What is Ontological Oppression by Merricat 

Ontology is the study of the nature of being, becoming, and existence.
How do you see in the mirror? What do you see? Who do you see? Why?

When you were born, you had no self-awareness. You had to experiment— feel, touch, smell, learn, and most importantly, live pain and pleasure.
Eventually you came to know the ecology of your senses, as your self; your fingers, your body odor, your voice, or lack thereof. Your identity is born.
And once you begin to utilize and recognize these tools of living, you recognize those same traits in others.


The contrast is made immediately. There was never an escape, and there was never a pretense. This contrast extrapolates into every situation you experience with Others (and other Things) until your death, even with a weak sense of self.

Whether you exist or not was never a question, and may never become one for many, even through decades of experimentation.
Nevertheless, Others have often already decided for you:

“Are a boy, or a girl?”
“Are you a human?”

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, Spanish Renaissancehumanist, philosopher, theologian, and proponent of colonial slavery.

Many individuals have decided that Others are less than human: from ancient Grecian speciations of Georgian peoples by Hippocrates, to Amerika’s withholding of humanist ethics from African peoples by founder Thomas Jefferson, to Nazi Germany’s mimicry of Amerikan pogroms— this time aimed at both Blacks, Jews, and Afrikan Jews.

Whenever this individual has enough social clout by ancient standards, those views were adopted and enforced by the populous. In effect, they embody a passive form of the pogrom, ready to marginalize, exile, or kill.

The recurring theme from an international perspective is a hierarchy created in which Europeans were viewed as most human, or to be exempt from slavery upon some pseudoscientific natural right. These Europeans, who would continue to develop these theories into the ideology of white supremacy, would eventually refer to themselves as collectively white. This hierarchy, not materially different from its predecessor as much as it is rhetorical, would be reproduced throughout the world as Europeans raced to colonize every non-European society they could. In time, colorism becomes a function of colonies as an ideological characteristic of European imperialism, not so different from Confuscian ideological tenets being forcefully injected into Vietnam by the Han Chinese. In turn, global anti-blackness becomes the impetus of all ontological hierarchy.

But who were Africans by the time Europeans had sunk their fingers in the World?

Chattel. Property. Colonized.

More like apes than human. More like a fixed capital, than human. In summary, non-human.

The effects of European ideology “white supremacy” and their invasive imperialism became apparent in all aspects of life, from sugar cane fields in Waitikubuli (Dominica) to Eastern perspective on Africa.

This was all enforced without consent of any of the mothers, fathers, agendered adults and children, grandparents, who would permanently lose their cultures and connections to home, and in the future, the idea of what a home could mean in a society you are allowed to know.

The aforementioned process of losing one’s humanity is known as social death, a horrendous process that has permanently affected Black peoples more than any population of people on Earth; at the precise moment Africans began being dragged through the Middle Passage, or even earlier during the Arab slave trade (≈500 AD) as subhumans across continents, to India and to China, they were never allowed to return to their ethnicities, or to be Africans. They became Blacks. They became a subhuman Other, or subaltern. This is the unique case of Blackness, one that has never been addressed by any of the participants of chattel slavery— including the Church.

In the process, of becoming chattel and Blacks, Africans were stripped of their families, permanently separated from people who they could continue speaking to using their tribe’s language, or relate to spiritually. This continued on, and on, and on, millions forced to adapt to their new surroundings, new families, only to lose them again. This happened for centuries upon centuries, ten fold.

Eventually, most had no choice but to be Black, to forget or abandon most if not all of their identities, and to adopt the identity imposed on them. No longer could they reject this identity, for there was no other to claim.

“The ontology of slavery is the [extent] of the Black.” — Frank B. Wilderson III

The pre-Columbian period, the late Middle Ages, reveals no archive of debate on the questions of what to do with the ontologocal effects of slavery, as they might be related to that massive group of black-skinned people south of the Sahara.

Elmina Castle; oldest European building in existence south of the Sahara; ne of the most important stops on the route of the Atlantic slave trade

No one asked: Should they have social death forced on them, as opposed to physical death (i.e. executions)? Should this form of chattel slavery be imposed on the internal poor, en masse? Should the scale of White slavery become industrial? Should the children of the White slave be enslaved as well?

This chattel slavery became unique to Black people in that we were offered no conditionals whatsoever, and neither was any progeny of ours. Suddenly, children were born Black, and had to be told they were slaves by any slave who had a modicum of dignity. Even with dignity, slaves existed without knowing what slavery meant. Black became synonynous with slavery and social death, an existence soon recognized and exploited by white Humans and non-Blacks with greater Human proximity (eg even Seminoles natives exclaimed they would not be made Black) . It was a genetic and ontological remaking of an entire population of peoples resulting in conditions such as permanent placelessness and cultural appropriation — in which Afrikan indigenous cultures that are still maintained by the Afrikan diaspora can be accused of appropriation of non-Black culture by those who use ideas such as sovereignty to further Black ontological genocide. And of course, the effect these accusations have is always of greater, more “positive” response than any accusations of cultural appropriation by Black peoples, which is always questioned and critiqued and given a less authentic merit.

Chattel slavery did not only completely recreate the existence of Africans, itself. It also created a current definition of what it means to be Human.

At all walks life, working class or bourgeoisie, Black people continue to face this ontologocal erosion that allows them to be discriminated against regardless of how much money they claim, or land they “own”.

Author David Eltis asserts in his book (Europeans and the Rise and Fall of African Slavery) that European society’s decision to not capture slaves from Europe’s own territory was a “bad business idea.” Eltis writes:

“No Western European power after the Middle Ages crosses the basic divide separating European workers from chattel slavery. And while serfdom fell and rose in different parts of early modern Europe and shared characteristics with slavery, serfs were not outsiders either before or after enserfment. The phrase ‘long distance serf trade’ is an oxymoron.”

According to Eltis, population growth patterns in Europe during the 1300s, 1400s, and 1500s heavily outpaced growth patterns on the continent of Africa, demonstrating chattel slavery’s devastating effects on Africa’s growth patterns. In fact, Europe was heavily populated enough to easily provide 50,000 White slaves a year to the “New World” without serious disruption of either international peace or existing social institutions that supervised potential European victims, even stating that class warfare could have been been unlikely due to lower labor costs, a faster development of the Americas, and higher exports and income levels on both sides of the Atlantic. He explains in great detail how the costs of enslavement would have been driven way down if Europeans had taken White slaves to America instead of Black slaves from Africa, noting

“shipping costs… comprised by far the greater part of the price of any form of imported bonded labor in the Americas. I we take into account the time spent collecting a slave cargo on the African coast as well, then the case for sailing directly from Europe with a cargo of [Whites] appears stronger again.”

To Eltis, the decision to capture slaves from Africa was nothing more than symbolic. White chattel slavery would have destroyed the value of consent and social contract amongst those of the “white race” that were strictly reserved for the convict, beggar, indentured servant, or child. Even under heavy coercion during the Middle Ages and late modern period, “the power of the state over [convicts in the Old World] and the power of the master over [convicts of the New World] was more [defined] than that of the slave owner over the slave.” (Eltis) Karl Marx also takes note of the unnecessary political costs to civil society, had Europeans been willing to enslave Whites (Capital, 895–896), implying there must have been more to the decision.

However, according to afro-pessimist theorist Frank B. Wilderson III (Red, White, and Black) claims slavery is symbolic by refuting two misunderstandings:

He states that work, or alienation and exploitation, is not a constituent element of slavery, and that profits are not the most important motivations in slavery .

If slavery is “the permanent, violent domination of… alienated and generally dishonored persons,” (Orlando Patterson), then the basic characteristics of slavery “are accumulation and fungibility.” (Wilderson)

This is a much more accurate definition, as it still describes all the elements necessary to create a slave, regardless of race or ethnicity. But it also implies that Black people, at least in Amerika, are still slaves.

“The ontology of slavery is the [extent] of the Black.” — Frank B. Wilderson III

Ontological oppression is sad, and it is also materially oppressive.

Plantation Layout Slave Quarters

Even with the whips, the manual plantations, and Harriet Tubman out of the picture, there still exists a fungibility in Black existence that maintains an ontological hold over Blackness; Black people are still moved around and generally treated as fixed capital itself:

— through gentrification and natural disaster, not allowed to move back home until the individual or group of individuals has already forgotten that it is their home but lost.

— through constant cultural appropriating with little to no respect for Black consent, as if the culture is being produced for all to rape and distort until it is Black culture no more

— through mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex that capitalizes on low to no-wage labor of prisoners who, much of the time, are in jail for crimes that are no longer criminal (eg possession of marijuana)

—through underdevelopment which leads to widespread illness (mental and physical), famine, and the magnification of damage done by natural disasters that leas to further privatization of underdeveloped lands by its neocolonial predators

etcetera, because all these forms of exploitation are only possible in Amerika and Europe due to the chattel slavery of Afrikan Blacks. The same social death that inspired Amerika through all its stages of development and earlier would become the same to use against Jews in Nazi Germany, albeit without lasting ontological social death post World War II. We are left to our plantations and social death as a sort of anti-Human antimatter.

Wismin Wright carries her belongings out of her damaged home on September 23, 2017 Wesley Village, Dominica

Even now, as “post-racial”, or “post-human”, views of political society take hold over the minds of so called “people of color”, anti-blackness reproduces itself why ignoring the critiques of Black society left without an ontology that can be their own. No longer is it possible for us to go back to a Africa, for even there we are viewed as cultureless. And it ia humanly impossible to existwithout such an identity. And while cultures we produce are constantly raped and pillaged by non-Black people, in spite of our collective desire for that culture to not be warped into what is essentially a mess, we end up again as a chattel of culture or caricatures for what is essentially Amerikan imperialism, where eventually rappers can exist everywhere and suddenly everyone can say “nigga”. The word is no longer coded, because our ontology never existed — because our consent, as Blacks, never existed:

What are we other than Blacks?

What are Blacks, other than…

The Black has become a bleak reality, because it is now our ontology — the Black state of being. Like the blues, it will always carry with it the weight of ancestral trauma growing heavy in time under capitalism and the ideology of white supremacy that made mules of Blackness for all, but Blacks, to benefit from in any way they see fit in the future.

What this means is that anti-Blackness can now flourish proper within any economic system, Left or Right. Ontological oppression, then, is a tool used to create a sort of platform that all societies, except the utopian, can thrive on — a widely untouched hegemonyoutside of the Black community.

“Without this gratuitous violence, the so-called great emancipatory discourses of modernity— Marxism, feminism, postcolonialism, sexual liberation, and the ecology movement— political discourses [relying on modes/grammars of suffering], and their [theories] of exploitation and alienation, might not have developed.” — Frank B. Wilderson III

The implications of this truth only mean that the complete destruction of what the European Human deems “civilization”, ideologically and materially, is the only way to end an anti-Blackness that even the dichotomous Left versus Right is built on (by white people who benefitted frlm white supremacy and continue to today).

Until this hegemony is rendered obsolete and replaced with a true New Humanism or Humanism is done away with completely, it will continue to be so.


What is anarchist communism part one (the contradictory meaning of communism)

There was a vision, called “communism,” which was held by Kropotkin and other anarchist-communists in the 19th and early 20th century. Marx and Engels shared essentially the same goal. In the stateless, classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs.

But during the Cold War, “communism” came to mean something entirely different. Great nations were ruled by self-named Communist Parties. Their economies were managed by totalitarian states, their powerless workers produced commodities sold on the internal and international market, and they worked for wages (that is, they sold their labor power as commodities to their bosses).

In that era, “Communists” were mostly people who supported those types of state-capitalist tyrannies. They included pro-Moscow Communist Parties, Maoists, other Stalinists, and most Trotskyists. They called themselves “Communists,” and so did most of their opponents. On the other hand, “anti-Communists” were not simply those who opposed such regimes but those who supported Western imperialism — a group ranging from liberals to deranged fascists. At the same time, the pro-Moscow types denounced libertarian socialists as “anti-Communist” as well as “anti-Soviet.” Some people took to calling themselves “anti-anti-Communists,” as a way of saying that they did not endorse the Communists but were against the McCarthyite witchhunt.

Now we are in a new period. The Soviet Union has collapsed, with its ruling Communist Party. True, such states still exist, with modifications, in China, Cuba, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, they inspire many people. But overall, the number and weight of Communist Parties have diminished.. In contrast, there has been an upswing in the number of people who identify with anarchism, with its mainstream in the anarchist-communist tradition. Other people remain impressed by Marx, but look to libertarian and humanistic interpretations of his work. How then shall we use the term “communism” today? Is its meaning the same as in earlier periods? I will review the history of the term and of its meanings.

While calling themselves “socialists,” the founders of the anarchist movement, Proudhon and Bakunin, denounced “communism.” A typical statement by Proudhon is that communism is a “dictatorial, authoritarian, doctrinaire system [which] starts from the axiom that the individual is subordinate…to the collectivity; the citizen belongs to the State …” (quoted in Buber, 1958; pp. 30–31). Bakunin wrote, “I detest communism because it is the negation of liberty….I am not a communist because communism… necessarily ends with the concentration of property in the hands of the state” (quoted in Leier, 2006; p. 191). Proudhon called himself a “mutualist;” Bakunin, a “collectivist.”

If we think of a monastery, or of an army (where the soldiers are all given their food, clothing, and shelter), it is easy to see how “communism” (of a sort) can be imagined as inconsistent with democracy, freedom, and equality. In his early writings, Marx denounced the program of “crude communism” in which “the community is only a community of work and of equality of wages paid out by…the community as universal capitalist” (Marx, 1961; pp. 125–126). However, Marx and Engels did call themselves communists, a term they preferred to the vaguer “socialist,” although they used this also. (They especially disliked the term “social democratic,” used by the German Marxists.)

Marx’s concept of communism is most clearly explained in his “Critique of the Gotha Program.” Communism would be “the cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production…” (Marx, 1974; p. 345). In “the first phase of communist society,” (p. 347) there will remain scarcity and the need for labor. “We are dealing here with a communist society…as it emerges from capitalist society…still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society…” (p. 346). In this lower phase of communism, Marx speculated, individuals would get certificates stating how much labor they had contributed (minus an amount taken for the common fund). Using their certificates, they can take means of consumption which used up the same amount of labor; this is not money because it cannot be accumulated. However, it is still a system of bourgeois rights and equality, in which equal units of labor are exchanged. Given that people have unequal abilities and unequal needs, this equality still results in a certain degree of inequality.

Marx trumpeted, “In a more advanced stage of communist society, when the enslaving subjugation of individuals to the division of labor, and thereby the antithesis between intellectual and physical labor, have disappeared; when labor is no longer just a means of keeping alive but has itself become a vital need; when the all-around development of individuals has also increased their productive powers and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can society wholly cross the narrow horizon of bourgeois right and inscribe on its banner: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” (p. 347)

(For reasons known only to himself, Lenin re-labeled Marx’s “first phase of communist society” as socialism, and the “more advanced stage of communist society” as communism. Most of the left has followed this confusing usage.)

Despite his rejection of the term communism, Bakunin also advocated a two-phase development of the post-revolution economy, according to his close friend James Guillame. Guillame wrote an essay in 1874, summarizing Bakunin’s views. “We should…be guided by the principle, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities….In the meantime, each community will decide for itself during the transition period the method they deem best for the distribution of the products of associated labor.” (in Bakunin, 1980; p. 361–362) He mentions various alternate systems of remuneration for the transitional period; “…systems will be experimented with to see how they work out” (p. 361).

Today’s proposals for Parecon (“participatory economics”), in which workers are rewarded for the intensity and duration of their labor in a cooperative economy, would fit into Bakunin’s or Marx’s concept of a transitory, beginning, phase, of a free society. But unlike the Pareconists, Marx and Bakunin recognized that this was still limited. For both Marx and Bakunin, then, full communism requires a very high level of productivity and potential prosperity, a post-scarcity economy, when there is plenty of leisure time for people to participate in decision-making, at work and in the community, ending the distinction between order-givers and order-takers. However, neither Marx nor Bakunin described a social mechanism for moving from one phase to the other.

Kropotkin rejected the two-phase approach of the Marxists and the anarchist-collectivists. Instead he proposed that a revolutionary society should “transform itself immediately into a communist society,” (1975; p. 98), that is, should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism. Kropotkin and those who agreed with him called themselves “anarchist-communists” (or “communist anarchists”), although they continued to regard themselves as a part of the broader socialist movement.

It was not possible, Kropotkin argued, to organize an economy partially on capitalist principles and partly on communist principles. To award producers differentially by how much training they have had, or even by how hard they work, would recreate class divisions and the need for a state to oversee everything. Nor is it really possible to decide how much individuals have contributed to a complex, cooperative, system of production, in order to reward them according to their labor.

Instead, Kropotkin proposed that a large city, during a revolution, “could organize itself on the lines of free communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food, and clothing…in exchange for…five hour’s work; and…all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by everyone if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations….” (p.p. 118–119) This would require the integration of agricultural with industrial work, and physical with mental labor. There remained an element of coercion in Kropotkin’s proposal. Presumably able-bodied adults who would not contribute five hours of work would not get the “guaranteed” minimum.

Anarchist-communism came to predominate among anarchists, so that it became rare to find an anarchist (except for the individualist anarchists) who did not accept communism, whatever other disagreements they may have had among themselves. Meanwhile the Marxists had long been calling themselves social-democrats. When World War I broke out, the main social democratic parties endorsed their capitalists’ war. Lenin called on the revolutionary wing of international social democracy to split from the traitors to socialism. As part of this, he advocated that his Bolshevik Party and similar parties call themselves Communist Parties, going back to Marx. Some of his followers complained that this would confuse the workers, making the Bolsheviks sound like the anarchist-communists. Lenin declared that it was more important to not be confused with the reformist social democrats. Lenin got his way (as he usually did in his party). The term “communist” had been taken back by the Marxists. With the example of the Russian revolution, most revolutionary-minded people turned to the Leninists; the anarchists became increasingly marginalized. The term “communist” became mostly the label for Leninists.

The Wage system; Chapter 3 of Alexander Berkman’s “Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism”

Did you ever stop to ask yourself this question: why were you born from your parents and not from some others?

You understand, of course, what I am driving at. I mean that your consent was not asked. You were simply born; you did not have a chance to select the place of your birth or to choose your parents. It was just chance.

So it happened that you were not born rich. Maybe your people are of the middle class; more likely, though, they belong to the workers, and so you are one of those millions, the masses, who have to work for a living.

The man who has money can put it into some business or industry. He invests it and lives on the profits. But you have no money. You have only your ability to work, your labor power.

There was a time when every workingman worked for himself. There were no factories then and no big industries. The laborer had his own tools and his own little workshop, and he even bought himself the raw materials he needed. He worked for himself, and he was called an artisan or craftsman.

Then came the factory and the large workshop. Little by little they crowded out the independent workman, the artisan, because he could not make things as cheaply as the factory — he could not compete with the big manufacturer. So the artisan had to give up his little workshop and go to the factory to work.

In the factories and large plants things are produced on a big scale. Such big-scale production is called industrialism. It has made the employers and manufacturers very rich, so that the lords of industry and commerce have accumulated much money, much capital. Therefore that system is called capitalism. We all live to-day in the capitalist system.

In the capitalist system the workingman cannot work for himself, as in the old days. He cannot compete with the big manufacturers. So, if you are a workman, you must find an employer. You work for him; that is, you give him your labor for so and so many hours a day or week, and he pays you for it. You sell him your labor power and he pays you wages.

In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages.

This arrangement is called the wage system.

Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenthof what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.

It means this:

Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories.That’s the landlord’s profit.

Though the workers have made the tools and the machinery, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those tools and machinery. That’s the manufacturer’s profit.

Though the workers built the railroads and are running them, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the transportation of the goods they make. That’s the railroad’s profit.

And so on, including the banker who lends the manufacturer other people’s money, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen, all of whom get their slice of the worker’s toil.

What is left then — one-tenth of the real worth of the worker’s labor-is his share, his wage.

Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker.

It seems strange, doesn’t it, that such a thing should be permitted?

Yes, indeed, it is very strange; and the strangest thing of all is that the whole world looks on and doesn’t do a thing about it. Worse yet, the workers themselves don’t do anything about it. Why, most of them think that everything is all right, and that the capitalist system is good.

It is because the workers don’t see what is happening to them. They don’t understand that they are being robbed. The rest of the world also understands very little about it, and when some honest man tries to tell them, they shout ‘anarchist!’ at him, and they shut him up or put him in prison.

Of course, the capitalists are very much satisfied with the capitalist system. Why shouldn’t they be? They get rich by it. So you can’t expect them to say it’s no good.

The middle classes are the helpers of the capitalists and they also live off the labor of the working class, so why should they object? Of course, here and there you will find some man or woman of the middle class stand up and speak the truth about the whole matter. But such persons are quickly silenced and cried down as “enemies of the people”, as crazy disturbers and anarchists.

But you would think that the workers should be the first to object to the capitalist system, for it is they who are robbed and who suffer most from it.

Yes, so it should be. But it isn’t so, which is very sad.

The workers know that the shoe pinches somewhere. They know that they toil hard all their lives and that they get just enough to exist on, and sometimes not even enough. They see that their employers can ride about in fine automobiles and live in the greatest luxury, with their wives decked out in expensive clothes and diamonds, while the worker’s wife can hardly afford a new calico dress. So the workers seek to improve their condition by trying to get better wages. It is the same as if I woke up at night in my house and found that a burglar had collected all my things and is about to get away with them. Suppose that instead of stopping him, I should say to him: ‘Please, Mr. Burglar, leave me at least one suit of clothes so I can have something to put on’, and then thank him if he gives me back a tenth part of the things he has stolen from me.

But I am getting ahead of my story. We shall return to the worker and see how he tries to improve his condition and how little he succeeds. Just now I want to tell you why the worker does not take the burglar by the neck and kick him out; that is, why he begs the capitalist for a little more bread or wages, and why he does not throw him off his back, altogether.

It is because the worker, like the rest of the world, has been made to believe that everything is all right and must remain as it is; and that if a few things are not quite as they should be, then it is because ‘people are bad’, and everything will right itself in the end, anyhow.

Just see if that is not true of yourself. At home, when you were a child, and when you asked so many questions, you were told that ‘it is right so,’ that ‘it must be so,’ that ‘God made it so,’ and that everything was all right.

And you believed your father and mother, as they had believed their fathers and mothers, and that is why you now think just as your grandfather did.

Later, in school, you were told the same things. You were taught that God had made the world and that all is well; that there must be rich and poor, and that you should respect the rich and be content with your lot. You were told that your country stands for justice, and that you must obey the law. The teacher, the priest, and the preacher all impressed it upon you that your life is ordained by God and that ‘His will be done.’ And when you saw a poor man dragged off to prison, they told you that he was bad because he had stolen something, and that it was a great crime.

But neither at home, nor in school, nor anywhere else were you ever told that it is a crime for the rich man to steal the product of the worker’s labor, or that the capitalists are rich because they have possessed themselves of the wealth which labor created.

No, you were never told that, nor did any one else ever hear it in school or church. How can you then expect the workers to know it?

On the contrary, your mind — when you were a child and later on, too — has been stuffed so full of false ideas that when you hear the plain truth you wonder if it is really possible.

Perhaps you can see now why the workers do not understand that the wealth they have created has been stolen from them and is being stolen every day.

‘But the law,’ you ask, ‘the government — does it permit such robbery? Is not theft forbidden by law?’

What is communism

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society where all oppresment has been all destroyed. Communism in it self is the end goal of all communist, but some the way of achieving communism differs from ideology. Libertarians want to use non statist methods to achieve their ends while authoritarians want to use statist methods to achieve their ends. (This is a simplified contrast between the two so I’ll explain this further later). 

So where does socialism fit into communism. To put it simply socialism is the economics of communism. Socialism is the economics of a wide amount of ideologies, but lets just focus on communism. You may have heard the phrase “communism is anarchist is socialism”. This phrase is usually shouted by anarcho communist and there is true to it. Communism is a type of anarchism and anarchism is a type of socialism. 

“Wait a minute!!” You exclaim. “Then what government is the USSR, china and other countries that call themselves communist”. Well, simply put, just authoritarian state capitalist regimes (I will go more in depth in a later blog post). Just because a country calls itself something, doesn’t mean that it is. Was china ruled by its people, or is America really home of the free, or is the DRC really Democratic. The USSR called itself socialist/communist (even though not having any qualities of both) for the same/opposite reason the US called them socialist/communist. 

Why socialism isn’t “government doing things”

Socialism is not a government doing things. You probably already know the definition of socialism so I won’t go over it again, but I will say that this is just liberal bullshit. Now this myth has done some good for the socialist movement by humanising socialism and making it easier for actual socialist to do work. It has also made it easier for socialism itself to be visioned in a non cold war propaganda way. 

But never the less, it is far from the truth. By this definition having a police force or a military is socialism. Subsidies to companies, building nuclear warheads, building roads and other things that are usually associated with governments are socialist. This definition kind of makes socialism a broad, useless term that can describe any government action.  

Why socialism isn’t state monopoly capitalism

State monopoly capitalism or, state capitalism, is an economic system of which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the state and managed by a bureaucratic class. You must be thinking “this sounds like socialism”. Well, no. The only people who believe that this is socialism are the Leninist and other authoritarian brands of “socialism”. So to libertarian socialist, this is not socialism because socialism is workers control over the means of production and the means of distribution, not the party or a bureaucratic class. Socialist seek to abolish (or should seek to abolish) the idea of classes, including the ruling class. 

When it comes to state monopoly capitalism the way of organization still has it that the work place (where goods are produced) is still organized in the same way that if it were privatized. So in a sense, when it comes to the true difference between these systems is which elite controls the profits.