Timeline for How does anarcho-communism avoid turning into anarcho-capitalism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31 at 1:35 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @haxor789: Comments aren't the place to argue. You should write your own answer. | |
| Aug 30 at 17:16 | comment | added | Ryan_L | @haxor789 "Capital is not just a shorthand for money, but the idea of capital is a social power", in that case, Communism has the same problems; but the quantity being exchanged/hoarded isn't monetary, it's political favor. You still end up with classes exploiting each other. Because some people will be more charismatic than others, they'll use that charisma to rise to leadership positions in their commune, and they will then use those positions to benefit themselves and their friends. | |
| Aug 30 at 13:53 | comment | added | haxor789 | 4/ Because while for the capitalist who invests capital and then retains more capital, the worker has no capital to invest and the profits from supplying their labor are largely snatched up by the capitalist either for them selves or for increasing the value of the means of production that they also don't own. So at the end of the day, they only receive money that largely goes towards self-preservation and consumption, thus making this cycle of having to supply their labor to sustain themselves permanent and a social relation. | |
| Aug 30 at 13:49 | comment | added | haxor789 | 3/ Which means under the capitalist mode of production money is not just a means to an end it's a pseudo-religious end in itself. The goal of the capitalist is not to fulfill a material wish but to become rich(er). In the worst case scenario the bank no longer finances enterprises that do something useful, but those who generate surplus money. And the more the money concentrates the more catering towards the wealthy becomes it's own industry. So capital is the ability to decide what the individual and collective labor of society is spend towards, it's a social relation and one of exploitation | |
| Aug 30 at 13:44 | comment | added | haxor789 | 2/ So in other words you're already using two different definitions of capital in that short passage. And while you won't get around means of production to produce stuff, you don't really need investment-money what you need is resources and the labor to transform them into the products that you'd like to have. The rest is already part of the capitalist "mode of production" and you might as well organize that differently. In particular the capitalist mode of production is money -> productive stuff -> more money. In contrast to just exchange which is stuff -> money -> other stuff. | |
| Aug 30 at 13:36 | comment | added | haxor789 | 1 / There are various definitions of capital, apparently "capitalist economics" uses it as permanently available "means of production", while the more macro branches consider those to be "productive factors" like machines, land, labor while the business oriented branches consider it to be investment money, money in the bank, profits, credits, delayed payments etc... On top of that sociology defines it as the means to pursue a goal and Marxist economics considers it a social relation of exploitation through wage labor. | |
| Aug 30 at 2:15 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @haxor789: and Ancap is an odd thing. If we take its ideals seriously, Ancap doesn't allow for the exploitation of anyone, because it presumes strictly fair, even, and inclusive market that excludes no one. It's doubtful that any ardent Ancap thinkers take their own ideals that seriously, which leaves a lot of room for unpleasant behavior. But I'm not going to criticize the philosophy because its strongest adherents tend to be hypocrites. | |
| Aug 30 at 2:09 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @haxor789: Capital (in the economic sense) is merely investment-money: money that is needed to create, expand, or retool a production locale. This is different from normal operating expenses. Anyone who wishes to begin production at scale must have capital-in-hand to procure production space, machinery, expert personnel, etc, and that's as true in a communist nation as it is in a capitalist one. It has nothing directly to do with making others work for you, but involves constructing a space where others can work to produce something. It doesn't necessarily entail exploitation. | |
| Aug 30 at 0:28 | comment | added | haxor789 | Also Ancaps have no root in traditional anarchism and what they ask for is more or less an unregulated market, which in combination with an existing inequality is borderline tyranny of the wealthy. There are individualist anarchists who rather than forming a collective that cooperates think of more individual production and exchange or whatnot, but yeah that kind presupposes some idealized form of equality. While one group being in possession of what everyone else is needing is practical political power and thus at odds with anarchism. So private property is usually problematic in anarchism. | |
| Aug 30 at 0:22 | comment | added | haxor789 | i guess the biggest misunderstanding is with regards to what "capital" even is. Capital is not just a shorthand for money, but the idea of capital is a social power that enables you to make other people work for you. So exploitation isn't just about not getting enough money, it's about the structural inequality of not being in control of your own time and work but being subordinated by capital while not being able to build capital because life drains the money you make keeping you in a hamster wheel or where wages only get to become capital by exploiting the even more unfortunate. | |
| Aug 29 at 19:48 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | Although this answer only references Marx (which is not ideal, see comments under koita_pisw_sou's), it happens to be correct because some later anarcho-communists like Cafiero also thought that superabundance will solve this issue. | |
| Aug 29 at 14:50 | history | answered | Ted Wrigley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |