Anarchy, Monopoly and The Market for Communism
An edited version of a Facebook conversation…
the Critic:
“One issue I have with anarchist communists is their failure to reflect on the de facto power they can end up having, and their ability, by power of majority rule to start imposing on others. If you start producing economic networks of producers and consumers you start having power over others that can override their own autonomy by issuing pressure on them to conform to your standards. Not much opposition to that because again, free association. But if your little commune has a local monopoly, that’s a lot of power over others.”
the Anarchist Communist:
Communes are not mere geopolitical regions - they are economic networks of producers and consumers and they can exist in and outside geopolitical regions… Free association is the freedom to NOT associate with people you don’t want to associate with and the freedom TO associate with people you DO WANT to associate with… Show one example where a ‘monopoly’ held by anarcho-communists has any power to oppress someone into ‘conforming to [our] standards’.
the Agorist:
Share ThisThis would seem to be an instance in which a strict ‘free market’ analysis supports the anarchist communist position (as I understand the anarchist communist position, anyway).
That is, a ‘monopoly’ that arises and is maintained by strictly voluntary / non-invasive means can only be such if it is excelling at ‘customer’ (stakeholder in this case) satisfaction. Strictly speaking, it’s not really a ‘monopoly’ if there is no force-backed grant of state privilege.
Assuming you’re not anti-organization or anti-civ, there are going to be discrete particular groups that do different things in the production and distribution processes. An economist would call these groups ‘firms’ (regardless of how horizontalist they are internally or the matter of whether they relate to other firms via gifting or via conventional exchange).
The concern we’re replying to, as I understand it, is that a ‘monopoly’ in the colloquial sense of ‘the only X firm in town’ could be abusive in the sense of throwing its weight around without actually committing a direct act of aggression.
The word ‘anarchist’ in ‘anarchist communism’ indicates people would be free to start another X firm if they didn’t like the existing one. And, well (and I apologize if this sounds like nails on a chalkboard to communist ears) that’s ‘open competition’. That is, the nominal ‘monopoly’ in the colloqial sense is not a true monopoly if there is no state backed privilege discouraging or prohibiting competitors from arising. If the option is there to compete and nobody is making use of it (and assuming the ‘monopoly’ isn’t unjustly state subsidized or something like that), then it can only be in that ‘monopoly’ status if it’s doing a very good job of satisfying human desires.”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brad Spangler and Punk Johnny Cash, Robot J. McCarthy. Robot J. McCarthy said: "Stalin's Return" RT @bradspangler Anarchy, Monopoly and the Market for Communism | http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1485 #anarchism [...]
I would say there isn’t a particular brand of anarchism that can work as a sure safety valve against statism (oppression by rich individuals?), while another would be dangerously close to it. Any anarchist rejects oppression, that is the safety valve. There shouldn’t be any talk of who’s a real anarchist or not, because in the end you won’t be stirred away from statism by appeals to opposite brands of anarchism, but rather by appeals to principles you already hold. I hear the non-oppression/tyranny principle is fairly consensual among anarchists, and therefore I do not spend my time accusing Alan and Tom of not adopting my own brand. Just leave me (and my community) alone and we’ll be fine.