Thoughts on anarcho-syndicalism?

It was so great that they had a labor camp and secret police.

But other forms of anarchism (especially anarcho-communism) are still semi-popular (for leftist strains of thought).

There is literally nothing wrong with labor camps and secret police.

Never said there was. I was just pointing out the fact that the times anarchism has been tried on a large scale they were in no way above statist.

I do have issues with how the NVKD operated though.

The thing I hate the most is babies.

Who was better: Yagoda, Beria or Yezhov?

isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml
libcom.org/files/WorkersAgainstWork-Seidman_0.pdf

anarcho-communism was never really a mass movement and a real political force like syndicalism was between the world wars

there was no secret police, you're just making shit up at this point

there was a FAI camp for enemy POWs where prisoners worked but no evidence of forced labour, and some stuff Garcia Oliver possibly did as minister of justice which at that point the CNT was already collaborating with the state

the first article is trots and Michael Seidman is like some kind of fascist, tha's not to say that syndicalism should not be criticised in its potential for bureaucratisation but these are not neutral sources by any means but you probably don't even care about that since it suits your beliefs, we know how much stalinists love posting that isreview article

lol
youtube.com/watch?v=3ufTFRGPrCM

I've seen that video, already mentioned that if this happened it was done by Garcia Oliver when he was minister of justice and the counterrevolution was already well underway

I wish this guy would learn how to fucking edit and compress information

You can say the same about every attempt at socialism.

You really shouldn't be so trusting with YouTubers. The finnishbolshevik is pretty biased and is a full-blown tankie and apologist.

The point is that real life examples of anarchism have always fallen apart. The revolution must be won before statelessness can be achieved. Anyway, a "prison camp for POW's" is pretty typical of a state.

He sites what he says so.

The FAI camp in Aragon was just for POWs as far as I know, so it was entirely for the war and keeping POWs during a war doesn't seem any more like a state than actually fighting in a war, it's an act of resistance against fascism really.

The Popular Front was always doomed, the revolution going on or not wouldn't have changed that other than perhaps increasing morale. Camillo Berneri probably had his head screwed on the tightest, but even his ideas seem a bit far-fetched.

Regarding the video's citations, you already posted the main one which is the Michael Seidman book.

What socialist attempt or structure hasn't collapsed?

Yeah, I know he cites it, but you should actually read the source material and its sources.

Every single one that was able to establish a state lasted longer.

Same guy here

But about the POW's, what the fuck do you expect them to do? They're dealing with their own revolution and the counterrevolution spearheaded by the military at the same time. There were successes in Catalonia. 50% increase in produce. You really shouldn't disregard it. It's funny how hypocritical both sides are.

You just said that they did actually have a state. Make up your mind.

You need to look at it with context though. The revolution would not have happened in the first place, at least not yet if the military coup which started the war didn't.

What about forced conscription?

What about the black army banning political dissent and regulating peoples hygiene?

I like it in concept, i'm good with syndicalism. personally ok with anarcho, but it's an extreme that isn't necessary at least in the US.

the spirit of america's constitution is compatible with syndicalism, but globalist meddling's fucked us: syndicate-worker-states would have a tough time surviving because they would need to compete with the monopolies and their cheap overseas slave labor.

If there was forced conscription in Spain, more than 50,000 people would have been in the CNT militias. As for the claims about Makhno, I don't really know as much but a lot of the claims that Makhno used conscription are based around something which they called a "voluntary mobilisation", and most of the documents from back then are more moral appeals than about obligations and Trotsky also made the claim that Makhno would be unable to enforce conscription anyway. The banning of political dissent seems even more difficult to enforce than conscription, let alone forcing people to be hygenic.

well if we're looking at it that way: capitalism always collapses too, but they last the longest

Literally Marxism with unions.

From what I understand, they banned political parties.

Capitalism is more stable than anarchism.

But I heard that the Makhnovists allowed even the Bolsheviks to participate in their Soviets.

It's also more stable than socialism.

Bolsheviks also banned other parties.

More stable than state capitalism? Yes. What "socialism" are you referring to besides ML.

Yes, they did.

It's more stable than every socialism that's been tried.

Circumstance of collapse is important.

Yep. Same with the anarchists.

acording to this book forced labour did happen,
it says the cnt refromed the penal code banned tortuture and replaced it with forced labour

...

The books cited in the Finnish Bolshevik video isn't by Seidman.

It talks about Garcia Oliver's reforms as minister of justice, the quotes don't really suggest that it was forced labour, according to the source there was a kind of voucher system.

It uses the same quotes, he just calls it "workers against labor", not "workers against work"
you'd recognise this if you read the source fam

The world is strangled by fossil fuel production because CEOs don't want to deny profits to turn fossil fuel energy companies into sustainable ones. We're these industries publicly controlled there would be no personal profit motive, only the motive of the public good. It isn't certain, but in my opinion a process of direct democracy is far more likely to bring about environmental sustainability than the selfish whims of a board of directors (for example Halliburton)

Most people that aren't retarded pollacks know the environment is fucked, they just don't have the financial power to do anything about it. Syndicalism gives them that power.

On top of this, while power is concentrated in the local area, it can be more responsive to the environmental needs of local areas. Centralised power is historically terrible at accommodating these needs, pure distance is one factor in this, but also the need to juggle the environmental needs of one area with the economic needs of the larger whole. Of course under almost any other system the larger whole wins most of the time, local power provides a buffer to this dynamic and a mechanism of compromise that centralised power simply cannot