Critiques of Anarchism Part 3 – Anarcho-Communism
Well… since Communism is widely regarded as the ‘opposite’ of Capitalism… and I just came out of musing about Anarcho-Capitalism, I figure its a good time to bring Anarcho-Communism to this series of blog posts.
Basically… we’re talking about an ideology that not only seeks the abolition of the State, but of private property. Everything is owned collectively… I probably don’t need to explain Communism (then again a lot of right-wing elites like to cry wolf and many of their right-wing Statist followers don’t truly understand what Communism really is).
And they call other Anarchists ‘Utopian’? Jeez! How would it even be possible to abolish private property in the absence of some kind of State, or other group of thugs with guns to enforce this abolition? I’m not saying that people are inherently materialistic, greedy and selfish (in fact more likely the opposite is the case)… but I just don’t see how people, no matter how virtuous will ever completely renounce ownership of things they use. Why would a person not want to own all of the items they have for immediate personal use (ie. their house, a toothbrush, a bed, a computer)?
Of course, another obvious objection to Anarcho-Communism, like State Communism is the question of incentive. Where in this kind of system is there the incentive to put in the work and do a job better than ‘passable’. In fact, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of incentive to do a ‘passable’ job either. What incentive would an intelligent, capable individual who is exceptional at his job have to perform exceptionally every day when he isn’t going to be rewarded? Since there is no private property and no State, how would you reward exceptional performance? Its not like there would be a State whose bureaucracy he could join, and thus gain the perks of being in the upper echelons of hierarchy (I wonder how many exceptional ‘working class’ of State Communist societies got to rise up the ranks of their State’s bureaucracy). Its not like he’d be able to buy better clothes, a faster car, a more powerful computer or a bigger television since he wouldn’t be able to own any of that in the absence of ‘private property’ since that stuff would belong to everyone.
Do I even need to press the incentive issue any further? That dead horse is looking pretty badly minced right about now.
Of course, I see the various Communist revolutions of the 20th Century more as a failure of violent revolution than a failure of Communism… but it does demonstrate a failure of Communism as well… and it does have me asking this question… just what kind of revolution would bring true Anarcho-Communism now and forever? Violent revolution would likely inevitably lead to State Communism like that of the Soviet Union, and not enough people would be willing to renounce private ownership of stuff to make peaceful revolution feasible. I can only see Anarchism feasible when there is a free market. How business would be structured in a free market is a good question and I did touch on that when talking about Anarcho-Capitalism… but I know that abolition of private property isn’t the answer… especially in a world without any kind of institution with all the guns necessary to enforce the abolition of property.
So… Anarcho-Communism… I can definitely reject it. A Stateless, classless society doesn’t necessarily have to do away with private ownership, and in fact its preferable that it doesn’t.
Abolishing private ownership is easy under no state, there would be nobody to enforce private property, thus it’s collectively owned. Plus it’s not talking about materialistic things, it’s talking about land.
Referring back to your other point, workers would have more incentive under communism then capitalism. People would have a choice on what they’d want to do, instead of just doing it for money. People would find their dream professions and do those, instead of doing work they hate for a (barely) living wage.
If you had a choice of being whatever you whoever you wanted to be, vs something you were forced to do under the system we have right now to survive, what would you put more work into?
Is it really that easy to tell someone with their own stockpile of guns to give up the land they ‘own’? How would you get these obstinate individualists to peacefully lay down their arms and turn over their land to the ‘collective’?
And I don’t see how people have no choice on what they’d like to do for a living in a capitalist system. There will always be certain jobs most people would love to do (I can’t imagine many people who would say no if they have an opportunity to be a rockstar or an actor)… and there are jobs that very few people would want to touch with a 60 ft pole (how many people would want to work on the floor at a sewage treatment plant?). The thing is… there aren’t enough of the desirable jobs for everyone who wants them… and the undesirable jobs still need to be done.
While want and desire to do a certain task certainly help a lot… want and desire don’t always take into account someone’s suitability. I mean a hopelessly tone deaf person with a voice like he’d swallowed a pint of broken glass isn’t going to be suitable as a rockstar… an impatient, uncoordinated, accident prone person isn’t going to be a good brain surgeon, much as he might just love the thought of being one.
True, however, for an anarcho-syndicalist society to work everybody has to be in on it. Just like with the primitives, and all of the other forms of anarchy. Even anarcho-capitalism. If the majority of the population doesn’t agree with it, it’s not happening. I see the transition being from state run socialism to it eventually withering away and workers taking control.
The way to get people to give up their land would be to remove them from society. A capitalist has no power if nobody takes their money or buys their products. Just like with landowners, if nobody respects their right over that piece of land and they make threats with guns, simply let them be and ignore them from the majority of society that wants a collective..
Capitalism can’t be removed all at once, society needs a slow transition to it. Anarchy also needs to be achieved world-wide. This is not something that’s going to be happening anytime soon. As long as there is government, people are going to be oppressed. While this seems like a Utopian ideal society and that it will probably never exist, unless people all over the world learn that government is bad, i don’t see it becoming a reality either.
Anarchy is pure democracy, and unless the majority of the population is in on it. It’s not going to go anywhere.
If what you’re saying that people wouldn’t want cleaning jobs if they’re not payed. Well what about volunteers in today’s society? By your logic nobody would want to pick up the trash around parks, or clean up their driveways. Yet there’s hundreds of organizations that do just that. If nothing, society needs to figure out a way to automate these jobs then.
As for people choosing unsuitable jobs, i think most people realize they’re not good a something by their first try. You have to remember that they have a right not to work aswell. They could just sit at home all day surfing the internet. Having them choose incompatible jobs is their choice and is something they should be allowed to do. However i think most people would choose something else if they sucked on their first career.
Yes, everybody does have to be in on an ideology for it to have any chance of working… that’s exactly my point… it looks doubtful… at least at this stage that absolutely everyone is going to be willing to abandon the concept of private property. Then again… the stateless society is a multi-generational project… and at this stage it doesn’t look as if you or I will ever live to see it completed.
The key to kicking this process into full gear is education and free flow of information. The existing Statist system encourages people to forgo the use of critical reasoning… which is extremely important for any kind of anarchist system to work, be it anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist, or whatever. Since it would be in the best interests of those with vested interest in the State (such as career politicians) to maintain this abysmal level of ignorance, I can’t really see how state socialism can lead to statelessness. The welfare state has created an abysmal amount of learned helplessness in a sizable segment of the population… not to mention a growing demographic people who simply take from the system without contributing.
The threat of removal from society for refusing to ‘cooperate’ sounds like coercion. Within lies a bit of a threat and and ultimatum… ‘hand over your property or we’re going to deny you of your business.’ Not all coercion and ‘force’ is overtly physically violent. I had mentioned in a previous blog post about the passive-aggressive guilt trips that many left-wing authoritarians will subject people to in order to advance their agenda. Coercion is, by definition, the opposite of voluntarism… and voluntarism is an essential part of anarchism.
When it comes to the world learning that government is bad… sometimes I see it as a distant dream beyond my lifetime… yet with the economic turmoil across the world… and the political turmoil within the U.S. (ie… the current empire), I’m seeing a bit more interest in digging deeper for the truth than the shallowness of mainstream media. Perhaps the exposure of the true nature of the very concept of government itself might possibly be closer than we could think. We just have to wait and see, and do what we can to help along this idea that government is a root of evil.
Nowhere in my ‘logic’ did I say people don’t volunteer to do certain dirty jobs like picking up garbage. I never even said there weren’t people who enjoy doing things like that. I just have to question whether there are enough of these volunteers or others who enjoy the dirty jobs to keep that garbage from piling into mountains on the streets. And yes… automation would definitely eliminate a lot of problems with this… in fact one alluring aspect of the Venus Project is the idea of a society where every menial task is covered by machines, freeing ourselves for more creative and intellectual pursuits. I am, of course maintaining a certain level of skepticism about its viability for the moment… but I’m keeping an open mind.
You say people have a right not to work… well… much as whether or not someone works is their choice, do they really have a right to avoid contributing to the society they live in… at least in some small way? Surely those who contribute… especially the ones doing the ‘dirty’ and ‘unpleasant’ jobs, or the very difficult and intensive jobs, have a right to not have the fruits of their labour go into things far more meaningful and worthwhile than feeding someone who doesn’t want to contribute.
Long post I know and sorry
but anyway, finally, on job suitability… something like an artist, rockstar, or a DJ… jobs that don’t involve putting someone’s life in your hands… by all means… those not suited can go ahead and try it… there’s really no problem there, having fun with it would be all that matters. But all the enthusiasm in the world would not minimize the danger of an unsuitable individual doing a job where someone’s life is in their hands.
You got me.. I can’t really argue with you anymore because I agree with lots of the points mentioned. I’m kind of a skeptic on the idea but i don’t know any other political philosophy that would work so well. That being said, I’ve only been introduced to Anarchy less than two months ago. I’ve read alot of Orwell, Noam Chomesky, Mikhail Baulkin, ect.. So i’m not that knowledgable on the subject as other qualified people.
My idea of supporting state socialism, is basically the only move for anarchists. It’s either support state socialism or “the free market.” At least in America. Which I would rather choose the former.
As for your other points, i see them as self correcting. People will figure out how to solve them one way or another. Nobody is going to let an unqualified surgeon preform an operation on them, and i see no reason why people can’t be fired. Workers could vote on the issues and figure out the ideal solution.
The unsuitable jobs though, I’m not sure.. I see your point and you’re right. If society can automate this, it wouldn’t be a problem. However will new jobs coming in to the workplace all of the time, so this might not be a feasible goal.
I was wondering, what political philosophy do you believe? I skimmed over your blog a couple of times and I saw you mention anarchism. We might share alot of common ground.
Well I’m somewhat new to anarchism myself… one of the reasons for my series of critiques of some of the particular schools of anarchist thought was to try and figure out exactly where I stand. As you can see… I see there are issues with just about all of them… well at least the ones I’ve covered thus far. All I know right now is some of what I’m not… and that definitely includes Anarcho-Primitivism
When it comes to the ‘free market’… there really hasn’t been a true free market at any point in modern times. On one side you have governments imposing their ‘regulations’… and on the other, you have corporations (which, technically are fictional legal entities given extra special ‘rights’ by governments) manipulating the political process and seizing control of the global economy. What we have isn’t a free market, where the interactions and transactions are all handled through voluntary exchange and mutual benefit… it is more a modern reinterpretation of feudalism. Scary thought that scumbag corporate lawyers are, within this analogy, the knights in shining armour sworn to defend their liege lords isn’t it
Other descriptions would include ’socialism for the rich’, ‘corporate communism’… you get the idea. Its their privatization of profits, and ’socialization’ of the risks through limited liability and government bailouts that makes the system such a horrible mess.
As to my own political philosophy… I guess I’m somewhere in between the worker self-management of anarcho-syndicalism and the free market and voluntary exchange of anarcho-capitalism… if that’s even possible. As I’ve said in a past blog… pure anarcho-capitalism does have its issues… particularly in terms of the imbalance between those with the money, and those ‘renting’ out their labour. I see an economy comprised of worker owned and run cooperatives in a free market as a possible compromise… I know that if I were given the choice of joining a cooperative or working for a boss, I’d definitely prefer the cooperative. It could very well be the case that in a true free market, co-ops would be more competitive than hierarchical businesses with bosses above and employees below. If you were to ask most people on the street whether or not they prefer to work for a boss, the answer of ‘no’ would likely be unanimous, and were there enough alternatives… anyone who would fancy themselves as ‘bosses’ would have trouble finding employees.
Anyway, while I figure out the finer details of where I ought to stand, I’ll be continuing to hear out multiple perspectives… on the one hand I do listen to the ‘libertarian socialists’ like Chomsky (I only wish he weren’t such a dull speaker… he does have some valid points), and on the other, anarcho-capitalists like Stefan Molyneux (who I previously cited as one of my influences towards anarchism… he does have some fascinating points about philosophy and parenting as well).