Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Need clarification on anarcho-syndicalism, and labels

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Question Need clarification on anarcho-syndicalism, and labels

    Heyas. Just had a Facebook conversation with a Trotskyist regarding anarchism and socialism, etc. and could use some cross-checking of what I think I learned to see if I know what I think I know:

    1. The desired end result of anarcho-syndicalism is pretty much communism, in that it seems a non-coerced, class-free and state-free society where the people/workers own their labor, the product, and its means.

    2. The key difference between anarchists and socialists is tactics, i.e.: how to get to the common-goal of communism.

    a. Anarchists believe in immediately tearing down the state apparatus, the means by which capitalists maintain power, control, and ownership. By destroying the state, then wealth and capitalist relationship to production inherently fall, leading to rebuilding society in a post-capitalist, ideally cooperative and egalitarian way.

    b. Socialists believe in that mid-stage between capitalism and communism where the state still exists, but it seeks to maintain ownership of labor, production, in the hands of the workers until there is no wealth accumulation and class divisions, at which point the state becomes unnecessary as there's no wealth or property to protect the ownership of, and it whithers away. Socialists take issue with anarchists in that by focusing on tearing down the state first, capitalists can and will simply use their wealth and property to violently put down any attempt to do so. Whereas changing the ownership of production and property into the hands of the people first, more likely prevents literal war or the resumption of capitalists to taking back their wealth and power.

    3. While anarcho-syndicalism has been called synonymous with "libertarian socialism," this is not correct as anarchism focuses on elimination of ownership while libertarianism values and encourages individual ownership. Libertarians are actually fine with the existence of the state as a means of protecting the right of the individual to own whatever they want.

    4. Democratic Socialism is basically friendly capitalism, a quasi-socialist belief layered atop a fundamentally capitalist system.

    Are these points accurate? And if not, what are the issues or errors?

    Also, is there a form, a label, of anarchsim in which incremental (but unquestionable) change of the "system" toward a state-less existence is possible? Or is any and every anarchist label, including anarcho-syndicalism, by definition a focus on immediate and primary abolishment of the state over the relationship of capital with labor?

  2. #2

    Default

    Seems about right yes. But I disagree on the sudden and immediate termination of the state. I personally think it is possible to, dare i say it, let the state wither away by putting yourself outside of its influence and having lots of people do this. I.e going to live in communes without money and rulers etc and just live your life there. I think this leading by example can convince people who still think a state is good to change their mind. I don't know if this idea is common among other anarchists though.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say Ďhuman problems come firstí I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to IbelieveInanarchy For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    760
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    A few corrections

    The key difference between anarchists and socialists is tactics, i.e.: how to get to the common-goal of communism.
    There is no difference between Anarchists and socialists. Anarchism is Libertarian Socialism. It is the rejection of all forms of oppression; state, capital and class; AKA communism.

    Socialists believe in that mid-stage between capitalism and communism where the state still exists
    Again Anarchists are socialists so the group you are refering to that want to retain the state is a small Minority of authoritarians who even other Marxists thought where idiots.
    The ONLY reason you know about them is because they made a big mess of things.

    While anarcho-syndicalism has been called synonymous with "libertarian socialism," this is not correct as anarchism focuses on elimination of ownership while libertarianism values and encourages individual ownership. Libertarians are actually fine with the existence of the state as a means of protecting the right of the individual to own whatever they want.
    The term Libertarian was coined when several nation states; including the U.S.S.R. made it criminal to be an Anarchist. The term was used to protect Socialists from the police.
    Using it to refer to Capitalists is an Insult to the Socialists that died at the hands of the U.S.S.R. and other nation states.

    The sick joke is that the vast majority of Socialists are Anarchists or Libertarian Marxists. Leninist's and the like are a tiny Minority that only have had such a notable and mostly negative effect due to their habit of committing political coups.
    While Anarchists fight power; Authoritarians seize power and use it to disastrous effect.

    Anarcho-Syndicalism maintains that workers; refusing to obey the state; can replace its control with work place democracy and a worker managed economy.
    Political coups are not workers movements so should not be emulated. Only by the destruction of oppression (state/capital/class) can communism be achieved; not by centralized hierarchy and political authoritarianism.
    Last edited by (A); 16th February 2017 at 01:30.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Posts
    427
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechphisto View Post
    3. While anarcho-syndicalism has been called synonymous with "libertarian socialism," this is not correct as anarchism focuses on elimination of ownership while libertarianism values and encourages individual ownership. Libertarians are actually fine with the existence of the state as a means of protecting the right of the individual to own whatever they want.
    Anarcho syndicalism just means anarcho-trade unionism. Libertarian socialism is more of a broadly defined term, including everything from georgism, to anarchism, to ghandism. So to put it more simply, all anarcho-syndicalists are libertarian socialists, but not all libertarian socialists are anarcho-syndicalists.

    "Libertarianism" as its referred in the USA is really a radical fascist movement. With nothing whatsoever to do with the original meaning of the term libertarian, which is just a synonym for anarchism. They are mostly made up of neo confederates and racists who went into hiding after the civil rights act past. They support "states rights" as oppose to federal rights just as the confederacy did. They exist as both a recruiting movement for white supremacists, and as a propaganda arm of wealthy industrialists like the Koch bros. Who proudly claim to be libertarians with obviously having nothing to do with leftism or anarchism, far from it. One of the most well funded libertarian propaganda outlets is the CATO institute which dabble in everything from climate change denial to bashing teachers unions to explaining why George Zimmerman deserved to go free.

    Most white supremacists in America call themselves libertarians, however they do attract the random ufo conspiracy theorist who's more interested in the Jewish conspiracy theories that get spread under the libertarian banner.
    Last edited by willowtooth; 16th February 2017 at 04:56.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to willowtooth For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,441
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechphisto View Post

    a. Anarchists believe in immediately tearing down the state apparatus, the means by which capitalists maintain power, control, and ownership. By destroying the state, then wealth and capitalist relationship to production inherently fall, leading to rebuilding society in a post-capitalist, ideally cooperative and egalitarian way.

    I happen to have no problem with this taking place, *in theory* -- but I think that this particular method for revolution would be very timing-dependent, and revolts would have to happen more-or-less *simultaneously* in major areas all over the world, to work.

    I'd like to see some clarification on how a widespread, though localist-constrained, workers uprising would handle the interchange of post-commodity collectivist production without resorting to exchange values / markets. What's the plan for a workers collectivist moneyless administration -- ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mechphisto View Post

    b. Socialists believe in that mid-stage between capitalism and communism where the state still exists, but it seeks to maintain ownership of labor, production, in the hands of the workers until there is no wealth accumulation and class divisions, at which point the state becomes unnecessary as there's no wealth or property to protect the ownership of, and it whithers away. Socialists take issue with anarchists in that by focusing on tearing down the state first, capitalists can and will simply use their wealth and property to violently put down any attempt to do so. Whereas changing the ownership of production and property into the hands of the people first, more likely prevents literal war or the resumption of capitalists to taking back their wealth and power.

    I'd also like some clarification on the composition of this socialist-transitional workers state -- would it depend on bureaucratic-type professionals for a separatist, specialized administration of post-commodity collectivist production, or would it genuinely look to *mass participation* from all liberated workers, at their respective work roles, for the same -- ?




    *[W]hat structure* would this proposed 'workers state' take.

    It's worth reviewing, I think, as to particulars -- in my conception the revolutionary workers would be numerous enough worldwide to kick out current politicians and bureaucrats, to assume such offices for the common good and to collapse others that would then be irrelevant, such as for finance, etc.


    The ambiguity is about how a proposed workers administration would function, exactly -- would it be as I just described, or would it be more-institutional, a standing relatively-fixed pool of specialized personnel that do nothing but expedite the administrative tasks resulting from the collectivization of social production -- ?

    If it's more the *latter*, then I agree with you that this formulation would be inappropriate because it would be too politically *specialized* and institutionally separatist from all other (regular) kinds of work that go on in the world.

    But if it's the *former* (the 'numerous revolutionary workers doing administrative tasks as a component part of their regular work, collectively cooperatively'), then I think *this* kind of 'workers state' would be far more appropriate and valid, a *good* revolutionary-transitional vehicle towards communism).

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...82#post2880282

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    760
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Non-Anarchists tend to forget that "Abolishing the state" is only half of the goal of Anarchism.
    Syndicalism is a great example of a constructive praxis within Anarchist theory.

    Before the state is abolished the free association of worker becomes a new community that will replace the state with the free association of workers.
    Imagine if Syndicalism and not Leninism was the ideology adopted by the Russian people during the revolution. The soviets would have replaced the NEED for a state via a organization of direct democracy; not just replacing it with a new hierarchical authority (class). Instead when Lenin came to power the soviets lost power to the central authority (see the supreme soviet) and so ended the workers movement in Russia.

    The dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean a dictatorship over the proletariat. That is what we are seeking to replace.

    Anarcho-syndicalism is the free association of workers and workers unions. The dictatorship OF the proletariat.
    Equality demands Autonomy.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Thanks for the feedback so far, all!!

    One of the points the Trotskyist decried about anarcho-synicalism, is that a.s. is supposedly a-political. That all it focuses on is the economics of labor structure, and cared nothing about politics or other aspects of social life or culture, and so it made itself irrelevant. Helped allow the capitalist business parties to rise to political power and squash any hope a.s. had of gaining any ground.

    Is that apt?

    I'm also still concerned about the comparison of libertarianism and anarchism... in what they mean in today's world and in America (where I live).
    Whatever the origins of libertarianism is, or what it means elsewhere in the world, like willowtooth says, libertarianism here and now is a cousin of Ayn Randian Objectivism. Libertarians are totally cool with wealth accumulation and property ownership.

    Libertarianism here and now might object to any coercion, but purely on an individual and selfish point of view. Class, in my experience with libertarianism, isn't really part of the equation.

    I guess I'm really hoping to get a really clear and certain description of the difference between left anarchism and modern American libertarianism.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    40
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism are synonomous. Libertarian socialism is not to be mistaken for libertarianism, which is a right wing dogma.
    Noam Chomsky is an Anarcho-syndicalist (libertarian socialist). Although a Trotskyist myself, I find much of value in Chomsky's writing.

    Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

  11. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,441
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Non-Anarchists tend to forget that "Abolishing the state" is only half of the goal of Anarchism.
    Syndicalism is a great example of a constructive praxis within Anarchist theory.

    Before the state is abolished the free association of worker becomes a new community that will replace the state with the free association of workers.
    Imagine if Syndicalism and not Leninism was the ideology adopted by the Russian people during the revolution. The soviets would have replaced the NEED for a state via a organization of direct democracy;

    This part so far is fine, but I still haven't seen any satisfactory treatment / approach for a post-capitalist *economics* -- I'm anti-exchange-values because as soon as *any* exchanges / trades take place there's the manifestation of exchange values which can become an aim for anyone / any commune that's *involved* in the marketplace for those exchanges.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    not just replacing it with a new hierarchical authority (class). Instead when Lenin came to power the soviets lost power to the central authority (see the supreme soviet) and so ended the workers movement in Russia.

    The dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean a dictatorship over the proletariat. That is what we are seeking to replace.

    Anarcho-syndicalism is the free association of workers and workers unions. The dictatorship OF the proletariat.
    Equality demands Autonomy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechphisto View Post

    Thanks for the feedback so far, all!!

    One of the points the Trotskyist decried about anarcho-synicalism, is that a.s. is supposedly a-political. That all it focuses on is the economics of labor structure, and cared nothing about politics or other aspects of social life or culture, and so it made itself irrelevant. Helped allow the capitalist business parties to rise to political power and squash any hope a.s. had of gaining any ground.

    Is that apt?

    I'm also still concerned about the comparison of libertarianism and anarchism... in what they mean in today's world and in America (where I live).
    Whatever the origins of libertarianism is, or what it means elsewhere in the world, like willowtooth says, libertarianism here and now is a cousin of Ayn Randian Objectivism. Libertarians are totally cool with wealth accumulation and property ownership.

    Libertarianism here and now might object to any coercion, but purely on an individual and selfish point of view. Class, in my experience with libertarianism, isn't really part of the equation.

    I guess I'm really hoping to get a really clear and certain description of the difference between left anarchism and modern American libertarianism.

    I commented on the 'libertarian' issue over at another thread, reproduced below -- but first I'll add that the 'libertarian' term isn't the best choice to use for the reasons of pre-existing political-culture that you've described, Mechphisto.


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    I also have to address the 'libertarian' issue on its own -- the concern here is with a too-socially-unaccountable general attitude that simply wouldn't correspond to prevailing social conditions. For example, consider *right now* -- in terms of a needed revolutionary movement current social attitudes are *too libertarian* because people have been socialized into highly individualized habits of everyday life. The material world, as it currently exists, is meant to be interfaced-with by individuals for ultimately individual gain, beyond that of the basic necessities for life and living. I think that revolutionizing social production would also revolutionize social *consumption*, so that privatization of the work product becomes defunct, in favor of a 'human-natural' material landscape (with environmental protections) that is simply *accessible* to all as needed, utterly without exchange values of any kind.

    In other words consumption would mechanically still be individualized, of course, as for food, but the overall 'environment' of how it's made available would be entirely communized since the prerequisite production of it would be from communized efforts / work as well.

    My point is that this general approach would inherently cut-against a conceived 'free-wheeling' kind of libertarianism, especially during any necessary transitional period -- in socio-political terms everyone would inherently be on-the-same-page of rapid historical social development, and, depending on actual conditions, one person's practiced 'libertarianism' could very well be seen by another person as being 'counterrevolutionary' if the revolution was still actively facing conditions of antagonism and duress. These kinds of social particulars of daily life would *have* to be discussed and sorted out on a formal basis so that general norms for the scales / levels of 'politics - logistics - lifestyle' would be agreeable in common over the whole world's population.

    History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle






    http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...19#post2880219

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    760
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    I am not here to satisfy you Chris. If you want satisfaction educate yourself.

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechphisto View Post
    Thanks for the feedback so far, all!!

    One of the points the Trotskyist decried about anarcho-synicalism, is that a.s. is supposedly a-political. That all it focuses on is the economics of labor structure, and cared nothing about politics or other aspects of social life or culture, and so it made itself irrelevant. Helped allow the capitalist business parties to rise to political power and squash any hope a.s. had of gaining any ground.

    Is that apt?

    I'm also still concerned about the comparison of libertarianism and anarchism... in what they mean in today's world and in America (where I live).
    Whatever the origins of libertarianism is, or what it means elsewhere in the world, like willowtooth says, libertarianism here and now is a cousin of Ayn Randian Objectivism. Libertarians are totally cool with wealth accumulation and property ownership.

    Libertarianism here and now might object to any coercion, but purely on an individual and selfish point of view. Class, in my experience with libertarianism, isn't really part of the equation.

    I guess I'm really hoping to get a really clear and certain description of the difference between left anarchism and modern American libertarianism.

    Anarchism is A-political in the fact that it rejects oppressive state politics in lue of Autonomous politics. That is the Free and equal association of all members within society.

    I am Canadian however I am not a willing member. I never agreed to be a member of this collective; I am forced to by law.
    We are A-political ONLY in the sense that we reject completely this nonconsensual and class based relationship. If I where to vote/be political within my Polity (Canada/B.C.) I would be consenting to a relationship I dont want to consent to.

    Anarchist Politics is the free relationship between equals. A workplace democracy is an example of a consensual politics rather then a democratic authority such as we have in Canada; If you can even call parliamentary politics democratic.

    As for Libertarianism; Murry Rothbard very clearly admitted that he callously and purposely STOLE the name from Anarchists.
    "Anarcho-capitalism" "Right-libertarianism" are just alternate names for unrestrained capitalism; essentially Economic Fascism in comparison to Political Fascism as seen in Nazi Germany.
    There is really no comparison at all between Anarchism and the Capital Fascism that American "Libertarians" want.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  13. #11
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Posts
    427
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechphisto View Post
    Thanks for the feedback so far, all!!

    One of the points the Trotskyist decried about anarcho-synicalism, is that a.s. is supposedly a-political. That all it focuses on is the economics of labor structure, and cared nothing about politics or other aspects of social life or culture, and so it made itself irrelevant. Helped allow the capitalist business parties to rise to political power and squash any hope a.s. had of gaining any ground.

    Is that apt?

    I'm also still concerned about the comparison of libertarianism and anarchism... in what they mean in today's world and in America (where I live).
    Whatever the origins of libertarianism is, or what it means elsewhere in the world, like willowtooth says, libertarianism here and now is a cousin of Ayn Randian Objectivism. Libertarians are totally cool with wealth accumulation and property ownership.

    Libertarianism here and now might object to any coercion, but purely on an individual and selfish point of view. Class, in my experience with libertarianism, isn't really part of the equation.

    I guess I'm really hoping to get a really clear and certain description of the difference between left anarchism and modern American libertarianism.
    The first thing to understand is that there is no modern american libertarians, the name itself is a form of propaganda. So any point or counterpoint we would make would just be pointing the obvious contradictions and faults in whatever recent propaganda they happened to spew out recently.

    Secondly they often claim to adhere to one intellectual or another, like Milton Friedman or John locke but its usually just so they can use their cherrypicked quotes to make themselves sound less insane, even you call them a "cousin" of ayn rand's objectivism because you know that they're is 20 or so contradictions with what ayn rand talked about (and even she wasn't that smart) and the nonsense they spew at their cult meetings.

    You are correct in that there is not even the slightest recognition of class or wealth accumulation, because thats what fascists want, they strongly desire a strict small wealthy ruling class that they either are already in or strongly want to be apart of.

    This kind of thought has existed in America since it was founded the first major movement was the "Know-nothing party" of 1840's which led to the Confederacy and the US civil war. And just like the confederacy they claim that if the states desire too own slaves then they should be allowed too and if you dont like it you can go move to a state where its not legal or we can vote about it. This is barely a philosophy of how the US government should be run much less how the entire world should be run, it can't be extrapolated into a coherent ideology. The Italian fascists really just picked up where the Confederacy left off, consolidating the basic ideology of the US south into a philosophy incorporating economic models, election procedures, and global models etc. so its proto fascist it pre-dates the fascists and the nazis, just as racial science theories, and anti semitism existed long before hitler came around.

    They have recruited a lot of people recently because the republican party is in total collapse since the bush administration, libertarianism became popular around the time of the tea party, and the first black president, which motivated a lot of white supremacists to become politically active, and like the tea party and the new alt-right they are just slogans and brand names used to generate popular support. There is no teapartyism or alt rightism either. Hell if Trump's name was a little more phonetic they would probably be calling themselves trumpists or be claiming to be adherents of the very serious philosophy of "donaldism" as well.

    Libertarianism™ is just a fancy word for fascism

  14. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    760
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    "Libertarianism™ is just a fancy word for fascism"

    If you agree that authoritarian economic relations; I.E. the relation between the Capitalist Manager and the Worker; is fascist would you also agree that
    an authoritarian political relation; I.E. the relation between political administrator and citizen; would also be "Fascist"?
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  15. #13
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Posts
    427
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post
    "Libertarianism™ is just a fancy word for fascism"

    If you agree that authoritarian economic relations; I.E. the relation between the Capitalist Manager and the Worker; is fascist would you also agree that
    an authoritarian political relation; I.E. the relation between political administrator and citizen; would also be "Fascist"?
    lol what???

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to willowtooth For This Useful Post:


  17. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    760
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    You called Libertarianism™ fascism. I assume because the capitalist authoritarian relation between owner and worker is fascist.

    Would you agree that the same relation between Political Authority (the state) and the citizen is also Fascist.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  18. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Once again, thanks all for the responses!
    One thing for certain, you are all post-grad level and I'm still primary school -- a lot of what's being said here is above my head. But I'm trying!!

    OK, I think for the sake of the focus of this thread, the libertarianism question is resolved enough to let that drop. I very much appreciate the explanations and comments on it.

    I do want to go back to anarcho-syndicalism in particular.

    (A) said: "Anarchism is A-political in the fact that it rejects oppressive state politics in lue of Autonomous politics. That is the Free and equal association of all members within society."

    I think the guy I was conversing with meant a.s. was a-political in the sense it (as a philosophy, or the adherents of it) literally didn't get involved in the political sphere of society. I believe his point was more that it involved theory of economics without thinking beyond that, to all the other ways in which relationship to labor and production is involved with people's lives. That it/they didn't care about government or literal politics and so did nothing as capitalist lackeys came into power and squashed all leftist political movements of nascent parties.

    I'm probably getting that all wrong, but that's my primary school understanding of a criticism of anarcho-syndicalism.

    I guess I AM curious about how a.s. as a theory does plan to get to its end point. I read about worker and general strikes, which then are supposed to lead to workers taking over control of the means of production... but as this person I spoke with claimed, that's a fallacy of anarchsim over "socialism" (or Trotsyism?) The belief that workers COULD take control of capital at all, without first eliminating or weakening the power of wealth accumulation, or who controls the police/military/prisons. He believed any attempt at workers to try to take over production would be met with overwhelming resistance and doomed to fail, unless the relations of capital and power change first. (Or, something like that... again, I'm not very clever, but I believe that's the argument.)

    I have to admit, that does sound about right.

    Does a.s. have a plan or approach to gaining a.s. without brute force workers taking over the "shop"?

  19. #16
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Posts
    427
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post
    You called Libertarianismô fascism. I assume because the capitalist authoritarian relation between owner and worker is fascist.

    Would you agree that the same relation between Political Authority (the state) and the citizen is also Fascist.


    what about capitalist libertarian relation? is that fascist too?

  20. #17
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Posts
    427
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechphisto View Post
    Once again, thanks all for the responses!
    One thing for certain, you are all post-grad level and I'm still primary school -- a lot of what's being said here is above my head. But I'm trying!!

    OK, I think for the sake of the focus of this thread, the libertarianism question is resolved enough to let that drop. I very much appreciate the explanations and comments on it.

    I do want to go back to anarcho-syndicalism in particular.

    (A) said: "Anarchism is A-political in the fact that it rejects oppressive state politics in lue of Autonomous politics. That is the Free and equal association of all members within society."

    I think the guy I was conversing with meant a.s. was a-political in the sense it (as a philosophy, or the adherents of it) literally didn't get involved in the political sphere of society. I believe his point was more that it involved theory of economics without thinking beyond that, to all the other ways in which relationship to labor and production is involved with people's lives. That it/they didn't care about government or literal politics and so did nothing as capitalist lackeys came into power and squashed all leftist political movements of nascent parties.

    I'm probably getting that all wrong, but that's my primary school understanding of a criticism of anarcho-syndicalism.

    I guess I AM curious about how a.s. as a theory does plan to get to its end point. I read about worker and general strikes, which then are supposed to lead to workers taking over control of the means of production... but as this person I spoke with claimed, that's a fallacy of anarchsim over "socialism" (or Trotsyism?) The belief that workers COULD take control of capital at all, without first eliminating or weakening the power of wealth accumulation, or who controls the police/military/prisons. He believed any attempt at workers to try to take over production would be met with overwhelming resistance and doomed to fail, unless the relations of capital and power change first. (Or, something like that... again, I'm not very clever, but I believe that's the argument.)

    I have to admit, that does sound about right.

    Does a.s. have a plan or approach to gaining a.s. without brute force workers taking over the "shop"?
    I'm not really sure what your friend was trying to say, it sort of sounds like hes' just clarifying the differences between anarchism and trotskyism of which there are plenty.

    As to the question about brute force, that would be the exact opposite of what anarcho syndicalists want, they stand against both pacifism and liberal reformism. They also stand against utopian socialism, so they dont believe that there is ever an "end of history" or some kind of final state when we have achieved anarchism or communism and now we can all go home. Anarcho syndicalism is based mostly on the works of pierre proudhoun.

    http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...roudhonCW.html

    However the term "syndicalists" wasn't really popular until the bolsheviks used it as a slur. As the "national syndicalists" eventually became the fascist party.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism

  21. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    As to the question about brute force, that would be the exact opposite of what anarcho syndicalists want, they stand against both pacifism and liberal reformism. They also stand against utopian socialism, so they dont believe that there is ever an "end of history" or some kind of final state when we have achieved anarchism or communism and now we can all go home. Anarcho syndicalism is based mostly on the works of pierre proudhoun.
    I thought it was based on Rudolph Rocker? Well, doesn't matter, I haven't really read any of him or Proudhoun, though I know the names. Seriously, what little I read, is just so above me. I hate admitting I'm a dolt, and I hate even more thinking I can't participate neither in theory discussion nor in action because I can't grok so much of the philosophy that is discussed...
    I so very wish there were a Dumber Than Dummies Guide to Left Activism.

    So, that's what anarcho-syndicalism stands AGAINST, but, what does it stand FOR? Seriously, general strike and taking over the factories is literally the only actual tactic or means I have read about a.s. What do anarcho-syndicalists today believe is the active path toward the goals?

  22. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I so very wish there were a Dumber Than Dummies Guide to Left Activism.
    I'm not kidding. I want an illustrated book with "See Jane. See Jane trapped into selling her labor for less than its value. See Joe. See Joe coerced into working for the profit of others, with no power or control over his hiring, firing, benefits, or use of his own time. See Joe and Jane (insert simplified step one of X anarchist/socialist/Trotskyist/Marxist action in series of actions leading toward post-capitalism)."

  23. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    For me, it also complicates and confuses any and every conversation I try to have in understanding HOW is WHAT expected to work/change things, when they ALWAYS descend to "Well THAT term used to mean this until 18-aught-eleven when these people started using it to mean this; but then people in this country started using this other term for that and it broke into two factions where the millionth International sub part B decided this other term would be used, but this this author used that term to mean this, but then later groups would ironically use that term and it took on this meaning so that now some people in this longitude use this term to mean that while some people on Wikipedia use this other synonym to mean that three versions ago..." *facepalm*

Similar Threads

  1. A new communist organization
    By anomaly in forum Theory
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: 27th March 2006, 07:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •