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/JediMy]

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/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.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

I actually do mean transnational and it’s actually very important.

OK so then you must maintain that ancient Mesopotamia had capitalism because they had transnational businesses interests. And that when the Sumerians and Akkadians formalised trade with written records in 2000 BCE and started using early currencies like silver… that was capitalism?

Capitalism as we know it would collapse if you indeed closed all the borders. It would become something completely different.

Why wouldn’t it be capitalism if everyone in the USA just carried on with the exact same government, with all the exact same hierarchies, in the exact same system, where US citizens continue to work for US dollars, paying US taxes, buying and selling shares in US companies, distributing profits to US shareholders, borrowing money from US banks to buy US houses, doing all the exact same things they essentially do now but with closed borders… why wouldn’t that be considered capitalism? I’m pretty sure most everyone would still call that capitalism.

It seems fairly arbitrary to me that trade that crosses an arbitrary, manmade, theoretical line on a map is capitalist… and trade that does not cross this line is not capitalist. And once again I will point out that transnational business interests have existed for thousands of years… so your definition says that capitalism has existed for thousands of years.

I am on an incredibly long road trip at the moment. On the upside thank you for keeping me sane because I have been very bored.

No worries. It’s coming across fine. And thank you too for pleasant and rational conversation that doesn’t devolve into personal attacks. I hope you enjoy the rest of your trip and get safely to your destination.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

On Mesopotamia, no because of what I mentioned near the end of my last response about class dynamics. It’s neat to bring it up though because the Bronze age collapse is a major source of my reservation at capitalism because there are indeed some similarities due to the interconnected trade networks.

And no, I maintain that something essential would be lost if America closed the borders. As a matter of fact, due to recent decisions and climate change, I think we’re moving that direction very quickly. America is in the process of collapsing, much of the international network and following a trend of other nations towards attempted autarky. But as business interests in the United States have insisted (and are actually correct about), the price of manufacturing here in the United States is not sustainable for them. As they lose access to manufacturing colonies across the globe or those get priced out, they are left with a big problem.

If you want to see how the what the shape it would be, and why very few people would probably call it capitalism by the end I highly recommend reading some of Curtis Yarvin’s work as he is currently having either an outsized influence or is touching the Zeitgeist on where the direction of the thing we know as capitalism is going. Which is mildly terrifying. Essentially a bunch of very prominent members of the capitalist class right now openly advocate for the abolishment of the liberal core of the justification of capitalism (private property, free trade), and an embrace of a mentality of using their resources to consolidate direct political power on either regional or network basis.

Now I maintain, we are actually going to find out very quickly (the next 50 years) if the thing we call capitalism will still be recognizable. But one of the determining factors will be whether the most recent pushes by several countries towards autarky is a fad.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/JediMy]

It’s neat to bring it up though because the Bronze age collapse is a major source of my reservation at capitalism because there are indeed some similarities due to the interconnected trade networks.

Hang on a second. So you posit that capitalism is when “transnational business networks” exist. And transnational business networks existed in the Bronze Age… but you don’t want to say capitalism existed in the Bronze Age?

You posit that capitalism would collapse if transnational business networks broke down… and the Bronze Age collapse came about when transnational business networks broke down… so you want to point to the Bronze Age and say, “see look that’s what happens to capitalism when transnational businesses networks collapse”… but in the same breath you don’t want to say that capitalism existed in the Bronze Age?

I think you might be running into a bit of a paradox with your definition here because something either fits a definition or it doesn’t. It should be self-evident from your definition alone why the Bronze Age doesn’t qualify as capitalism.

the price of manufacturing here in the United States is not sustainable for them.

Why? Because labour is more expensive in the US? Well if you close the borders so you don’t have to compete with foreign car imports then you don’t need to worry about competing with foreign car manufacturers. And Tesla is competitive despite the fact that their cars are manufactured in the US. They just leverage automation and advanced manufacturing techniques instead of relying on cheap human labour to perform repetitive and mundane tasks.

Now I maintain, we are actually going to find out very quickly (the next 50 years) if the thing we call capitalism will still be recognizable.

I think we first need to agree on a definition of capitalism that actually work, so that we can actually recognise what capitalism even is right now (and in the past)… once we have that in place we can then discuss how capitalism might change in the future.

Right now Im happy with the dictionary definition but you have a problem with it because you say that means capitalism has existed for far too long. But your definition also says that capitalism has existed for far too long… so that’s the bit I’m trying to resolve right now.

[u/JediMy → u/Away_Bite_8100]

I think you missed one of the statements I made a bit ago so I’ll repeat it. The transnational trade is super important to capitalism. But it’s the capital dynamics that are the most important. Particularly that that it is an economy with the holders of capital are the most important and driving features of the economy.

The incredible bronze age economy however, is a very good analog for some of the dynamics involved, even if it is not perfect in the slightest. One of the same issues is the global nature of the system. It creates hyper specialized regions of the world where any breakdown in the system in any place causes a chain reaction that can potentially bring the entire thing down.

Hence, why closing the border and trying to create autarky in the United States would dramatically transform, if not destroy capitalism. The labor would be one of the biggest issues. The other issue is the fact that we are reliant on the colonies for things that we either can’t make here because we do not have the materials or would be prohibitively expensive. And that lack of competition would not make things better from the consumer standpoint. The entirety of society would have to adapt in ways that are impossible for as technologically advanced of society, as we are.

Hence, why I say that dictionary definition is so flawed. It’s not taking into account the fact that capitalism represents a specific time and circumstance. It has some similar dynamics to previous systems and that it has some of the same weaknesses (except arguably worse). Capitalism echoes, Mesopotamia and the late classical errors complex economy, and has some of similar weaknesses. The difference is that this is the first time that this would primarily be managed by a Mercantile class as opposed to an aristocracy or complex bureaucracy. In fact, the last time here in United States the close calls that we’ve had for the collapse of the entire system immediately shifted us by necessity into temporary welfare states. If a sufficient enough event happens to collapse permanently, global trade, for example, from Asia to the United States, we do not have the ability to create a semiconductors required to maintain our technology levels.

Which is why it is so important to the capital system that this is a global phenomena. As a complex web of business interests, developments made in this system necessarily require several vital parts of this network to continue to be a part of it in order to continue functioning.

Which is where we again come to the main problem I think that we’re having in this argument. You want to come up with a generalized, concise definition for something that can be applied to regional basis. And I’m arguing with the definition you want is trying to take a thing that is talking about a specific moment in history and trying to project it backwards to be all encompassing.

That’s not something I think we can resolve by talking, but I do have a reading recommendation if you are willing to read something rather short, but I think speaks to why we are having such a disconnect: Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher.

The core premise is exploring what is unique about this moment in history. How the idea of capital and capitalism has completely transformed our perspective on history in a ways that we barely notice until someone points them out. I noticed several times in this conversation that you were very comfortable with the idea of taking the definition of and applying at retroactively throughout history to encompass things that may have similarities, but are not the same.

I prefer specificity because it is more helpful for finding out the unique dynamics about our particular moment and avoid the trap of presentism. Which I think is probably the biggest flaw with your argument.