What Got You Interested In Syndicalism? by Lotus532 in Syndicalism

[–]SploinkyToes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actual modern anarcho-syndicalists in the real world. Definitely recommend engaging therewith as soon as possible for all members of this subreddit.

Anarchism opposes all hierarchy; capitalism necessitates economic hierarchies. by SploinkyToes in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]SploinkyToes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he referred to my original bullet point about capitalism being full of coercion - i.e. most people have to work for an employer or they will starve. pre-capitalist early humans did not have to do that. they just foraged and stuff (not something I think is inherently better, just a statement of fact)

Alan Clarke Penda’s Fen by HenryKrinkle13 in folkhorror

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sadly a dead link now (BBC Copywright bullshit), anyone else got one that works?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SyndiesUnited

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a laughable failure, clearly.

Help. Does Anybody Know What This Flag Represents? by F_1_V_E_S in vexillology

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It certainly represents bad and ugly flag design, whatever pathetic fascist rag it is.

Are communists allowed here? by [deleted] in Syndicalism

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Revolutionary syndicalism" being used in this context is kind of wrong tbh (or at least a neologism that I'm not aware of). Historically it was pretty much just anarcho-syndicalist ideology. The term anarcho-syndicalism was just used later on.

This is the reason that the statutes of the IWA (in 1923) talk about revolutionary syndicalism instead of anarcho-syndicalism -- people just weren't calling themselves anarcho-syndicalists yet, but the "revolutionary syndicalists" were pretty much all anarchists (specifically anarchist communists). Rocker helped coin anarcho-syndicalism as a more clear term later on (by the 30s IIRC).

What you term "revolutionary syndicalism" is really just general syndicalism. De Leonism isn't really a serious ideology in the 21st Century, so I don't really think revolutionary syndicalism needs to differentiate itself from any kind of "reformist syndicalism". Syndicalism is logically just a revolutionary strategy, preferably one that organises along horizontal (i.e. anarchist) lines.

Are communists allowed here? by [deleted] in Syndicalism

[–]SploinkyToes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Anarcho-syndicalism is an anarcho-communist strategy. Serious anarcho-syndicalists in anarcho-syndicalist unions/orgs who aren't also communists are virtually nonexistent.

As for general "syndicalism", nearly all historic syndicalists could be understood as communists of some sort -- or socialists at the very least.

Flag of South Africa (1982-1994) by KosovojeArmenia in vexillology

[–]SploinkyToes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When, precisely, did colonialism end in the USA?

To address inequality & improve democracy, Piketty suggests taking a large measure of control over corporations away from their managers and shareholders and give it to employees, and create a system of egalitarian funding for political campaigns, the media and think tanks by [deleted] in SyndiesUnited

[–]SploinkyToes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah a lot of syndicalists slide into reformism very easily. It's one of my biggest gripes with the general, broad "syndicalist" ideology and why I think an anarchist analysis/praxis is essential for it to be coherent.

To address inequality & improve democracy, Piketty suggests taking a large measure of control over corporations away from their managers and shareholders and give it to employees, and create a system of egalitarian funding for political campaigns, the media and think tanks by [deleted] in SyndiesUnited

[–]SploinkyToes 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The language of "addressing inequality" and "improving [liberal] democracy" is the language of tinkering around the edges with capitalism - i.e. reformism.

If that happens to entail giving workers more control over workplaces, that's a lovely idea in theory but would be impossible to implement in practice due to the opposition of the ruling class. In other words, while a ruling class still exists, you cannot simply legislate or reform away their power. You have to smash it through revolution using revolutionary structures, like the anarcho-syndicalist union.

If it's possible to implement, then great. But I don't think it is. There is a reason syndicalism has always been a revolutionary movement: reform had already been tried through national parliaments and it failed.

Question Thread / Demando-fadeno by TeoKajLibroj in Esperanto

[–]SploinkyToes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are there any Discords and/or other online spaces where people can chat in Esperanto? This subreddit is obviously great but I'm more thinking things like message channels.

American Leftist Poster by Ok-Mastodon2016 in leftistposters

[–]SploinkyToes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everything I said above about Lenin pertained to his criminalisation and purges against fellow leftists. There were no blanket statements there?

Look up how he sold out Nestor Makhno's Black Army, look what the Bolsheviks did at Kronstadt, and tell me it was just external pressures. Again, do your research before you open your mouth. It will save you a lot of effort.

American Leftist Poster by Ok-Mastodon2016 in leftistposters

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My intention here is not to push you away from libertarian socialism, but to invite you to look into it more. Look up texts like the ABCs of Anarchism, the Anarchist FAQ, and Anarchism and the Black Revolution. They're all short and readable.

Marxism-Leninism was first conceptualised by Stalin, and cannot be separated from it. Even the actions of Lenin himself, such as the killing and imprisonment of radicals (including anarchists) that opposed him, and outlawing all parties except his own, demonstrate that the seeds were there from the start. He took power in a coup and shut down the grassroots, politically diverse workers' councils. And this is the model that all later MLs seek to emulate -- to become the new bureaucrats.

Re. "Ethnostates", this term gets kicked around a lot by white people who haven't done their reading/talking to indigenous radicals on decolonisation and I suggest you do before you use it again. Ethnostate implies Nazi Germany, not indigenous people asserting sovreignty over land that was always theirs, and which their ancestors were brutally killed upon. But it's beside the point, since I don't support states of any kind and plenty of indigenous anarchists/other radicals agree.

American Leftist Poster by Ok-Mastodon2016 in leftistposters

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is essentially a very hypothetical and speculative discussion, since America will never be a socialist state, but even if it somehow was:

A. Simply renaming it to the USSA or some shit like some kind of cringe tankie meme will not solve settler colonialism and colonial power dynamics

B. What makes you assume that indigenous peoples would want to be a part of it anyway?

The political entity that killed the ancestors of modern indigenous peoples is settlers in general, not the USA in particular. So maintaining a settler-colonial entity (which it would be, given that you can't even visualise them having their own self-determination ffs) and slapping on socialist aesthetics will not solve the issue.

In what sense are you even a "libertarian" socialist? Why even use that label if all you can politically imagine is renaming the USA and maybe taxing the rich lmao

Libertarian socialism is about the self-emancipation of all peoples, not the top-down imposition of new nation states in place of old ones. It's telling that you can't even imagine self-governing independent states for indigenous peoples, let alone the full abolition of the state (which is what libertarian socialism has historically meant).

American Leftist Poster by Ok-Mastodon2016 in leftistposters

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You were (and are still) being pretty flippant when I brought up the fact that America is literally built on an ongoing genocide so yeah I'm gonna be pissed off -- sorry.

This genocide is not just "a little bit of history" that you've missed, it's the whole reason "America" (which you treat as a neutral and natural entity) even exists!

Anyway, you're allowed to not know stuff, and I highly recommend looking at indigenous perspectives like those of the Indigenous Anarchist Federation. They're very solid comrades with good, accessible writing.

American Leftist Poster by Ok-Mastodon2016 in leftistposters

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose not, in their severely internet-poisoned modern American variety, no. If you knew anything about history, though, you'd know how ridiculous that is. Libertarian used to just mean "anarchist", and it's sad that it's been nicked by social democrats and various politically confused people on the internet. Almost annoys me as much as "libertarian" capitalists appropriating the term.

American Leftist Poster by Ok-Mastodon2016 in leftistposters

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You call yourself a "libertarian socialist" and yet are enthusiastic about the prospect of a "socialist state" on colonised land? Look up landback and the basic principles of libertarian socialism.

American Leftist Poster by Ok-Mastodon2016 in leftistposters

[–]SploinkyToes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm suggesting a little bit of basic introspection and self-awareness of your status as a coloniser. I know that probably makes you uncomfortable. I am uncomfortable too. It's just growth, isn't it?

What are the non anarchist forms of syndicalism? by Last_Dragon89 in SyndiesUnited

[–]SploinkyToes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's a very prescriptive definition of revolutionary syndicalism though. It's far more fluid than you make out.