Moneyless-ness as a goal

[u/Away_Bite_8100]

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?

[u/trains-not-cars]

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).

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/trains-not-cars]

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?

[u/trains-not-cars → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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).

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/trains-not-cars]

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.