4 ms·

> by law you cannot gain ownership of it by providing capital How do you stop (say) a hundred people getting together and agreeing to do just that, without hav

> by law you cannot gain ownership of it by providing capital How do you stop (say) a hundred people getting together and agreeing to do just that, without having a state? Most people prefer job security rather than part ownership (revealed preference).

abdullahkhalids 9y ago
I was waiting for this response. Anarcho-syndicalists are not revolutionaries. They don't want to upend the entire system in one go, only make simple changes that get them what they want. So really, anarcho-syndicalists are (temporarily) happy with a democratic system, with a state that enforces laws through standard methods (police etc). Once this particular change has been made they will go after other unreasonable hierarchy [1] besides wealth-inequality and try to come up with a solution for them. This methodology is not very different from that of socialist democracies, who very slowly over decades have expanded the network of protections and services offered by the state, in service of their goal of a benevolent democratic state that takes care of all its citizens. [1] Remember, anarchists (Chomsky style at least) want a society free of unreasonable hierarchies - where "unreasonable" is up for debate.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  So, they will forcefully prevent people from doing what they want with their property, even when that doesn't affect others. This differs from what we have today how?
  - abdullahkhalids 9y ago
    I don't think I fully understand what you mean. But I will take your comment literally and try to answer. I apologize if I misunderstood. I think every politico-economic system stops people from doing certain things - that is an inevitable consequence if a group of people with possibly conflicting goals want to cooperate for mutual benefit. The whole debate between different ideologies is what to stop people from and why. As I said anarcho-syndicalists are evolutionaries who want to start by making one simple change to our current democratic-capitalist systems - nerf the power of capital to further gain wealth (what). And they want to do this to reduce income inequality in society (why). This proposal changes our current systems in just this way. Its not intending to change the fundamental framework of law, order, economy, politics; just merely changing some laws and economic subsystems of of current framework. Anarcho-syndicalists are not rosy-eyed people that believe in the fundamental goodness of people - but realists who want to improve society through standard democratic ways. I hope I answered your question; if not I would happy if you explained a bit more.
    - mdpopescu 9y ago
      I was trying to understand the reason for the word "anarchist" in there. What you described can be equally applied to most liberals. Indeed, Bernie Sanders would verbally agree with impoverishing countries (because that's what preventing capital from growing means), and I don't believe he has ever claimed to be an anarchist. Anyway, I understand your position and I'm just quibbling about terminology, so I believe I'll stop here.

abdullahkhalids 9y ago

I was waiting for this response. Anarcho-syndicalists are not revolutionaries. They don't want to upend the entire system in one go, only make simple changes that get them what they want. So really, anarcho-syndicalists are (temporarily) happy with a democratic system, with a state that enforces laws through standard methods (police etc). Once this particular change has been made they will go after other unreasonable hierarchy [1] besides wealth-inequality and try to come up with a solution for them. This methodology is not very different from that of socialist democracies, who very slowly over decades have expanded the network of protections and services offered by the state, in service of their goal of a benevolent democratic state that takes care of all its citizens. [1] Remember, anarchists (Chomsky style at least) want a society free of unreasonable hierarchies - where "unreasonable" is up for debate.

mdpopescu 9y ago
So, they will forcefully prevent people from doing what they want with their property, even when that doesn't affect others. This differs from what we have today how?
- abdullahkhalids 9y ago
  I don't think I fully understand what you mean. But I will take your comment literally and try to answer. I apologize if I misunderstood. I think every politico-economic system stops people from doing certain things - that is an inevitable consequence if a group of people with possibly conflicting goals want to cooperate for mutual benefit. The whole debate between different ideologies is what to stop people from and why. As I said anarcho-syndicalists are evolutionaries who want to start by making one simple change to our current democratic-capitalist systems - nerf the power of capital to further gain wealth (what). And they want to do this to reduce income inequality in society (why). This proposal changes our current systems in just this way. Its not intending to change the fundamental framework of law, order, economy, politics; just merely changing some laws and economic subsystems of of current framework. Anarcho-syndicalists are not rosy-eyed people that believe in the fundamental goodness of people - but realists who want to improve society through standard democratic ways. I hope I answered your question; if not I would happy if you explained a bit more.
  - mdpopescu 9y ago
    I was trying to understand the reason for the word "anarchist" in there. What you described can be equally applied to most liberals. Indeed, Bernie Sanders would verbally agree with impoverishing countries (because that's what preventing capital from growing means), and I don't believe he has ever claimed to be an anarchist. Anyway, I understand your position and I'm just quibbling about terminology, so I believe I'll stop here.