/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I guess

I don't think s. Even if something similar did happen, it would be quickly bought out by capitalism and turned into a "museum" or a "middle-class playground"

>>2852298
I remember there's this place in Copenhagen called Freetown Christiania - if syndicalism could survive in the long term, that's probably what it would look like

Unions are anti communist so no

>>2852282
The thing with syndicalism is that it doesn't have an end goal, it's essentially reformism minus the parliamentary spectacle, because reformist parties only get their actual material backing from unions not simply people voting for good ideas. I don't think syndicalism is viable for an actual protracted civil war because simply having personal firearms isn't going to cut it against a modern first world military so either Gandhi style mass strike or things gotta get so bad that the bourgeoisie can't buy out the military.

Reminder Syndicalism was the foundation from which Fascism emerged. Even the word "Fascism" traces its roots to the Italian fasci, the name used by Italian syndicalist trade unions. Fascist economics was largely built around state-controlled syndicalist organizations and labor unions.

>>2852282
>for praxis
It's not and hasn't been since firms have de-territorialized themselves. Modern unions can't exerce the same influence on firms because they fundamentally operate on different grounds : the firm exists on a global scale with intellectual and property rights, whilst unions exist on one or two sites specifically.
This means that if one firm is "overran" by a union, it can just call on its shareholders to invest more money to delocalize somewhere else. The firm isn't tied to the territory anymore.

>for an alternative social model
The ward problem shuts off the possibility of any model based on unions working well. In short, any union will just end up maximizing its own interest rather than arriving at a collectively-defined interest which implies that the same power assymetries and self-interested allocation will pop up as in capitalist societies. Mao was correct when he distinguished between whole-people ownership and workers ownership.

>>2852282
>Unions
Lmao

>>2852540
They mean unions with direct democracy

Obviously not

Only capitalism can overthrow capitalism by destroying enough capital that you see reversions to feudalism, orientalism, and primitive communism

>>2852549
Lol

In the global North cooperatives the better option for most people as workers have enough capital to invest in their own collective means of production, and as these economies have focused more on labour intensive service industries

> be anarcho syndicalist
> transcend present material reality of eating from the rubbish bin and living in squat (impossible)
> create syndicalist commune
> create corporation to hold collective property
> still function under the laws of capitalist state
> still have workers conditioned by capitalist society
> still unable to prevent banks from stealing all your shit
> capitalists still control state and can crush you if you threaten their system

anarcho syndicalism seems like an intellectual conceit designed to handwave the reactionary response to workers revolutions. I think this reactionary response is why it's a theory without praxis. at some point there needs to be a state boys it's time to accept it.

Unions are no longer strong enough to be the base for a revolutionary movement. Even if they were, syndicates can easily cause economic stagnation through entrenched ludditism, which means state-owned enterprises will still be needed to run the most critical parts of the economy.

>>2852706
> syndicates can easily cause economic stagnation through entrenched ludditism
I already like syndicalism, you don't need to sell it for me

I don’t see any problems with it other than the fact that it is uncompetitive. Any state can defeat anarchists even using elephants and uyghurs with spears. Anarchism is powerless against external threats.

>>2852706
Have they ever effectively be the base of any revolutionary movement, not just in theory? I always felt unions were about negotiating a better deal not to overthrow anything.
They tend to make the business worse due to endemic corruption and also not bring anything close to communism, not even real social democracy since they were always downstream from powerful state capacity and not some decentralized salary bargaining.

>>2852858
They can be, unions can strike for reform such as higher wages and better conditions but the logical conclusion of all that is the abolishing of the wage system altogether so it really depends on the level of class consciousness that they have and the material conditions that would be auspicious for such a demand to become a real potential.

>>2852806
Exactly, non state socialism is essentially anti-competitive so lacks the coercive slave driving to prod the proletariat above and beyond their capacity. Which is why it cannot exist within the international community which the bourgeoisie would just see as a vacuum to capitalise on. Once the productive forces have built up and reached an equalibrium on a global scale and there are no more countries to imperialise, the bourgeoisie will be backed into a corner since they would no longer be able to buy out through reform since they cannot export or import labour to poorer nations and will be at the mercy of the demands of the proletariat