Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
I can't say I know for sure, but it seems like a lot of your belief seems to stem from a misunderstanding of wealth. Like the American liberal left, you seem to view wealth as a fixed quantity which must be shared equally. One looks around, sees all the inequality in the world, stops and thinks, "well gee, isn't it sort of arbitrary that, here we are, human beings on earth, and rather than sharing what's here, we have this artificial institution called 'property', whereby a few greedy people grasp up far more than they need, while over there all those people have far less." You think, sure we could be like the progressives who seek to redistribute some of the wealth to increase "fairness", but why not go even further: if there were no property to begin with, there wouldn't be the issue of some owning more than others. Then we can be equals, brothers, have solidarity. Sounds nice.
The frustrating part is trying to square all that with economics. It's
not easy to do. For my money, the number one misunderstanding is that
the vaunted anarcho-syndicalist means of production, which must be communally used, but
never owned, had to have been created by somebody. It's not as though
there's been a simple shuffling of a fixed quantity of "means" throughout
the centuries. But that's should be obvious to anybody in in this forum.
In short, the anarchist slogan is "property is theft", because property, in your mind, is nothing more than a human mental construct that a few powerful people at some point in the past established in order to exploit everybody else, and everybody under that yoke just sort of buy it without examining whether such a thing actually exists. All their talk of exploitation begins with that assertion. Bosses exploit workers, not because they should pay workers more, but because their very function is to exploit. Any money they make comes directly from workers rightful salary. And the bullshit rhetoric goes on and on.
It's not as if workers' coops are illegal under the free market system, workers could easily pool together and share the means of production (like say a factory). If such a system is so superior, how come it never happens? Because it's a sham, and therefore the only way to truly implement "anarchism" is through a coercive governing force, which is exactly what happened during the Spanish Civil War, the only real (and ultimately tragic) attempt to implement anarchism. It's the same back-breaking dilemma that faces Marxism. A stagnant syndicalist society cannot coexist next to a prosperous "exploitative" capitalist society, therefore all must be coerced into syndicalism or none at all.
