Most I've seen have been deontologial. Any economic ones? There must be some...
Calculation problem doesn't apply, because they're not against money.
Most I've seen have been deontologial. Any economic ones? There must be some... Calculation problem doesn't apply, because they're not against money.
1. Under anarchosyndicalism society will necessarily devolve into a rigid hereditary division of labor due to the need to maintain socialism.
2. The AFL-CIO and other liberal unions will become a "dictatorship of the proletartiat."
3. Unions will raise wages until there is no capital income left for consumption or investment.
4. Equality of wealth erodes freedom.
5. Mexicans.
Never did I consider myself a socialist though, even though I was sympathetic towards it, the thought of always having to work and never really rising above didn't sit well. What was so appealing about capitalism was that a person could come up with a good idea, start a business, and become so wealthy as to never have to work again. (Whoever said work smart, not hard, was my kind of person.) You believe that Mutualism would be a more free society, as you point out, accumulating wealth would be more difficult, I'm not even sure if Mutualism would allow for a person to get to the point of not having to work anymore, but tell me can a person like me be free under Mutualism? To be honest I view work as a terrible thing, I've seen people who once had such fire in their hearts, turn into dull shells of their former selves after working for a few years, you can observe the phenomena for yourself if you pay close attention. We anarchists of various stripes see how badly the government slowly eats away at our freedom, for people such as myself who hate the monotony of work, work interferes with my freedom just as much if not more. I'm aware that work is necessary, a system which lets me escape the work clap trap one day is the next best thing, can Mutualism do that?
Never did I consider myself a socialist though, even though I was sympathetic towards it, the thought of always having to work and never really rising above didn't sit well. What was so appealing about capitalism was that a person could come up with a good idea, start a business, and become so wealthy as to never have to work again. (Whoever said work smart, not hard, was my kind of person.) You believe that Mutualism would be a more free society, as you point out, accumulating wealth would be more difficult, I'm not even sure if Mutualism would allow for a person to get to the point of not having to work anymore, but tell me can a person like me be free under Mutualism? To be honest I view work as a terrible thing, I've seen people who once had such fire in their hearts, turn into dull shells of their former selves after working for a few years, you can observe the phenomena for yourself if you pay close attention. We anarchists of various stripes see how badly the government slowly eats away at our freedom, for people such as myself who hate the monotony of work, work interferes with my freedom just as much if not more.
I'm aware that work is necessary, a system which lets me escape the work clap trap one day is the next best thing, can Mutualism do that?
That's an interesting admission--capitalism is preferable because it allows us to live off of the work of others.
No matter the system, we all live off of the work of others (even Marxists), to varying degrees.