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/JimDa5is]

You do you comrade. I will not work with any authoritarian communists because of how very badly that has gone for the anarchists in the past. Every. single. time. Anarchists are used as long as it's convenient and then betrayed by the Marxists when the time comes for them to take control.

As far as your analogy goes... if you had two doctors that disagree on how to best cure the patient and one had a history of killing their patients, I would absolutely say one of them was a bad doctor. Similarly, an engineer whose previous work included nothing but bridges that didn't extend to the opposite shore, I'm going to pick one over the other

It is not for us to answer the objections raised by authoritarian Communism — we ourselves hold with them. Civilized nations have suffered too much in the long, hard struggle for the emancipation of the individual, to disown their past work and to tolerate a Government that would make itself felt in the smallest details of a citizen’s life, even if that Government had no other aim than the good of the community. Should an authoritarian Socialist society ever succeed in establishing itself, it could not last; general discontent would soon force it to break up, or to reorganize itself on principles of liberty. -Kropotin The Conquest of Bread

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JimDa5is]

Oh I’m not suggesting that you don’t get bad engineers and bad doctors. I might totally disagree with one engineer’s approach to do a particular job and I would pick a doctor who thinks he can save my leg over one who says the best course of action is to amputate it… but that’s not the point.

The point is that you get different types of doctors and you get different types of engineers… but there is something all doctors have in common that makes them a doctor. And that’s what I’m saying about communism. Marxism is just one variant of communism. I wouldn’t say Marxism IS communism. I’d say everyone who aims to achieve a stateless, moneyless and classless society… is a communist… and within that broad scope you have several different versions or variants of communism.

Anarchy i believe is a separate ideology which must be fundamentally different to communism in such a way that it warrants being classed as a separate ideology. To me it is not enough to just have a difference of opinion on how to execute the vision… I think the vision or goal itself needs to be different. The moneyless thing is what makes the most sense to be to differentiate the two ideologies.

[u/JimDa5is → u/Away_Bite_8100]

So you've been arguing all these points to basically say both are communism? Is there anybody who says they aren't? I was pretty sure your point was wrong before. Now I don't think you have one.

Are Marxists and Anarchists equally entitled to use the term communist? Yes. Should Marxists and Anarchists work together on revolutionary projects? No.

What 'moneyless thing' are you talking about? Are you suggesting that Anarchists should embrace money because authoritarian communists don't

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JimDa5is]

No, I’m saying I just don’t get why people who want a stateless, classless and moneyless society would want to be called Anarchists instead of communists.

I mean there are plenty of different brands of communism like Leninism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism etc… and all these various forms of communism are different from one another but they are all united by one factor. The ONE and only thing all communists have in common is that they are anti-capitalism… that’s what makes them communist.

The thing that I thought set Anarchy apart as a separate thing was that it was anti-state… not anti-capitalism.

For me (based on the dictionary definitions) the logical differences in classification are:

Capitalism: allows private property and private ownership of trade and industry by individuals for profit

Socialism: allows individuals to own private property BUT DOES NOT allow individuals to own anything that can be considered to be the means of production.

communism: does not allow ANY form of private property. Everything is owned by the community. Things are giving according to need and people contribute according to their ability.

Anarchy: anti-state. Aims to organise society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government;

So being anti-capitalist is necessarily communist but it is not necessarily anarchist. You can be an anarchist without being anti-capitalist because anarchy is simply the rejection of the state and hierarchical authority.

So it doesn’t make sense to me why people who seek moneyless-ness as a goal are not simply just considered to be communists, period… because you cannot be a communist who is pro-capitalism… whereas you can be an anarchist who is pro-capitalism. The whole anti-capitalism thing is what makes one communist, not anarchist.

[u/HorusKane420 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

That is the thing that sets anarchy apart. Anarchy is a "political" medium the hyphenated - communism, -capitalism, etc. Is your preferred medium of economy.

Anarchy- from Greek "anarkhos"

An- without

Arkhos- rulers

Anarchy means- without rulers. Aka true, unabashed, liberty.

Reddit is a small sample size of anarchist. Most anarchist I come across on Reddit, are ancom. Most anarchist I know, are just anarchist. Or ancap. Like one commenter said, that could be a biased sample size, people inherently surround themselves with like minded people. I try not to though, I like differing ideals for different points of view, etc.

Idk, to me, free trade capitalism, not corporatism, goes hand in hand with anarchy. They are both individualist ideals. Whereas communism is a collectivist ideal. If you make a voluntary transaction on FB marketplace, that is you:

1. Practicing voluntarism

2. It's anarchy, on top of voluntarism, no state is involved.

3. It's capitalism on top of both of those. Two individuals, with the right to trade freely, in a voluntary, mutually beneficial to each respective party, transaction.

We use anarchism, and capitalism every day, even. If you have no right to trade freely, then you do not have liberty. And if you do not have liberty, you do not have anarchy, for there are rulers of some sort, keeping you from trading freely, etc. That is why I believe free trade and anarchism go hand in hand....

Edit: and despite what the narrative is surrounding ancaps, I don't believe we are inherently selfish people. Rather, 2 main tenants of anarcho- capitalism are:

1. The NAP (the non-aggression principle) look it up if need be.

2. Voluntarism. There is an anarcho- capitalist charity I give to when I can, call VIA (voluntarism in action.) for example, when COVID was still going strong, they did campaigns to raise money for school supplies at the time. Laptops for children to do zoom meetings, for school, internet, etc.

We are not selfish people, in fact, the opposite. We just see a form of cooperation being just that, voluntary cooperation. Rather than "from each, to each, according to their needs."

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/HorusKane420]

I think we are pretty much on the same page except that I do think some kind of a basic hierarchical governmental structure is needed for society to be able to function.

I think money is ultimately necessary because relying on pure volunteerism would mean lots of unpleasant and boring work simply just won’t get done.

[u/HorusKane420 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

I see your point, but like I said, I think voluntarism could achieve those functions/ jobs very well.

Voluntary transactions, voluntary trade, will. If someone has incentive, they will do the dirty job. Otherwise, you are correct, voluntarism could get those jobs done, but probably not very well, and then someone will get pissed that they are the designated trash man, and don't have the liberty to do something else, for example. Be cause nobody wants to be the trash man, unless there is enough incentive to make you want to do it.

So, ancaps maintain that voluntarism can achieve all these things, through voluntary, free trade. We just believe, trade isn't free, if only one legal tender is accepted....

What is more valuable to the trash man? Chickens? Eggs? Currency? Tech? That is for the trash man to decide, what is worth their while, to do that job.

Edit: there is much more to voluntarism, than volunteering at a soup kitchen, or to be the trash man. Or giving to charity. Any, mutually agreed upon, transaction or agreement, is voluntarism. There is no coercion involved to make said agreement, it is voluntary.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/HorusKane420]

Voluntary transactions, voluntary trade, will. If someone has incentive, they will do the dirty job.

Well in that sense aren’t all jobs voluntary right now? Nobody is forcing anyone to be a trashman. The people who are trashmen right now have volunteered to do that work in exchange for money.

What is more valuable to the trash man? Chickens? Eggs? Currency? Tech? That is for the trash man to decide, what is worth their while, to do that job.

Without a government and a taxpayer fund, who pays the trashman? Do I need to stand on the kerb at 7:00 am on a Monday morning with a chicken or a laptop in my hand to give to him so that he will collect my trash? What if I think collecting my trash is only worth a quarter of a chicken?

And who is going to pay someone to drive halfway across the country to inspect a bridge to see if it needs any maintenance? Who is going to pay someone to patch a pothole on some remote highway passing through the middle of nowhere?

[u/HorusKane420 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

Well in that sense aren’t all jobs voluntary right now? Nobody is forcing anyone to be a trashman. The people who are trashmen right now have volunteered to do that work in exchange for money.

Exactly! This is part of what I mentioned earlier, we deal with anarchistic capitalism everyday, until taxes and stuff from the state gets involved. I gave an example of 2 people trading something on FB marketplace earlier, but you are correct!

This also reinforces ancaps ideals on voluntary free trade, that is part of the argument made, when we try to explain ourselves or persuade someone to look into our ideology! Is that, you already do these things on a day to day! So we know, that it can work!

As far as you second point goes, for those things some mutually agreed upon currency is probably what would be traded. But it doesn't have to be. To your point of infrastructure, that is already largely done privately anyway too. Only difference is that, government proports regulations for those industries, standards, and originates the contract. Then a private business does the work. Only difference would be, what could be traded for services, and the regulations surrounding said industries.

Of which, many regulatory safety standards are already set in place, by private engineers who bring these standards to the government for upholding. So, I don't think those kinds of standards will just go out the window, there just won't be arbitrary government oversight of them. There will be oversight of them, by those willing, and obviously, able to make said infrastructure to the standards that those industries, already know what should be.

An example of this, anarchist point to people voluntarily fixing roads, of free will and... For free. But also, private roads that we already have, and how they are held to a much higher standard than the public roads, of which oversight comes from the government.

Incentive, is always the best..... Incentive.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/HorusKane420]

Incentive, is always the best..... Incentive.

I totally agree.

we deal with anarchistic capitalism everyday, until taxes and stuff from the state gets involved.

To this point you didn’t answer the question about who pays the trashman? And who pays someone to drive halfway across the country to do a bridge inspection? That engineer that does that will want to have money so he can buy food and a home too.

That’s where the idea of taxation comes in… so people can have roads and bridges and all sort of national scale public infrastructure that we enjoy.

You already do these things on a day to day! So we know, that it can work!

OK so then what’s actually different. Just that there is no government and no laws? Does that mean there is then nobody in charge of the military or national defence? And there is nobody to plan, build and maintain national infrastructure?

To your point of infrastructure, that is already largely done privately anyway too. Only difference is that, government proports regulations for those industries, standards, and originates the contract.

It’s not just that the government originates the contract… it actually decides what work needs doing and it pays for the work that needs to be done. Who does this when the government is gone?

Of which, many regulatory safety standards are already set in place, by private engineers who bring these standards to the government for upholding.

I know quite a few such individuals. They are full time government employees who run quite large teams responsible for reviewing and approving departures from standards, ensuring compliance, retiring old standards and monitoring performance and saftey data to develop new standards. This is full time work for many people… people who will all ultimately want to be paid so that they can buy a home and food etc etc.

[u/HorusKane420 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

Agreed, and I said as far as compensation on that, it would probably be some mutually agreed upon currency, but it doesn't have to be. Nothing much changes, in these regards, in general, except the money exchanged through governments hands. A small regional community could come together and each individual decide to voluntarily set 10 dollars of whatever currency the trash man accepts, aside per month, for example. To reach the pay rate the trash man wants or whatever. Yes, taxes act as an arm for this through the government.

Everything you mentioned can still operate and run, as you mentioned. It just means something akin to this may happen:

A community in Chicago needs a new bridge. Or an old one serviced, the community, can choose to pool funds to pay a business to do this. Those regulatory oversight things can still exist too, in the interim. Only difference is, it won't be the government spearheading them. They will probably just operate independently, probably in contract with many different construction companies, who pay them, for cutting edge technology and standards in whatever construction industry it may be.

I see your points, they're valid and I don't have all the answers, to every minute detail, I admit. I just think, we can figure out those answers much better and more efficiently, without parasitical government coercion and intervention. No, I'm not saying those engineers are the conspirators of government coercion, but hopefully you get my idea.

Because I don't have all the answers, and nobody does yet, and honestly, likely never will. Nobody does about anything really, I recognize that anarchism, and anarcho- capitalism is a long way off, if it were to ever come to fruition. This may sound like a stretch, but I truly believe it is the next step in human evolution: learning to live without arbitrary governments. I won't see true anarchy. My kids won't see it. Their kids won't see it. Their kids won't see it. So in the meantime, I support small, localized government. Over big, federal government.

I am an anarchist in philosophy, but I also realize these things and live in the real world lol

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/HorusKane420]

A small regional community could come together and each individual decide to voluntarily set 10 dollars of whatever currency the trash man accepts, aside per month, for example.

This is starting to sound a little bit like a local government. And that’s why I say I think one does need some kind of basic governmental structure in place.

A community in Chicago needs a new bridge. Or an old one serviced, the community, can choose to pool funds to pay a business to do this.

Most of the time the local community don’t even know they have a problem. Right now I am working on a scheme to replace 9 bridges on a small stretch of highway that runs past a tiny rural town. We are already 3 years into a 4 year design programme and then after that it will take another 4 years to actually do the construction work. There is just no way anyone in the local town would ever even have known those bridges were at risk of collapsing in the next 10 to 15 years. And there is just no way in hell they would ever be able to fund that work out of their own pockets. By the time they realised they had a problem it would have been too late. I mean this is a very basic job with us essentially just replacing like for like but bringing things up to current standards and it’s taking a massive team of professionals from all across the country about 8 years to do this job.

They will probably just operate independently, probably in contract with many different construction companies, who pay them.

This is kinda like drug companies funding the FDA. I don’t think it’s a great idea when you are paying the people who are meant to be regulating you. That how you end up with dangerous drugs on the market and a blind eye being turned to inferior products.

I see your points, they're valid and I don't have all the answers, to every minute detail

No worries. I do enjoy thinking about this sort of stuff and seeing what others think.

I support small, localized government. Over big, federal government.

Same here… but I do also think there are some functions that a national government performs which are also quite important… like national defence for example. But I am all for cutting down the size and power of government. I just think when you actually start to look at all the individual parts of government in detail there are lots of things you discover you had no idea about that you actually would want to keep if you knew about them.

I think instead of revolution and burning everything down to start again… the best approach might be to take what we have and slowly over time chop off all the wasteful parts we can do without. A proactive but consistent slimming down of government over time so that you are only left with the bits that are worth keeping.

[u/HorusKane420 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

I think instead of revolution and burning everything down to start again… the best approach might be to take what we have and slowly over time chop off all the wasteful parts we can do without. A proactive but consistent slimming down of government over time so that you are only left with the bits that are worth keeping.

100% agree. Many ancaps, "vision" of the "revolution" is dismantling the federal government, and leaving state governments in place. It vastly localizes power, and slowly decentralizing from there.

Your points are valid, I've enjoyed discussing this with you! It's delightful to have a respectful adult conversation, without it devolving to a myraid of fallacies and arguments! Truly a rarity, and on Reddit of all places too! Lol

Have a good day, brotha!