The only time socialism has to resort to force is when governance, people, and production are centralized. Centralization of people, governance, and production inevitably leads to social stratification in any socioeconomic system. They key to making libertarian socialism work is the decentralization of those things. And I disagree with people that say that we are inevitably heading towards a more centralized society. This simply is not true. We have been seeing for decades that nations in the
@DesecrateConformity 4th stage of the demographic transition are seeing mass decentralization. The US and Europe are seeing millions of people move from urban areas to suburban and rural areas. I see libertarian socialism as a possible alternative to capitalism, but I don't see it as the only solution. Capitalism certainly needs to be replaced, its self-annihilation has already commenced. We have outgrown capitalism with the advent of the digital file, which has the possibility of being made
@DesecrateConformity infinite (it doesn't make sense to try to sell an infinite resource), and new technologies that can augment resources and fragment the law of scarcity, which is key to capitalism's survival. It would simply be opposition to progress if we are to cling on to capitalism any longer. We must have social evolution, society must change in order to adapt to new technology and the environment. It's debatable whether socialism's time has come, but capitalism's has definitely gone.
@DesecrateConformity We have already become semi-socialist, but it only benefits the corporations. Free market capitalism means Private Gains/Private Loses. We live in a system where if a corporation is deemed too large by the government, the system becomes Private Gains/Public Loses, the overall population pays for corporate loses, but corporations pay nothing to the general populace if they succeed.
@SuperBspb That's because the state is involved. That's not the kind of socialism that I advocate for. That's really more along the lines of state capitalism than anything else. Read the links in my socialism outside of Marxism-Leninism video.
@DesecrateConformity I understand that anarcho-libertarian socialism would work. But I see no way of getting to it. I doubt the corporations and politicians would give up their power.
@SuperBspb Well, it's inevitable. The collapse of the political and economic structure's we're used to has already commenced. They will eventually lose all of their significance. It's simply inevitable. All societies collapse, it's an inevitability. There should be no concern as to whether they will give up their power or not. It's a nonlinear cycle, society begins, society prospers, society becomes unstable, society collapses. It's natural.
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY ,a tyrannical,destructive system to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in the interest of the ruling class. Capitalism from its Genocidal killings of native Americans to the mercantile plundering and enslavement of African natives to its Millitaristic rise of European Powers to World wars and Financial serfdom of the world has been a DISASTEROUS imposition .
Sorry, but the theme tune at the start is bugging me, I know it but can't remember the name of it. Can anyone help? I'll let you get back to your serious discussion now :)
so in an anarcho-syndicalist society, would I be free to perhaps, barter with a commonly valued good? lets say, gold
or do what what i wish, with the stuff that i own?
where would the line be in defining what is mine, and what is everyone's? surely if i use a toothbrush, and someone took it, i'd be justified to take it back, no? =ownership
I seriously doubt people in support of Anarcho-syndicalism would continue supporting it if they read "The Law" Bastiat, 1850 and understood the situation
i'm no anarchist (i'm a classical liberal, so i believe in some state), but i think any anarchism with a dash or an adjective is just another form of forced social/economic organization. the true ideal for freedom, is anarchism, no adjectives, dashes, or anything, PERIOD.
@goPistons06 The umbrella term "anarchism" has come to have so many varieties within it that encompass so many different and conflicting individual ideologies that it makes dashes and adjectives necessary for clarity's sake.
so how is chomsky an anarchist? he visits and speaks highly of statist thugs hezbollah and hugo chavez. maybe i'm getting it wrong, but hezbollah wants to establish an islamofascist dictatorship, and chavez is pretty much a leninist.
can any supporter of chomsky explain this to me? i'm confused
@goPistons06 If Chomsky's interaction with Hezbollah invalidates his anarchism, then so does all interaction on the part of anarchists with any political leaders of any kind.
As for Chavez, he more than likely spoke favorably of some of his social policies, and possibly his resistance to United States imperial influence. Where's the contradiction? It is, after all, possible for an anarchist to approve of certain state policies that they find acceptable in lieu of an existent anarchist society.
So-called "Anarcho-Syndicalism" promotes coercion, calling for--just like Statism/Fascism/Chattel Enslavement--coercive ownership of the means of production; as opposed to the voluntary ownership of production, which is Voluntarism.
Merriam, 2: "a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers"
There is either Coercive ownership of the means of production(Statism), or Voluntary ownership of the means of production. Statist so-called 'Anarcho-Syndicalists' cover up the term coercive by using objective, empty terms like 'worker' and 'collective'.
@qwertypoiu4321 within in an anarcho-syndicalist society, workers would produce for themselves, cooperating and organizing independently as a syndicate, instead of renting themselves to management in order to pay a pre-established debt to the state via taxation... do tell me, where exactly do coercion or statism come into play here?
@qwertypoiu4321 i hope you aren't being serious. it's a given that the workers produce for not only for themselves, but also for their families and by extension the community at large.
@qwertypoiu4321 But now you're just begging the question. You're just saying that statism and coercion must come into play, when someone points out to you that they do not come into play, you just say, "Well then that can't be what you're describing." Do you see how that doesn't make sense?
Under Voluntarism there is no systematic Statism/Coercion. So-called "Anarcho-Syndicalism" is Coercive ownership of the means of production. That is just the same Systematic Coercion/Statism we have had for the last 5,000 years.
Dude, the invisible hand rules, I agree with you on free markets (which don't exist), everything else demands a coercive power structure exists. Nobody volunteers unless there is self gain.
@Fmaack All socialist nonsense is based off of the unicorn labor theory of value. The fact that demand and scarcity give value refutes the whole foundation of LTV socialist nonsense.
So basically, anacho-syndicalism, aka communism; is a system of pre-industrial, agricultural self sustainability?
The fruits of capitalism and mass production are precluded from this romantitic egalitarian notion because you forbid profits, contracts & private property.
Fact is, not one anarcho-sydicalist would volunteer for such dehumanising squaller. No syndicate could possibly be self sufficient enough to produce all that you need at any given time.
"One of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of one's labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." Clarence Lee Swartz
@skamaster48 distinguish between personal property (e.g. your toothbrush) and what private property can be (e.g. land, production plant) which was mostly acquired by force and theft. don't tell me that a few super rich owning the world is freedom. oh and btw historically speaking, "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism
if you want freedom. Fight for anarchy. If you prefer imprisonment, fight for Anarcho-syndicalism. Fuck, if anything. I agree with anarcho-capitalism more because atleast theyd have to right to private property, they would own no more or no less then they have worked for, and they'd have the right to expand. Something anarcho-communism and all other forms of communism prohibits
Anarcho-syndicalism is not true anarchism! Anarchists have the right to own private property. Anarcho-syndicalist are just communists in disguise. They wear all black and commit violence to appeal to teens. Don't get fooled by these bastards. In an anarchist society. You can own whatever you want and not let anyone touch it. You are the God of yourself and everything you own.
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing
After @ 10 years of consideration, I have come to this conclusion: I believe that in the absence of government, with a truly voluntary free market, capitalism and socialism could actually coexist. With no political borders to get in the way, socialists could voluntarily form webs of egalitarian support that ignore the capitalists around them. Capitalists could then enjoy the free market without being hassled by socialists. Next door neighbors who enjoy completely different economies. Why not?
@jammatoonarmy Everything we are talking about here, both sides of the argument, are completely hypothetical conditions. There has never been a truly free society with a modern economy, be it socialist or capitalist. There has always been some form of coercive distortion via government, or warlords, or whatever. I'm afraid history is not as good a guide as you suggest. Also, I very deliberately said they "could" coexist, not that they "would". If they can dream unrealistically, so can I. ; )
@rmcdaniel423my comment was to short i think to put my point across. it being that when ever it has come about or almost has the concept has been wiped away clean by the powers that be. if its free for all it free for them to take! whist your dreaming they are not. they are acting, with force. so must we. with forcefull intent of ideals! at least, that me dreaming at any rate!!!
@jammatoonarmy I don't know your political ideals, but either way, I suspect we have a lot in common! I think that's a point I wish the youtube haters would begin to understand. We have more in common than we realize. Whether you are a capitalist or a socialist, either way, the corrupting influence of the state stands in the way of progress. I will say this: In a "free for all", the "powers that be" would no longer have that much power. As it should be.
@rmcdaniel423 :D amen to that brother. Anarchism is truly a stage of socilal evolution. if we are never able to see that as a society then being able to realise it will i sadly think be a dream to far...but your right. thats no reason not to dream it. and to never stop. infact to steal a quote from a film..."never give up! never stop fighting till the fight is won!"
@rmcdaniel423 Nope. Socialist self-management is purged by a market - you can't have an egalitarian business because in a market, when you are constantly seeking to reap the most profit from your output, there will have to be some layoffs, benefit cuts, pay cuts, and other anti-worker business practices just to properly compete in the market. People are generally unable to knowingly harm themselves, so they must create a higher class to do these things, muffled from the horrid effects.
Whether you like it or not, Capitalists are pro-HUMAN BEINGS. Capitalism is the reason the human race has grown to 6 billion so far and poverty of a fixed standard continues to decrease. No market will continuously cut something unless it deserved to be cut. It has rational signals to tell people their labor in X industry is not worth as much as in Y industry. The capitalist does benefit by cutting just anything. What's more, there are only so many scarce resources on the
the market. If a worker is continuously overpaid, society loses and wealth is actually consumed (the resources going into the worker are worth more than the product of hte worker). Period. A capitalist loses if he underpays somebody doing something worth a damn.
@rmcdaniel423 listening to this fror a second time, whilst reading some of the comments...why not indead my friend...however, real education and an end to the promotion of fear and violance as the responce to it. desperatly need to come about. sadly after what i witnessed whilst out in newcastle city centre last week i fear that may be getting further away in meny more people than it's getting closer for.....increase the peace people!
If you are going to presume a condition of true liberty via anarchism, then how do you justify taking the fruit of my labor and giving it to someone else? The ideals of liberty and wealth spreading are absolutely contradictory to each other. The only ETHICAL socialism would be VOLUNTARY socialism. Try doing that WITHOUT the coercive power of government. I'll wager all the money that will be taxed from me this year that it can't be done. At least not for entire populations.
@rmcdaniel423 Anarcho-Syndicalism exists without taxation. Most Anarcho-Socialists that I've met support not progressive taxation, but self-management and worker empowerment. They seem to believe that a form of equity will arise if people are empowered to democratically manage their own business.
You think voluntary Anarcho-Capitaism could exist? Who is going to protect the property of the 2% of the population that are the property owners if not police officers?
@nocturnezero Volunteer policing or selective policing which would kind of be like jury duty today. The Greeks has voluntary policing. Our notion of policing today is only a hundred years old or so. Before the 1850s policing was much different.
"All wealth is owned in common by the people". There is no way in hell you will ever achieve that condition without some sort of coercion. To spread the wealth, someone must forcibly take from some and give it to others. That someone will always be a coercive state. To think otherwise is foolishly utopian.
I fucking HATE it when people talk about anarchy (no gov't) then automatically roll socialist economics into the definition. Anarchy is NOT about economics.
@rmcdaniel423 Anarchy means absolutely no rulers and no unjustifiable hierarchy. Capitalism employs four distinct characteristics: private ownership of property, markets, corporate divisions of labor, and remuneration for property ownership, bargaining power, and output. The first characteristic and remuneration for bargaining power are antithetical to a society with no unjustifiable hierarchy; the property owners are empowered over the poor, weak, and working class.
You've misunderstood Capitalism, but it's quite common given the Marxist understanding the An-Synds have of it. There is not remuneration for property ownership *itself*. There is only *exchange*. This isn't a tax. I *exchange* the productivity my capital goods offers you for wages in the present vs future revenues. I don't get paid interest because I just so happen to own it. I get paid interest because I defer payment now for the future, unlike the laborer. If he wants
interest he can defer consumption as well. But, I'm offering him a choice. Given the two choices, the laborer decides the capitalist's offer is more beneficial to him. Therefore, we must conclude the capitalist HELPS the laborer. If the capitalist didn't exist, the laborer would have to create his own savings to garner his own capital goods in a bare subsistence lifestyle. The capitalist pulls those who didn't underconsume out by allowing them to earn a living while the
economy expands anyways. I don't mean to be rude, but it is always beneficial to understand the system you seek to amend correctly before you make a fool of yourself. Is it a coincidence there is a correlation between socialists and a lack of understanding of Capitalism? Look, we both understand Statism and correctly object, but have you made sure you can justifiably object to Capitalism yet?
In one sense, yes, PskodelicCyoldier, in another sense no. Anarcho Syndicalism is much more aligned with the Communism (it's final stage) and democratic socialism, than with market capitalism.
from what ive read Anarcho-syndicalism is a market economy, it's just a bottom up self managed corps thru unions, besides that it has all the same principles as a market. It's just a more "democratic" market because it's in the hands of the majority of it's workers not owners.
@PsykodelikCyoldier Not quite. A market economy produces for profit, that is, to sell the products of one's (or another's) labour at a higher price than they were produced at. Anarcho-syndicalism is closer to a communist economy, in the sense that the means of production would be worker owned, and that goods would be produced for human necessity and demand, with no profit skimmed off of the top, thus increasing availability of goods and removing the possibility for economic empires.
@PsykodelikCyoldier Anarcho-syndicalism is a virtual guarantee for making a company decline, due to punishment of innovation and promotion of high costs of labor.
People in control of their workplace will surely be more innovative, and won't act as parasitically agents by making massive salaries to come up with cutting edge ideas like "Jersey Shore Fan Night."
@PsykodelikCyoldier How is a system that abolishes markets a "market economy"? How are trade unions "corps" (corporations?) if corporations are destroyed? Anarcho-syndicalism has none of the same principles as markets, because markets are about setting people against one another to maximize profits (an inhumane and selfish idea). Markets have no relevance here, and I don't know how you arrived at that position.
@agapeiron He's actually right though. He is saying that corps are managed through "unions" which is true. It is also a market economy, just not a capitalist market economy like you mention. BTW I believe anarcho-syndicalism is the "perfect" form of governing. The problem, I don't think it could ever happen 1. In a world where war and having a strong military are important. 2. America will never accept it.
@Wrathlegion How is a society where markets are abolished a market economy? You do know that anarcho-syndicalism is a strategy for achieving libertarian communism? If you want to call syndical organizations "corporations" you can (just as I can call a duck an onion, if I want) but you will confuse everyone and probably alienate people, too. (cont.)
@Wrathlegion Also, in reply to your two doubts. (1) I recommend you check out books about the Spanish civil war and the effective libertarian military forms innovated therein. (2) It is true that Americans construct themselves through a filter of Cold War mythology. Through this myth thinking, capitalism is the end of history, the best thing to happen to humankind. But all myths die eventually, and the rabid pro-capitalism cannot last forever. (cont.)
@Wrathlegion (cont.) Opinions change just as demographics do. In the future, America will look like a very different place. We can expect some changes (far) down the road. The American empire is already in decline, afterall. And it is good to celebrate the decline of all empires-- It means America can finally realize its potentials (just as new empires fill the gap).
@PsykodelikCyoldier I am curious about your statement that Anarcho-sundicalism is a market economy. A-S rejects both capitalism and current state structure. It also rejects the labor market. Why do you argue that A-S does not reject the whole market? Does it matter given that it eliminates the exploitation of labor?
@7jerryv7 Capitalism in marxism is more than just a free market of exchange. Capitalism is a system intimately woven to Statist institutions that systematically privatize gains and socialize losses.
In Chomksy's dream world there is nothing stopping people from entering voluntary contracts to trade land, labor and capital, with methods like voluntary arbitration courts for settling and enforcing disputes. That's a market if there ever was one.
The first paragraph sounds like corporate socialism, latter day America.
I haven't followed this thread but it seems people fabricate hybrid systems that are absurd. Anarcho syndicalism rejects private property & free trade, yet what you describe is more or less anarcho-capitalism, a system rejecting the state and market interventionism. Of course, socialists despise capitalism & Chomskyites dream about non-authoritarian socialism, now I read about trade & capital in socialism!
Anarcho syndicalism is the antithesis of the market economy. There is no such thing as a 'bottom up' economy or a worker owned means of production. Without owner/producer employed workers, there is no production and no incentive for investment. Secondly, leftist ideologies are exclusively authoritarian. There is no possibility for the existence of an anarchist-socialist order because no society willfuly submits to egalitarianism.
what about economic functions in a complete individualist anarchist society ? you do understand that Max Stirner's conception of anarchism is completely metaphysical no ? or you didn't read The Ego and Its Own ? the only way to reach individualist anarchism is to change the societal structures and replace them whit decentralized federations where everybody looks after himself
Individualism is a philosophy that states that the individual is the most important unit in a society, as opposed to the family, a collective, a nation, or whatever. Individuals will work to achieve their own individual goals, as opposed to the goals of the collective which he is forced to work for.
In collectivism, the individual is subject to the whims and caprice of the collective. Collectivism is the ideology of fascists and communists, not anarchists.
Anarcho-syndicalists have no economic theory. They want to have a moneyless, non-market society, and yet it should be plain to everyone that such a society could not possibly function in the modern world.
If syndicalists want to go off and set up their worker co-operatives and democratic federations, then they are free to do so. However, the idea of the entire world running along such lines is preposterous and will never work.
Also, syndicalism is a dead movement. There are no large radical trade unions anymore. I for one would probably support a radical anti-state socialist movement, albeit with a few reservations, even though I don't consider myself a socialist.
Anarcho-syndicalists do have an economic theory and it can be summed up in one as: democracy in business. Syndicalism doesn't have to imply a moneyless system. It can, but it's not necessary. Look up Mondragon in Spain. It's a rather large and very successful example of syndicalism in action.
What's the economic plan in your form of individualist anarchy?
I don't see how syndicalists, who are usually opposed to any kind of a market economy, can handle basic economic issues like resource allocation in a world of scarcity. It smacks of utopianism to talk of a gift economy in the modern world.
I support free markets, private property, voluntary association, and a money-based economy. I am open to voluntary socialism, but know that it will not be accepted by everyone. I also have a lot of sympathies with mutualism ala Proudhon.
@VanDoodah A facilitation board sends out an indicative price of capital or a good that takes into account environmental and social costs. Workers' councils respond with their plans for output and the capital they need to meet those quotas of output, again taking into account social externalities. Consumers provide plans for consumption. The facilitation board adjusts the indicative price up or down based on the supply and demand information they now have.
@VanDoodah After this, every council and consumer resubmits their proposals based on the revised indicative price. Every agent and business has access to any necessary information through a network of computers. The resubmission continues until the various decentralized facilitation boards, consumers, workers' councils, businesses, communities, neighborhoods and cities all have collectively acceptable, mutually agreeable, socially accurate plans for consumption and production.
@VanDoodah A small fluctuation from a plan is totally fine. The plans don't have to be too incredibly specific, nor totally perfect, just a publicly accessible, interpersonally reviewable outline for your demand so that businesses know what to supply and facilitation boards can adjust these supply+demand prices to accord with any externalities they may incur. The boards have no executive power other than requesting prices that it is in everybody's best interest to incorporate into your plan.
How exactly will this democratic socialist economy succeed where the others have failed? Why did the others fail, because they were mean? How many F.A. Hayek's have to exist before you realize you can't centrally plan an economy? This is the WHOLE REASON a price even exists! Because a board can't relay to billions of participators the myriad complexities of near-infinite human interactions. Prices and money came about because the human race became so large.
@selfrealizedexile I totally agree! Awesome. You can't centrally plan an economy. High five. I don't believe in central planning. There's no way to ascertain the information necessary to accurately gauge indicative prices in conjunction with consumer demands, complex relationships, environmental and social costs, etc without a horizontal economy that maximizes and empowers unique individuals rather than coordinators or bureaucrats.
@VanDoodah That is the basic system of participatory planning and what most anarchist non-market Socialists would subscribe to as something like a good planned economy. Money is treated slightly differently in the economy, markets disappear except on the level of minor interpersonal trade, there is no ownership of property whatsoever, and voluntary associations of public workers' and community councils are vital.
Democracy is essentially a posh way of saying mob rule. If there is a social contract in a particular business that entails democracy, then that's fine by me, but I am of the opinion that anarchism is about maximising individual liberty and ending exploitation and oppression, not trying to force direct democracy down everyone's necks.
I still don't believe that anarcho-syndicalists have any real economic theories.
@VanDoodah Parecon by Michael Albert and Robert Hahnel outlines the dominant Anarcho-Socialist economic theory of an economy that employs self-management, payment for onerousness and duration of work, and an economy that is planned by the councils, along with an outline of participatory democracy that explains why your first paragraph is wrong.
Forget anarcho-primitivism, that's just nonsense.And as Chomsky said it would lead to "the biggest genocide in human history".It's not possible in our era.
Exactly. Someone who supports anarcho-primitivism supports having the average age of death be in the 20s, having no medicine, living in a state of constant fear and agnosticism, etc.
Not to sound completely irrelevant, but do any musicians know what the intro music would be? Sounds like Mason Williams, but I'm not sure. I'd like to learn the song.
Also, more relevantly, I'm working on learning about anarcho-syndicalism but am finding difficulty fully fleshing it all out in my head. I just want people to work less, determine their hours and wages and basically enjoy life and each other more...
Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchist orginization that focuses on revolutionary trade unions like the I.W.W. and C.N.T. Along with the anarchist tradition of abolishing Hierarchy politicly, socially, and economically, syndicalism aims for worker control of the work place(no bosses) and an abolishment to the wage system with the revolutionary unions organizing to create a communist world(state-less and classless) PM me for an questions please.
I would read everything about anarchism since I think anarchism should have unity and should be flexible. What I'm not for is to call my self anarcho-syndacalist but simply anarchist because it is much easier and less confusing and allow one to elaborate and improve one's anarchist thought.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i ain't playin foo. he done nuffin but bash dis capitalizm and be a leftizt crybabybitch an him flipflops between some markzizm and some bullshit fleetin idear of anarkosidicalism. you mispelled "you're".
He has some good ideas which I think should be written down. For example the solution to rotate jobs. The people want another system, the only thing most fear ist, that it wont work, so.. more Ideas are needed and have to be collected...
It would be cool if the government kind of supported and encouraged young people or any people to look into new ideas and solutions to important social concepts. May be even test them out in some small communities or something. In the hopes of social progress driven by rational political policy, the same kind of progress the founding fathers were looking for. They did their best, now its time we do our best.
well lets see here, you have the main split in anarchism which is between individualist anarchists and social anarchists. and then you have the social anarchists being further divided into 4 main sub levels: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, mutualism and collectivism. but they do all share the same goal. its also interesting to note that anarchism is actually a form of socialism, differing from the other forms in that it promotes doing away with the state instead of taking control of it.
anarchism to me should have unity, as you pointed out yourself there is a common motif among schools of anarchist thought. The same thing happens with socialism- hence why chomsky calls him self libertarian socialism or voluntary socialism.
That isn't a valid choice. If someone wants to be apolitical, that's fine. But, all social change eventually comes down to politics, even if it is entirely reconstructed under economic changes. Anarchists should do what they think is right when trying to change their world, regardless of whether someone considers it politics. If Anarchism were a belief system, this wouldn't work. But, it's not, and people that continue to present it as such only obscure its meaning.
bravo, I agree with. My question for you is what is your input on revolution, because I think revolution is a form of action by the people and it doesn't just happen- it must be organized and well planned.
Libertarian socialism a.k.a. Anarchism, advocates personal property and not private property. Simply put, personal property would be like your car, your house, your toothbrush etc. These things would be owned by you because you are using them without the help of others. Whenever you "employ" someone else's help in a situation requiring a workforce, we believe that that said workforce should own and maintain the means of production.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'd say that the so-called libertarian socialist society could not exist without people volunteering their property in the first place. If you forcibly remove property, you'll have a substantial portion of the population who are quite unhappy. Let people socialize by choice, not force. Therefore, an anarcho-capitalist society would need to be in place in order for this to happen.
Most people don't own property apart from their own home. In an anarcho-syndicalist society there would be common, instead of private, ownership of the means of production not people's homes. The amount of the population who would be unhappy (ie capitalists) are very few.
I disagree as well. It's not that I think an An-Synd society and an An-Cap society could definitionally war, but I think you've misunderstood the majority of the human race; people do not want a commons model. I do not want all that I work for through investments in capital goods (outside my home) to be commonly-owned. If I caused growth, I want the spoils. You can call this selfish, but I will call any claims on my wealth by people who did not create it to be more heinous.
Thus the reason why socialism necessitates force and why anarcho-syndicalism is a complete contradiction in terms.
Chomsky decries classical liberalism/libertarianism but free trade and private property are intrinsic to human rights and morality. The only thing I agree with Chomskyites on is limited government but I have my doubts that they believe in that.
The left, in their various forms, are just fanciful theorists. Mainly I see them as dissenters and reactionaries.
@Samsgarden I'd love to hear you try to explain why "anarcho-syndicalism" is a contradiction of terms. It's hard to see how private property (not to be confused with personal property) is an intrinsic, moral, human right, knowing that the vast majority of people don't own private property. And by "free trade" I assume you mean free from democratic, public interference, participation and involvement. I guess democracy is permissible so long as we don't expect to have a say in the financial sector
Because it isn't voluntarism, it's forced upon the individual.
Private property in its unhampered form is a natural right. If people wilfully support your product, you have every right to keep the fruits of your labour. Reciprocally, your creativity and industriousness benefits society.
Markets work because the individual benefits, socialism denies inequality, which is why socialist-corporate America punishes competition, but alas, monopoly still flourishes. Out of space...
@Samsgarden You confuse private property with personal property. Private property is property you can't use by yourself, like a factory. Personal property is property for personal use i.e. the fruits of your labor, like your television. Owning a factory and exploiting the work of other people doesn't benefit society, it benefits you at everyone else's expense. There is such a thing as market socialism, which you might like. And there is no such thing as "socialist-corporate America".
How can you say there is no socialist corporate America with a straight face?
Corporations are state-created entities. Without the state, the corporation cannot exist. The state consistently props up the corporation and guides economies whether those decisions are helpful or harmful. When the state guides economies and picks winners and losers, to one degree or another, it is Democratic socialism.
@PositivelyBored The state funding private industry is about as contrary to socialism as you can get. The state helping out their rich friends at the top of these totalitarian corporate undemocratic hierarchies is a prime example of Neoliberalism, far away from any kind of socialism. And when I say "Anarchism" I mean genuine Anarchism, none of that "anarcho- capitalism" (a contradiction if I've ever heard one), individualist, etc. bs. For all I care Benjamin Tucker can do flips in his grave.
Since anarchism means without rule, free association...let's start there and work out, locally, how people want to treat personal or property, or even how to achieve complete freedom from hierarchical arrangements. Communism was not and end, but a means of socialism as written by Marx and Engel, and to my knowledge they did not specify what a communist society would be like. However, it did suggest revolution! and most Anarchists reject aggression!
@PositivelyBored Learn a little about Marxism before talking about it. Socialism is a transitionary stage between Capitalism and Communism, as described by Marx and Engels. And yes, they (and many others) did describe in detail the vision for a future Communist society. Communism was described as a stateless, moneyless, classless society in which the means of production are owned, managed, and operated by the workers. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
@Samsgarden (cont.) Socialism in short, is A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole(i.e. democratically). I'd suggest you look into socialism (and economics in general) before trying to criticize it. Reading Wage Labor and Capital or Capital vol. 1 might help you see what your dystopian market system really looks like.
First off, democracy is a flawed principle, second, socialism is managed by the state or syndicates, it is not an autonomous system, it's a quixotic notion where people invest their labour in exchange for commodities as needed, as opposed to the owners profits, in which the labourer has no investment. You construe this positively but you forget that nobody wilfully submits to usurpation; profits are violently seized & rationed, inequality is forbidden, relativism embraced...
...and most importantly, nothing is achieved in an environment which lacks competition, entrepreneurship and personal gain, you just think it does in your vision. It is well established that socialism thrives off the back of 'capitalism' -The Nordic model-perfect example.
The welfare state is all about someone else’s money- and welfare could never be realised in absence of disproportionate wealth. In fact, everything you cherish is the product of everything I just explained.
@Samsgarden The Nordic model isn't socialist, it's social democratic. You only deny the correct definition of socialism to vindicate your own dogmatic position. You seem to think that the only way to get people to rule themselves rather than be ruled by other people is through force, when in fact all it takes is common sense to realize no one wants to be told what to do and not benefit from their labor. Democracy only seems flawed to you because it's a barrier for unconstrained private tyranny.
This has been flagged as spam show
you should all watch this , this is a solution
/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
koliber231 3 weeks ago
The only time socialism has to resort to force is when governance, people, and production are centralized. Centralization of people, governance, and production inevitably leads to social stratification in any socioeconomic system. They key to making libertarian socialism work is the decentralization of those things. And I disagree with people that say that we are inevitably heading towards a more centralized society. This simply is not true. We have been seeing for decades that nations in the
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity 4th stage of the demographic transition are seeing mass decentralization. The US and Europe are seeing millions of people move from urban areas to suburban and rural areas. I see libertarian socialism as a possible alternative to capitalism, but I don't see it as the only solution. Capitalism certainly needs to be replaced, its self-annihilation has already commenced. We have outgrown capitalism with the advent of the digital file, which has the possibility of being made
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity infinite (it doesn't make sense to try to sell an infinite resource), and new technologies that can augment resources and fragment the law of scarcity, which is key to capitalism's survival. It would simply be opposition to progress if we are to cling on to capitalism any longer. We must have social evolution, society must change in order to adapt to new technology and the environment. It's debatable whether socialism's time has come, but capitalism's has definitely gone.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity We have already become semi-socialist, but it only benefits the corporations. Free market capitalism means Private Gains/Private Loses. We live in a system where if a corporation is deemed too large by the government, the system becomes Private Gains/Public Loses, the overall population pays for corporate loses, but corporations pay nothing to the general populace if they succeed.
SuperBspb 1 month ago
@SuperBspb That's because the state is involved. That's not the kind of socialism that I advocate for. That's really more along the lines of state capitalism than anything else. Read the links in my socialism outside of Marxism-Leninism video.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity I understand that anarcho-libertarian socialism would work. But I see no way of getting to it. I doubt the corporations and politicians would give up their power.
SuperBspb 1 month ago
@SuperBspb Well, it's inevitable. The collapse of the political and economic structure's we're used to has already commenced. They will eventually lose all of their significance. It's simply inevitable. All societies collapse, it's an inevitability. There should be no concern as to whether they will give up their power or not. It's a nonlinear cycle, society begins, society prospers, society becomes unstable, society collapses. It's natural.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
Comment removed
PositivelyBored 3 months ago
God, that is THE most annoying music I think I have ever heard.
bapyou 4 months ago in playlist ANARCHISM
What is the music at the start?
seemoretube 11 months ago
@seemoretube It sounds like 'classical gas' by mason williams but it's not the version i've heard. It might be something else though.
Bouchon211 10 months ago
Comment removed
josh1492 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY ,a tyrannical,destructive system to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in the interest of the ruling class. Capitalism from its Genocidal killings of native Americans to the mercantile plundering and enslavement of African natives to its Millitaristic rise of European Powers to World wars and Financial serfdom of the world has been a DISASTEROUS imposition .
arzoyan 1 year ago
"Look Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here"
Monty Python: the Holy Grail
lladnarg 1 year ago
Sorry, but the theme tune at the start is bugging me, I know it but can't remember the name of it. Can anyone help? I'll let you get back to your serious discussion now :)
Beckettbank 1 year ago
so in an anarcho-syndicalist society, would I be free to perhaps, barter with a commonly valued good? lets say, gold
or do what what i wish, with the stuff that i own?
where would the line be in defining what is mine, and what is everyone's? surely if i use a toothbrush, and someone took it, i'd be justified to take it back, no? =ownership
I seriously doubt people in support of Anarcho-syndicalism would continue supporting it if they read "The Law" Bastiat, 1850 and understood the situation
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
i'm no anarchist (i'm a classical liberal, so i believe in some state), but i think any anarchism with a dash or an adjective is just another form of forced social/economic organization. the true ideal for freedom, is anarchism, no adjectives, dashes, or anything, PERIOD.
goPistons06 1 year ago
@goPistons06 The umbrella term "anarchism" has come to have so many varieties within it that encompass so many different and conflicting individual ideologies that it makes dashes and adjectives necessary for clarity's sake.
Philfa 1 year ago
so how is chomsky an anarchist? he visits and speaks highly of statist thugs hezbollah and hugo chavez. maybe i'm getting it wrong, but hezbollah wants to establish an islamofascist dictatorship, and chavez is pretty much a leninist.
can any supporter of chomsky explain this to me? i'm confused
goPistons06 1 year ago
@goPistons06 If Chomsky's interaction with Hezbollah invalidates his anarchism, then so does all interaction on the part of anarchists with any political leaders of any kind.
As for Chavez, he more than likely spoke favorably of some of his social policies, and possibly his resistance to United States imperial influence. Where's the contradiction? It is, after all, possible for an anarchist to approve of certain state policies that they find acceptable in lieu of an existent anarchist society.
Philfa 1 year ago
'Anarcho-Syndicalism' is a form of coercive statism.
Everything should be voluntary, the exact opposite of 'Anarcho-Syndicalism'.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 care to explain?
nachocheese117 1 year ago
@nachocheese117
So-called "Anarcho-Syndicalism" promotes coercion, calling for--just like Statism/Fascism/Chattel Enslavement--coercive ownership of the means of production; as opposed to the voluntary ownership of production, which is Voluntarism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 how so
nachocheese117 1 year ago
@nachocheese117
By definition.
Merriam, 2: "a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers"
There is either Coercive ownership of the means of production(Statism), or Voluntary ownership of the means of production. Statist so-called 'Anarcho-Syndicalists' cover up the term coercive by using objective, empty terms like 'worker' and 'collective'.
"Anarcho-Syndicalism"=Statism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 within in an anarcho-syndicalist society, workers would produce for themselves, cooperating and organizing independently as a syndicate, instead of renting themselves to management in order to pay a pre-established debt to the state via taxation... do tell me, where exactly do coercion or statism come into play here?
HammarHeart 1 year ago
@HammarHeart
Workers could only produce for themselves? Workers could not produce for others(this is where coercion and statism come into play)?
I hope you live on a farm.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 i hope you aren't being serious. it's a given that the workers produce for not only for themselves, but also for their families and by extension the community at large.
HammarHeart 1 year ago
@HammarHeart "workers produce for not only for themselves, but also for their families and by extension the community at large."
As long as everything was voluntary--and not in any sense coercive--that would not be so-called "Anarcho-Syndicalism", that would be Voluntarism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 But now you're just begging the question. You're just saying that statism and coercion must come into play, when someone points out to you that they do not come into play, you just say, "Well then that can't be what you're describing." Do you see how that doesn't make sense?
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness "statism and coercion must come into play,"
Under Voluntarism there is no systematic Statism/Coercion. So-called "Anarcho-Syndicalism" is Coercive ownership of the means of production. That is just the same Systematic Coercion/Statism we have had for the last 5,000 years.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321
Lol -Voluntarism.
Please, you guys make me laugh. Just admit it, you love the state like all leftists.
Samsgarden 4 months ago
@Samsgarden 1. Useless 'left'-'right' terms are just French Revolution nonsense.
2. I am a Voluntarist, Capitalist Libertarian; Voluntarism is the opposite of Statism, unlike whatever coercive Statism you promote.
qwertypoiu4321 4 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
Dude, the invisible hand rules, I agree with you on free markets (which don't exist), everything else demands a coercive power structure exists. Nobody volunteers unless there is self gain.
Samsgarden 2 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Read a history book. Chapter 1: Spanish Civil War
Fmaack 6 months ago
@Fmaack All socialist nonsense is based off of the unicorn labor theory of value. The fact that demand and scarcity give value refutes the whole foundation of LTV socialist nonsense.
qwertypoiu4321 6 months ago
@HammarHeart
So basically, anacho-syndicalism, aka communism; is a system of pre-industrial, agricultural self sustainability?
The fruits of capitalism and mass production are precluded from this romantitic egalitarian notion because you forbid profits, contracts & private property.
Fact is, not one anarcho-sydicalist would volunteer for such dehumanising squaller. No syndicate could possibly be self sufficient enough to produce all that you need at any given time.
Prepare for austerity.
Samsgarden 4 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Dictionary definitions of political systems are notoriously short-sighted and wrong. Open a political science textbook.
Fmaack 6 months ago
"One of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of one's labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." Clarence Lee Swartz
skamaster48 1 year ago
@skamaster48 distinguish between personal property (e.g. your toothbrush) and what private property can be (e.g. land, production plant) which was mostly acquired by force and theft. don't tell me that a few super rich owning the world is freedom. oh and btw historically speaking, "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism
Ichtiostega 1 year ago
@Ichtiostega neither is anarcho-syndicalism you dumbass. Real Anarchism has no adjectives.
skamaster48 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skamaster48 no reason to be rude.
Ichtiostega 1 year ago
@skamaster48 *objectives
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
if you want freedom. Fight for anarchy. If you prefer imprisonment, fight for Anarcho-syndicalism. Fuck, if anything. I agree with anarcho-capitalism more because atleast theyd have to right to private property, they would own no more or no less then they have worked for, and they'd have the right to expand. Something anarcho-communism and all other forms of communism prohibits
skamaster48 1 year ago
Anarcho-syndicalism is not true anarchism! Anarchists have the right to own private property. Anarcho-syndicalist are just communists in disguise. They wear all black and commit violence to appeal to teens. Don't get fooled by these bastards. In an anarchist society. You can own whatever you want and not let anyone touch it. You are the God of yourself and everything you own.
skamaster48 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Free market" is ROOT of all problems and is impossible because
1. how do you keep the people on top from controlling everyone?
2. how do you make sure everyone at the bottom is fed, clothed, etc?
ANSWER
1. FREELY Share ALL resources and knowledge worldwide, NO more money/property
2. Use LATEST technology to create an ABUNDANCE of all our needs, NO more scarcity, waste or theft
3. Automate/localize ALL production and distribution, NO more wage/debt slavery
v=YxPPnCW6sMo
v=yPmHaTirnCc
dontblockmedk 1 year ago
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing
arzoyan 1 year ago
After @ 10 years of consideration, I have come to this conclusion: I believe that in the absence of government, with a truly voluntary free market, capitalism and socialism could actually coexist. With no political borders to get in the way, socialists could voluntarily form webs of egalitarian support that ignore the capitalists around them. Capitalists could then enjoy the free market without being hassled by socialists. Next door neighbors who enjoy completely different economies. Why not?
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago 3
@rmcdaniel423 look at history. thats why not!
jammatoonarmy 1 year ago
@jammatoonarmy Everything we are talking about here, both sides of the argument, are completely hypothetical conditions. There has never been a truly free society with a modern economy, be it socialist or capitalist. There has always been some form of coercive distortion via government, or warlords, or whatever. I'm afraid history is not as good a guide as you suggest. Also, I very deliberately said they "could" coexist, not that they "would". If they can dream unrealistically, so can I. ; )
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423my comment was to short i think to put my point across. it being that when ever it has come about or almost has the concept has been wiped away clean by the powers that be. if its free for all it free for them to take! whist your dreaming they are not. they are acting, with force. so must we. with forcefull intent of ideals! at least, that me dreaming at any rate!!!
jammatoonarmy 1 year ago
@jammatoonarmy I don't know your political ideals, but either way, I suspect we have a lot in common! I think that's a point I wish the youtube haters would begin to understand. We have more in common than we realize. Whether you are a capitalist or a socialist, either way, the corrupting influence of the state stands in the way of progress. I will say this: In a "free for all", the "powers that be" would no longer have that much power. As it should be.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 :D amen to that brother. Anarchism is truly a stage of socilal evolution. if we are never able to see that as a society then being able to realise it will i sadly think be a dream to far...but your right. thats no reason not to dream it. and to never stop. infact to steal a quote from a film..."never give up! never stop fighting till the fight is won!"
jammatoonarmy 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 Nope. Socialist self-management is purged by a market - you can't have an egalitarian business because in a market, when you are constantly seeking to reap the most profit from your output, there will have to be some layoffs, benefit cuts, pay cuts, and other anti-worker business practices just to properly compete in the market. People are generally unable to knowingly harm themselves, so they must create a higher class to do these things, muffled from the horrid effects.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
Whether you like it or not, Capitalists are pro-HUMAN BEINGS. Capitalism is the reason the human race has grown to 6 billion so far and poverty of a fixed standard continues to decrease. No market will continuously cut something unless it deserved to be cut. It has rational signals to tell people their labor in X industry is not worth as much as in Y industry. The capitalist does benefit by cutting just anything. What's more, there are only so many scarce resources on the
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
the market. If a worker is continuously overpaid, society loses and wealth is actually consumed (the resources going into the worker are worth more than the product of hte worker). Period. A capitalist loses if he underpays somebody doing something worth a damn.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 listening to this fror a second time, whilst reading some of the comments...why not indead my friend...however, real education and an end to the promotion of fear and violance as the responce to it. desperatly need to come about. sadly after what i witnessed whilst out in newcastle city centre last week i fear that may be getting further away in meny more people than it's getting closer for.....increase the peace people!
jammatoonarmy 1 year ago
If you are going to presume a condition of true liberty via anarchism, then how do you justify taking the fruit of my labor and giving it to someone else? The ideals of liberty and wealth spreading are absolutely contradictory to each other. The only ETHICAL socialism would be VOLUNTARY socialism. Try doing that WITHOUT the coercive power of government. I'll wager all the money that will be taxed from me this year that it can't be done. At least not for entire populations.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 Anarcho-Syndicalism exists without taxation. Most Anarcho-Socialists that I've met support not progressive taxation, but self-management and worker empowerment. They seem to believe that a form of equity will arise if people are empowered to democratically manage their own business.
You think voluntary Anarcho-Capitaism could exist? Who is going to protect the property of the 2% of the population that are the property owners if not police officers?
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
lol?
Private Defense Agencies. That is not aggressive violence.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Volunteer policing or selective policing which would kind of be like jury duty today. The Greeks has voluntary policing. Our notion of policing today is only a hundred years old or so. Before the 1850s policing was much different.
Fmaack 6 months ago
"All wealth is owned in common by the people". There is no way in hell you will ever achieve that condition without some sort of coercion. To spread the wealth, someone must forcibly take from some and give it to others. That someone will always be a coercive state. To think otherwise is foolishly utopian.
I fucking HATE it when people talk about anarchy (no gov't) then automatically roll socialist economics into the definition. Anarchy is NOT about economics.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 Anarchy means absolutely no rulers and no unjustifiable hierarchy. Capitalism employs four distinct characteristics: private ownership of property, markets, corporate divisions of labor, and remuneration for property ownership, bargaining power, and output. The first characteristic and remuneration for bargaining power are antithetical to a society with no unjustifiable hierarchy; the property owners are empowered over the poor, weak, and working class.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
You've misunderstood Capitalism, but it's quite common given the Marxist understanding the An-Synds have of it. There is not remuneration for property ownership *itself*. There is only *exchange*. This isn't a tax. I *exchange* the productivity my capital goods offers you for wages in the present vs future revenues. I don't get paid interest because I just so happen to own it. I get paid interest because I defer payment now for the future, unlike the laborer. If he wants
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
interest he can defer consumption as well. But, I'm offering him a choice. Given the two choices, the laborer decides the capitalist's offer is more beneficial to him. Therefore, we must conclude the capitalist HELPS the laborer. If the capitalist didn't exist, the laborer would have to create his own savings to garner his own capital goods in a bare subsistence lifestyle. The capitalist pulls those who didn't underconsume out by allowing them to earn a living while the
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
economy expands anyways. I don't mean to be rude, but it is always beneficial to understand the system you seek to amend correctly before you make a fool of yourself. Is it a coincidence there is a correlation between socialists and a lack of understanding of Capitalism? Look, we both understand Statism and correctly object, but have you made sure you can justifiably object to Capitalism yet?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Wow.
I first heard this over ten years ago and its STILL one of the most coherent, thought provoking and intelligent political discussions Ive ever heard.
Diosibundo 1 year ago 2
In one sense, yes, PskodelicCyoldier, in another sense no. Anarcho Syndicalism is much more aligned with the Communism (it's final stage) and democratic socialism, than with market capitalism.
manoverde84 1 year ago
from what ive read Anarcho-syndicalism is a market economy, it's just a bottom up self managed corps thru unions, besides that it has all the same principles as a market. It's just a more "democratic" market because it's in the hands of the majority of it's workers not owners.
PsykodelikCyoldier 2 years ago 9
@PsykodelikCyoldier Not quite. A market economy produces for profit, that is, to sell the products of one's (or another's) labour at a higher price than they were produced at. Anarcho-syndicalism is closer to a communist economy, in the sense that the means of production would be worker owned, and that goods would be produced for human necessity and demand, with no profit skimmed off of the top, thus increasing availability of goods and removing the possibility for economic empires.
Marcownz747 1 year ago
@PsykodelikCyoldier Anarcho-syndicalism is a virtual guarantee for making a company decline, due to punishment of innovation and promotion of high costs of labor.
GulagBound 10 months ago
@GulagBound
People in control of their workplace will surely be more innovative, and won't act as parasitically agents by making massive salaries to come up with cutting edge ideas like "Jersey Shore Fan Night."
amartin7889 9 months ago
@PsykodelikCyoldier How is a system that abolishes markets a "market economy"? How are trade unions "corps" (corporations?) if corporations are destroyed? Anarcho-syndicalism has none of the same principles as markets, because markets are about setting people against one another to maximize profits (an inhumane and selfish idea). Markets have no relevance here, and I don't know how you arrived at that position.
agapeiron 9 months ago 11
@agapeiron He's actually right though. He is saying that corps are managed through "unions" which is true. It is also a market economy, just not a capitalist market economy like you mention. BTW I believe anarcho-syndicalism is the "perfect" form of governing. The problem, I don't think it could ever happen 1. In a world where war and having a strong military are important. 2. America will never accept it.
Wrathlegion 4 months ago
@Wrathlegion How is a society where markets are abolished a market economy? You do know that anarcho-syndicalism is a strategy for achieving libertarian communism? If you want to call syndical organizations "corporations" you can (just as I can call a duck an onion, if I want) but you will confuse everyone and probably alienate people, too. (cont.)
agapeiron 4 months ago
Comment removed
agapeiron 4 months ago
@Wrathlegion Also, in reply to your two doubts. (1) I recommend you check out books about the Spanish civil war and the effective libertarian military forms innovated therein. (2) It is true that Americans construct themselves through a filter of Cold War mythology. Through this myth thinking, capitalism is the end of history, the best thing to happen to humankind. But all myths die eventually, and the rabid pro-capitalism cannot last forever. (cont.)
agapeiron 4 months ago
@Wrathlegion (cont.) Opinions change just as demographics do. In the future, America will look like a very different place. We can expect some changes (far) down the road. The American empire is already in decline, afterall. And it is good to celebrate the decline of all empires-- It means America can finally realize its potentials (just as new empires fill the gap).
agapeiron 4 months ago
@PsykodelikCyoldier I am curious about your statement that Anarcho-sundicalism is a market economy. A-S rejects both capitalism and current state structure. It also rejects the labor market. Why do you argue that A-S does not reject the whole market? Does it matter given that it eliminates the exploitation of labor?
7jerryv7 8 months ago
@7jerryv7 Capitalism in marxism is more than just a free market of exchange. Capitalism is a system intimately woven to Statist institutions that systematically privatize gains and socialize losses.
In Chomksy's dream world there is nothing stopping people from entering voluntary contracts to trade land, labor and capital, with methods like voluntary arbitration courts for settling and enforcing disputes. That's a market if there ever was one.
Hamandchees3 8 months ago
@Hamandchees3
The first paragraph sounds like corporate socialism, latter day America.
I haven't followed this thread but it seems people fabricate hybrid systems that are absurd. Anarcho syndicalism rejects private property & free trade, yet what you describe is more or less anarcho-capitalism, a system rejecting the state and market interventionism. Of course, socialists despise capitalism & Chomskyites dream about non-authoritarian socialism, now I read about trade & capital in socialism!
Samsgarden 4 months ago
@PsykodelikCyoldier Anarcho-syndicalism is a horizontal organziation, not a vertical one.
Fmaack 6 months ago
@PsykodelikCyoldier
Anarcho syndicalism is the antithesis of the market economy. There is no such thing as a 'bottom up' economy or a worker owned means of production. Without owner/producer employed workers, there is no production and no incentive for investment. Secondly, leftist ideologies are exclusively authoritarian. There is no possibility for the existence of an anarchist-socialist order because no society willfuly submits to egalitarianism.
Chomsky is in favour of the state
Samsgarden 4 months ago
mises.org/daily/5590/AnarchoSyndicalism-A-Recipe-for-Ruin
Samsgarden 4 months ago
be an Anarcho-Pacifist
the time of the Proletariat has come
trumpettelly 2 years ago
i got this book its great
MrMarky420 2 years ago
Anarcho-syndicalism is basically what Communism was meant to be.
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 2 years ago 8
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER
No it isn't.
Onepretentiousdude 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anarcho-syndicalism is a joke.
Individualist anarchism is much better.
Chomsky is still great, though.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
what about economic functions in a complete individualist anarchist society ? you do understand that Max Stirner's conception of anarchism is completely metaphysical no ? or you didn't read The Ego and Its Own ? the only way to reach individualist anarchism is to change the societal structures and replace them whit decentralized federations where everybody looks after himself
Menace3434 2 years ago
build a railway all on your own, report back on how much better Individualist anarchism is.
KentAllard 2 years ago
You're a fucking idiot.
Individualism is a philosophy that states that the individual is the most important unit in a society, as opposed to the family, a collective, a nation, or whatever. Individuals will work to achieve their own individual goals, as opposed to the goals of the collective which he is forced to work for.
In collectivism, the individual is subject to the whims and caprice of the collective. Collectivism is the ideology of fascists and communists, not anarchists.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
there no force or whims or caprices in this discussion
KentAllard 2 years ago
What kind? Anarcho-primitivism? Anarcho-capitalism?
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Anarcho-primitivism isn't individualistic.
I'm now an anarchist without adjectives (it's the logical conclusion of anarchist principles), although I am personally an individualist anarchist.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
I don't quite see how you reasoned that anarcho-primitivism isn't individualistic. Whatever, I guess.
How do you figure individual anarchy is superior to anarcho-syndicalism?
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Anarcho-syndicalists have no economic theory. They want to have a moneyless, non-market society, and yet it should be plain to everyone that such a society could not possibly function in the modern world.
If syndicalists want to go off and set up their worker co-operatives and democratic federations, then they are free to do so. However, the idea of the entire world running along such lines is preposterous and will never work.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Also, syndicalism is a dead movement. There are no large radical trade unions anymore. I for one would probably support a radical anti-state socialist movement, albeit with a few reservations, even though I don't consider myself a socialist.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Anarcho-syndicalists do have an economic theory and it can be summed up in one as: democracy in business. Syndicalism doesn't have to imply a moneyless system. It can, but it's not necessary. Look up Mondragon in Spain. It's a rather large and very successful example of syndicalism in action.
What's the economic plan in your form of individualist anarchy?
MrSalamander7 2 years ago 2
I don't see how syndicalists, who are usually opposed to any kind of a market economy, can handle basic economic issues like resource allocation in a world of scarcity. It smacks of utopianism to talk of a gift economy in the modern world.
I support free markets, private property, voluntary association, and a money-based economy. I am open to voluntary socialism, but know that it will not be accepted by everyone. I also have a lot of sympathies with mutualism ala Proudhon.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
@VanDoodah A facilitation board sends out an indicative price of capital or a good that takes into account environmental and social costs. Workers' councils respond with their plans for output and the capital they need to meet those quotas of output, again taking into account social externalities. Consumers provide plans for consumption. The facilitation board adjusts the indicative price up or down based on the supply and demand information they now have.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@VanDoodah After this, every council and consumer resubmits their proposals based on the revised indicative price. Every agent and business has access to any necessary information through a network of computers. The resubmission continues until the various decentralized facilitation boards, consumers, workers' councils, businesses, communities, neighborhoods and cities all have collectively acceptable, mutually agreeable, socially accurate plans for consumption and production.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@VanDoodah A small fluctuation from a plan is totally fine. The plans don't have to be too incredibly specific, nor totally perfect, just a publicly accessible, interpersonally reviewable outline for your demand so that businesses know what to supply and facilitation boards can adjust these supply+demand prices to accord with any externalities they may incur. The boards have no executive power other than requesting prices that it is in everybody's best interest to incorporate into your plan.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
How exactly will this democratic socialist economy succeed where the others have failed? Why did the others fail, because they were mean? How many F.A. Hayek's have to exist before you realize you can't centrally plan an economy? This is the WHOLE REASON a price even exists! Because a board can't relay to billions of participators the myriad complexities of near-infinite human interactions. Prices and money came about because the human race became so large.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I totally agree! Awesome. You can't centrally plan an economy. High five. I don't believe in central planning. There's no way to ascertain the information necessary to accurately gauge indicative prices in conjunction with consumer demands, complex relationships, environmental and social costs, etc without a horizontal economy that maximizes and empowers unique individuals rather than coordinators or bureaucrats.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@VanDoodah That is the basic system of participatory planning and what most anarchist non-market Socialists would subscribe to as something like a good planned economy. Money is treated slightly differently in the economy, markets disappear except on the level of minor interpersonal trade, there is no ownership of property whatsoever, and voluntary associations of public workers' and community councils are vital.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Democracy is essentially a posh way of saying mob rule. If there is a social contract in a particular business that entails democracy, then that's fine by me, but I am of the opinion that anarchism is about maximising individual liberty and ending exploitation and oppression, not trying to force direct democracy down everyone's necks.
I still don't believe that anarcho-syndicalists have any real economic theories.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
@VanDoodah Parecon by Michael Albert and Robert Hahnel outlines the dominant Anarcho-Socialist economic theory of an economy that employs self-management, payment for onerousness and duration of work, and an economy that is planned by the councils, along with an outline of participatory democracy that explains why your first paragraph is wrong.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Forget anarcho-primitivism, that's just nonsense.And as Chomsky said it would lead to "the biggest genocide in human history".It's not possible in our era.
razvaNazdravan 2 years ago
Exactly. Someone who supports anarcho-primitivism supports having the average age of death be in the 20s, having no medicine, living in a state of constant fear and agnosticism, etc.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
less serious note, i love how the first video in the "related videos" bar says "the annoying peasant" scene from monty python & the holy grail
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago 4
Long live workers capitalism
strepsil08 2 years ago
Chomsky rocks!
Deadleader555 2 years ago 2
Go Chompsky
camilitocamilon 2 years ago 4
Great, anarcho syndicalism is what we want.
Nederlandac 2 years ago 38
wrong, we dont want civilization, we want anarcho-primitivism...
FNO108 2 years ago
Into the wild!
SgtBastard101 2 years ago 2
soud quality yikes!
thebalancetheory1212 2 years ago
matches the ideas
ConservativeAnthem 2 years ago
if your a fascist
thebalancetheory1212 2 years ago 2
Not to sound completely irrelevant, but do any musicians know what the intro music would be? Sounds like Mason Williams, but I'm not sure. I'd like to learn the song.
Also, more relevantly, I'm working on learning about anarcho-syndicalism but am finding difficulty fully fleshing it all out in my head. I just want people to work less, determine their hours and wages and basically enjoy life and each other more...
JSGuitar80 2 years ago 5
Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchist orginization that focuses on revolutionary trade unions like the I.W.W. and C.N.T. Along with the anarchist tradition of abolishing Hierarchy politicly, socially, and economically, syndicalism aims for worker control of the work place(no bosses) and an abolishment to the wage system with the revolutionary unions organizing to create a communist world(state-less and classless) PM me for an questions please.
StrictlyRuddie 2 years ago
I would read everything about anarchism since I think anarchism should have unity and should be flexible. What I'm not for is to call my self anarcho-syndacalist but simply anarchist because it is much easier and less confusing and allow one to elaborate and improve one's anarchist thought.
lpbmartialarts 2 years ago
Mason Williams, filtered through Marx's bathwater ;)
ConservativeAnthem 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dis joe chompsky don no shit bout no anarchyism.
armstrongw5 3 years ago
i hope your kidding
eojleahcim 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i ain't playin foo. he done nuffin but bash dis capitalizm and be a leftizt crybabybitch an him flipflops between some markzizm and some bullshit fleetin idear of anarkosidicalism. you mispelled "you're".
armstrongw5 3 years ago
Ali G?
Philfa 2 years ago
Self-determination = Liberty
kittiest34 3 years ago 8
"Feedom is the participation in power."
Marcus Cicero
mariapia3 3 years ago
ohhhhhhhhh young noams voice is so sexy
FCPancakeIII 3 years ago
He has some good ideas which I think should be written down. For example the solution to rotate jobs. The people want another system, the only thing most fear ist, that it wont work, so.. more Ideas are needed and have to be collected...
kaufmann789 3 years ago
It would be cool if the government kind of supported and encouraged young people or any people to look into new ideas and solutions to important social concepts. May be even test them out in some small communities or something. In the hopes of social progress driven by rational political policy, the same kind of progress the founding fathers were looking for. They did their best, now its time we do our best.
wrinkleypp 3 years ago 4
thanks for that wrinkleypp
Hoobtastic 2 years ago
holy shit what a bad sound. i actually listened to this first part though. its really good.
i'll listen to the second part now.
thx for posting.
peace
god0fmusic 3 years ago
the sound sucks
deadwildcat1 3 years ago
Haha funny intro music, which killed my speakers.
alanjohn2006 3 years ago 4
Wow, the audio levels on this video are recorded WAAAAAAAY too high.
Z200a 3 years ago
Rothbard and Rand have nothing to do with the policies of Proudhon, Chomsky, Golman and Bakunin.
RJGula 4 years ago
"policies". Anarchists should be a-political.
kittiest34 3 years ago
well lets see here, you have the main split in anarchism which is between individualist anarchists and social anarchists. and then you have the social anarchists being further divided into 4 main sub levels: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, mutualism and collectivism. but they do all share the same goal. its also interesting to note that anarchism is actually a form of socialism, differing from the other forms in that it promotes doing away with the state instead of taking control of it.
elsargente 3 years ago 3
anarchism to me should have unity, as you pointed out yourself there is a common motif among schools of anarchist thought. The same thing happens with socialism- hence why chomsky calls him self libertarian socialism or voluntary socialism.
lpbmartialarts 2 years ago
That isn't a valid choice. If someone wants to be apolitical, that's fine. But, all social change eventually comes down to politics, even if it is entirely reconstructed under economic changes. Anarchists should do what they think is right when trying to change their world, regardless of whether someone considers it politics. If Anarchism were a belief system, this wouldn't work. But, it's not, and people that continue to present it as such only obscure its meaning.
ketamunke 2 years ago 2
bravo, I agree with. My question for you is what is your input on revolution, because I think revolution is a form of action by the people and it doesn't just happen- it must be organized and well planned.
lpbmartialarts 2 years ago
The quality of the audio was too poor so I looked up for the article through google and read it. Very interesting! Thanks for posting anyway.
warmperson2007 4 years ago
Why's the recording quality so horrible?
sondinium 4 years ago
I don't know for sure but it was recorded some time in the '70s.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
@TrystanCJ I thought you said "It sounds like it was recorded in the 70's"
I LoL'd
Manik2Magik 1 year ago
Excellent video.
Forward44X 4 years ago 2
it's weird hearing him talk fast. no less profound though
d3p3ch3mod3 4 years ago
Glad to see you posting this great talk.
buddhagem 4 years ago
Libertarian socialism a.k.a. Anarchism, advocates personal property and not private property. Simply put, personal property would be like your car, your house, your toothbrush etc. These things would be owned by you because you are using them without the help of others. Whenever you "employ" someone else's help in a situation requiring a workforce, we believe that that said workforce should own and maintain the means of production.
Pi11z3ury 4 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'd say that the so-called libertarian socialist society could not exist without people volunteering their property in the first place. If you forcibly remove property, you'll have a substantial portion of the population who are quite unhappy. Let people socialize by choice, not force. Therefore, an anarcho-capitalist society would need to be in place in order for this to happen.
dyssolve 4 years ago
Most people don't own property apart from their own home. In an anarcho-syndicalist society there would be common, instead of private, ownership of the means of production not people's homes. The amount of the population who would be unhappy (ie capitalists) are very few.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
@TrystanCJ
I disagree as well. It's not that I think an An-Synd society and an An-Cap society could definitionally war, but I think you've misunderstood the majority of the human race; people do not want a commons model. I do not want all that I work for through investments in capital goods (outside my home) to be commonly-owned. If I caused growth, I want the spoils. You can call this selfish, but I will call any claims on my wealth by people who did not create it to be more heinous.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
Thus the reason why socialism necessitates force and why anarcho-syndicalism is a complete contradiction in terms.
Chomsky decries classical liberalism/libertarianism but free trade and private property are intrinsic to human rights and morality. The only thing I agree with Chomskyites on is limited government but I have my doubts that they believe in that.
The left, in their various forms, are just fanciful theorists. Mainly I see them as dissenters and reactionaries.
Samsgarden 4 months ago
@Samsgarden I'd love to hear you try to explain why "anarcho-syndicalism" is a contradiction of terms. It's hard to see how private property (not to be confused with personal property) is an intrinsic, moral, human right, knowing that the vast majority of people don't own private property. And by "free trade" I assume you mean free from democratic, public interference, participation and involvement. I guess democracy is permissible so long as we don't expect to have a say in the financial sector
typenamehere19 2 months ago
@typenamehere19
Because it isn't voluntarism, it's forced upon the individual.
Private property in its unhampered form is a natural right. If people wilfully support your product, you have every right to keep the fruits of your labour. Reciprocally, your creativity and industriousness benefits society.
Markets work because the individual benefits, socialism denies inequality, which is why socialist-corporate America punishes competition, but alas, monopoly still flourishes. Out of space...
Samsgarden 2 months ago
@Samsgarden You confuse private property with personal property. Private property is property you can't use by yourself, like a factory. Personal property is property for personal use i.e. the fruits of your labor, like your television. Owning a factory and exploiting the work of other people doesn't benefit society, it benefits you at everyone else's expense. There is such a thing as market socialism, which you might like. And there is no such thing as "socialist-corporate America".
typenamehere19 2 months ago 5
@typenamehere19
Wrong on all accounts.
Samsgarden 2 months ago
@typenamehere19
How can you say there is no socialist corporate America with a straight face?
Corporations are state-created entities. Without the state, the corporation cannot exist. The state consistently props up the corporation and guides economies whether those decisions are helpful or harmful. When the state guides economies and picks winners and losers, to one degree or another, it is Democratic socialism.
PositivelyBored 2 weeks ago
@PositivelyBored The state funding private industry is about as contrary to socialism as you can get. The state helping out their rich friends at the top of these totalitarian corporate undemocratic hierarchies is a prime example of Neoliberalism, far away from any kind of socialism. And when I say "Anarchism" I mean genuine Anarchism, none of that "anarcho- capitalism" (a contradiction if I've ever heard one), individualist, etc. bs. For all I care Benjamin Tucker can do flips in his grave.
typenamehere19 2 weeks ago
@typenamehere19
Since anarchism means without rule, free association...let's start there and work out, locally, how people want to treat personal or property, or even how to achieve complete freedom from hierarchical arrangements. Communism was not and end, but a means of socialism as written by Marx and Engel, and to my knowledge they did not specify what a communist society would be like. However, it did suggest revolution! and most Anarchists reject aggression!
PositivelyBored 1 week ago
@PositivelyBored Learn a little about Marxism before talking about it. Socialism is a transitionary stage between Capitalism and Communism, as described by Marx and Engels. And yes, they (and many others) did describe in detail the vision for a future Communist society. Communism was described as a stateless, moneyless, classless society in which the means of production are owned, managed, and operated by the workers. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
typenamehere19 1 week ago
@Samsgarden (cont.) Socialism in short, is A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole(i.e. democratically). I'd suggest you look into socialism (and economics in general) before trying to criticize it. Reading Wage Labor and Capital or Capital vol. 1 might help you see what your dystopian market system really looks like.
typenamehere19 2 months ago
@typenamehere19
First off, democracy is a flawed principle, second, socialism is managed by the state or syndicates, it is not an autonomous system, it's a quixotic notion where people invest their labour in exchange for commodities as needed, as opposed to the owners profits, in which the labourer has no investment. You construe this positively but you forget that nobody wilfully submits to usurpation; profits are violently seized & rationed, inequality is forbidden, relativism embraced...
Samsgarden 2 months ago
@typenamehere19
...and most importantly, nothing is achieved in an environment which lacks competition, entrepreneurship and personal gain, you just think it does in your vision. It is well established that socialism thrives off the back of 'capitalism' -The Nordic model-perfect example.
The welfare state is all about someone else’s money- and welfare could never be realised in absence of disproportionate wealth. In fact, everything you cherish is the product of everything I just explained.
Samsgarden 2 months ago
@Samsgarden The Nordic model isn't socialist, it's social democratic. You only deny the correct definition of socialism to vindicate your own dogmatic position. You seem to think that the only way to get people to rule themselves rather than be ruled by other people is through force, when in fact all it takes is common sense to realize no one wants to be told what to do and not benefit from their labor. Democracy only seems flawed to you because it's a barrier for unconstrained private tyranny.
typenamehere19 2 months ago