Originally
posted by
martian:
It's equally interesting reading the theories of "modern conservatives" which are quite different in some respects than what Adam Smith wrote in his book.
"pro-union anarchists" indeed.. I think your views on the subject are quite clear from that statement.
How so? That I acknowledge that there are pro-union anarchists and anarchists who aren't pro-union? What does that say about my views? Analyzing the attitude of anti-union anarchists towards these current unions would be trivial (to use a math term), as its clear that if they opposed unions back when unions were weak, of course they oppose them now. Looking at the syndical anarchists, though, the ones who had a more favorable opinion of unions, and analyzing their theories in regards to the modern unions, that is a non-trivial analysis.
Originally
posted by
martian:
There is little difference between a corporate oligolipoly/monopoly and communism put into practice in many respects except one is more blatant about the end result than the other. Do a little research on AUC or United Fruit Company for example.
I disagree with you there. Corporate oligolipoly/monopoly claim no responsibilities towards ensuring the well-being of the citizenry. Communism does claim a responsibility towards providing (however little they provide) to the common people.
Originally
posted by
martian:
"anarchists, communists, and socialist". You need to read about anarchism a little more carefully. The three don't operate on the same premise at all. I may as well list: "national socialist, capitalist, theocracy" together or more blatently, "neo-conservatism" and "feudalism".
They have many different premises, but they also share premises as well. There is more than one assumption made when forming a political theory. I think you and I have different definitions of what a premise is, since I talk about them in the plural and you talk about a premise in the singular as if there is only one premise.
Originally
posted by
martian:
No theory is perfect and none of the authors from Smith to Marx ever claimed that they were. These were all written in a historical context to address inadequacies in the current system as such.
All systems believe in exchange through one means or another. The mechanism/enforcement and the terms are all that differ. Socialism no more believes that you should get cookies for doing nothing than capitalism believes that you should make the cookies and hand them all to the CEO. There is a quote in the "wealth of nations" to the effect that there should be some kind of balance of power between the workers and the owners. In fact this is somewhat of a common theme through most theories. Anarchism is about not concentrating power (you only get cookies in proportion to what you do, otherwise no cookies for you).
Personally I'm a big fan of animal farm.
And thats why I prefer political theorists to politicians. I like that they are aware of the shortcomings of their philosophies and attempt to address them. Politicians just pretend the problems don't exist.