Ask an anarcho-syndicalist and member of the Industrial Workers of The World (IWW) union anything
Documentary about the history of the IWW: youtube.com
One hour of IWW music: youtu.be
Anarcho Syndicalism: en.wikipedia.org
Anarcho-Syndicalism: An introduction: libcom.org
Anarchy works: A simple Q&A style book: theanarchistlibrary.org
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
libcom.org
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
upworthy.com
economicsdetective.com
marxists.org
youtube.com
archive.org
twitter.com
You need to include national syndicalism and Sorelianism m8.
No. Solidarity is the defining principle of unionism.
Workers have to stand together if we ever want to take back control of our lives, instead of fighting amongst each other giving porky exactly what he wants
You clearly don't know a lot about national syndicalism or Sorelianism then.
You can have international solidarity without dissolving the nation or national borders. All of the anti-nation bullshit is why the left is seen as a joke in the eyes of white blue collar workers.
Apart from all the times it was popular with white blue collar workers, right?
>what is Appalachia
>what is Catalonia
>what is Russia
>What is Yugoslavia
>etc... etc...
>what is catalonia
You mean the area that was run by anarcho-syndicalist labour unions?
en.wikipedia.org
I'm not sure what point you were actually trying to make?
How do you become a member and do you get anything for it?
>how do you become a member
Just contact your local branch, the fees are based on your income
>do you get anything for it
I highly doubt you will at this point, it's very small thanks to brutal, brutal (like union leaders strung up on the street) repression by the US gov. You should really look up your labour history, it might make you wonder why you're not taught about it in school.
en.wikipedia.org
If you can unionise your fellow workers without getting caught however...
I live in the southeastern part of US so dont think there is a branch around me. Unions might as well be communism to people around here.
is it tough living with brain damage?
The most interesting part is the 'redneck' states used to be the most socialist/communist states, look up Eugene v Debs and his elections, look at where most of his votes came from.
That's actually where the term redneck comes from.
And here's an article from the 20's that might interest you: libcom.org
Funny how when whites and blacks stood together porky was most threatened, hmm...
Why are nearly all existing IWW chapters nothing more than Noam Chomsky personality cults?
Not an argument.
Also I'm obviously a libertarian socialist (which you should be able to tell by reading 1 word of the OP) so I'm not sure what a photo of dead fidel is meant to mean.
Because he's a huge anarcho-syndicalist intellectual.
I thought I read somewhere that MLK was turning to socialism shortly before he was killed. Is that right.
>Because he's a huge anarcho-syndicalist intellectual.
Perhaps, but isn't it kind of hypocritical for anarchists to attack Marxist-Leninists for having alleged "personality cults" around Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Mao then?
If not, could you explain why?
His last speech was talking to a bunch of union members about economic inequality.
Not to mention he was despised at the time, and the fucking leader of the FBI sent him a letter asking him to commit suicide.
It's pretty obvious who killed him.
Come on, it's not literally a personality cult like marxist-leninists have, we just look up to him because he's super knowledgeable.
>Come on, it's not literally a personality cult like marxist-leninists have, we just look up to him because he's super knowledgeable.
Still though. That's the same justification MLs have for posting their figures' faces everywhere.
And honestly, Chomsky really isn't that great. He's nothing more than a quasi-CPUSA johnny-come-lately. His political praxis is... outdated, to say the least.
He's actually incredibly knowledgeable though, and he's not responsible for anyone dying,
bump
>looking at the IWW website
>mfw I learn they have a sex trade workers' sub-union
I found this trying to lookup more info on the IWW, thought you might like it.
youtube.com
>and he's not responsible for anyone dying,
That's beside the point though. The issue we're talking about here is personality cults and over-the-top reverence.
I can say nearly every IWW chapter I've been involved with (three to be exact) really is a Chomsky cult. The praxis they keep putting out is highly outdated and doesn't account for existing conditions. They're basically dealing with fantasy scenarios.
Don't you see this as a serious weakness in regards to an-syn?
He's liked for his well researched criticisms of US foreign policy and generally being an interesting/popular intellectual. Beyond that I don't know why they like him because his politics are pretty shit and he has often promoted reformist politics. Then again I'm probably being unfair because his interests lie outside specific forms of organizing. He himself admitted he isn't very well read on anarchist theory.
So is the IWW currently in support of a centralized or decentralized management structure?
How large is your membership?
Are you 12? What's interesting/funny about that?
Heard it, I love it man.
This will interest you: en.wikipedia.org
The biggest armed uprising since the civil war was a bunch of left-wing 'rednecks'
Don't buy into the Sup Forums memes about working class whites
Do you have any actual specific criticisms of chomsky?
Syndicalism itself is generally outdated for the US. I don't think that style of organizing would work outside the developing world like China. Would still rather join a revolutionary union over the regular corporate faggots.
Not at all, I fully support this.
Ahh okay, I thought you were just >huehuehue sex xD
It's decentralised in that it's completely member run, we decide what to do instead of some cunt at the top.
And barely anything, less than 100.
Oh I don't buy the Sup Forums memes about the working class but I just recently turned to leftism because I worked for walmart for a while and the working conditions were terrible for even more terrible pay.
You people are retarded and structure your worldview entirely around your own perceived victim hood and an economic understanding of the world that is about 150 years out of date.
t. Industrial Worker
>Do you have any actual specific criticisms of chomsky?
Yeah, and I already stated them (as did ): anarcho-syndicalism is an outdated theory and practice. Chomsky keeps pushing the same crap he's been advocating since the 1970s with very little change. We know at this point that if anarcho-syndicalism had any real application for today or was relevant in today's conditions, that's what leftists around the world would be fighting for (and don't say "muh Rojava" because 1. the Kurds are highly factionalized, 2. the Kurds have a very hierarchical command structure, and 3. the Kurds are not necessarily practicing "anarcho-syndicalism" by the book if we're going to go by that standard).
Speaking of the Kurds, we can argue Democratic Confederalism is a new theory that's up-to-date for the modern day, as are Autonomism, Green Anarchism, refusal-to-work ideology, Bolivarianism, indigenism, Fourth Political Theory and such (note: I don't agree with most of these ideologies, I'm just pointing this out to you). At this point, the workers of the world aren't going to unite over a common "worker" identity. Oppressed peoples today across the globe are primarily identifying with national, racial, or religious lines first and foremost. Unless anarchists take this shit into account I doubt they'll succeed.
Alright, I propose that the new generation is open to leftist ideas in a way that we haven't seen since the 30s.
With this in mind, what is the IWW doing to take advantage of this, and are there any like-minded workers' groups that you are in collusion with?
>walmart
Damn I'm sorry to hear that, they're a fucking disgusting company
en.wikipedia.org
upworthy.com
Yeah, no chances of unionising there lol.
That's not specific, you haven't actually explained why it's outdated or won't work. That's just like saying "socialism only works in theory"
What if you hate immigrants and the pig
Then you're being spooked by porky. That's an age old divide and conquer tactic and I can't believe people still fall for it.
In the UK they just won representation for cleaners IIRC, and they're growing in membership over there pretty rapidly. Goes without saying that general socialist parties are involved with us.
I've given you one significant reason (which implies you aren't reading most of what I'm trying to argue): if we look at the world today we see very few cases of anarcho-syndicalism being put into practice, and certainly not on a large scale. That in itself indicates that the theory is irrelevant to the modern day, similar to Maoism or "orthodox" Marxism.
And I've already said but I'll repeat: most left-wing theories that are being practiced today on a large scale are not syndicalist but left-wing nationalist. We see it in Bolivarianism, Kurdish nationalism, 4PT, Juche, Islamic Socialism, the new wave of African nationalism, even Black Lives Matter and the re-emergence of radical Latinx groups fit the bill to some degree. In fact, BLM is arguably much more radical than Occupy ever was, and Occupy most certainly had some elements which overlapped with an-syn.
I don't see myself as a victim of capitalism. I'm pretty well off, all things considered. I became a socialist after I realized capitalism was incredibly inefficient and leading us down a path of crisis
kys wobbly scum
>Then you're being spooked by porky. That's an age old divide and conquer tactic and I can't believe people still fall for it.
Yeah, bullshit
I can be anti immigrant and anti porky
What do you you have against corporatism? (That is state-syndicalism)
>That's not specific, you haven't actually explained why it's outdated or won't work. That's just like saying "socialism only works in theory"
In service economies the number of workers at any particular workplace tend to be very small. This is especially true for those that might be interested in a union due to shit pay. Given such a situation it's not difficult for employers to just replace the workforce so even if it takes a while to get things running smoothly they will prefer a short term loss over having to actually provide decent pay/benefits. Only way to prevent this would be an large union that would hunt down scabs and prevent new hiring.
I think there are a few industries this kind of organizing might maybe work, but they're controlled by corporate unions. China and the rest of the developing economies would be able to make much greater use of Syndicalism than we could.
I'd still join. Syndicalist unions are great, but I don't see it as a means for revolution.
>anarcho-syndicalist
COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!
HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED!
still ends up with the bosses controlling the power, even more so
>I became a socialist after I realized capitalism was incredibly inefficient and leading us down a path of crisis
How is capitalism inefficient exactly, and how, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, do you you believe socialism is somehow more efficient a system?
Yes, I'd think the only places were an-syn could still be doable are China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and all those other nations which have been turned into giant sweatshops.
Of course, in most of the places where people are resisting imperialism they're almost always doing so on national/religious lines rather than proletarian/worker ones. Good luck convincing the Palestinians to form their own IWW as a means of fighting Israel.
I don't see it that way at all. To view our economic system as "the end of history" is just silly. I'd like to know where you got your understanding of economics because I don't see an economic argument in your post.
>Only way to prevent this would be an large union that would hunt down scabs and prevent new hiring.
And how is this incompatible with anarcho-syndicalism? I'm not proposing it be the exact same as it was 150 years ago.
>To view our economic system as "the end of history" is just silly.
So is believing all of the people who disagree with you are either Francis Fukuyama or share your ridiculous notions of historical determinism.
>I'd like to know where you got your understanding of economics because I don't see an economic argument in your post.
Here and there. Where I got it doesn't matter. It wasn't even an argument, just airing a grievance.
Let me explain better. In terms of economic efficiency what do you have against the system of corporatism in which each industry electing two representatives, one by the workers one by the owners with all regulation having to pass between both representatives.
This allows for many positives such as truly minimalist regulation (only regulation that doesn't cause economic harm will remain) along with the effiency of central planning+the perpetual growth of regular capitalism. This is further bolstered by the State using the syndicates as cartels in order to make the domestic economy run under the "perfect" competition market structure while running under oligopoly on the international stage/global economy.
>effiency of central planning
kek
For all the burgers and yuroes who don't get the whole union meme:
Australia as you well know was formed by shipping the dregs of Britain off to the colonies.
Anyway years later after much inbreeding, their spawnlings still take after their British second cousins in
>political ineptness
>economic bankruptcy
>moral degradation
The stupid, lazy and shoulder-chipped joined unions, and nowadays union membership is at an all time low, forcing unions to take up other rorts, while the pleb leaders steal from their own orgs to pay for hookers lmao.
That's pretty much it, have a nice day also sage
Yea the regularly change my schedule from 4pm-1am to 7am-4pm at least with a day off between but it gives me no consistency to my life. They even tried to get me to work the 4-1 shift and then come back for the 7-4 shift once or twice
Central planning has effiency in terms of singular tasks/objectives.
Such as industrialization and the like, eventually automation.
A level of central planning would greatly reduce the damage of full automation for our market economies, along with speeding up the process.
This effiency at singular tasks is pretty much the only efficient thing about central planning, I don't see why we shouldn't adapt it for capitalism's sake.
Because the capitalist still holds the most power in society as they own the means of production.
Fuck off you rich cunt, shouldn't you be at private school now?
There's only one solution
I don't really like him but I do believe that Bernie would have taken on walmart, could have been pretty great.
Shit will change eventually, don't give up hope.
The fundamental economic motive under capitalism is profit. Now you can become profitable by making things more efficient, but you can just as easily do it by planned obsolescence and ripping off workers.
I don't think state ownership/central planning is the solution to this, but rather market socialism, which empowers workers and consumers in a way that allows them to take back control of the political economy from the capitalists.
as long as the bosses have control of the distribution of profits, they will always have greater power than the workers
>Because the capitalist still holds the most power in society as they own the means of production
What does it matter who "owns the means of production"? As long as economic growth and efficiency is maximized what is the problem? Give social mobility and maximal employment and soon enough the majority of society will be bourgeois.
Italy tried that and it resulted in the most pathetic economy in all of Europe that wasn't in the middle of a civil war.
>editing the actual Corporate Jew out of the picture with a meme made by the Jew to deflect from himself, and instead put pressure on white Anglos as the face of capitalism
typical useful idiot commie.
This is absolute advanced stupidity.
>he can tell the ethnicity of a top hat wearing anthropomorphic pig
porky is a representative of capitalists of every race and religion
good goy, Jews dindu nuffin.
>pointy nose
take a hike, kike.
In such a system traditionally wages and the like are set by collective bargaining between the collectives of the workers and the collectives of the owners.
If both parties voluntarily agree what does it matter if one party has more power than the other? Does not both parties rely on each other? Does not the weaker strive to one day join the ranks of the mightier?
Which among the "proletarian" says "I do not wish to become another of the bourgeois" none of them says this in their hearts.
The economy is a system of cogs, it shall not operate without both parties but the higher is still higher and the higher should always be strived for.
What I'm saying is, what does it matter when ultimately such an agreement would help all involved parties to the maximum degree possible?
it's a pig
How about the workers set the wages themselves, literally what reason is there for the owners to exist
a pig literally made as a caricature of WASPs, created by your radical Jewish left overlords. stay ignorant, goy.
Of course it is. That's literally what they were doing before the unions got destroyed. I don't think organizing is realistic given current circumstances. Still worth organizing, but I don't see it as having revolutionary potential in the west.
>So is believing all of the people who disagree with you are either Francis Fukuyama or share your ridiculous notions of historical determinism.
I don't believe that though. I assume the historical determinism remark is an attack on Marx, but that doesn't do service to his evolving view of the world.
>Here and there. Where I got it doesn't matter. It wasn't even an argument, just airing a grievance.
Then why post? Better to lift or fap than bring down board quality.
Germany also tried it.
1/2
Wasn't that due to Keynesian investment though? Through the autobahn and whatnot?
Funny how when someone like Sanders proposes the same he's a socialist jew
>Central planning has effiency in terms of singular tasks/objectives.
How so?
>Such as industrialization and the like, eventually automation.
Then why did massive central planning practices in places like India fail to bring them into being an industrialized economy for almost fifty years? Why did so many New Deal programs waste such tremendous amounts of resources and get so little done?
>A level of central planning would greatly reduce the damage of full automation for our market economies, along with speeding up the process.
So how is automation dangerous, and what is "full automation" and how is it supposedly possible? This being said, why do you want to bring it about?
>This effiency at singular tasks is pretty much the only efficient thing about central planning, I don't see why we shouldn't adapt it for capitalism's sake.
Why do we need it for capitalism's sake?
>The fundamental economic motive under capitalism is profit.
"Profit" describes the process of getting a return on some sort of investment. It isn't a goal in itself. Unless you mean the only goal is "to profit" in which case your idea of most "capitalists" seems to be something tantamount to scrooge mcduck. So if profit, or more accurately making profit, is a only means to an end, then why do you ascribe it to being an end in itself?
>Now you can become profitable by making things more efficient, but you can just as easily do it by planned obsolescence and ripping off workers.
Planned obsolescence doesn't exist. How are people "ripping off workers".
>I don't think state ownership/central planning is the solution to this, but rather market socialism, which empowers workers and consumers in a way that allows them to take back control of the political economy from the capitalists.
How does it "empower workers and consumers" and "allow them to take back control of the political economy" and why do they want it back from "the capitalists".
2/2
The Nazis privatized the shit out of most things and wiped out the trade unions. Public projects weren't enough.
By what right does the owner control all the profits?
From his hard work? ha
Because he invested his inherited money to found the business? kek
Because his class controls politics and government, using force to maintain his inequal control of the capital
Unless you think people with name like Rothschild, Rockefeller, and Koch have REALLY earned their money, rather than skimming a disproportionate amount off the top for themselves.
All studies indicate that the more wealth one has the greater their intellect is.
It is the incentive to do more, to become more efficient, to work harder.
The possibility that you or your children will have it easier than you.
Not to mention that the greater your intellect is, the better you will allocate your resources.
If ever-advancing intelligence, efficient resource usage and perpetual wealth building isn't enough for you, there is no suitable answer.
Comrade, could you please respond to the stuff I said earlier about anarchism's failure to take the new wave of left-wing nationalisms into account?
How do you propose we answer this Jewish question? We can't just eradicate a whole people for being Jewish, user.
Germany privatized, Italy nationalized. Germany also made smarter investments and Italy was often more of a hindrance than a benefit during the war. They're economies were very different.
This is next level of ideology
>All studies indicate that the more wealth one has the greater their intellect is.
What? Please cite me something here. There is no correlation between individual intelligence (measured as IQ) and wealth, but there is a correlation of collective IQ (across nations, ethnicities, etc.) and wealth.
economicsdetective.com
Working-class Jews are not the problem
(((They))) have inequal representation in the ruling class because of history and reasons.
Eliminate the boss class, you eliminate the bad jews.
>thinks the Jewish problem doesn't work from the top down
Oh, so you're larping. Next.
All you really said is nationalism is currently popular, I don't think just because something is the status quo we should conform to it.
Anarchism is INHERENTLY opposed to nationalism, it's literally impossible for it to take nationalism into account.
Central planning worked well for war economies and in industrializing the Soviet Union. Not sure what standard you're judging by, but their efforts were more rapid and generally more humane than western industrialization or the nightmare you see in India. If we're not talking about capitalism then discussing the pros and cons of each is pure speculation as we have yet to see socialism.
>from the top down
exactly, cut off the head, and the body falls with it
If unions were non-political and didn't love feminism and niggers, I'd consider being a member.
Now they are against me as a working class white male. Why should I be for them?
Non-political unions would be far better than the current shit we have in my country. They are useless, inefficient and incompetent.
unions are about economics
economics is ALWAYS inherently political
How are they against the white workingman?
What are we going to do about the Irish though? Potato people are rotten top to bottom too.
>I don't think just because something is the status quo we should conform to it.
Of course not. But we have to take it into account if anarchism is going to be a far-reaching movement.
Take, for instance, this whole burqa ban stuff that's been going around Europe for a while. Muslim immigrants see it as an attack on their IDENTITY whether they're religious or not, and immediately start to identify colonialism and repression with hatred of their religious identity. So naturally, they identify with the reactionary elements of their religion and traditional cultures even more. How does anarcho-syndicalism respond?
Perhaps this is just a caricatured version of the real issue here, but you understand where I'm going with this.
Don't reply to retards.
>Central planning worked well for war economies and in industrializing the Soviet Union. Not sure what standard you're judging by, but their efforts were more rapid and generally more humane than western industrialization or the nightmare you see in India
What? Industrialization in the Soviet Union was a fucking disaster.
youtube.com
do you work in a factory? what do you make?
affirmative action for one. It gives all races a one up on me, but nobody gives a fuck about the white male in manufacturing.
furthermore, negotiating about better benefits doesn't have to be political in the sense of waving a fucking red flag and singing communist songs.
It can be completely unpolitical, and just about the sheer economics of the situation.
Socialist unions are utter shit. Corrupt and inefficient. I'd rather have a nationalist union.
I bet you haven't worked a honest days work in your life. You fucking useless maggot. And if you were at work, you were hardly working so everybody hated you.
ofc socialists don't work. It's against their entire reason to exist. They are disgusting welfare cases who talk for the working class while leaching on us. Ever read animal farm? they are the pigs in that story and in our lives. To live off the working mans taxes is fucking disgusting if you care about working people.
We should fight pro-nationalism with pro-worker movement.
And let's be honest, the whole burqa ban thing is an attack on their identity. It's stupid and goes against libertarian principles, religion was starting to die out in europe we don't need to make their beliefs stronger.
Animal Farm was written by a communist
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.
Economics is about who gets what, so it IS politics.
When labor has the power, we won't need affirmative action, because workers will be in control, and you will be judged by your merits, not your willingness to slave away for the boss.
Affirmative action is a policy that inherently weakens unions, as it works against senority and merit, two things that help keep a union honest.