Anti-Tankie thread

Democracy is prone to corruption, manipulation, coercion by social pressure, Majority over Minority politics, creation of politicians who use smart rhetoric to influence the dicision making towards own interest, bureaucratisation of the dedicated compared to those who dont want to have town meetings every week to decide on small issues.
But ah it all depends on the structure around democracy, is it in a federation with syndicates with delicates or a flexible and fluid democracy where its always short organisation based on the issue where the partisipants are those involved or effected by thus issue? tbh i am opposed to the first one and prever the second one, but the second one.

couldn't have said it better myself. Problem is even federations have those issues, and localism usually makes things more inefficient.

kek, cya

the heirarchy isn't so much the issue of the hypocrisy as coercion. Anarchists criticise coercion of the state and capitalism usually, but then don't realise that democracy has coercive power, as do all methods of enforcing rules.

right because centralization proved to satisfy the needs of the people so well for maoist china and the soviet union.
Face it nigga, individuals know what they need your daddy and mommy figures whos boot you love to lick dont know shit about what you need.

Anarchists oppose hierarchy because it is not an effective means to liberate the workers. For a socialist society to work, people must be self reliant, egoist, and they must value liberty.

Centralization provides the ability to be more efficient, but that doesn't mean its potential is necessarily realized.

A system based on distribution of resources works better if it is one big well organized system, not several systems that use indirect signals to work together. That big system can of course be subdevided into sections or subsystems, while still remaining part of the larger system and retaining access to the efficient communication and global planning of the total structure.

Did you read my post ancom san, the first example i took is Syndicalist organisation wich is Formal Decentralised organisation, the second is Informal Organisation used usually by Anarcho-nihilists/Insurrectionary anarchism.

Both are decentralised and the diffrince is that one is Formal and the other is Informal. usually formal organisation is used by collectivist idealogies and informal for individual idealogies.

Nice misrepresentation, I find this caricature of me you're building entertaining, when I'm simply criticising the positive aspects of your ideology.

Does a democratically elected executive know what I "need"? Because they're "democratic" (there are many types of democracy, by the way). Direct democracy is just tyranny of the majority.

Great, so we're on the same page.
oh boy. Pls rd my boi soren keerkeegeerd

Nope because that creates oppression. The Central area will never understand the needs of local areas.

Dont worry i watched that new Kanye West video of the School of life. :^3

Pls comr8. The interests of the individual can be used in ways that satiate the interests of other individuals. By reducing democracy down to the smallest groups possible and making it easy for one to place themself into a different group that is more likely to vote in the way they would vote, a system of mutual ego system is made, as people group together in ways that please that please their ego by satiating material and abstract conditions.

But thats wrong you fucking idiot. If you are envisioning a small set of humans deciding the entire plan for everything down to the placement of the last flower you are seriously retarded.

You start locally, which gathers the information on the wishes and requirements, which get passed up the chain, then at the top, all that information is processed and a global plan is formed, which then gets passed down the chain, each step making sure they delegate the tasks as good as possible to the layer below it, until you get back at local level.

And as for commodities and goods, that can be done via computers, removing the need for planning altogether, because it can handle the distribution of resources on its own.

*mutual ego satisfaction

FUCKING KILL ME I HATE THAT VIDEO SO MUCH I WANT TO FUCKING KILL MYSELF

at leas you didn't an hero

what video ?

also ayyy you're not dead

bob black pls go

and keep it that way. Form local groups based on what you desire, and that group will then interact with other groups in ways that meets their desires. It's an efficient economic model based entirely on demand and voluntary association, it avoids the problem that your system has, the problem of the central commitee having to decide if the demands of those "at the bottom" matter or not.

wisecrack on "the philosophy of kanye west"
It's absolutely terrible. Like, they don't understand K at all. like at all

i hope you die sooner, you absolute dumbass

I think the words you are looking for are capitalism, trading and free market.

You're a really horrible person. You deserve cancer.

Wow you sure are a moron.
I didn't say anything about taking surplus value from proles, I never said anything about using a market or even money. Trade is fucking unavoidable.

And people wonder why I think Kierkegaard is relevant to the left.

Atleast they arn't literally a cancer, unlike you

sorry but no gulags = no productivity.

You are being to positive over democracy thinking it functions as an union bonded by mutual interest instead of unity by idea (Society).

This can only work if its flexible and informally organised as opposed to a set governant structure like the federation in the theory of Anarcho-Syndaclism.

Go call the police or something ffffffaggot.

Oh no, that sure display of supreme intellect has convinced me that me existance is futily compared to your existance. I will end myself by your request oh smarty one. :3

Anarkidde vs tankie threads need to be bumplocked, seriously.

While anarcho-syndicalism provides a strict framework, it is by no means inflexible, the virtue of anarcho-syndicalism IS its flexibility

i really don't give a shit about if democracy is a union or not, only that everyone involved gets a vote.

...

I preferred it when you amended (not the same ancom poster as the other guy) to your post, not that I disagree or anything.

Okay correction, I do kinda disagree. Everything should be unions. Unions are awesome.

It is, moron.

You want to form "groups" among "common desires" which then interact with each other to meet their desires. This implies trade and the fact that groups can own the rights to means of production to the exclusivity of other groups.

Money is nothing more than a commodity that was chosen as the easiest method to ease trading.

And these groups work to produce commodities for themselves, which they then sell together and pay themselves a wage, extracting surplus value to pay for reinvestment into the means of production and gain an edge over the other group which produces similar stuff, since they can sell "trade" more for less work. Boombalabop, the best you have is shitty market "socialism" without a state to ensure that those groups/coops/corporations/tribes won't exploit other groups which were not lucky enough to be born where they live.

Yes they can.

You dingbat, they'll trade resources with other industries. This is unavoidable. Any community ships out and receives resources.

I do not mean to claim that them being unions would make no difference, because it is obvious that this would be a positive thing. However, claiming that if democracy cannot produce this, then democracy's primary function (voting and distributed power) is null and void is flat out wrong.

I like how you know absolutely nothing about socialist economic models and just assume anythign that is not opressive tankie full state capitalism is capitalism

You seem very enthusiastic about your ideology. But can you show somewhere that had no central structure which existed for more than 2 months?

Well spoken

Union opposed it?
Do you use Stirner has definition of union (as opposed to society) or something else?

How about literally any union ever. They're all decentralized among the workplaces, and one can even argue they are decentralized among the individual members.

A union is not a society of unions. Please don't be absurd. Micro != macro.

But you want to give the local community the exclusive right to whatever might be under their feet or what they make, rather than society as a whole. This evidently leads to certain communities gaining a position of power due to having a scarce resource. These communities may very easily, slowly at first, start to exploit their position of power and thus gain the upper hand over others. You allow this to happen, a situation essentially identical to that of early city states.

I know more about market "socialist" models than you do, evidently.

Anarcho-syndicalist society is built foremost upon its individuals, and then upon individual unions, and finally upon the federation which is mostly just a symbolic entity as it consists of the combined wills of the individual unions.

Clearly you don't know much about market economies since you think what I am proposing is one.

Oh yes, because entropy is totally not a thing and small problems are not amplified on a large scale by non-linear dynamics.

Please, look up "double pendulum".

PUHLEASE

If there is direct democracy, then there is literally no reason why an area having more resources than another area would matter. Having more members under a union might create power disparities, but that is solved by embracing individuality, allowing people to split up unions into smaller unions as much as necessary to please their egos.

Here's what what you're saying sounds like:

again, micro != macro.

Daily reminder that anarchism and non authoritarian politics are just a waste of time.

In what? The state that doesn't exist? Or the union that isnt mandatory, can be left and has no standing army to enforce itself?

you have no idea how syndicalism works do you?
The value is accumulated collectively by the local workplaces, and then some of that is communalized for the whole federation, after all that democracy is used to determine how the rest of the value will be utilized, basically, how it will be distributed to other industries in exchange for what the workers' desire.

How do you mean?

Sounds simple! But where are the proofs of it working, billy?

Daily reminder that syndicalist, market, and centrally planned economies are all shit

So if it is communalized for the whole federation why not go all the fucking way and communalize all of it, you know, COMMUNISM?

Worker owned industries have successfully used union-like structures to contribute resources that were then used to create more worker owned infrastructure in the past. See: CNTFAI, or for a more modern day example: mondragon

The population is the army, the federation of Syndicates is maintained by the dependence of Syndicates who work in a certain industry or service wich are dependent on the cooperation of other Syndicates to maintain their productvity and ability to use the services of other Syndicates to keep the economy of functioning. Syndicates work with other Syndicates only cause they depend on eachother just as mining syndicates's need equipment from destribution syndicates who need syndicates who make the tools who need electivity from the syndicates in the electricity sector and whatever.

It's like this: to facilitate the ability to create new industry and new unions the federation is used as a democratic means with which individual unions can vote upon which new industries to allocate resources towards creating.

I'm sorry, but I have to insist that you stop confusing micro and macro. A business using unions within a market != a world of unions.

A union != a society. If like you say, correctly, that a union operates on interaction with the external, then you need to explain how you're to enforce the conditions of the external.

What do you mean with the word Union
What is your definition of it?

I thought you were going to kill yourself?

Yes.

Why though do you want the workers to retain part of their production individually instead of communalizing it and distributing it according to need? Why force the workers to trade when you can allocate those resources directly though various much better systems? Why do you want to stay in socialism and not go to communism?

Anarcho-syndicalism is a self enforcing system. The more people are a part of it, the more economic dominance it will have and the more unavoidable it will become to please ones ego without partaking of syndicalism.

If so then you should be able to provide an example of a non-centralised anarchist society that lasted more than 3 months like I already asked.

also, I want to see your answer to

for socratic reasons

Provide an example of god, christfaggot.
Just because the conditions for something do not exist, doesn't make it invalid.

You're just lashing out now. I'm just trying to help you strengthen and make your position more clear. I'm but a stupid christfag.

It doesn't make it invalid, but the way you are phrasing your theory makes it sound like a science. Can you at least tell me why it is that the conditions seem to be impossible to create, or have been so far in the past? What are those conditions?

I think you just don't get it. The whole point of this system is to form a network of ego satisfaction as to not piss anyone off. Having some authority determine who gets what will piss people off.

The way I'd define it is its a group of people with common goals making decisions that involve sharing resources and organizing to accomplish their goals.

The authority is the people democratically, a computer or the people themselves using credits to spend however they please.

Also, stop trying to sound autistic.

That seems like a waste of time. Encouraging people to be egoistic to not have people take more than is necessary? Sounds very fragile. Wouldn't it be better to encourage ethical behaviour? And no I'm not saying we need authoritarian leaders for it.

As for the second answer, that sounds like a tautology for communism. How are you going to create the union if it is any different from the goal you are trying to create? What it sounds like from your position is "use communism to create communism".

The conditions for syndicalism are as follows:

full bunker on head retarded. Accumulation of capital in a matter way where accumulation of capital is destructive imminent
how will you achieve this without syndicalist economics?

Being egoistic is acting in one's best interest, and it will always be in one's best interest to perpetuate a system that allows them to act in their best interest, they'll seek to preserve mutually beneficial connections.

What percentage are necessary? How can you tell? How do you keep people class conscious? Are people going to magically all not change their mind?

You seem to think you can just bruteforce capitalism out, also. Does that really work well for co-operatives usually? It doesn't tend to. How are you going to enforce the structure of the union, which you haven't described?

Not trying to be guilty of overloading you with questions, but these are all obvious problems that need to be answered before anyone can even begin to think about implementing it.

Second part is conflating individualism and egoism.

Source?

Best? Rational Self Interest?

And what if the person precieves this as bad because it creates dependence? The best system is no system wich is the state of anarchy.

You cant give that credit to other people, dumbfuck.

It's not about percentage of a pop, but rather the density of class consciousness in an area. The class consciousness density must be critical to the point where a revolutionary union can be formed and sustained.
Class consciousness can be maintained just by having the system be successful.
Syndicalism creates a convenience gradient, when workers are offered better conditions and more representation, they will flock to that instead of the oppressive capitalist industries.
Convenience gradient combined with exponential increase in growth from creating new union infrastructure.
There simply havn't been any unions of co-ops that do what I describe on the scale that I describe it, there havn't been any organizations that focused entirely on accumulating the resources to create new industries
Fragmented as need be, there is no reason not to have unions of unions of unions of unions since the goal is to maximize representation and individuality.

You're right that the two don't have to be related, but for the purposes I describe, they should be, no?

Yes but I don't want to say rational self interest cause that may make me sound like a market socialist or worse ancap

That's actually a legitimate issue brought up by my system, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to allow people that feel that way to exist in a separate society outside of the federation.

full bunker on head retarded, buys into the newspeak version of anarchism, has nothing to do with liberty, socialism, or the fundamental tenant: no rulers

lol can you define a mathematical relationship of class consciousness density please. Partial differentiation for bonus points.

All you've mentioned so far is "have a bunch of people get together who will agree to living altruistically and as a collective for the sake of eventually living selfishly and individually, until it eventually overpowers the market which it will totally do sometime magically and it will not need to continue and we'll have full communism"

There's nothing here of substance I can actually criticise. No structure to the "direct democracy", no coherence to the egoism argument as there is no guarantee of success and especially because an egoist would of course grab for the highest power in that and try to turn it into a system that benefits only them, because it's probably better than whatever the fuck they had previously, and the reason that co-ops get outcompeted is because they treat workers unethically, and you are still suggesting that even through treating workers ethically and even in such a way that they can be egoists they will work hard and outcompete the capitalists.

It's just tautology, like saying "socialism in one country will inspire more socialism". There's a structural issue you still are avoiding.

the only people obsessed with gulags are anarkiddy faggots shitposting anticommunist maymays

you fags don't even know what gulag means

absolute baseless bullshit and exact opposite of the point of co-ops. People flock to co-ops to get more value for the same amount or less work, and this is thanks to cutting out the capitalist from the business model. Egoists will work in co-ops causes it serves them better than working for a capitalist.
You seem to assume that systems of mutual ego satisfaction are an end goal, they are not, it's the immediate goal of this system, decentralization and reliance on affiliates is what makes it strong. The value of egoism will be encouraged by this system, but so will the idea that the system is strong due to its decentralized and interwoven network structure, and this will dissuade people from power-grabbing by distributing the notion that hierarchy will weaken the movement. If someone tries to powergrab, they'll be treated harshly.

I think I have explained this quite enough already. It's all about fragmentation. People will form unions based on how those in the union will tend to vote, this allows them to make their interests get heard without compromising the benefit that lies in organizing with others instead of being all alone. Unions will organize with other unions and form unions of unions based on similarities in ideas they share and so on and so forth until the federation itself, and the only unchangeable tenant of that is "use resources to make more infrastructure"

did I type that? I meant ethically, not unethically.
Why haven't people flocked to other co-ops?

No, you haven't explained how the unions work. You're just saying "form unions". What is the structure of these unions? How do you enforce the structure? You just seem to think large groups of people know how to organise.

mcarthyist propaganda, lack of awareness of co-ops, the fact that most co-ops are not actually class conscious and are sjw scumholes

This is where the class consciousness density comes into play. The class consciousness density, also known as the class consciousness index is a measure of class conscious people per 1000 in a 1km area.
I estimate the class consciousness index needs to be 10 or more over a space of 50km to successfully create a syndicalist organization with large revolutionary potential.

You haven't spotted the negative feedback
loop in co-ops being outcompeted and the lack of popularity

democratically decided. flexibility is the point of all this, to please everyone's interests.

self imposed, the strength of mutually beneficial relationships will be vital to cementing structures in place and creating precedents.

I beg to differ. Co-ops, if picking industries that do not yet have high barriers to entry, tend to do very well, and the whole point of unionizing will be to allow co-ops to meet those barriers to entry by giving them more initial resources to start with than workers could have accumulated on their own without a union supporting them.

ITT: anarkiddies BTFO

again, many forms of democracy.
You have yet to explain what happens after said union wins over the capitalist businesses. Is that it? The union disappears?

You've basically said so far if I'm understanding:

Lots of class consh people get together, form a big union that can outcompete capitalist businesses, and form communism which functions on democracy.

This basically says nothing to me except that you're an anarchist then. It doesn't defend anarchism. It just re-states it.

are you kidding me? I'm anally annihilating rebel. He's doing nothing but asking more and more desperate questions and I'm answering every single one very easily.

It's a common suffocation technique to just ask questions and never give a chance to the opposition to ask questions, but Im gonna keep answering cause I know all the answers. He wont win.

I'm telling you how syndicalists organize. More accurately, I'm answering your questions. Honestly, that whole post of yours is nothing but a strawman, you're ignoring many of my answers.
And this statement: "This basically says nothing to me except that you're an anarchist then. It doesn't defend anarchism. It just re-states it." means nothing. Yes I am telling you about anarchism that is what this damn conversation is about.
Though yes, outcompeting capitalism by unionizing is the gist of anarcho-syndicalism.

No, syndicalism is more than just a means to end capitalism, it is an entire economic system, unions of unions of unions provide a network for conveying information and resources in an organized way. The unions do not disappear.

Never say sutch a silly thing, he is just exploring what you think to pin point what you mean.

do you also defend stormfags with their endless torrent of "but how will the workers own the means of production if their black checkmate niggers xD"

Dont be an idiot, i agree slightly with you and Rebel is exploring what you think and tries to poke some holes to see how it actually works. And i am curiouse too about it even if most of my concerns are allready awnserd, just taking a less hostile approach would be fancy.

You might be right, comrade.
Sorry rebel, I'm just concerned you might be a stalinist shitposter trying to waste my time.

Do you even irony? This isn't a debate. This is question time.

i r o n y

Yes, I know what anarchism is, I'm asking you to justify it being your ideology. You're talking about your method of revolution, but you haven't attempted to justify why it would last for more than 3 months, like other de-centralised attempts fail to do (and end up often in hero-worship)

You described it as a bunch of class conscious people get together and do things by democracy. I wouldn't call that an economic system. There are anarchist economics, but the unions do it isn';t any sort of fleshed out economic system.

I'm obviously not a stalinist, I'm OP. My opening gambit was "stalinists are idiots"

I guess you're right in that I can elaborate on the purely economic aspect of it. Right, well then, as I've mentioned before, the driving force of this economic system will be demand, it's all about people joining groups that will bargain with other groups to make their interests happen. The initial demand for it to all begin has to be "I want a socialist mode of production" and the resource provided is "A union that consists of other unions and the purpose of which is to create syndicalist infrastructure to make worker ownership of the means of production the dominant mode". Now, elaborating on syndicalist infrastructure: basically anything of use to proletarians that are members or potential members of unions that are represented by the federation, primarily industries and community resources like food sources, electricity, pretty much anything that is in demand and will forward a socialist agenda to be provided by communal funding instead of by private industry.

I did fail to mention one very critical detail so far though, the main thing that defines syndicalism is the way resources are transferred. It all begins at the individual, the individual chooses the work they wish to do and the group that will represent them, this of course, is mediated by demand too since a group might demand to not have any more labor, or a group might demand a new co-worker so much that they'd be willing to compromise on their policies. Once the individual joins a union and is working, they are part of a democratic process that primarily focuses upon resource allocation, how will the value produced by the industry be utilized? The standard model is to have a set pay (which prior to abolition of monetary system will just be money, but after the abolition of monetary system will be agreed upon resources provided by other industries) and then allocate the rest to a communal fund as "dues" which is then utilized democratically however deemed necessary, and some of the dues are sent to the federation as a whole or a regional union representing unions in the area, which will then send dues to the federation, for the federation to then democratically allocate the dues (resources or actual money) towards the creation of new infrastructure.

One of my favorite things about syndicalism is that it can work with money while out competing capitalism, and then can function well without it.

and so the next logical question is how the democracy is prevented from starving certain areas of necessary resources if this is like you say an egoistic system. Population distribution isn't equal.

Say if I have a large city and the small rural country, it's easy for that large city, acting within its interests, to starve the small rural country of necessary resources for the sake of itself. The large country becomes equivalent to the strong and the small country to the weak.

While it's true what you say, large cities will likely have the ability to control intake and export of resources much better than smaller cities, and will thus likely increase in population and resource intake and export exponentially, I think that there will be people who's ego just requests: "stay in a rural area", and for those people there are like minded people, they will simply unionize with other agrarian unions to keep their agrarian way of life alive.

I guess I should elaborate that I don't foresee a circumstance in which agrarian unions will be starved, since they could just unionize together and pitch together resources since the ability to transport resources large distances does infact exist, and perhaps they could import jetfuel from the high tech cities in exchange for fine crafts that only a rural town could make or something