Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Most Commie Friendly Credit Union in the Western US

–3 votes
I plan on closing my bank accounts and switching to a credit union, anyone have an opinion on which ones line up with communist values the best? I live in Colorado.
asked Feb 1 by Denver332 (400 points)
D332, perhaps you could start out this kind of question by explaining what values exactly you're talking about? what commie values are in synch with anarchist ones (since you're asking on an anarchist site)?
I intentionally wrote this question in a tongue in cheek way, maybe I should have been more serious about the asking, and of course credit unions are less capitalist than banks. Mostly I was just wondering if anyone knew if some credit unions were less capitalist than others is all.

do you seriously think a credit union is "less capitalist" than banks? because they have "members" rather than "shareholders" that they pay dividends to?

do you also think "green" capitalists are less capitalist than any other type?

capitalists can be somewhat "humane", "fair", and any other descriptor that lefties tend to like. it does not make them any less capitalist, imo.

i am not one to think in binaries, but a world full of green capitalists and credit unions is not a radically different world from what exists today. slightly less horrific, maybe. but i for one would feel NO more liberated than in the current world.

As an end-game, sure, of course not. But it's all on a spectrum.

One of the flaws of capitalism is its unrestrained exploitation of natural resources. So, yeah, I'd say green capitalism is a small step in the right direction. It's why I prefer the democrats in power to republicans, they are slightly more green, somewhat less militaristic/racist/patriarchal, a bit more tame in their capitalist worship.

i would say some capitalist enterprises might be less destructive (to the environment, various social structures, etc) than others, but to me they are no less capitalist. unions are a great example.

also, i think it is apparent that democrats are every bit as destructive and militaristic as republicans - they simply have done a much better job at finessing and masking their horrors when it comes to what is easily available to the public. and of course there are waves and fluctuations, depending on one's perspective. take a look at fdr's actual record (beyond the new deal, which clearly helped many), much less kennedy or clinton.

if you think the clintons are any less worshipful of capitalism than bush or trump, i would disagree strongly. again, their public approach is far less controversial and confrontational. and i don't find them as personally repugnant (tho hillary does come close at times).

i absolutely agree that from any given perspective, some politicians (not just those in government) can be more or less detrimental to ones objectives than others. i just disagree that capitalism can be "fixed" by implementing "green" (or "protectionist", or any other) measures. and to rephrase what has been said already far too often, implementing the kinds of tweaks and reforms that are the only changes that ever occur from any position on the political spectrum, only serves to release the pressure for whatever group(s) benefit from those tweaks, thereby angering (and increasing the pressure on/from) other group(s), and - most importantly - strengthening and perpetuating the overall system. i think history proves that quite clearly, especially regarding capitalism. that motherfucker is one adaptable, resilient institution. as much so as government.

in our study group last night we were given the challenge to define an "anti-capitalist action", and no one could think of one. non-capitalist (or a-capitalist), perhaps, but nothing that was anti-capitalist in itself. :(

dot, what about setting a pile of cash ablaze....

of course with only 1% of money represented by physical bills, i suppose some software hacking skills might work better. :)

1 Answer

+3 votes
I downvoted this because it feels like trolling. It is complicated though, because if it is trolling it is so obvious that I find a degree of amusement in it.

Here is my answer to this question for this venue, an anarchist Q&A website:

There are are some valid reasons to "bank" at a credit union versus a for profit bank. It sounds like you already know that. If finding a credit union as a personal level of consumer activism feels right for you, fucking do it, but don't fool yourself in to thinking that this is revolutionary in any way.

I don't know about Denver, but most credit unions are about as "commie friendly" as any other credit union - not. Credit unions have some roots in the idea of collective organizing, but at this point they are basically banks without shareholders (or rather with as many shareholders as they have members).
answered Feb 2 by ingrate (23,670 points)
As I mentioned above, it was tongue in cheek and not written in a serious tone, though I wouldn't call it trolling. I actually was wondering if some credit unions are better on a spectrum of capitalism.
i think the question of gradations of capitalism is an appropriate one; glad you clarified.

and yes, humor online is challenging, especially with little history between folks.

to the extent that you're serious, i still think it's worthwhile to be explicit about the values you're talking about.
The biggest banking concern, I suppose, is how much it centralized capital and land ownership. Basically, I am compensated for labor with money, I'm not going to stuff it in my mattress, so if I'm going to do business with a financial institution, whichever one consolidates power the least is preferable. Also, somewhere that is unlikely to invest my money in colonialist bullshit, like most major banks are doing with DAPL.
" if I'm going to do business with a financial institution, whichever one consolidates power the least is preferable. Also, somewhere that is unlikely to invest my money in colonialist bullshit, like most major banks are doing with DAPL."

i think that absolutely makes sense, d332. it implies no embedded expectation of helping to destroy capitalism, it is simply a practical approach to dealing with your own life in this world. [edited to add: ] while staying "true" to your personal ethics.