Ask a Red III

[Traitorfish]

Why do communists hate commodity production... or do they?

It comes down to Marx's theory of alienation, the argument that a society organised on the basis of commodity production is detrimental to human well-being. This is related to his ethical philosophy, influenced by Aristotle, which holds that human well-being consists in certain kinds of activity, specifically social production, i.e. the collective shaping and re-shaping of the external universe. A direct relationship between the individual and their activity, between individual and individual, and so between collective individuals and their collective work, is key for humans to live a truly fulfilled life.
Commodity production precludes this, by inserting a process of commercial exchange between individuals, and in its most advanced form- capitalism- inserts a further process of commodity exchange between individuals and their activity in the form of wage labour. The individual ceases to be an autonomous, creative producer, producing use-values to directly satisfy human needs, but a producer of commodities, producing exchange values to meet the demands of capital. Humans are reduced to atomised factors of production, more a tool than a human being, and incapable of living a fulfilled life of free creativity.

Would commodity production be less evil if the workers directly owned the means of production?

It would be "less evil" insofar as working conditions would be better, but wage-labour is still wage-labour, with the fundamental dehumanising tendencies that it implies. (Workers' cooperatives aren't free from the demands of the market any more than private companies are.) What's truly significant about workers' control of production is that it can provide the conditions for the supersession of wage-labour as such, by removing the political obstacle- the capitalist class and their state- from the picture, and permits people to go about reorganising their work and lives to meet their need for fulfilment, rather than mere sustenance.

 

[amadeus]

In advance: I will be replying to Cheezy's responses to my questions in due time.

Labour-time, presumably. People like free time, people like things, ergo, the best system is that which provides us with the most of both. (That's how most people seem to work in their day to day life, at any rate.) It may not be quite so "automatic" a system as market-signalling, but it's also orientated towards a human efficiency, rather than the efficiency of capital, which I would say makes it more or less fundamentally preferable. I have very little reason to regard a system which can simultaneously produce a surplus of housing and a rise in homelessness as possessing of any "efficiency" which I am bound to respect.

I would like to address your point about distribution of housing in detail, but I will sum up my belief by saying this: the problems could be mitigated by a true free market in real estate in which prices were allowed to fluctuate and low-cost housing could be built in the absence of state interference. I believe abolishing the minimum wage would also make it easier to hire the homeless and provide them with an income level necessary to support themselves.

There are a number of problems with labor-time as currency as I see it, one of which being that it favors those with the most capital. Suppose that the U.S. and Guatemala both produce bananas. On the American farm, the farmer, equipped to the hilt with machinery and agrichemicals, can produce 800 bananas a day in 8 hours. The Guatemalan, toiling with his hands, can produce only a mere 200. If I am understanding the idea of using labor-time, the American banana should cost 1/100 of 1hr. The Guatemalan banana, on the other hand, would cost 4/100 of 1hr.

Question: if that is the case, why would a consumer ever buy an expensive Guatemalan banana? Under a price system not tied to labor-time, the Guatemalan farmer could charge the same as his American counterpart. Yes, the Guatemalan would earn only 1/4th the American (leaving out adjustments for purchasing power that happen in less-developed countries) but the Guatemalan could still make a living, save that money and improve their capital to become more productive.

The second problem as I see it is how the labor-time price could accurately reflect the labor-time necessary to produce something. Taking the banana example above, the bananas need to be accounted for, crated up, transported to the market, and stocked on the shelves. In a physical sense, nothing is really created out of this process, but still valuable and necessary services are being performed. So, the price of the bananas can not simply be the time it took to grow and pick them, but also all these other factors and thus the pricing problem becomes ever more confusing. On top of that, the time necessary to accumulate capital to provide these services must be factored in. Question: can you conceive of how this would be accomplished and if so, how would it work?

The last problem I want to mention is investment. Since the price of the good would be tied to labor-hours, how does one go about acquiring capital in order to initiate or increase production? I'm assuming that I would not be allowed to loan out my labor-time credits for interest to speculate on new products and production methods. Likewise, it seems I would not be able to purchase ownership in the company and provide capital like in the stock market.

That said, I don't think it's possible to categorically declare that market mechanisms would have no place in a communist society- I've read some interesting stuff about second-order markets- but that they would be ultimately subject to a logic of human need, rather than profit. Approached as simple tools, I think that it's possible to find some use for them- the traditional kneejerk reaction to the word "market" among reds is, I'll be honest, a little silly- but they must remain tools, rather than possessing a logic which is not only apart from but comes to dominate human beings, as is the case in capitalism (Marx's "ontological inversion").

You have previously criticized the "production for exchange" model in favor of a "production for use" model, but now say that market mechanisms would not have no place in communist society. What is a market but voluntary exchanges? Have you changed your view on this or is there something I am missing?

Possession is something that exists in any given instance- I currently possess this computer, but when I get up to go and get lunch, I will cease to possess it- while property is something that persists over time, an absolute and exclusive claim to disposal; the two are wholly distinct. You can have an entitlement to possession, which is I think what you're talking about, and that that differs from property in that it's not inherently absolute and exclusive, it's specific and constantly renegotiable. This can be seen in, for example, communal forms of land-ownership among peasant communities, in which the land is held collectively and allocated and re-allocated at certain intervals on the basis of need and efficiency (or simply retained as collective, where appropriate).

I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction: when you get out of your chair and walk away from the computer, you still claim ownership. You still claim the right to exclude others from using that item. I would not be justified in taking the computer and keeping it for myself just because it wasn't perpetually within your reach. I similarly see no difference between that computer and the plot of land it sits on. Is there really a difference?

 

[asbestos]

It comes down to Marx's theory of alienation, the argument that a society organised on the basis of commodity production is detrimental to human well-being. This is related to his ethical philosophy, influenced by Aristotle, which holds that human well-being consists in certain kinds of activity, specifically social production, i.e. the collective shaping and re-shaping of the external universe. A direct relationship between the individual and their activity, between individual and individual, and so between collective individuals and their collective work, is key for humans to live a truly fulfilled life.

Commodity production precludes this, by inserting a process of commercial exchange between individuals, and in its most advanced form- capitalism- inserts a further process of commodity exchange between individuals and their activity in the form of wage labour. The individual ceases to be an autonomous, creative producer, producing use-values to directly satisfy human needs, but a producer of commodities, producing exchange values to meet the demands of capital. Humans are reduced to atomised factors of production, more a tool than a human being, and incapable of living a fulfilled life of free creativity.


It would be "less evil" insofar as working conditions would be better, but wage-labour is still wage-labour, with the fundamental dehumanising tendencies that it implies. (Workers' cooperatives aren't free from the demands of the market any more than private companies are.) What's truly significant about workers' control of production is that it can provide the conditions for the supersession of wage-labour as such, by removing the political obstacle- the capitalist class and their state- from the picture, and permits people to go about reorganising their work and lives to meet their need for fulfilment, rather than mere sustenance.

Interesting. Can people naturally specialize at what they're good at, though, without being turned into two-bit automatons?

Suppose I'm making a computer game for sale: I'm not that good at graphics design but I'm pretty good at programming, so I hire someone else to do the graphics for me whose work I appreciate because it's better than mine. I can then sell the game (at the reasonable cost of labor) to someone who doesn't have the expertise or the creative energy to make his own entertainment. I compensate my hiree with 50% of the profits since he did half the work, and neither of us become automatons since we both derive great enjoyment from our jobs.

Can we be free of alienation and operate on the market at the same time? Or was the scenario I described too idealistic? Or am I missing something about how capital operates?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I'm going to get sociology next year (in high school) , how closely is it linked to Marxism, because Marxism was kicked out in 1991. I made demands that we get Marxism back, but nobody was interested.

 

[Traitorfish]

Interesting. Can people naturally specialize at what they're good at, though, without being turned into two-bit automatons?

Suppose I'm making a computer game for sale: I'm not that good at graphics design but I'm pretty good at programming, so I hire someone else to do the graphics for me whose work I appreciate because it's better than mine. I can then sell the game (at the reasonable cost of labor) to someone who doesn't have the expertise or the creative energy to make his own entertainment. I compensate my hiree with 50% of the profits since he did half the work, and neither of us become automatons since we both derive great enjoyment from our jobs.

Can we be free of alienation and operate on the market at the same time? Or was the scenario I described too idealistic? Or am I missing something about how capital operates?

I don't think so, no. The condition of alienation is a product of what Marx calls the ontological inversion, better known as "commodity fetishism, the process by which the commodity-form is experienced (and it is a subjectively accurate experience, not just "false conciousness") as something ontologically prior to its exchange on the market, and to which human social activity, i.e. capitalism is only a response, rather than the commodity-form being something which actually emerges out of human activity. (This is why the Miseans are convinced that all human society is essentially capitalistic, despite anthropological evidence to the contrary.)
I would say that it's quite possible to conceive of a society which contains markets being free of alienation- I think that certain societies which had developed away from a gift-based model of exchange but had not developed a "bourgeois" model could be described as such- but not of "market societies" in the sense of a society organised on a fundamentally market-orientated basis, and that's the only sort of market that seems even halfway realistic in the foreseeable future.

I'm going to get sociology next year (in high school) , how closely is it linked to Marxism, because Marxism was kicked out in 1991. I made demands that we get Marxism back, but nobody was interested.

Yes and no. Yes, in that a lot of the discussion of class and production is informed by Marx, and no in that it'll be balanced out by a lot of other, opposed schools, such as Weberianism. These days it leans more towards the latter than the former. (I'm also pretty critical of the sort of Marxism that tends to float around in sociology, which is generally a positivistic, class-as-thing sort, but that's another story.)

(Totally forgot about this one, sorry.)

There are a number of problems with labor-time as currency as I see it, one of which being that it favors those with the most capital. Suppose that the U.S. and Guatemala both produce bananas. On the American farm, the farmer, equipped to the hilt with machinery and agrichemicals, can produce 800 bananas a day in 8 hours. The Guatemalan, toiling with his hands, can produce only a mere 200. If I am understanding the idea of using labor-time, the American banana should cost 1/100 of 1hr. The Guatemalan banana, on the other hand, would cost 4/100 of 1hr.

Question: if that is the case, why would a consumer ever buy an expensive Guatemalan banana? Under a price system not tied to labor-time, the Guatemalan farmer could charge the same as his American counterpart. Yes, the Guatemalan would earn only 1/4th the American (leaving out adjustments for purchasing power that happen in less-developed countries) but the Guatemalan could still make a living, save that money and improve their capital to become more productive.

If labour-time is just a convenient mode of accounting, then it doesn't actually have to be tied to . It's already obvious that all bananas from a particular producer would be calculated as costing the same- you wouldn't charge more for bananas from a tree that needed more attention (whatever that would mean, I know sod all about bananas )- so why would it be necessary to calculate different costs-of-distribution for different producers? Just average it across the board.

Of course, that doesn't take into account variations between different spheres of distribution- if Guatemala has only Guatemalan bananas, and the US has both Guatamala and American bananas, then a global average might not be the most reasonable approach- but that's not a cross-it-when-we-come-to-it issue.

The second problem as I see it is how the labor-time price could accurately reflect the labor-time necessary to produce something. Taking the banana example above, the bananas need to be accounted for, crated up, transported to the market, and stocked on the shelves. In a physical sense, nothing is really created out of this process, but still valuable and necessary services are being performed. So, the price of the bananas can not simply be the time it took to grow and pick them, but also all these other factors and thus the pricing problem becomes ever more confusing. On top of that, the time necessary to accumulate capital to provide these services must be factored in. Question: can you conceive of how this would be accomplished and if so, how would it work?

Those can also be represented by labour time, and factored into the final cost of the banana. Just because they aren't directly consumed doesn't mean that they aren't embodied in the banana as it sits on the shelf.

The last problem I want to mention is investment. Since the price of the good would be tied to labor-hours, how does one go about acquiring capital in order to initiate or increase production? I'm assuming that I would not be allowed to loan out my labor-time credits for interest to speculate on new products and production methods. Likewise, it seems I would not be able to purchase ownership in the company and provide capital like in the stock market.

Well, put simply, you don't. That wouldn't be communism, that would just be capitalism with an awkwardly stiff price system. A sort of libertarian USSR, strange as that is to imagine.

You have previously criticized the "production for exchange" model in favor of a "production for use" model, but now say that market mechanisms would not have no place in communist society. What is a market but voluntary exchanges? Have you changed your view on this or is there something I am missing?

To be honest, I'm really just trying to avoid being dogmatic. It's possible that pseudo-market forms involving supply-and-demand mechanisms may emerge, something like a more formalised gift economy, and I don't want to rule that out just because the word "market" is somehow tainted. Form isn't content, and if it's content that I'm interested in, then it's silly to get worked up about form.

I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction: when you get out of your chair and walk away from the computer, you still claim ownership. You still claim the right to exclude others from using that item. I would not be justified in taking the computer and keeping it for myself just because it wasn't perpetually within your reach. I similarly see no difference between that computer and the plot of land it sits on. Is there really a difference?

The difference is between a claim to possession and a claim to property. In the former case, you're only claiming a primary entitlement to possess an object, or in a broader sense to decide if others may possess it. In the latter, you're making a claim beyond possession, a claim to intermediate between possessors and possessions; to dictate to workers in a factory how to use the machines which they possess, to demand the labour (i.e. rent) of people dwelling in a building which they possess. Claims to possession, while it can take authoritarian form in certain legal structures, can also emerge through consensus- as I said previously, this is how most peasant societies allocated land- while the latter is intrinsically authoritarian, is in its very essence the domination of one mind over another.

To make this is a bit clearer, I'd recommend the essay "From Whence Do Property Titles Arise?" by William Gillis in Markets Not Capitalism. (Skip to page 181.) It doesn't come to all the same conclusions I might, but it deals with a lot of the same issues. (It's actually a really interesting book in general. Big part of why I've been rethinking market forms (as opposed to capitalist content) lately.)

 

[Takhisis]

So, no questions? Quackerfish and I are still around.

 

[Monsterzuma]

I have a question about Marx' critique of Say's Law (aka Walras' Law in modern economics). Marx argues that supply does not necessarily give rise to it's own demand because there are "capitalists" that, instead of producing goods with the intention of swapping them for other goods, produce goods for the sole reason of acquiring money for it's own sake. My question is this: why should such a capitalist not be viewed as a philanthropist, because he produces goods without demanding goods in return? Doesn't the way he takes money out of circulation bring about a deflation of the currency that reimburses the rest of society?

 

[Takhisis]

Because money can be considered as a good (legally, it is a fungible good, at least here).
Also, he takes money 'out' of circulation, not to swim in it, but to waste it on luxury.

And a philantropist would be actively helping people instead of seeking personal gain.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Because money can be considered as a good (legally, it is a fungible good, at least here).

what if it is a token currency, nothing more than printed paper?

Also, he takes money 'out' of circulation, not to swim in it, but to waste it on luxury.

that would mean he generates demand, the thing you were chiding him for not doing.

And a philantropist would be actively helping people instead of seeking personal gain.

the effect is the production of goods without a demand of goods in return. if this is what he intends to do, his intention is to actively help people.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I have a question about Marx' critique of Say's Law (aka Walras' Law in modern economics). Marx argues that supply does not necessarily give rise to it's own demand because there are "capitalists" that, instead of producing goods with the intention of swapping them for other goods, produce goods for the sole reason of acquiring money for it's own sake. My question is this: why should such a capitalist not be viewed as a philanthropist, because he produces goods without demanding goods in return? Doesn't the way he takes money out of circulation bring about a deflation of the currency that reimburses the rest of society?

I'd like to expand on my earlier answer.

I think you've misread Marx's critique. The capitalist doesn't acquire money for the purpose of having money, he acquires money for its use in getting him what he desires: power, prestige, security, et al. More immediately, he doesn't sell his products and then just sit on the money indefinitely, to be put into a Scrooge McDuck greenback swimming pool and permanently removed from circulation. He invests the money in more capital, to begin the cycle of exchanging products for money once more. But even if he didn't spend the money and he merely put it into a bank account, by doing so he's increasing the lending capacity of whatever bank he deposits in, which would increase the flow of money anyway. Unless he sewed his fortune into his mattress or really did make a Scrooge McDuck money room, his money is still circulating, even if it's not being spent by him to obtain products in the reverse fashion that he got the money.

So your capitalist is not a philanthropist, he is behaving as all capitalists do, just with a superficially different motive. With money as the universal medium of exchange, you produce a product in order to get money, which you use to get other products and/or capital. We don't barter anymore.

 

[Monsterzuma]

what you're saying is that:
- the capitalist either perpetually recycles his holdings in the loanable funds market, thus making credit available at a lower interest rate to the rest of society
- the capitalist invests his holding temporarily and generates demand at a later point

In the first instance, again, his behavior is philanthropic, because the effect is cheaper credit for all of society without a corresponding obligation to ever supply the person with goods.

In the second instance, Say's Law holds between present and future, with the loanable funds market serving as the arbitrage between the two.

As to this:

The capitalist doesn't acquire money for the purpose of having money, he acquires money for its use in getting him what he desires: power, prestige, security, et al.

He can not get these things by sitting on money, so he will have to spend the money on goods or services that offer him these qualities.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, but generating demand isn't necessarily a good thing, also, part of that money will always be spent on corruption.

 

[caketastydelish]

Why do people often associate anarchism and Communism together? Like "those left wing anarchist and those left wing communist". Isn't communism and anarchism the extreme opposites of each other?

 

[Takhisis]

Yes they are, Anarchism wantes there to be no state and the triumph of the individual, Communism wants the state to be all-pervading and the individual doesn't matter. Hence why Makhno ended up having to fight the Bolsheviks.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why do people often associate anarchism and Communism together? Like "those left wing anarchist and those left wing communist". Isn't communism and anarchism the extreme opposites of each other?

Anarchism finds its logical conclusion in communism because, in opposing all forms of domination, it must oppose private property. Communism finds its logical conclusion in anarchism because, in opposing all forms of mediation, it must oppose the state. In both cases, the one ultimately implies the other. They only appear contradictory within a philosophical framework which poses the one and the many- the individual and society- as necessary antagonists, a framework which most left-anarchists and most contemporary communists would find very questionable, if not reject outright.

Now, programatically, you'll find that a lot of Marxists and a lot of anarchists have a hard time working together, but you'll also find that a lot of Marxists have a hard time working together, and that a lot of anarchists have a hard time working together; an anarcho-syndicalist and a council communist would get on a lot better than the former would with a platformist or the latter with a Maoist. The divisions that matter are primarily those of organisation and practice, and those aren't divisions which follow any neat "anarchist-vs-communist" lines. (If the categorical distinction between (social) anarchism and Marxism actually makes sense any more, which I, for one, am extremely sceptical of.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

what you're saying is that:
- the capitalist either perpetually recycles his holdings in the loanable funds market, thus making credit available at a lower interest rate to the rest of society

- the capitalist invests his holding temporarily and generates demand at a later point

In the first instance, again, his behavior is philanthropic, because the effect is cheaper credit for all of society without a corresponding obligation to ever supply the person with goods.

Philanthropy has nothing to do with it. We all put money in the bank, so by your measure we're all philanthropists. The important measure of philanthropy is intention. Is the cowbird a philanthropist for the water buffalo because his actions have a positive benefit for the buffalo? I don't think so. The capitalist who deposits money in the bank isn't doing so to help the bank or its future debtors, he's doing so 1. because it's the most convenient way to store his money 2. because it's safer there than in a safe at home, and 3. because it earns interest by being deposited there as opposed to his safe at home.

I'm not saying that his actions don't have beneficial repercussions for people other than himself, that's obviously not true. But it doesn't make him a philanthropist.

In the second instance, Say's Law holds between present and future, with the loanable funds market serving as the arbitrage between the two.

Giving a bank additional funds to lend doesn't count as creating future demand, and Say was very clearly not talking about that.

As to this:

He can not get these things by sitting on money, so he will have to spend the money on goods or services that offer him these qualities.

I'm not sure what your point here is...it's basically a rewording of what I said.


Now, your original question was whether or not the capitalist was a philanthropist because he produces a product but supposedly doesn't request one in return, it wasn't about the validity of Say's Law or of Marx's critique thereof. I've pretty well addressed why this assumption is false: because it's built around a myopic view of the cycle of commodities and money and the capitalist's role in that cycle.

Why do people often associate anarchism and Communism together? Like "those left wing anarchist and those left wing communist". Isn't communism and anarchism the extreme opposites of each other?

Not at all. There was a pretty good article in SocialistWorker that was reprinted today (reproduced in its entirety below, because I know personally that the ISO doesn't care).

http://socialistworker.org/2012/03/30/does-all-power-corrupt

Spoiler :

Does all power corrupt?

In any unequal, class-divided society, authority can't simply be "abolished."

March 30, 2012

ON ONE level, anarchists and Marxists want the same thing--in the words of Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, a society "without bosses or gendarmes [cops]." But there are some fundamental differences between the two. This article focuses on just one: the question of authority.

Frederick Engels went to the heart of the question when he wrote about the Bakuninists--followers of one of the early founders of anarchism, Russian Mikhail Bakunin.

"As soon as something displeases the Bakuninists," wrote Engels, "the Bakuninists say: it's authoritarian, and thereby imagine that they have damned it forever" But a rejection of all authority is an absurdity.

As Engels argued:

No joint action of any sort is possible without imposing on some an extraneous will, i.e., an authority. Whether it be the will of a majority of voters, of a leading committee or of one man, it is still a will imposed on the dissentients; but without that single and directing will, no cooperation is possible.

Engels asks if Bakunin would get on a train if the switchmen and conductors could come and go as they pleased and weren't subject to strict rules about operating trains. Likewise, in the middle of a raging storm, would we consider the opinion of a ship's passenger with no sailing experience to be as valid as that of the captain or sailors on the ship?

These examples can be multiplied many times.

Both anarchists and socialists agree that some types of authority--the authority of the rich minority of exploiters over the exploited majority--should be abolished.

Both oppose the authority of the cop who brutalizes minorities and the poor, the judge who serves the wealthy and the manager who tries to squeeze more work out of us.

But for Marxists, the fundamental question of how to transform society comes down to one of power--the power of the majority of ordinary workers versus the power of big corporations and the institutions they rely on to rule.

We therefore can't agree with the point made in one article called "Introduction to Anarchism" that "power is inherently corrupting."

The problem is that, in our society, the majority of people are deprived of power--the power to make decisions that affect their lives, the power to determine their own destinies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN ANY unequal, class-divided society, authority can't simply be "abolished." If striking workers renounced the authority of the majority over the minority, then they would have to renounce the strike as a weapon.

For what is a strike if not the imposition of the authority of the majority who vote to strike over the minority who vote not to strike?

And if the workers are to win, they must organize picket lines that are large and militant in order to discourage scabs from exercising their "right" work during the strike.

The need for authority is even starker in times of revolution. "I believe the terms 'authority' and 'centralization' are being greatly abused," wrote Engels.

"I know nothing more authoritarian than a revolution, and when one's will is imposed on others with bombs and bullets, as in every revolution, it seems to me an act of authority is being committed."

Moreover, revolutionary "authority"--the imposition of the will of the majority over the minority--is necessary as long as the forces of the old order continue to resist the new.

Anarchists who sincerely believe in the creative potential of ordinary people to build a new society--a potential that can't be realized unless they use their collective power--can't reconcile this view with the idea that all forms of power corrupt.

For anarchists, force, authority and hierarchy--the state--are the cause of class inequality. Abolition of authority is their watchword.

For Marxists, the state is a byproduct of class antagonism--and can only disappear when class antagonisms disappear.

Marx expressed this most clearly:

What all socialists understand by anarchy is this: once the aim of the proletarian movement, the abolition of classes, has been attained, the power of the state, which serves to keep the great majority of producers under the yoke of a numerically small exploiting minority, disappears, and the functions of government are transformed into simple administrative functions."

To expand on that a bit more, at one point anarchists and communists were allied under the same umbrella organization (called The International Workingmen's Association, or the First Communist International); the anarchists and communists later split on issues of praxis. While the anarchists followed the teachings of the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, who preached very direct action (see: propaganda of the deed) and bold violent actions against the state, including terrorism, that would demonstrate and inspire defiance in the oppressed masses, who would be motivated by these actions towards further actions aimed at the abolition of the state entirely. They generally do not follow the Marxist conception of capitalism as being an integral and necessary precursor to socialism. In general, anarchists regard the capacity of humans to govern themselves as being both innate and repressed, something which merely needs to be unleashed. It was towards this end that the above mentioned propaganda of the deed was supposed to inspire the oppressed masses.

The communists, on the other hand, followed Marx's teachings of working-class mass-organization and education, working towards mass-action that, in a moment of crisis, would be able to force the end of the capitalist system and abolish private property, absorbing the capitalist class into the great body of working men, making all people proletarians. Marxists utilize Marx's philosophies of historical understanding and social dynamics to explain the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system, and why is must inevitably lead to socialism.

Whereas communists see class-consciousness as being a necessary precursor to the abolition of capitalism, anarchists in general do not have such an understanding of class dividers, seeing simply authority and lack thereof, and reflexively combat that authority. The above article explains why this is the incorrect way to approach things, and results from an incomplete perception of what will be necessary to achieve the classless society that both communists and anarchists desire (yeah crucify me TF )

So to answer your question: anarchists are to the left of communists, but both are definitely left-wing, because they both oppose authority of the minority and the exploitation of the many by the few.

Yes they are, Anarchism wantes there to be no state and the triumph of the individual, Communism wants the state to be all-pervading and the individual doesn't matter. Hence why Makhno ended up having to fight the Bolsheviks.

/me throttles Takhisis the Wiz

Anarchism finds its logical conclusion in communism because, in opposing all forms of domination, it must oppose private property. Communism finds its logical conclusion in anarchism because, in opposing all forms of mediation, it must oppose the state. In both cases, the one ultimately implies the other. They only appear contradictory within a philosophical framework which poses the one and the many- the individual and society- as necessary antagonists, a framework which most left-anarchists and most contemporary communists would find very questionable, if not reject outright.

Now, programatically, you'll find that a lot of Marxists and a lot of anarchists have a hard time working together, but you'll also find that a lot of Marxists have a hard time working together, and that a lot of anarchists have a hard time working together; an anarcho-syndicalist and a council communist would get on a lot better than the former would with a platformist or the latter with a Maoist. The divisions that matter are primarily those of organisation and practice, and those aren't divisions which follow any neat "anarchist-vs-communist" lines. (If the categorical distinction between (social) anarchism and Marxism actually makes sense any more, which I, for one, am extremely sceptical of.)

This is largely correct. We're both on the same side and want the same thing, but differ on issues of praxis. If capitalism is really as bad as we say it is, then we ought to be able to work together on some level to abrogate it.

 

[Takhisis]

Philanthropy has nothing to do with it. We all put money in the bank, so by your measure we're all philanthropists. The important measure of philanthropy is intention. Is the cowbird a philanthropist for the water buffalo because his actions have a positive benefit for the buffalo? I don't think so. The capitalist who deposits money in the bank isn't doing so to help the bank or its future debtors, he's doing so 1. because it's the most convenient way to store his money 2. because it's safer there than in a safe at home, and 3. because it earns interest by being deposited there as opposed to his safe at home.

I'm not saying that his actions don't have beneficial repercussions for people other than himself, that's obviously not true. But it doesn't make him a philanthropist.

Well, no, otherwise, anyone's actions having a beneficial effect to anyone but themselves makes them a philantropist.

/me throttles Takhisis the Wiz

Whyyyyyy? I can't help but post strawmen of you while under your avatar. There! I'm free now.

This is largely correct. We're both on the same side and want the same thing, but differ on issues of praxis. If capitalism is really as bad as we say it is, then we ought to be able to work together on some level to abrogate it.

Strangely enough, we have yet to truly see an Anarchist or Communist society beign established, the military dictatorships in China, Korea, the Soviet Union are not really good examples of Communism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, no, otherwise, anyone's actions having a beneficial effect to anyone but themselves makes them a philantropist.

Well congratulations then, because you're a philanthopist in so many ways!

By putting money in a bank instead of spending it, you're stimulating the economy by creating more money for banks to lend out.

By spending money instead of putting it in a bank, you're stimulating the economy by purchasing goods and services, allowing employers to pay their employees more and buy more raw materials.

By not putting your money in a bank and sewing it into your mattress instead, you're reducing the velocity of money and removing it from the money supply, deflating the value of existing money and making other peoples' dollars more valuable.

By not putting your money in your mattress and putting it in a bank or spending it instead, you're increasing the velocity of money, meaning that less money is required to be circulated between people and the Treasury can remove some from the money supply, which deflates the value of money also.

So for literally every action and non-action you can take, you're behaving philanthropically. When something like that happens, I consider the used definition of the word to be meaningless.

Whyyyyyy? I can't help but post strawmen of you while under your avatar. There! I'm free now.

I know, and well done. Jolly good show with the thread bump too.

Strangely enough, we have yet to truly see an Anarchist or Communist society beign established, the military dictatorships in China, Korea, the Soviet Union are not really good examples of Communism.

And? History isn't over.

 

[Takhisis]

'And' most people point to those (and Cuba) as examples of 'Communism'.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Philanthropy has nothing to do with it. We all put money in the bank, so by your measure we're all philanthropists.

Wrong. Most of us do not perpetually recycle our holdings into loans, which was the only thing I associated with philanthropy.

The important measure of philanthropy is intention. Is the cowbird a philanthropist for the water buffalo because his actions have a positive benefit for the buffalo? I don't think so.

That is a semantic issue. If you're so insistent on getting hung up on words why don't I instead say "the capitalist's actions have the effect of philanthropy". My argument stands all the same.

The capitalist who deposits money in the bank isn't doing so to help the bank or its future debtors, he's doing so 1. because it's the most convenient way to store his money 2. because it's safer there than in a safe at home, and 3. because it earns interest by being deposited there as opposed to his safe at home.

I'm not saying that his actions don't have beneficial repercussions for people other than himself, that's obviously not true. But it doesn't make him a philanthropist.

1. it's a convenient way to store money he will never spend? How does this benefit him?
2. safe storage of money he will never spend?
3. earns interest that, like the principle, will never be spent?

as to the case in which spending does occur later on:

Giving a bank additional funds to lend doesn't count as creating future demand, and Say was very clearly not talking about that.

It creates investment demand that capitalizes on the potential for spending in the future, because the loans are known to get repaid in the future. This makes money available for spending in that future state. It generates the potential for demand that can be capitalized on in the present through investment. This is how the loanable funds market forms a supply-demand arbitrage between present and future. The cycle of investment can potentially be extended into infinity, but as I have pointed out, the result would be an act of philanthropy on the part of the capitalist.

I'm not sure what your point here is...it's basically a rewording of what I said.

The point is that buying goods and services that provide power, prestige and security is demand generation.

Now, your original question was whether or not the capitalist was a philanthropist because he produces a product but supposedly doesn't request one in return, it wasn't about the validity of Say's Law or of Marx's critique thereof. I've pretty well addressed why this assumption is false: because it's built around a myopic view of the cycle of commodities and money and the capitalist's role in that cycle.

My argument is that the only exception to Say's Law is the philanthropic exception, which from the point of view of a person concerned with the fate of the "working class" is not a reason for preoccupation.