SYSTEMS: Reflections on capitalism, communism, anarchism and what a better economic and social system may look like
The book delves into various debates, cliches, conversations and arguments encountered over a number of years. Following George Orwell’s advice to write in a way that is plain, direct but engaging, Wilson avoids academic jargon and getting bogged down in complicated political or economic theory.
All the issues are laid out alphabetically, covering a wide range of aspects of what system we can use to govern and organise ourselves. Throughout the book Wilson uses his own abbreviation of BESS as a shorthand for a better economic and social system.
March 2023, 224 pages, from Hand Readers Press, which is my new self publishing arm for books that don't fit with my main publishers.
Get the paperback here:
https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Reflections-capitalism-communism-anarchism/dp/B0BYRR55SP/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Get the hardback here:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BZBGNQZL?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860
UK version:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BYRR55SP
An excerpt from the book:
Introduction
This book is simply titled ‘Systems’, with the subtitle explaining that it consists of ‘Various reflections on capitalism, communism, anarchism and what a better economic and social system may look like’. It includes edited versions of various debate and chats and arguments I have had online with lots of different people over a number of years. As some people may not wish to have themselves named I have taken out almost all the names of people who made comments, just referring to them as ‘a person said’ or some such wording. I normally try to follow George Orwell’s sound advice and write in a way that attempts to be clear by using a simple but still intelligent type of language. That involves avoiding difficult academic jargon and the wording of complicated political or economic theory. In addition, I’m often rather flippant and joking in my wording.
All the issues are laid out alphabetically A- Z, though I have not bothered to keep to a strict order within each letter section. Since communism and capitalism both begin with a C, that is obviously going to be the biggest category. Throughout this book I use my own abbreviation of BESS as a shorthand for the kind of better economic and social system that I favour. It clearly has elements of socialism, anarchism and participatory economics in it. Much of this book looks at how that BESS might work and answers people’s objections and questions about it, as well as considering various clichés about anarchism and communism.
All this stuff is complicated, of course, but the basics are pretty simple: capitalism is not a good enough system… we CAN make a better system…so let’s get on with it. We’ll all be much happier.
Sean Michael Wilson, 2023.
A
Anarchism stuff
There follows various comments around the general topic of anarchism, that much misunderstood approach which never fully goes away and seems to have always been with us…
Anarchism: what is it?
Someone in an online debate said to me : ‘the ever changing definition of anarchy that you guy's use lacks any objective meaning.’
It’s simply not the case. can you bring up ONE well argued example of that? Where me or anyone stated the theory as X and then shifted to a very different Y? I would be interested to see such an example.
What we have is general miss-understanding of what anarchism or communism actually is. If you say ‘its about imposing conformism and suppressing ambition’, and its really NOT about that, then to state what anarchism/communism holds in reference to ambition and freedom etc, is not in anyway an attempt to just shift the definition. It’s to correct the cliche and state clearly what the view/theory is. Once stated there will not be a radical re-definition to evade your points. Not from me anyway.
The only way in which your idea is even partial accurate is in noting that anarchism is a very flexible approach. It adjusts to the concrete, practical situation on the ground in a flexible way (but within the same basic theoretical approach). But I would have thought you would find that practical aspect was a good thing? (you laugh at the idea of practical anarchy above, but you are simply, and clearly wrong on that - is it inherently a practical and flexible approach).
So the first problem is that, in my experience, 95% of folk don’t know what anarchism is (95.27% to be precise!). They are full of misunderstandings and believe cliches and outright lies. So, how can they form any reliable opinion of it? That’s a key practical, realistic issue we face.
IF most people knew what anarchism and communism and capitalism really are and decide ‘we think capitalism works best’ then fair enough. I may still disagree and try to persuade some over to ‘my side’. But i would accept that we had a good, open, intelligent debate about it and my side lost. Thats democratic. But we are FAR, FAR away from that now, in this present world. So, at the very least we should try to overcome cliches and stereotypes and consider the approaches for what they really are, right? That’s my first aim. Surely even most right wingers agree that we should know what the choices are, no?
Anarchism is all around us right now
When I make the comment that anarchism is all around us, everyday, in ways we don’t call anarchism the common reaction is: "I would call those "social" behaviors, not "socialistic" or "anarchistic" because they have little, if any, direct relation to economics or government. " – and my view is: most people are surprised if I say that X everyday behaviour is anarchistic. I deliberately state it in that bold way to surprise folk. But, actually the point holds well most of the time. While its almost always true that no one sitting down on a blue mat for the Japanese cherry blossom viewing spring festival of hanami thinks "ooh, how anarchistic this is" (apart from me!)...that it actually IS. Them not THINKING it, does not mean it is not.
After all we dont think about breathing 99% of the time, but that does not stop it happening, or it being oxygen, etc. The more accurate way, I think, is to turn it around and say that yes folk don’t do that stuff BECAUSE of anarchism, or any direct result of a system of government. But, still, anarchism arises because of that stuff. The fact that millions of people do nice social behaviour everyday is what anarchism comes from and what allows it to be a workable system of government. That everyday cooperation stuff is what anarchism relies on to make it work. It IS anarchism.
The point of mentioning it to other is to show to people that anarchism/socialism/communism are not totally alien things that so hugely different from their present lives. Most people seem to think they are things completely different from how their lives are now. So, I think its VERY important for us to realise that we are already doing many ‘anarchistic’ or ‘socialistic’ type things already, everyday…even if we dont call them that. The hanami thing is just one example. If we want to move forward to a better society then I think its important for us to know what actual things/actions/attitudes would constitute that better way.
A person who debated this with me online said: “But I still don't understand why you consider hanami to be anarchistic (or socialistic or communistic) behavior. I would say it's simply a cultural tradition, like having cookouts and fireworks on July 4th, or Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc., etc. If these activities are occurring, as they in fact are, in a capitalistic society, then I say it is just as valid to call them examples of capitalistic behavior.”
My view: ‘simply a cultural tradition’… surely its pretty clear that nothing is ‘simply’ cultural. What is simple about culture? Isn’t pretty much everything we do in culture connected to a variety of interconnected aspects that weave together geography, history, language, technology, economy, etc? The simplest of everyday actions, like making a cup of tea, has more than a dozen elements to it. Also, a lot of the ‘simply cultural’ holidays we have are connected to political events, even if we have forgotten those aspects -like the ‘boshita’ horse festival of Kumamoto in southern Japan, which is I believe connected to a past conflict with Korea. Or fireworks (Guy Fawkes) day in the UK which is connected to a catholic plot to blow up parliament in 1605 and was explicitly and violently political at the start.
Hanami is part of Japanese culture, yes, of course. But that does not knock down my point at all. it can be part of culture AND an example of anarchism…like some thing else can be part of culture and an example of extreme nationalism or fascism. If we want to pursue the culture aspects then the conclusion could be that anarchistic aspects have a long term role in Japanese culture. Even if 99% of Japanese people would not CALL it anarchism does not stop the behaviour they actually do from being connected to anarchism, an example of what anarchists think is a good basis for organisation.
In my personal opinion things like hanami are more anarchistic than capitalistic. They happen IN a capitalist society, yes, for sure. But if we pursue the point are such activities more linked to anarchism or capitalism, I think they are far more anarchistic. Consider the details:
In the hanami is there any money profit aspects? No.
Are there any corporate sponsors? 99% not.
Are there seats for rich people and different ones for poor? No.
Do the bosses and managers and owners eat different food from the others? No
Do people need to get permission from some owners to set their blue mats down in X nice spot? No
etc…
The capitalist characteristics of private property, ownership of land, profit, strict work hierarchy etc do not seem to apply much to what happens in hanami. Looking at all those things above we can see that hanami events are characterised by: rough equality of seating and food regardless of social hierarchy, on areas considered to be commonly owned by people in general, organised in a loose confederation of equals, with the general aim of that group of people having a nice fun community activity where profit and advertising and hierarchy are irrelevant. Those are all aspects of anarchism. That’s what an anarchist society looks like.
So, hanami festival an example of some good things that can exist despite being within capitalism. The very best thing you could say is that capitalism LETS such things exist, though they are not very useful for it because they dont bring in almost any profit, etc. That’s good if it is an example of genuine tolerance, and maybe it is. But we see that various things like this that used to be free and organised by local people in a community way have been ‘monetised’ and taken under corporate control, or squeezed for profit. Christmas is a good example. People often complain that ‘nowadays its so commercialised. the shops start pushing Christmas in November, even in October!’… doesn’t that mean that capitalism ruined Christmas?
We also see that when such community events DO become explicitly political, like occupy NY, then the police turn up pretty quickly to start bashing heads. Its lucky for festivals like hanami, then, that any radical characteristics are forgotten or not known…or they might be knocked down pretty quickly!
Anarcho-capitalism
As part of a debate about anarcho-capitalism, I asked:
“I am interested in learning more about how people such as yourself think anarchism and capitalism are compatible. And i mean that, politely, as a genuine interest... For example if I work for capitalist company A, that is owed by Mr Brown, I have to follow his commands as a subservient worker in his company.
How is that compatible with anarchism? Since anarchism has at its core the idea the voluntary cooperation of equals in such places of production, how
can it be acceptable to have a working place where Mr Brown is the king like figure and his workers are structurally not his equals. A place where the workers are not able to exercise as much power, as much say, as Mr Brown over how the production place is organised, working conditions etc. These two seems completely incompatible to me.
I’d be interested to see what rationale can be given for the existence of such capitalist style private ownership within an anarchistic system. And let me make three points to save time: the answer ‘they are free to leave company A’ does not resolve the contradiction WITHIN that company. Also, the answer ‘anarcho-capitalism would not have the voluntary co-operation of equals as a feature’ means that it is not anarchist, its plain capitalist. Then, if the answer is ‘Mr Brown would not have any more power in the company than the workers’ then i dont see how its capitalistic… As I say, I ask these points politely, as genuine questions.”
The long but interesting response from the supporter of anarcho-capitalism was:
“Sean, if you work for someone, you enter into an employment contract, that gives both parties rights and duties. This is a voluntary and equitable act: both sides negotiate, both sides are free to take it or leave it, neither side would enter into the relationship if this didn't benefit them, and both sides are free to end the relationship. Whatever happens rightfully in the relationship is based on the contract you agreed to. It's not just the employer who has all the rights. Based on the contract, you can force the employer to pay you the agreed wage! If he doesn't, you can give him hell! One could even say: the poor employer! What an unequal relationship he must suffer through! He has to pay you but you don't ever need to pay him! He even has to pay you if he dislikes you or if he isn't satisfied with your performance! (And I assure you, as an employer who has been through it a few times, I find myself anything but a king in such situations!).
Selling your skills, your labor, your time is also no different from selling anything else. You sell comics, I take it. If you're interested in making a living in this way, you probably treat your customers with a certain amount of politeness and try to be nice to them.
You'll probably at least listen if they have any feedback or requests. You may ignore their wishes and of course you are aware that you may lose their business as a consequence. If you continuously treat your customers poorly, just do whatever you want, pay no attention to what they want etc, then you'll either have very little business, or you're in the relatively rare position that you somehow offer a shit-hot product that they want to buy despite your generally poor attitude. There are employees like that, too. An absolute pain in the ass, yet indispensable so they don't get fired and can even demand a raise at the end of each year, or any old time of the year, indeed.
As I mentioned, anarchy per se is just the absence of government. Ancoms try to make it about the absence of hierarchies but that's something other anarchists like me disagree with. A hierarchy that's based on contract is something completely different from a hierarchy that is imposed by force (as government is). It is in no way incompatible with anarchy. And on that note, here is what we ancaps find puzzling about socialist anarchism: it is explicitly based on expropriation and coercion, and yet it styles itself as anarchism. That doesn't compute.”
Many well made points there, to which I responded:
“…a calm, reasonable response, thanks. Though, the arguments are not convincing. The existence of employment contracts is largely the result of left wing minded governments pushing through such legislation in the 19thC. The power of the worker in them was hard won via years of labour collective action and continues to be backed up by socialist type unions.
Anarcho-capitalism (AC) is against both of those aspects being involved, no? Surely AC would like the government and unions completely uninvolved in the employer-employee work contract, no? That leaves it as one powerful employer making an agreement with a far less powerful single employee. There would indeed be rights and duties on both sides, even in that case, but very much weighted towards the employer in terms of control of the work place and rewards from the production process. Therefore, completely unacceptable to anarchists.
The single employee, without the force of collective (socialist) action behind them is very much in the weaker situation. How could they enforce those contract rights as a single individual? By the threat of individual violence against the employer? That does not sound nice. But threatening to leave?
That is only a theoretical right, in many cases. In practice the ability to leave a job is very much hampered by various aspects like low savings, family being rooted to that area, immediate bills to pay that do not allow a period of job searching, no references from employer x that you fell out with, etc. In no way can it be seen as the acceptable practice of the voluntary association of equals. Not in reality.
You mention your own experience of workers having the upper hand in some aspects, at some times. I’m sure that does occur, yes. But it’s not a convincing argument for the compatibility of anarchism and capitalism. We could say its the opposite. Ok, let’s say the employer is forced to pay staff that are next to useless. As you say, that does not sound good for the employer. Therefore, surely for them too it would be better to be in a socialist-anarchist (SA) type work place, where there was no capitalist element, and therefore no duty for them to pay people not pulling their weight. That would be better for the employer individual too, no?
In such a case, workers who were not pulling their weight would be criticised and encouraged by their fellow equal workers. This would have the result of either making them feel ‘hmm, i better do my share, its reasonable - everyone else is’ or, after a good effort at getting them to improve they would be voted out of that work place, democratically. That works better all round, right? For you too. If the capitalistic boss-worker system is not good for the worker AND troublesome for you too, why bother with it?
And then, your experiences of difficult workers etc have taken place with the present capitalist system, which is not a system you like, right? This kind of ‘state capitalism with some socialist aspects’ system (SCS). So, your personal experiences in that SCS can not necessarily be applied to how things would work in the - very different- full AC system you wish (or how things would operate in that SA system I prefer). In your full AC, with no government legislation to back them up and no unions, I think it highly likely that workers would have even less rights and power than they have now. Making it even more unequal, and as I say, incompatible with anarchism.
Anarcho-capitalism 2
If you are free in capitalism to set up your own business, and free to employ some people, and they are free to agree to become your employees… well, then the freedom of those workers soon stops.
Because you, as the boss will have more and more POWER over them, their freedom will decrease. You, as the boss, will accumulate much more money than your employees and thus also decrease their freedom. Your actions are likely to become more and more in the direction of decreasing the freedom of your employees, and that class of people who are workers in general, and of increasing the power of that class of people who are bosses. Capitalism and genuine freedom are not compatible.
Introduction
This book is simply titled ‘Systems’, with the subtitle explaining that it consists of ‘Various reflections on capitalism, communism, anarchism and what a better economic and social system may look like’. It includes edited versions of various debate and chats and arguments I have had online with lots of different people over a number of years. As some people may not wish to have themselves named I have taken out almost all the names of people who made comments, just referring to them as ‘a person said’ or some such wording. I normally try to follow George Orwell’s sound advice and write in a way that attempts to be clear by using a simple but still intelligent type of language. That involves avoiding difficult academic jargon and the wording of complicated political or economic theory. In addition, I’m often rather flippant and joking in my wording.
All the issues are laid out alphabetically A- Z, though I have not bothered to keep to a strict order within each letter section. Since communism and capitalism both begin with a C, that is obviously going to be the biggest category. Throughout this book I use my own abbreviation of BESS as a shorthand for the kind of better economic and social system that I favour. It clearly has elements of socialism, anarchism and participatory economics in it. Much of this book looks at how that BESS might work and answers people’s objections and questions about it, as well as considering various clichés about anarchism and communism.
All this stuff is complicated, of course, but the basics are pretty simple: capitalism is not a good enough system… we CAN make a better system…so let’s get on with it. We’ll all be much happier.
Sean Michael Wilson, 2023.
A
Anarchism stuff
There follows various comments around the general topic of anarchism, that much misunderstood approach which never fully goes away and seems to have always been with us…
Anarchism: what is it?
Someone in an online debate said to me : ‘the ever changing definition of anarchy that you guy's use lacks any objective meaning.’
It’s simply not the case. can you bring up ONE well argued example of that? Where me or anyone stated the theory as X and then shifted to a very different Y? I would be interested to see such an example.
What we have is general miss-understanding of what anarchism or communism actually is. If you say ‘its about imposing conformism and suppressing ambition’, and its really NOT about that, then to state what anarchism/communism holds in reference to ambition and freedom etc, is not in anyway an attempt to just shift the definition. It’s to correct the cliche and state clearly what the view/theory is. Once stated there will not be a radical re-definition to evade your points. Not from me anyway.
The only way in which your idea is even partial accurate is in noting that anarchism is a very flexible approach. It adjusts to the concrete, practical situation on the ground in a flexible way (but within the same basic theoretical approach). But I would have thought you would find that practical aspect was a good thing? (you laugh at the idea of practical anarchy above, but you are simply, and clearly wrong on that - is it inherently a practical and flexible approach).
So the first problem is that, in my experience, 95% of folk don’t know what anarchism is (95.27% to be precise!). They are full of misunderstandings and believe cliches and outright lies. So, how can they form any reliable opinion of it? That’s a key practical, realistic issue we face.
IF most people knew what anarchism and communism and capitalism really are and decide ‘we think capitalism works best’ then fair enough. I may still disagree and try to persuade some over to ‘my side’. But i would accept that we had a good, open, intelligent debate about it and my side lost. Thats democratic. But we are FAR, FAR away from that now, in this present world. So, at the very least we should try to overcome cliches and stereotypes and consider the approaches for what they really are, right? That’s my first aim. Surely even most right wingers agree that we should know what the choices are, no?
Anarchism is all around us right now
When I make the comment that anarchism is all around us, everyday, in ways we don’t call anarchism the common reaction is: "I would call those "social" behaviors, not "socialistic" or "anarchistic" because they have little, if any, direct relation to economics or government. " – and my view is: most people are surprised if I say that X everyday behaviour is anarchistic. I deliberately state it in that bold way to surprise folk. But, actually the point holds well most of the time. While its almost always true that no one sitting down on a blue mat for the Japanese cherry blossom viewing spring festival of hanami thinks "ooh, how anarchistic this is" (apart from me!)...that it actually IS. Them not THINKING it, does not mean it is not.
After all we dont think about breathing 99% of the time, but that does not stop it happening, or it being oxygen, etc. The more accurate way, I think, is to turn it around and say that yes folk don’t do that stuff BECAUSE of anarchism, or any direct result of a system of government. But, still, anarchism arises because of that stuff. The fact that millions of people do nice social behaviour everyday is what anarchism comes from and what allows it to be a workable system of government. That everyday cooperation stuff is what anarchism relies on to make it work. It IS anarchism.
The point of mentioning it to other is to show to people that anarchism/socialism/communism are not totally alien things that so hugely different from their present lives. Most people seem to think they are things completely different from how their lives are now. So, I think its VERY important for us to realise that we are already doing many ‘anarchistic’ or ‘socialistic’ type things already, everyday…even if we dont call them that. The hanami thing is just one example. If we want to move forward to a better society then I think its important for us to know what actual things/actions/attitudes would constitute that better way.
A person who debated this with me online said: “But I still don't understand why you consider hanami to be anarchistic (or socialistic or communistic) behavior. I would say it's simply a cultural tradition, like having cookouts and fireworks on July 4th, or Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc., etc. If these activities are occurring, as they in fact are, in a capitalistic society, then I say it is just as valid to call them examples of capitalistic behavior.”
My view: ‘simply a cultural tradition’… surely its pretty clear that nothing is ‘simply’ cultural. What is simple about culture? Isn’t pretty much everything we do in culture connected to a variety of interconnected aspects that weave together geography, history, language, technology, economy, etc? The simplest of everyday actions, like making a cup of tea, has more than a dozen elements to it. Also, a lot of the ‘simply cultural’ holidays we have are connected to political events, even if we have forgotten those aspects -like the ‘boshita’ horse festival of Kumamoto in southern Japan, which is I believe connected to a past conflict with Korea. Or fireworks (Guy Fawkes) day in the UK which is connected to a catholic plot to blow up parliament in 1605 and was explicitly and violently political at the start.
Hanami is part of Japanese culture, yes, of course. But that does not knock down my point at all. it can be part of culture AND an example of anarchism…like some thing else can be part of culture and an example of extreme nationalism or fascism. If we want to pursue the culture aspects then the conclusion could be that anarchistic aspects have a long term role in Japanese culture. Even if 99% of Japanese people would not CALL it anarchism does not stop the behaviour they actually do from being connected to anarchism, an example of what anarchists think is a good basis for organisation.
In my personal opinion things like hanami are more anarchistic than capitalistic. They happen IN a capitalist society, yes, for sure. But if we pursue the point are such activities more linked to anarchism or capitalism, I think they are far more anarchistic. Consider the details:
In the hanami is there any money profit aspects? No.
Are there any corporate sponsors? 99% not.
Are there seats for rich people and different ones for poor? No.
Do the bosses and managers and owners eat different food from the others? No
Do people need to get permission from some owners to set their blue mats down in X nice spot? No
etc…
The capitalist characteristics of private property, ownership of land, profit, strict work hierarchy etc do not seem to apply much to what happens in hanami. Looking at all those things above we can see that hanami events are characterised by: rough equality of seating and food regardless of social hierarchy, on areas considered to be commonly owned by people in general, organised in a loose confederation of equals, with the general aim of that group of people having a nice fun community activity where profit and advertising and hierarchy are irrelevant. Those are all aspects of anarchism. That’s what an anarchist society looks like.
So, hanami festival an example of some good things that can exist despite being within capitalism. The very best thing you could say is that capitalism LETS such things exist, though they are not very useful for it because they dont bring in almost any profit, etc. That’s good if it is an example of genuine tolerance, and maybe it is. But we see that various things like this that used to be free and organised by local people in a community way have been ‘monetised’ and taken under corporate control, or squeezed for profit. Christmas is a good example. People often complain that ‘nowadays its so commercialised. the shops start pushing Christmas in November, even in October!’… doesn’t that mean that capitalism ruined Christmas?
We also see that when such community events DO become explicitly political, like occupy NY, then the police turn up pretty quickly to start bashing heads. Its lucky for festivals like hanami, then, that any radical characteristics are forgotten or not known…or they might be knocked down pretty quickly!
Anarcho-capitalism
As part of a debate about anarcho-capitalism, I asked:
“I am interested in learning more about how people such as yourself think anarchism and capitalism are compatible. And i mean that, politely, as a genuine interest... For example if I work for capitalist company A, that is owed by Mr Brown, I have to follow his commands as a subservient worker in his company.
How is that compatible with anarchism? Since anarchism has at its core the idea the voluntary cooperation of equals in such places of production, how
can it be acceptable to have a working place where Mr Brown is the king like figure and his workers are structurally not his equals. A place where the workers are not able to exercise as much power, as much say, as Mr Brown over how the production place is organised, working conditions etc. These two seems completely incompatible to me.
I’d be interested to see what rationale can be given for the existence of such capitalist style private ownership within an anarchistic system. And let me make three points to save time: the answer ‘they are free to leave company A’ does not resolve the contradiction WITHIN that company. Also, the answer ‘anarcho-capitalism would not have the voluntary co-operation of equals as a feature’ means that it is not anarchist, its plain capitalist. Then, if the answer is ‘Mr Brown would not have any more power in the company than the workers’ then i dont see how its capitalistic… As I say, I ask these points politely, as genuine questions.”
The long but interesting response from the supporter of anarcho-capitalism was:
“Sean, if you work for someone, you enter into an employment contract, that gives both parties rights and duties. This is a voluntary and equitable act: both sides negotiate, both sides are free to take it or leave it, neither side would enter into the relationship if this didn't benefit them, and both sides are free to end the relationship. Whatever happens rightfully in the relationship is based on the contract you agreed to. It's not just the employer who has all the rights. Based on the contract, you can force the employer to pay you the agreed wage! If he doesn't, you can give him hell! One could even say: the poor employer! What an unequal relationship he must suffer through! He has to pay you but you don't ever need to pay him! He even has to pay you if he dislikes you or if he isn't satisfied with your performance! (And I assure you, as an employer who has been through it a few times, I find myself anything but a king in such situations!).
Selling your skills, your labor, your time is also no different from selling anything else. You sell comics, I take it. If you're interested in making a living in this way, you probably treat your customers with a certain amount of politeness and try to be nice to them.
You'll probably at least listen if they have any feedback or requests. You may ignore their wishes and of course you are aware that you may lose their business as a consequence. If you continuously treat your customers poorly, just do whatever you want, pay no attention to what they want etc, then you'll either have very little business, or you're in the relatively rare position that you somehow offer a shit-hot product that they want to buy despite your generally poor attitude. There are employees like that, too. An absolute pain in the ass, yet indispensable so they don't get fired and can even demand a raise at the end of each year, or any old time of the year, indeed.
As I mentioned, anarchy per se is just the absence of government. Ancoms try to make it about the absence of hierarchies but that's something other anarchists like me disagree with. A hierarchy that's based on contract is something completely different from a hierarchy that is imposed by force (as government is). It is in no way incompatible with anarchy. And on that note, here is what we ancaps find puzzling about socialist anarchism: it is explicitly based on expropriation and coercion, and yet it styles itself as anarchism. That doesn't compute.”
Many well made points there, to which I responded:
“…a calm, reasonable response, thanks. Though, the arguments are not convincing. The existence of employment contracts is largely the result of left wing minded governments pushing through such legislation in the 19thC. The power of the worker in them was hard won via years of labour collective action and continues to be backed up by socialist type unions.
Anarcho-capitalism (AC) is against both of those aspects being involved, no? Surely AC would like the government and unions completely uninvolved in the employer-employee work contract, no? That leaves it as one powerful employer making an agreement with a far less powerful single employee. There would indeed be rights and duties on both sides, even in that case, but very much weighted towards the employer in terms of control of the work place and rewards from the production process. Therefore, completely unacceptable to anarchists.
The single employee, without the force of collective (socialist) action behind them is very much in the weaker situation. How could they enforce those contract rights as a single individual? By the threat of individual violence against the employer? That does not sound nice. But threatening to leave?
That is only a theoretical right, in many cases. In practice the ability to leave a job is very much hampered by various aspects like low savings, family being rooted to that area, immediate bills to pay that do not allow a period of job searching, no references from employer x that you fell out with, etc. In no way can it be seen as the acceptable practice of the voluntary association of equals. Not in reality.
You mention your own experience of workers having the upper hand in some aspects, at some times. I’m sure that does occur, yes. But it’s not a convincing argument for the compatibility of anarchism and capitalism. We could say its the opposite. Ok, let’s say the employer is forced to pay staff that are next to useless. As you say, that does not sound good for the employer. Therefore, surely for them too it would be better to be in a socialist-anarchist (SA) type work place, where there was no capitalist element, and therefore no duty for them to pay people not pulling their weight. That would be better for the employer individual too, no?
In such a case, workers who were not pulling their weight would be criticised and encouraged by their fellow equal workers. This would have the result of either making them feel ‘hmm, i better do my share, its reasonable - everyone else is’ or, after a good effort at getting them to improve they would be voted out of that work place, democratically. That works better all round, right? For you too. If the capitalistic boss-worker system is not good for the worker AND troublesome for you too, why bother with it?
And then, your experiences of difficult workers etc have taken place with the present capitalist system, which is not a system you like, right? This kind of ‘state capitalism with some socialist aspects’ system (SCS). So, your personal experiences in that SCS can not necessarily be applied to how things would work in the - very different- full AC system you wish (or how things would operate in that SA system I prefer). In your full AC, with no government legislation to back them up and no unions, I think it highly likely that workers would have even less rights and power than they have now. Making it even more unequal, and as I say, incompatible with anarchism.
Anarcho-capitalism 2
If you are free in capitalism to set up your own business, and free to employ some people, and they are free to agree to become your employees… well, then the freedom of those workers soon stops.
Because you, as the boss will have more and more POWER over them, their freedom will decrease. You, as the boss, will accumulate much more money than your employees and thus also decrease their freedom. Your actions are likely to become more and more in the direction of decreasing the freedom of your employees, and that class of people who are workers in general, and of increasing the power of that class of people who are bosses. Capitalism and genuine freedom are not compatible.