- McSpotlight -

Necessary stage?

Posted by: j sweet on October 24, 1998 at 11:11:54:

In Reply to: Whoops. Foot--->Mouth. posted by Gideon Hallett on April 22, 1998 at 10:23:50:

: : I thought anarcho-syndicalism was far different than anarcho-capitalism (which really isn't anarchism at all). In fact I thought anarcho-syndicalism was against the idea of corporations (mega and otherwise) exercising control over the lives of individuals and the planet.

: : Perhaps you've got a different angle on the subject of anarcho-syndicalism or hopefully it was just a typo. If it's not then I might be in for a shock.

: It was just a typo. That's what happens when you try and debate on three hours' sleep. I did mean anarcho-capitalism, it was just a little unfortunate that anarcho-syndicalism has exactly the same number of syllables and is more fun to say.

: Gideon.

I'd like to argue that anarcho-capitalism might be a necessary stage before anarcho-syndicalism, and that it need not be as exploitative or as coercive as capitalism is today.

Capitalism and socialism are both economic systems, not governments, and I think it's fair to say that neither system is good for the public when run by the state. State socialism works very poorly today, because in every situation, in every socialist state, socialism was introduced by, and is maintained by, violence. Coercion sows decay, and the most drastic and primitive form of coercion is violence.

With capitalism, my interpretation of history is that most of its infamy has government to thank. I don't think development of a monopoly is even possible without government aid. In nearly every case of the rise of a business monopoly, there is corporate welfare and military and police aid against strikes. If there were no state upon which to rely for unfair economic advantage or oppression of unions, monopolies would not occur. So, as backward as it may sound, a stateless society might actually see less corporate power. Monopolies would not develp, and therefore there would be competition, and part of that competition would be in appealing to the workers by providing favorable wages and conditions. And even if a monopoly did develop, unions would be unfettered by state coercion.

Yes, I know there would be corporate coercion, and without government nothing to prevent corporations from taking to arms themselves; but such a system would make it more in the corporations' best interests to honor the workers who could also take to arms. I just think it is arguable that anarcho-capitalism could be the final step toward anarcho-syndicalism, and although the former is by no means perfect, it may be better than the current system of state-run quasi-capitalism, and not nearly the dystopia depicted in "cyberpunk" literature.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup