3 ms·

Tbh I do not think Chomsky has written on his ideals the way others have, much of his positions are extrapolated from his critiques on other states (please corr

Tbh I do not think Chomsky has written on his ideals the way others have, much of his positions are extrapolated from his critiques on other states (please correct me if I am wrong). However he has positively identified himself as an anarchy-syndicalist. There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large: convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse, seizing its assets and forcibly splitting or shuttering its operations, denying it use of supply chains, of debt if the market has currency, etc. a critical aspect of anarchist societies is lack of private property and capital. Trade unions can hold much of the power; I can’t speak to the concepts of anarchist states. In fact the idea of anarchist currency (anarchy-capitalism or market socialism, I guess?) is something I am unfamiliar with, in part because it obscures the cost in man time and effort it takes to produce a good or service—rather easy too, just consider subscription services where you pay a flat rate, or the labor it takes to get you chocolate or coffee vs how much it is valued in terms of your wages (presumably in a post-industrialization service economy if you’re on this forum). Similarly I do not know what an anarchist state is. Regardless, the idea is founded in large part on the concept of mutual aid. There is certainly plenty of research into how mutual aid tends towards or away from stability. A quick google search turns up this, for instance: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00275386/document https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00275386/document

shadowgovt 7y ago
> There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large I agree, but I believe a firm past a critical mass of size can defend against all of them, and defense breeds the resources for further defense. > convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives > seizing its assets and forcibly splitting or shuttering its operations Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence > denying it use of supply chains, of debt if the market has currency, etc. No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration
- monadic2 7y ago
  > Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives How do you figure? This implies the compensation is different from other "firm"s. > Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property. > No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing.
    - monadic2 7y ago
      > How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing. Well the traditional linguistic connotations of possession certainly persist. Here "seize" simply means take control of.

shadowgovt 7y ago

> There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large I agree, but I believe a firm past a critical mass of size can defend against all of them, and defense breeds the resources for further defense. > convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives > seizing its assets and forcibly splitting or shuttering its operations Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence > denying it use of supply chains, of debt if the market has currency, etc. No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration

monadic2 7y ago
> Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives How do you figure? This implies the compensation is different from other "firm"s. > Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property. > No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing.
  - monadic2 7y ago
    > How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing. Well the traditional linguistic connotations of possession certainly persist. Here "seize" simply means take control of.