Actually, Syndicalism would likely retain class dynamics unless they centralized and dissolved the syndicates, or their worker-cooperative ownership form. Each syndicate would maintain petty-bourgeois cooperative ownership, as opposed to collective ownership, leaving open the methods of Capitalist ressurection. I’m more sympathetic towards it because it still leaves the avenue for centralization and erasure of class.
Ah I see, my understanding was in fact limited lol. Would the rotation if leadership and democratic nature of the syndicate not mitigate the petit bourgeois aspirations of individuals though?
The syndicate would be more democratic, but the overall economy would be made up of distinct syndicates working in their interests, unless they centralized and equalized ownership across it (and went towards a Marxian understanding of class). Petite bourgeois individualism need not have people below them, but distinct from in interest. Syndicate A will want favorable conditions for Syndicate A even at the expense of Syndicate B.
If you collectivized the syndicates across the whole economy, the interests of Syndicate A would be the same or closely linked to Syndicate B. They would coalesce. This is why Marxists and Anarchists have different end goals, they have different analysis of the roots of issues with society, class or hierarchy. The Anarcho-primitivists only manage to reject both class and hierarchy by rejecting industry as well.
Or go the other way, anarcho-syndicalism.
I’m more partial towards Syndicalism of all of the Anarchist strains, for sure, as a Marxist. Even used to consider myself one.
Syndicalism (as i understand it which is limited) would go fucking hard after class has been genuinely eliminated
Actually, Syndicalism would likely retain class dynamics unless they centralized and dissolved the syndicates, or their worker-cooperative ownership form. Each syndicate would maintain petty-bourgeois cooperative ownership, as opposed to collective ownership, leaving open the methods of Capitalist ressurection. I’m more sympathetic towards it because it still leaves the avenue for centralization and erasure of class.
Ah I see, my understanding was in fact limited lol. Would the rotation if leadership and democratic nature of the syndicate not mitigate the petit bourgeois aspirations of individuals though?
The syndicate would be more democratic, but the overall economy would be made up of distinct syndicates working in their interests, unless they centralized and equalized ownership across it (and went towards a Marxian understanding of class). Petite bourgeois individualism need not have people below them, but distinct from in interest. Syndicate A will want favorable conditions for Syndicate A even at the expense of Syndicate B.
If you collectivized the syndicates across the whole economy, the interests of Syndicate A would be the same or closely linked to Syndicate B. They would coalesce. This is why Marxists and Anarchists have different end goals, they have different analysis of the roots of issues with society, class or hierarchy. The Anarcho-primitivists only manage to reject both class and hierarchy by rejecting industry as well.
Gonna start telling anarchist we just need one big syndicate that covers every industry lol. Thanks for the explanation that made things a lot clearer
No problem! I don’t think you’re going to convince Anarchists that way, their chief critique is hierarchy, not class.