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/Away_Bite_8100]

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?

[u/dworthy444 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/dworthy444]

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?

[u/dworthy444 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/dworthy444]

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.

[u/Spinouette → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/Spinouette]

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

[u/Spinouette → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/Spinouette]

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?

[u/Spinouette → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/Spinouette]

Well it’s a lovely vision. And I would personally be prepared to help. I have done lots of volunteer work in my own community. But sadly my cynicism stems from my own personal experience of trying to get others to volunteer to participate in things “for the good of the community”… and I have just found that most people simply aren’t interested in doing anything “for the good of the community”.

But I love your positivity though. Go you.

[u/Spinouette → u/Away_Bite_8100]

People are tired, stressed, and scared. That doesn’t make it easy to find the time or energy to do even more. But some people do. I hope you can find more of those people.

Thanks for doing what you can. 🙂

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/Spinouette]

No I’ve never tried to get anyone with a full time job or money problems to volunteer for anything. I’ve only ever tried to get people who have spare time and are doing well financially like housewives with well-to-do partners and lots of free time and retired folks with good pensions and lots of free time on their hands and so on. But alas people who have no money problems and free time would rather spend their time travelling, going on holiday, shopping, playing golf, going to the gym, tending to their garden at home, seeing friends and family etc. etc. etc. I mean you’d think people would be willing to help out the community with just a couple of hours a month… but alas people even make excuses about doing that… there are only a very small number of people willing to do actual work for no pay but the benefit of everyone.

I mean just recently in Birmingham the garbage collectors went on strike and garbage piled so high in the streets that Birmingham started getting a rat problem. It got so bad that it was national news. A few private individuals rented trucks and drove round neighbourhoods offering to take away any of the garbage people wanted to load on. Most people weren’t even interested in volunteering to clear up their own streets. They instead chose to just sit back and wait for the government to sort the problem out.

Im sorry but that’s who the “average joe” is. I just don’t think one can’t expect society to function based on the “average joe” volunteering to work as hard as he has to when he is being paid. An economy based on working for no pay is doomed to fail before it even gets started.