#economics anarchism syndicalism

[techniche]

The Fabian Society would define itself as a socialist movement, influenced by Karl Marx and the Marxist Social Democratic Federation, and founded England's Labour Party in 1900. The party's constitution was written by Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb and borrowed heavily from the founding documents of the Fabian Society. At the core of the Fabian Society were Sidney and Beatrice Wbb, who would also help co-found the London School of Economics (LSE), with Rothschild funding, to propagate the Fabian Society outlook in 1895, The Fabian Society and thus the labour Party considered themselves proponents of guild socialism. Bertrand Russell, a leading Fabian member, described the Labour Party's approach to guild socialism in his Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism as such: 'Anarchism, which avoids the dangers of State Socialism, has dangers and difficulties of its own...Nevertheless it remains an ideal to which we should wish to approach as nearly as possible, and which, in some distant age, we hope may be reached completely.. The system we have advocated is a form of Guild Socialism, leaning more, perhaps, towards Anarchism than the official Guildsman would wholly approve. It is in the matters that politicians usually ignore - science and art, human relations, and the joy of life - that Anarchism is strongest...'

Cynthia Chung (The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set: The Birth of International Fascism & Anglo-American Foreign Policy, Chapter 1: For King and Empire: The Birth of International Fascism, pg. 33, 2022)

[somerandomg33k]

….Why do I do this to myself? I am an Anarcho-Syndicalist. And I am reading what the Conservative Capitalist party, the Democrats, want to talk about the economy, economic progress and economic growth. Well, might as well share my suffering.

[max1461]

@sabakos

Well, ancaps certainly have their explanations for this, read... Robert Nozick? Nozick has been on my reading list for many years. My criticisms of anarcho-capitalism are not "this would be unworkable because there's no state", it's more like "a network of armed insurance companies doesn't seem like the sort thing I want to exist". Again, this is a bit of a caricature of the ancap position and I think they have valuable things to say; one of my left-liberal friends repeatedly finds himself a little sympathetic to ancaps and I often find his thoughts quite productive to engage with.

As for the left-anarchist position, well, you can look into Bookchin's communalism, or more classical anarcho-syndicalism that proposes industries be governed by trade unions organized according to the principles of bottom-up federation and direct democracy. Anarcho-syndicalism started as a position of the urban/industrial proletariat in the US and has been heavily associated with the IWW; it is certainly not unconcerned with questions of industry!

In fact, I think the only type of anarchism that is really unconcerned with questions of industry is anarcho-primitivism. I think a lot of people are just rounding off all anarchism to that, but anprims are not even the largest, the oldest, or in any sense the most influential group of anarchists!

As for myself I'm sort in the "rolling my own distro" category; the major project of the political half of this blog has been to flesh out my thoughts on society and economics well enough to do that. So you're right that you'd need to see my as-yet-unwritten effortposts to respond to the substance of my position. Better perhaps to say that the substance of my position does not yet exist; I have been developing it for some years and it is still a work in progress. You and many others have been very helpful conversation partners in this, by the way!

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.5 What are some examples of “Anarchy in Action”?

A.5.3 Building the Syndicalist Unions

Just before the turn of the century in Europe, the anarchist movement began to create one of the most successful attempts to apply anarchist organisational ideas in everyday life. This was the building of mass revolutionary unions (also known as syndicalism or anarcho-syndicalism). The syndicalist movement, in the words of a leading French syndicalist militant, was “a practical schooling in anarchism” for it was “a laboratory of economic struggles” and organised “along anarchic lines.” By organising workers into “libertarian organisations,” the syndicalist unions were creating the “free associations of free producers” within capitalism to combat it and, ultimately, replace it. [Fernand Pelloutier, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 57, p. 55 and p. 56]

While the details of syndicalist organisation varied from country to country, the main lines were the same. Workers should form themselves into unions (or syndicates, the French for union). While organisation by industry was generally the preferred form, craft and trade organisations were also used. These unions were directly controlled by their members and would federate together on an industrial and geographical basis. Thus a given union would be federated with all the local unions in a given town, region and country as well as with all the unions within its industry into a national union (of, say, miners or metal workers). Each union was autonomous and all officials were part-time (and paid their normal wages if they missed work on union business). The tactics of syndicalism were direct action and solidarity and its aim was to replace capitalism by the unions providing the basic framework of the new, free, society.

Thus, for anarcho-syndicalism, “the trade union is by no means a mere transitory phenomenon bound up with the duration of capitalist society, it is the germ of the Socialist economy of the future, the elementary school of Socialism in general.” The “economic fighting organisation of the workers” gives their members “every opportunity for direct action in their struggles for daily bread, it also provides them with the necessary preliminaries for carrying through the reorganisation of social life on a [libertarian] Socialist plan by them own strength.” [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 59 and p. 62] Anarcho-syndicalism, to use the expression of the I.W.W., aims to build the new world in the shell of the old.

In the period from the 1890’s to the outbreak of World War I, anarchists built revolutionary unions in most European countries (particularly in Spain, Italy and France). In addition, anarchists in South and North America were also successful in organising syndicalist unions (particularly Cuba, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil). Almost all industrialised countries had some syndicalist movement, although Europe and South America had the biggest and strongest ones. These unions were organised in a confederal manner, from the bottom up, along anarchist lines. They fought with capitalists on a day-to-day basis around the issue of better wages and working conditions and the state for social reforms, but they also sought to overthrow capitalism through the revolutionary general strike.

Thus hundreds of thousands of workers around the world were applying anarchist ideas in everyday life, proving that anarchy was no utopian dream but a practical method of organising on a wide scale. That anarchist organisational techniques encouraged member participation, empowerment and militancy, and that they also successfully fought for reforms and promoted class consciousness, can be seen in the growth of anarcho-syndicalist unions and their impact on the labour movement. The Industrial Workers of the World, for example, still inspires union activists and has, throughout its long history, provided many union songs and slogans.

However, as a mass movement, syndicalism effectively ended by the 1930s. This was due to two factors. Firstly, most of the syndicalist unions were severely repressed just after World War I. In the immediate post-war years they reached their height. This wave of militancy was known as the “red years” in Italy, where it attained its high point with factory occupations (see section A.5.5). But these years also saw the destruction of these unions in country after county. In the USA, for example, the I.W.W. was crushed by a wave of repression backed whole-heartedly by the media, the state, and the capitalist class. Europe saw capitalism go on the offensive with a new weapon — fascism. Fascism arose (first in Italy and, most infamously, in Germany) as an attempt by capitalism to physically smash the organisations the working class had built. This was due to radicalism that had spread across Europe in the wake of the war ending, inspired by the example of Russia. Numerous near revolutions had terrified the bourgeoisie, who turned to fascism to save their system.

In country after country, anarchists were forced to flee into exile, vanish from sight, or became victims of assassins or concentration camps after their (often heroic) attempts at fighting fascism failed. In Portugal, for example, the 100,000 strong anarcho-syndicalist CGT union launched numerous revolts in the late 1920s and early 1930s against fascism. In January 1934, the CGT called for a revolutionary general strike which developed into a five day insurrection. A state of siege was declared by the state, which used extensive force to crush the rebellion. The CGT, whose militants had played a prominent and courageous role in the insurrection, was completely smashed and Portugal remained a fascist state for the next 40 years. [Phil Mailer, Portugal: The Impossible Revolution, pp. 72–3] In Spain, the CNT (the most famous anarcho-syndicalist union) fought a similar battle. By 1936, it claimed one and a half million members. As in Italy and Portugal, the capitalist class embraced fascism to save their power from the dispossessed, who were becoming confident of their power and their right to manage their own lives (see section A.5.6).

As well as fascism, syndicalism also faced the negative influence of Leninism. The apparent success of the Russian revolution led many activists to turn to authoritarian politics, particularly in English speaking countries and, to a lesser extent, France. Such notable syndicalist activists as Tom Mann in England, William Gallacher in Scotland and William Foster in the USA became Communists (the last two, it should be noted, became Stalinist). Moreover, Communist parties deliberately undermined the libertarian unions, encouraging fights and splits (as, for example, in the I.W.W.). After the end of the Second World War, the Stalinists finished off what fascism had started in Eastern Europe and destroyed the anarchist and syndicalist movements in such places as Bulgaria and Poland. In Cuba, Castro also followed Lenin’s example and did what the Batista and Machado dictatorship’s could not, namely smash the influential anarchist and syndicalist movements (see Frank Fernandez’s Cuban Anarchism for a history of this movement from its origins in the 1860s to the 21st century).

So by the start of the second world war, the large and powerful anarchist movements of Italy, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria and Portugal had been crushed by fascism (but not, we must stress, without a fight). When necessary, the capitalists supported authoritarian states in order to crush the labour movement and make their countries safe for capitalism. Only Sweden escaped this trend, where the syndicalist union the SAC is still organising workers. It is, in fact, like many other syndicalist unions active today, growing as workers turn away from bureaucratic unions whose leaders seem more interested in protecting their privileges and cutting deals with management than defending their members. In France, Spain and Italy and elsewhere, syndicalist unions are again on the rise, showing that anarchist ideas are applicable in everyday life.

Finally, it must be stressed that syndicalism has its roots in the ideas of the earliest anarchists and, consequently, was not invented in the 1890s. It is true that development of syndicalism came about, in part, as a reaction to the disastrous “propaganda by deed” period, in which individual anarchists assassinated government leaders in attempts to provoke a popular uprising and in revenge for the mass murders of the Communards and other rebels (see section A.2.18 for details). But in response to this failed and counterproductive campaign, anarchists went back to their roots and to the ideas of Bakunin. Thus, as recognised by the likes of Kropotkin and Malatesta, syndicalism was simply a return to the ideas current in the libertarian wing of the First International.

Thus we find Bakunin arguing that “it is necessary to organise the power of the proletariat. But this organisation must be the work of the proletariat itself … Organise, constantly organise the international militant solidarity of the workers, in every trade and country, and remember that however weak you are as isolated individuals or districts, you will constitute a tremendous, invincible power by means of universal co-operation.” As one American activist commented, this is “the same militant spirit that breathes now in the best expressions of the Syndicalist and I.W.W. movements” both of which express “a strong world wide revival of the ideas for which Bakunin laboured throughout his life.” [Max Baginski, Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman’s Mother Earth, p. 71] As with the syndicalists, Bakunin stressed the “organisation of trade sections, their federation … bear in themselves the living germs of the new social order, which is to replace the bourgeois world. They are creating not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself.” [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 50]

Such ideas were repeated by other libertarians. Eugene Varlin, whose role in the Paris Commune ensured his death, advocated a socialism of associations, arguing in 1870 that syndicates were the “natural elements” for the rebuilding of society: “it is they that can easily be transformed into producer associations; it is they that can put into practice the retooling of society and the organisation of production.” [quoted by Martin Phillip Johnson, The Paradise of Association, p. 139] As we discussed in section A.5.2, the Chicago Anarchists held similar views, seeing the labour movement as both the means of achieving anarchy and the framework of the free society. As Lucy Parsons (the wife of Albert) put it “we hold that the granges, trade-unions, Knights of Labour assemblies, etc., are the embryonic groups of the ideal anarchistic society …” [contained in Albert R. Parsons, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, p. 110] These ideas fed into the revolutionary unionism of the I.W.W. As one historian notes, the “proceedings of the I.W.W.‘s inaugural convention indicate that the participants were not only aware of the ‘Chicago Idea’ but were conscious of a continuity between their efforts and the struggles of the Chicago anarchists to initiate industrial unionism.” The Chicago idea represented “the earliest American expression of syndicalism.” [Salvatore Salerno, Red November, Black November, p. 71]

Thus, syndicalism and anarchism are not differing theories but, rather, different interpretations of the same ideas (see for a fuller discussion section H.2.8). While not all syndicalists are anarchists (some Marxists have proclaimed support for syndicalism) and not all anarchists are syndicalists (see section J.3.9 for a discussion why), all social anarchists see the need for taking part in the labour and other popular movements and encouraging libertarian forms of organisation and struggle within them. By doing this, inside and outside of syndicalist unions, anarchists are showing the validity of our ideas. For, as Kropotkin stressed, the “next revolution must from its inception bring about the seizure of the entire social wealth by the workers in order to transform it into common property. This revolution can succeed only through the workers, only if the urban and rural workers everywhere carry out this objective themselves. To that end, they must initiate their own action in the period before the revolution; this can happen only if there is a strong workers’ organisation.” [Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p. 20] Such popular self-managed organisations cannot be anything but “anarchy in action.”

[roguesynapses]

Hi!

I am a Marxist-Leninist, but lately I have been thinking about getting closer to anarchists. First and foremost because my local communist organisation behaved absolutely inhumane lately (anarchists are also not perfect but not that bad, or at least they seem so), but I also admit that anarchist criticism of ML asks questions that I also wonder about.

So like, can you share some readings on anarchist theory and practice for someone with ML background?

If you have enough spoons to waste on me, here is what made me associate with ML:

(Break is weird because I do it to separate main part from addition)

Mostly just the fact that out of people around me they were making the most sense when discussing current affairs and history, but also like most of the available alternatives range from liberals who literally admire Hobbes as great hero to open fascist (both Hitler and Mussolini types, I live in such a diverse society), so it's not hard. Also like the only revolutions that lasted more than a couple of years were ML in nature, but also all of those states while achieving things eventually decayed and gave birth to elites of their own, so like, there is something wrong with the scheme. Also as I said I care a lot about history as a foundation of my beliefs, and Marxists make the most sense out of it, but also even more advanced versions than Engels have plenty of what I assume to be blind spots. It's mostly some distant stuff like how feudalism is in no way successor to Ancient world and not as universal as it "should" be, but any failure to explain something in the past makes someone's prediction of future questionable.

I can recommend a few introductory books, though they are not by all means the be all-end all of anarchist thought. Anarchism is a widely spread ideology, and especially at its intersection of socialism, and opinions differ from theorist to theorist, even if basic principles are mostly agreed upon. Keep that in mind as you explore further.

Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos is probably the most popular introductory work, and explains the basic principles quite nicely, although in my opinion it does contain some inaccuracies, policies I don't support and glosses over some points which should be explored more.

An Anarchist FAQ is not so much a coherent theoretical work, but is rather an exploration and rebuttal of frequently asked questions from a social anarchist perspective. It's by no means perfect, and does not claim to be so. Personally, it's a little mutualistic for my tastes, but there's good stuff in there.

Anarchy by Errico Malatesta is far closer to a classic piece of theory, if a short one, expressing the positions of a committed Anarcho Communist and one of the most prominent theorists of modern Anarchism. Although Malatesta is against syndicalism more than I would be, it's still a great introductory work.

Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman is seen as a pivotal work by many in explaining the philosophy of anarchism, as well as offering a contemporary view of anarchist theory at the previous apex of the movement at the turn of the 20th century.

As for history, many social anarchist at least largely agree with the Social view of history Marx postulated in broad terms, though there is heavy debate and disagreement on the finer points. Digressing from that, Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution is probably the widest distributed work of the intersection of anthropology, history, and anarchism, even if it uses outdated terms and phrases. Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber and Against The Grain by James C Scott both explore the early history of states, with the former going more into economic value theories and the latter going more into the history and causes of the state itself. Scott's other works critiquing the state (Seeing Like a State and Two Cheers for Anarchism) are also quite good, which is impressive considering he does not call himself an anarchist.

If you'd like to discuss one on one, you can message me here or on my discord, I'll be happy to discuss. Happy reading, friend.

[catgirlanarchist]

What is your opinion on Marxist-Leninism, Tankies, and is Left Unity between Anarchists and Marxists is a good idea?

truth be told i haven't read as much theory as i would like to or familiarized myself with the persuasions of various schools of thought to the extent that most online leftists have, both due to my collection of syndromes and disorders, and due to the fact that i'm admittedly pretty young as far as leftist theorists go

that said my understanding of marxist-leninism is that it places a lot of focus on the idea of erecting an explicitly leftist state (if such a thing is possible) to replace the capitalist state?

as an anarchist i think that idea kinda sucks, not going to lie. i think there is no way to form or maintain any kind of state apparatus without constant, egregious abuses of power and of people, even if those running said apparatus have collectivism as a value/goal.

i think leftist organization is good, i vibe with a little syndicalism sometimes, i'm an iww gal, but that all has to come with a heavy dose of free association and that is not something that a state apparatus seems capable of providing.

obviously if i'm wrong in my understanding of marxist-leninism then correct me, but that's how i see it.

i think "tankie" is a fun perjorative that some leftists, mostly anarchists, use to describe (and decry) leftists that they perceive as too authoritarian, people who have maybe killed the boss in their head but not the cop, or people who claim to be leftists but end up being really classist/ableist/generally shitty and uptight about it. i don't think it's a specific or serious enough term to use as a definitive label or to have debates about, it's just a funny insult.

i haven't read much marx yet but from what i have read i liked. he seems to have generally correct analyses of economics and i think his theories aren't too incompatible with anarchism. i don't think any theorist is required reading because a lot of the things leftists agree on is pretty self evident, it just gets beaten out of everyone, but i do think marx is pretty good.

i don't think anarchists should have solidarity with people that hate anarchists and want to throw them in jail, but i don't think that's true of most marxists, so

[leo-fie]

What makes a leftist?

There's a whole lot of leftists on the interwebs today, mostly Americans, and every once in a while we find out that a particular person (this week it was Ana Kasparian) is not actually a leftist at all and completely fine with parroting far right talking points.

And we notice that although they seem to have been an advocate for social justice and marginalized groups, they have mainly been reacting to whatever bullshit the right is pulling. Understandable,but not conducive to actually pass out the politics of someone. Being against the genocide of trans people in the US doesn't make one a lefitst, it just makes you a decent person.

Which begs the question: What makes a leftist?

For me it's anti-capitalism. It is also anti-fascism, but even liberals can be anti-fascists.

But anti-capitalism IMO is a stance you cannot go back on. Once you understand how capitalism works, once you grasp the underlying exploitation and the fundamentially incompatable interests of working class and owning class, you cannot go back. You cannot wake up one day thinking: You know what? The means of productions don't belong into the hand of the workers.

That is the fundamental difference between a liberal and a leftist. Liberals still uphold capitalism. They can be the nicest people and super involved with progressive causes, but at best they are ignorant and believe the lie that capitalism is just how things are.

It can be difficult to parse however if a certain person is an anticapitalist or not. Again, you don't need to be a leftist to be against the growing fascism in Europe and North America, against ecological destruction, against trans genocide, against police brutality, etc. That just makes you an empathetic person.

It is also normal to be confused as colloquially terms like left, socialism, anarchy, communism are used wildly outside their actual meaning. Not to mention the buzzwordsalad spewed by the right. Consequently being a leftist also means you have read up at least a little on theory and understand that for example Scandinavia isn't socialist at all since the workers don't own the means of production. That politicians like Bernie Sanders are just nicer liberals, social democrats in his case, believing in a mixed economy. That there are no viable leftist political parties anywhere in Europe or North America, no matter what they call themselves.

Being a leftist can mean that you fall into one of the many schools of thought between Marxism, socialism, communism, anarchism, syndicalism, or their various combinations or none of them. But it means you are an anti-capitalist and understand capitalism as the underlying source of all intersectional ills that plague humankind today. From racism, climate catastrophe, income inequality, nazis to war and Elon Musk. It's all connected. It's systemic.

Further reading/watching:

Hadas Thier - A people's guide to capitalism (great starter)

Marx / Engels - The manifesto of the communist party

Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine

Everything by Angela Davis, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Mark Fisher, Pyotr Kropotkin, Antonio Gramsci

Thought Slime

Renegade Cut

Second Thought

More Perfect Union

Unlearning Economics

Carlos Maza

The Leftist Cooks

Then & Now

NonCompete

[the-stabbiest-dragon]

me when I've definitely read up on my economic theory.

for real though, none of these terms can be defined in these simple happy terms - this statement is designed to assuage the fears of people who think they like capitalism but are scared of social welfare programs because they think it's communism, and they think communism is when the government steals your toothbrush or some shit.

using the premise of "you can be rich" as a selling point for both capitalism and socialism is fucking paradoxical, nobody can just "become rich" under capitalism, that feeds into the myth of meritocracy. and socialism is a nebulously-defined extrapolation of communist principles, but it's often used to identify actionable transitional steps from a capitalist society to a communist one, such as market-socialist economic structure, expanded wellfare systems and U.B.I, and, oh yeah, dismantling the systems of exploitation and wage theft that allow people to become ultrawealthy. in its most refined states, socialism is an umbrella term that refers to a system where workers have democratic ownership of their own labor and what they produce.

of course, if we actually read Marx, a lot of what he advocated for would, in the terms used in today's leftist spaces, be considered anarchism and syndicalism.

anyhow, dismantle all social hierarchies, car bomb the rich, and if anyone tries to wrap any political ideologies into neatly packaged little sentences they're trying to sell you something.

[botphilosopher]

Anarchism Explained: Building a Society without Government

Anarchism is a political ideology that envisions a society without a centralized government. Instead of relying on a hierarchical system of power, anarchists advocate for a society based on voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and decentralized decision-making.

But how does anarchism actually envision the organization of society without a centralized government? The answer lies in the principles of anarchist theory.

At its core, anarchism emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and autonomy. Anarchists reject the notion that a small group of people can effectively make decisions for an entire society, and instead advocate for a bottom-up approach to decision-making. This means that decisions are made at the local level, with communities and individuals having a direct say in the matters that affect their lives.

Anarchists also believe in the importance of mutual aid, or the idea that people should help one another without the need for a central authority. Mutual aid can take many forms, from sharing resources to providing emotional support, and is based on the belief that people are inherently capable of working together for the common good.

Another key principle of anarchism is the rejection of hierarchy and domination. In an anarchist society, there would be no rulers or leaders with power over others. Instead, decision-making would be decentralized, with individuals and communities working together to make decisions that affect them.

To achieve these goals, anarchists advocate for a variety of tactics, including direct action, mutual aid networks, and worker cooperatives. Direct action can take many forms, from protests to strikes, and is used to challenge oppressive structures and build alternative systems of power. Mutual aid networks and worker cooperatives are examples of alternative economic systems that prioritize cooperation and equality over profit and hierarchy.

It's important to note that anarchism is not a monolithic ideology, and there are many different schools of thought within the anarchist tradition. Some anarchists believe in the importance of individualist anarchism, while others prioritize social anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism. Despite these differences, however, all anarchists share a commitment to the principles of decentralization, mutual aid, and freedom.

In conclusion, anarchism envisions a society without a centralized government, based on the principles of individual freedom, mutual aid, and decentralized decision-making. While achieving this vision may seem daunting, anarchists around the world are working towards building alternative systems of power that prioritize cooperation and equality over hierarchy and domination.

Anarchism #Political ideology #Decentralization #Mutual aid #Direct action #Worker cooperatives #Social change

[recursive-rupture]

People forget that industry is not an end in itself, but should be only a means to ensure to man his material subsistence and to make accessible to him the blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where industry is everything, where labour loses its ethical importance and man is nothing, there begins the realm of ruthless economic despotism whose workings are no less disastrous than those of any political despotism.

Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, Rudolf Rocker

[freerangecatmilk-blog]

My personal belief is that capitalism [and most economic systems] do not have goals and instead people are the ones that have the goals.

>So, when I say goals I mean it more in a casual sense; like personal goals. Personally my goal in life is to not have to worry as much about food, shelter, education, and general health.

I would like a more democratic workplace that is ran by the people who already produce/sell the goods rather than the people who just own shares and stock. We spend 5 days a week at a place that can fire workers if it’s in the best interest of the company, for instance laying off workers while increasing salaries of upper management, but we produce the profit for the company yet have no say in how the company is ran (some companies give stock to their employees to make them feel like they have a say but how long would you have to work at an international conglomerate before you have a say in a board meeting from just working?)

The economic system is merely the mechanism to facilitate people pursuing those goals and the classification of a system being "good" or "bad" is nothing more than the effectiveness or efficiency of enabling people to achieve those goals.

>I don’t think an economic or government system should be measured on effectiveness of achieving people's goals but rather on the general health and well being of the people. We currently experiencing large income inequality between the top 1% and the 99% - the bottom 90% hold under 1/3rd of the income produced and are taxed at a higher rate. What it comes down to is that I’m tired of seeing friends and family go into debt for education, housing, and healthcare; we are the richest nation ever to exist but have such a large discrepancy in our wealth distribution that the current system only really helps those at the top.

Now that may seem like an arbitrary distinction, but as you summarized "the end goal I'd like to see is happier workers and more strongly bonded communities", which can be a goal within capitalism to as it is dictated by the people, not the system.\

>Oh I’m aware that “...happier workers and more strongly bonded communities” are possible under a capitalist system but they do don’t directly or immediately provide any economic incentive to happen. The US some workers rights, but it isn’t within the companies best interest to hire more staff to easy workloads, to have 4 day work weeks, to have paid sick leave for employees – some places may have these as internal policy but the cost money and reduce profits b/c you now have more people on payroll, you have some sort of pay for sick leave, you are now producing/selling product for 4/7 days rather than 5/7 days. To add, countries without robust regulations typically get the bad end of capitalism, we have sweat shops in other countries that produce previously US made products because it’s cheaper and faster than setup somewhere in the US. Take China for instance, (at this point I can not in good faith argue they are socialist) will run factories and sell the labor of their workers to US firms like apple – we still have expensive phones, made for cheap because the worker has no say in their workplace or their community so they work for what they can get, the state cracks down on strikes and union reform for horrid working conditions, while Apple can make more.

I am curious to hear more about your ideas to achieve your end goal; I know you gave me the short version, but if you have time, then I would like to hear more about the long version too.

>My goals are in this sort of weird area. I am an Anarchist and a Syndicalist blend sometimes referred to as Anarcho-Syndicalism, I believe we can one day achieve a society that is free (as free as possible) from class, money, state, and hierarchies through workplace representation and Union control, broadly speaking Anarchism is the libertarian end of Socialism; I don’t think that even in my lifetime or my grandchildren’s life time this could even happen.

In the mean time I would like to see more democracy in the workplace by replacing the board members with workers that are elected – it would probably be over seem and regulated by some form of worker’s union that is directly in the field to over see regulations and working conditions; Doctor’s Union would oversee medicine, Miner’s Union would over see mining, Grocer’s Union would over see grocery stores, etc. really this would help put people who are experts in the field, without a profit incentive, to regulated the field. With more worker representation in the workplace I would like to see that representation not abused by those seeking power by distributing the power more horizontally to the workers or other’s that are elected. If there is work that doesn’t want to be done, I would like to find a way to automate it or to distribute it more evenly or provide some incentive like more vacation time – no one loves cleaning toilets but someone has too so maybe it’s by rotation at work or maybe no one wants to pickup trash so we try to find a way to pickup more trash with less people or automate it entirely.

When I said “a society that is free … from class, money, state, and hierarchies”, I just broadly mean a free of labor exploitation through the consolidation of power through money, class, positions/title, and government oppression of the worker.

I hope this helps; I apologize for using the thread earlier to argue. I am just so tired of people lumping Anarchist and Bolsheviks/tankies in together.

Of you need me to clarify anything just let me know.

So I want to know what you see as an end goal for capitalism.

I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist, in short I would like to see more direct democracy w/in the workplace and a government run by the workers while also minimizing hierarchical power structures (to avoid jackasses trying to consolidate power) - the end goal I'd like to see is happier workers and more strongly bonded communities.

I understand if you don't answer this, we're all pretty busy with life and work. Wish you well.

My personal belief is that capitalism [and most economic systems] do not have goals and instead people are the ones that have the goals. The economic system is merely the mechanism to facilitate people pursuing those goals and the classification of a system being "good" or "bad" is nothing more than the effectiveness or efficiency of enabling people to achieve those goals.

Now that may seem like an arbitrary distinction, but as you summarized "the end goal I'd like to see is happier workers and more strongly bonded communities", which can be a goal within capitalism to as it is dictated by the people, not the system.

I am curious to hear more about your ideas to achieve your end goal; I know you gave me the short version, but if you have time, then I would like to hear more about the long version too.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?

An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin’s words, as a “fanatic lover of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which the intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and increase.” [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 196] Because human beings are thinking creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny them the opportunity to think for themselves, which is to deny their very existence as humans. For anarchists, freedom is a product of our humanity, because:

“The very fact… that a person has a consciousness of self, of being different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant trait.” [Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 439]

For this reason, anarchism “proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. Only in freedom can man [sic!] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of himself. Only in freedom will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie men together, and which are the true foundations of a normal social life.” [Op. Cit., pp. 72–3]

Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved. As Malatesta put it, ”[f]or people to become educated to freedom and the management of their own interests, they must be left to act for themselves, to feel responsibility for their own actions in the good or bad that comes from them. They’d make mistakes, but they’d understand from the consequences where they’d gone wrong and try out new ways.” [Fra Contadini, p. 26]

So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one’s individual potential, which is also a social product and can be achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed. Liberties, being socially produced, “do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace … One compels respect from others when one knows how to defend one’s dignity as a human being. This is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in political life as well.” In fact, we “owe all the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser measures, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own strength.” [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 75]

It is for this reason anarchists support the tactic of “Direct Action” (see section J.2) for, as Emma Goldman argued, we have “as much liberty as [we are] willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral.” It requires “integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent spirits” and “only persistent resistance” can “finally set [us] free. Direct action against the authority in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism.” [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 76–7]

Direct action is, in other words, the application of liberty, used to resist oppression in the here and now as well as the means of creating a free society. It creates the necessary individual mentality and social conditions in which liberty flourishes. Both are essential as liberty develops only within society, not in opposition to it. Thus Murray Bookchin writes:

“What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given historical period is the product of long social traditions and … a collective development — which is not to deny that individuals play an important role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged to do so if they wish to be free.” [Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, p. 15]

But freedom requires the right kind of social environment in which to grow and develop. Such an environment must be decentralised and based on the direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas self-management is the essence of freedom. Self-management ensures that the individuals involved use (and so develop) all their abilities — particularly their mental ones. Hierarchy, in contrast, substitutes the activities and thoughts of a few for the activities and thoughts of all the individuals involved. Thus, rather than developing their abilities to the full, hierarchy marginalises the many and ensures that their development is blunted (see also section B.1).

It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism. As the French anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority “dresses itself in two principal forms: the political form, that is the State; and the economic form, that is private property.” [cited by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 43] Capitalism, like the state, is based on centralised authority (i.e. of the boss over the worker), the very purpose of which is to keep the management of work out of the hands of those who do it. This means “that the serious, final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all the tools of labour, including land, by the whole body of the workers.” [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 50]

Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a “consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.” [“Notes on Anarchism”, For Reasons of State, p. 158]

Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they govern themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one in which violence or the threat of violence will not be used to “convince” individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support, they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy. And finally, it implies that anarchists’ opposition to “government” means only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations or government. They do not oppose self-government through confederations of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to “representatives” (see section A.2.9 for more on anarchist organisation). For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence any form of organisation based on the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of the people subjected to that power.

Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their liberty and making impossible the “full development of all the material, intellectual and moral capacities that are latent in every one of us.” [Michael Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 261] That is why anarchists seek to ensure “that real justice and real liberty might come on earth” for it is “all false, all unnecessary, this wild waste of human life, of bone and sinew and brain and heart, this turning of people into human rags, ghosts, piteous caricatures of the creatures they had it in them to be, on the day they were born; that what is called ‘economy’, the massing up of things, is in reality the most frightful spending — the sacrifice of the maker to the made — the lose of all the finer and nobler instincts in the gain of one revolting attribute, the power to count and calculate.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, The First Mayday: The Haymarket Speeches 1895–1910, pp, 17–18]

(See section B for further discussion of the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).

[furalledenspeck]

Privacy is power. Politicians can’t steal what they don’t know about

[thecountereconomist]

We generally try to keep minimal ad space so our readers can focus on the latest insurrectionary news, but we're going all-out for our 2019 Holiday issue! (And by all-out, we mean four total pages of ads - two at front, two at back.)

If you help manage an anarchist-run cooperative, are a self-employed insurrectionist, or run an agorist hustle, contact us at thecountereconomist@protonmail.com so we can put you in!

All advertisement requests must be sent in and paid for by December 11.

[anarcho-catboyism]

Firstly,

If you enjoy reading, I HIGHLY recommend checking out Anarchy Works. It's a longer piece that goes into Anarchy both modernly and through history, explaining historically how Anarchy has organized (which has been mostly Anarcho Syndicalism, which is a branch off Anarcho Communism, with a heavier focus on Workers Unions).

These are the sections of Anarchy Works if that interests you at all, with a lot of the chapters and sections directly connecting to your own questions. Yes, there are Audiobooks if that's better for you!

As a simple explanation, Anarchy is a political philosophy that all Hierarchy is exploitative, and should be negated. Anarchists count Hierarchies as everything from economic (like class and capitalism) to systematic (bigotries) and even further (animal liberation).

Anarchy is like the extended version of Libertarian Socialism, just continuing to broad the philosophical beliefs of why Authority is antithetical to Socialism and Anti-Capitalism.

Anarchists believe in freedom of association, mutual aid, and gift economies, with some branches just differing on how those things are done (Mutualism vs. Communism) but still rejecting Hierarchy.

Anarchists don't believe in one big bang like Revolution and then everything is solved, rather we work off the philosophy that even if we muster up an Anarchist society through Revolution, Insurrection, or other means, we still need to continue to push the boundaries of breaking down Hierarchies, and continuing liberating people and the Earth.

Other readings and videos:

Life Without Law (Short Zine)

Organizing Anarchy (Video)

Why States Fail Humanity (Video)

The Problem With Hierarchy (Video)

The Meaning of Anti-Work (Video)

The Tyranny of the Clock (Video)

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (Longer, Older Theory)

Anarchism: What it Is and What it Ain't (Short Zine)

What Anarchists Have been Saying for Years, and What Liberals Need to Start Hearing (Zine)

The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin (Fictional story written by an anarchist about an anarchist society. Has been praised both by anarchists and non-anarchists by still showing the flaws and downfalls of an anarchist society while showing a realistic vision of how things can be organized, also just a great anti-capitalist Sci Fi story)

this is gonna be a bit different than my usual post, but i just want some solid info about it

ive been branching out into different political ideologies, and anarchism pops into my mind quite often. im under the firm belief that an anarchistic society wont work properly, unless its an anarchist commuine, but only just barely.

upon looking into some info about anarchism here, its just mostly people being anti capitalist (which is very good don't get me wrong) and anarchism is good because gay (which is also good)

i just want some information about what it means to be an anarchist, how would an anarchist society work without breaking down? how would it sustain itself?

[thesocialistreformation]

21st Century societal organization in the post-capitalist age

We sit in a budding era, a new millennia that has either enlightened or degraded human consciousness; (if humanity is not altering its very foundations of consciousness) this is yet to be seen. The tools that have been developed and the theoretical physical advancement that has occurred have lead to humanity’s greater role in our universe as a creator. We as a species are now able to create intelligence that can learn and build upon information far more efficiently than humans. Due to automation and organization we are able to manufacture, distribute and expand the production of goods exponentially at a rate unseen since the industrial revolution. We are able to create hyper realistic 3D dimensional virtual realities that become exponentially more accurate each day. The global accessibility to the internet has brought forth an entirely new world and form of virtual life as well as providing unlimited access to information as well as disinformation. Globalization has lead to the fusion of cultures and has begun the dissipation of the dominant white Christian culture. White nationalists have since attempted to preserve their dominance in the world utilizing (albeit successfully) the fascist and naziist methods it has before, except this time with growing cultural and youthful (yet unorganized) resistance. The most prevalent question of this new millennia however is whether human civilization will survive this century as technological and industrial advancement has lead to the destruction and pillage of Mother Nature and her resources. Climate change is the central issue for our species’ survival, and capitalism is the culprit. There will never be respect for non renewable resources and even the lives of ones own posterity while there is still profit to be made from the scarcity and domination of things like fossil fuels. We’ve come to a point where a painful reality must be accepted; it seems to be too late to save this earth, yet it is not too late to save humanity. One of Stephen Hawking’s final proclamations to humanity was that if this species is to survive for further generations, we must focus energy on becoming a multi planetary species. This goes hand in hand with dismantling the capitalist structure that has lead us the this dim point in human history. I, however, am not a pessimist on this issue as I believe this is entirely possible. Yet for this to be accomplished, society must be reorganized and we must efficiently utilize these tools and theoretical advancements that I have spoken of. The immediate attention must be paid to the struggle of lower classes in this nation and around the world. These new age “Democratic Socialists” must address the core principal of socialism: workers control over the means of production, or else the structure and cycle will never change. Merely raising the minimum wage does not address the core issue of worker exploitation and the suppression of wages for the exponential expansion of corporate and executive profit. We must redesign the economic and market system for the worker, through mostly democratic worker control over production. The we must use our information-age scientific advancements in nuclear energy to treat other planets for human habitation. We are witnessing the last stand before the collapse of the American and global capitalist empire, but it is up to us to erect a future.