Quote from: lemonginger on July 12, 2011, 06:01:03 PM

riiight. because in an economy where workers have too much power, the rumneration scale looks like this

Nice pic, is there an article associated with it?

Quote from: lemonginger on July 15, 2011, 07:10:24 PM

Anarchy does not simply mean "absence of the State" (however you define it) but "without rulers" or "contrary to authority". This was true in the 18th Century and is especially true now as the post-structuralists and others have given us a far more sophisticated understanding of how discipline/authoritarianism have pervaded nearly every aspect of our existence.

+1

I think Sanarchists and Canarchists are completely opposite. This needs to be emphasized. Otherwise people, including myself mistakenly associate anarchy with Canarchy. If on the other hand they associated anarchy with Sanarchy, then the community opinion might be dramatically different. It seems historically Sanarchy has been hijacked by Canarchists. The only thing they have in common is the "absence of state". Otherwise they are ideologically opposite. IMO one is the left without government the other is the right without government.

I view Sanarchy as the adherence to Marxism economics, without infringements upon personal expression and interaction.

Quote from: lemonginger on July 15, 2011, 07:10:24 PM

In any case, cutting wages may make sense for an individual firm but in aggregate, it would just reduce aggregate demand for products, putting us back into the same situation as before.

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC9

Interesting assertion. I'm interested to know the basis of this. Cutting wages will result in less consumption of the wage-earners, yes? But what stops an increase in employer consumption to offset this?