CDZ Syndicalism

[Onyx]

What do you guys think of worker syndicates, or democratic worker unions, controlling the means of production and distribution?

I personally am a huge fan, since I find syndicalism to be a more liberated and people driven alternative. I am not opposed to privatized ownership, but my preference rests with worker syndicates.

 

[TNHarley]

Isnt that basically the end result for communism?
I know a hundred years ago the communists hated them, but from what I could tell, it was only because they didn't give in to the authoritarian communist parties.

 

[Onyx]

Isnt that basically the end result for communism?

Syndicalists do not necessarily want to get rid of property or currency. I know I do not.

I know a hundred years ago the communists hated them, but from what I could tell, it was only because they didn't give in to the authoritarian communist parties.

Yes, that is true.

State socialists have always attacked anarchists for the most inane reasons. They never had any justification beyond anarchists not submitting into their authoritarian rule.

 

[TNHarley]

Isnt that basically the end result for communism?

Syndicalists do not necessarily want to get rid of property or currency. I know I do not.

I know a hundred years ago the communists hated them, but from what I could tell, it was only because they didn't give in to the authoritarian communist parties.

Yes, that is true.

State socialists have always attacked anarchists for the most inane reasons. They never had any justification beyond anarchists not submitting into their authoritarian rule.

That's a good point.
Which reminded me of a question I pondered.. wouldn't self empowerment always go back to capitalism? That was always a big argument from the commies.. Granted, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” is basically a different form of trade.. Guess its just another hole in a theory.. lol
I said a hundred years, not hundreds lol

 

[The Irish Ram]

I remember a good while ago, there was a small factory that burned down. The workers were given stock in the company as bonuses and Christmas gifts. It became incentive to work hard and prosper. They loved their company. When it burned, the owner kept cutting them checks until it was rebuilt. And they all helped get it back on line. That is an excellent blueprint for success.
Something similar happened Nebraska in 2011. A fire destroyed the factory but the owners kept paying their workers while the workers volunteered for soup kitchens and community needs.
When done correctly, capitalism is a win win for everyone, communities, workers, owners.

 

[Onyx]

Which reminded me of a question I pondered.. wouldn't self empowerment always go back to capitalism?

No, I wouldn't say so.

That was always a big argument from the commies.

Why would communists make an argument in favor of capitalism?

Granted, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” is basically a different form of trade.. Guess its just another hole in a theory.. lol

Communists are not anti-trade.

They have their own system of economics known as a gift economy.

I said a hundred years, not hundreds lol

Sorry, I fixed that.

 

[Onyx]

When done correctly, capitalism is a win win for everyone, communities, workers, owners.

When done correctly, capitalism (under its modern definition) increasingly monetizes in favor of a small concentrated minority at the expense of everyone that made that wealth possible.

I am okay with that when it is kept relatively equitable and sustainable. Otherwise it just serves as a platform of exploitation and recklessness. The example you gave seems to be local independent industry, which is the kind of scale capitalist entities need to remain at to stay equitable and sustainable.

 

[TNHarley]

Which reminded me of a question I pondered.. wouldn't self empowerment always go back to capitalism?

No, I wouldn't say so.

That was always a big argument from the commies.

Why would communists make an argument in favor of capitalism?

Granted, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” is basically a different form of trade.. Guess its just another hole in a theory.. lol

Communists are not anti-trade.

They have their own system of economics known as a gift economy.

I said a hundred years, not hundreds lol

Sorry, I fixed that.

It wasn't in favor of capitalism. It was an argument against syndicalism.
They aren't necessarily anti-trade but that is as much relative to trade relation as the current mode of production as anything.. it is just regulated by Marxist philosophy instead of public impulse.

 

[Onyx]

They aren't necessarily anti-trade but that is as much relative to trade relation as the current mode of production as anything.. it is just regulated by Marxist philosophy instead of public impulse.

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you clarify?

 

[Onyx]

The only advantages privatized ownership has over democratic worker ownership is that you do not have to waste time going through elections and recalls, and there would be more motivation to create businesses since you would have uncontested authority (and a paycheck of your choosing).

Besides that, democratic worker ownership is superior in every single way.

 

[TNHarley]

They aren't necessarily anti-trade but that is as much relative to trade relation as the current mode of production as anything.. it is just regulated by Marxist philosophy instead of public impulse.

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you clarify?

I don't see much of a difference between capitalist production and that. It is regulated by Marxist philosophies(need and ability) instead of public wants. That's it. Basically "working for profit". Still seems like it would still be "unequal"
But we don't know because true communism has never actually happened. And p[robably never will. Not in its current theory anyways. It isn't feasible today. And back when it possibly was, the socialist dictators just killed millions of people and suppressed any possible revolution.
"there can be no revolution without ammunition"

 

[Onyx]

I don't see much of a difference between capitalist production and that.

Syndicalism can meld into other economic systems quite easily.

It can exist under communism, capitalism, or mutualism.

Basically "working for profit". Still seems like it would still be "unequal"

As an anarchist, I believe society should exist without rulers. That is not me saying that I believe all people are equal.

I just favor a system where the workers have more control over their jobs, and that the wealth created is not disproportionately ascending upwards to a middleman third party that collects a disproportionate amount simply for investing into the company or owning the real estate.

But we don't know because true communism has never actually happened.

It did in 1918-1921 and 1936-1939.

There were not exclusively communist communities within those territories, but they were there nonetheless.

It isn't feasible today. And back when it possibly was, the socialist dictators just killed millions of people and suppressed any possible revolution.
"there can be no revolution without ammunition"

I do not care for communism, mostly due to the desire to make all property communally owned (I could reconcile with no money). With that said, it is just as possible today as it was for Nestor Makhno and the black army during the Russian Revolution.

 

[Onyx]

God, for some reason I keep making tons of errors in my posts.

My head is wack right now.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't see much of a difference between capitalist production and that.

Syndicalism can meld into other economic systems quite easily.

It can exist under communism, capitalism, or mutualism.

Basically "working for profit". Still seems like it would still be "unequal"

As an anarchist, I believe society should exist without rulers. That is not me saying that I believe all people are equal.

I just favor a system where the workers have more control over their jobs, and that the wealth created is not disproportionately ascending upwards to a middleman third party that collects a disproportionate amount simply for investing into the company or owning the real estate.

But we don't know because true communism has never actually happened.

It did in 1918-1921 and 1936-1939.

There were not exclusively communist communities within those territories, but they were there nonetheless.

It isn't feasible today. And back when it possibly was, the socialist dictators just killed millions of people and suppressed any possible revolution.
"there can be no revolution without ammunition"

I do not care for communism, mostly due to the desire to make all property communally owned (I could reconcile with no money). With that said, it is just as possible today as it was for Nestor Makhno and the black army during the Russian Revolution.

The theory in itself isn't bad, honestly. It has some great qualities. I did a thread on it, let me see if I can find it.
I am kind of with you, im just not as extreme of an anarchist as you are. I believe in basic govt services, personal responsibility and liberty.

 

[TNHarley]

Communism

 

[Onyx]

The theory in itself isn't bad, honestly. It has some great qualities. I did a thread on it, let me see if I can find it.
I am kind of with you, im just not as extreme of an anarchist as you are.

There are no levels within anarchism. You are either an anarchist or you are not.

Syndicalism is not mutually exclusive with anarchism. It just so happens that almost every syndicalist is an anarchist, but if you want to form a worker syndicate today, it would not be against the law.

I believe in basic govt services

Which do not clash with anarchism.

An anarchy is a society without rulers, and not a society without organized cooperation and funding. It would actually work for the people for a change, since it would no longer be tied into a self serving power complex.

personal responsibility

The state only breeds dependence.

and liberty.

Yet you do not care much for freedom?

 

[TNHarley]

The theory in itself isn't bad, honestly. It has some great qualities. I did a thread on it, let me see if I can find it.
I am kind of with you, im just not as extreme of an anarchist as you are.

There are no levels within anarchism. You are either an anarchist or you are not.

Syndicalism is not mutually exclusive with anarchism. It just so happens that almost every syndicalist is an anarchist, but if you want to form a worker syndicate today, it would not be against the law.

I believe in basic govt services

Which do not clash with anarchism.

An anarchy is a society without rulers, and not a society without organized cooperation and funding. It would actually work for the people for a change, since it would no longer be tied into a self serving power complex.

personal responsibility

The state only breeds dependence.

and liberty.

Yet you do not care much for freedom?

Why would you think I don't care for freedom? Besides, aren't liberty and freedom basically synonyms?

 

[Onyx]

Why would you think I don't care for freedom? Besides, aren't liberty and freedom basically synonyms?

No. Liberty is a synonym for permission.

Being free is a state of being.

 

[TNHarley]

Why would you think I don't care for freedom? Besides, aren't liberty and freedom basically synonyms?

No. Liberty is a synonym for permission.

Being free is a state of being.

I disagree
free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy;
democracy
"revolution was the only path to freedom"
antonyms: dependence

• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
• the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
  "we do have some freedom of choice"
  • absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

lib·er·ty
ˈlibərdē/
noun
noun: liberty

1. 1.
   the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
   "compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty"
   synonyms: independence, freedom, autonomy, sovereignty, self-government, self-rule, self-determination; More
   civil liberties, human rights
   "the fight for liberty"
   antonyms: tyranny
   • an instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one.
     plural noun: liberties
     "the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"
     synonyms: right, birthright, prerogative, entitlement, privilege, permission, sanction, authorization, authority, license, power
     "the liberty to go where you please"
     antonyms: constraint
   • the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
     "people who have lost property or liberty without due process"
   • the personification of liberty as a female figure.
     noun: Liberty
2. 2.
   the power or scope to act as one pleases.

 

[Onyx]

free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy;
democracy
"revolution was the only path to freedom"
antonyms: dependence

• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

The definition for freedom is correct, but your definition of liberty is false.

Liberty refers to what you are permitted to do by the government. When you are at liberty, you are not party to a contextual restriction by the government. There is evidence in how the word has historically been used.