1. Ohara Library Banner Contest

    The Beasts Pirates demand your services.
    Join the OL Banner Contest!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Winter is coming one last time...

    Dismiss Notice
  4. Come enter in the KCC Cooking Contest!

    Dismiss Notice
  5. Some Pokémon went missing during Easter time. Please, help us to solve this case. Check Detective Pikachu and the Eggstravaganza Case.

    Dismiss Notice
  6. The Anime Awards of 2018 have started! Click here to see the post!

    Dismiss Notice

Thoughts on Anarcho-Syndicalism

Discussion in 'Perspectives' started by 1134, Oct 21, 2006.

  1. 1134 Citizen of Pluto

    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    I believe in Anarcho-syndicalism. Now before I go into any more detail I want to clear one thing up. Anarchy is not about disorder and chaos nor is it about bloodshed and violence it is about peace and autonomy in other words, self-governance. It is the idea that everyone is equal and there should be no form of hierarchy meaning no one should be positioned to have authority over someone else. Instead we should be working together side by side to get our goals accomplished instead of manipulating someone else to do it.
    Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism that focuses on the labor movement. It calls for workers solidarity which is where the workers rise up and take control of the workplace rather than be subjugated by managers and CEOs. The workers control the means of production and distribution. They also make all the decisions rather than having an authoritative supervisor telling them what to do, how to do it, and where to do it. It is thus eliminating the middle man and allowing the workers to make direct transactions with their customers. Some say this causes the workers to become unmotivated and lowers efficiency. It is the exact opposite it rewards creativity and hard work because if you are not working efficiently than the customer will not pay you. So the main objective is to work harder.
    How would anarchy work? It would function through a global network of communities based on co-operation and the respect for the freedom of others. It is based on respect, liberty, and equality. Anarchism opposes all forms of oppression including racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious intolerance. If an authoritarian structure should emerge it is the people's job and their given right to abolish it. Anarchist do not seek to replace government with their own but to live in a world free of authority and persecution by those blinded by the current system.

    What are your thoughts?
     
    Tags:
  2. Firedraconian Lather, rinse, repeat

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Wouldn't work.

    There's a reason that places have leaders. Consider this scenario. You work in a job where everyone is in charge. You have equal say to everyone else in this job. Now, the question of whether or not to upgrade a certain piece of machinary comes up. Who's decision is it? Those who have worked there for decades and have experience, or those who are new to the job and like shiny things?

    Now, there are several possible answers. One is to put it to a vote. Except the inexperienced people might outnumber the experienced ones. Second, you could give those with senority more sway. But then, you'd have a leader, wouldn't you? The person with the most senority would have the most sway over those with less.

    Which, of course, is the entire point. In the workplace, you are supposed to know how to do your job. The job of the manager is knowing how to run the company in the best possible way. The job is the secretary is completely different. Having the secretary run the company in addition to her original job is ridiculous.
     
  3. jdama funky midboss

    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Makes a lot of sense to me, that was the way it has been done for 100,000's of years, but some questions:

    How would the use of force be legimately dispersed (law/security) and dealt with (violent crinme) if there is no regulatory system to enforce punishment? How would an anarcho-syndicalist systems manage to exist, subsist, and compete against market systems and military/industrial complexes?
     
  4. Butō Rengoob Honorary Pantaloni Rossi

    Messages:
    18,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    491
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    we have to have leaders in place to make more important decisions...people are dumb and panicky, an individual is smart calm. but if those leaders abuse their power then we have a major problem(which seems to be the case these days).
     
  5. 1134 Citizen of Pluto

    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    It would be dealt with on the basis of Human Law "I dont kill you, you dont kill me." In the event that there is a violent crime the people(not the government) would get together in a counsel and decide on the necessary action. The idea of anarchism is that there should be no government/military it is based on the mutual respect for others and other communities. For this to work the masses have to be educated. It is not perfect but I think it is the best solution so far.

    Lets face it I'd rather have to worry about defending myself from a few people trying to hurt me than a whole military entitey trying to oppress and exploit my existence.
     
  6. SundanceChile Wandering Composer

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    It's funny because Anarchy itself has to rely on some sort of government, be it organized or not.

    My personal belief is that Anarchy is simply a step in a revolution. Like fire to oxygen, anarchy cannot exist by itself without something to start/resolve it.

    My .02
     
  7. Itachi Incarnate Wanderer in life.

    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    True to a point. Thomas Jefferson even believed that it is better to have no government than an oppresive one. He didn't demean the Native Americans for having no organized government. They had some form of anarchy as the land wasn't owned by no one and they didn't have one central chief like many people think, but several leaders.

    I didn't see the Native Americans go into a berserk fury with no organized government destroying everything in sight. So no it wouldn't be chaos to some people who think it would be.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2006
  8. DaoineSidhe Let the Lord of Chaos Rule!

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    While Anarchy is a nice idea, it is only that: an idea. All it takes is one bad apple to ruin it. Or any greedy people. It might start out fine, but then one person realizes that their life would be easier if they used a gun to have someone else work for them instead of for themselves. Anarchy is something that can only survive on a limited basis in a human society. We trend naturally to an ordered society. Even Native Americans had chiefs whom ruled over their tribe. Or even elders. We are social creatures, and as such, order will have out.

    I value my personal liberties to an extremely high degree, but without a government to ensure those liberties, way too much of my time would be spent ensuring my simple survival for me to even enjoy those liberties. I have no wish to sit inside my house barricaded in case someone decides they want what I have. Sadly, everyone has something that someone else wants. Without an orginization to ensure certain rights, there can be no stability. Even if the majority would go along with said plan, all it takes is a small minority to ruin it, making it unfeasible.

    As for thoughts that if violent crime is done, the people will get together to decide what to to... well, then that is an orginization, and anarchy cases to exist. You can't have it both ways. To a certain extent, I would love anarchy, but at the same time, I am supremely scared of it, because in such situations, usually the biggest and meanest people end up in control, regardless of the wishes of the masses. Sad, but all too true. Look at history. No order just doesn't work. It only stays as a temporary vaccum which exists until someone with a will to wield power comes and takes that power over others. It's just human nature, neither good nor bad.
     
  9. martryn Dick in hand

    Messages:
    30,977
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    1,432
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    In any situation where there is no elected leader, a leader eventually steps forward regardless. There is always someone who knows more about a given situation than other people, and there is always a few people that the rest of the people look up to and depend upon. In a family unit that person is the mother or father, in a study group that person is the one who makes the best grades, and in the workplace, like Firedraconian said, it is the person who has the most experience. And when such a person exists, it is only a matter of time before he becomes the leader, whether he wants to be or not.

    Anarchy cannot exist in larger cells because of that reason. When a dozen or more people are involved, the entire thing collapses on itself.
     
  10. jdama funky midboss

    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    I repeat: how could/do/did anarcho-syndicalist communities subsist amidst other types of systems that are more aggressive given that force cannot be organized except within a hierarchy or a mob mentality that are essentially uneagliatarian?
     
  11. wiggely Ninja in training

    Messages:
    3,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    yeh sorry but thats not anarchy.

    no its not

    now thats rediculas. anarchism is based on the concept of no rules. if there are rules and structure there is not anarchism. anarchy is the absense of rule and stucture. a society in which one can do whatever they want. that includes being racist, violent, bigoted, sexist, etc.

    its not. having mutual respect for others results in rules, regulations, and structure. such as i won't kill you so you don't kill me. anarchy is the absense of all rules, regulations, and structure.

    even if it was based on that, any system that relies (there has to be) "mutual respect for others and other communities" in order to survive will fail, ie utopias.

    and how does one educate the people. in order to educate people one has to have authority over the knowledge being taught, the teacher. according to the system of anarchy you described, the system wouldn't let the teacher have any authority.

    without authority and having one person have a higher degree of knowledge and therefore senority in the topic matter nothing can be taught.

    --------------------------------------

    and there is nothing wrong with hierarcy and structure. we can't even survive in a complete free market society because not enough people give back to society and to many take from it.

    and thats only complete freedom of an economic sense. you want to extend this to goverment and police protection as well. HA!!

    anarchy as you describe cannot exist in any industrialized society. infact its more of a fantasy than communism is now (karl marx communism not russian or chinese).
     
  12. Buskuv The thing which Solomon overlooked Global Moderator

    Messages:
    42,542
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    1,633
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    I think that most of the intelligent points have been brought to both sides of the argument, but that being said, I don't honestly believe anarchy can truly last in any given situation, for more than a certain amount of time.

    As was stated before, natural leaders eventually do come out, for various reasons, in various situations. Given the problem, one may know more than the other, while many don't know anything. If those who know nothing of the situation have as much say in the decision, then what would be the ultimate outcome?

    Secondly, sadly, I don't believe we as human beings can survive in, or even create an everlasting peaceful state of anarchy. Those people who will commit violent and heinous crimes, will be able to do so more frequently, with no organized way to stop them. People would run rampant.

    Without at least some form of leadership, things begin to fall apart. Granted one doesn't need an oppressive government to feel safe and happy, without any, I personally don't think we'd be any better off.
     
  13. zet1 cheers!

    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    That might have to do with the fact that their population was significantly smaller than the European immigrants and because they were culturally homogenous (compared to Europeans). I believe anarchy can only work on a small scale since there are less ideas and values floating around.
     
Loading...