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

submitted by EddieC from (self.LateStageCapitalism)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][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!