Also Chris, an-caps won’t stop people from creating co-ops or syndicalist firms whatsoever. If that turns out to be the more efficient or in-demand mode of production, that will be the dominant formation on a total market.
People in capitalism, even our current form of state capitalism, are the richest people in world history. Of course they don’t have everything they need, but no system has achieved as much material well-being as capitalism did, especially not those that did not understand scarcity and attempted to create a free lunch. No, material well-being is not personal happiness, but no economic system can create personal happiness, that’s always a personal responsibility. We’re talking about material well-being here, the “more stuff doesn’t make you happy” line is an excuse.
See my above post, the long one. I’d appreciate if you actually think about this instead of throwing out some automated response. I’m right about this one, trust me. I know exactly where you come from and where you go wrong. Accepting my position would not mean betraying your syndicalist convictions, it just means accepting the reality that you can’t implement it by design. The future will actually look a lot like what you are envisioning, we are already seeing the emergence of a post-corporate, post-capitalist world. Free lunch schemes that ignore scarcity only delay that progress.
I don’t think i’ve explained syndicalism as well as I should have. Another theme of anarcho-syndicalism is ‘localism’, the idea that democractic, social, economic and environmental problems would be dealth with locally. If needs be, then communities and/or workers unions would come together at a national and/or internation level to solve issues. So I don’t think, if the philosophy of localism was introduced, that democracy would centralise majoritarianism.
Also, I think in a syndicalist society people’s values would be different. I mean, we wouldn’t want the latest BMW, because there wouldn’t be any BMW’s; if you think that is a reduction in the standard of living, then you would be a shallow person (not that I am saying you are).
I don’t think it would be a case of living year to year on subsistancefarming. My view is that a syndicalist society would be highly industrial, this is because we would do things because we want to to do them. There would be no need for companies to invest in certain areas in order for that area to grow. Take the case of starvation China or India. Either we have the resources to feed everyone or we don’t. In capitalist society, people are fed by selling their labour. In a syndicalist society, people would be fed purely by their need to be fed. If we have the resources, syndicalism would end poverty; but capitalism would only do it at the expense of freedom. If we don’t have the resources, then in a syndicalist society people would starve to death. In a capitalist society people would starve to death. The question of feeding everyone isn’t an economic one, only a logistical one. But, I highly doubt we don’t have the resources, especially since we can produce artifical food now.
If I were a single human on this planet I’d probably kill myself, either that or the lack of social interaction would drive me insane. If a syndicalist society were to come about today, I would happily help produce food for myself and others - free of charge.
You have high taxation in the poor areas of society in the US? What on earth! To be honest, it makes me glad to be European. Denmark, has the highest taxation (but that tax applies to all sextors of society) at around 40 - 70%, but it has the highest income equality and one of the happiest populace of Europe and the world in fact.
Generally, we consider anything that limits our freedom as coercive. But, my understanding was that coercion is referring to artifical persuasion through force or threat.
That’s all very nice, but I didn’t see answers to my questions. Here’s some more… Who’s stopping you right now from organizing a voluntary community of like-minded humans within which everything is shared and everyone feeds everyone else? Or your vision is global or bust?
What are the other alternatives to work or hunger in a capitalist society?
No, no one owes anyone anything in that respect. But what’s your point?
Materially it may or may not give me everything I want, but to design a system based on materalism would be shallow. Ontop of providing for my basic material needs syndicalism provides for my libertarian desires/needs.
My reasoning is more like:
Capitalism uses coercion.
Coercion is not libertarian.
Therefore capitalism is not libertarian.
I think you’ll find that is a valid argument form in Propositional logic:
A → B
B → ¬C
A → ¬C
(If (capitalism), (then (coercion)))
(If (coercion), (then (it is not the case that libertarianism)))
(If (capitalism), (then (it is not the case that libertarianism)))
Like I said, if you think those options are real alternatives then sure we are completely in control of ourselves. But you havn’t accounted for conditioning and indoctrination, we are not free. This whole idea of free will is pure nonsense, dispelling a long time ago. Look, here’s Strawsons argument against free will:
- You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
- So in order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
- But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
- So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do
I believe in political and economic freedom, you know, libertarianism, but not in the freedom of the will; we aren’t free to simply do what you say we can do.
I don’t know if this concept is familiar in as capitalist a country as the US, but generally humans share things; you know, we work together and share the fruits of our labour. It’s the core principle of the family.
There would only be one anarcho-syndicalist society, the political nation would be removed since it is unjustified authority.
Again, specifics. It depends on each area and the circumstances surrounding it.
It’s really not an excuse. We measure progress by material wealth, but we’ve forgotten the point of material wealth - to make our lives better. But they are not the only things which make our lives better. If a slave society were extremely prosperous, we wouldn’t say that that was a good thing because the people at the bottom - the slaves - weren’t free.
The future will look a lot like what I am envisioning? We’ll I hope you’re right.
We measure progress by material wealth,
You do not know what wealth is, you can’t.
I don’t know what anti-authoritarian means. None of us do, it’s a bogus word
Anyway thats all I am giving. Left libertarians are impossible to discuss anything with. It is just sloganing
You don’t know what ‘what’ is, but you still use it 
Fascinating. You really make it very easy for yourself… First you argue that as long as there is scarcity you would use money and when I ask how you get money without working, you just say that you don’t need money… You can’t have it both ways.
Well, what do you expect? Socialism is a religion whose tenents have all been exposed as incredibly shallow. There’s nothing left to do but make appeals to emotion (i.e. “It’s a crime that people have to work for food”, as if in syndicalism food would just fly into our mouth’s without anyone having to make it). There’s no way to respond to that. The ludicrously naive “democratic” control of the means of production makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. It’s not like you can say that’s wrong.
When did I say that as long as there is scarcity you would use money? I think I have maintained the whole time that things such as food and energy need not be scarce if we use technology correctly.
/thread
Socialism isn’t a religion by definition.
'Religion, n: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
& a particular system of faith and worship’
And how is the idea of economic democracy ‘ludicrously naive’?
Buddhism is not a religion? Scientology? Shintoism? Janism?
Not according to my dictionary, unless you consider it a system of faith.
Socialism has been thoroughly disproven and discredited, but is still followed and believed in regardless of this fact. I would’ve been more precise in saying that socialism is a superstition, though I stand by my claim that socialism is a religion. Is it dogmatic? Yes. Do its believers organize themselves in communities? Certainly. Does it give credence to ideas which can only be supported in the absence of facts? Most definitely.
Economic democracy in the sense of workers owning the means of production is naive because it can only rationally be supported by those who have no training in economics, or if they have, choose to ignore the lessons it teaches us in favor of satisfying emotional needs by pandering to a dead ideology.
I cannot give a full dissertion on the problems of anarcho-syndicalism. Mises wrote an entire chapter on anarcho-syndicalism in “Human Action”. The issue of the calculation problem, which is not avoided by establishing the economic order you describe, has been written about in dozens of essays and books which can be found with a simple Google search. As a start I’d suggest that you read “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” by Ludwig von Mises or the debate between Smiling Dave and an anarcho-communist on a forum thread in this site. The other problems (e.g. the problem of management, the problem of ignorance, the economic problem or “scarcity”, the incentive problem, the pretense of knowledge, et cetera) have been laid out for you in detail on this very thread.
I have no reason to throw my hat into the ring on this debate. I highly doubt that you are capable of changing your views on the issue since you seem to be so emotionally invested in syndicalism. Moreover, your belief in the moral superiority from a subjective point a view cannot be debated since it is clearly a personal preference or value, while I will add that assertions that it is objective truth are fallacious.
Your dictionary does not have the final say on what a word does or does not mean. To say otherwise is an appeal to authority.