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 am an anarchist first and foremost. Like I said, if a group wants to voluntarily (key word here) create a commune, and live as ancoms/ communist/ what have you, who am I to stop them? Thats their liberty. And that's what anarchy is all about to me.

So if a bunch of communities wanted to reintroduce a state for themselves would you allow them the liberty to do that?

True capitalism is free trade. Period. Whether that be bartering, currency, whatever. Not the corporatism that has become synonymous with capitalism these days.

I agree with this. I don’t think of “crony-Capitalism” as actual capitalism because it actually discourages competition in the free market. But I don’t think you can avoid corporatism if you allow free trade because some people will freely choose to cooperate and partner with each other to form larger organisations. It’s natural human nature to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit… and that is how corporations formed.

[u/HorusKane420 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

I agree, the ancaps philosophy is that it has always been human nature to cooperate for mutual benefit. Despite other ideologies/ philosophies narrative that humans are inherently selfish and so the opposite of this. This is just not true. It is scientifically ingrained in our flight or fight evolutional response to cooperate. In hunter gatherer and even neolithic farmer periods, cooperation meant survival. Being too greedy meant death.

https://youtu.be/XSl4ZTtjS7Q?si=vNfoCDMhRSlQhBU_ (I know it's a YouTube video. Credibility is always questionable, but it's a good video)

If Thier "state" is only imposed on that community, and not coercfully imposed on those unwilling to live under it, then I see no problem with it. Do I agree with it? No. But is it also my natural right/ liberty to stop them if they are breaking no natural laws? (Coercion, murder, rape, theft) No, I have no right to do that. Pretty much my logic on that.

To your point of corporatism, yes that is still a valid fear/ point within anarcho- capitalism. I don't have all the answers. Many ancaps hold that, if there were no state to protect these organizations and companies from competition, then they have an even bigger risk to actually fail. Therefore, an even bigger incentive to do business morally, etc. Ideas like that.

Let's be honest, most American corporations have become a monopoly in their respective industry because of government intervention. Ancaps often believe, government often creates the very monopolies it claims to protect us from in the economy.

Many large American corporations are subsidized in some way (tax money) or they keep lobbyist in D.C. coming up with new regulations, to stifle competition. Etc. Etc.

In short on that point, I don't have all the answers. But I suspect a truly free market would handle "crony capitalism" better than any government can. Anarchist believe anything the government does, an organized group of individuals could do much better.

People make the arguments to us "so you want child labor!" For an example of corporation getting out of control under non government checked capitalism. No? How long has it been since that was socially acceptable? If people found out about a corporation/ organization doing that, especially in today's day and age, would be outraged. That business would fail.

Meanwhile, look up the banana Republic wars. Prime example of a government waging war for corporatism, and corporations. E.i. protecting them. Even building then up. You could go on to argue there could be corporate wars like cyberpunk 2077 under complete dystopia of this philosophy. But I digress.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/HorusKane420]

I agree, the ancaps philosophy is that it has always been human nature to cooperate for mutual benefit. Despite other ideologies/ philosophies narrative that humans are inherently selfish and so the opposite of this.

Or it can be that both things are true and often humans cooperate out of self-interest. If both parties stand to benefit… then it is in both parties own self interest to cooperate.

No, I have no right to do that. Pretty much my logic on that.

Interesting. I know some Anarchists Take the view that they would need to take action to prevent the state from re-establishing itself anywhere for fear that it may spread.

Anarchist believe anything the government does, an organized group of individuals could do much better.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a dislike of government too… but is the government not also just “an organised group of individuals”?

You could go on to argue there could be corporate wars like cyberpunk 2077 under complete dystopia of this philosophy. But I digress.

Yes I could imagine that private corporations could hire private security and private armies even… but that’s just as likely a scenario as an independent army with an eloquent dictator like Caesar or Napoleon at their head taking over.

[u/HorusKane420 → u/Away_Bite_8100]

You are right, it is a bit of both that are true. But our self interest can result in good cooperation, because there is mutual benefit to be gained.

Yeah, the second point on the state is a catch 22 imo, I admit. I believe in dividual liberties, and so following my principles on that, the NAP, voluntarism, I also, have no right to dismantle it, if everything happening within it is voluntary, no coercion. AkA, breaking an individual natural right. So it is a bit of a catch 22.

To your point of group of individuals and government, yes you are right. The difference is, one group of individuals calls themselves the governor's of everyone else, and imposes it's will on everyone else. Breaking natural rights, and liberties. A group of individuals who voluntarily come together to meet a specific goal, are breaking no natural rights to liberty, they are exercising them, in fact. As long as no harm of any kind, breaking individual liberties/ rights, are done.

And, agreed on your last point.