: I didn't mean to call you a fascist. I just think that a "no absolutes" outlook leaves one vulnerable to any political philosophy that comes down the pike, including fascism.Well, I would regard facism as the mother of all absolutism if that is any consolation, it has no attraction for any genuine socialist who is not just a state and authority fetishist.
: Oh! Absolutely! I think that workers associations and consumer pressure groups are of utmost importance, and I think they would thrive much more effectively in a free market unhindered by government.
But surely the only way in which these organisations can exercise any 'authority' is by appealing to governments. The only alternative is through direct action, as in Seatle, which I think is great, dont get me wrong, it's the foundation of my thinking, but I wouldnt like to live in an order where I must defend my interests in a virtual or actual civil war with the powerful and privileged, where the class struggle has developed into a totally unmitigated class war.
Not because I'm against class war, which I favour if it would be short, sharp and favour the very least off without unnecessary bloodsheed, but at present no one is prepared for such a situation other than the rich, it is the business men and proprietors who are in the militias, it is Coca-Cola and McDonalds who could hire mercenaries and strike breakers.
:I regard those kind of organizations as corporations very similar in most important respects to corporations as commonly understood: Groups of people cooperating toward common goals, with each individual motivated primarily by self-interest.
Well if you believe in self-interest, I know I do, are you not concerned about the consequences of giving it a free hand to rule? At the end of the day the robber, mercenary, rapist and pillager are all acting in self-interest, although I accept those are extreme examples.
I am aware of this and as a consequence believe that any national/public insdustry should be scrutinised constantly, a firm set of checks and balances established etc. after all there is no reason why a state monopoly should behave any differently than a private one, although one has the potential to be more accountable and once it is sufficiently prepared could be transformed to a worker/consumer controlled framework.
: I'm suspicious of everybody. I just think that whatever power businesses have is directly attributable to the government's presence in the economy. I think that if the government were reduced to JUST defense, (if that,) business would generally be smaller and less powerful. (They wouldn't be protected by tariffs and other government-inflicted restrictions on competition.)
I can see the logic of that, if the ideas about market forces etc. where correct, which isnt the case even ignoring the obvious market failure, like the insurance sectors attitude towards providing for high risk category consumers or the provision of street lighting or vacination (unprofitable publicly consumed goods), the market has proven a tendency towars monopoly and amalgamations when it is given free reign.
Why is there any reason that this would all change post-state? It is like suggesting the state will voluntarily whether way post-capitalism, a bit nonsensical but highly ideological.
A little tree doesnt put forth leaves after it has been turned into a club.
None.
