Learning -- Anarcho-Communism vs Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Octobox]

Aren't they the same -- they both use Trade-Unionism!

Trade Unions create artificial wage values in industries where market prices would not reach -- thus a value on an individuals wage that he could not garner in a "truly" free-market.

An example of this would be Cashiers -- I know a few earning 50 to 60K per year -- rediculous. Only a trade union can create a valuation on a wage like this. One of my friends quit and could not find equivelant pay -- why? Because the skill is highly industry specific. Same is true for automotive fabricators -- where else can they apply these skills, save large capitalist factorys and earn the same wage. Why when the "mill closes" the town dies.

Corporatists (the bad kind of anti-free-market capitalist) do the same thing. They lobby politicians to get "rents" or "price floors" over there industry -- they also lobby to get the politician to steal from the wage-earners taxes or destory the dollar by over printing of fiat currency, to "protect" their profits.

Communist-Socialist-Democratic-Corporatists-Trade-Unionists -- All derive valuation artifically and by way of lobbying.

Corporatist Revenue Model: Consumer Purchasing, Consumer Investors (stocks and bonds), and Corporate Welfare (Bailouts and Subsidies)

Trade-Unionist Organization Revenue Model: Wage Earner Taxation, Private Donation, and Gov't Organizational Welfare (Lobbied Subsidization and Regulatory Might)

Free-Market Corporate Revenue Model: Consumer Purchases and Consumer Investors (stocks and bonds)

Which society gives the most freedom to the people -- which society gives the most "power" to control a corporation?

A free-market can only truly exist in a Minarchist Constitutional Republic or a Libertarian-Anarchist Society -- the latter does not exist outside of Howard Stern's head; so only the former is pragmatic.

The Corporatist - The Trade Unionist - and The Lobby-Eared Politicians must all three lose their "power" for the people - consumers to have "power" and to re-distribute wealth.

[Plagueround]

Cool story bro. Most people manage to discern the proper forum to discuss this would not be the Introduction forum, but hey, way to fight the power!

[Octobox]

So you concede the point? Hahaha

[#FF0000]

So you concede the point? Hahaha

Er, no. Anarcho-Syndicalists and Communists are different. One focuses on Trade Unions, the other on the community in general. It's just a matter of organization. They aren't terribly different otherwise.

[Jazzratt]

Moved to the correct forum

[IcarusAngel]

I couldn't really make heads or tails of the original post. Half of the post isn't even English grammar.

Anyway, free-market laissez-faire societies have never been successful. Creating a well off middle class seems to have helped the first world countries.

Anarchists want to move away from the capitalist based, "free-market" economy.

Free-market ideologues also believing in lobbying the government and forcing the government to implement their policies.

[Black Dagger]

So Octobox, i'm a bit of a n00b to anarchism - you reckon you could explain to me what anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism actually are?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A free-market can only truly exist in a Minarchist Constitutional Republic or a Libertarian-Anarchist Society -- the latter does not exist outside of Howard Stern's head; so only the former is pragmatic.

In other words you want the state to monopolize on its property recognitions according to your beliefs just because you're afraid socialists will compete against your authoritarian system.

By the way, a truly free market would be socialist. Consult with Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.

[Octobox]

GeneCosta Wrote: "In other words you want the state to monopolize on its property recognitions according to your beliefs just because you're afraid socialists will compete against your authoritarian system."

If you want to debate I would have to respect (and I'm assuming here) that Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and China never represented "true" Marxism -- according to most in "RevLeft" Communism (especially Anarcho-Communism) are "voluntary systems." Additionally, you'd have to respect that the world has never seen a "truly" free-market -- America being the worst example of what I call Corporatism.


Typically in a debate the Communist or Anarchist resorts to ad hominem attacks, "you capitalist swine" and if they are Trotsky fans out comes the creative "fascists" inserts -- a "fascist" being anyone with a counter opinion (or so it would seem as loosely as it is applied). I think in the purest aspect of Communism/Anarchism and the purest aspect of Minarchism (ideally Libertarian-Anarchism) we'd find our goals to be very similar and that these ideal societies would not be mutually exclusive.


I'd love to debate with you (a "soft" debate - casual -- where we concede to logic and not slavishly hold onto our "beliefs," which are "blind" until a pragmatic version of our seemingly different views actually manifest in the world).

GeneCosta wrote: "By the way, a truly free market would be socialist. Consult with Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker."

Lysander Spooner seems to be a person that both Libertarian-Anarchists and Communists seem to relate -- same true for Lao Tzu and Cicero; which is why I believe our idealogies are mutually inclusive.

If nothing else I would agree that American Communist (as I've seen no others in practice) and Anarcho-Syndicalist (using Spain as an example) can organize large numbers of people -- Libertarian-Anarchist and Minarchists have not been able to do that (ever) until last year when Ron Paul stepped on the scene.

Peace

[Octobox]

So Octobox, i'm a bit of a n00b to anarchism - you reckon you could explain to me what anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism actually are?

I'm new too I was asking a question then moved forward with what I've gathered from online research -- I was advised to read a bunch of sites to get the jist. [noticing the "Che Guevara Store" above -- He loved "the Wall."]

I would recommend that you google the phrases and do some research, unless you were being sarcastic if that be the case here's *lemon in your eye* as my Cuban mother would always say.

The skinny on Anarcho-Syndicalism is that to get to their ideal society they lobby by way of re-education and trade-unionism -- siting Spain

Wikipedia - Anarcho-Syndicalism

Many historical figures who were Anarcho-Syndicalists identified as Anarcho-Communists (which is why I posed the question - to see if further distinction have been made since the the late 1800's to early 1900's).

Anarcho-Syndicalism is older than Marxism -- this is where the "rift" began as Marx was an A-Syn who favored "dictatorship by the proletariat" and the opposing voice was Bakunin who had a "sense" (though he was a fierce A-Syn) of personal liberty (different from modern day Libertarian-Anarchists) owing to his social position as a collectivist-anarchist. Bakunin was in theory and practice for voluntary action; whereas in practice Marxism always resulted in rigged elections and coercion -- notice I said Marxism in Practice (I don't want to get kicked off) haha.

Wikipedia - Mikhail Bakunin

Again -- don't take my word for it search it out

Peace

Octobox

[Octobox]

Just as Anarchists and Communists want you to ignore any "real world" representation by name-sake ("though they sell Che Guevara t-shirts") to Communism or Anarchism as being some other phrase, like "Authotarian Statism" or "State Capitalsm" like Russia, Vietnam, and Norther Korea so they can avoid the atrocities there -- we too as Libertarian-Anarchist or Minarchist do not want American Corporatism to be considered representative of "free-markets" or "laisse-faire capitalism." Both sides can produce vast arguments and links against such wholly antagonistic misrepresentations.

For my part I would say that antagonistic to "free-markets" is Slavery (thus America was not founded on "truly" free-markets) -- the basis of free-market philosophy is "self-rule" or "no rule" it is Market-Anarchistic (trusting fully in people's free-choice and self-regulation-preservation) -- since as adult individuals we are market participants no level of taxation (theft) can be claimed against my labor -- whether it be Chattel or Progressive taxation. My definition of Chattel Slavery is 100% Taxation - 0% Private Property Ownership (less the grotesquery) -- As Americans we are (by income tax alone) 30% Partial Slaves; meaning we have no control over our income for approximately 3 months per year. Additionally NAFTA and CAFTA are highly regulated forms of "trade" and are not "free," vast requirements for participation which is exclusion and involuntary must be met before hand.

If others can concede my point I will concede theirs and we can actually move this debate forward -- if they can't then I will resort to holding Communism as represented by Russia and they hold free-markets represented by American Corporatism -- and thus the "cold war" intellectual battle ensues ad infinitum and neither of us moves toward getting what we want.

My belief is that our arguments would be better if we eliminated a common enemy -- "Corporate Lobbyist and Corporatists (those wealthy folk/industries that seek to regulate advantages)" and limit the central gov'ts role to Naval oversight. As a favorable plus to the A-Syndicalist imagine if Detroit did not have to lobby Washington (where many throats seek assuagement) and instead they could resolve their problems locally. At the very least the Anarchist (regardless of font) would want power to flow from individual to city to country to state (being the least) -- this way his village or group or as an indivual voice could not have their liberties set aside by the highest bidding lobbyist, correct? Anything less would be a sublimation of self-will or small group-will (your local trade union).

Octobox

[Bud Struggle]

If you want to debate I would have to respect (and I'm assuming here) that Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and China never represented "true" Marxism The rule of thumb around RevLeft is--if it lasted more than three weeks, it wasn't really Communism. Soviet Union, China--out.



Typically in a debate the Communist or Anarchist resorts to ad hominem attacks, "you capitalist swine" and if they are Trotsky fans out comes the creative "fascists" inserts -- a "fascist" being anyone with a counter opinion (or so it would seem as loosely as it is applied). You are a RevLeft PRO!



I'd love to debate with you (a "soft" debate - casual -- where we concede to logic and not slavishly hold onto our "beliefs," which are "blind" until a pragmatic version of our seemingly different views actually manifest in the world). Good Luck.


If nothing else I would agree that American Communist (as I've seen no others in practice) and Anarcho-Syndicalist (using Spain as an example) can organize large numbers of people -- Libertarian-Anarchist and Minarchists have not been able to do that (ever) until last year when Ron Paul stepped on the scene.

Peace American Communists CPUSA, SWP are nut cases (but so are Ron Paul fans.). Good luck.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The rule of thumb around RevLeft is--if it lasted more than three weeks, it wasn't really Communism.

Yes, Tom's sex life doesn't count as mutual exchange.

Snap. :D

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, Tom's sex life doesn't count as mutual exchange.

Snap. :D


Gene--cheep shot.:D You have to admit--my "three weeker" was an ex-O-lent zinger.:lol:

[RGacky3]

Of coarse trade unions are 100% freemarket, the only way you'd stop that is if you stop workers from make desicions, and making deals, and associating, which is anti-freemarket. You need a State for that, or ar boss that acts like the state.

[Plagueround]

-- since as adult individuals we are market participants no level of taxation (theft) can be claimed against my labor --


Very well. In exchange, the profits reaped from my labor should not be taxed by my employer and I should receive the full amount of the profit I generate. Anything else would be theft.

[Octobox]

Very well. In exchange, the profits reaped from my labor should not be taxed by my employer and I should receive the full amount of the profit I generate. Anything else would be theft.


I've never understood this logic - help me out. Let's say you do get to keep all the profit you helped generate (all of it) -- next month when you come to work and your boss is closing the doors because he didn't invest all his personal assets to "break-even" what do you do for employment?

Octobox

[Plagueround]

I've never understood this logic - help me out. Let's say you do get to keep all the profit you helped generate (all of it) -- next month when you come to work and your boss is closing the doors because he didn't invest all his personal assets to "break-even" what do you do for employment?

Octobox

The question was not me stating how I believe things should be run (if capitalism is to remain, I'd begrudgingly prefer co-ops and mutualism becoming more prominent). I'm trying to understand your logic because I don't know much about minarchists...You believe that we should surrender a portion of the benefits of our labor to our bosses so they can keep things running...and you believe we should have a state to uphold these exchanges...but you believe taxation is theft? How do you fund your bosses in the state?

[Octobox]

I'm trying to understand your logic because I don't know much about minarchists...You believe that we should surrender a portion of the benefits of our labor to our bosses so they can keep things running...and you believe we should have a state to uphold these exchanges...but you believe taxation is theft? How do you fund your bosses in the state?

No -- I do not believe you should surrender any portion of labor that you agreed to when you were hired by the risk-taking business owner. Owing to that freedom of contract you cannot expect to be paid additional dollars not agreed to -- bonuses and incentives (if not contracted) are free to be given by the owner. If you are a valued worker then you will receive handsome bonuses, if you are and you do not then quit. The laborer has "freedom" the owner does not: 1) he can quit without obligation and 2) he is not legally bound to the company.

Be more concerned with Gov't Tax. If in America you add up all forms of tax (all of them) you will see that Americans pay nearly 70% of their income in taxation -- this comes to 8.4 months approximately that we live as slaves.

Forms of Taxes (the big ones only):
1) Income
2) Sales
3) Corporation Tax (yes the consumer pays 100% of this tax - if that's not obvious I'll explain it)
4) Import - Export Tax
5) Inheritance Tax
6) Accounting Tax
7) Gas Tax
8) Various Sin Tax
9) Regulatory Tax
and 10) Inflationary Tax (Fiat Currency Printing and Fiat Credit)

Most Minarchists believe that a small centralized gov't is needed only to oversee the Navy some expand it to police services and I disagree. Minarchists believe a small sales tax of 2 or 3% (1% going to centralized gov't for Naval management) and the rest going to the state is more than enough. The Army and Air Force hardware and personnel would guard the border and costal states. Militias would be highly encouraged. No other taxes applied and zero market regulation.

My personal belief is this small gov't should be ruled by a one-term Meritocracy -- since they have zero regulatory power we could allows private societies better suited to hire these folks than by election. Elections would be handled at the State level.

In a Minarchist Society, outside of the small Central Gov't the power structer goes: citizen, community, city, county, and lastly state.

Business Revenue has only two streams: 1) Consumers who Purchase and 2) Consumers who Invest -- without regulation there are no bailouts/subsidies. If people decide they do not like the heading of a corporation they shop elsewhere -- consumer investors pull money and corporation changes or goes out of business.

Power to the People (Consumer)

A Minarchist is very close to an Anarchist.

Anarchy means "arche" (sovereignty) and "an" (no or none) = no rule or as Cicero said it "self-rule" -- Lao Tzu also believed in self-rule.

Peace,

Octobox

[Plagueround]

Well, the only thing that I get from that is it might be easier for real anarchists to wrestle power out of the hands of a more simple system like you've described. While I thank you for the detailed response, I think Gene summed it up best when he said:

In other words you want the state to monopolize on its property recognitions according to your beliefs just because you're afraid socialists will compete against your authoritarian system.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

3) Corporation Tax (yes the consumer pays 100% of this tax - if that's not obvious I'll explain it)Major and medium-sized corporations don't pay the corporate tax.


5) Inheritance TaxThe inheritance tax is not levied on most people.


10) Inflationary Tax (Fiat Currency Printing and Fiat Credit)
The alternative during the time of gold standard was a higher unemployment tax. The free banking era had both.


9) Regulatory TaxRegulations would be necessary in a laissez faire system as well. You may want to argue that this would occur with private regulators - fine, let's try to accept that - but it's still going to happen.


4) Import - Export TaxLargely non-existent in today's circles. Indeed many warped conservatives are calling for the reinstitution of tariffs.

Not that I like taxes - I think we should eliminate every last one - but not without getting rid of capitalism. A reversal to the Gilded Age is not the solution.


No -- I do not believe you should surrender any portion of labor that you agreed to when you were hired by the risk-taking business owner.
You assume that the current system of property acquisition is legitimate. It can be argued when someone votes they are voluntarily submitting to the state, but we know it's clearly a case of the yielder having too much power. Who says most business owners are justified in their property? I don't think they are. In anarchism, I will be much freer to destroy property I disagree with (provided the defense agency or association doesn't stop me). In a state system, government protection is socialized and the cost of protecting commercial enterprises is passed off on property that people would otherwise not target.

Your use of the word "risk" has no implications. Risk is a frivelous defense for authoritarianism. It can be applied to the state. Slave owners often claimed they were slaves because they had to watch out for their subordinates trying to kill them. Like then, it's just an excuse.

Also I should never be forced into remaining in a contract, even if I signed it. Otherwise you can justify some pretty sickening agreements via contracts with the lame, ignorant, underage, elderly, and desperate.

The state has no business forcing me to agree to someone else's property anymore than they do stopping me from consuming alcohol. If we must have a state, arguing that your system is the only justifiable one is pretty shortsighted.


Business Revenue has only two streams: 1) Consumers who Purchase and 2) Consumers who Invest -- without regulation there are no bailouts/subsidies. If people decide they do not like the heading of a corporation they shop elsewhere -- consumer investors pull money and corporation changes or goes out of business.

Power to the People (Consumer)

A Minarchist is very close to an Anarchist.

Anarchy means "arche" (sovereignty) and "an" (no or none) = no rule or as Cicero said it "self-rule" -- Lao Tzu also believed in self-rule.As I suspected. You want your preferred system to force others to recognize capitalism, as opposed to anarchism where people can make up their own minds. A market of producers is fine, and you will find that many socialist theorists have no objections. However, what it requires is not an absolute notion of property, but a free flowing one where the consumers can challenge producers by intruding on their property. A minarchist state, in theory and in practice (if looking at the 1800s for America), devoted a large sum of resources towards maintaining property so that they could consolidate power. With a capitalist mindset we would just recreate the broken wheel and have ourselves looking at another corporate mess.

[Octobox]

Yes I actually agree with you -- Real Anarchism cannot be achieved directly from what we have right now -- it is an eventuality that will come after a Minarchy -- especially the one I ascribe too; "a limited gov't a 'meritocracy' who's sole function is to oversee the Navy and has no regulatory power of the people (consumers)."

There will need to be slightly larger State governments (during the Minarchist transition) - each state will have to decide, but in keeping with good trade practices and commerce they will all become very similar. Some might lean Minarchist-Right and some lean Minarchist-Left, but overall owing to competition those with heaviest taxes will find people voting with their feet (moving) and thus they change. I'd recommend that the States only oversee (Army Guard, Murder Investigations/Kidnapping, and Air Guard) as these costs are too high for private firms (prevention of war) or for individuals (solving of murder or kidnapping).

I agree the goal would be the complete privatization of all industries to avoid all forms of gov't coercion; but for the life of me I've yet to figure out how to privatize the Federal Navy nor within the States how to privatize Army Guard, Air Guard, and Criminal Investigations),

To accomplish this a small sales tax of no more than 3 or 4% (1% for Fed - the rest for the State).

At this point people will be able to chose a voluntary Anarchism of their choice (Anarcho: Syndicalism, Libertarianism, or Communism). The point is it will be "voluntary" and non-coercive.

Personally I think the non-coercive Minarchism would last a long time as long as citizens maintain strong self-defense and private "community" defense, private education, private utilities, and anti-drug laws. Ultimately a "purer" form of Anarchism will need to be reached -- To keep up with this American Minarchism other countries would have to become freer and we'd become the securist banking market in the world (why Hong Kong is preferred to China -- as they are a "freer" economy).

Liberty is an intensely subtle art-form. Utlimately an inate "spirituality" not based on religion, an internal alchemy -- the ability to remain in exstatic learning states for prolong periods (whatever) will create a race of people capable to live in pure anarchy -- but if we went to Anarchy from here (assuming you are American) we would be invaded by some debter nation; in Anarchy everything is self-ownership including safety/defense. In Anarchy the people do not recognize the "debt of government" and thus China-England-German-French invasion (our debtors), hahaha.

Now that I think of it, we might have to pay an additional 3% over sales to pay off our foreign debt (bringing it to Fed 1%, State 3%, and Debt 3% = 7% or roughly where it is, with no other taxes) -- but that wont take long to pay off because the value of the dollar would grow exponentially as the ying yang yo-yo effect causes us to go from a debtor nation to a saver nation. Innovation and Entrepreneurialism would be our export and Intrapreneurialism our genius; rather our current system of Gov't Forced Innovation.

Just some Thoughts

[Octobox]

To GeneCosta:

I agree with most everything you said - A Minarchist is very close to being an Anarchist -- even in namesake. We are strict (the oldist really) non-foreign-interventionists, we are anti-drug law -- we were the first anti-slavery societies both religious and non-religious (at least as relating to the real use of gov't by those societies; not in name). I'm referring to American History. We are kin in philosophy.

Where we differ is that you cannot go from Present-Day America (opperating as a Neoconservative or Progressive Democrat foreign interventionist Big Corporatists Gov't) to a "pure" Anarchy in one move.

We have huge debt to pay off and thus a need for a strong Navy who's sole role is to protect our waters and thus the creation of a new highly focalized central gov't (a Meritocracy with no regulatory power) who only overseas the Navy -- as their weaponry is to vast and costly to be privatized; thus a small sales tax of 1%. Also, all Army and Air Force must be brought home -- Minarhcists are non-foreign-interventionist. The fact that America ("the Colonial Militarist" she has become) has over 700 military bases protecting the borders of 130 countries is disturbing and inefficient to be kind. They must all be brought home.

Again the states would need to handle the weaponry and personnel as this is too vast and costly to be maintained privately. Also, murder and kidnapping investigation. 80% of theft will disappear when drug laws are lifted and privatized security is 100% more reliable at preventing crime than police who really only come in after and do piss-poor investigation; solving less than 20% of household theft. This will cost (at the state level) another 3%.

The above State and Federal Gov'ts with no regulatory power are 3000% less corruptible and Lobbyist can leave Washington and become Ad Agents or whatever, hahaha.

You said something about Slavery? Slavery was highly regulated and subsidized by the U.S gov't, making it the antithesis to "truly" free-markets and definitely not "Minarchist" or any type of Anarcy for that matter. I'm black-cuban-irish and I think my family has had enough of slavery and potatoe labor in the Americas, smile.

To pay off our debt (foreign) and to insure no invasion (haha) we probably need another 3%.

Comes to a 7% sales tax -- with no other taxes levied.

After a period of time people will be able to chose: Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Libertarianism, or Anarcho-Communism as the bases of their governence.

The "Minarchism" I suggested would be a far easier gov't to transition out of (into anarchy of some sort) than would be our current gov't.

You have to allow a transition out of debt and a securing of our own borders.

I agree there will be "regulation" but it will be between "Consumers who Purchase" - "Consumers who Invest" - and Businesses (who's board members are Consumers). It is a symbiotic relationship rather than anti-biotic Big Lobby-Eared Gov't Corporatists we have now!!

I understand your fear of private property or private contract but with as many people as we have right now it is not feasible to return private property to the commons; the murders would be absurd.

Out of the Minarchist Society arguments for non-property ownerhip will be easier to formulate -- Remember Anarchism is voluntary (if you are an Anarchist) you cannot force people to give up private property (even though our Progressive and Neoconservative Gov't has been doing this since the '30's -- mostly over non-violent drug seizures). The Gov't now owns (as of 2005) over 670 million square acres of U.S Land (including all mineral and oil rights) -- the bailout will have increased this amount by a little bit :)

We might be able to "trust" Gov't if some kind of "saintliness" or how about just "honesty" measurement could be used -- since there is none the only safe gov't is one without regulatory powers -- regulation (is coercion) and brings lobbying (greed).

This has happened in every country: Democracy-Socialism-Communism -- I can't see away of abdicating our individual-will over to strangers with regulatory powers over us as leading to individual or small group liberty. I only see coercion and corruption.

Like I said eventually we can have a purer form of anarchy (as long as it is voluntary). The regulartory-lobby greed of Communism-Socialism-Democracy is why a transitory Minarchism is the best form of gov't.