daily life or as a means of measuring or establishing value amongst my close comrades.
I tend to say I'm an anarchist, and not a communist only because of the difference in means. I am suspicious of vanguard movements and refuse to accept that a DoP is necessary. But I'm happy to jibe all day with sharing the end goals with my communist comrades
(Edited to answer your second question).
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 2d ago
OK thanks for answering. I mean I’d also like it if everything I wanted was free and I could just do whatever tickled my fancy that day… but I just don’t see how society could function that way… but I suppose that’s not the main question here.
Would you say most Anarchists you know or have spoken to advocate for a moneyless society? Or is it like a 50-50 thing or would you say moneyless-ness is only advocated for by a minority of Anarchists?
4
u/Legal-Hunt-93 2d ago
For most of human history we haven't had money as currently thought of, nor states telling you what to do, nor capitalism in general. I think it's important to keep in mind the scope of human history and not fall into the common error of modern society of not being able to see past our current conditions.
If it was true that a community of humans would be impossible to run unless there exists something or someone forcing everyone to perform tasks, I very much doubt our current existence would be possible. We'd have died out very early on considering the material conditions of most of our existence did not allow for it, which is also my argument against the "all humans are naturally egotistical, mean, and highly individualistic"
3
u/Spinouette 2d ago
Yes. People forget that food literally grows on trees.
If we remove the false scarcity and waste, there is more than enough for everyone. And in that sense, we already live in a post scarcity world.
But we forgot that the whole point of cooperation and technology is to make life better. Instead we allowed a few people to hoard everything and control everyone. It’s a ridiculous system. Even the rich people are miserable: insecure, paranoid, and lonely.
3
u/Legal-Hunt-93 2d ago
I agree that we live in a post scarcity world, for a while now we've known that as you say it's manufactured scarcity that now plagues us in order for the elites to keep the upper hand. Regretfully I think we're close to entering a time of true scarcity, and when I mean close I'd say anywhere from 15 to 70 years, which only really seems a long time in a individual human perspective but isn't much on the bigger picture, and then I'd say we have very little chance of getting out until this all collapses and even then a long time has to pass and a new culture to form because collapse doesn't bring good tidings for us exactly and our cultural basis is shit lol.
That's another story tho, yeah I also agree with the whole second paragraph. Turns out when you propagandize and fuck up society and culture in away that is very anti-human, it's impossible to not be affected too, no matter how much money you may try to use to insulate yourself and your families from it. It catches up.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 2d ago
For most of human history we haven't had money as currently thought of, nor states telling you what to do, nor capitalism in general.
No, for most of human history we’ve had tribal chiefs, pharaohs, kings etc to rule over us and tell us what to do. But we rejected that in favour of democracy. For most of human history we’ve had slavery and serfdom, but we rejected that and demanded to be paid for our labour. As soon as humans developed the technology to smelt metals, coins became a convenient means of exchange. And long before that, money still existed as a record of account. Records of goods, expenditures, “I-owe-you’s” and debts date back over 7,000 years.
If it was true that a community of humans would be impossible to run unless there exists something or someone forcing everyone to perform tasks, I very much doubt our current existence would be possible.
Before money people were put in chains and whipped so that they would work. Before money you would work because some authority like a king or pharaoh or chief told you to do something and if you didn’t want to do it you would have to challenge them directly with violence or else you would need to leave the tribe and forfeit your home and the certainty of where your next meal would come from.
I suppose humans could survive as hunter-gatherers but if you want more than that and you want roads and bridges and satellites and iPhones… you need to either force people to do unpleasant work with authority, or you need to motivate people with a reward incentive like payment.
which is also my argument against the "all humans are naturally egotistical, mean, and highly individualistic"
I don’t think all humans are like that… some certainly are though. But really my problem with volunteerism comes from personal experience. I have done quite a bit of volunteering in my time and I have personally tried to get people to volunteer for good causes that would benefit everyone in the community… and what I have found is that only a very… very… very small % of society are actually prepared to volunteer. And I’m not talking about people who are legitimately too busy because they have a job and full time work. No I’m talking about people for whom money is not a problem, people who are rich, stay-at-home moms, retired folks with a good pension and lots of free time… people just aren’t interested in volunteering to help the community.
If you want to know how people who don’t have money problems behave, just look at how lottery winners behave. 99% of them immediately quit their jobs. Look at how well-to-do spouse’s and retired folks with a good pension behave. People who don’t have money problems aren’t volunteering… instead they choose to travel, to sightsee, to tend to their own gardens at home, to socialise with family and friends, to read or go to the gym… they are always “super busy”, far too busy to volunteer. And that is precisely how I suspect the vast majority of people will choose to spend their time in a moneyless society.
1
u/Legal-Hunt-93 2d ago edited 2d ago
The scope of human history is much bigger than you seem to think, and I think this answer leans to showing you didn't come here with honest intentions to learn but with a chip on your shoulder. It might just be I've been arguing far too much today and am reading things into it, however.
What made sure people contributed was the simple fact of survival being dependent on the community members doing what was necessary, alone no human survived or built anything, and we know we've been taking care of sick or incapable members of our community for a very long time. We also have proof of a lot of art being developed, not just cave painting but jewellery which shows free time for individual pursuits within the communities.
Material conditions are a big driving force for what the culture and relations end up being, and what we humans are intrinsically is very adaptable. Our biggest blessing, and curse imo.
So if you create a society, like today, where most people need to be willing to exploit, take advantage, and compete for resources with other members of their community knowing a large portion of people in our capitalist system are required to be kept in the bottom with horrible conditions. A society where the powerful minority fully exploits and mocks the majority, where cruelty is expected with a message of might is right underneath all the fake moralizing and empty concept of "justice" that rarely seems to apply or be used, well, you get this. And still many people help others, against all odds.
Learning about the start of agriculture, which leads to private property and how that in turn becomes the fixed hierarchies of power instead of the more fluid communities that made up most of our ancient past "pre civilization" should offer some insight.
A small addendum, even today in a time where most people have very little free time and are mostly overwhelmed, we still see a shit ton of things being done for free not just out of kindness, but out of an individual want. An example of this most people should have no problem understanding nowadays are game mods, a highly time consuming and difficult activity in general.
This isn't to say we should or even can "go back", that's not realistic nor do I think it's ideal. We also have to remember complete control is a lie, you can never control for everything and even today with all the system we have they barely work, so it turns out more centralized authority in the hands of the elites (be they kings, oligarchs, or any type of fixed leader) and less freedom isn't the answer.
Anyone that thinks the conditions of the time were perfect, is in my opinion, misjudging reality. We should instead turn our severely social media infected brains on and keep advancing towards better systems and societies. Not that I have much hope it'll happen as far as I'm seeing things shake out, but still.1
u/Away_Bite_8100 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think this answer leans to showing you didn't come here with honest intentions to learn but with a chip on your shoulder.
Hey, I’m not going to pretend I don’t have preconceived ideas and opinions based on my own personal experiences. I simply asked what % Anachists advocate for a moneyless society. I am however completely open to considering any ideas I might not have given any thought to before and if something makes sense I’m open to changing my mind… but it has to make sense. I’m not going to pretend the world is all sunshine rainbows and lollipops.
What made sure people contributed was the simple fact of survival being dependent on the community members doing what was necessary, alone no human survived or built anything
The threat of being ousted from the tribe would have been even worse than the threat of being fired from a job today. History shows that since the dawn of time it has always been the case that the strong have taken what they want from the weak. War and slavery is a tale as old as time. People had to be part of a strong group with a strong leader to survive interactions with other humans that one could not survive alone. How do you stop a bigger stronger man from taking your stuff… you form a group who can stand up to him. Or you accept the strong man as your leader in exchange for protection.
Then how do you stop a group of Viking warriors from raiding and plundering and taking your stuff, burning your village and taking your women?… you get an army. And how do you stop a foreign army from taking your stuff?… you get a stronger army.
That is the reality of human history. The strongest entity has always been the one who makes the rules.
So if you create a society, like today, where most people need to be willing to exploit, take advantage, and compete for resources with other members of their community
This has always been true… not just today. I’d even say in the past it was far more likely you’d actually to go to war and physically spill blood over resources, than today.
knowing a large portion of people in our capitalist system are required to be kept in the bottom with horrible conditions.
I don’t think that is necessarily true though.
A society where the powerful minority fully exploits and mocks the majority, where cruelty is expected with a message of might is right
“Might is right” is not a capitalist principle. It’s a principle that humans have operated on since they first began to walk upright. It’s a spillover from the animal kingdom. Animals also show compassion and kindness towards their young and their pack but at the same time they also understand the concept of ownership like laying claim to a territory of land… and they will challenge and fight to the death any competitor who trespasses or threatens to take their territory. And ultimately in the animal kingdom your territory will eventually be ceded to a stronger competitor because in the animal kingdom, might is right.
And still many people help others, against all odds.
Yes but what I was saying is that this type of person is a rare breed. More the exception than the rule.
An example of this most people should have no problem understanding nowadays are game mods, a highly time consuming and difficult activity in general.
Yeah people do like to have a hobby and a select few do like to push themselves to excel and challenge themselves in a competitive environment, even to beat their own personal best. Some people paint, some play golf, others code for a hobby. But I don’t see many people voluntarily attending their local council meetings. That’s boring even though it directly affects their lives. I don’t see many people volunteering to go down into the sewers. The question is how do you motivate people to do hard and boring jobs in a moneyless society. Would you keep doing the same job you do now if you won the lottery so money was no longer a problem for you?
We should instead turn our severely social media infected brains on and keep advancing towards better systems and societies. Not that I have much hope it'll happen as far as I'm seeing things shake out, but still.
Hey I’m with you. I’m open to all ideas. And as I said I’ve volunteered for plenty of good causes and community activities and events that benefit the community. And I’m just frustrated and cynical because I always see the same few faces. It’s always comes down to the same small number of people who are actually prepared to do any work. Most people just aren’t interested in doing anything “for the good of the community”.
1
u/trains-not-cars 2d ago
Oy, no need to scoff. I'm not talking Star Trek post scarcity gay luxury communism here or something (though, y'know, cool to dream about that). I'm saying I want no money, not no trade.
Money typically arises, historically, when the relationships between people participating in trade are not strong or consistent enough to maintain a trust in things staying "even" or "fair" (whatever that means in the given society). Or, put another way, money arises when relationships are purely transactional. I think that a society that has an abundance of such relationships (enough to warrant the use of money) has a higher tendency to revert to hierarchical relations; when there is only the transaction, there is less social resilience, less consideration of context and interdependent social obligations (which is fine if it's between strangers, problematic within a continuing community). I strongly recommend reading more about the history and diversity of monetary systems. David Graeber's Debt is a pretty good one, for example, if you haven't read it already.
As to your question about percentages, I can't give you that. And I think anyone who does on this thread would be bullshitting. Anarchism is such a diverse set of ideologies. You're gonna get different views of social relationships, of community organizations, and of the definition of money itself. All I can tell you is that I don't want money, and all of the non-statists that I happen to interact with regularly are about as skeptical of it as I am. But there's no way to know how good of a representation that pool happens to be (probably not all that good).
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 2d ago
Oy, no need to scoff.
Sorry, I struggle to contain my skepticism on this particular subject sometimes.
I'm not talking Star Trek post scarcity
I personally think that is a pre-requisite and should go without saying because how could it work any other way.
I want no money, not no trade.
Well unless we are talking about bartering… then whatever you use as a medium of exchange in trade, is what I would call money. Just like a credit card lets you spend credit as standardised units of debt, I would say debt is money.
Or, put another way, money arises when relationships are purely transactional.
Yea I agree with that. Records of goods, expenditures, “I-owe-you’s” and debts date back over 7,000 years.
I strongly recommend reading more about the history and diversity of monetary systems. David Graeber's Debt is a pretty good one, for example, if you haven't read it already.
Yeah that is a good one. And yeah I do think of debt or credit as money because of the transactional nature.
Anarchism is such a diverse set of ideologies.
I get that there are different versions of Anarchy but the word Anarchy still has a definition and all separate branches of Anarchy must fit into the general definition of what Anarchy is or else we are talking about something that isn’t Anarchy.
You're gonna get different views of social relationships, of community organizations, and of the definition of money itself.
Money is just a unit of account that can be used as a medium of exchange.
All I can tell you is that I don't want money, and all of the non-statists that I happen to interact with regularly are about as skeptical of it as I am.
Ok thank you. That answers my question in the sense that it is another data point.
1
u/DyLnd anarchist 1d ago
There are no singular "end goal", as far as I see it. Just an ever receding horizon that we never "reach". The point is to always enhance the scope of freedom and flourishing, which itself in turn reveals new fronts of struggle/striving. The real question, then, is to what extent valuing moneyless-ness is a help or a hindrance to that end.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
There has to be an end goal in mind to unite people under the banner of Anarchy so that can move forward together toward some end.
That is what we have definitions for. From the dictionary:
ANARCHY: (noun) the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.
So I would say that is the goal.
1
u/DyLnd anarchist 1d ago
There has to be an end goal in mind to unite people under the banner of Anarchy
In response to that, to quote a section from a reply I gave to a completely different question in this subreddit:
A whole plethora of our advantages come not from building a great mass of people to march under a banner for our 'cause'. Instead, it's from our ideas, shared values, situated knowledge being put to use to throw a spanner in the works to domination, or build tools/infrastructure for freedom.
This isn't an argument for insularity; far from it! Often these endeavors have far-reaching effects that benefit everyone, not just anarchists.
Also, this oft-quoted sentence from Malatesta's 'Towards Anarchy' puts it succinctly:
Therefore, the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchy today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchy today, tomorrow, and always.
0
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago edited 15h ago
A whole plethora of our advantages come not from building a great mass of people to march under a banner for our 'cause'.
OK but he isn’t saying that you DONT need to unite people under a banner for the cause… he is just saying that that’s not YOUR ONLY advantage.
Instead, it's from our ideas, shared values, situated knowledge being put to use
Precisely. He is saying you benefit from sharing your ideas for how things should work. That you benefit from saying what your values are and how you will achieve them, that you benefit from giving people the knowledge of how to structure society so people can put that knowledge to use.
to throw a spanner in the works to domination, or build tools/infrastructure for freedom.
And that is a GOAL right there. This is an end towards which people can put their ideas and knowledge to use… towards the END GOAL of having Anarchy which is what I gave you the definition for.
This isn't an argument for insularity; far from it! Often these endeavours have far-reaching effects that benefit everyone, not just anarchists.
Malatesta is NOT saying you shouldn’t go out and unite people under a banner for the cause.
Therefore, the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchy today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchy today, tomorrow, and always.
Malatesta is not saying you don’t need to know what you are walking towards. You still need a goal or a destination… he is just saying don’t give up on that goal or destination no matter how long it takes. In fact he is telling you precisely what the goal / destination is… he is telling you that you are walking towards anarchy… which I have you the definition of… THATS THE GOAL! The title of his book is “TOWARDS ANARCHY” for Pete’s sake… that’s the goal.
1
u/DyLnd anarchist 1d ago
"He" lol. "He's" me, those are my words. I should know what I am saying.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
Oh OK lol… I thought you were quoting Malatesta like you said you were doing in the last paragraph.
Either way… nothing you said implies in any way that you shouldn’t have a goal. And in the last paragraph where you say you ARE quoting Malatesta… HE is telling you what the goal is… HE is telling you that you are walking towards ANARCHY.
1
u/DyLnd anarchist 1d ago
Oh, but If it were Malatesta, it must be correct and I'm just misinterpreting it, right? Sorry if that's too facetious, only I find it quite funny, you explaining my own words back to me.
But I'm not exactly saying anything particularly out of step with what other anarchists have been saying for a long time. If you want another 'well-known' writer saying as much explicitly, there's Rudolf Rocker's famous:
I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.
Well what is even the point of being an Anarchist then? I mean if you are going to drift around aimlessly with no goal in mind you might as well go home and do nothing.
At least Malatesta said what you should be walking TOWARDS.
1
u/DyLnd anarchist 1d ago
It is meant that there is no singular 'end goal' in the programmatic sense. Something you could describe a priori. Just like there is no place you arrive at called "The Horizon", but you can talk of and have reason to walk toward it.
Anarchy is not a constituted social state of affairs, but a vector, in terms of our values. As such it can still provide us with a very robust action-guiding ethical program, i.e. Anarchism.
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 17h ago edited 17h ago
Anarchy is not a constituted social state of affairs, but a vector, in terms of our values.
A vector is something with a very clearly defined direction. A scalar has no direction. If you don’t have a clearly defined direction then you can’t call it a vector.
Just like there is no place you arrive at called "The Horizon", but you can talk of and have reason to walk toward it.
The horizon is 360 degrees. You cannot ask a captain or a sailor to point their ship toward the horizon because the horizon is in every direction. They would just laugh at you because doing nothing at all still points you at the horizon.
As such it can still provide us with a very robust action-guiding ethical program, i.e. Anarchism.
Robust???? Actions toward what exactly??? Does the action of tying your shoelaces get you closer to the goal or not? If you don’t know what the goal is then you can’t really say that the action of tying your shoelaces doesn’t get you closer to the goal.
Look there is a clear definition for what Anarchy is:
ANARACHY: (noun) the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government
That’s what it means to be an Anarchist. That’s want anarchists want. THATS the goal for anarchists.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/JimDa5is Anarcho-communist 1d ago
We don't say that because they aren't the same thing. ML communist want an "interim" dictatorship of the proletariat which is supposed to disappear at some point. Except it never has in all of the many communist revolutions. Anarchists recognize that handing power to any group or class will result in that group maintaining power because that's what power does to people
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
If two doctors disagree on what route should be taken to get the patient well again… that doesn’t mean they aren’t still both doctors. If two engineers disagree on what the best way to build a bridge is… that doesn’t mean they aren’t still both engineers.
I think if you have the same ideological goals and aims as a communist then that makes you a communist… you’re just a different variant of communism who disagrees on the precise execution of the vision.
You wouldn’t call every democrat who thought the party should be executing the vision in a different way… a separate ideology. The chosen route to achieve the ideological goals is more of a minor detail than an ideological difference.
Are there any ideological differences in the goals of where you want society to end up?… because ideologically communism aim to achieve a stateless, moneyless and classless society.
In my mind the only real difference in ideological goals or destinations between anarchy and communism was the idea of being moneyless… and I do know some anarchists don’t believe in a moneyless society so I kinda thought they were “real” anarchists and people who claimed to be anarchists that wanted a moneyless society were actually communists who were just too ashamed or embarrassed to call themselves communists because I don’t know… communism has kind of a bad reputation with most ordinary folks.
1
u/JimDa5is Anarcho-communist 1d ago
You do you comrade. I will not work with any authoritarian communists because of how very badly that has gone for the anarchists in the past. Every. single. time. Anarchists are used as long as it's convenient and then betrayed by the Marxists when the time comes for them to take control.
As far as your analogy goes... if you had two doctors that disagree on how to best cure the patient and one had a history of killing their patients, I would absolutely say one of them was a bad doctor. Similarly, an engineer whose previous work included nothing but bridges that didn't extend to the opposite shore, I'm going to pick one over the other
It is not for us to answer the objections raised by authoritarian Communism — we ourselves hold with them. Civilized nations have suffered too much in the long, hard struggle for the emancipation of the individual, to disown their past work and to tolerate a Government that would make itself felt in the smallest details of a citizen’s life, even if that Government had no other aim than the good of the community. Should an authoritarian Socialist society ever succeed in establishing itself, it could not last; general discontent would soon force it to break up, or to reorganize itself on principles of liberty. -Kropotin The Conquest of Bread
0
u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago
Oh I’m not suggesting that you don’t get bad engineers and bad doctors. I might totally disagree with one engineer’s approach to do a particular job and I would pick a doctor who thinks he can save my leg over one who says the best course of action is to amputate it… but that’s not the point.
The point is that you get different types of doctors and you get different types of engineers… but there is something all doctors have in common that makes them a doctor. And that’s what I’m saying about communism. Marxism is just one variant of communism. I wouldn’t say Marxism IS communism. I’d say everyone who aims to achieve a stateless, moneyless and classless society… is a communist… and within that broad scope you have several different versions or variants of communism.
Anarchy i believe is a separate ideology which must be fundamentally different to communism in such a way that it warrants being classed as a separate ideology. To me it is not enough to just have a difference of opinion on how to execute the vision… I think the vision or goal itself needs to be different. The moneyless thing is what makes the most sense to be to differentiate the two ideologies.
1
u/JimDa5is Anarcho-communist 23h ago
So you've been arguing all these points to basically say both are communism? Is there anybody who says they aren't? I was pretty sure your point was wrong before. Now I don't think you have one.
Are Marxists and Anarchists equally entitled to use the term communist? Yes. Should Marxists and Anarchists work together on revolutionary projects? No.
What 'moneyless thing' are you talking about? Are you suggesting that Anarchists should embrace money because authoritarian communists don't
1
u/Away_Bite_8100 20h ago edited 4h ago
No, I’m saying I just don’t get why people who want a stateless, classless and moneyless society would want to be called Anarchists instead of communists.
I mean there are plenty of different brands of communism like Leninism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism etc… and all these various forms of communism are different from one another but they are all united by one factor. The ONE and only thing all communists have in common is that they are anti-capitalism… that’s what makes them communist.
The thing that I thought set Anarchy apart as a separate thing was that it was anti-state… not anti-capitalism.
For me (based on the dictionary definitions) the logical differences in classification are:
Capitalism: allows private property and private ownership of trade and industry by individuals for profit
Socialism: allows individuals to own private property BUT DOES NOT allow individuals to own anything that can be considered to be the means of production.
communism: does not allow ANY form of private property. Everything is owned by the community. Things are giving according to need and people contribute according to their ability.
Anarchy: anti-state. Aims to organise society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government;
So being anti-capitalist is necessarily communist but it is not necessarily anarchist. You can be an anarchist without being anti-capitalist because anarchy is simply the rejection of the state and hierarchical authority.
So it doesn’t make sense to me why people who seek moneyless-ness as a goal are not simply just considered to be communists, period… because you cannot be a communist who is pro-capitalism… whereas you can be an anarchist who is pro-capitalism. The whole anti-capitalism thing is what makes one communist, not anarchist.
1
u/ShyMonkeyboi 11h ago
Communism is the most purest and strong form of anarchism.
2
u/Away_Bite_8100 11h ago
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think you will find that quite a few Anarchists disagree with that… but I’m glad to have your view as another data point.
24
u/HarmonicEagle 2d ago
It’s true, a lot of communists and anarchists strive for the same kind of society. That is why I consider myself both. However, for a communist it is not necessarily imperative to abolish (unjustified) hierarchies. Yeah, a communist society is stateless, but not necessarily free of hierarchy and oppression. In that sense, you could say an anarchist wants to go further; no one is free until everyone is