StrictlyRuddie
22nd March 2009, 07:43
So these are some questions this guy has sent me thinking I was an anarcho-syndicalist, and apart from my basic understandings of it I cannot answer these questions as well as an actual anarcho-syndicalist could. Can someone please help me answer these questions, maybe we can turn him into a comrade?
My first question to all that would concern the initial stages of the revolution. In the global economic system over which America currently presides there are many connections between consortium business (e.g. investment banks) and investitures in inummerable areas, right? To appropriate power from these institutions and eventually to dispose of them (seeing as though there would be no more capital for the capitalist regime) would require the simultaneous reappropriation of business and power in other countries, would it not? If this were not to occur, would America not be facing clear danger of take over by what would essentially be a more financially-sound and clearly enraged country after the ultimate divestment of its assets? I mean, it is hard to envision a situation in which the most powerful country (on which transitional currency is based) in the entire global economic system falls in a revolution and other powerful, post-industrialized nations do not react in both rage and sheer panic militarily against the flegling confederacy. I just have trouble believing these countries would face certain economic collapse with their thumbs rooted in their asses.
Also, no revolution in the history of the Western post-industrial world without the support of not only a large part of the population but also a significant portion of the armed forces has occured, let alone succeeded. Even revolutions in the old regime required the support of a significant portion of the armed forces. How, then, would you change the perspective of atomized, individualized, (hazard to say) nihilistic people in a post-modern world of cynicism in which idealism is all but dead; do you not believe social conditioning to be an extremely powerful psychological force? And, ofcourse, how would you secure the support of a highly regimented, strictured and complex military force which is tied strongly to the vast network of powerful industry in the nation and which has at its disposal billions upon billions of dollars of highly mechanized war provisions? To create any small amount of defection within the military would be difficult, and to secure a large amount would be almost impossible, not to mention somewhat ineffectual given the technocratic nature of the United States war machine and bureaucracy. Would it not literally take the defection of all the military's top officials and a large portion of the fighting force simply to thwart being summarily crushed? Would it not, as a pre-requisite take the destruction of the vast industrial complex behind this technocratic machine to cause the amount of defection necessary to begin with and would this not, then, be a sort of revolutionary "catch 22"?
That perhaps covers my basic anxieties over the initial stages of the revolution, which I feel are probably the most daunting and perhaps the nail in the coffin themselves.
On coercion:
If the history of the American labor movements are any indication, a large-scale coup in any area could not occur (militias and American Legions are far less frightening than real military action, anyhow). I feel that the appropriation of industry in even one small city would cause more than a little stir in the circles of powerful capitalists. These capitalists could very easily convince lawmakers and subsequently military officials that such abrogations were an act which put into peril the "great capitalist" system, something to the effect of marshall law would be created with the mass support of the complicit American public (or without, who cares, right?) and in less than 12 hours these workers would be torn to peices by the most sophisticated military the world had ever seen. I don't see the revolution occuring in such a country as ours in such a decade and century as ours without first 1:a large scale propaganda campaign to facilitate armed revolution on a mass scale simultaneously in all major cities and 2:without the complete economic collapse of the financial industry (which may actually come to fruition within the next few years, but is doubtful).
Now, to the actual discussion of coercion/market forces/wage reform:
When you are considering anarchy, are you not therefore considering the complete overthrow of both governmental bureaucracy and the wage system? And if you take away the wage system, as I've stated, clearly you're taking away the ability to steadily value goods or commodities. Work itself is considered a commodity and therefore you would take away definite values of work performed. Yet, if you place into effect the dispersing of coupons or stipends for a particular AMOUNT of work but not a particular TYPE of work, you imply that all work is of the same value. Now, if someone is working a very necessary job, but one which is not entirely rewarding, for instance accounting in order to make sure the company's books are balanced correctly, would you then also be completely stripping that worker of the incentive to do such a job? I suppose without wages accounting would be obsolete, but I mean, I feel as though particular work would just simply not become obsolete under anarcho-syndicalism and much of that work would incidentally be highly specialized work. Do you honestly believe that you can get such a fervor for unity that people will be willing to invest extremely great portions of their life learning highly specialized but ultimately unsatisfying work simply for the sake of knowing they're furthering the goal of a syndicate? Doctors would, perhaps. Scientists? Perhaps. But not all types of specialized work is such a rewarding task. Also, we've become consumers who equate our worth with commodities, it would be very difficult to even make that cultural sea change (not to beat a dead horse) and even if you could hypothetically get all people to drop their manufactured desires (which I strongly doubt) I still feel it would be very difficult to give people incentive to do such highly specialized tasks simply by telling them "you've spent the same amount of hours working the programming of computers in the information sector as the guy who cleaned the shit off the streets so here you are: a fresh coupon for X goods which we subjectively defined as being the value of your labor". Do you not then essentially commodify labor, but in a much less desirable way? And on such subjective terms do you not, ultimately coerce and basically exploit the individual who does not feel it worth his time to work such a highly specialized job for the same incentive as the maintenance engineer? Do you think it would even be possible to get a large work force of people to work in such highly specialized fields such as civil engineering, information technology (not the cool stuff, mind you) and residential and commercial architecture? Do you believe that there is equal incentive simply by virtue of the rewarding feeling of helping a person in order to get a large enough work force in these particularly imperative fields to even run such a massive confederation of such a massive amount of people? Why do you think so?
My first question to all that would concern the initial stages of the revolution. In the global economic system over which America currently presides there are many connections between consortium business (e.g. investment banks) and investitures in inummerable areas, right? To appropriate power from these institutions and eventually to dispose of them (seeing as though there would be no more capital for the capitalist regime) would require the simultaneous reappropriation of business and power in other countries, would it not? If this were not to occur, would America not be facing clear danger of take over by what would essentially be a more financially-sound and clearly enraged country after the ultimate divestment of its assets? I mean, it is hard to envision a situation in which the most powerful country (on which transitional currency is based) in the entire global economic system falls in a revolution and other powerful, post-industrialized nations do not react in both rage and sheer panic militarily against the flegling confederacy. I just have trouble believing these countries would face certain economic collapse with their thumbs rooted in their asses.
Also, no revolution in the history of the Western post-industrial world without the support of not only a large part of the population but also a significant portion of the armed forces has occured, let alone succeeded. Even revolutions in the old regime required the support of a significant portion of the armed forces. How, then, would you change the perspective of atomized, individualized, (hazard to say) nihilistic people in a post-modern world of cynicism in which idealism is all but dead; do you not believe social conditioning to be an extremely powerful psychological force? And, ofcourse, how would you secure the support of a highly regimented, strictured and complex military force which is tied strongly to the vast network of powerful industry in the nation and which has at its disposal billions upon billions of dollars of highly mechanized war provisions? To create any small amount of defection within the military would be difficult, and to secure a large amount would be almost impossible, not to mention somewhat ineffectual given the technocratic nature of the United States war machine and bureaucracy. Would it not literally take the defection of all the military's top officials and a large portion of the fighting force simply to thwart being summarily crushed? Would it not, as a pre-requisite take the destruction of the vast industrial complex behind this technocratic machine to cause the amount of defection necessary to begin with and would this not, then, be a sort of revolutionary "catch 22"?
That perhaps covers my basic anxieties over the initial stages of the revolution, which I feel are probably the most daunting and perhaps the nail in the coffin themselves.
On coercion:
If the history of the American labor movements are any indication, a large-scale coup in any area could not occur (militias and American Legions are far less frightening than real military action, anyhow). I feel that the appropriation of industry in even one small city would cause more than a little stir in the circles of powerful capitalists. These capitalists could very easily convince lawmakers and subsequently military officials that such abrogations were an act which put into peril the "great capitalist" system, something to the effect of marshall law would be created with the mass support of the complicit American public (or without, who cares, right?) and in less than 12 hours these workers would be torn to peices by the most sophisticated military the world had ever seen. I don't see the revolution occuring in such a country as ours in such a decade and century as ours without first 1:a large scale propaganda campaign to facilitate armed revolution on a mass scale simultaneously in all major cities and 2:without the complete economic collapse of the financial industry (which may actually come to fruition within the next few years, but is doubtful).
Now, to the actual discussion of coercion/market forces/wage reform:
When you are considering anarchy, are you not therefore considering the complete overthrow of both governmental bureaucracy and the wage system? And if you take away the wage system, as I've stated, clearly you're taking away the ability to steadily value goods or commodities. Work itself is considered a commodity and therefore you would take away definite values of work performed. Yet, if you place into effect the dispersing of coupons or stipends for a particular AMOUNT of work but not a particular TYPE of work, you imply that all work is of the same value. Now, if someone is working a very necessary job, but one which is not entirely rewarding, for instance accounting in order to make sure the company's books are balanced correctly, would you then also be completely stripping that worker of the incentive to do such a job? I suppose without wages accounting would be obsolete, but I mean, I feel as though particular work would just simply not become obsolete under anarcho-syndicalism and much of that work would incidentally be highly specialized work. Do you honestly believe that you can get such a fervor for unity that people will be willing to invest extremely great portions of their life learning highly specialized but ultimately unsatisfying work simply for the sake of knowing they're furthering the goal of a syndicate? Doctors would, perhaps. Scientists? Perhaps. But not all types of specialized work is such a rewarding task. Also, we've become consumers who equate our worth with commodities, it would be very difficult to even make that cultural sea change (not to beat a dead horse) and even if you could hypothetically get all people to drop their manufactured desires (which I strongly doubt) I still feel it would be very difficult to give people incentive to do such highly specialized tasks simply by telling them "you've spent the same amount of hours working the programming of computers in the information sector as the guy who cleaned the shit off the streets so here you are: a fresh coupon for X goods which we subjectively defined as being the value of your labor". Do you not then essentially commodify labor, but in a much less desirable way? And on such subjective terms do you not, ultimately coerce and basically exploit the individual who does not feel it worth his time to work such a highly specialized job for the same incentive as the maintenance engineer? Do you think it would even be possible to get a large work force of people to work in such highly specialized fields such as civil engineering, information technology (not the cool stuff, mind you) and residential and commercial architecture? Do you believe that there is equal incentive simply by virtue of the rewarding feeling of helping a person in order to get a large enough work force in these particularly imperative fields to even run such a massive confederation of such a massive amount of people? Why do you think so?