Well, yes, I am a communist. And a socialist, capitalist and everything in between – as long as it’s not also authoritarian. I’m for everything that’s libertarian, but nothing that’s authoritarian. In other words, I’m for free market capitalism and free market socialism. But I’m not for state socialism or state capitalism. There is a huge difference and it’s important to be cognizant of it.
State capitalism is what exists in North America right now. State communism is a reasonable descriptor of the former Soviet Union. What would free market capitalism look like? It’s hard to know for sure, without a central planner, but here are some ideas about it I really enjoy. For starters, there would be no state. Law and defense services would arise from voluntary relationships (contracts), instead of from the dictatorial central government. Oh, there would be plenty of regulations, maybe even more than now. But they would be promulgated by each property owner, applicable only to his property and only enforced by him or his agents. No central authority here.
What would free market socialism look like? It might be a community in which people voluntarily join together to share the fruits of their labors without an excessive fixation on property, wage labor and hierarchy. But I don’t really care, because as long as there is no aggression involved, it’s all fine with me. Let bygones be bygones. In market anarchy, a capitalist community can border a socialist one, with a commune down the street and mutualist coops patronized by all on the main strip. Everyone doing their own thing, and interfering with no one else’s thing is a recipe for civilization.
So, yeah, I kinda am a communist.
Kudos to Mimi and Eunice for all the great comics over there. Subscribe now for daily entertainment that will tickle your brain!
24 replies on “What are you, a Communist? Well, Yes.”
Interesting pov, comrade. :-) It could be argued that without the coercive aspect communism ceases to be communism. For example, the income tax is in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. One can’t have a tax without coercion. Same with many of the other harebrained ideas Marx proposed.
I use capital, so I’m sort of a capitalist. I also do stuff with my community, so I’m sort of a communist. Sometimes I ponder about all of societies’ problems and what I should do about them, so I guess I’m sort of a socialist, too.
Are any of those things benefited by a government? No. Should we use the State to benefit those who use capital, or those in my community, or all of society? Only if you want to achieve the opposite of what you set out to do.
I agree completely with the idea of communism, socialism, capitalism, X-ism, being perfectly fine as long as they aren’t using force.
But being perfectly fine isn’t enough for me to want to associate myself with it. I’m perfectly fine with Christians worshiping their god, but I’m not a Christian. I’m perfectly fine with people using mind altering substances, but I’m not a drug user. I’m perfectly fine with (consensual) polygamy/polyamory, but I’m monogamous.
I’m careful with what labels I apply to myself because I think it’s important that libertarian tolerance should never replace personal decisions and values.
I tend to believe all of the above can co-exist less regionally. Socialist systems, syndicates etc.. can exist as separate independent solutions so that you may not subscribe to the same solutions or systems as your neighbors.
I think the biggest divide tends to be concepts of property rights.
There are far too many trying to attack the socialist, capitalist or communist and far too little willing to end that debate.
I would say I find a comfort in mutualism. For me it seems as if we can find a common ground anywhere that is where it could lay.
“I think the biggest divide tends to be concepts of property rights.
Definitely.
There are far too many trying to attack the socialist, capitalist or communist and far too little willing to end that debate.”
I agree with you, only my experience has been that the communists are the ones least-willing to end that debate. The mutualist/market anarchist tolerates and permits (as part of his or her worldview) collective “ownership” of the means of production. The communist rejects categorically, that any man or woman may ever individually own the means of production and further stipulates that any assertion of ownership is prima facie “authoritarian” and exploitative.
“I would say I find a comfort in mutualism. For me it seems as if we can find a common ground anywhere that is where it could lay.”
Would that it were so easy… but until we can get over the “property” problem, it ain’t gonna happen.
But I don’t really care, because as long as there is no aggression involved, it’s all fine with me.
Identifying aggression is largely contingent on what you accept as legitimate property acquisition and maintenance.
True, Justino, but therein lies the rub. When others refuse to recognize your and my (i.e., our) “property” arrangements and social constructs as legitimate between you and I, and seek to expropriate them in the name of “the revolution”, that’s the problem. That is the fundamental discord between an-com and any non-commie anarchist.
read some of your articles, I sympathize greatly with your work and your views. Some facts: heart disease, war, and alcoholism were at the lowest when we were all communist–30,000 years ago!
LOL, thanks Giovanni. Are you sure communism was the mode of societal organization 30,000 years ago? How do you know?
30,000 years ago we were all nomadic hunter-gatherers (well, some populations may have been semi-sedentary by this time) and we assume, by observing modern hunter-gatherers, that they lived in a egalitarian communal state. I’m sure some bands were led by undemocratic strong-men of sorts, but without guns their power would have been unstable.
Do we know for sure that there was no property in these societies? It doesn’t seem like you have a strong foundation for your claim.
Right on, Ryan. Full agreement.
I don’t find anything wrong with the socialist and communist labels, once the specter of coercion has been separated from them. If you find something wrong with them, perhaps you haven’t fully separated them from the coercion concept?
The Pilgrims tried the socialism without coercion idea & 1/2 starved to death. With all due respect, it’s just a fantasy. Coercive socialism works a bit better in that it may last longer, but if consistently applied gives you a result like N. Korea.
@Darren
A utilitarian argument against socialism or even a freed market (working) is not really relevant. It is not about which works better. It is a question of do you have the ‘right’ to force one not to interact in this manner.
Are we opposing the free association of human beings?
It is to embrace voluntary systems over forced state systems. If you have such a strong stance against ‘socialism’ then stay away from it.
It works just as a freed market works, they just work differently with different results. Unless you are arguing on a system that is mandated for all. Then you are arguing for authoritarianism.
@PunkJohnnyCash
No, I don’t want to force anything on anyone. If people want to try a voluntary kind of socialism they have a right to.
I was replying to:
I hate html tags sometimes:
I was replying to:
I don’t find anything wrong with the socialist and communist labels, once the specter of coercion has been separated from them. If you find something wrong with them, perhaps you haven’t fully separated them from the coercion concept?
What do you do when the factory down the street pumps lung-choking pollution into the air, and dumps toxic waste into the water from which you drink? Or some “entrepreneur” claims the mineral wealth you live above for himself, and extracts it for his own profit. If the factory owner or the minerals appropriator refuse to deal, do you (the people) have the right to defend yourselves and protect common resources, or do you just have to suck it up and take it?
Your non-coercive libertarian fantasy is just another pie-in-the-sky daydream, if people can’t protect themselves from the more economically powerful.
I’m going to document its misdeeds, publish them far and wide and hold it accountable in whatever way I can, including by bringing a lawsuit, by organizing a boycott and if need by by shutting it down through the use of defensive force.
Coercion, or aggression, or the initiation of force, is different from defensive uses of force. Speaking generally, libertarians are anti-aggression but pro-defense.
Thanks for commenting.
Hi,
Just happened upon this blog and thought I’d do a little commie outreach,
The word ‘communism’ as used by most socialists/communists almost always implies a stateless, classless society, which is the goal to be worked toward, while socialism is a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. There has never been a communist society, only socialist ones. State communism in this sense is a bit of an oxymoron, with state socialism being a better choice.
One of the biggest divisions within the far-left regards this transition period. Anarchist-communists believe that there can be a direct transformation to a stateless communism, while other socialist and communists think that a revolutionary state would be necessary to suppress reactionary forces. There is also quite a bit of disagreement about what form this state should take.
There is a very deep concern on the far left about oppressive regimes forming from/ within socialist governments. Socialists spend a lot of time trying to understand (and arguing about) past socialist projects, especially when they resulted in less than liberatory outcomes. However, part of this analysis is understanding the effect of interference by capitalist countries (i.e. blockades, arms sales to rivals etc.) which create some of the oppressive characteristics of socialists governments, due to being under constant threat. Look at what a small group of terrorists did to individual liberties in the USA and imagine what it would have been like if the terrorists had all the economic and military strength of the US.The other thing kept in mind is that socialist governments do not have a blue-print and also inherit problems from the preceding capitalist culture. In addition history is written from very particular perspectives, so that any historical account of socialist countries should be approached with skeptism (because of distortions going both ways i.e. pro and ani-socialist).
I guess my point is is that the goal of socialists/communists is liberatory. I think the main difference between libertarians and socialists is that rather than focus on political coersion, socialist recognize that the relationship between owners and workers is is also coersive. I used to kid my older brother (a libertarian) that socialists are just consistent libertarians (no offense meant). It is good to see non-socialist discussing communism without any hysterics.
Thanks for commenting. Sounds like the divide between minarchists and anarchists on the right.