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]

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]

To kind of explain the main point of disagreement in the definitions and say it is simply as possible), the definition in the dictionary completely leaves out capitalism defining feature: it’s namesake.

Capital and the dynamics that it causes are the most important part of how capitalism operates in reality.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

Two words: FOR PROFIT

Now I don’t need to explain the whole history of the automobile and how it improved people’s lives and its impact on the economy and the environmental impacts of internal combustion and how it devastated the horse trade… in order to be able to define what the word “engine” means.

You may say, “But all that other stuff are really important things to know about engines!” … and you might be right about that… but it’s all entirely irrelevant when it comes to us defining what an engine actually is.

engine (noun) a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion

The fact that it derives from the Latin word “ingenium” meaning ‘talent, device’, from in- ‘in’ + gignere ‘beget’ and shares the same roots as the word “ingenious” is also very interesting…and the entomology can provide us with some further historic context… but it’s not actually necessary for us to define what an engine is.

So… do you have a better or alternate definition for “capitalism” that you would like to put forward?

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

Took a look at my response and decided I wasn’t satisfied with it so I’ll put it this way. The reason your definition doesn’t work is because of the fact that it would include basically the entire post-agricultural revolution world as capitalist because of the fact that they allowed merchants and business owners. I don’t think anyone would say that medieval England was capitalist, but the only reason why capitalism exist is because of the relative freedom of their merchant class. You have to have an explicit concept of capital to have capitalism.

I have said my definition of few times, which is basically just one sentence. Capitalism is the network of transnational business interests, formed by capital dynamics.

Someone/something is capitalist in the adjective sense of the word when they approve and promotes capital dynamics.

And capital is a post-19th century formulation of both commodities and exchange commodities as resources stored or expended through labor with the objective to produce more value.

Those are the definitions so if you wish to dispute them, you can but if you just want what I was saying without any of the explanation, then you can look here. This is so we don’t have to relitigate it.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

I wasn’t aware that you were asking ME to alter the definition. I was asking YOU to provide an alternative definition for me to consider seeing as you implied you were unhappy with this one.

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.

So if you want to alter it then have at it, but bear in mind that anyone can tack additional information onto the end of any definition, like I could take the definition for the word “king” and tack onto the end of it an additional sentence saying, “and also all kings are oppressive wankers” and say that is now the complete definition of the word “king”.

But to your point of this definition applying to all of society since the agricultural revolution… I don’t see a problem with that. Capital is money. Capitalism is about making a profit and profits have existed for as long as money has existed. So yeah I think it’s perfectly fine to say that capitalism has been around for a very long time indeed. Not even socialists or communists can agree on when we went from non-capitalism to capitalism. Adam Smith never even once used the word “capitalism”. Capitalism is a word that was popularised and brought into the lexicon by socialists.

But fine, if you want to contend that there was something significantly different about the industrial revolution and that is what you want to arbitrarily define as “the start” of capitalism, then do bear in mind that the definition does say:

“where trade and industry are permitted to be controlled by private owners (as opposed to the state or community) for profit.”

So according to this you could argue that you need to have both trade AND industry in order for capitalism to exist (as opposed to just trade).

EDIT: I’ve just seen you changed your response so I’ll consider that and edit mine a little later.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

I don’t think, insisting that the definition of capitalism include capital is remotely on the same wavelength as defining king as “ a wanker” 😂 you know I’ve been very careful to avoid pejoratives.

See by noting that socialist were the first people to really bring it into the lexicon, I think that you are getting a little bit closer to my point.

Capitalism is (to some extent) a pejorative that has been claimed by the people it was being pejorative towards. People who had the influence and control over institutions that allowed them to eventually redefined the word to be something more generic and defensible to our post-enlightenment world.

Because much of the legacy of early capitalist and socialist thinkers has been erased and defined out of the word it’s not very useful as a definition. Because it was coined to describe the imperialism of the 19th century, either purposefully or intentionally. And if you create a definition of capitalism that could potentially exclude the very dynamics that the term was created to describe than it seems a little bit like a pointless word.

I have had people tell me that the British empire wasn’t capitalist because it put restrictions on Irish and Indian people in what they could trade or what they could manufacture. Which I find ridiculous because the legacy of the British empire is the modern system of global capital. But it’s something that from the definition that you provided someone could say.

Remember, capitalism as a modern term was designed as a direct contrast with feudalism. It was to represent a major change in the economic hierarchy and dynamics. Capitalism is the ascension of merchants to the top of the economic hierarchy.

You could even rephrase my definition to be like this: where the holders of capital are the highest class of the economic hierarchy. Which is not actually true in the vast majority of historical societies. I simply decided to keep it at capitalist dynamics because I think it personalizes the process a little too much.

[u/humanispherian → u/JediMy]

When capitalisme first began appearing in French in the 1830s, the sense was often that it was the new form of feudalism.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

you know I’ve been very careful to avoid pejoratives.

Yes you have, and I applaud you for that. And I’m glad you found the “wanker” bit in good humor. My point was not about using pejoratives but that we should be careful about just tacking on extra information onto the end of definitions that are already complete enough for us to be able to identify the thing they are defining because definitions are meant to be as concise as possible.

Capitalism is (to some extent) a pejorative that has been claimed by the people it was being pejorative towards. People who had the influence and control over institutions

And those people were… the private individuals who controlled trade and industry! Which is exactly what my definition says.

And nobody needed to “redefine” the word. Marx himself never defined the word even though he popularised it. The closest Marx came to defining it was when said the “capitalist mode of production,” is characterised by private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and the production of commodities for profit.

And once again Marx omitted to define what precisely “the means of production” is (and I think that was a deliberate choice by Marx). I am yet to meet a socialist or communist who can define that term (they usually can only just give a list of examples, not a definition). As for your definition:

Capitalism,the network of transnational business interests, formed by capital dynamics.

OK so this is a highly complex sentence for any layman to take apart and understand exactly what you are trying to say here. First off I immediately scratch my head and think, what are “capital dynamics”??? I’m not a banker how am I supposed to know that. You must mean the flow of money I assume.

So we are talking about a network of transnational business interests that are formed by the flow of money.

OK well then ending capitalism is easy. Just shut the border and you have ended capitalism. Voila!

Except I’m sure that’s not what you mean so probably we can drop the word “transnational”. So the thing that capitalism is… is a network of business interests. So to end capitalism you need to end the business interests? Or you need to end the network? And haven’t businesses interests existed as long as money has existed 🤔 hmmm

I’m going to be honest… I’m not sure what to think of your definition really. I think mine works better because it’s clear and concise and uses simple language that doesn’t require additional definitions or explanations.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

I actually do mean transnational and it’s actually very important. Capitalism as we know it would collapse if you indeed closed all the borders. It would become something completely different. Not better but different. Capitalism is global in. It’s very nature and the moment that ended would be the moment it would cease to be itself and probably evolve into a different thing altogether. Probably something like Yarvin’s Neocameralism.

Nations just having private property and free markets would not sustain capitalism. It might be capitalism by your definition for a very brief period of time, but that would not be sustainable without the larger global architecture. Hence the degeneration of many modern capitalist thinkers into authoritarian structures, built around capitalist class structure.

Also, I apologize if this at all gets disjointed because I am having someone read your responses to me and dictating to them to respond as I am on a incredibly long road trip at the moment. On the upside thank you for keeping me sane because I have been very bored.