So why haven't you embraced anarcho-syndicalism yet Veeky Forums?

So you say you don't support workers' democratic control of the means of production, yet you call yourself leftist?

Same. Anarchism and communism are for idealist kids that feel the beed to belong to something and aren't intelligent enough to see the giant fucking flaw of those ideologies: reality, 'human nature', whatever you want to call it.

Need*

works for the mondragon worker cooperative corperation just fine

>I say that as a Leftist
Stopped reading there

Naturally, it was the end of the sentence.

I feel like Chomsky misunderstands the nature of power, and how hard it was for humans to create a culture that accepts the monopoly of violence.

When he talks about anarcho-anything, really what I hear is warlordism and constant territory disputes.

What I can agree with however, is that capitalism could have a better arbitration of the ownership of the means of production. But I mean, this can be solved within the capitalist system anyway, like the Mondragon Corporation.

Whilst Mondragon is worker operated and fairly democratic it would be a mistake to call it "anarchist" or "communist" on the count it's still fairly hierarchical.

it's literal syndicalism

I feel like Chomsky probably understands the "nature of power" better than random clowns on Veeky Forums that save motivational quotes.

Not all of their employees have ownership in the company. It's not.

Wow, what an stellar non-argument you stupid faggot.

yes, they do. all profits go to basque country.

No, it isn't. Reading up on the details of mondragon will reveal that it has quite an element of hierarchy in its structure still, although it incorporates a fairly well worker democratic structure.

Also, you confuse worker-coop organizational structure with the economy of syndicalism, which conflates with a participation in a market economy. Helps to know the meaning of the vocabulary you use.

>yes, they do. all profits go to basque country.
You're a fucking idiot.

>Vincent Navarro wrote that from a business perspective, Mondragon is successful in matching efficiency with solidarity and democracy. However, he writes that the number of employees who are not owners have increased more rapidly than worker-owners, to a point that in some companies, for example in the supermarket chains owned by Mondragon, the first are a much larger group than the second.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation#Reactions

It was objectively as good as yours.

Are you going to respond to my first post seriously or not?

Fuck off if you aren't.

I responded as seriously as it warranted. If you want me to deconstruct your post and why it's a non-argument so you can try again I'll do that.

syndicalism is not devoid of hierarchy. all unions have a hierarchical structure. the wages are agreed upon democratically between all members, which is the difference between trade unionism and syndicalism.

as a member of the ICA, they agree to their principles. you cant separate a federation of worker unions from syndicalism. that's how syndicalism works.

Lmao Noam Chomsky looks like me if I weren't a transwoman.

>workers' democratic control of the means of production

This is a recent alteraion and was never how Marx defined Socialism. I don't think Marx thought very highly of democracy as an inherent principle either and only presumed it to be a product of a Socialist means of production rather than its operating principle as recent Leftists tend to imagine, which I believe is really just a disguised invasion from the Social Democrat tradition.

I'm interested in why you think this.

>I responded as seriously as it warranted

So straight to insults are what anarchists consider proper argumentation?

yes, because it's voluntary. all members and the country get the surplus. so all worker-owners gain the from the surplus. they're not going to force people to join, that's not how syndicalism works.

I base it from Bordiga's reading of Marx and the Left Communist / Situationalist tradition.

I'm not an anarchist nor do I think my post was an argument. It was a flagrant insult, it just so happened that what it was responding to wasn't an argument either. In case you haven't noticed all my posts since have revolved around this theme.

If you're unclear about why your post was a non-argument would you like me to explain why?

>because it's voluntary
Okay
>all members and the country get the surplus
Okay
>so all worker-owners gain the from the surplus
This is where you go wrong. Not everyone who works for Mondragon is a worker-owner, a sizeable amount of them are just regular wage-labourers.
>they're not going to force people to join
If that's what you meant by "voluntary" I should you remind you that fully private capitalist enterprises don't do this either.

>it just so happened that what it was responding to wasn't an argument either

Sure it was. How wasn't it an argument?

Elaborate.

Okay, here I go.

>I feel like Chomsky misunderstands the nature of power
Why is that?
What is the nature of power?
What is "power"?
> and how hard it was for humans to create a culture that accepts the monopoly of violence.
You imply maintaining such a culture is a good thing, why is that?
> really what I hear is warlordism and constant territory disputes.
Why is this?

Without any reasoning behind your statements your post is just a soup of hot opinions. You may as well have just said "Chomsky is dumb" and it would have been of the same quality.

Its essentially in the commitment that the dictatorship of the proletariate should be taken quite seriously and literally but not in the naive Stalinist sense of dictatorship.
That rather than having idealistic trust in the the contignently dependent and arbitrarily produced consensus of public opinion that it is the role of any Marxist rather instead to entrust the analytically devised platform above all else, against all else. That the downfall of Lenin and Stalin was precisely not in their institutions of power but instead ever allowing policy to be justified by contingent measurements of public desire which is illegitimate ever to presume.

all members are wage-labourers. because some people choose not to join and thus forgo surplus does not mean that it isn't worker owned. again, this is how syndicalism works.

not being worker owned disqualifies it from the ICA which it is a member in good standing.

>Its essentially in the commitment that the dictatorship of the proletariate should be taken quite seriously and literally but not in the naive Stalinist sense of dictatorship.
Ok, what would that look like and how would it differ from Stalinist dictatorships?

I did for a long time, but I find myself siding more with De Leonism these days.

>when your political thought is so subversive The State gives you a cosy tenure and your books can be bought at any bookstore.

>all members are wage-labourers
Not worker-owners. Assuming we're talking about "wage-labourers" as the term is used in radical leftist contexts.
>because some people choose not to join and thus forgo surplus does not mean that it isn't worker owned
They don't choose not to join anymore than any other employee chooses not to be the manager. They were simply hired by the corporation on those terms.

And, yes, that does mean it's not worker owned as not all of the workers own it. Rather it might be more accurate to call it worker-managed.

>this is how syndicalism works.
Yes, syndicalism has wage-labourer and unrepresented workers. Absolutely, that's why McDonalds is syndicalist.

Stalin was a pragmatist in the worst sense both in terms of retaining his own position and in his understanding of policy which led to the dishevelled half assed comedy of the Soviet Economy. All from a result of him courting favor with everyone from private farmers to the Orthodox Church when he foolish felt necessary.
His issue was not going far enough by moderating the expanse of Communism and persecution of dissent and should have instead instantly constituted the platform as the platform whenever and wherever possible.

if people choose not to join the co-op, that does not mean it is worker owned. all members of the co-op gain surplus and all workers, members or not, democratically manage wages. all members get a wage.

no worker of mondragon is unrepresented. they all get a single vote. the only difference is, that co-op members gain from surplus.

it's not really that hard. this is the way all co-ops are set up under the ICA, a federation of co-ops, aka syndicalism.

>You imply maintaining such a culture is a good thing, why is that?

Well, less personal violence for sure. Also, without any justice system, there is no justice. Unless you think blood feuding is justice.

>Why is this?

Because the monopoly of violence ensure that people don't constantly use violence against each other within it's sphere of influence.

So what stops one co-op from exploiting another co-op through contracting them?

they part of where cooperation between co-ops is a per-requesite of ICA membership. if one starts to exploit then they are expelled from the ICA.

Fucking Tankies, even the genocide of Chechens didn't go far enough for you

How is that ever defined? The question of determing share of surplus value between two seperate firms with their democratically determined reward systems seems to me to be practically impossible in many if not most cases.

The genocide was exactly a product of the pragmatism and acting outside the platform. If you don't think so then I can hardly see how you can have a problem with it while considering yourself a Communist.

>if people choose not to join the co-op
As I just said it's not that they choose not to, it's that they're hired under a different contract to the worker-owners. Likewise your boss is hired and entrusted a certain level of privileges and responsibilities that you are not, this does not mean you chose not to be the boss.

And as a matter of fact the majority of their employees aren't members. You can't really claim "worker ownership" when less than half of the workforce aren't owners.

> all members get a wage.
Obviously, but this isn't really a big syndicalist point given that private enterprises do this too. If they didn't then they would be practising slavery.

>no worker of mondragon is unrepresented
Yes there are. That's kind of what not being a member means, you don't get to participate in the co-op. Likewise in private enterprises non-union members don't get a say in the union.

>they all get a single vote
Explain to me, how do you vote in a co-op you aren't part of?

it's defined by the vote, as long as it does alienate members or weaken the autonomy of the co-op.

yeah, that's cool if that's your opinion. it won't effect mandragon and the ICA. they'll keep going the way it always has.

>it's defined by the vote

So you're saying a co-op can volunteer to be exploited by another and then you say that its not exploitation
This is the same argument Capitalists use to say a worker can't be exploited because he voluntarily accepted the contract

There are also some naked hot opinions in this post.

>Well, less personal violence for sure.
How come?
>Also, without any justice system, there is no justice.
Why?
Also, define "justice".

>Because the monopoly of violence ensure that people don't constantly use violence against each other within it's sphere of influence.
This actually is an argument, there's logic to this. But I still don't think it's very good.

This is true. But it fundamentally ignores the anarchist view that we've reached a point in society where it's possible to keep the peace democratically without the need to have laws hierarchically enforced.

Case it point, it is essentially unanimous among everyone that murder should not be tolerated. It is also essentially unanimous among everyone that people should be entitled to fair trials. On top of this people have a vested interest in maintaining competent law enforcement and investigatory bodies with access to the necessary resources. Ergo it should be possible to community organize services like police (or something like police, I understand anarchists don't like that), courts and penal/rehabilitative facilities.

I was an anarchist for a few days when I was sixteen. Ordered Chomsky books and listened to hours of his posturing, whispering and croaking.

anyone who wants to join, can. those who work under a different contract do so voluntarily.

again, it is a pre-requisite to ICA membership, which it is in good standing. argue semantics all you want, this is the last time i'm going around the round about with you.

all workers get a vote, member or non-member alike. the difference in membership is distribution surplus, a large part which goes to the country itself. again, this is how syndicalist co-ops differ from trade unions.

primary members get a vote, other parts of the co-op have representation, like a trade union, those at that level choose their representative.

the clerical, administration, and labourers vote on wage disparity and distribution through member votes and representative votes.

as per the ICA.

>Also, define "justice".

The arbitration of harm.

I think it interesting that you argue that something like police, courts and penal facilities should exist, but they already exist, so what is the problem exactly?

Almost nothing about our current system is perfect, but what do you expect really? There's millions of people involved. If you ask me, it's a miracle the cops even show up and do their job if you call them, which doesn't happen, mind you, in many states in the world, and if it does happen they'll extort you.

in abstract yes, in practice no. it would be a violation of both co-op and ICA bylaws.

How on Earth do you expect it to work in practice if it doesn't even work in theory? Absolutely nonsensical statement

> those who work under a different contract do so voluntarily.
Yes, 60% of the workforce simply don't want representation and more pay.

Do you not realize you sound exactly like capitalist-shills when they say wage-labour is "voluntary"?

>it is a pre-requisite to ICA membership,
The thing about this argument is it's a pure appeal to authority.

>all workers get a vote
No they don't, this is what not being apart of a co-op means.

> this is how syndicalist co-ops differ from trade unions.
By being capitalist, I see.

>other parts of the co-op have representation, like a trade union, those at that level choose their representative.
And this is why non-worker-owners don't have representation. They can't elect a representative to the co-op as they're not a part of it.

>the clerical, administration, and labourers vote on wage disparity and distribution through member votes and representative votes.
Except the non-members.

Unless you have some sources saying that non-worker-owners get to participate in the democracy I'm not sure why you're so keen on insisting that Mondragon is pure syndicalism.

like it has been since 1956

> so what is the problem exactly?
I dunno, ask a real anarchist.

But from my understanding of anarchism it's that modern capitalist states and structures aren't democratic. If the state or your employers want to do something everyone is essentially powerless to stop it. And unfortunately virtually all liberal democracies and private industries are very much alike.

>but what do you expect really?
As said before I'm not an anarchist.

yes, if they were denied membership then mondragon would be expelled from the ICA.

it's not a appeal to authority. i'm simply stating that as a member of the ICA, mondragon comply with it's membership principles.

yes, they do.

no, by giving representation to all workers, members and non-members a like.

in capitalism, there is not vote, there is no choice, there is no distribution negotiations.

And itts been failing to live up to anti-exploitative principles during that time. Mondragon at this moment has a ton of workers employed in South America who are totally excluded from any decision making and their deserved share of the surplus value.

>Arguing for anarchism
>"I'm not an anarchist though lol"

Why are we talking exactly?

To reveal your hypocrisy and ill considered theory

it's also not more pay. all wages are agreed democratically. the forgo co-op responsibilities and thus do not benefit from surplus.

which co-op do the argentine workers belong to? you have to be a basque in common for mondragon. that's kinda the point.

>yes, if they were denied membership then mondragon would be expelled from the ICA.
Once again, see below.
>it's not a appeal to authority.
It is, saying "Because the ICA says so" is a text-book appeal to authority. It's possible that the ICA is simply wrong, or that their rules are not what you claim them to be, these are the holes in this line of thinking.

>yes, they do.
>no, by giving representation to all workers, members and non-members a like.
And as I said in that post, do you have a source that says non-worker-owners get representation.

Because, given my understanding of what a "co-op" means that seems totally counter-intuitive.

>in capitalism, there is not vote, there is no choice, there is no distribution negotiations.
Of course. But from my understanding it seems like Mondragon is capitalist for 60% of their workforce.

Oh ok. I guess that makes it alright then

I said I wasn't an anarchist, much, much earlier in the argument.
And I'm not arguing for anarchism. I'm arguing that you're bad at arguing.

So you're just an extremely smug and arrogant asshole instead then.

On Veeky Forums of all places!?

Retreating into obscure leftists trash after communism failed for the millionth time top kek

...

You're goddamn right.

But really I'm doing you a favour by showing you why your worldview is half-baked, giving you the opportunity to improve it along with your debate skills.

Or in other words: better luck next time, kid.

ica.coop/en/whats-co-op/co-operative-identity-values-principles

My worldview isn't half-baked simply because of 3 sentences on Veeky Forums you fucking fag.

Do you really think that I'm going to write an whole essay on this board, describing every single way I think anarchism will fail, or I think is faulty as a theory?

Because I'm not. So deal with it faggot.

>My worldview isn't half-baked simply because of 3 sentences on Veeky Forums you fucking fag.

Yes it is, and it shows just how flimsy it is

what co-op are they apart of?

No it's not.

Besides, you are probably an anarchist, else you wouldn't have responded to me, you're just hiding behind 5000 layers of irony.

>My worldview isn't half-baked simply because of 3 sentences on Veeky Forums you fucking fag.
Clearly it is as I've just shown you a bunch of holes in it.

>Do you really think that I'm going to write an whole essay on this board, describing every single way I think anarchism will fail
Ah, but here's the thing. I'm not here to here to convince you that anarchism is flawless, I'm here to show you way the arguments you've presented are either a)bad or b)non-arguments.

This much has been fully demonstrated to you. And there's no need to take it personally anyway.

From Mondragon.

Again, the ICA could well be wrong on this.

...

That idiot isn't even a Marxist, just a confused idealistic Liberal

>Clearly it is as I've just shown you a bunch of holes in it.

You've done no such thing. That's just pure delusion on your part.

>You've done no such thing
I have, and you know I have. Not to mention the entire argument is here in print visible to everyone.

You realize Veeky Forums is anonymous right? You don't need to have your ego on the line when no one knows who you are and as soon as this thread dies everyone is going to forget about it.

You can just admit to yourself that your arguments were bad and try to make better arguments in future, or even better consider adapting your worldview to new reasoning rather than sticking to it no matter how many holes are poked in it. As a matter of fact I'm confident you'll do exactly this whenever the butthurt wears off.

i don't any pamphlets from mondragon that aren't in basque. all research is necessarily secondary material. i'm not really fussed at getting into a another circular discussion about how much evidence is enough. take it or leave it.

You could just get some online.

>how much evidence is enough.
That much would be satisfactory.

Yes, indeed this is Veeky Forums, which means that I really don't give a shit what anyone says here, which includes you.

Let me just remind you that you're the one who was butthurt here, because you couldn't even respond to me without insults for 3 posts.

In other words, find a rope and end your life, it'll be better all of the people around you in your real life.

>you're the one who was butthurt
Meanwhile
>which means that I really don't give a shit what anyone says here, which includes you.
>In other words, find a rope and end your life, it'll be better all of the people around you in your real life.

I'm literally smirking and holding my chin after reading this post.

Sorry, but I know you're just trolling.

>I'm not an anarchist!
>But I'm going to defend anarchism!
>Haha, you're just a random clown who knows nothing!
>Haha my insults to your intelligence are "objectively" better than your real arguments about anarchism!

You're just a pathetic fag m8. Deal with it.

Lad, you have two paths ahead of you.

You can just reinforce your own idiocy to try and assuage your ago.
Or you can heed what I'm telling you, and adapt this logic into your own views so you can argue from a stronger position in future.

It's as simple as that. Anyway, I'm needed in other threads with other plebs so bye for now.

>I'm needed in other threads
>Accusing other people of having huge egos

wew

this is how they diagram it.

"a) The development of suitable mechanisms and channels for
participation.
b) Transparent information concerning the performance of the
basic management variables of the Co-operative.
c) The use of methods of consultation and negotiation with
[b]worker-members and their social representatives in those
economic, organisational and labour decisions that concern
or affect them.[/b]
d) The systematic application of social and professional training
plans for members.
e) The establishment of internal promotion as the basic
means for covering jobs involving greater professional
responsibility"

I'm not sure that references non-worker members. As a matter of fact I think this point

>worker-members and their social representatives in those economic, organisational and labour decisions that concern or affect them.

Is implicitly saying that non-worker-members aren't represented in decisions that concern them.