In "The Conquest of Bread," anarcho-communist Petr Kropotkin, argued that one positive development in the right direction would be: "Trade-unionism, with a growing tendency towards organizing the different trades internationally, and of being not only an instrument for the improvement of the conditions of labour, but also of becoming an organization which might, at a given moment, take into its hands the management of production". Much like what Obama did with GM and Chrysler. Kropotkin admits "Of course, none of these may, in any degree, be taken as a substitute for Communism, or even for Socialism," but that such would be a move in the right direction.
What I have read by Kropotkin so far shows him to have some very rose-colored glasses when it comes to his pro-socialist understanding of both human nature and history. And it's downright laughable after you're read Hayek's takedown of economic planning.
3 comments:
Socialism is a beautifully complicated structure.
Trade Unions are never organized by one person.
Here is the definition of trade
union from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union
So while Hayeck is correct in his idea about central planners this
does not affect what Kropotkin stated about trade unions
Since trade unions would be run by a number of people.
One, central planning was never done by one person, but by a panel of "experts." Two, Kropotkin saw trade-unionism as a means to the end of socialist central planning. Three, the reality of trade unionism and the ideals of trade unionism are quite different from each other. In the real world, trade unions are governed from the top-down -- and their methods (and their actual leadership) is indistinguishable from the mafia. Which does make them behave much like a government -- which may explain the Left's love of the unions. Birds of a feather, you know.
Post a Comment