I'm almost done reading Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker. I know it's not a definitive work and was published a long time ago, but I have to say that there seems to be something missing in the theory. It's all too informal.
Are all the unions and collectives unified centrally as Rocker suggests? What traits does this central unifier have? Does a police union provide all the civil protection? Same with firefighters and medical workers? If you're going to sell people on syndicalism (and my mind is open), you have to have all these details worked out.
I must say that I agree that unions must always exist. The state cannot effectively understand what each industry is going through and I don't support ordering workers around. That's not socialism. What I commonly refer to as the state is this centralized system of all walks of life. A forum, if you will. Rocker talks about unions being represented by "councils" though. I don't see how that's any different than representative democracy/hierarchy. Your thoughts?
2
[deleted]•
you have to have all these details worked out.
not really, there are all sorts of problems with statism that we're just trained to overlook (what happens to illegal immigrants? is it legal to murder them? After all, the state that "represents" them doesn't have jurisdiction over that territory, what's to say the local police are going to feel obligated to care their murderer is brought to justice?) when looking at just the principles. You just have to sell them on basic premises and then work from there.
Ultimately, a lot of those questions, while worthwhile to help clear away confusion, are purely academic since the answer can always be essentially "just like how the state does it but it will be voluntary."
The state cannot effectively understand what each industry is going through and I don't support ordering workers around.
Well there are institutional problems with management organizations based around something as irrelevant as geography. When you do that you inherently make it based around criteria that isn't necessarily conducive to the organization functioning well, you tend to capture people with often conflicting interests (like the haute bourgeois and proletariat in liberal democracies) and you also run into problems with institutional forces that try to promote institutional survival and externalize problems at the expense of others (Brezhnev comes to mind.) You also have to ask whether or not the managers would invariably become (due to institutional forces) essentially a monopolizing collective bourgeois.
That's not socialism. What I commonly refer to as the state is this centralized system of all walks of life.
Well that's pretty ethereal. Nouns need to refer to a specific thing, not something along the lines of "stuff that's important." Not to mention the "forum" could probably use some splitting up as I don't think the best managers for one thing will necessarily be the best managers in another.
I don't see how that's any different than representative democracy/hierarchy. Your thoughts?
Appointing representatives isn't hierarchical. Being bound (or made to feel bound) by what they do is. Delegates can be recalled and as long as the delegate's represented group can choose to ignore (or override by referendum or something) the terms of an agreement they've made, it doesn't make him anything other than the vehicle for their agreements.
Essentially, I'm looking to have the problems the state solves solved by this new system. How are the services provided? What about when a person doesn't want to participate in this system? What is your basis for using force against them? What guidelines are there to how they are handled? Regardless of what you might think, the police are not entirely bad, and they can't be eliminated completely. Not overnight, at least. You guys need to stop regarding any and all questions as unfair criticism. We're open to your ideas. We just have questions. We're not going to take things at face value; on faith alone. We know there are problems with the state, but that doesn't justify acceptance of another system with equally as many (if not more) problems.
Well there are institutional problems with management organizations based around something as irrelevant as geography.
Well, clearly there are organizational/logistical problems when your constituencies are nowhere near each other.
When you do that you inherently make it based around criteria that isn't necessarily conducive to the organization functioning well
When you do what? Organize it centrally? It would just be a meeting place where people make arrangements/come to agreements. Ultimately, who's responsible for one person's quality of life? What if, for example, none of the firefighters' unions will agree to protect the coal miners for whatever reason? Are the coal miners just screwed in that situation? Are they solely responsible for guaranteeing they have all the necessary services? Each one is on their own? That sounds a lot like commerce to me. Each union would effectively be saying "all right, what have you got for me?" That's getting away from the labor theory of value.
You also have to ask whether or not the managers would invariably become (due to institutional forces) essentially a monopolizing collective bourgeois.
That's assuming that there are managers. The managers could be delegates from the respective unions which could be fluctuating according to each unions' standards.
Well that's pretty ethereal. Nouns need to refer to a specific thing, not something along the lines of "stuff that's important."
I agree. It's got to be better defined. What is this centralizing union? What's the procedure for the activity there?
Not to mention the "forum" could probably use some splitting up as I don't think the best managers for one thing will necessarily be the best managers in another.
Hmm... elaborate on that. I think you still think there are managers that are separate from any union.
Appointing representatives isn't hierarchical.
Oh so anarchists should have no problem with the current way of doing things then, right? C'mon, man. See? This kind of hypocrisy is what irks the shit out of me. That's like the Bolsheviks saying "oh, appointing representatives isn't hierarchical". That's exactly what they did. What's the difference? You have to apply the law of universality to everything. You can't just lambaste the hierarchism of movements you don't like and not movements you do like. How would workers not be pressured/bound by what was decided on their behalf? They weren't there to agree or disagree on any of the specifics. There would be problems. All the same problems inherent in hierarchism.
Delegates can be recalled and as long as the delegate's represented group can choose to ignore the terms of an agreement they've made, it doesn't make him anything other than the vehicle for their agreements.
When? When the delegate gets back and tells them all what's already been decided? There will be repercussions. No. The workers have to represent themselves.
1
[deleted]•
How are the services provided?
The same way they are now I'd imagine (I'm not a syndicalist by the by) just change "taxes" to "dues."
What about when a person doesn't want to participate in this system?
Then they don't have to. It's in their interests to have someone looking out for them, but if they decide to forgo it then fine. In CNT Spain there were hundreds of independent farmers and laborers who decided on their own to not join the CNT and they weren't forced into it. There were laws like that they couldn't hire wage laborers. THe exact nature of that law I'm unsure of (meaing: only hire CNT wage laborers? what if he did? If non-CNT laborers: doesn't that effectively make him a nonvoting member of the CNT?) but those questions, like I said, are academic at best. Meaning they're something to be talked about after someone agrees with the premises, as one can take any system and reduce the arguments to incredibly detail-oriented justifications. That includes statism.
What is your basis for using force against them?
Force is responded to with minimal force.
What guidelines are there to how they are handled?
Who are handled?
Regardless of what you might think, the police are not entirely bad,
Most get off on he power, which is why they became policemen/women. Not all are bad no, but I don't think anyone's claimed that here recently.
and they can't be eliminated completely.
as a specialized force, that has been argued, but in favor of regulated community enforcement of agreements. A lot of why we need them stem from the current system anyways.
You guys need to stop regarding any and all questions as unfair criticism.
I don't think anyone's ever claimed that. It's just that in this one specific case you were asking a much higher standard on statelessness than statism. The point of that is to, as I said earlier, to just drag the conversation out passed where either side cares to talk about it anymore. I'm not saying that's your point here, but just why that kind of mentality is reinforced.
That's assuming that there are managers. The managers could be delegates from the respective unions which could be fluctuating according to each unions' standards.
Right, ultimately we don't know what each local is going to find in its interests. I was referencing the vanguardist intelligentsia of leninism there.
What is this centralizing union?
A collective of equal members who may choose to employ functionaries for record keeping and to help facilitate consensus-building
What's the procedure for the activity there?
Whatever regulations that the locals or various levels of federation find that they need. There are basic ones that come to mind, but that's an academic discussion (which we can, and should as a society, have, just not before we've agreed on basic issues.)
I think you still think there are managers that are separate from any union.
Formal lines aren't the only form of separation. I was more making an academic point there that it's probably not even worthwhile to have one set of delegates for everything or even the appointment of every functionary.
Oh so anarchists should have no problem with the current way of doing things then, right? C'mon, man. See? This kind of hypocrisy is what irks the shit out of me
and this is where I check out. That's not what I was saying. The current system isn't representative at all and that is the anarchist critique. You're just looking for something to nitpick and will just continue to do so until I leave the conversation.
EDIT::
OK, I lied.
How would workers not be pressured/bound by what was decided on their behalf? They weren't there to agree or disagree on any of the specifics.
Well hopefully the delegate has to report back to its base at some point. The more generic issues would probably be done by referendum, but the workers probably wouldn't care to vote on things like what the accepted vocabulary of a given level of organization (like most legislation has to define the terms its using in the text of the bill) should be. Also the content of the referendum might be part of the delegates' jobs.
When? When the delegate gets back and tells them all what's already been decided? There will be repercussions. No. The workers have to represent themselves.
Whenever they want to. This all depends on the system they establish that they feel is an expression of their will. If an agreement raises their dues, just communicate to the congress you're not going to pay the higher dues and if enough follow you, the delegates' vote will be for naught.
What are you, then? It seems you really must be one or the other (syndicalist or statist) if you classify yourself as a socialist.
Force is responded to with minimal force.
This can be done by a state, as well.
Who are handled?
The "criminals".
It's just that in this one specific case you were asking a much higher standard on statelessness than statism.
M'kay, if I understand you correctly, you're saying I'm expecting too much from statelessness?
The point of that is to, as I said earlier, to just drag the conversation out passed where either side cares to talk about it anymore.
Not at all. I'm just trying to understand. These things must be talked about. That is, if we care about any of the things we say we care about. Minute details must be covered. No one is trying to disagree here. If I do, that's purely circumstantial/consequential. I just feel like many anarchists avoid talking about the details of their philosophy because they're not altogether confident in it.
I was more making an academic point there that it's probably not even worthwhile to have one set of delegates for everything or even the appointment of every functionary.
I was just talking about people who run things @ the forum. Like, organizers and such. Not anybody who speaks on behalf of the unions. Not the issues, at least.
and this is where I check out. That's not what I was saying
Maybe it's not what you meant, but you gotta expect that response when you type out the sentence like that. Representative democracy is clearly hierarchical; even when citizens are accurately represented. I'm not just looking for something to nitpick. I'm seriously not. On the other hand, I feel like these theories are like scientific theories and must be examined extensively for holes.
I'm almost done reading Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker. I know it's not a definitive work and was published a long time ago, but I have to say that there seems to be something missing in the theory. It's all too informal.
Are all the unions and collectives unified centrally as Rocker suggests? What traits does this central unifier have? Does a police union provide all the civil protection? Same with firefighters and medical workers? If you're going to sell people on syndicalism (and my mind is open), you have to have all these details worked out.
I must say that I agree that unions must always exist. The state cannot effectively understand what each industry is going through and I don't support ordering workers around. That's not socialism. What I commonly refer to as the state is this centralized system of all walks of life. A forum, if you will. Rocker talks about unions being represented by "councils" though. I don't see how that's any different than representative democracy/hierarchy. Your thoughts?
not really, there are all sorts of problems with statism that we're just trained to overlook (what happens to illegal immigrants? is it legal to murder them? After all, the state that "represents" them doesn't have jurisdiction over that territory, what's to say the local police are going to feel obligated to care their murderer is brought to justice?) when looking at just the principles. You just have to sell them on basic premises and then work from there.
Ultimately, a lot of those questions, while worthwhile to help clear away confusion, are purely academic since the answer can always be essentially "just like how the state does it but it will be voluntary."
Well there are institutional problems with management organizations based around something as irrelevant as geography. When you do that you inherently make it based around criteria that isn't necessarily conducive to the organization functioning well, you tend to capture people with often conflicting interests (like the haute bourgeois and proletariat in liberal democracies) and you also run into problems with institutional forces that try to promote institutional survival and externalize problems at the expense of others (Brezhnev comes to mind.) You also have to ask whether or not the managers would invariably become (due to institutional forces) essentially a monopolizing collective bourgeois.
Well that's pretty ethereal. Nouns need to refer to a specific thing, not something along the lines of "stuff that's important." Not to mention the "forum" could probably use some splitting up as I don't think the best managers for one thing will necessarily be the best managers in another.
Appointing representatives isn't hierarchical. Being bound (or made to feel bound) by what they do is. Delegates can be recalled and as long as the delegate's represented group can choose to ignore (or override by referendum or something) the terms of an agreement they've made, it doesn't make him anything other than the vehicle for their agreements.
Essentially, I'm looking to have the problems the state solves solved by this new system. How are the services provided? What about when a person doesn't want to participate in this system? What is your basis for using force against them? What guidelines are there to how they are handled? Regardless of what you might think, the police are not entirely bad, and they can't be eliminated completely. Not overnight, at least. You guys need to stop regarding any and all questions as unfair criticism. We're open to your ideas. We just have questions. We're not going to take things at face value; on faith alone. We know there are problems with the state, but that doesn't justify acceptance of another system with equally as many (if not more) problems.
Well, clearly there are organizational/logistical problems when your constituencies are nowhere near each other.
When you do what? Organize it centrally? It would just be a meeting place where people make arrangements/come to agreements. Ultimately, who's responsible for one person's quality of life? What if, for example, none of the firefighters' unions will agree to protect the coal miners for whatever reason? Are the coal miners just screwed in that situation? Are they solely responsible for guaranteeing they have all the necessary services? Each one is on their own? That sounds a lot like commerce to me. Each union would effectively be saying "all right, what have you got for me?" That's getting away from the labor theory of value.
That's assuming that there are managers. The managers could be delegates from the respective unions which could be fluctuating according to each unions' standards.
I agree. It's got to be better defined. What is this centralizing union? What's the procedure for the activity there?
Hmm... elaborate on that. I think you still think there are managers that are separate from any union.
Oh so anarchists should have no problem with the current way of doing things then, right? C'mon, man. See? This kind of hypocrisy is what irks the shit out of me. That's like the Bolsheviks saying "oh, appointing representatives isn't hierarchical". That's exactly what they did. What's the difference? You have to apply the law of universality to everything. You can't just lambaste the hierarchism of movements you don't like and not movements you do like. How would workers not be pressured/bound by what was decided on their behalf? They weren't there to agree or disagree on any of the specifics. There would be problems. All the same problems inherent in hierarchism.
When? When the delegate gets back and tells them all what's already been decided? There will be repercussions. No. The workers have to represent themselves.
The same way they are now I'd imagine (I'm not a syndicalist by the by) just change "taxes" to "dues."
Then they don't have to. It's in their interests to have someone looking out for them, but if they decide to forgo it then fine. In CNT Spain there were hundreds of independent farmers and laborers who decided on their own to not join the CNT and they weren't forced into it. There were laws like that they couldn't hire wage laborers. THe exact nature of that law I'm unsure of (meaing: only hire CNT wage laborers? what if he did? If non-CNT laborers: doesn't that effectively make him a nonvoting member of the CNT?) but those questions, like I said, are academic at best. Meaning they're something to be talked about after someone agrees with the premises, as one can take any system and reduce the arguments to incredibly detail-oriented justifications. That includes statism.
Force is responded to with minimal force.
Who are handled?
Most get off on he power, which is why they became policemen/women. Not all are bad no, but I don't think anyone's claimed that here recently.
as a specialized force, that has been argued, but in favor of regulated community enforcement of agreements. A lot of why we need them stem from the current system anyways.
I don't think anyone's ever claimed that. It's just that in this one specific case you were asking a much higher standard on statelessness than statism. The point of that is to, as I said earlier, to just drag the conversation out passed where either side cares to talk about it anymore. I'm not saying that's your point here, but just why that kind of mentality is reinforced.
Right, ultimately we don't know what each local is going to find in its interests. I was referencing the vanguardist intelligentsia of leninism there.
A collective of equal members who may choose to employ functionaries for record keeping and to help facilitate consensus-building
Whatever regulations that the locals or various levels of federation find that they need. There are basic ones that come to mind, but that's an academic discussion (which we can, and should as a society, have, just not before we've agreed on basic issues.)
Formal lines aren't the only form of separation. I was more making an academic point there that it's probably not even worthwhile to have one set of delegates for everything or even the appointment of every functionary.
and this is where I check out. That's not what I was saying. The current system isn't representative at all and that is the anarchist critique. You're just looking for something to nitpick and will just continue to do so until I leave the conversation.
EDIT::
OK, I lied.
Well hopefully the delegate has to report back to its base at some point. The more generic issues would probably be done by referendum, but the workers probably wouldn't care to vote on things like what the accepted vocabulary of a given level of organization (like most legislation has to define the terms its using in the text of the bill) should be. Also the content of the referendum might be part of the delegates' jobs.
Whenever they want to. This all depends on the system they establish that they feel is an expression of their will. If an agreement raises their dues, just communicate to the congress you're not going to pay the higher dues and if enough follow you, the delegates' vote will be for naught.
What are you, then? It seems you really must be one or the other (syndicalist or statist) if you classify yourself as a socialist.
This can be done by a state, as well.
The "criminals".
M'kay, if I understand you correctly, you're saying I'm expecting too much from statelessness?
Not at all. I'm just trying to understand. These things must be talked about. That is, if we care about any of the things we say we care about. Minute details must be covered. No one is trying to disagree here. If I do, that's purely circumstantial/consequential. I just feel like many anarchists avoid talking about the details of their philosophy because they're not altogether confident in it.
I was just talking about people who run things @ the forum. Like, organizers and such. Not anybody who speaks on behalf of the unions. Not the issues, at least.
Maybe it's not what you meant, but you gotta expect that response when you type out the sentence like that. Representative democracy is clearly hierarchical; even when citizens are accurately represented. I'm not just looking for something to nitpick. I'm seriously not. On the other hand, I feel like these theories are like scientific theories and must be examined extensively for holes.