Add new comment

No Way uses common "American" definitions of "capitalism" and "socialism." He or she does not take into account that in the Soviet Union and similar societies a small minority of collectivist bureaucrats "owned" (that is, controlled and used for their own benefit) the industry and wealth of the nation "privately" (that is, separately from the rest of the population). They produced commodities which they sold on the internal and international markets. They exchanged goods among enterprises, using banks as intermediaries. Using a labor market, they hired and fired workers (as opposed to using slaves or serfs). The workers produced the commodities which they bought with money on the domestic market. The whole system was in competition with the rest of the capitalist world (USSR Inc.). The overall drive was to accumulate, grow, and expand, as it is under traditional capitalism. A surplus was squeezed out of the workers and peasants. But this surplus was distributed among the bureaucrats in a fashion different from the way it is done among the traditional bourgeoisie. Otherwise the relationship between the workers and their exploiters was essentially the same. You can call this anything you want, but I find it most useful to use the label "state capitalism."

Meanwhile No Way explicitly rejects the history of anarchism which from its founding as a movement by Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc., has regarded itself as a variety (the most left-wing variety) of socialism (or communism). By this they meant the rejection of capitalism and its replacement by a cooperative society with production for use and self-managed industry and communities. Why don't you just say that you reject anarchism and advocate something else entirely?