Socialism - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

alelsupreme wrote:

Thought that was Syndicalism? Though I suppose it could be defined as the intended end-result of socialism/communism.

My understanding of syndicalism is that the individual factories/workplaces/etc which are owned and controlled by workers themselves form a syndicate with other factories to coordinate the economy. I think that a lot of "Communist" countries with absolutely centralized governments like to pretend that their government functions as the syndicate, but my understanding is that syndicates should work more from the bottom-up, whereas countries like Cuba work top-down.

It's all very confusing with these terms that have been twisted or eliminated due to their connotations.
_________________

Satie

Jasonconfused wrote:

My understanding of syndicalism is that the individual factories/workplaces/etc which are owned and controlled by workers themselves form a syndicate with other factories to coordinate the economy. I think that a lot of "Communist" countries with absolutely centralized governments like to pretend that their government functions as the syndicate, but my understanding is that syndicates should work more from the bottom-up, whereas countries like Cuba work top-down.

It's all very confusing with these terms that have been twisted or eliminated due to their connotations.

there's no pretending that a country like the Soviet Union or pre-Dengist China had very coordinated economies. they just did. and I don't think either one ever pretended to be a "syndicate," seeing as that's just a fad word made up by people who want to be communists without actually doing the hard work of fundamentally changing the economy of entire nation states or the planet, instead opting for silly co-ops in the forest where they and their petite bourgeois friends can get naked and do nothing for the proletariat whatsoever. neither country, for all the hysterical ramblings of contemporary anarchists, had any illusions about being large centralized states since, again, if people would bother to read Marx, that's a necessary step on the road to the eventual dissolution of the state apparatus worldwide. how, pray tell, do syndicates work from the bottom up in the present day without the transitional period allowed by a large centralized apparatus transforming the economy?

i'm also still getting stuck on this "should" word, because there's literally no coordinated economic apparatus anywhere on the planet, capitalist or non-, that works "from the bottom up," and yet those apparatuses in the US have created wage stagnation and a complete lack of access to healthcare for those on the bottom, while those apparatuses in Cuba have created the greatest healthcare system on the planet and even stopped the transmission of HIV from mother to in utero child, so...

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

permafrost wrote:

i'm also still getting stuck on this "should" word, because there's literally no coordinated economic apparatus anywhere on the planet, capitalist or non-, that works "from the bottom up," and yet those apparatuses in the US have created wage stagnation and a complete lack of access to healthcare for those on the bottom, while those apparatuses in Cuba have created the greatest healthcare system on the planet and even stopped the transmission of HIV from mother to in utero child, so...

I'm not sure any system could ever work. Sacrifices always need to be made because resources are limited and corruption is inevitable. Of course sacrificing the health of an abundant number of people for the wealth of a few should never be an option
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Satie

meccalecca wrote:

I'm not sure any system could ever work. Sacrifices always need to be made because resources are limited and corruption is inevitable. Of course sacrificing the health of an abundant number of people for the wealth of a few should never be an option

I agree. I'm criticizing the notion that there is a "should" to an already hypothetical system, syndicalism. Seems to put the cart before the horse to say how something "should" operate before it's ever been tested in the real world. I see people get carried away with what an ideal system would/should look like without spending any amount of time reading history or the news to see what's being tried now and what could or could not be improved.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

permafrost wrote:

I agree. I'm criticizing the notion that there is a "should" to an already hypothetical system, syndicalism. Seems to put the cart before the horse to say how something "should" operate before it's ever been tested in the real world. I see people get carried away with what an ideal system would/should look like without spending any amount of time reading history or the news to see what's being tried now and what could or could not be improved.

Absolutely. The only way to improve is to learn from history. Otherwise you'll just continue to repeat it.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

permafrost wrote:

that's just a fad word made up by people who want to be communists without actually doing the hard work of fundamentally changing the economy of entire nation states or the planet, instead opting for silly co-ops in the forest where they and their petite bourgeois friends can get naked and do nothing for the proletariat whatsoever.

This doesn't even warrant a response.

permafrost wrote:

neither country, for all the hysterical ramblings of contemporary anarchists, had any illusions about being large centralized states since, again, if people would bother to read Marx, that's a necessary step on the road to the eventual dissolution of the state apparatus worldwide. how, pray tell, do syndicates work from the bottom up in the present day without the transitional period allowed by a large centralized apparatus transforming the economy?

i'm also still getting stuck on this "should" word, because there's literally no coordinated economic apparatus anywhere on the planet, capitalist or non-, that works "from the bottom up," and yet those apparatuses in the US have created wage stagnation and a complete lack of access to healthcare for those on the bottom, while those apparatuses in Cuba have created the greatest healthcare system on the planet and even stopped the transmission of HIV from mother to in utero child, so...

True, neither of those countries shied from calling their government a dictatorship. No doubt, but I was referring to all their rhetoric about workers' control.

As for the "should" word, I agree we should learn from history, but I don't buy the argument that just because something hasn't already been done that we should just erase it from our ideals.
_________________

Satie

Jasonconfused wrote:

This doesn't even warrant a response.

"oh my poor feelings why can't i be a leftist without actually talking to a poor"

Jasonconfused wrote:

True, neither of those countries shied from calling their government a dictatorship. No doubt, but I was referring to all their rhetoric about workers' control.

"rhetoric" about workers' control

Laughing

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

permafrost wrote:

"oh my poor feelings why can't i be a leftist without actually talking to a poor"

I live in the poorest part of LA dumbass. Sorry if that doesn't fulfill your beautifully romantic notion of the proletariat.
_________________

CubaZed

Jasonconfused wrote:

I live in the poorest part of LA dumbass.

Straight into Compton.

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

CubaZed wrote:

Straight into Compton.

http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/v...hood/list/

I live in front of Chesterfield Square Park. But I guess I'm afraid of talking to poor people.
_________________