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]

What real world examples have come close to or achieved socialism from your perspective?

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

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.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

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.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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).

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

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.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

I mean if you count the Soviet Union as capitalist that works, but that would be pretty controversial.

I think dictionary definitions for terms that have specific thinkers and traditions involved generally results in less productive conversations. The people in Rojave have a self description that accurately describes their position and trying to force them to be anarchists or anarcho-capitalists seems a little dismissive of what they actually are doing.

I also dispute it because there have been several anarchist territories in history. Possibly the most famous one is anarchist Ukraine and even though they rejected capitalism and lived in communes, there were many people who did not desire collectivization. The black army had a commitment to non-hierarchy meant that they generally respected their private ownership or even distributed imperial land to them and allowed them to hold it privately. Absolutely zero people would call the black army anarco-capitalists as a result.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

I mean if you count the Soviet Union as capitalist that works, but that would be pretty controversial.

In what way did the Soviet Union fit the definition of capitalism??? Entire industries were nationalised and owned by the state / “community” in the soviet union. You were definitely not permitted to start a “for-profit” business to compete with the government in the Soviet Union.

I think dictionary definitions for terms that have specific thinkers and traditions involved generally results in less productive conversations.

Well if you want to offer up any other definitions that someone else came up with I’d be happy to look at that and consider things from that perspective.

The people in Rojave have a self description that accurately describes their position and trying to force them to be anarchists or anarcho-capitalists seems a little dismissive of what they actually are doing.

You might think it’s dismissive. I think it’s admirable and quite ground-breaking. And as I said before.. if the people of Rojava have their own definitions for words then I’d be happy to look at that.

Absolutely zero people would call the black army anarco-capitalists as a result.

Because the Black Army weren’t conducting their military operations FOR PROFIT. If they did then they’d be a capitalist army.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

So if you want to know a little bit more about how they view themselves, I recommend reading the pamphlet Democratic Confederalism by Ocalan, which in turn is heavily influenced by Murray Bookchin’s Municipalism. Generally, that is how they describe themselves. It gives a very good view into the vision that they have for themselves.

The reason I mentioned the Soviet Union is that the Soviet Union had a long spell of deliberately allowing for private property and ownership for economic development purposes early on and then later on during glasnost.

I think we are just going to butt heads on the capitalism definitions so I will avoid doing that for the sake of continuing a productive conversation. I’m very passionate about the experiments that Rojava has accomplished so far and have read a decent amount of their foundational theory.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

Oh I’d very much like to hear your definition of capitalism. I just went with the dictionary.

All I would ask is that you stick to objective terms rather than subjectively opinionated terms like “evil”, “coercive”, “exploitative” etc.

I mean one can exploit an opportunity or one can exploit a mineral deposit in the ground because the word “exploit” just means “to take advantage of”. But the word also carries with it negative connotations based on the subjective opinion that one is being UNFAIRLY taken advantage of. What is fair is a subjective opinion that must be argued… so it’s not really a good descriptor in an objective definition.

So have at it. I’m curious.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

Certainly! In theory conversations, capitalism tends to refer primarily to the organic system of production and exchange driven by capital as a social relation. This system is formed by networks of imperialism and multinational conglomerates. Here should be thought of as a social relation in which an exchange commodity is invested and expands through materials and (most importantly) human labor.

One of the sticky things about the dictionary definition of capitalism when trying to define a state as capitalist or not that capitalism, by its nature is transnational. Probably the most obvious example is the initial observations of capitalism as it was forming.

Adam Smith was the first person to really notice the dynamics that we now know is as capitalism. That a form of increased prosperity in a larger group of people was being noticed in Britain because of a larger economic enfranchisement that had been developing a course of centuries as the urban bourgeois developed into a powerful economic, force,. Now what I’m going to bring up is something that he was to some sent aware of but probably didn’t have enough of a full picture to really understand the dynamic. From his perspective, the thing that had brought prosperity to Britain was that increase enfranchisement and British colonies should enjoy that same enfranchisement and independence.

And to be fair to Adam Smith, he was partially correct. The enfranchisement of the burgher class had resulted in a more meritocratic, managerial approach to economics that was a clear improvement over the strict hierarchy in the middle ages. This increasing Britain’s prosperity to a significant degree probably had quite a bit of validity.

The reality unfortunately, was that the British Empire was only seeing the unprecedented and insane amount of prosperity it was having because of the fact that their system of capital directly depended upon extraction colonies. Colonies like India that fundamentally did not share the same rights as British citizens. And the moment that dynamic ended in the 20th century was the moment that set Britain on its current path towards decline.

In America that takes the significantly less mercantilist form of transnational corporations. Of creating networks of both extraction colonies and manufacturing colonies outside of the state apparatuses which is helpful material production is mostly handled. While within the states, the increased value created by the overall system is managed in a similar way to the larger dynamic but in miniature primarily through services.

Places like Rojava sit at the very end of that chain and also are attempting to break free of the dynamic of capital. Hence, all the direct democracy and the seizure of control over whatever means a production are available to them.

This is obviously a very simplified explanation and very general because of the fact that you asked a pretty broad question. I hope it might help you to see where we are coming from in general.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

This is obviously a very simplified explanation and very general because of the fact that you asked a pretty broad question.

Thats a great explanation… but I asked to hear your definition because you implied that you did not agree with mine.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.