BaronVonBigmeat
Senior Member
- Sep 20, 2005
- 1,185
- 163
- 48
Since the means of production would be collectivized and democratically managed, (and he would thus not have greater access to them than anyone else), he would not have a greater pool of resources to draw on than anyone else.
I don't understand this assumption. A capitalist may very well be able to offer more than the collective, IF the collective is poorly run. And democratic arrangements can quite often turn out badly. Any of us who had to do group projects in high school or college can attest to that. Or anyone who's witnessed a company go downhill due to mediocre products that were "designed by committee".
As I mentioned previously, since there would be no state to protect a capitalist monopoly over productive assets such as the means of production, he would not have a greater pool of resources to draw on than anyone else, and no one would be willing to subordinate him or herself under a capitalist employer when they could work in a collective that practiced direct democratic management.
States should never protect monopolies of course, but I have to ask: why would a hypothetical proto-capitalist (perhaps a disgruntled commune worker who feels he's not being compensated in line with his superstar talent) not be able to acquire a pool of resources by simply saving? Or getting a loan?
Aside from that, there is some grain of truth in your argument I think. In third world countries, the common thread is, no formal property rights recognized by the state. Not for the common man, anyhow. If they exist, they require hundreds of bureaus and hundreds of bribes.
The point of all this is: do anarcho-socialists recognize extreme layers of regulation as being a stealthy means of protecting monopolies and/or big corporations, or at least tilting the playing field heavily in their favor? I bring this up because it seems to be a blind spot amongst the left generally.
Case in point: You want to open a farmer's co-op. Well, you can't. There are minimum building codes, food regulations, parking lot requirements, ADA restroom requirements, etc. You can't deal with all the paperwork and cost, but Wal-Mart sure can.
Likewise, in Mexico there may be over a hundred steps taken to simply register a piece of land, much less build on it. It can take years. But Coca-Cola has a full-time compliance officer to deal with this, so they can get their factory built. They can also offer shit wages because hey, where else are you going to work?
This wouldn't fly quite as much in the US simply because so many would laugh at the shit wage offered and go into business for themselves (which is probably the most common "marxist" arrangement, I suppose). Companies have to offer more because there are more options for labor.
Last edited: