(November 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism
Syndicalism is a type of economic system proposed as a replacement for capitalism and an alternative to state socialism, which uses federations of collectivised trade unions or industrial unions. It is a form of socialist economic corporatism that advocates interest aggregation of multiple non-competitive categorised units to negotiate and manage an economy.[1]
For adherents, labor unions are the potential means of both overcoming economic aristocracy and running society fairly in the interest of the majority, through union democracy. Industry in a syndicalist system would be run through co-operative confederations and mutual aid. Local syndicates would communicate with other syndicates through the Bourse du Travail (labor exchange) which would manage and transfer commodities.
Syndicalism is also used to refer to the tactic of bringing about this social arrangement, typically expounded by anarcho-syndicalism and De Leonism, in which a general strike begins and workers seize their means of production and organise in a federation of trade unionism, such as the CNT[2] Throughout its history, the reformist section of syndicalism has been overshadowed by its revolutionary section, typified by the IWW or the Federación Anarquista Ibérica section of the CNT.[3]
In otherwords, to simplify Syndicalism in one word - Its a "co-op".
Rev, I've read the wiki page among others, this answered precisely none of my questions.
Rev Wrote:Well, I wanted to answer your questions, but some of them I could not answer. You may ask "why cant you answer some of them?". If you do, then I figured you would have already assumed that I was advocating at least a limited government.
This is an anarcho system I am describing. This is a Co-op I am describing. If people are not willing to participate freely for a project then perhaps it is not worth doing.
You've got a contradiction here, you can't be advocating both a limited government and anarchism, the two are mutually exclusive.
As for your co-op, in principle there is no reason why a collective can't operate in a free market, people who chose to join a collective in exchange for agreeing to some terms would be acting entirely consistent with a free market - should they believe that participation in the collective is more beneficial than seeking their own opportunities in the market you should have no problem establishing one - There are a number of collectives that have a natural place in such an economy, like buying collectives, insurance cooperatives and the like - Unburdened by the requirements of the state people would be more free and more easily able to form such groups - I'd go so far as to argue that a free market would be the only truly ethical and consistent place for such syndicalism to form, the alternatives in other systems are all uprisings and seizing of property.
Quote:In America Anarcho-capitalists are called "Libertarians" while "Anarcho-socialists" (syndicalists) are commonly refered to as "Anarchists". Left Libertarians have a long history of being demonized, as whenever anything close to a mob forms on the street they are called "anarchists" even though the mass majority of them may be Democrats or Republicans or most are social miscreants.
Rev, Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism are two distinct things, even in America. Someone who calls himself a libertarian and the says something about the abolition of the state is 'confused'. From the mainstream point of view I'm sure they think there is little to no difference between the two but there is really a fundamental ethical disagreement at the root of the divide, something that in turn yields to very different systems once extrapolated.
It's unfortunate that rioting/protest and anarchy have become synonyms to the public,
Rev Wrote:So now we are at a disadvantage. not only do we see differently on the issue of money, but we also have differences on what we both consider to be efficient. You may consider quick and decent as "efficient". I consider (usually) steady and precise to be efficient.
Maybe if you were more efficient in your questions, then I could answer them efficiently.
Rev, Stop avoiding the question PLEASE. It shouldn't be difficult to answer. I'll state it as clearly as possible:
1. Bob works for the cheese makers union producing cheese. Bob would like a guitar, a computer and a bag of weed.
Question:
1. How does Bob go about obtaining these items given he has no medium of exchange? (please explain in detail)
2. How do the other unions decide what the contributions of the Cheese makers union are worth relative to their own products and whether or not the trade is fair?
3. What if the other unions do not need/want cheese, how does the cheese makers union go about exchanging their products for a guitar on Bob's behalf?
3. How do people know that bob isn't taking an unfair share of goods/services?
.
