Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Warren and 6 others introduce bill barring employers from rejecting job seekers for bad credit (224 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The reason that I focus on ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, Blue Bell

    ... large organizations is because of the complexity and cost of technology which drives advancement now.

    For example, a small organization just can't design and build a 787 or even an engine for one (let alone doing so efficiently). An airplane engine today is vastly more complex and requires vastly more capital and more disciplines to develop than an aircraft engine from 1913.

    An experiment that lasted not more than four years a century ago and apparently wasn't ultimately successful (where is that model now?) isn't very compelling.

    Capitalism may suck, but it seems to suck less than the alternatives that have been tried in modern times. This is probably because humans are, by nature (as most mammals are), greedy and capitalism exploits that greed while harnessing and controlling it at the same time.

    •  The design of a 747 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN, Andrew M

      is accomplished by a multitude of contractors, not just one. In anarchist society, these would be the worker federations, each contributing to the project. So, I've answered this. Anarchist industry could be just as complex. And those same engineers who design these products would exist in anarchist society, and the design might even be better, since it would likely incorporate features better for the environment, and safer for consumers and the workers who build them.

      None of the people involved would necessarily change, simply that their roles and status would be different. Organization can exist in different forms.

      Basically, you've added nothing new, but largely repeated your same argument, which I've answered.

      Your premise is because capitalism exists, and anarcho-socialism doesn't (on a large scale) that disproves the viability of anarchism.

      That's just not a sound premise. A system that holds its power only through violence doesn't exactly demonstrate its viability. Anarchism doesn't exist because violence was used to suppress it. With your premise, you're basically stating that power justifies itself by having defeated all other possibilities using violence.

      Stating this concisely, your equation is that might = right.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 04:11:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You might want to read up on the theory of (0+ / 0-)


        There has been a lot of work done on why companies reach certain sizes but do not get larger and on why they exist at all, rather than everyone working as an independent contractor.

        The short answer is that there are costs involved when individuals or businesses contract with each other in a marketplace.  These costs increase as the size and complexity of the projects they are doing increases.  On the other hand, there are also costs to running a planned economy (ie. a company that allocates resources by command rather than via independent operators getting resources from the market), and these costs go up faster than linearly as the size of the firm increases.

        Optimal firm size is based on the trade off between these issues.

        In general, firm sizes increase as the complexity of their businesses increases or as capital requirements increase  (when you are loaning billions of dollars to a company you want to know that it is a substantial business that will be around in 20 years.)

        So it really makes little sense to suggest that a modern passenger jet could be made by a group of small shops contracting work out to each other.

        •  Who said "small shops"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Andrew M

          You're projecting your preconceived notions about anarchism into this discussion.

          Anarchist worker federations actually could accomplish possibly more than capitalist firms, since the competitive boundaries that separate capitalist enterprises would not exist in anarchism. And as to costs, when the need for enormous profiteering is eliminated, the costs for raw materials and resources used in production would be much different. It would be an entirely different way of economic interaction.

          What you're not understanding is that in anarchist society, the same people would be involved in creating large projects, the same numbers of workers, the same resources. The difference would be simply a different, more fluid, less rigid, less antagonistic social order, which could easily surpass capitalism with innovation.

          Anarchist worker federations could easily be as large as large corporations, albeit with a much more hospitable environment for productions.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 10:12:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site