Hello there!
The fact that i am asking for help is a good indicator of just how ignorant i am to these concepts. Can you recommend an informative reading list to introduce me to these societal models, and even point me in the right direction of more modern intellectuals that have similar concepts which are more relevant to current society but still maintain the inherent moral superiority of communism (compared to the current capitalistish[?] model being practised)?
Thanks, Max
I would include Beyond Power (Marilyn French) in your readings. Feminist, not marxist (you DID say and/or anarchism).
Thanks AHunter3 a brief search indicates that the book (and author in general) you mentioned will be interesting, and mostly relevant. Any focus on patriarchy, feminism etc. i am not too bothered about, though.
Edit: I should clarify - I fully support the abolition of gender discrimination (unless gender is actually a limiting factor in whatever the situation may be).
I just mean that i don’t care to read about it; no discrimination is interesting as it is such a stupid concept.
I would certainly read Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Kapital. These go into quite a bit of the theory behind why Communism ought to work, how it might work in practice, and some ways he thought this could be accomplished. Of course, it never did work quite like it does in the books, but the books should give you an understanding of the underlying ideas/theories behind Communism.
Her book, although it is certainly about patriarchy, is specifically about patriarchy as an ‘archy’, and the notion that a hierarchy of power, and the impulse to seek and maintain power-over, is not an inevitable organizing pricniple for human societies.
But I can’t say the book is centrally about anarchy, per se, either.
ETA: by “her” I mean Marilyn French / Beyond Power, in case that’s not obvious.
Aren’t you begging the question here? You admit ignorance of the concepts, yet assert the inherent moral superiority compared to capitalism.
Bill, you are correct. What i mean is this: The little knowledge i do have suggests that the moral superiority is present in communism, which is the reason for my interest.
Also it seems to be a popular belief among intellectuals that some derivative of communism would be much more ideal than the current system (in terms of well-being of the people). Though that is purely anecdotal, not necessarily an accurate observation, and probably a small biased sample of intellectuals.
The immorality present in the current system appears undeniable (perhaps another debate?) so seeking alternative seems necessary, no?
The immorality is part of the nature of man. Try looking at the reality of how “communist” nations actually functioned.
Robert, i shall certainly be getting those Marx works!
AHunter yes that shall be part of my additional reading, thanks.
Nature of man? You can’t assert that the immoral traits are inherent in all humanity and can’t be overcome. That has no justification.
I’m not knowledgeable enough about actual attempts at communist societies to comment. Hopefully i shall be soon!
Try Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in Human History by Matthew White. (Original title: The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History’s 100 Worst Atrocities.)
Of the top 100 bloodbaths in the last 3000 years, 6 were Twentieth-Century communist revolutions.
Start with The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Then move on to history to see what actually happened.
Sure it does: practical experience. Marx’s ideas had two glaring flaws: first, the lack of a financial incentive to succeed generally resulted in a lack of success*. Second, he expected that when the revolution was complete, the mechanism of the state would wither away, leaving the proletariat to run itself.
*It’s notable that most of the (many) great accomplishments of the USSR were made by people who essentially became rich and influential as a result (like Anastas Mikoyan.)
That isn’t an argument against communism; it is an argument against militaristic revolutions.
A bloodbath committed in the name of raisins doesn’t make raisins bad.
You should take a moment or two to examine the differences between communism and anarchy, especially with this conversation already taking a turn towards what is and what is not “immoral” and/or built into human nature.
Communism focuses on material inequality, the unequal distribution of resources. It does theorize that when there are no exploiters remaining and all material goods are distributed equally, the authority structure (“state”) will “wither away”, but it is not centrally “about” eliminating hierchical authority or coercive power. Far from it. As its many detractors will point out, the implementation of communism has involved extremely coercive authoritarian goverments with police-states and secret police and absence of individual freedoms and so on.
Anarchy focuses on authoritarian coercion, the organized structuring of people over others with the institutionalized power to force obedience without volitional consent. It does theorize that in the absence of any such power structure there would be no money system and the economics would be an economics of general reciprocity (aka share whatever you’ve got and take what you need and there’s no keeping track of ownings and earnings and all that), but it is not centrally “about” material inequality or economic inequality as such. There are even folks who claim to be capitalist (or libertarian) anarchists. Makes no sense to me (hard to get hegemonically and unfairly rich in a world where there’s no organized law enforcement) but then I’m one of those anarchists who think that if you get rid of the authority problem the money and wealth problem will take care of itself.
Unlike with communism, where folks will point gleefully to the dismal results of attempted implementation, your detractors for anarchy will drone on about how it can never ever ever happen cuz people are eevil and stuff.
The first criticism you mentioned is probably a massive problem in practise but there are people who wouldn’t suffer from this lack of financial motivation. If a society were started with just these people perhaps it wouldn’t be an issue.
And i can’t comment on your second criticism but if its correct (and there are probably other legitimate criticisms too) then that is why i was hoping for alternative models from more modern intellectuals.
Thanks for the post, i enjoyed it.
Thanks for that distinction AHunter.
If everyone had the ability to think critically and empathise sufficiently then that purely anarchical society would probably be paradise. Perhaps this is attainable (however slowly) by improving education? - ‘improving education’ is probably the most vague suggestion ever, oh well.
Yes, but killing off the undesirables to form your utopia tends to have its own drawbacks.
I don’t think people have to be saintlike in order for anarchy to work. People will engage in whatever behavior produces desirable results with a minimum of undesireable ones thrown in as a side effect.
In a world where you can get voluntary cooperation and a place at the banquet table from other people, and where your own reputation as a cooperator who chips in and helps out etc etc makes people that much more likely to help you as need be, you need not be any more saintly than the average 21st century randomly chosen person to get with the program.
Reciprocally, we currently live in a world where illicitly snagging a pile of $20s from someone else’s wallet (via sneak-theft or coercive robbery) means being able to spend it to get what you want; but in a world where there’s very little you can unfairly acquire that you can then turn around and use to your own advantage the way we could currently use stolen money, there’s just less incentive overall to do that kind of thing. People might be lazier than other people, and piggier at that beforementioned banquet table, but then you get a reputation. You can’t steal a good reputation.
The “big chief” redistributivist economies of various tribal societies relied on “potlatch”, wherein folks became socially important by giving away lots of stuff to their neighbors. In that context, being a person who gave away lots of stuff DID NOT MEAN that person was inherently saintly; it meant they wanted to be an important person in that society, well-regarded, with that reputation. That system rewarded that behavior so that behavior occurred. Our system rewards adversarial competition. An anarchic system would reward cooperation. It’s mostly (if not all) about the system, not the human-nature goodness of the individuals.
Aha. That is not what i meant.
Use a previously uninhabited section of land, or perhaps create an island somewhere . I don’t know how it would be achieved but it doesn’t necessarily have to be through violence (or perhaps in the current state of the world it does?).
I’m not sure I’d agree that’s a good starting point. It’s sort of like trying to learn about Christianity by reading the Bible. The source material is certainly important, but all the various iterations of Marxism over the years have had wildly differing interpretations and, without that context, just plugging through Marx is going to be of limited usefulness for really getting a handle on historic or modern Marxism. It should definitely be part of a thorough study of Marx, but I’d suggest an overview text first.