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!
Results 1 to 20 of 23
Learning -- Anarcho-Communism vs Anarcho-Syndicalism
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.
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!
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.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Moved to the correct forum
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
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.
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?
[FONT=Arial]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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]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."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]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). [/FONT][FONT=Arial]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]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).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]GeneCosta wrote: "By the way, a truly free market would be socialist. Consult with Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker."[/FONT]
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
Last edited by Octobox; 23rd October 2008 at 19:24. Reason: I messed up the quote thingy
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
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
Last edited by Octobox; 23rd October 2008 at 19:57. Reason: I corrected Grammar and Added on a Smidge - No one has replied yet.
The rule of thumb around RevLeft is--if it lasted more than three weeks, it wasn't really Communism. Soviet Union, China--out.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]You are a RevLeft PRO![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Good Luck.[/FONT]
American Communists CPUSA, SWP are nut cases (but so are Ron Paul fans.). Good luck.
[FONT=Arial]Yes, Tom's sex life doesn't count as mutual exchange.
Snap.
[/FONT]
Gene--cheep shot.[FONT=Arial]Yes, Tom's sex life doesn't count as mutual exchange.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Snap.[/FONT]
Last edited by Bud Struggle; 24th October 2008 at 11:37.
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.
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
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?
Last edited by Plagueround; 24th October 2008 at 09:13.
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
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:
