Freedomain Radio

Discuss, enlighten me.

Anarcho-Syndicalism: A Recipe for Ruin

Anything is an anarchist model so long as it is voluntary and free of coercion/violence.

If people want to live of their own free will in an inefficient collectivist clusterfuck that doesn't force anyone else into it - that's anarchy. When they want to use false morality to impose it on everyone in the world (which is generally the case with anarcho-syndicalists) then no, it is not an anarchist model

Kowalski:

Anything is an anarchist model so long as it is voluntary and free of coercion/violence.

A lot of anarchists seem to not understand this fundamentally -- all kinds of anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists, socialists, syndicalists, communists, etc. I do think it's important for us to acknowledge: If, in the absence of the government, I choose to live in a community that functions on the premises of stateless socialism, then as long as it remains voluntary, however stupid you may think it is, it's still within the realm of voluntarism and agorism, etc.

Of course, there are very good reasons not to participate in such societies, even if voluntary, but that's beside the point.

In a phrase anarcho-syndicalism is nothing more than free market capitalism wherein labor owns the means of production.

Hardly a recipe for ruin.

Esp compared to our present economic systems (ponzi like schemes and worse) which literally were designed to fail.

so anarchism is defined merely as a system in which all participation is voluntary?

How is that even possible, how could it possibly work?

Doesn't it sound like the most improbable, impracticle of all possible fantasy worlds?

Coercsion and violence are the very basis of the definition of a state. The state exists explicitly because it retains a monopoly on the use of force to maintain order and the rule of law. As well as to repel the invasion by non state actors and extra state actors.

nation state:

Literally, a sovereign entity dominated by a single nation. A mythical and intellectual construct with a highly persuasive and powerful political force. It is the primary unit in the study of international relations. Yet although it has a specific meaning it is also a highly abused political term, especially when too readily applied to the ‘real’ world. Its meaning is found in the coincidence of its two parent terms, ‘state’ and ‘nation’. ‘State’ refers to the political organization that displays sovereignty both within geographic borders and in relation to other sovereign entities. A world of nation-states implies an international system of pure sovereign entities, relating to each other legally as equals. ‘Nation’ refers rather to the population within, sharing a common culture, language, and ethnicity with a strong historical continuity. This manifests itself in most members in a sentiment of collective, communal identity. When the two concepts, ‘nation’ and ‘state’ are combined, this creates an enormously compelling mixture of legitimacy and efficiency for governing elites.

Unfortunately, there does not exist, has never existed, a nation-state in the perfect sense. Nevertheless, it has commanded a strong following, as governments have endeavoured to attain the legitimacy and political stability it brings. It was used most effectively in the nation-building of the nineteenth century, and has been the target more recently of many Third World governments hoping to build nations in support of their states as part of their socio-economic development. A common strategy of elites in building a sense of internal cohesiveness is in creating strong enemy images from outside or within the society. It is often this feature that causes dynamic instability for nation-states in the world system.

The later part of the twentieth century witnessed a decline in the power of the ‘nation-states’, as other bodies gained power in international relations, bodies such as large multinational corporations, international organizations, and other collectivities. The rise of supranationalism, most clearly in the European Union, could well make the simple model of single-level sovereignty implied by the nation-state even more irrelevant. So could the problem of extranational minorities (such as Germans outside Germany, and Hungarians outside Hungary). For comparison, see also nationalism.

— Paul Ingram, Oxford dictionary of politics

assaholic:

so anarchism is defined merely as a system in which all participation is voluntary?

Yes

assaholic:

How is that even possible, how could it possibly work?

Doesn't it sound like the most improbable, impracticle of all possible fantasy worlds?

You will have most of this answered in these two books, Everyday Anarchy anf Practical Anarchy

assaholic:

In a phrase anarcho-syndicalism is nothing more than free market capitalism wherein labor owns the means of production.

 

 

Also, there is no competition, prices, money, or property.  Meaning it is the same as capitalism like football is the same as baseball.

I assume there is no separate companies or industries, if all of the workers are united, too.

John Ess:

assaholic:

In a phrase anarcho-syndicalism is nothing more than free market capitalism wherein labor owns the means of production.

 

 

Also, there is no competition, prices, money, or property.  Meaning it is the same as capitalism like football is the same as baseball.

I assume there is no separate companies or industries, if all of the workers are united, too.

every single word of that post was incorrect.

anarcho-syndiacalism features independent companies that operate very much like modern corporations except nthat they are OWNED by the folks who work for the corporation. They feature money, competition, property, separate industries, and the workers are not all united. They work for companies that they own that compete with other companies.

Truthfully, the only feature that separates anarcho-syndicalism from capitalism is that labor and capital are the exact same class of people.

assaholic:

Truthfully, the only feature that separates anarcho-syndicalism from capitalism is that labor and capital are the exact same class of people.

A couple questions about this:

Would they be opposed to companies which function according to capitalism? IE would it be against "society rules" for a guy to own a company and hire people?

Will different types of labor have different values? IE will a machinist at a factory have to make the same amount of money as, say, a manager or an accountant at the same company?

The reason the second question is important are made apparent in this video:

Having a pricing system -- which necessarily includes labor-pricing -- is integral to an efficiently functioning economy of any notable size (ie if the economy is the size of a household, or maybe as big as 100 people, you don't really need pricing, but if you want any sort of first-world standard of living, it requires an economy that's much too complex to function efficiently without price).

kremlin:

assaholic:

Truthfully, the only feature that separates anarcho-syndicalism from capitalism is that labor and capital are the exact same class of people.

A couple questions about this:

Would they be opposed to companies which function according to capitalism? IE would it be against "society rules" for a guy to own a company and hire people?

Will different types of labor have different values? IE will a machinist at a factory have to make the same amount of money as, say, a manager or an accountant at the same company?

The reason the second question is important are made apparent in this video:

Having a pricing system -- which necessarily includes labor-pricing -- is integral to an efficiently functioning economy of any notable size (ie if the economy is the size of a household, or maybe as big as 100 people, you don't really need pricing, but if you want any sort of first-world standard of living, it requires an economy that's much too complex to function efficiently without price).

the first question: "would they be opposed to companies operating as capitalists", No.

In a capitalist system incentives are incorporated into tax law and business law to encourage private ownership. In an anarcho-syndicalist system those incentives would favor coops instead of capitalists owning corporations.

So just as we have a few coops today in a corporatist environment there would still be capitalist ownership in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Just not as many of them.

As per the video, anarcho-syndicalism creates a completely new class of capitalist /laborers who would be paid according to their personal contributions and their aggregate profitability.

There are far more profound systemic problems with the labor and capital classes being rewarded disproportionately than there are with labor being rewarded disproportionately. After all globalization creates a global market with extremely wide compensation disparities and capitalists don't seem to have any problem with that at all.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

assaholic:

 

the first question: "would they be opposed to companies operating as capitalists", No.

In a capitalist system incentives are incorporated into tax law and business law to encourage private ownership. In an anarcho-syndicalist system those incentives would favor coops instead of capitalists owning corporations.

 

So just as we have a few coops today in a corporatist environment there would still be capitalist ownership in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Just not as many of them.

 

As per the video, anarcho-syndicalism creates a completely new class of capitalist /laborers who would be paid according to their personal contributions and their aggregate profitability.

There are far more profound systemic problems with the labor and capital classes being rewarded disproportionately than there are with labor being rewarded disproportionately. After all globalization creates a global market with extremely wide compensation disparities and capitalists don't seem to have any problem with that at all.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me, personally. 

Right now there is nothing preventing the creation of a coop.  In fact, some cooperatives can even receive special tax breaks.  Nothing limits the number of owners of a business.  No law prevents a company’s employees from buying into their own company.  In fact, there are many examples of this throughout America. So...if nothing prevents it from existing... what are you advocating?

Secondly, the line of reasoning is pure Marxism.  I'm not sure if you're aware of the origins of this type of rhetoric, but as an avid Marxist researcher and once self-professed communist it is common place for these weak economic theories to hide behind a false history of class struggle.

The hardline distinction between labor (proletariat) and owners (bourgeoisie) is an old world concept.  It no longer applies.

I'm an employee on an hourly salary.  I also own two small businesses, one selling a product another selling a service.  In the past I've owned businesses which have hired up to 6 people.  I've also been employed at dozens of businesses.

Meanwhile I have a few friends who have attempted to and failed miserably when it comes to running a business.  I had an old friend who I can't even stand to talk to anymore who is a perfect example.  He loved "starting businesses" with me when it meant that I created everything and did all the work.  For example, I started a treehouse company with this friend and another.  The other guy and I were able to design and build the entire treehouse project from start to finish.  The third guy had no skills, passion, intelligence, or creativity whatsoever.  But, because he was our friend and I was a dumbass who believed in coops and stuff we shared everything equally with this guy. 

Then the summer ends and the project isn't complete.  We all have to return to school (college).  The main guy goes back to Michigan to his Ivy League education, but the incompetent third guy is still in town.  Meanwhile, I drop out of school for a semester just to finish the job.  This third person couldn't even be bothered to help after class!  If he has one class in the morning he would use it as an excuse not to show up.  I spent 2 months of my life working by myself sanding and painting a three story treehouse. 

My point being: people don't deserve anything they have not earned, period. 

And this is really what you're advocating. 

The anarcho-syndicalist philosophy says "people should own the companies they work for," but what it mean is, "people should steal the company from the people who created it.”

We can't be nostalgic towards the people who depend on us, it is a great disservice to them and ourselves.

ThoughtTerrorist:

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

assaholic:

 

the first question: "would they be opposed to companies operating as capitalists", No.

In a capitalist system incentives are incorporated into tax law and business law to encourage private ownership. In an anarcho-syndicalist system those incentives would favor coops instead of capitalists owning corporations.

 

So just as we have a few coops today in a corporatist environment there would still be capitalist ownership in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Just not as many of them.

 

As per the video, anarcho-syndicalism creates a completely new class of capitalist /laborers who would be paid according to their personal contributions and their aggregate profitability.

There are far more profound systemic problems with the labor and capital classes being rewarded disproportionately than there are with labor being rewarded disproportionately. After all globalization creates a global market with extremely wide compensation disparities and capitalists don't seem to have any problem with that at all.

 

I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me, personally. 

Right now there is nothing preventing the creation of a coop.  In fact, some cooperatives can even receive special tax breaks.  Nothing limits the number of owners of a business.  No law prevents a company’s employees from buying into their own company.  In fact, there are many examples of this throughout America. So...if nothing prevents it from existing... what are you advocating?

nothing, I am just talking about what anarcho-syndicalism is. Within our current system there are extremely strong structural incentives that encourage the success of capitalist owned corporations. The capital gains tax and 401K laws just to name two. There are many more.

There are also extremely strong structural incentives that promote marriage. But there are almost none that promote employee ownership of the corporations in which they work.

Secondly, the line of reasoning is pure Marxism.  I'm not sure if you're aware of the origins of this type of rhetoric, but as an avid Marxist researcher and once self-professed communist it is common place for these weak economic theories to hide behind a false history of class struggle.

The hardline distinction between labor (proletariat) and owners (bourgeoisie) is an old world concept.  It no longer applies.

All economics is Marxian, even the Federal Reserve's website describes Karl Marx as one of the most important economists of all time. Not to mention that Marx defined "capitalism", "socialism" and "communism". You will have a hard time finding any modern economic school of thought that doesn't rely on Marxist ideas.

I'm an employee on an hourly salary.  I also own two small businesses, one selling a product another selling a service.  In the past I've owned businesses which have hired up to 6 people.  I've also been employed at dozens of businesses.

Meanwhile I have a few friends who have attempted to and failed miserably when it comes to running a business.  I had an old friend who I can't even stand to talk to anymore who is a perfect example.  He loved "starting businesses" with me when it meant that I created everything and did all the work.  For example, I started a treehouse company with this friend and another.  The other guy and I were able to design and build the entire treehouse project from start to finish.  The third guy had no skills, passion, intelligence, or creativity whatsoever.  But, because he was our friend and I was a dumbass who believed in coops and stuff we shared everything equally with this guy. 

Then the summer ends and the project isn't complete.  We all have to return to school (college).  The main guy goes back to Michigan to his Ivy League education, but the incompetent third guy is still in town.  Meanwhile, I drop out of school for a semester just to finish the job.  This third person couldn't even be bothered to help after class!  If he has one class in the morning he would use it as an excuse not to show up.  I spent 2 months of my life working by myself sanding and painting a three story treehouse. 

My point being: people don't deserve anything they have not earned, period.

then you don't believe in capitalism, because by definition capitalists rely on "unearned income". Even the tax code recognizes this.But NOBODY earns their living more than labor, and in an anarcho-syndicalist system everybody is labor.

And a smart coop organizes exactly like a modern corporation does for all the same reasons. Firms that fail are replaced with firms that succeed and winning management and talent and opportunity eventually dominates the market.

And this is really what you're advocating. 

The anarcho-syndicalist philosophy says "people should own the companies they work for," but what it mean is, "people should steal the company from the people who created it.”

We can't be nostalgic towards the people who depend on us, it is a great disservice to them and ourselves.

 

in a capitalist system the people who own the capital steal the profits from the people who do all the work. In our modern system the people who get the benefits of capital to steal the profits from the people who do the work don't even use their own money, they borrow it.

Besides go out and start a business, earn all the profits, do all the work all by yourself and YOU are an anarcho-syndicalist. And there is nothing wrong with being your own boss.

assaholic:

in a capitalist system the people who own the capital steal the profits from the people who do all the work.

Joe Salerno explains why this is wrong.

assaholic:

In our modern system the people who get the benefits of capital to steal the profits from the people who do the work don't even use their own money, they borrow it.

Gambing with borrowed money is made possible by the State.

Alan Chapman:

 

Joe Salerno explains why this is wrong.

 

and of course he is wrong. Capitalists always have excuses why they deserve to glean profits from the "surplus" productivity of their workforce.

They want to defend their unearned profits and low to zero tax rates eternally. Parasites always feel comfortable sucking blood from the otherwise healthy and productive.