|
|
#1
10-08-2007, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
The Father of Anarchism on capitalism
2 hypothetical situations from the father of anarchism, Bakunin:
"Suppose that I, a manufacturer, need a hundred workers and that exactly a hundred workers present themselves in the market - only one hundred, for if more came, the supply would exceed demand, resulting in lowered wages. But since only one hundred appear, and since I, the manufacturer, need only that number - neither more nor less - it would seem at first that complete equality was established; that supply and demand being equal in number, they should likewise be equal in other respects. Does it follow that the workers can demand from me a wage and conditions of work assuring them of a truly free, dignified, and human existence? Not at all! If I grant them those conditions and those wages, I, the capitalist, shall not gain thereby any more than they will. But then, why should I have to plague myself and become ruined by offering them the profits of my capital? If I want to work myself as workers do, I will invest my capital somewhere else, wherever I can get the highest interest, and will offer my labor for sale to some capitalist just as my workers do. If, profiting by the powerful initiative afforded me by my capital, I ask those hundred workers to fertilize that capital with their labor, it is not because of my sympathy for their sufferings, nor because of a spirit of justice, nor because of love for humanity. The capitalists are by no means philanthropists; they would be ruined if they practiced philanthropy. It is because I hope to draw from the labor of the workers sufficient profit to be able to live comfortably, even richly, while at the same time increasing my capital - and all that without having to work myself. Of course I shall work too, but my work will be of an altogether different kind and I will be remunerated at a much higher rate than the workers. It will not be the work of production but that of administration and exploitation... I know full well that under these conditions that if I were a capitalist, who needs a hundred workers to fertilize my capital, that on employing these workers, all the advantages are for me, all the disadvantages for them." and, "If I offer my labor at the lowest price, if I consent to have you live off my labor, it is certainly not because of devotion or brotherly love for you. And no bourgeois economist would dare to say that it was, however idyllic and naive their reasoning becomes when they begin to speak about reciprocal affections and mutual relations which should exist between employers and employees. No, I do it because my family and I would starve to death if I did not work for an employer. Thus I am forced to sell you my labor at the lowest possible price, and I am forced to do it by the threat of hunger." Here are two quotations cited by Bakunin from economists perspectives: "The simple worker who owns nothing more than his hands, has nothing else to sell than his labor. He sells it more or less expensively; but its price whether high or low, does not depend on him alone: it depends on an agreement with whoever will pay for his labor. The employer pays as little as possible; when given the choice between a great number of workers, the employer prefers the one who works cheap. The workers are, then, forced to lower their price in competition each against the other. In all types of labor, it necessarily follows that the salary of the worker is limited to what is necessary for survival." (Turgot) "Wages are much higher when more demand exists for labor and less if offered, and are lowered accordingly when more labor is offered and less demanded. It is the relation between supply and demand which regulates the price of this merchandise called the workers' labor, as are regulated all other public services. When wages rise a little higher than the price necessary for the workers' families to maintain themselves, their children multiply and a larger supply soon develops in proportion with the greater demand. When, on the contrary, the demand for workers is less than the quantity of people offering to work, their gains decline back to the price necessary for the class to maintain itself at the same number. The families more burdened with children disappear; from them forward the supply of labor declines, and with less labor being offered, the price rises... In such a way it is difficult for the wages of the laborer to rise above or fall below the price necessary to maintain the class (the workers, the proletariat) in the number required." (J.B. Say) And a rebuttal to a tired argument: "But the capitalist, the business owner, runs risks, they say, while the worker risks nothing. This is not true, because when seen from his side, all the disadvantages are on the part of the worker. The business owner can conduct his affairs poorly, he can be wiped out in a bad deal, or be a victim of a commercial crisis, or by an unforeseen catastrophe; in a word he can ruin himself. This is true. But does ruin mean from the bourgeois point of view to be reduced to the same level of misery as those who die of hunger, or to be forced among the ranks of the common laborers? This so rarely happens, that we might as well say never. Afterwards it is rare that the capitalist does not retain something, despite the appearance of ruin. Nowadays all bankruptcies are more or less fraudulent. But if absolutely nothing is saved, there are always family ties, and social relations, who, with help from the business skills learned which they pass to their children, permit them to get positions for themselves and their children in the higher ranks of labor, in management; to be a state functionary, to be an executive in a commercial or industrial business, to end up, although dependent, with an income superior to what they paid their former workers. The risks of the worker are infinitely greater. After all, if the establishment in which he is employed goes bankrupt, he must go several days and sometimes several weeks without work, and for him it is more than ruin, it is death; because he eats everyday what he earns... If it happens sometimes that the worker makes a small savings, it is quickly consumed by the inevitable periods of unemployment which often cruelly interrupt his work, as well as by the unforeseen accidents and illnesses which befall his family. The accidents and illnesses that can overtake him constitute a risk that makes all the risks of the employer nothing in comparison: because for the worker debilitating illness can destroy his productive ability, his labor power. Over all, prolonged illness is the most terrible bankruptcy, a bankruptcy that means for him and his children, hunger and death." On the inequality between worker and employer: "What is it that brings the capitalist to the market? It is the urge to get rich, to increase his capital, to gratify his ambitions and social vanities, to be able to indulge in all conceivable pleasures. And what brings the worker to the market? Hunger, the necessity of eating today and tomorrow. Thus, while being equal from the point of juridical fiction, the capitalist and the worker are anything but equal from the point of view of the economic situation, which is the real situation. The capitalist is not threatened with hunger when he comes to the market; he knows very well that if he does not find today the workers for whom he is looking, he will still have enough to eat for quite a long time, owing to the capital of which he is the happy possessor. If the workers whom he meets in the market present demands which seem excessive to him, because, far from enabling him to increase his wealth and improve even more his economic position, those proposals and conditions might, I do not say equalize, but bring the economic position of the workers somewhat close to his own - what does he do in that case? He turns down those proposals and waits. After all, he was not impelled by an urgent necessity, but by a desire to improve his position, which, compared to that of the workers, is already quite comfortable, and so he can wait. And he will wait, for his business experience has taught him that the resistance of workers who, possessing neither capital, nor comfort, nor any savings to speak of, are pressed by a relentless necessity, by hunger, that this resistance cannot last very long, and that finally he will be able to find the hundred workers for whom he is looking - for they will be forced to accept the conditions which he finds it profitable to impose upon them. If they refuse, others will come who will be only too happy to accept such conditions." On the fallacy of voluntary associations between employer and worker: "The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free existence, in which he will have no master but himself? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forced him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty, so much exalted by the economists, jurists, and bourgeois republicans, is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realization, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense - broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery... But, one may say, in that case the worker can quit. Easier said than done. At times the worker receives part of his wages in advance, or his wife or children may be sick, or perhaps his work is poorly paid throughout this particular industry. Other employers may be paying even less than his own employer, and after quitting this job he may not even be able to find another one. And to remain without a job spells death for him and his family. In addition, there is an understanding among all employers, and all of them resemble one another. All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh. Is this calumny? No, it is in the nature of things, and in the logical necessity of the relationship existing between the employers and their workers" This is merely a footnote regarding the overwhelming anti-capitalist thought of anarchists throughout history. You will find similar, excellently written, attacks on capitalism by the other most respected anarchists such as Kropotkin, Proudhon, Goldman etc. I don't suppose many 2+2'ers here are aware but there are also some revisionist anarchists whom propose a stateless society with capitalism [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]But for arguments sake I figured it best to stick to the grain. 
|
|
#2
10-08-2007, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Father of Anarchism on capitalism
I'm glad people still read Bakunin, although I am no advocate of anarchism.
Bakunin was involved in an organization called the (first) International Working Men's Association. In 1872 the congress of the 1st International was focused on a debate between Bakunin and...none other than Karl Marx himself over whether they should participate in state elections (with Bakunin and mostly other anarchists opposed to the idea and Marx in favor). Bakunin ended up losing the debate and the vote and was booted out of the organization (although he claimed that the vote was rigged). I wonder how different history would have played out if it was Bakunin's ideas which prevailed over Marx's, both in this and in the larger historical debate amongst the left.
|
|
#3
10-08-2007, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Father of Anarchism on capitalism
If this is an example of an "excellently written attack on capitalism" it explains a lot. It is poorly reasoned propoganda, nothing more.
|
|
#5
10-08-2007, 02:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Father of Anarchism on capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
If this is an example of an "excellently written attack on capitalism" it explains a lot. It is poorly reasoned propoganda, nothing more. [/ QUOTE ] Propoganda? Do you dismiss every viewpoint you disagree with as propoganda? IF anything is propoganda it is the viewpoint, no doubt that you take, which studies show was consciously pumped out to the masses straight after WW2.
|
|
#6
10-08-2007, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Father of Anarchism on capitalism
"Suppose that I, a manufacturer, need a hundred workers and that exactly a hundred
workers present themselves in the market - only one hundred, for if more came, the supply would exceed demand, resulting in lowered wages. But since only one hundred appear, and since I, the manufacturer, need only that number - neither more nor less - it would seem at first that complete equality was established; that supply and demand being equal in number, they should likewise be equal in other respects. Does it follow that the workers can demand from me a wage and conditions of work assuring them of a truly free, dignified, and human existence? Not at all! <font color="red">A conclusion built on a hypothetical that doesnt exist in the real world. Exactly 100 workers show up only by accident. If more than 100 show up it doesnt necessarily drive down wages, it depends on the quality of those that do show up. If less than 100 show up they dont all get hired and automatically drive up wages. They need to have the potential to cover their incremental labor cost. </font> If I grant them those conditions and those wages, I, the capitalist, shall not gain thereby any more than they will. <font color="red"> Proven untrue in hundreds of corporations. Companies prosper when employees are happy and committed to the business. That isnt accomplished by requiring that the capitalist "gain more than they will". To deny that there can be symbiosis between employer and employee where both gain more than they would without each other is not supported in the least by his arguments or by history. </font> But then, why should I have to plague myself and become ruined by offering them the profits of my capital? <font color="red">Same as abo e </font> If I want to work myself as workers do, I will invest my capital somewhere else, wherever I can get the highest interest, and will offer my labor for sale to some capitalist just as my workers do. <font color="red">So what? All he says here is that he can't build a business that is more profitable than working for someone else, he should go to work for someone else. Duhhh. </font> If, profiting by the powerful initiative afforded me by my capital, I ask those hundred workers to fertilize that capital with their labor, it is not because of my sympathy for their sufferings, nor because of a spirit of justice, nor because of love for humanity. <font color="red">Strawman </font> The capitalists are by no means philanthropists; they would be ruined if they practiced philanthropy. <font color="red">I never knew that "philanthropy" required you paying someone more than their worth. </font> It is because I hope to draw from the labor of the workers sufficient profit to be able to live comfortably, even richly, while at the same time increasing my capital - and all that without having to work myself. <font color="red">Why make that inflammatory statement and then reverse it immediately? </font> Of course I shall work too, but my work will be of an altogether different kind and I will be remunerated at a much higher rate than the workers. <font color="red">If he adds more value to the enterprise then why shouldnt he be remunerated more? </font> It will not be the work of production but that of administration and exploitation... <font color="red">propogandist bs </font> I know full well that under these conditions that if I were a capitalist, who needs a hundred workers to fertilize my capital, that on employing these workers, all the advantages are for me, all the disadvantages for them." <font color="red">So he admits he doesnt have a clue how to run a profitable business. Others do, and have, without putting employees at a "disadvantage", rather providing them with opportunities to earn more than they would in other endeavors. </font> and, "If I offer my labor at the lowest price, if I consent to have you live off my labor, it is certainly not because of devotion or brotherly love for you. <font color="red"> Strawman </font> And no bourgeois economist would dare to say that it was, however idyllic and naive their reasoning becomes when they begin to speak about reciprocal affections and mutual relations which should exist between employers and employees. <font color="red">Fact isnt naivetee. Such reciprocal relationships are not universal, nor are they uncommon </font> No, I do it because my family and I would starve to death if I did not work for an employer. <font color="red"> False dichotomoy. One doesnt need to sell his labor at the lowest price to not starve. He can improve his skills and value and sell at a higher price. </font> Thus I am forced to sell you my labor at the lowest possible price, and I am forced to do it by the threat of hunger." <font color="red"> wrong </font> Here are two quotations cited by Bakunin from economists perspectives: "The simple worker who owns nothing more than his hands, has nothing else to sell than his labor. He sells it more or less expensively; but its price whether high or low, does not depend on him alone: it depends on an agreement with whoever will pay for his labor. <font color="red"> So? Whats his point, that I cant walk up to Bill Gates and demand he pay me $1 mill a year when my value to MSoft is $20,000? another big duhhhh </font> The employer pays as little as possible; <font color="red"> And the employee demands as much as possible. If either one didnt behave that way they wouldnt be rational. </font> when given the choice between a great number of workers, the employer prefers the one who works cheap. <font color="red">No, he prefers the workers that are the most productive in their positions. </font> The workers are, then, forced to lower their price in competition each against the other. <font color="red"> Or to enhance their value. </font> In all types of labor, it necessarily follows that the salary of the worker is limited to what is necessary for survival." (Turgot) <font color="red"> based on faulty premises as shown </font> "Wages are much higher when more demand exists for labor and less if offered, and are lowered accordingly when more labor is offered and less demanded. <font color="red">Maybe that was a brilliant observation at the time, somehow I doubt it </font> It is the relation between supply and demand which regulates the price of this merchandise called the workers' labor, as are regulated all other public services. When wages rise a little higher than the price necessary for the workers' families to maintain themselves, their children multiply and a larger supply soon develops in proportion with the greater demand. <font color="red">I can't blame him for not anticipating ZPG, but I can blame him for making an unsupported and illogical conclusion </font> When, on the contrary, the demand for workers is less than the quantity of people offering to work, their gains decline back to the price necessary for the class to maintain itself at the same number. The families more burdened with children disappear; from them forward the supply of labor declines, and with less labor being offered, the price rises... <font color="red">more bizarre conclusions about population growth that bear no relation to reality </font> In such a way it is difficult for the wages of the laborer to rise above or fall below the price necessary to maintain the class (the workers, the proletariat) in the number required." (J.B. Say) <font color="red">cliff notes: IDK WTF Im talking about. JB Say </font> And a rebuttal to a tired argument: "But the capitalist, the business owner, runs risks, they say, while the worker risks nothing. <font color="red">ORLY? Who says this? In all cases? </font> This is not true, because when seen from his side, all the disadvantages are on the part of the worker. <font color="red"> All of them? in all cases? Link? (I suppose its unfair to ask someone for a link when what he wrote was before the internet. Of course all of the employees at all of the companies that invested billions in the development of the internet took more risk. Theres no chance they could have found a job at a different, more succesful venture. </font> The business owner can conduct his affairs poorly, he can be wiped out in a bad deal, or be a victim of a commercial crisis, or by an unforeseen catastrophe; in a word he can ruin himself. This is true. But does ruin mean from the bourgeois point of view to be reduced to the same level of misery as those who die of hunger, or to be forced among the ranks of the common laborers? This so rarely happens, that we might as well say never. <font color="red"> Reductio ad absurdum. The loss of a lifetime's earnings, or family money isnt a risk unless he is reduced to poverty? If those were the alternatives not many people would invest in their own businesses. </font> Afterwards it is rare that the capitalist does not retain something, despite the appearance of ruin. <font color="red"> If hes got half a brain he will. So what. What does that have to do with the employees "risk". </font> Nowadays all bankruptcies are more or less fraudulent. <font color="red"> ROFL </font> But if absolutely nothing is saved, there are always family ties, and social relations, who, with help from the business skills learned which they pass to their children, permit them to get positions for themselves and their children in the higher ranks of labor, in management; to be a state functionary, to be an executive in a commercial or industrial business, to end up, although dependent, with an income superior to what they paid their former workers. <font color="red"> I see, so now there is no risk unless the consequences of failure are not only your own investments and inevitable poverty, but dragging down everyone they ever met in their life down with them. (Gasp, I resorted to hyperbole...nothin like this idiot's though </font> The risks of the worker are infinitely greater. After all, if the establishment in which he is employed goes bankrupt, he must go several days and sometimes several weeks without work, and for him it is more than ruin, it is death; <font color="red">not if he saved/invested instead of spending everything he made, preparing for the possibility that he might be out of work. </font> because he eats everyday what he earns... <font color="red"> He created his own risk when he bought that HD TV and the Mercedes, the employer didnt create it for him </font> If it happens sometimes that the worker makes a small savings, it is quickly consumed by the inevitable periods of unemployment which often cruelly interrupt his work, <font color="red">inevitable? often" "cruelly interrupt" At least a few workers could have found full employment if they learned to play violin while people read this drivel </font> as well as by the unforeseen accidents and illnesses which befall his family. The accidents and illnesses that can overtake him constitute a risk that makes all the risks of the employer nothing in comparison: <font color="red">i see, so the employer should provide insurance against all possible ill fortune on behalf of the employee, and of course doesnt face any of those personal risk themselves. Not one entrepeneur ever has to give up his business because his spouse becomes ill and he needs to work to pay for her care and child care. </font> because for the worker debilitating illness can destroy his productive ability, his labor power. Over all, prolonged illness is the most terrible bankruptcy, a bankruptcy that means for him and his children, hunger and death." On the inequality between worker and employer: "What is it that brings the capitalist to the market? It is the urge to get rich, to increase his capital, to gratify his ambitions and social vanities, to be able to indulge in all conceivable pleasures. And what brings the worker to the market? <font color="red"> Exactly the same things that the capitalist brings..the urge to better himself using whatever resources he has available </font> Hunger, the necessity of eating today and tomorrow. Thus, while being equal from the point of juridical fiction, the capitalist and the worker are anything but equal from the point of view of the economic situation, which is the real situation. <font color="red"> why should they be equal </font> The capitalist is not threatened with hunger when he comes to the market; he knows very well that if he does not find today the workers for whom he is looking, he will still have enough to eat for quite a long time, owing to the capital of which he is the happy possessor. <font color="red"> Which of course was dropped from the sky into his lap and was totally undeserved </font> If the workers whom he meets in the market present demands which seem excessive to him, because, far from enabling him to increase his wealth and improve even more his economic position, those proposals and conditions might, I do not say equalize, but bring the economic position of the workers somewhat close to his own - what does he do in that case? He turns down those proposals and waits. <font color="red">No really? And here I thought capitalists would intentionally invest in non-profitable businesses out of philanthropy...oh, wait, we alreaady learned above that they don't...and for good reason </font> After all, he was not impelled by an urgent necessity, but by a desire to improve his position, which, compared to that of the workers, is already quite comfortable, and so he can wait. <font color="red">Ahhhhh, the real point. Everyone should be equal, no matter what they bring to the table </font> And he will wait, for his business experience has taught him that the resistance of workers who, possessing neither capital, nor comfort, nor any savings to speak of, are pressed by a relentless necessity, by hunger, that this resistance cannot last very long, and that finally he will be able to find the hundred workers for whom he is looking - for they will be forced to accept the conditions which he finds it profitable to impose upon them. If they refuse, others will come who will be only too happy to accept such conditions." <font color="red"> Tell it to the capitialists who say they cant get work done by Americans so they need to resort to illegal immigrants. </font> On the fallacy of voluntary associations between employer and worker: "The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? <font color="red">Some do, some dont, if you dont, enhance your value so you can </font> And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free existence, in which he will have no master but himself? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. <font color="red">Yup, not one capitalist was ever a laborer in his life </font> He is driven to it by the same hunger which forced him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty, so much exalted by the economists, jurists, and bourgeois republicans, is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realization, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom <font color="red"> Bring in the violins...dont pay them too much though </font> -voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense - broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery... <font color="red">I got it..its really Nielsio writing this crap </font> But, one may say, in that case the worker can quit. Easier said than done. At times the worker receives part of his wages in advance, or his wife or children may be sick, or perhaps his work is poorly paid throughout this particular industry. <font color="red">And who's fault is it that he didnt live within his means and save or buy insurance for those events? </font> Other employers may be paying even less than his own employer, and after quitting this job he may not even be able to find another one. <font color="red">Then dont quit, bozo. </font> And to remain without a job spells death for him and his family. In addition, there is an understanding among all employers, and all of them resemble one another. <font color="red">Yup, from cookie cutters, no variety whatsoever </font> All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh. <font color="red">If youre a lazy sack of poop who does nothing but sit around and write crap like this, I guess the thought of working for anyone is abhorrent. </font> Is this calumny? No, it is in the nature of things, and in the logical necessity of the relationship existing between the employers and their workers" <font color="red">Foundation? </font> Anybody who buys this stuff is the kind of lazy, non-productive slug that can't survive under capitalism..of course its not their fault, its capitalisms fault.
|
|
#7
10-08-2007, 03:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Father of Anarchism on capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
If, profiting by the powerful initiative afforded me by my capital, I ask those hundred workers to fertilize that capital with their labor, it is not because of my sympathy for their sufferings, nor because of a spirit of justice, nor because of love for humanity. [/ QUOTE ] How the [censored] does he know what motivates someone to start a business? Entrepreneurs can and do start businesses for all these reasons on a regular basis. [ QUOTE ] "The simple worker who owns nothing more than his hands, has nothing else to sell than his labor. He sells it more or less expensively; but its price whether high or low, does not depend on him alone: it depends on an agreement with whoever will pay for his labor. The employer pays as little as possible; when given the choice between a great number of workers, the employer prefers the one who works cheap. The workers are, then, forced to lower their price in competition each against the other. In all types of labor, it necessarily follows that the salary of the worker is limited to what is necessary for survival." (Turgot) [/ QUOTE ] Businesses must also compete for labor. This is just a worst-case hypothetical. [ QUOTE ] "Wages are much higher when more demand exists for labor and less if offered, and are lowered accordingly when more labor is offered and less demanded. It is the relation between supply and demand which regulates the price of this merchandise called the workers' labor, as are regulated all other public services. When wages rise a little higher than the price necessary for the workers' families to maintain themselves, their children multiply and a larger supply soon develops in proportion with the greater demand. When, on the contrary, the demand for workers is less than the quantity of people offering to work, their gains decline back to the price necessary for the class to maintain itself at the same number. The families more burdened with children disappear; from them forward the supply of labor declines, and with less labor being offered, the price rises... In such a way it is difficult for the wages of the laborer to rise above or fall below the price necessary to maintain the class (the workers, the proletariat) in the number required." (J.B. Say) [/ QUOTE ] Workers who earn a surplus will be able to start their own businesses, further increasing competition for labor. The part about families having more children is pure speculation, but even if it's true, it happens much slower than workers starting their own businesses with their surpluses, so the effect is more than counteracted. [ QUOTE ] "What is it that brings the capitalist to the market? It is the urge to get rich, to increase his capital, to gratify his ambitions and social vanities, to be able to indulge in all conceivable pleasures. And what brings the worker to the market? Hunger, the necessity of eating today and tomorrow. [/ QUOTE ] Another display of psychic prowess. I guess it's easier to create economic theories when you just assume you know exactly what motivates everyone. This stuff is weak.
|
|
#9
10-08-2007, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Father of Anarchism on capitalism
Interesting post. I haven't read as much Bakunin as I would like, but most of the quotes here seem like excellent attacks on state capitalism that are far less applicable to actual free markets (for instance, the part about entrepreneurs not having real risks only seems true of systems in which States prop up failed businesses and bail out business owners who end up bankrupt).
|
|
#10
10-08-2007, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Father of Anarchism on capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
This is merely a footnote regarding the overwhelming anti-capitalist thought of anarchists throughout history. You will find similar, excellently written, attacks on capitalism by the other most respected anarchists such as Kropotkin, Proudhon, Goldman etc. I don't suppose many 2+2'ers here are aware but there are also some revisionist anarchists whom propose a stateless society with capitalism [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]But for arguments sake I figured it best to stick to the grain. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand how these anarchistic societies would prevent people from engaging in commerce and capitalism. Will there be no trade or property rights? If there is trade and property rights, how does this sort of anarchism differ from ACism?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
