Quote:
Originally Posted by All_Nite_Dinah
The argument that anarchism would result in extreme capitalims has no base. In an anarchistc society people would get theproducts they desire through cooperation and free assosiation. Town a has lots of turnips ton b has lot of hats, town a trades turnips for hats. Granted under anarchism one would be allowed to try to institute some sort of capitalist endevour, but no person would be obligated to participate. I could open a shoe factory and pay my employees and dictate their hours if the place i lived allowed it, but its up to the people to do what they want. There would also hypothetically be no need for capitalist enterprise because people would no longer feel the need to buy useless junk to feel good about themselves as a status symbol. A society of equals. This is why anarchy promises nothing, but gives everything. No government, no economy, no currency, no hieracrchy.
|
This doesn't really make much sense to me. What you're talking about here is not just a different political/economic system, but a complete shift in the public mindset. There is a gap between "no government" and "no hierarchy" whatsoever. If you just stick to "no government," and people are allowed to freely trade goods (free trade... uh oh) those who can get their hands on the stuff people need most (be it jewels, oil, wheat whatever) will be free to charge whatever they want for it... even if we get rid of money as well they can demand absurd exchanges for their goods. Nobody would be forced to trade to get his goods, but if they NEED them they will. If people were capable of holding hands and cooperating to get everything they needed, they would do so under capitalism. The idea that removing all government control would somehow lead to the abolition of corporations and a turnaround of the laws of supply and demand is absurd to me.
In response to the stuff about socialism, the ultimate goal of socialism may be to put all the means of production in the hands of the people, but the policies of most socialist parties in Europe are to nationalize industry and provide better welfare, which is a sort of indirect "power to the people" thing because it helps out the lower classes and eases some of the harshness of capitalism, but it's still a stones-throw from communism. I agree that there is a difference between this and the transitional socialism which Marx envisioned.