I'm really fucking hyped about the re-emerging ideas of worker coops and self-management anons...

I'm really fucking hyped about the re-emerging ideas of worker coops and self-management anons. For the first time it feels like people have a clear idea about economic democracy besides vague theory about it.
is something like syndicalism the only socialist system we might see in our lifetime?

Syndicalism is about trade unions and not "it's not capitalism if we democratically elect someone to exploit us I promise"

It's one of the only ones that neither relies on violent uprising or state tyranny to make it work. I'd say compared to dictatorship of the proletariat, this is much more preferable.


That stuff is definitely sketchy.
If there is a demand for individuals to serve as intermediaries between suppliers and end consumers (basically traders), I'd rather they be contracted separately.

I've learned from experience that workers are perfectly capable of managing themselves, but that there is indeed also a need for some form of coordination.
I think for the sake of the system it's a lot better that in cases where the workload warrants a form of active management - instead of just an elected representative - the workers instead hire either an individual or a fellow cooperative to help formulate strategies or facilitate new deals.
This both makes the market more competitive and curtails excessive rewards for executives.

Yes, Temporary Autonomous Zones now!

syndicalism isn't the same as market socialism or mutualism, keep that in mind


Assuming large corporations are converted into cooperatives, they will already have some sort of central coordination. Anything beyond that can be done by the state

It's pretty similar to capitalism
But who knows it could churn out a hugely different society
I'd rather have egalitarian capitalism in the future than the crazy dystopian shit it looks like we're headed for

I hope you mean only in an advisory/intermediary sense, serving as a platform for elected representatives to coordinate between supplies and end markets.
Rather than, let's say, 5 years plans.

I don't give a shit about economic democracy, I want a comfy planned economy that regulates pretty much everything.

Syndicalism can operate as a planned economy fam.

I love how little Bordigashit this board has.

You should probably call it marxshit fam, 'cause he was opposed to such petty bourgeois reactionary nonsense.

how is a cooperative economy reactionary? certainly from our current perspective it would be progressive being trapped in neo-liberal capitalism.

bordigashit detected

There's really no such thing as a Bordigist (or even left communist) critique of so-called market socialism. All you need to do is be a consistent Marxist, which Bordigists and left communists basically are. See: WEBM related.

As long as that planning is voluntary.


Explain how a state capitalist one-party neo-feudal dictatorship is preferable to a democratic (con)federation of worker cooperatives.

You forgot mega-reactionary crypto-fascist slave-empire.

I think Syndicalism in the old trade unionist form is dead tbh.

Trade unions are not what they used to be.

In any case I think it would be better to create a network of individually managed co-operatives who form syndicates with each other simply in order to complete mutual community projects. They would have no sway over each other, but would have federated relations where mutually beneficial.

A trade union can be yet another centralised control, better to devolve power to the individual enterprise.

While this would not instantly negate capitalism, it would empower workers not only to better living conditions but also to direct power over their living conditions. It would be the beginning of the end of private ownership, by creating a little pocket of worker ownership. From this condition, as part of a federation that can largely or almost provide for itself, the worker has no need of the state.

Once the workers are democratic agents with no need of a central state they begin to have the material elements and political power to do that which is most beneficial to them, that is, to co-operate on a communal basis, completing their work for the good of the federation, knowing it will provide amply for them in return. From this condition will be born finally the relation, from each according to their ability, to each according the their need.

Its not about creating communism with a state or destroying the state with revolution and instantly creating communism in its place

Its about gradually creating the conditions and structures which will allow us to organise on a mutualist/collectivist basis, then taking this basis to its logical conclusion, communal relations. This does not require a state, just lots of people setting up co-operatives, an extremely achievable goal considering the alternative of war against the entirety of Europe and the US and probably everywhere else as well.

Before the communal relations however we must empower and embolden the workforce. Co-operatives will empower and embolden the work force.

Also, making co-operatives is a totally normie-respectable endeavour and particularly for you average Liberal are very hard to argue against.

Only the most hardcore Bordigists and Marxist-Leninists are opposed to syndicalism/council communism.
Even fascists can be receptive to it.

How do you ensure this?

Empowering the individual enterprise.

This is assuming that truly democratic agents will not allow their position to be compromised.

Which is of course a big assumption, but history shows people will generally hold onto control of their environment.

Without large amounts of power in the hands of private individuals, enterprises have little to gain from fucking with each other.

Well, what is this enterprise for? Is there currency?

Yes

How can you actually be sure that one cooperative/community won't gyp another, without a state?

If they were federated along the lines of mutual projects they have both contributed to creating why would they?

If they both had their resources tied up in the same hospital/clinic/ why would I fuck you when we both get doctors from this hospital/clinic/?

T I T O D I C K, D I C K M A N B A B Y

Well armed militias. You have to make conflict unprofitable.
Threatening long term resistance and combining that with a willingness to scorch the earth does just that.
Now, if the goal is extermination, that's likely to draw the ire of neighbors.

Basically what prevents states from attacking each other, but on a smaller scale.

As long as you people don't push your market fetish dogmatically during an actual revolution you're fine. Probably the best reformist measures you could do under capitalism, tbh

...

Any central planners here???

I want to kick your asses!!!

Kys

The revolution is now, friend. Those illiterates are going to be behaving the same way when it hits it's most intense phase. Market socialists are a threat that needs to be liquidated and must be recognized as such.

Don't cut yourself on that edge.


Worker self-management/market socialism is the revolution. Ditching the entrenched class of proprietors and state bureaucrats in favor of the direct empowerment of the working class is the essence of socialism.

Answer me this question. The revolution is underway and the workers reorganize production around councils for use. Will you support it as the expression of proletariat liberation, or oppose it and instead try to have workers keep the firms and compete against each other?

I would support it

I would support it, but I find that scenario to be highly unlikely to come about.

Support. Though of course if they want to compete against each other that's fine too.


It's what happened in Rojava. SHTF and they were forced to self-organize. The PYD had all the means to force collectivization and nationalize the industries, instead they actively supported democratic self-management and pushed for more democratic confederalism.

In fairness rojava is much more complicated a situation than "The Revolution Is Underway."

It is, and there are a lot of unsolved questions.
Like how much power the federal government should have, how the oil and gas resources are to be managed, the future of the YPG (they want to replace it with local militias), the organization of the criminal justice system, how the ISIS held territories should be intergrated, what to do with the land lords, how "private property" should be defined (because it's a lot more ambiguous up there than people make it out to be), etc.

But it's coming along nicely, and really is the most successful attempt of this scale so far.

The point of markets is to accede to democracy, in my opinion.

that's not what happened, the situation that was described was one were this is what was currently being organized. I was being asked whether I would actively oppose, not actively support council communism.

All things equal, I would prefer Rojava style democratic confederalism/market socialism in the short term, but I would not actively oppose other ideas, but don't expect me to actively support them.

Why? Rojava's market socialism/democratic confederalism is very close to actual socialism.
And we also really need a real world example to point to and show people it works.

I think we need to be vigilant of the confusion that seems to be taking place between worker cooperatives and the many other kinds of exploitative cooperatives.

No I meant that's what I would support, as opposed to council communism.

Interesting, what are the other kinds?

How do council communism, (anarcho)-syndicalism and anarcho-communism and luxemburgism actually differ?
They all seem pretty similar.


Cooperatives where workers elect their managers, which seems to be a red line for a lot of people that are otherwise into worker-self management.

KEK
E
K

All my needs would be taken care of. I've no interest in participating in economic planning with retarded normies.

If workers don't elect their managers, what do they do for HR and distribution?

Sorry, I should've expanded on that. Basically electing managers that both earn substantially more than their workers and have authority independent from worker consensus.


This better be bait

My bad

There's a difference between not caring and forcing a vanguard party on everyone else.
Not everyone in a cooperative is or has to be a fanatical ideologue.

The worker consensus in this case being "we want to devolve some of our power to a manager." I guess if the workers literally don't how the power to revise the cooperative's structure the complaint is valid but I think being paid more is more of a matter of workers just being so USED to managers making more they don't consider changing it. You could even call them… spooked.

Ah, okay, that does sound pretty shit. Basically the same kind of commissarism that made the USSR a massive failure for worker's rights.

Yeah, as a Trot I'm a pretty big fan of democratic confederalism. It seems like a great way to move forward.