This isn’t terrible, but it’s important to be aware that the class analysis and definition of capitalism in this is nonsense. The capitalist class is not just “rich people” and the working class is not just “poor people.” Capitalism is not defined by…whatever this attempts to define it by. Capital is the power to prioritize the allocation of resources and labor.
Capitalism stands for the idea that the purpose of all value, surplus and base really, of production is to increase the capital of the holders of capital. That is it. It is the worship of allocative power solely for the sake of allocative power. And that’s why it inevitably degenerates into fascism–the worship of power solely for the sake of power.
All class dynamics must oriented themselves within the structure of that allocative power analysis. The capitalist class is not “rich” people, or at least not definitionally, and the working class is not poor people. The capitalist class are those who derive increase to their allocative power primarily from the direction of capital under the capitalist system. On the flip side, working class is anyone who increases their own allocative power primarily through the application of their own labor. The vague vibes based class analysis in this would effectively place servers (like, at a restaurant) as bourgeoisie capitalist-class/adjacent just like doctors, lawyers, programmers, and the like. I think it’s clear why that maybe feels like complete bullshit to most peeps.
He’s very much aware of what capitalism is and clearly doesn’t just believe it to be “rich people”. What nonsense.
But it is not only the worker and the farmer who are exploited and forced to give up the greater part of their product to the capitalists, to those who have monopolized the land, the railroads, the factories, the machinery, and all natural resources. The entire country, the whole world is made to pay tribute to the kings of finance and industry.
The small business man depends on the wholesaler; the wholesaler on the manufacturer; the manufacturer on the trust magnates of his industry; and all of them on the money lords and banks for their credit. The big bankers and financiers can put any man out of business by just withdrawing their credit from him. They do so whenever they want to squeeze any one out of business. The business man is entirely at their mercy. If he does not play the game as they want it, to suit their interests, then they simply drive him out of the game.
Thus the whole of mankind is dependent upon and enslaved by just a handful of men who have monopolized almost the entire wealth of the world, but who have themselves never created anything.
He literally says the bourgeoisie, namely doctors, lawyers, and the like, are, in their interests, aligned with the capitalist class if not altogether a part of it. And even the parts you quote are hard to parse as they are both focused on the outputs of production rather than the allocative power leading to production but also touch upon the problem of how our overly financialized economies obfuscate the allocative power issue. At the same time, when he says shit like “the business man is entirely at [the big bankers financiers] mercy” it makes me think we are not on the same page here, unless his definition of business man is not the investor class–absolutely capitalist class–business man I use.
Anarcho communists welcome you. We hate all nation states equally. Unfortunately there aren’t enough of us to brigade anything.
For anyone who wishes to know more Now And After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism was written to explain anarcho-communism in plain, easily understood, language.
It begins by explaining the current capitalist system (now) and then goes on to explain anarchism (after).
It is available to read or download in multiple formats, for free, here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism#toc2
This isn’t terrible, but it’s important to be aware that the class analysis and definition of capitalism in this is nonsense. The capitalist class is not just “rich people” and the working class is not just “poor people.” Capitalism is not defined by…whatever this attempts to define it by. Capital is the power to prioritize the allocation of resources and labor.
Capitalism stands for the idea that the purpose of all value, surplus and base really, of production is to increase the capital of the holders of capital. That is it. It is the worship of allocative power solely for the sake of allocative power. And that’s why it inevitably degenerates into fascism–the worship of power solely for the sake of power.
All class dynamics must oriented themselves within the structure of that allocative power analysis. The capitalist class is not “rich” people, or at least not definitionally, and the working class is not poor people. The capitalist class are those who derive increase to their allocative power primarily from the direction of capital under the capitalist system. On the flip side, working class is anyone who increases their own allocative power primarily through the application of their own labor. The vague vibes based class analysis in this would effectively place servers (like, at a restaurant) as bourgeoisie capitalist-class/adjacent just like doctors, lawyers, programmers, and the like. I think it’s clear why that maybe feels like complete bullshit to most peeps.
Did you read a different book?..
He’s very much aware of what capitalism is and clearly doesn’t just believe it to be “rich people”. What nonsense.
He literally says the bourgeoisie, namely doctors, lawyers, and the like, are, in their interests, aligned with the capitalist class if not altogether a part of it. And even the parts you quote are hard to parse as they are both focused on the outputs of production rather than the allocative power leading to production but also touch upon the problem of how our overly financialized economies obfuscate the allocative power issue. At the same time, when he says shit like “the business man is entirely at [the big bankers financiers] mercy” it makes me think we are not on the same page here, unless his definition of business man is not the investor class–absolutely capitalist class–business man I use.
It’s almost as if anarcho communism isn’t based upon Marxist definitions…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies#Anarchist_communism
I can understand hating all nation states, but hating them equally? Couldn’t be me.
there are dozens of us!
I feel like things would get awkward after the revolution.