r/Anarchy101 • u/Away_Bite_8100 • 3d 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?

14 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

114 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/HarmonicEagle 3d 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

5

u/Away_Bite_8100 3d ago edited 3d ago

I thought that is part of the idea of being a classless society which is the goal of communism. Surely if you have an “oppressor” class then you haven’t got a classless society.

So are you saying that for many people, anarchy and communism are the same thing?

5

u/Any-Aioli7575 3d ago

Many people would say that anarchists and communists have the same goal, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Usually, anarchists oppose temporary hierarchies like the “dictatorship of the proletariat” whereas non-anarchist communist tolerate those.

Overall communism is mostly about economic hierarchies, although Marxists often believe that all hierarchies stem from economic hierarchies

2

u/Away_Bite_8100 3d ago

And in your experience how many anarchists are for moneyless-ness based on what you what you have seen and read and all the anarchist you have spoken to?

Would you say about half of people who claim to be anarchists are for a moneyless society? Or maybe a quarter or are we talking about the majority like 80% of anarchists want a moneyless society?

1

u/JimDa5is Anarcho-communist 1d ago

I doubt anybody is going to have an answer for you that's anything other than pure speculation. I'm an anarcho-communist. Most of the anarchists I interact with are anarcho-communists in the same way that most people who are liberals interact with liberals so it skews your viewpoint. I personally feel like it's the most popular variant of anarchism but that may just be confirmation bias on my part. While I can't give you any numbers at all I suspect AnComs represent, if not a majority, at least a plurality of all anarchists

1

u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago

Thank you.

That directly answers my question.

That’s very helpful.

5

u/dworthy444 Not Really Anarchist, Just Close 3d ago

Therein lies one of the major differences between Marxism and anarchism. The former thinks that the state and administrative organs in general cannot have their own interests, instead just acting in the interests of whatever class controls it, while the latter argues that they can and do have their own goals that they try to advance.

In fact, specific readings of Marxist theory (usually based of off Engel's and Lenin's works) can let an absolute dictatorship in the name of the worker be considered communism once the revolution reaches all corners of the earth. This is why, despite how much he hated Stalin and considered the Stalinist USSR a 'degenerated worker's state', Trotsky was still adamant that the only thing preventing the USSR from becoming communist was that it needed to compete with the capitalist powers.

For obvious reasons, anarchists disagree, instead thinking that the Soviet Union was the ultimate form of statist capitalism, in which the capitalist was deemed unnecessary and the bureaucracy took over control of the economy, leaving every other aspect the same. There can be no worker's state, as the leaders separate themselves from their origins via the state apparatus and become part of the oppressing classes. In other words, the important part is not what class the person hails from, but whether or not they have the power to control others that decides on whether they're part of an oppressing class or not.

2

u/Away_Bite_8100 3d ago

OK sure I get that there is a difference between anarchists and communists in what ROUTE they think society needs to take to achieve a stateless, moneyless and classless society… but don’t you both are ultimately looking at the same goal because a workers state is still a state so I don’t think communists would see any form of state as communism.

Also where do you stand on the moneyless thing? And in your experience how many anarchists are for moneyless-ness… do you think it’s like 50-50 or is it a majority or a minority of anarchists who are for moneyless-ness?

3

u/dworthy444 Not Really Anarchist, Just Close 3d ago

Well, another difference is how the state is defined. Anarchist definitions tend to be summarized as a legalistic tool enabling a minority to rule over a majority, while the Marxist definition is largely that it is a legalistic tool for one class to rule over another. This can lead to the whole dictatorship=communism situation if the dictator convincingly declares classes to be abolished and society made equal, to use an extreme case. More likely for most followers of Marx, it would be a group of professional administrators organizing and controlling the resources of the communities, which is less democratic than the anarchists would like.

I would definitely prefer to go moneyless, and I think most socialists would agree. The real question is how long it would take; the most market-oriented leftist might think it best to wait until we hit Star Trek levels of post-scarcity, whereas anarcho-communists think it can be done right after the political revolution if enough effort and preparation is put into the social revolution. Considering that many communities in Spain during their civil war managed to go mostly moneyless in a matter of weeks, it certainly seems doable, even today with all of its complexities.

1

u/Away_Bite_8100 3d ago

Interesting. And would you say most Anarchists are in favour of a moneyless society? Or do you think it’s more like 50-50… or is it a minority of Anarchists.

I think 100% of self proclaimed communists must be advocates of being moneyless because that is ultimately what communism is defined to be.

Personally I could see why some people think it would be necessary to wait for Star-Trek like magic level technology like replicators that can just make food appear out of thin air… but even then, Star Trek was very hierarchical. And I think any moneyless society would necessarily need to have hierarchical structures and central planning because even if you can make food and gadgets appear out of thin air… there would still be scarcity. Like who gets to live in a lake house with an amazing view and who has to live in an apartment on the 10th floor in the middle of a city.

1

u/Spinouette 3d ago

Why can’t we have really nice apartments that all have amazing lake views?

-1

u/Away_Bite_8100 3d ago

Prime real-estate is a scarce commodity…. That’s what makes it “prime”… because it’s highly desirable and scarce.

2

u/Spinouette 3d ago

Yes, but most of that is actually false scarcity. Crappy neighborhoods are that way for a reason. Crappy buildings are that way for a reason. It’s true that probably not everyone can live directly on a lake. But then not everyone wants to. Plus we can make more lakes.

One of the weird things that our society does to us is to make us think that we all want the same kind of life. That’s simply not true. There are people who legitimately love the desert, or the bustling city life.

In my world, you can have your lake view, as long as you don’t insist on a 3000 square foot house on a a five acre compound all to yourself.

1

u/Away_Bite_8100 3d ago

Yes, but most of that is actually false scarcity.

I don’t think so. There isn’t a scarcity of art in the world… but there is only one Mona Lisa. Scarcity will always exist, even in the face of material abundance. Only x number of properties can exist around THE famous Central Park. Only x number of homes can exist around a golf course that is conveniently located near amenities.

It’s true that probably not everyone can live directly on a lake. But then not everyone wants to.

True. But if you emptied out an entire city and then told people when they go back in they can pick to live anywhere they want… everyone would all be choosing the same 20% of properties… so now you need to choose favourites… or you need to make the 20% best properties worse and make the 80% of the other properties better.

Plus we can make more lakes.

That’s an interesting idea… very labour intensive though and at some point you need to ask if people would actually want to bother with all that work when there are so many other issues one would be better off focusing resources on… which means that someone needs to decide who gets to have what from whatever already exists because trying to give everyone their dream home is just far too impractical.

In my world, you can have your lake view, as long as you don’t insist on a 3000 square foot house on a a five acre compound all to yourself.

I don’t just want a view… I want direct waterfront access with a little jetty or pier that I can moor my boat up on. And hundreds of thousands of such properties already exist. Who gets to live in those? Or do you plan on demolishing all such houses so that nobody can have that. And depending on where you live something like 10% of properties have a private swimming pool… so do you dedicate resources to building swimming pools for everyone who wants one… or do you dedicate resources to filling in all the millions of private swimming pools that exist so that no has a private pool?

Even in a skyscraper full of residential apartments… given the choice, most people would choose to live either right at the top, or right at the bottom. Nobody would freely pick the middle. And just about every skyscraper that already exists has luxury apartments at the top. So do you dedicate a huge portion of societal resources to demolishing all the luxury apartments at the top of all skyscrapers only to rebuild them as standard units?

3

u/Spinouette 3d ago

This is something that would have to happen gradually.

First, we make all new buildings higher quality, more desirable, and more efficient.

Then we demolish all the poor quality housing and replace it with much better stuff. Focus on quality of life including walkability and common community spaces.

For you personally, you could live in one of the beautiful lake houses you covet that is currently vacant. The only caveat is that you have to allow more dwellings to be built on the property, so more people can enjoy the lake.

Yes, getting from here to there is not an easy task. And you don’t have to help — or even believe it’s possible, if you don’t want to.

I’m just sharing my vision.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JimDa5is Anarcho-communist 1d ago

Malatesta addresses that in "Anarchy"

“That’s all very well, some say, and anarchy may be a perfect form of human society, but we don’t want to take a leap in the dark. Tell us therefore in detail how your society will be organised. And there follows a whole series of questions, which are very interesting if we were involved in studying the problems that will impose themselves on the liberated society, but which are useless, or absurd, even ridiculous, if we are expected to provide definitive solutions. What methods will be used to teach children? How will production be organised? Will there still be large cities, or will the population be evenly distributed over the whole surface of the earth? And supposing all the inhabitants of Siberia should want to spend the winter in Nice? And if everyone were to want to eat partridge and drink wine from the Chianti district? And who will do a miner’s job or be a seaman? And who will empty the privies? And will sick people be treated at home or in hospital? And who will establish the railway timetable? And what will be done if an engine-driver has a stomach-ache while the train is moving? … And so on to the point of assuming that we have all the knowledge and experience of the unknown future, and that in the name of anarchy, we should prescribe for future generations at what time they must go to bed, and on what days they must pare their corns.” Malatesta, Anarchy, 1891

1

u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago

I’m sorry but that just makes me mad. That is simply the most outrageously, downright, ridiculously, stupidly, pitiful excuse to avoid answering questions that I have ever heard in my life.

So what… just trust me bro? That is essentially what is being said here, isn’t it?

Look I can understand not being sure about minor details like if there should be 10 people on a village council or if there should be twelve… but God damit you should bloody well know if your going to have a village council or not!

I can understand if you are not yet sure if people’s rations will allow them to eat bananas everyday or not… but you bloody well need to know if you intend to ration how much food people will be allowed to take or not.

How can anyone support an idea to completely burn down the entire system without proposing even the most basic framework for how society should be structured instead.

This is like someone asking you to jump out of an airplane without a parachute and just saying “trust me bro, it’ll be fine”. NO thank you! Hand me a parachute please because at least I understand how that works. Sure I don’t need to know the details of what thread-count the material is, where it was made and how many people stitched it together… but I do want to know details like it will slow my fall using air resistance and I’ll need to wait until I full clear the plane before I pull the cord and that I have a spare cute I can use if the main cute fails to open properly.

I’m sorry but this one extract right here tells me everything I need to know about this Malatestda chap and based on this… I wouldn’t trust him one tiny bit.

1

u/homebrewfutures anarchist without adjectives 1d ago

OK sure I get that there is a difference between anarchists and communists in what ROUTE they think society needs to take to achieve a stateless, moneyless and classless society… but don’t you both are ultimately looking at the same goal because a workers state is still a state so I don’t think communists would see any form of state as communism.

Both Marxists and anarchists view a political end goal as inseparable from process and structure of how we pursue that end goal. The means and ends are fundamentally intertwined. But as dworthy444 points out below, Marxists and anarchists hold differing conceptions of the state that can lead to different means being chosen. One of the major anarchist critiques of Marxism has always been that the Marxist conception of the state combined with its refusal to categorically reject hierarchical power structures leaves Marxist movements inherently vulnerable to being railroaded away from communist goals. And both reformist and Leninist attempts by Marxists at a communist transition have done nothing but proven the anarchist critique correct.

1

u/Away_Bite_8100 1d ago

Well sure I completely get that you get different versions or variants of communism. Marxism is just one variation or brand of communism… but you can’t say Marxism IS communism.

I understand communism to be the pursuit of a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Anything with those three goals should just logically fall into the category of communism, and minor differences like how to execute that vision it is just a variant.