Difference between rise of capitalism and rise of communism?

Submitted by icypaper in Anarchy101

Full disclosure — I am not an anarchist, though if my answer is answered thoroughly I might become one.

At the very least for the anarcho-communists that I know, they agree with dialectical materialism to some extent. As such, they understand that feudalism was defeated and replaced by capitalism with the use of a revolutionary bourgeois state.

If they admit and understand that the victory of capitalism over feudalism was through the use of a state, why would the victory of communism over capitalism be any different?

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Fool wrote

I think there's many layers of fallacy to chip away at here.

Dialectical materialism is at best just philosophy at worst religious fundamentalism - dialectics can only negate, so they can't actually prove anything. I suggest Jacob Blumenfeld's book on Max Stirner.

Then we get to the myth of progress. Feudalism to Capitalism wasn't a positive thing for most people, not that either state was desirable.

But the real problem is thinking that the problem is the economic system. The problem is in authority. The end goal is not the creation of a benevolent centralised system, but of distribution of authority such that there is no system for which domination can take root. Capitalism collapses if there is no authority enforcing property laws.

I can go more in depth if you want.

13

icypaper OP wrote (edited )

I would appreciate a more in-depth explanation. As you explained, the common anarchist view(beyond the ancoms I have experience with) do not view capitalism from the "oppressor-oppressing" class standpoint that a Marxist would view the stages of economy on, but rather the more simple metric of "is there authority in this system?" Also, explain who you think the transition from feudalism to capitalism did and didn't benefit.

3

Fool wrote

On the topic of the rise of Capitalism, you could read The Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand. There's probably better texts, but that should give a start.

Overall Capitalism benefitted the colonisers at the extent of the colonists - initially internal colonisation of Europe before expansion to the rest of the world.

4

Fool wrote (edited )

Another flaw being in assumption a "common" theory, which actually runs contrary to the concept of no authority.

4

fortmis wrote

I would appreciate a more in-depth explanation

Ok! How's this:

"is there authority in this system?"

4

monday wrote

Hot take: there's not communism without decolonization

Now if you want to extra steps and advocate for a socialist state that you endure for a thousand years and suck every rock from this part of the milky way for metals feel free to do so, but expect resistance

6

Bezotcovschina wrote

I think Marxist view on history and socio-economic formations are very dogmatic and eurocentric. If you take a wider view you'll see that things are not that clear. Sure, if we talk about dominating force in the world, then maybe. But still, Marxism is not a science, no matter what marxists tell you, it can't be used to predict an outcome, just observations of the past (and present in the case of Marx himself) and, honestly, unprovable and unfalsified extrapolations.

I don't know how (or if) communism will overthrew capitalism as a dominating force, but I'm certain in that I won't tolerate any dominating force over myself. A revolution, as a radical change of socio-economic relations for the whole society, must have means to impose those changes, creating power structures, making it not desirable from my anarchist perspective. No matter how hard you fantasize about it, you are unable to come up with a realistic view of power-less structure-less mass society. So, for me, it's natural to discard the whole idea of eventually reaching it

6

icypaper OP wrote (edited )

Would you not agree that the more developed capitalist nations take control of the underdeveloped ones through control of their infrastructure? This has been pretty part and parcel throughout capitalist history, and I don't think it is eurocentric to acknowledge that. Please explain your understanding further.

2

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Eurocentric is making theories about past, present and future socio-economic changes based on solely on european history. I don't disagree that dominative capitalist countries seek and do control of "less developed" nations, just pointed out that marxist theory fails in its view on formations changes from the point of, for example, indigenous Australian

5

icypaper OP wrote

While yes, that is true, that same European capitalism is the one that eventually used colonialism to make its system global, and for that reason I feel that the focus you call "Eurocentric" is justified, since that is the system we are currently trying to defeat.

2

fortmis wrote

Justified or not justified, it's extremely shortsighted.

3

icypaper OP wrote (edited )

When you say "shortsighted," what do you intend to do with the analysis of these indigenous societies?

1

fortmis wrote

Live in a reality where that perspective is recognized, for starters.

4

icypaper OP wrote

Yes, but how would this analysis in particular give insight on how to defeat capitalism, the system that did its best to exterminate other forms of economy?

2

fortmis wrote

That's the wrong question. It's my reality, therefore it is inherently part of my analysis.
Your questions are honestly coming across very close minded

3

icypaper OP wrote

After re-reading, I think I understand. Are you saying that you personally are of Indigenous descent and for that reason don't feel like Marxism applies to you?

2

fortmis wrote

No I'm not. Marxism doesn't apply to me because I don't agree with Marx. And eurocentricism is an archaic framework that poses a serious limitation to anyone who adheres to it. I'm not denying the relevancy of Western influence all over the world. I'm saying why would anyone stop there?

Don't worry, you haven't insulted me. I'm not guiding the conversation anywhere in particular... except away from eurocentricism I guess.

2

icypaper OP wrote

I will agree that some of the analysis of Marx and Engels show symptoms of Eurocentrism(particularly in Engel's Origin of the Family and his conclusions on the indigenous people mentioned there).

2

icypaper OP wrote

I admit ignorance as to where you are guiding this conversation, and apologize for any potential insult I made due to that.

2

fortmis wrote

If they admit and understand that the victory of capitalism over feudalism was through the use of a state, why would the victory of communism over capitalism be any different?

Which is why I am an anarchist and not a communist

I might become one.

*See above quote .
You hold the key to your own prison cell matey!!

5

Majrelende wrote (edited )

Primitive communism, class structure

I'm currently reading about something like that in Clastres's *Society Against the State--how "primitive" communist societies prevented class structures from forming by preventing accumulation of power.

In many such societies, the leaders (such as chiefs) cannot accumulate power, because the little power they are granted is on the grounds that they give what they have, when it is asked of them. Thus, accumulation of material wealth cannot be simultaneous with power, which is the origin of class; other people will not follow you unless you are poor.

This is like the supposed oppression of the bourgeoisie: it is a constant destroyer of class structure. If communism is happening, then the people have to "oppress" their leaders, whoever they are, lest even one is tempted to form a class structure.

The ruling class is not a set of people; it is rule, it is synonymous with the state. Whoever leads and oppresses, is said to rule; whoever rules, is the ruling class. Communists must do away with the ruling class; they thus must do away entirely with the concentration of power.

How, then, is communism not anarchism?

Preconditions for anarchy/communism

In the olden days of communism, there was long distance trade, but overall people existed in tightly knit bands or villages. When cities were formed, with kings and priests and so on, these village societies were disrupted and replaced with the city, the first form of mass society wherein you do not know the people around you personally. This trend has only continued through to the present day, as even friendships and family relationships are dissolving, or being commodified, or transferred to public or semi-public relationships through social media.

People despise those who control them. Every schoolchild gets a feeling of excitement when the teacher leaves the room: we are all born wanting not to be oppressed. However, in a mass society where people's lives are ultimately controlled by those they do not personally know, there can be no personal social consequences for being an asshole and accumulating power. And in addition, the powerful (currently, the capitalist class) are thus able to recruit cronies to manage and enforce their system on everyone else, and milk the working classes' labour in the process.

I think the last hope for communism is the gradual collapse of mass society through disasters and destruction of infrastructure caused by global warming, making friends, and taking control of our own lives in our own regions. We should utilize the weakening of the state in order to attack and create partially self-sufficient, free communist village societies. Aiming for anything larger is foolishness, and will lead not to communism but to an evolved form of capitalist tyranny.

3