Capitalism and Communism are both not what you say they are. That's why I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist.
But I'm also not stupid, so I'm not the type of person you (ironically?) placed on the left.
Cooperative Agorists -- And Anarcho-Capitalists at large -- have got no problem with welfare, as long as noone is forcefully penalized for not entering into it.
Im not quite understanding what you mean. I wasn't trying to define capitalism or communism, I know I loosely gave my own perspective on them but the intention of this essay is to show that the differences between the two are only small and really irrelevant. In either case you must choose to submit to a hierarchy of a sort that you find legitimate that dictates your method of exchange. Neither is necessarily more or less moral than the other.
To show that the difference is "irrelevant" you would have to properly define both terms and prove your point. With all respect, I don't think you did.
Capitalism is "free trade"; So in other words it is "allowed trade, period". Socialist Anarchists consider free trade harmful and unnecessary, so they want to "abolish it, period". ---Not merely "avoid it if; my current employer, the worlds industrialists, the rest of society and their unborn children will all sign a contract and let me, until the next newborn comes along".
No, the traditional "Anarchists" want to prevent free trade. They may not like "the state", but they see no problem with using their own bodies for the same purpose of preventing a capitalist from being a capitalist, if necessary.
Hierarchy is not the problem. There are all sorts of hierarchies, both good and bad. It's the really bad ones that we have to avoid. The state is such a hierarchy and anarcho-capitalists want it out of the way completely. Anarcho-Syndicalists are against the traditional state, but they are not really for freely choosing your own protection agency or way of life without being influenced by democracy. They won't let you choose free trade, if they can have a say in the matter.
You're right I didn't properly define the terms, I kind of assumed that anyone interested in this subject will have an understanding of them already. I'll use your definition of capitalism and add in my definition of communism, which I see as a collective of individuals freely associating to better the collective. From there I would point out that free trade and free association are essentially the same thing. Communists remove the physical trade of goods and assume that one another are benefiting each other in some way, where as capitalists exchange value directly. In the end they are both systems of exchange and both can work in their own way.
That is still an improper definition of communism, but let's have a look here.
"Communists remove the physical trade of goods" you say. Well, they intend to and they have had partial sucesses, but they never fully succeed because that would be impossible. What they do is try to prevent certain kinds of "trade".
"free trade and free association are essentially the same thing" Well they are connected, but not the same. However, as you pointed out the "communists" "remove (physical) trade of goods". How they "remove" such trades and why, is why they are called socialists.
Anarcho-Capitalists don't necessarily want to run a bussiness, work for a traditional employer or work the land. -- They can be part of a cooperative if they want to and they can enjoy welfare services as long as they are not at the expense of someone who didn't approve of them. As long as they don't oppose the freedom of trade, they are not socialists. A "Capitalist" must not necessarily desire trade or contracts in all ways they could possibly take place.
Still though, I do like the fact that you made an effort to compare the systems and that you found similarities. Because there are similarities and I know this, because I used to be an "Utopian" socialist and later became more of a Marxist radical; So I've seen "both" (that's an extreme oversimplification of course) sides.
""Communists remove the physical trade of goods" you say. Well, they intend to and they have had partial sucesses, but they never fully succeed because that would be impossible. What they do is try to prevent certain kinds of "trade"."
Yes, in reality it is impossible as every one in the collective would be contributing services or physical goods in some way, I should have specified monetary trade.
""free trade and free association are essentially the same thing" Well they are connected, but not the same. However, as you pointed out the "communists" "remove (physical) trade of goods". How they "remove" such trades and why, is why they are called socialists."
Free trade requires free association and vice versa. You can not freely associate with someone if you are restricted from also trading with them if you would like to. Again, I think this comes down to specifying removal of monetary trade. I don't have the experience that you have as being a marxist radical, as you say, but from what I understand is that they reject these types of trades for reason of opposing submission to an individuals hierarchy to gain monetary value, which I find to be a legitimate reason if that is your perspective.
As for your last point, I understand those things but that wasn't what this article was focused on. I'm not trying to promote capitalism over communism, I am attempting to show the similarities, as you pointed out. All we ever do is point out the differences and try and say who is right or wrong when there is no real answer. I am more capitalist minded, so I like to make money. But I also like to help people out just because. I have done this in the past by feeding the homeless, donating to charities, and just helping strangers that I don't know because they needed it. There are forms of capitalism and communism in both systems and your preferences will guide you to the system that works for you, and we should all be free to choose.
I am enjoying your input btw
they reject these types of trades for reason of opposing submission to an individuals hierarchy to gain monetary value
That could certainly be one way of saying it, but this is very hard for me to say "yes" or "no" to considering how many things could be implied/disregarded in such a statement.
try and say who is right or wrong when there is no real answer
There is always right and wrong. Objective reality doesn't consider the subjective mind, but the mind must consider objective reality. --Of course, this doesn't mean that one of two people has to be wrong and the other right, that's true.
I also like to help people out just because. I have done this in the past by feeding the homeless, donating to charities, and just helping strangers that I don't know because they needed it.
Even as an Objectivist (some would disagree with that label, as I'm also an "Anarcho-Capitalist" but I find it's just another way of "government" without "a state" or "the government") yes even as an Objectivist, I'm very much in favour of helping others. As I said, Capitalists don't need to reject all forms of "welfare" in order to be capitlaists, but modern "welfarism" and statism.
A "Capitalist" in the philosophical and political sense, doesn't have to work for physical money. That's not the essense of life and actually not the essense of Capitalism.
I'm busy right now, but If you wan't more details I suggest you read my earlier comments made at https://steemit.com/cryptocapitalism/@cryptogee/cryptocapitalism-vs-cryptocommunism-the-battle-rages-on
(By the way, the tiny format of the comment window is killing me....Devs really have to change that.)
Also, if you have the time I do have an essay I have written purely on anarcho capitalism. If you go to my blog it is the post just under this one. You could read that and give your perspective on my thoughts that do promote capitalism and I would appreciate it. I am here to share perspectives and grow and I welcome your criticisms