I was approached by an Anarcho Communist yesterday (a title he gave to himself), and I am very much of the Anarcho Capitalist (aka ANCAP) persuasion myself. This encounter took place with an alter ego of mine, so I had to go do some research and some thinking and make a response here.
My first reactions
None of these were made to this person. I do try to be civil... this is simply to illustrate what wen through my mind.
- Anarcho-WTF!!!?!
- Oxymoron says what?
- Welcome to the Forward/Backward world...
- You should(not) errrr maybe(no)... uhm go there...
- Military Intelligence...
Rather than responding with a knee jerk reaction I went and did some readings, but before I had done that these were my initial thoughts:
Anarchy - no state/government or if you prefer a dictionary definition
"absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."
Communism - I don't see possible it's ideals without some form of state/government/body who makes decisions for all. If you prefer a definition...
"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
So when I see those two things combined to me it seems like an Oxymoron. Here is why.
"paid according to their abilities and needs" Decided by whom? Who is permitted to decide what a persons abilities and needs are? How is this different from a state/government? It is still a group of people (no matter the number) deciding they know what is best for all and what the needs of all should be.
Now as I researched the term Anarcho-Communism itself I see that some of what we might term communism seems to be not included. So unlike Anarcho Capitalism which essentially combines the two concepts as they are, Anarcho Communism may change the interpretations a bit so that it isn't an oil and water situation. On this I am still unclear as it does have some of the same vulnerabilities of any ORGANIZATION or STATE.
I am an Anarchist, I believe in the free market. When I speak of capitalism I am referring to the Free Market. If you add in the cronyism that happens in free market environments when there is a state then you must remove the word FREE from Free Market. They are not the same thing. Likewise, even with communist and/or socialist ideals there is still plenty of avenues to exploit cronyism.
In fact this particular aspect of human nature can infest ANY organization and very likely will for the reasons I illustrated in another post: (NOTE: steemit went down when the images were broken, by the time it was back timer had run out so see a comment I added to the post with the relevant images)
What I describe in that post I truly believe is an issue with any organization regardless of the ideology it is based upon. So to truly understand where I am coming from I recommend checking it out as I don't want to rehash that here.
Given that conclusion I drew there in an Anarcho-Communist society who decides what my abilities are and what my needs are? What if I think I need more, or even what if I think you are giving me too much? (yes that does happen) What if I believe I have abilities that you don't even consider? Who is this group that is allowed to dictate my needs?
How do you deal with people like me who disagree? (this last one is asked towards Anarcho-Capitalists frequently as well)
Anarcho-Capitalism is based around no state, and property. The only murky areas I see is what constitutes property. There can be a lot of debate around this and I often ask questions challenging fellow ancaps myself.
I will provide the simple version. My body is my property. It does not belong to a community. My time and how I use it is my property. In order to facilitate exchange for my time we have created universal exchange mechanisms known as currency for they facilitate things that would be impossible for people to keep up without currency. When I agree to an action with another individual we can create a contract. This could be a contract giving them the right to property I create during an allotted time in exchange for currency for that time. I can agree to the contract or not and negotiate other terms if I'm so inclined. It is purely between me and that individual. There is no state to force my compliance, or to force that person to enter contract with me. This idea of CONTRACT is important.
Unlike Anarcho-Communism you'll find that Anarcho-Capitalism is INCLUSIVE.
In an Anarcho-Capitalist society you would be welcome to gather as many like minded people you could find and all enter a contract and agree how to live and essentially you could have your own Anarcho-Communist society existing inside of an Anarcho-Capitalist one. Why? Because you are free to do what you want in an anarcho-capitalist society short of harming another or stealing/harming their property. This does not make Anarcho-Communist societies inside of it an impossible thing.
Anarcho-Communism on the otherhand does not believe in the idea of private property. Any property is public, and since anyone can't just walk into the public area and take whatever they want that would require some sort of council, organization or essentially STATE. It also makes the possibility of people who want to practice Anarcho-Capitalism impossible.
So when it comes to which is the more FREE. I think that is pretty self evident.
As far as ENVY of those with more money being a problem in capitalism, there is envy in communism if I bust my ass and work very hard and someone who did almost nothing receives the same as me.
Envy is an emotion.
It is not solved by forcing others to do what you want. It is solved by working with your own mind and learning to use reason and not be ruled by emotions. A state is not going to kill envy, it will simply shift it around and perhaps even make it worse.
I feel envy too, I simply recognize it for what it is and choose not to see myself as a victim who has to lash out at whomever I was envious of.
So much great content, @dwinblood! I'm confused as to why more of your posts haven't skyrocketed to trending stardom.
I think you've covered much of the basic discussions I see in the various anarcho-capitalist vs. anarcho-communist debate groups I've spent way too much time in on Facebook. Often it comes down to stuff like this:
commies:
You can't justify land ownership, so private property has no basis.
Someone is always exploited when the worker don't own the means of production.
All good capitalists use the state and are cronies by definition. The haves get more while the have nots go hungry.
Anarcho-capitalism has never worked anywhere on a large scale.
There is no such thing as a free market. Never has been. It's a myth.
cappies:
All attempts at communal ownership break down without market forces to determine value.
The market via voluntary exchange is the best mechanism for allowing anyone to improve their standard of living without coercion.
Anarcho-communism has never worked anywhere on a large scale.
There is no such thing communism without government rule. Never has been. It's a myth.
Or something along those lines. As much as I've become a die-hard anarcho-capitalist over the past few years, I do think the commies have some valid points, specifically with regards to other mechanisms we could use to organize society such as a gift economy or a sharing economy. The word "economize" implies savings and conservation, but much of the crony-capitalist economy is about planned obsoleteness, environmental destruction for profit, immoral actions rewarded by profit, etc, etc. We cappies try to hand-wave it away by describing a market free of cronyism, but the rebuttals argue no such thing exists.
Mostly, I'm trying to improve human well-being while also keeping the species alive. I think both sides have positions which are worth talking about, but, unfortunately, most of the discussions I've engaged in haven't been very fruitful intellectually.
Thanks for your feedback @lukestokes is always welcome. I am not sure why my posts don't do too well, but honestly I've stopped worrying whether they do well or not. Living by what I've told other people "If it happens, it happens." If I make anything at all that is more than I get from posting similar things on reddit. Our community is not toxic like that place can be at times. Perhaps adding the money incentive might help keep people a little more civil, I hadn't considered that but it just might help.
I don't rule out anything anyone says (including an-commies) I simply know too little about that topic at the moment. I don't see how you can accomplish the things proposed by communism without some group or central planning of some sort, and I really see that no different than a state. It is a group that ultimately dictates how the rest of the people live. The group may be GREAT people and often when something first starts they are. In my other post I referenced I explained what I think causes problems with GROUPS and ORGANIZATIONS over time even if they started out as great ideas. I think MANY ideas people come up with for governance could work and they are for good intentions but they are all highly susceptible to the same thing and I have yet to see a case where given time that thing does not occur.
Great points @lukestokes
I have debated endlessly with ancommies about these subjects. The main problem I see is that they seek some central planning. They can't trust people so they want...people to govern them.
Here is a piece I wrote on the subject
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@kyriacos/anarchy-and-blockchain-technologies-an-alternative-perspective
Thanks Luke. I referred back to your comment several times over the past couple of days. I've posted the next part.
Dang, you wrote a novel! :)
Did you see the amount of crap people responded with? Kind of hard to give them a fair response without doing so. I even left some stuff out.
I've been watching these ancap/ancom debates for quite a while and the only conclusion I've been able to come to so far is there haven't been any conclusions. Often, it's just a lot of back and forth with a lot of wasted time. So much of discussion is around semantics and word usage, not something solid which can be proven in the real world. At this point, I'm fine with whatever works and removes violent-backed, authoritarian coercion from the world.
You hit the nesting limit... so responding to your latest reply.
If you read my last two paragraphs in that latest post you'll see I kind of am at the same conclusion as you.
Your fluency with these images is amazing, please teach me your magic
I use images.google.com for some stuff... other things I make myself with photoshop. Mainly a matter of choosing keywords I think. Thanks.
next part posted : https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
In Cuba, Russia and other communist countries there were always discussions of the "New Man", an admirable individual who was not interested in selfish gain but only in the welfare of the entire society and it was thought that these altruistic people were what was needed for communism to work. The only problem was there were none, nobody thought in this way and how ever hard they strived the commies never managed to change this fundamental aspect of human nature.
If the world became completely Ancap, charities could replace the welfare state, technology and machines could create an abundance of food and energy, travel and housing could become extremely inexpensive, possibly even free. At this point real anarcho-communism would emerge as status in society would not be found though material wealth but by the importance of the individual's contribution to society.
The "New Man" would come into existence! How many generations will it be?
That was kind of what I was getting at. If the anarcho-communist ideal would work it could emerge from anarcho-capitalism as I described it. There is nothing in ancap prohibiting that... or much else for that matter.
Yet even here when someone posts and is rewarded we have so many people shouting with envy and hostility. This very thing is indicative why socialism and communism would not work now.
They SOUND GREAT until you think about them seriously and follow them to their conclusion...
"all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs" - is a huge issue. I am a person with a lot of abilities. If I ended up with a position in that society where people had similar abilities that they DID NOT BOTHER to use and they were receiving the same as me then why would I be motivated to work my ass off. There really would be no benefit. And still someone else deciding my needs and what my abilities are worth is A STATE.
Capitalism the market decides the value of what I DO with my abilities.
Most FEEL GOOD stuff fails as soon as any form of human nature enters it.
COMPASSION is only compassion if you were in a situation where you could choose to help someone or not, and you chose to do so. If a state is helping people without your choice then that has nothing to do with compassion.
Furthermore, I have ZERO interest in helping people who have no interest in helping themselves. I do like potentially helping people that I know might DO something with my help. So whether people who don't do shit die from not doing shit... being totally honest. I don't care. If that makes me not compassionate, so be it. I've helped a lot of people in my life, including those I shouldn't have, and some of my attempts to help people have resulted in direct harm to my family.
I posted the next part of the debate... quoted you in it:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
It is truly unfortunate the incompetence to think communism could relate to an anarchist society. Especially, an anarchist society of peaceful voluntary cohabitation. The cognitive awareness of each would prove them to be oxymorons. The very nature of ideological confusion, to say the least. I just posted this pro-peaceful anarchist article, showing similarities of our government's actions to control the masses without their knowledge. https://steemit.com/anarchy/@arthur-c-stark/if-the-government-wanted-to-keep-slaves-without-them-knowing-how-i-manage-my-slaves#comments
Thank you for your comment. The next part has been posted. https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
Upvoted and Followed. I am leaning towards anarchocapitalist myself. What do you think are obstacles today? Does the blockchain offer the solution?
The next part has been posted. https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
I'm not sure what conclusion you are talking about, but I'll do my best to answer your question. Nobody decides what your abilities and needs are. You demonstrate your abilities by exercising them. You determine your needs in whatever ways are appropriate.
If you need more of something, go get it. I'm not quite sure who is trying to give you things you don't want, but a simple "No, thank you" might do the trick.
I don't understand the question. You don't need permission to exercise your abilities.
I should ask you, because you are inventing it.
What is it you're not agreeing to? And why would you be dealt with? Anarchism is based on free association. Nobody would be holding you hostage.
Thank you for responding. If you would because it is late and I need to get to sleep. @orly responded in addition to you. He explained a little more but you both are helping to clarify what "Anarcho-Communism" is. My questions were not meant to belittle, or act like a smart ass. They were the legitimate questions I had in my limited research. This BRANCH of anarchy is new to me. I will read more as I responded to @orly and likely respond tomorrow. I actually woke up... came to my computer and saw these responses. Thanks again, the two of you haven given me a lot to consider.
I appreciate the humble response. That's a good sign that we can have a productive dialogue. :)
Bacchist... I couldn't really do you justice and I fully expect you to come tearing into this like a badger. ;)
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
@dwinblood I'm pissed!! I have to go out tonight but I'm going to be late because I have to read all your posts.
Live your life. They should be there. If they are not there will be more where those came from or from other people. If you have stuff to do, enjoy yourself.
EDIT: Though thanks for the statement!!
Interesting read, @dwinblood!
You seem to point out what is my biggest issue with self-proclaimed anarcho-communists; they seem oblivious to the dichotomous nature of their ideology.
Communism is obviously a collectivist ideology, and as soon as a collective is formed, an "out-group" -- consisting of those who reject the ideology of the collective -- is created as well. The mere existence of said out-group will obviously pose a threat to the collective, which, in turn, will attempt to oppress or subvert it.
In my opinion, this hegemonistic practice seems utterly incompatible with anarchism. Also, any form of collectivism usually ignores the agency of the individual and instead seeks to satisfy the perceived needs of the collective (and, as you mentioned, by whom should these needs be defined?).
I'll have to read up on the exact tenets of ANCOM, but it seems to me that every collectivist ideology will invariably end up oppressing individuals.
Thank you for your comments. The next part has been posted and you did influence me. https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
I've read and upvoted Part Two – hopefully I'll get around to posting a comment later today. Honoured to be included in your ANCAP vs. ANCOM graphic, by the way. As you also mentioned, it's really nice to see people actually having a reasonable debate, as opposed to a lot of the quite heated discussions taking place on other social media.
But you make it sound as if every interaction with someone always has the potentiality of becoming a rigorous contractual engagement; when society does not work like that.
Just take a look at what's happening here in this website and in many zones under these open source platforms. The payout is not on the arbitration of money, rather it is the act of giving your intellectual property for free where real value is emphasized.
Go to reddit then. You have fairness there. No one will give you money and all people are treated the same and fair. :)
Or stay here and realize that if people like what you do they'll vote, and maybe you'll get some money and as more and more people like what you say more money will flow to you. Rigging the system in your favor is not going to fix a thing.
Also hating the people that made the platform, spent their own time and money, because they have more money than you and talking about redistributing their wealth is not going to work. You might as well END ideas of that now, because the only way that'll happen is if you go spend your time and money and create a competing platform. You are welcome to do that. I can tell you I won't be joining you in it's usage because I see no benefit in EVERYONE being given things if they don't have to work for it.
In addition, you did not really address anything in the article I wrote. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to achieve in this response, but I decided to reply anyway.
If the world ever did embrace Anarchy (which is not likely) then as soon as you bring Communism to me and try to decide that something I create is not my property and belongs to the public, then you'll also discover my creation designed to remove brains from heads. If you send a goon instead of yourself, hopefully I'll be smart enough to know and I'll come for you rather than the goon. I won't ATTACK you out of aggression but the minute you force me to defend myself I will and I am more than willing to give my life to defend the things I make.
If I grab a stone and sculpt and amazing lion head. It is mine. I care not if the public thinks they own it and it belongs on the steps of some public building. If I don't agree and think "hey that's a great idea" then you can come take it over my dead body. If I agree then that is a contract.
Everything in life is a contract already, whether written or not unless it is a crime. Sex is voluntary and consentually agreed upon between the participants, if it is not then it is RAPE. Exchanging of goods is voluntary and consentual, or else it is theft.
You still not have addressed the elephant in the room... Who get's to decide what the NEEDS of the person are based upon their ABILITIES? Who is that lucky and powerful person or group that gets to decide what is allowed for everyone else? How is that different from a State?
I agree with you in the fact that you can have anarchocommunism under a anarchocapitalist system but not the other way around. But I wouldn't condense the interaction people have purely on contractual agreements. A contract translates to a system that will need to condense and codify. Life is not a bureaucracy. Life is chaotic and filled with relationships.
The angle I see it, especially under this platform is that property is not a thing, less so is intellectual property. In this two cases they are what build the social relationship amongst people. In this case what I am trying to argue is that the mode we are living under is not really capitalist at all--rather it is a gift exchange economy. The stuff I write and reply to are freely given, even if I do not make physical or crypto cash. What I see is the potentiality of making something and been rewarded in a different way: more views, more followers, etc.
(Anarcho-communism doesn't really need an apparatus, and I don't think it ever intended so. If it did what's the point of calling it anarchic? There can be some structure and order, it just has to come from the bottom up. If you cant find an order for people to mutually cooperate then it's not really anarchist society it's just chaos.)
I'm not sure you could have anarcho-communism inside an anarcho-capitalist system.
Say some of the individuals in an anarcho-capitalst society decided to treat all their private property as public means of production and form an anarcho-communist group.
On the surface, it would seem that from the perspective of the capitalists and the free market, the communists could be considered a single entity. However, if you look at it from the communists perspective, they would be subject to control and limitations from the surrounding capitalist environment. Just to present a few issues:
They would have to uphold contracts with external actors. That means, they would have to collectively agree upon the contents of these contracts. They would need to implement some process to choose how their collective interests are represented towards these external actors.
They would be subject to the effects of the free market. As they would not control all available resources, they would have to import and export certain things. For example, if their collective territory did not contain any drinking water, their very existence would be dependent on the capitalist market.
So while I'm sure it would be possible to implement some of the anarcho-communist principles in a closed group within an anarcho-capitalist system, a lot of them would have to be significantly rethought to fit the environment, most likely to the point where it couldn't even be labeled anarcho-communism anymore.
But then again, this would be possible the other way around as well: you could form a group in an anarcho-communist system where members of the group respect each others private property, sign contracts, exchange goods through a free market and as a group (from their perspective, uphold the contract to) collectively take what they need and produce to their abilities. It's probably more obvious to you how this would be a mutilation of the inner group's principles.
I think the title I chose this time was appropriate
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
The next part was posted and you were mentioned in it.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
You should read the conquest of bread for a better understanding of anarcho communism. https://libcom.org/library/the-conquest-of-bread-peter-kropotkin
"Anarchism" formed out of a split in the First International, a meeting of socialists who were trying to respond to the problems of capitalism. The split was between centralized socialism and decentralized anarchism, but there was no question that everyone hated capitalism.
Ever since then, the left has been moving to and fro between the anarchist and communist tendencies.
This is why "anarcho communism" exists.
Anarchism has existed since long before that. Nice try though. It existed more than a thousand years before those events.
Of course it has existed before then. It existed before money and property.
The term "anarchist" as we know it today was coined by PJ Proudhon.
This is history. Anyone reading this can look it up.
Also Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron.
Anarchy is a derivative of An Archos which means NO RULERS.
If the only way something can be achieved is by FORCE then there are those imposing their rules. You have rulers.
Communism on a small scale such as a commune can actually work. It does not scale well and when done at a large scale it is the opposite of anarchy. It is often one of the worst forms of authoritarianism.
If 1 person wants to tell you what to do and you don't voluntarily want to do it, it does not suddenly become REQUIRED because 10, 100, 1000, or X amount of people want to force you. Communism at a large scale does not lack rulers... it simply turns the mob into rulers. Though in reality that mob doesn't end up controlling it. It still ends up with it's oligarchs, and in some cases plutocrats at the top directing it.
It becomes the government, the RULERS. By its nature of how it deems property and lack of private property it soon becomes the ultimate form of monopoly as well.
I don't need to back this up. It's been tried many times, as well as it's stepping stone Socialism, and the results tend to be the same.
As to Capitalism. That depends. If what you see today you call capitalism then to be clear I call that Cronyism.
To me the true capitalism is synonymous with free market.
As soon as a government or ruler can start dictating the rules of the market (you cannot buy from them, you must sell the same, you cannot operate here, you cannot operate there, etc) then it is no longer a free market. And when those who make these rules can support their "friends" and block "others" it becomes cronyism. Yet capital is still exchanged... so is it a form a capitalism... sure. Yet capitalism exists within Socialist countries too it is just heavily manipulated. Capital is still exchanged. It also exists within communism. The rules of how it can be exchanged are just "different", or at least they seem to be on the surface. When it comes to those who rule it doesn't seem so much different, just easier for them to steal from everyone else.... wait they can't steal as there is no private property. Which explains why they live SO much better than the other citizens.
The interesting thing about cronyism (essentially the rulers giving their buddies advantages, and blocking others) works just as well in communism, socialism, and perhaps even better in some cases. It also doesn't require MONEY/CAPITAL to exist. All it needs is an exchange of power in whatever form it comes in.
The "free market" is a trope. It's held out as a kind of ideal, but it's not likely to ever come to be.
Just look at the history of modern capitalism. It was founded via cronyism, through these trading companies that basically helped establish imperialism. These trading companies were chartered by monarchs, and did their business supplying smaller businesses.
Check out the history of the East India Company. https://www.britannica.com/topic/East-India-Company
That's early capitalism.
Capitalism is cronyism.
It has always been cronyism. It's also always been racist. It's also always been imperialist and sought to take over other countries for some European country that financed them.