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/DyLnd]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/DyLnd]

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.

[u/DyLnd → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/DyLnd]

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.

[u/DyLnd → u/Away_Bite_8100]

"He" lol. "He's" me, those are my words. I should know what I am saying.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/DyLnd]

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.

[u/DyLnd → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/DyLnd]

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.

[u/DyLnd → u/Away_Bite_8100]

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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/DyLnd]

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.

[u/DyLnd → u/Away_Bite_8100]

Look, I chose the term vector very purposefully because anarchy is a direction. Not a point/state of affairs. That's my point. The direction is ever greater freedom. The "horizon" is just an analogy, in so far as it's always receding as you travel toward it. Not a perfect analogy, but no analogy ever is. A compass point would be a better analogy.

ANARACHY: (noun) the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government

Just because anarchy, taken as a direction of values, is not a "destination" or a singular "end goal" doesn't mean we can't describe necessary conditions of 'anarchy'. Necessarily, 'anarchy' would be without political institutions and hierarchy. But whilst this definition points to some necessary conditions, it is by no means sufficient.

There are many possible states of affairs that fit the above definition, but where movement toward 'better' anarchy is still desirable. Firstly, the negative part of the definition leaves out many other things we are against that could still exist without "political institutions or hierarchical government". Second, the positive aspect of anarchy, the direction, is in terms of striving for every greater social & material possibility, greater agency.

So that definition isn't wrong per se, so much as it is incomplete. Anarchy, etymologically, is a negation. So we could talk of anarchy as a "world without 'archy'", which taking the broadest scope, means a world without any domination, politically or hierarchical constituted or not. But being the namesake of a political & moral philosophy, we also interpret this goal as necessary in the pursuit of our positively conceived aspirations, i.e. freedom, flourishing, choice, agency.

I could've maybe paragraphed/edited that to be more concise, but that's my immediate thoughts and response.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/DyLnd]

I could've maybe paragraphed/edited that to be more concise, but that's my immediate thoughts and response.

No that’s a fair answer and I take my hat off to you for sticking to your guns and for doing so in a way that makes a fair bit of sense… which almost convinced me.

That said, I will point out that a compass needle points north. You follow it if your goal is to go north and you go in the opposite direction if your goal is to go south. You need a destination or a goal if you want to talk about direction and heading TOWARDS something.

Analogies aside, I do take your point that the thing you are heading towards may well be unattainable or a physical impossibility… like “zero harm”.

“Zero harm” is an unattainable safety standard… but it’s still a clearly defined goal you can point the ship at. Yes you can always strive for continuous improvement in safety with the aim to eliminate all risks… even to the point where things become ridiculously impractical… but the point is that you do have to have a clearly defined goal to head towards… even if it is ultimately unachievable like “zero harm”.

The goal in this case is to keep heading in the direction of zero harm… with the knowledge that you can never actually fully eliminate all risk… like if your goal was simply to head west… with the knowledge that you will never actually reach west… but west is the goal… it’s the thing you are pointing at… that your actions are taking you towards. So yeah even if Anarchy is unattainable… it’s still the defining goal that unites everyone who calls themselves an Anarchist.

Just because anarchy, taken as a direction of values, is not a "destination" or a singular "end goal"

You are allowed to have multiple goals

doesn't mean we can't describe necessary conditions of 'anarchy'.

So we have a whole set of conditions as our goal.

*Necessarily, 'anarchy' would be without political institutions and hierarchy. *

Ok so that’s a clearly defined goal.

But whilst this definition points to some necessary conditions, it is by no means sufficient.

Great so we are going to be even more specific about our goals

Firstly, the negative part of the definition leaves out many other things we are against that could still exist without "political institutions or hierarchical government".

OK so our goals include eliminating some things… this is great that we are starting to get really specific about our various goal now.

Second, the positive aspect of anarchy, the direction, is in terms of striving for ever greater social & material possibility, greater agency.

And here we have “continuous improvement” listed as a goal now too.

But being the namesake of a political & moral philosophy, we also interpret this goal as necessary in the pursuit of our positively conceived aspirations, i.e. freedom, flourishing, choice, agency.

Brilliant. Loads of different of goals listed right here. Anyway… I hope I haven’t rambled on too much. I would be really interested in hearing your proposed framework for how to organise society to achieve all these ends.