- Stos wrote:
Busy going to the lightbulb consumers' union?
Despite as awesome as that would be, no, that's not where I was.
Anyways, now to elucidate...
Anarchosyndicalism, to me, refers to two things: 1.) The theoretical arrangement of the eventual social revolution and 2.) the theoretical arrangement of the post-revolution society.
1.) Anarchosyndicalism, as I interpret it, calls for the support of the only institutions that defend the labor movement: the unions. Before we can consider holding any kind of mass movements, we first need to organize, and revolutionary labor unions - or Soviets, whichever term you'd like - will serve as the centers for organizing. Once we have successfully unionized the public, and have achieved a sense of workers' solidarity - or, in Marx's terms, class consciousness - it would be the appropriate time to revolt, using methods of direct action.
2.) We aim not just to overthrow our bosses, but to overthrow the State, replacing it, instead of with another State, with a freely collectivized association of federated unions. Assuming the revolution succeeds, the established labor unions will serve as the basis for organizing our new society. The unions will be democratically self-managed by the workers in a non-hierarchical faction, whereby providing mutual aid equitably to all.
That's a very brief account of what I interpret Anarchosyndicalism to mean. Most of this is influenced from Rudolf Rocker.
I also like Bakunin and Kropotkin a lot.
Proudhon's pretty cool, too.
Other than that, I support Participatory Economics, which is an economic model proposed by Michael Albert. Basically, it advocates a couple of different things: solidarity, self-management, equity - remuneration for effort and sacrifice rather than amount of product produced, efficiency - accomplishing goals without wasting valued assets, and diversity.
Parecon is a pretty appropriate economic model for Anarchists, I think, although it's kind of like Socialism, in that there is economic planning and control over the means of production by the workers. Where it differs from State Socialism, obviously, is that the planning is not done by the State, but by the workers directly, and it is the workers
directly, not through the State but through the unions, that own the means of production - I think this ethic fits very appropriately with Anarchosyndicalism, in that Anarchosyndicalism provides for the kind of society where Parecon can be most appropriately applied, one that emphasizes on unions and workers'/consumers' councils.
Okay, I'm getting tired. The last thing I'll mention is Market Abolitionism: I want to abolish the market. Pretty straightforward, I think.
I'll sum that all up with this: Anarchosyndicalism is the political arrangement I support, while Parecon is the economic arrangement I support.
I'm done, this was way too much.
Home 
Subject: WeiWuWei's Profile 
Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:27 pm