It appears upon further study that you operate on different definitions on both anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism than the main stream, at least that I'm seeing.
1) Anarchism means literally, "without rulers."
The Chomsky definition is that Government must justify itself but may exist.
2) The common understanding of anarcho-syndicalism is "stateless unionization."
Your definition is privately owned business by the workers themselves.
I would suggest that a union by itself will lead to inefficiencies from not seeking a free market profit for the worker/ owners, putting the enterprise out of business over time.
In a benevolent anarcho-capitalist structure, that business (a trucking company, let's say) is owned by share holder/ workers. I actually saw a vary large employee owned trucking company on the highway today. The free market is allowed to price the service, so it stays in business against competitors by the drive to stay efficient.
Under any stateless system, you will have competitors, and they will want your market share.
I think you and I are discussing two different sides of the same elephant. I believe the elephant needs the exercise of the free market. You believe the elephant will just be and remain alive and healthy on its own.
Gene
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.