Anarcho-syndicalism: Deserved freedom or chaotic communist dystopia?
There's a large amount of right-libertarians on this site who I assume argue in favour of moving the government's power to private owners. I assume they would dislike this idea. Oh well, at least we can agree on something.
Yeah, smash the state
Side Score: 8
|
 |
I love capitalism and fascism
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
Personally I don't look to either side, as they are both extreme. I believe there is such a thing as a society that can have the right amount of order and the right amount of freedom. But I will post to this side, because, corporatism is rampant, evil, and has a root hold on government. If I wasn't optimistic, I'd actually completely agree that destroying the infrastructure of the government would be the only way to destroy the infrastructure of our fascist society. But alas, I cannot entirely agree to such a thing, because while I enjoy freedom through brute force, I will not ignore the risks. There is always a better way, and both destroying the infrastructure and refraining from changing it would both cause unnecessary suffering. Side: Yeah, smash the state
|
I don't necessarily agree with anacho-capitalism because i feel that private property needs law enforcement, but syndicalism is a whole other issue. It first makes the assumption that workers will assist each other and never become the other's superior. There are no "bosses" or wages... just people working in a collective. Like the issues with Anarcho-Capitalism, to assume that people will abide by rules of private property, contract, or for the good of the collective without any government rule is a bit far fetch'd. As well, without private property or business owners, there is no business. It's acting like labor workers have the ability to manage businesses or run laboratories. The Koch Brothers consist of a brilliant business man and a brilliant chemical engineer. They built Koch Industries by combining their intellect. This idea that the people who work for them could run something as amazing as Koch Industries WITHOUT private property and WITHOUT the Koch Brothers being in charge is fantasy, nothing more. Sharing is nice, and under a free market people will continue to give to charity (and even more since there will be far less taxes and regulations.) People will continue to share. What separates this from Communism, however, is that it will come with discretion. You share what you feel you must. Without private property, there is no sharing. Just items for disposing at their leisure. No accountability. Side: I love capitalism and fascism
1
point
Exactly, under a free market the economy becomes healthy and most people profit, and for those who aren't as fortunate there is charity, which works much more efficiently than wellfare and food stamps. Without private property there is not sharing, only the forced re-distribution. Side: I love capitalism and fascism
1
point
1
point
Capitalism is a form of fascism, it's just that corporations hold the power that used to belong to government, hence why a large number of classical anarchists don't consider anarcho-capitalism to be "true" anarchy. There is still an authoritarian power in control of everything. Side: Yeah, smash the state
1
point
First off, in an actual free market (capitalism) corporations can't control everything and they have to compete with other businesses, they do not have an authoritarian control. But again, lets say your somehow right and Anarcho-Capitalism is somehow fascism, that would also make any form of socialism fascism... actually, come to think of it, it would make any form of government besides total anarchy fascism. Side: I love capitalism and fascism
|
