History of Syndicalism?

File: Eugene_V._Debs,_bw_photo_portrait,_1897.jpg (190KB, 979x1286px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 979x1286px

>>3217380
Read up on the life and speeches of this man as a start

>>3217380

Suffers from the same problem of information that destroys planned economies: Without a free market mechanism, prices can't be set perfectly, leading to unsold crap and shortages of useful items. Further, as the history of the Labour Movement should show, politicising the workfloor does not lead to improvements in efficiency, but in red tape, graft, work to rule, and ultimately uncompetitive industry and economic failure.

>>3217380
read marx anarkiddie faggot

>>3217408
This. Syndicalism is a meme ideology at best

>>3217399
Syndicalists typically don't support command economy. They call for a reorganization of production relations, not for a reorganization of the way goods are exchanged. However, the problems of command economy can be sorted out as well, by means of decentralizing production and organizing local consumers, allowing for negotiation between consumers and producers on a relatively small scale. The Soviet Union had never worked out an effective way to ensure consumer input, but that doesn't make it impossible. Hell, companies do it - they estimate the optimal output based on sales and predictions of consumer behaviour. And when it comes to waste - it's not as if we don't overproduce in the current system. Hell, just look at the amounts of food that gets wasted. As for politicizing the work floor, it's a moot point. It lowers the quality of work because it pits the workers against the employer and makes them uncompliant. But against whom would they be pitted now? Themselves? Workplace democracy makes the use of force in form of strikes superfluous.

>Syndicalists
>HURRRRRRR
>Anarchists
>a DURRRRRRRRR
>Socialists
>Oh g-g-*swallows* please daddy I need more please give me MORE CUMMIES *rams thirty capitalist dicks directly down throat*
Communists are the only functional part of the left.

>>3217448
>Syndicalists typically don't support command economy. They call for a reorganization of production relations, not for a reorganization of the way goods are exchanged.

""Syndicalists"" who live in Western coffee shops don't call for planned economies, but actual Syndicalists who have reached power in various nations invariably operate a planned economy, and it seems more or less inevitable that such a system must plan its economy since it is so overtly politicised.

>However, the problems of command economy can be sorted out as well, by means of decentralizing production and organizing local consumers, allowing for negotiation between consumers and producers on a relatively small scale.

Nonsensical, breaking the economy up into tiny regional economies will lead to poverty and economic failures.

The USSR got around this problem to some degree by adapting the econometrics of the West, but even so their economy was plagued with chronic inefficiencies.

>As for politicizing the work floor, it's a moot point. It lowers the quality of work because it pits the workers against the employer and makes them uncompliant. But against whom would they be pitted now? Themselves?

Correct, against themselves. Politicising workplaces turns them into political arenas, which attracts political opportunists and power-hungry sociopaths like flies to shit. End result: the bosses make out like bandits, the workers are careless because they know they can't be fired, and lazy because they know they get paid regardless of how hard they work.

>>3217469
But this could beg an interesting question. If Syndicalism dropped the revolutionary, anti-bourgeoisie rhetoric and moved to a slightly more free-market focused economic structure, while keeping most everything else that can be intact, would that be feasible? The concept of workers owning their own workplace as equals could be feasible, and there are already groups of trade unions that work together democratically to solve the problems they face. Could this not work on a larger scale?

I think a syndicalist-styled free marked economy could work, in theory. But you know theory, it never quite seems to hold up, does it?

>>3217452
>My exact brand of separation between work done and wealth received would work
No. It wouldn't, for exactly the same reason.

File: Das_capital.jpg (52KB, 526x840px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 526x840px

>>3217408
>>3217452
>>3219083
Shut up revisionists scum! marxism will bring the communism to the proletariat!

>Anarcho-syndicalism in the 20th Century
http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-20th-century-vadim-damier

This is a long read but if you're interested this is probably what you're looking for

Capital and the Debt Trap reports that "cooperatives tend to have a longer life than other types of enterprise, and thus a higher level of entrepreneurial sustainability". This resilience has been attributed to how cooperatives share risks and rewards between members, how they harness the ideas of many and how members have a tangible ownership stake in the business. Additionally, "cooperative banks build up counter-cyclical buffers that function well in case of a crisis," and are less likely to lead members and clients towards a debt trap (p. 216). This is explained by their more democratic governance that reduces perverse incentives and subsequent contributions to economic bubbles.

In a 2007 study by the World Council of Credit Unions, the 5 year survival rate of cooperatives in the United States was found to be 90% in comparison to 3-5% for traditional businesses.[35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

24 Four things on earth are small,
yet they are exceedingly wise:
25 the ants are a people without strength,
yet they provide their food in the summer;
26 the badgers are a people without power,
yet they make their homes in the rocks;
27 the locusts have no king,
yet all of them march in rank;
28 the lizard can be grasped in the hand,
yet it is found in kings’ palaces.

>>3219136
>how cooperatives share risks and rewards between members
Unlike corporation who pay an insurance companies who then pay coinsurance companies so the risk is mutualised over the entire economy.

File: IMG_1337.jpg (71KB, 550x356px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 550x356px

>>3219182