What's wrong with syndicalism as the economic component...

What's wrong with syndicalism as the economic component? Why would you want your country to surrender it's resources and productive infrastructure to globalist financial power. It should be organized by the workers. Ya dummies!

>flag

>reds and blacks shaking hands

shouldn't you be working during weekdays to be considered a worker

What are you even talking about? I didn't say anything about being a worker or not being a worker. I imagine in order to be a worker you just have to work.

> The workers always actually end up in control in commieland and it works out. Just open a history book!

Oh wait, it's a Swedish OP.

Sage.

The only thing we should oppose is the welfare state. It's a ponzi scheme. The best proven system now is Singapore. They force you to save for a limited amount of time for stuff like healthcare so other people don't need to ask handouts. After you saved a certain amount you are done. I agree, it does abuse your rights as a Libertarian, but it would be nice to try something different.
I'd also try communism in a western society, just to prove it's shit.

Despite it being shitty regardless it's only purpose is as a transitional phase in order to achieve Anarcho-communism.

Syndicalism isn't exactly communism as it has been implemented historically. Not that you'd know.

I do agree that results totally outweigh the ideology though. Note that 'free'-markets do not actually result in free enterprise and the ability to make your own life and pursue happiness in your own way e.t.c. It leads to a progressively larger top-down organization, the percentage of self-employed people is always trending downwards in western democracies. Look it up.

everytime threads like these pop up

they are allies, at least historically

Syndicalism has literally nothing to do with welfare. We can simplify it as 'democracy in the workplace'.

"self employed" is a term used by unemployed cucks who want to feel better. it's not something to aspire to.

What's socialism? Never heard of it. Are you in the wrong thread?

Yeah it is. People should not rent their time and principles to someone else, they should have a degree of sovereignty.

Wow you sure convinced me even though "the workers should seize the means" has never worked out. Ever. No amount of garbage you can type at us will ever change this. Maybe you should try this system out once you're done with your cultural enrichment? That way I won't feel so bad when the poor muzzies in Swedenistan get starved out.

Have another sage.

Sure, kid. You're really sticking it to "the man" with the help of Mom and Dad.

There is nothing wrong with syndicalism if you enjoy playing the slave role in BDSM for the rest of your life. :-p

Syndicalism is basically "Lets turn every industry into a monopoly and pretend that we all wont be price-gouged into oblivion". There are very few political systems that make less economic sense than this shit.

I guess you just don't realize that the cultural enrichment is driven by the forces I want removed. Peoples across Europe and the US reliably vote for sane culturally-conservative alternatives, but it has no effect because the real material power is private and not representing people.

>basically

No

Well it probably wouldn't work as efficiently as capitalism.
Otherwise we would have opted for it.
Efficiency in the purest sense. Not workers rights or any of that ideologue bs

>Sweden
>No

Pick one and only one

That's stupid. You can't even talk about efficiency without knowing what the goal is. If the goal is to make money for jewish banking interests then capitalism is hella efficient, unbeatable.

The goal of every economic enterprise is to generate added value i.e. profit, doesn't matter who owns it.

The way I understand it the staplers syndicate has to negotiate with the candy bar syndicate to determine how many good boy points they will sell their respective products to their workers for. If you're a scab (e.g. make a stapler in your own home and sell it for cheaper) you get shot.

Ok defend parasitism because muh homespun economic axiom. Got it. Good goy points for you.

We understand differently.

And then the food and water megaunions tell all the other unions to pay up 6 gorrrilion good boy points or die.
>get accused of defending parasitism
>by a pseudo-communist
self awareness level: sub-Saharan african
and some of understand it correctly...

Not an argument, mouthbreather.

It matters who owns it. If worker unions own a company they're going to leech on the profits for it's workers. For the sake of equality the company will be finacially in trouble. Look at french autoindustry or Volkswagen where unions are strong and the company fucked.

Or a patriotic elite.

Arguments are used to counter other arguments, you presented none and, thus, received none. Go collect some more welfare, Shaka.

what's the equivalent of chicken tendies when you're good? surstromming?

Kill yourself

Antifa is the embodiment of self-hatred.

If you want to pick a flag for your dystopian meme ideology, you might want to go with something less obvious.

I don't suggest that worker-owned companies would be immune to failure. Mismanagement of capital would and should be punished, just like it is in privately owned companies.

The reason you lack foreskin and I don't is because you care more about flag aesthetics than economics.

BWAHAHAHAHAH
No you dense cunt.
They always were allied of circumstances.
But as soon as the commies had the power they backstabbed and executed the anars.

There is plenty of room within the Right for worker private ownership of capital, and I think we need those voices, but as soon as you raise the red flag you are an enemy and need to be exterminated. There is no debate about it. Fuck off

In your system they would practically be immune to failure, because if the union folds, an industry vanishes and nobody will permit that. Any inefficiencies will be tolerated as the union will be too important to fail and will have an almost unlimited ability to be inefficient and still exist.

>democracy in the workplace
That sounds awful. Democracy is too slow and cumbersome, as well as easily manipulated, already.

What this user says.

National syndicalism is the ultimate redpill

It's not really a question of 'permitting'. Failure is failure, who would bail you out in the anarchic case? But what are the odds of an industry failing at all levels simultaneously.

Anyway there are variants of worker management that involve both independence and competition.

>who would bail you out in the anarchic case?
People that want your shit will "bail you out" by buying your overpriced shit, because no one else sell the shit you make.
>worker management that involve both independence and competition
Both of those are absent in syndicalism, the union owns the industry, thus it has no incentive to compete with itself or release control of individual segments that could put competitive pressure on them

this. fucking nu-Sup Forums are such good goys it's unbelievable

>"hey guys what do you think of working for our own betterment instead of the J-"
>"what are you a commie lololo get rekt son imma post this up on r_thedonald"

state of this place

>by buying overpriced shit.

I see. However if we suppose that a 'free-market'-system will also consolidate power and tend towards a monopoly then we have the exact same problem but no incentive to remove it.

In a free market system it is not illegal to start a business that isn't owned by the union to undercut the prices of the monopoly. Also, generally, in the free market system, the monopoly does not have the ability to directly control legislation regarding price-fixing as it is not a member of the ruling body.

>Why would you want your country to surrender it's resources and productive infrastructure to globalist financial power
No, we want to gas the jews