Let's Co-opefy The Economy, Decenter The Corporatocracy

submitted by EddieC from self.LateStageCapitalism

Let's Co-opefy The Economy, Decenter The Corporatocracy

  • Disrupt the systemic concentration of economic power towards Corporations & the 0.01%
  • Bypass gatekeeping political parties & politicians serving the 0.01%
  • Re-distribute economic & thus political power to everyone directly
     

Here's How:
1. List down Our Targets ie the 0.01%-owned Corporations
2. Setup Co-op(s) against each Target Corporation
3. CrowdFund the Co-ops
4. Buy from Co-ops. Stop buying from the Corporations
5. Continue until all Corporations defunded
 

All We Have To Do:
- Affirm that We the 99.99% do not need the 0.01%
- Unshackle Ourselves & just walk away from them https://postimg.cc/NKv8f3wV
- Appeal to the humanity of the Order Executors: Be A Human Be Humane
 

Imagine: If everyone committed to Co-opefy The Economy
We would flip the economy into our hands in no time
To reclaim control over our own lives
& create leverage against the 0.01%
 

Co-operatives are Political Parties with benefits
Everyone joining a co-op gets
- wages - decided jointly & locally
- medical insurance
- immunity against the Corporatocracy
- economic & political leverage for further changes
 

Co-operatives
= Unions 2.0 (minus the Brinkmanship)
= Corporations 2.0 (minus the Exploitation)
= Political Parties 2.0 (minus the Corruption)
 

A Co-opefied Economy
= Socialism 2.0 (minus the Totalitarians)
= Capitalism 2.0 (minus the Oligarchs)
= Democracy Reimagined
 

In a Corporation-dominated Economy:
Income goes to Corporations & ultimately the 0.01%
Economic & political power exponentially concentrated
 

In a Co-opefied Economy:
Income circulates within Local Communities
Total community income multiplies
Economic & political leverage distributed
 

Local Communities can create & circulate their own Community Currency
- To provide a Community Currency Basic Income (CCBI)
e.g. Tenino wooden money
- To jumpstart & co-opefy their community economy
- To generate & distribute abundance & leverage
- To protect their people against State inaction / tyranny
 

Here's perhaps a way that Local Communities could organize to bootstrap themselves - beginning with community-owned land & property put into Community Land Trusts (CLTs)
i.e. CLTs for:
(A) Affordable Housing
(B) Food Producing & Carbon Sequestering Syntropic AgroForestry
(C) backing Community Currency for
(1) Basic Income
(2) Credit Unions
(3) to Co-opefy the Local Economy
for
(a) Wages
(b) Medical Insurance
(ci) Economic & Political Leverage against the Corporatocracy
 

Here's How To Co-opefy The Economy:

  1. Existing Co-ops - Join / Expand Them
    https://usworker.coop/directory/
    https://fci.coop/co-op-directories/

  2. Existing Businesses - Convert Them
    https://co-oplaw.org/knowledge-base/conversion/

  3. Existing Workers (of Oligarchs' Corporations) - "Unionize" Them to compete against the Corporations  
     

Consider The Mondragon Corporation

all 31 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Can't do it. People crave money, power, status, "being special". In any co-op, most individuals will try to squeeze the most out of it by putting in the least possible, warring on their co-op-ers for what should be rightfully theirs.

Instead, switch to a DIRECT DEMOCRACY political system, and maintain a capitalist-socialist system such as exists in most of the civilized world. The problem is political, not economic.

When you have DIRECT democracy, lobbying and corruption become impracticable. Imagine the Jews buying a majority of the representatives of every single county in the USA. Imagine Big Pharma lobbying the same majority. They'd need a literal ARMY of lobbyists.

With a direct democracy, THE PEOPLE'S WILL is what gets done. If the mayor of your town suddenly leaves the middle class and buys a Bentley and a mansion, the people can vote for an audit. And they would.

Of course this also nullifies the mega-corporations: "we don't want either Wal-Mart nor Amazon doing business here". Boom, they're fucked.

It truly is the key, because it's decentralized government. Blend in some blockchain tech and you have the end of corruption, lobbying, cronyism, etc.

[–]EddieC[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Q: How do we get to a direct democracy political system?
Bear in mind this 2014 Princeton University study which concluded that:
- "the opinion of the average citizen has near zero impact on (US) public policy", whilst
- "economic elites have a quite substantial, highly significant impact on policy"

ie the US Govt works for the 0.01%

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well changing the whole political two-party apparatus and ushering in direct democracy can happen in one of two ways:

  1. A benevolent dictator arises, such as Lybia had in Gaddafi;
  2. Revolution;

I don't know of any others. Well... In theory it might be possible for the WHOLE POPULATION to pressure their "representatives" into voting for citizen initiative referendums, which would be a first step, and then keep the people voting for the people and redistribute the power, gradually changing the system to one of direct democracy. But as usual with politics, theory is one thing and reality is another thing altogether. This has of course never been achieved.

[–]EddieC[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Co-opefy The Economy, Decenter The Corporatocracy" is an idea to put economic (& thus political) leverage in the hands of the people, increasing voters' power (vs the 0.01%'s) to push for such referendums for Direct Democracy to happen.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, this looks like the numberless third option in my post above. I don't think it's possible however, as I mentioned.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Can't do it. People crave money, power, status, "being special". In any co-op, most individuals will try to squeeze the most out of it by putting in the least possible, warring on their co-op-ers for what should be rightfully theirs.

Is this not how Capitalism operates? Do Capitalists not compete against each other for resources, and in the process innovate for the purpose of expedience? Do Capitalists not seek to put in the least effort possible for the most pay?

The only alternative to a market economy — which naturally creates competition — is Socialism, which takes away the driving force to work and innovate, and thus: strips the Nation of any semblance of a functional economy. Have you not seen what happened in Venezuela?

Competition and self-interest is a good thing, because it drives our economy. Any system that eliminates competition, eliminates the economy.

Instead, switch to a DIRECT DEMOCRACY political system,

Direct democracy cannot function, for the majority would trample upon the rights of the minority, and those in charge of society, no longer being elected representatives, would not run the government as effectively — instead we need to implement technocratic elements, so those regulating the economy actually know what they're doing.

and maintain a capitalist-socialist system such as exists in most of the civilized world.

Capitalism and Socialism, being the two opposing factions of Materialism, have destroyed human society by directing the devotion of the People away from the Nation, and towards factions and material items. The only way to restore society is to restore the devotion of the People to the Nation, and to subvert the factions which have sought to destroy it.

The problem is political, not economic.

The political is economic, and the economic is political; politics and economics are inseparable. When has the political climate not affected the economy, and when has the economy not affected the political climate? The government must choose to regulate, or not to regulate, and the economy influences who the People elect to the government.

When you have DIRECT democracy, lobbying and corruption become impracticable.

This is only true, cause under direct democracy: the running of the government becomes impractical.

Imagine the Jews buying a majority of the representatives of every single county in the USA.

Never thought I'd ever see a Nazi (or whatever the correct term may be) advocate for direct democracy, but here we are...

Could the rich not use disinformation and propaganda, in order to trick the people into voting against their interests, as they always have? The only difference would be that instead of voting for corrupt politicians, they'd be voting for corrupt laws.

The only way to fix corruption is to pass anti-corruption legislation.

They'd need a literal ARMY of lobbyists.

Every corporation has an army of lobbyists.

With a direct democracy, THE PEOPLE'S WILL is what gets done. If the mayor of your town suddenly leaves the middle class and buys a Bentley and a mansion, the people can vote for an audit. And they would.

Do you now what direct democracy is? You wouldn't have a mayor.

Of course this also nullifies the mega-corporations: "we don't want either Wal-Mart nor Amazon doing business here". Boom, they're fucked.

Democratic-Republics can ban businesses too. I don't think that's the right solution, though; we should break them up into smaller companies, force them to give a certain amount of ownership to their workers, ban them from having stakes in adjacent industries, and adequately regulate them.

It truly is the key, because it's decentralized government.

The government doesn't have to be pseudo-anarchistic to be decentralized; a better option would be to return power to the states/provinces/etc.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is this not how Capitalism operates? Do Capitalists not compete against each other for resources, and in the process innovate for the purpose of expedience? Do Capitalists not seek to put in the least effort possible for the most pay?

Yes, they do. Do you have a point? OK I'll make it clearer: in an organization, everybody screwing each other out of profits makes everything turn to crap very quickly. It's communism, where you have to wait 18 hours in line for a loaf of bread, only to be told at the end of the wait that there is none left. In capitalism, only the top management, say 1% of the "workforce" screw the workforce out of their labor-created value. Having 1% parasites is more viable than having 99% parasites.

The only alternative to a market economy — which naturally creates competition — is Socialism, which takes away the driving force to work and innovate, and thus: strips the Nation of any semblance of a functional economy. Have you not seen what happened in Venezuela?

You are confused. Every capitalist country is also socialist. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist system. You're thinking of communism maybe? Yes, communism is bad. It's the 99% parasites system.

Competition and self-interest is a good thing, because it drives our economy. Any system that eliminates competition, eliminates the economy.

I never wrote anything contrary to this very obvious truth.

Direct democracy cannot function, for the majority would trample upon the rights of the minority, and those in charge of society, no longer being elected representatives, would not run the government as effectively — instead we need to implement technocratic elements, so those regulating the economy actually know what they're doing.

Direct democracy has worked and does work, perfectly. Trampling the "rights" of minorities IS A GOOD THING. It ensures homogeneity of a society. A society that functions does so because the people obey ONE set of rules to get at ONE set of goals. If you have minorities with different goals or who "play" the game of society using different rules, that is a dysfunctional society. That is my most absolute condemnation of people like you. You destroy society because you feel entitled. When the laws are made BY the people and FOR the people, you think that's inefficient and wrong? No, it works perfectly. You seem to think that the only non-idiotic people work for governments? Well, that's completely wrong. Direct democracies discuss and find out the consequences of any possible action, which people then vote on. There is no agenda, but WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

This is only true, cause under direct democracy: the running of the government becomes impractical.

Completely false. Show your data. In a direct democracy, power is divided to the smallest possible division. You have neighborhoods making neighborhood rules, instead of a centralized government who is taking a bribe from a party with an agenda. The people make the rules they want to abide by. It's just the bribing that is impractical.

Capitalism and Socialism, being the two opposing factions of Materialism, have destroyed human society by directing the devotion of the People away from the Nation, and towards factions and material items. The only way to restore society is to restore the devotion of the People to the Nation, and to subvert the factions which have sought to destroy it.

No. You are again confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is a term that has been co-opted by a century-old psy op in order to make the uneducated equate the word socialism with what communism actually is. Doing so creates a huge blind spot in the minds of these uneducated sheeple, rendering them incapable of thinking the whole spectrum of socioeconomic thought. Socialism IS ALWAYS PRESENT with a capitalist system, unless you are in the Mad Max version of the world where each bandit gang kills, maims, and pillages whoever they choose.

Never thought I'd ever see a Nazi (or whatever the correct term may be) advocate for direct democracy, but here we are...

Hitler's idea was that the people have values and to direct and lead his nation according to their values and traditions. In a direct democracy, the same thing happens, except if for example some minorities are woven into the population to begin with, which is what we have now, they can form neighborhoods and set their own rules. It is not good or ideal for a society but it's a working compromise. In the end Fascism is the same as democracy without the bullshit, because a true fascist leader understands the heart and soul of his people and shapes the nation according to it. He is not a tyrant, he is an idol, a template, a pinnacle.

Could the rich not use disinformation and propaganda, in order to trick the people into voting against their interests, as they always have? The only difference would be that instead of voting for corrupt politicians, they'd be voting for corrupt laws.

So, the rich would go to each neighborhood and try to influence each and every local information medium? Color me doubtful, since there are for example a little bit over 3,000 counties in the USA. So say buying an official on the federal level costs 100k. Buying one official for each county (never mind neighborhoods) costs >300 million. To get ONE THING passed. And then there is the whole, "Wait, when did you get so rich?" trigger when each official lives in his own small community. Questions get asked and answers are found. What is said official to do when say just 200 angry people wait for him to leave his home to ask him pointed questions? Local officials don't have personal armies in a direct democracy. They are simply Joe Average.

The only way to fix corruption is to pass anti-corruption legislation.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA Legislation? BIG CORPS OWN THE GOVERNMENT.

Every corporation has an army of lobbyists.

Every big corporation has some lobbyists. Multiply their "army" (whatever) by 3,000 since you now have to lobby at least 3,000 times as many officials. Good luck having fun.

Do you now what direct democracy is? You wouldn't have a mayor.

Sigh. It is obviously you who does not know. There are mayors in direct democracies.

Democratic-Republics can ban businesses too. I don't think that's the right solution, though; we should break them up into smaller companies, force them to give a certain amount of ownership to their workers, ban them from having stakes in adjacent industries, and adequately regulate them.

Keep dreaming, boy. What are you even talking about. These big businesses OWN THE GOVERNMENT. They regulate the government, not the other way around! That is the whole problem!! I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered answering in the first place.

The government doesn't have to be pseudo-anarchistic to be decentralized; a better option would be to return power to the states/provinces/etc.

It isn't pseudo-anarchy, it is the rule of the people by the people. It is ACTUAL democracy, not this sham we live under. "Returning the power" to the local level can only be achieved through a direct democracy. Otherwise the same crap happens: power hoards itself, centralization grows and we're back to square one.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In capitalism, only the top management, say 1% of the "workforce" screw the workforce out of their labor-created value. Having 1% parasites is more viable than having 99% parasites.

That ain't true. Under Capitalism, everyone competes against each other over resources and jobs — and the same thing happens under Syndicalism. The only difference is that Capitalism gives control over businesses solely to owners and investors, while Syndicalism gives workers at least some power.

Capitalism redistributes wealth to those who already have wealth, while Syndicalism redistributes wealth based on how much labor, innovation, etc. you can put in. Investors, bankers, etc. are parasites who just manipulate money without contributing to society, while workers are the back-bone of our economy.

You are confused. Every capitalist country is also socialist. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist system.

When I say "Socialism" I'm referring to a mostly socialist system. In context, I'm referring to a command economy. I do realize most economies are mixed.

Trampling the "rights" of minorities IS A GOOD THING.

In retrospect, I should'a seen that coming. Obviously, I disagree (which is why I use SaidIt instead of Reddit). Ironically, you'd be the minority being oppressed by the neo-liberal majority (see: Reddit).

A society that functions does so because the people obey ONE set of rules to get at ONE set of goals. If you have minorities with different goals or who "play" the game of society using different rules, that is a dysfunctional society.

Having everyone obey the same set of rules is exactly what "minority rights" means; for example: everyone has the right to free speech, even Nazis — who are a tiny minority of the population.

That is my most absolute condemnation of people like you. You destroy society because you feel entitled.

Everyone's entitled to speech, press, assembly, religion, and guns. You only think that destroys society, because you get offended when people say things you disagree with and want to censor them (just like Communsits).

You seem to think that the only non-idiotic people work for governments?

No?... Just look at the US government, it's a mess of corruption and incompetence — because we're too weak, not too strong.

Completely false. Show your data.

There is no proof of direct democracy even existing at a large scale, let alone proof it doesn't work. Proof has to be positive, not negative; you can't say there's a flying spaghetti monster just because I can't prove it doesn't exist. If you provided evidence of direct democracy working: then I could try to criticize it.

In a direct democracy, power is divided to the smallest possible division. You have neighborhoods making neighborhood rules, instead of a centralized government who is taking a bribe from a party with an agenda.

You do realize that democratic-republics can be decentralized, right? Direct democracy can also be centralized, if everyone in the country voted for national policies.

No. You are again confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is a term that has been co-opted by a century-old psy op in order to make the uneducated equate the word socialism with what communism actually is.

Communism is a type of Socialism, in which all property is commonly owned, usually by the state. Socialism is just significant government intervention in the economy — which is why most economies are mixed.

In context, I'm referring to the Socialist faction, which wants more government intervention, and the Capitalist faction, which wants less intervention.

So, the rich would go to each neighborhood and try to influence each and every local information medium?

Under Capitalism, every information medium is centralized into the hands of a small elite, who use them to push agendas and disinformation.

In the end Fascism is the same as democracy without the bullshit, because a true fascist leader understands the heart and soul of his people and shapes the nation according to it. He is not a tyrant, he is an idol, a template, a pinnacle.

You do realize that the whole point of direct democracy is not having leaders, right? a "true fascist leader" would be a representative, elected or not.

Buying one official for each county (never mind neighborhoods) costs >300 million.

You do realize lobbyists spend millions of dollars, right? They spent $2.5B just in 2010. By the way, I have no clue where your numbers are coming from.

And then there is the whole, "Wait, when did you get so rich?" trigger when each official lives in his own small community.

People already know politicians are corrupt, they just can't do no'n about it (or so they think), since the first-past-the-post voting system protects establishment politicians. The solution is to switch to a different voting method and pass election finance laws.

Also, direct democracy wouldn't have these officials.

Legislation? BIG CORPS OWN THE GOVERNMENT.

It should be obvious that we'd have to elect anti-corruption candidates first.

since you now have to lobby at least 3,000 times as many officials.

Again, direct democracy doesn't have officials.

There are mayors in direct democracies.

...

I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered answering in the first place.

You can quit responding, if you want; I honestly don't mind.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That you chose to gloss over this

A society that functions does so because the people obey ONE set of rules to get at ONE set of goals. If you have minorities with different goals or who "play" the game of society using different rules, that is a dysfunctional society. That is my most absolute condemnation of people like you. You destroy society because you feel entitled. When the laws are made BY the people and FOR the people, things just plain WORK.

Says everything we need to know.

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Soviet" means council. Very similar ideas as what you are proposing here. See also: Kibbutz.

[–]EddieC[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a) "Soviet"=an elected governmental council in a Communist country
b) Kibbutz =a communal farm or settlement in Israel, a socialist economic organization based on the principle of state ownership of land

Co-ops are private, economic organizations, not public, political organizations.
Anyone can set up co-op right now - no changes to the political system or laws are necessary.
A community, depending on its size, may have multiple co-ops for a given activity as well as different co-ops for different activities.
"Co-opefy The Economy" would be a value shift for the entire population (not just a community) away from 0.01%-owned Corporations to build economic power for political leverage.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Soviet" means council.

The way the Soviets used the word "Soviet" is different from how we use it today. They called it the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for a reason: the term "soviet" by itself only referred to a government body (for example: the upper house of parliament in the Russian Empire was called the State Soviet).

A socialist soviet, on the other hand, was a council for the purpose of implementing Socialism; they managed public property, carried out the central government's economic plans, and forced workers to do hard labor for little or no pay.

Very similar ideas as what you are proposing here.

u/EddieC is proposing Syndicalism, not Communism. He ain't proposing any kind of government ownership of the means of production or a command economy, but rather: worker ownership of businesses within a market economy. Huge difference.

See also: Kibbutz.

Again, that's Communism, not Syndicalism.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The problem with going down a far left rabbit hole like this is the purity spiral. First coops. Then these coops aren't pure enough, we need more extreme ones. Eventually everyone gets called racist and the movement collapses because of the intense anger felt by some of the members.

[–]EddieC[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is fine if co-ops fail. New, better ones can be built from failed experiences.
It is entirely up to the people who are interested to discuss, negotiate & decide amongst themselves how they want their coops to be.
Co-ops can be big or they can be small. There can be many co-ops in any one locale, not just one.
Let the people (ie the market) decide whichever they support.
The objectives are to enable us:
(1) To Organize ourselves into something bigger
(2) To Decenter The Corporatocracy
(3) To Make the shift away from Corporations

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah but it won't matter. It'll fall into a purity spiral just like I said. Leftists who favor coops are angry, angry, angry and trying to placate them never works.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Leftists who favor coops are angry, angry, angry and trying to placate them never works.

Key-word: leftists.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You do realize there are right-wing variants of Syndicalism, right? The Spanish Falangists were National Syndicalists, and Mussolini was a Fascist Corporatist.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All vaporized today.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sure there's some teenager LARPing as a National Syndicalist somewhere on the Internet.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You're definitely going in the right direction, since co-operatives give power to the working-class, but I also believe we need to empower small business owners. Furthermore, we need to give workers a share of ownership in large corporations, as they do in Germany, in order to foster class co-operation.

You mention unions, but being organized in a largely ad-hoc fashion by Communists seeking to infiltrate business circles, they're dangerously anti-American — instead, we must organize labor and capitol into a congress of independent trade corporations, and implement corporatist policies that force the classes to co-operate.

I assume you're some kind of Syndicalist? I'm a Syndicalist myself, of the national Corporatist variety.

Also, you write way too many lists. This would put u/JasonCarswell to shame, LOL.

[–]EddieC[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Essentially, the aim is for everyone to get used to the idea of a Co-op-dominated economy instead of a Corporation-dominated economy because of the economic benefits & leverage it would provide to the working class.
However, it does not mean pushing out small business owners. They will continue as before and would even flourish when income is better retained within the community through co-ops, circulates & grows.
 

I put "Unionize" in quotes i.e. to mean that the existing Workers of Corporations should organize into Co-ops that compete with the Corporations. Unionizing would only continue to put the power with the Corporations.

The classes could cooperate through the funding of the Co-ops i.e. the investor class can provide loans to Co-ops directly or indirectly through Credit Unions, but they will not have a say in the running of the Co-ops.

Looking at the features of syndicalism listed in this video, most of the features/boxes listed would left unticked under this idea. So,...

Yes, I think in lists. LOL

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Looking at the features of syndicalism listed in this video YouTube , most of the features/boxes listed would left unticked under this idea.

LOL. That video was made by an Anarcho-Communist who has no idea what Syndicalism actually is. By the way, they literally copied that five-point list directly from Wikipedia.

They're right about some things, like Syndicalists favoring federalism and opposing political parties — but the latter point is misleading, since "political parties" refers specifically to communist, one-party states. We ain't against using political parties to win elections, or even in a Syndicalist society to represent different factions.

Not all Syndicalists view a general strike as a good tactic — matter of fact: we generally see it as impractical (at least today). Strikes are viewed as useful at a small scale, in order to get specific businesses to treat their workers better, but statist Syndicalists (like myself) prefer government action.

Being an Anarchist, they push this idea that Syndicalists wan'o replace the state with a "federal, economic organization of society", but there are plenty of Syndicalists who believe in retaining the state. Anti-statist Syndicalism is referred to specifically as Anarcho-Syndicalism. Statist Syndicalists tend to want to merge syndicates with the state — or even use them as the state.

They also push the idea that Syndicalists are pro-union, but in reality: we only support unions that legitimately care for their workers, and oppose those that support Capitalism or Communism. Statist Syndicalists — especially Corporatists and National Syndicalists — usually want to merge them with the state and/or ban independent unions.

Merriam-Webster has three definitions of Syndicalism:

  1. a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy and the government by direct means (such as a general strike)

  2. a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers

  3. a theory of government based on functional rather than territorial representation

The first definition could include elections. The second and third definitions are pretty good, but I'll warn against assuming Syndicalism has to be this extreme.

The word "Syndicalism" comes from French, and refers to syndicates, or trade unions — so Syndicalism is quite literally: the ideology of trade unions. How "trade union" is defined, and what exact purpose they should serve, is left up to the specific form of Syndicalism.

My list of qualifications for whether someone's a Syndicalist is as follows:

  1. Should workers have significant, direct ownership of the workplace?

  2. Should the economy be based around trade unions? (in whatever form they may manifest)

If you answered "yes": you're a Syndicalist! The hard part is figuring out what kind you are.

[–]EddieC[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the great insight on Syndicalism!

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What a joke. People today are lazy morons. Without a boss they would do nothing.

[–]EddieC[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not everyone will choose to start a co-op. But everyone will get to decide whether to buy from Co-ops or Oligarch-owned corporations.

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Since almost everything in the modern world is horrible, I simply buy from the best source regardless of their ideology.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So the entire machine churns on, grinding up forests, water, topsoil, languages in its trajectory, but I have the option to buy coffee from a cooperative? Sounds like the status quo.

[–]EddieC[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is status quo to the extent that there are no institutional changes - because we are not in a real position to do them, but more importantly, we can make real changes without them - by simply focusing on the inalienable power we have collectively - economic power.
With each individual deciding to buy from co-ops and to form co-ops, each individual will inoculate her/him self from being exploited by Corporations ie the 0.01%. "Herd Immunity" is reached when the very idea of corporations having any material impact on our lives is looked down upon & shunned by the majority as it would represent a return to enslavement by the minority.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You do realize that co-operatives have bosses too, right? They're just elected by workers instead of investors.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Which means that the bosses can't be tough on the stupid lazy employees under them, which means nothing will get done.

I support coops in principle and have for the last 20 years. But this no longer works in practice now that humanity has degenerated into shit.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which means that the bosses can't be tough on the stupid lazy employees under them, which means nothing will get done.

Yes they can; the employees electing them have an incentive to keep the business going, or they'll lose their income and be forced to work minimum wage at McDonalds, so a lot of them will end up electing hardliners. Also, investor-based companies tend to cater to a minority of woke employees, who would be mitigated by the silent majority in a worker-based company.