This is really just posted for your reading entertainment. I thought it was interesting to have a conversation with a devout anarchosyndicalist, and thought others might possibly enjoy seeing it.
This conversation began when the VERY VERY ACTIVE (has been arrested) Anarchosyndicalist posted a link to a news story I had already read.
The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online
This anarchosyndicalist activist is a close family relative of mine... So, I decided it was time to have a conversation. I'd think the "anarcho" part of our philosophical mentalities would provide an excellent common ground...
JohnsonI loved this article, (I have the wired RSS feed on my homepage) I thought it was really fascinating, although ultimately somewhat wrong. He dodges around it in his article, but I think the point Kevin Kelly ultimately misses is the aspect of force. He's missing the major differences between volunteering help for ones own enlightened selfish ends, and being forced to volunteer for the benefit of a collective from which you stand to gain nothing. That's why, what is happening now, is neither communism, nor socialism. The baggage that he couldn't seem to describe that is attached to those words, comes from people being killed if they didn't fit into the box of those ideologies.
People contribute to open source because they WANT to, not becuase they need to. The programmers that do it usually have selfish goals.... IE: They want to learn and helping on this project will help them learn... They want recognition... they will use the software... etc etc They WANT to. No force.
On a totally different level though, I also commented to a friend, that I like this article becuase I feel the way it is written is part of a first wave of attacks on the word Socialism. I like this becuase I had to sit through watching the word Libertarian be totally destroyed by asshat right wing Republicans that have totally redefined a group which USED TO have at it's core a pledge that said "I do not support the use of force for political or social gain" into a group of warmongering bigots whose weekend hobbies include fellating Jesus with one hand but then beating up gays with the other.
Anarchosyndicalistso you disliked his word choice then?
I probably agree with you then if its about not liking words being co-opted by dictators and governments.
JohnsonYeah, Bob Barr and Fox News really messed up the Libertarian party due to an overflow of nutjobs from the Republican party extremists that decided to bring their awful hate-filled xenophobic ways into the Libertarian Party. They destroyed it.
I feel like the word socialism, as it stands now, DOES carry baggage, just like he said. I don't feel he properly understood or addressed that this baggage comes from the fact that the ideology of socialism has a negative reputation becuase it is an ideology of force. The only socialist governments the world has ever seen have achieved their power through violence, threats, and theft. That is generally how socialism works.
People forget that capitalism, without the backing of force, is merely self interest. If two self-interested people can benefit one another, it is in their best interest to do so. Win-Win. If not, they can leave each other alone. It is the FORCE that causes problems, creates unintended consequences, and messy losses for all.
Anarchosyndicalistand if people want to form cooperatives and collectives, that's fine too, right?
JohnsonCooperatives, collectives, kibbutzim, even unions. As long as it's all voluntary. My view for example on Unions is that they are valuable as a negotiation point for leverage for a worker. However, I don't think unions should be forced on employers by governments. In a free society, an employer should be free to hire who they want, and an employee should be free to choose their employer. It should be a freely negotiated contract. It's the same reason why I don't believe in a minimum or maximum wage set by threat of force. I believe in a threat of persuasion. IE: If you don't pay me enough, if work conditions stink - I'm free to leave and find a better job.
If we didn't have government regulations and legislation creating monopolies, a company that treated its employees poorly in our free society, would quickly find that it had lost it's workforce to a newly founded competitor.
Anarchosyndicalistor those employees might drive the employer out with a pitch fork and take over the workplace.
JohnsonThat would be theft, and a peaceful reasonable employer would be well within his right to either A. Burn his business to the ground or B. Shoot the thieves on site. (or both)
People should not feel ENTITLED to anything in this world. Feeling entitled leads to a very bitter and hateful existence. Feeling like you were not empowered, and that the world just didn't provide the right opportunities is a path to true self loathing. That's the type of mentality that leads people to steal from others what they did not earn.
Unfortunately, in the CORPORATE world we live in, the world of force and aggression, people feel they have to steal, becuase if you try to just start a business without begging for government protection in the form of incorporation and having to follow all their nonsense rules, someone will buy violence from the government and steal your business and property from you. (by using the police and courts)
That system sets apart classes. We shouldn't be granting individual rights to collectives.
While I think that individuals should be able to FORM collectives... I don't think that GROUPS should have rights.
Responsibility for ACTIONS should always fall on the heads of individuals. This is the PRIMARY reason why corporations are so awful... They have purchased protection from the Government, which has an overall monopoly on violence, in the form of incorporation SPECIFICALLY to protect individuals from responsibility. That system is BROKEN.
AnarchosyndicalistAgreed on individual vs. collective rights.
On people taking over the business, that employer who tried to burn it down or shoot the occupiers might quickly find himself outnumbered, since there are many more employees than employers.
Just saying, that without the protection of the government, you might see private enterprise quickly become public.
JohnsonOr... you'd quickly see businesses competing for employees that were loyal, trustworthy, hard workers, while the looters and thieves who felt entitled quickly begin to realize that if their fellow workers are willing to steal from the employer who owns a business that provided them a job, in order to provide for themselves and their families, then that same person would have NO issues stealing from coworkers, and fighting to get ahead when the opportunity arose, regardless of whether or not it was earned. The lack of honor would finally be on display for all. The infighting would quickly tear apart the collective until new leadership was chosen, and then the same mentality of entitlement and hatred of the haves vs have nots would begin anew.
Or...
After the collective overtook the place, killing the ownership, the whole thing would just be taken over by the State, and the employees would likely realize all the effort the former employer had to put in just to keep the company GOING as they now would be watching the bureaucrats and politicians pretend they know how to run the place, voting for ridiculous decisions, or leadership, and running the entire company into the ground, until the entire collective ends up completely out of work.
Freedom is life, liberty, and property. If one can't respect all three, one deserves none.
Anarchosyndicalistwe're doing this from the point of view that in this situation, the business owner is a jerk, and that employees took it over because of bad working conditions instead of leaving for other jobs, and that there is now no state to intercede.
Or at least that's what I thought from the original thread.
JohnsonI thought Anarchosyndicalists were down with the philosophy of Liberty. Property rights includes businesses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUMAnarchosyndicalistHey, we're just taking a look at this scenario of a future society. These things would happen whether or not anarchosyndicalists were involved or not.
Johnson"we're doing this from the point of view that in this situation, the business owner is a jerk, and that employees took it over because of bad working conditions instead of leaving for other jobs, and that there is now no state to intercede."
I didn't say no state entirely, I spoke about legislation and regulations creating MONOPOLIES, and if we didn't have THAT. I didn't ever make the claim that I want there to be no JUSTICE system. That would be lunacy. Now, I will concede that I would be willing to see a society experiment with private, and or competing justice systems, but in general... Life, Liberty, and Property should be protected and consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please and contract freely with one another as long as they are not aggressing upon their "neighbors". Yes, I definitely agree that if there were no justice system, employees would overrun and steal from badly run businesses. However, I think in a society focused on the elimination of aggression wherein capitalism was a voluntary enterprise, and individuals were held responsible, you'd see businesses (not corporations) that were very well behaved and responsible, and wealth and innovation would skyrocket - imho.
AnarchosyndicalistMaybe. Or they'd form private armies to enforce a new feudalism once those businesses got bigger and power corrupted those enlightened businesspeople's minds. Hard to say until we see it, yes?
JohnsonThat's not taking into account the above mentioned continuing existence of a justice system that is entirely focused on the elimination of the initiation of aggression. If justice were entirely focused on actual crimes with victims, and the guiding principles of justice took into account and focused on the principles of the use of FORCE; People seeking to aggress against peaceful individuals would probably be pretty swiftly dealt with. Not to mention the fact that people in such a society would be free and happy, and not take too kindly to a business trying to become a bunch of thugs like the days of old when Governments ruled through aggression rather than voluntaryism.
Anarchosyndicalist"People seeking to aggress against peaceful individuals would probably be pretty swiftly dealt with." And how would they be dealt with, exactly? Police, prisons, or merely exile to the moon?
JohnsonThe same justice system, in concert with Dispute Resolution Organizations in the cases where there exists a contract, would demand restitution for unlawful actions. The law would be enforced by police. This might be a governmental police force, this might be several private competing police forces. The guiding principle of the overall law still being the abrogation of wrongfully initiated force.
Anarchosyndicalistsweet. private armies of business. sounds like an excellent world to live in.
JohnsonI know right!? A totally peaceful place free of corporations where the ONLY driving motivation in business is to make people happy. The only way to succeed in business would be to actually work towards innovation, and with a justice system totally focused on preventing people from initiating force against one another, everyone would be voluntarily and mutually working towards each others benefit but with their own self interest at heart. With the means of "screwing people over" being eliminated by a system of justice totally focused on eliminating the use of force, it would be a win-win system designed with the basest of human instincts and drives in mind. It would be simplicity incarnate. Why have so many laws and regulations that no human being can ever read them in a lifetime, when you can have a justice system instead focused on ensuring that all interaction between people occurs on a voluntary basis.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Author
Topic: Conversation with an Anarchosyndicalist Activist (Read 3555 times)