Тег: Capitalism

People’s Self-Defense, platform review

Lately in Russia, it has become very simple to understand who possesses political agency. They are the ones the state fights against. If the state is not fighting someone, it means they are either completely under control or staying out of sight: the Russian state seems to have completely forgotten how to tolerate those who conduct noticeable independent activities.

By this criterion, it is difficult to deny political agency to the Russian anarcho-communists of Narodnaya Samoborona: they are actively persecuted, and most of their activities are forced to take place under the mask of anonymity, but if anyone is caught, it is almost always criminal charges, torture, and other trash.

I tried to examine their platform to understand how promising these guys are as allies and how dangerous they are as enemies. On the movement’s website, it is presented as a rather voluminous text. It consists of four parts; I will go through them.

Part 1. How the world is structured. Global division of labor

This section describes how ancoms view the modern world order and its main problems. It discusses the division of labor between countries: raw material providers, industrial nations, sources of labor migrants — and the post-industrial peak of the food chain, for which all the above categories of countries toil. It is pointed out that as wealth grows in industrial countries, production must be moved to places where cheap labor still exists. It is also mentioned that the social democracy of first-world countries is a fragile compromise between power and society, maintained only through the exploitation of the rest of the world. Countries that generate problems, according to the author, fight to raise their status within this system, rather than to change the system itself. Finally, it is explained that escaping the system within a single country is impossible, because isolation from the world economy condemns a country to barbarism and poverty.

I will note that the description is generally quite correct, while the analysis is conducted in terms of almost Marxism; and although the growth of welfare in developing countries is noted, the beneficial role of the market is ignored, as is the fact that the described distribution of countries according to their place in the global division of labor correlates best with the level of economic freedom in those countries.

Part 2. Capitalism and the state

This section provides a historical overview of the emergence of modern types of states, stating that modern states are a product of capitalism. It discusses the growth of inequality and globalization as a logical result of the functioning of capitalism. Examples are used to explain that the state is not required for the self-organization of society, but is needed only to legitimize plunder. It is stated that all forms of state organization fail to fully account for the interests of people, and therefore there is no need to try to improve the state; it must be abolished. It also discusses the dangers of new platform-type businesses, which, in exchange for their services, place a person in a serious state of dependence on them.

I will note that the historical analysis overlooks the fact that capitalism appeared not thanks to, but despite the state: the old aristocracy was quite satisfied with total stability, and only the military efficiency of capitalism forced the state to make concessions and restructure. I also consider it important to mention that the basis of capitalism is not so much wage labor as the possibility of replacing labor with capital — it is this that increases labor productivity and, subsequently, its price.

Part 3. The new society

This section describes a wonderful humanity of the future, representing a federation of direct-democracy poleis — something like the Athenian League from Themistocles to Pericles, but without a hegemon polis, and with robots instead of slaves. Instead of the market, decentralized planning should be the basis of the economy, with the collection of requests from consumers and their aggregation in automated production management systems. The problem of corruption in management and distribution is solved by frequent rotation, full involvement of citizens in the process, and where possible, the replacement of elections for positions with a lottery. To simplify distribution, comprehensive prosumerization is envisioned, where people use 3D printers and similar tools rather than ordering a finished product. Money and private property are abolished.

I will note that the author is clearly more familiar with history than with economic theory, and perhaps his views on planning will change somewhat after becoming acquainted with the impossibility theorem of economic calculation under socialism. Also completely overlooked is the factor of the lack of natural motivation for innovations, and especially for their implementation, within a planned economy. Finally, it would be good to understand to what extent the factor of the tyranny of the majority is overcome in the new society, when direct democracy tramples human freedom, forcing the individual to submit to the collective on issues that do not actually directly concern the collective. These aspects are not analyzed in the text at all.

Part 4. Achieving the new society

In the final and most extensive part, the methods for building a new society are discussed. It is stated that one should not search for a permanent revolutionary class; instead, it is more important to find those with whom there is a commonality of interests. The possibility of reforming the system is categorically denied, and the necessity of its collapse is postulated. Direct action is recognized as the best way to accustom people to anarchist doctrine — the transmission of the practice of self-organization to solve various tasks through direct experience and personal example. It is pointed out that although social revolution is the only possible way to transition to a new society, it is fraught with the emergence of a revolutionary dictatorship, through which the state inevitably revives. It is also shown that early ancom societies will be forced during the transition period to operate within the global market economy — which, in turn, can easily turn any cooperative into an ordinary capitalist enterprise; therefore, once started, one must not stop but finish off capitalism worldwide.

The prospects for Russia to become the flagship of the transition to a new society are seen by the author as extremely low, so a long period of underground activity with a gradual growth of the activist network is predicted. It is stated that it is important to create not large leadership structures, but a network of small groups with maximum participant involvement and an emphasis on passing experience from veterans to neophytes. The author suggests approaching violent actions with extreme caution, as they can both inspire supporters and lead to the destruction of cells and even networks due to the reaction of the state security apparatus. Pro-state paramilitaries are indicated as a suitable target for training and demonstrating combat capabilities, as the state will not step in for them. Finally, advice on conspiracy and psychological preparation is given.

The section ends with an ellipsis: the author lists many dangers, points out that none of the previously practiced paths is capable of leading to victory on its own, and that the movement will remain marginal for a long time.

I really liked this chapter, where the author finally moves from the shaky ground of theory to things he clearly understands well and weighs all dangers quite soberly.

Summary

For me, it was important to understand what these ancoms hate more: the state or private property. If it is the former, then we are on the same path for now. If the latter, then it is better to leave them to themselves and not touch them first, while being ready to respond harshly to violence. Fortunately, it seems there is more common sense in them than outdated political-economic ideas, and the obvious bandit that the state is appears to them as a more priority target than well-meaning but mistaken guys like us, the ancaps: they are nonetheless more ready to persuade us than to kill us.

Therefore, I would like to suggest the unknown author of the text discussed above, or any other sufficiently authoritative ancom, to return the favor and analyze the libertarian platform for strengths and weaknesses, inconsistencies, prospects for alliance, and so on. As a basis for analysis, I suggest using the text on libertarianism from the Libertarian Party website — it is detailed enough, yet relatively compact, and has the advantage of being a more or less official document, which my articles, for example, are not.

And after both sides are convinced that there is a minimum understanding between them, it will be possible to consider the possibilities for cooperation.

How does capitalism work under conditions of full or nearly full automation of labor?

анонимный вопрос

The difference between an enterprise with automated and non-automated labor can be easily illustrated using the example of a kitchen. You could hire a cook, pay her pennies, and she would prepare whatever your heart desires and go to the market for groceries herself. Or you could buy a refrigerator, a microwave, and stock up on semi-finished products yourself. Such dining could be cheaper or more expensive than having a cook, but the hired employee is removed from the equation, along with all the baggage in their head, the need to rely on their conscientiousness, and the requirement to pay them regardless of whether you eat at home or at a restaurant today.

Labor automation does not even save so much as money (although in the long run, of course, it does). The main thing is that it saves nerves. An entrepreneur always strives to reduce their risks. Making the success of one’s activity dependent on someone’s goodwill is always a risk. Today the employee works hard, tomorrow they take sick leave, or bury a grandmother, or strike, or quit—and plans must be adjusted. Therefore, investing more capital to rely less on labor is always a great temptation, even if the monetary gain is relatively small.

In general, capitalism works magnificently under conditions of full or nearly full replacement of labor by capital. However, under conditions where labor is hardly automated, it always tends to degenerate into something paternalistic. One should seemingly think in terms of costs and profits, but is forced to think in terms of social responsibility. Therefore, mass manual production inevitably gives rise to various socialist or feudal practices, whereas automated production can be easily reduced to purely market relations.

I could gaze at it for a century! Only two supervisors for the robots, absolute beauty!

Your attitude towards FNB (Food Not Bombs)? Is it not shameful for a libertarian to participate in such a movement, given that it is anti-capitalist, yet the members of this movement engage in charity?

анонимный вопрос

As I understand it, the movement’s activity consists of volunteers recovering food from supermarkets, wholesale warehouses, and establishments—food that ended up there due to capitalism and is about to be thrown away because otherwise it would not comply with state-established shelf-life regulations—then they cook it and distribute it to the hungry, thereby expressing their disapproval of the government’s budget spending priorities.

At the same time, it ignores the fact that under socialism, the food that in this case rots in trash bins would have rotted back in the fields or at vegetable depots, as well as the fact that socialist regimes usually spent a much higher percentage of their money on bombs than on social welfare, compared to more or less democratic capitalist states.

This behavior is somewhat similar to that of a lady who, preparing to accompany a gentleman through a disadvantaged neighborhood, persuades him to leave his weapon at home and bring some food along to feed the poor. But, for the sake of fairness, let us note that, within our analogy, the neighborhood became disadvantaged largely due to the gentleman’s activities. So, on one hand, the lady’s reproaches are justified, but on the other, the behavior appears quite infantile.

But, however incorrect the rhetoric of the movement’s activists may seem to me, it is completely non-violent and is a form of moral pressure. Moreover, I suspect many participate in it not because of their anti-capitalist beliefs, but solely out of philanthropy, or to promote veganism, or because they went hungry in childhood and find it unbearable to see food thrown into the garbage—there could be many reasons to organize a distribution of homemade food on the street!

How would I personally react to finding some libertarian acquaintance in the ranks of FNB? I would be interested and ask about the people surrounding them there, the people who come for free food, how they manage to find a common language with food suppliers, whether there are problems with the state, and so on. This is an excellent practical exercise in private charity, without which pure ancap would be a rather harsh living environment, so at the current stage, familiarity with it would be useful for anyone. And switching a thinking person from anti-capitalist rhetoric to anti-statist rhetoric is not such a difficult task.

Also, they have a mischievous emblem, although for Russia I would suggest drawing a horseradish root instead of a carrot

Was there capitalism in Russia in the nineties?

анонимный вопрос

I remember defining capitalism as a social arrangement in which the dominant form of relations between people is commodity-money relations. A more classical definition, which was common in the Soviet Union, states that capitalism is a social arrangement in which the means of production are privately owned. It is quite obvious that in the nineties in Russia, there was no pure capitalism according to either of these definitions, but rather a transitional form of society, where old socialist (or despotic, in my understanding) relations were dying out, and capitalist ones were replacing them (as for the features of feudalism in the “sovok,” they did not disappear under the new order and have persisted to this day).

However, it must be remembered that, generally speaking, the term “capitalism” is more journalistic than scientific; therefore, when speaking about the existence of capitalism in a certain country at a certain time, we are speaking more about the society’s correspondence to certain values at that time. That is, capitalism rather in the sense of Weber (the spirit of capitalism as rationality and the Protestant work ethic) or Schumpeter (the spirit of capitalism as entrepreneurship and creative destruction).

Now, in the Russia of the nineties of the last century, the spirit of capitalism according to Schumpeter was present in abundance. It was a time of enormous opportunities and that very creative destruction. As for the spirit of capitalism according to Weber, it was nowhere to be found. What work ethic? Man is a wolf to man; if you want to survive, you have to know how to hustle. Capital was created primarily by plundering the Soviet legacy, by that same creative destruction, and by the ability to adapt the fragments of the old to new conditions better than others, rather than by the capacity for hard work, painstaking saving, and careful investing.

If the term “capitalism” was invented by the left, isn’t the attempt to rehabilitate this word and use it in a positive context playing by their rules?

(as far as I know, this term was first used by Louis Blanc, a French socialist, in a negative context, contrasting it with socialism)

анонимный вопрос

The ways of memes are unfathomable… The opposition of “capitalism-socialism” seemingly reflects quite accurately the opposition of big money to big battalions, which is why it took hold.

I personally try not to use the word capitalism in its pure form, because if you add the tomato juice of anarchism to this vodka, it becomes much tastier, and the name of the cocktail sounds less vulgar. But it just so happens that phrases like market anarchism or free-market anarchism turn out to be longer and clumsier than a simple ancap.

In principle, this is not the only term that started as a derogatory label and later acquired a certain academicism and moral neutrality (for example, minarchism), and conversely, many words started as something bright and beautiful, but are now used as nothing other than insults, and decent people try to distance themselves from such associations (I am referring primarily to liberals, who in the US are currently synonymous with the word socialists, and in Russia synonymous with the word social Darwinists).

The best thing one can do, wishing to treat language as carefully as possible, is to use fewer value judgments. For instance, Svetov is currently actively trying to revive the half-forgotten word nomenklatura, which for me, a representative of the first non-Soviet generation, is a term more from warehouse accounting. Why spoil words? There is the wonderful word official, which is far clearer than some nomenklatura, and means exactly the same thing. Fine, this is already nitpicking and a matter of taste; I am giving it simply as an illustration of the fact that you cannot please everyone.

So overall, I agree with your thesis that established connotations must be taken into account, but it is not absolutely necessary to follow them in everything, or even more so to break them on principle solely on the grounds that opponents once invented this rule.

There is a certain reckless cynicism in portraying the monster that others see in you…

What objective disadvantages does capitalism have?

анонимный вопрос

I don’t remember if I have provided definitions before, but they are indispensable.

Capitalism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are commodity-money relations.

And, while I’m at it, I’ll define a few more imaginary entities.

Feudalism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are personal mutual obligations.

Despotism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are relations of direct violent coercion.

And, of course, we can’t forget: communism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are relations of gifting.

Accordingly, criticisms of one system or another are based on its essence. Capitalism is criticized because under it everything is for sale and everything can be bought. Feudalism — because loyalty is more important than competence. Despotism — for terribly low labor productivity and enormous management costs. Communism — for the free-rider problem.

Therefore, to eliminate the objective shortcomings of capitalism, where it is more convenient for people, they easily borrow elements of other human formations. Do we have a closed economy and an unfriendly external environment? We borrow elements of feudalism. My property has been damaged, the responsible party has been identified, but they refuse to pay? Despotism is just what the doctor ordered. Do we have a family? Welcome to communism.

The main thing to remember is that all these social formations are simply conceptual constructs, while in reality there are many unique individual contacts between people, in each of which every participant pursues their own goals and uses their own means.

Uncle Scrooge is not only Scrooge, but also “uncle”