[vacuity]

While I am sympathetic to the idea that we need to burn e everything down, baby steps, first. If we're talking halfway realistic changes, let's get stuff like this wealth limit in place first, and once those been established for a while, we may have a better picture of the ideal state.

[AndrewKemendo]

I can understand how you can assume catastrophic intent on my part however, that’s not the case.

In no revolution are the poorest and weakest persons ever benefited it’s only typically been to the benefit of some small group they just recycles hands so in fact, the last thing I want is some kind of hard break.

No, I’m an anarcho syndicalist. Which is a gradual reappropriation of the means to worker collectives slowly and peacefully.

[vacuity]

Sorry for the mischaracterization. Your position sounds interesting. When it comes to how the means of production should be structured, I envision a microkernel kind of model: enforce strict protections for worker pay, fairness, and whatever, and let the dice fall where they may. If it's worker collectives that result as the optimum, so be it.

[AndrewKemendo]

No worries, most people see “anarchist” and think violence because propaganda works unfortunately. Anyway…

“enforce strict protections for worker pay, fairness, and whatever“

This assumes a lot about the foundational structure of the environment these agents are operating within

Unless you address who reaps the benefits of commerce then its just the same situation with slightly different tyrants

What you describe is precisely the structure of what exists now - but you’re not satisfied with the rates

[vacuity]

> Unless you address who reaps the benefits of commerce then its just the same situation with slightly different tyrants

That's something I hadn't thought of before. I suppose the part of the solution that addresses that would go hand-in-hand with TFA?

[AndrewKemendo]

That’s the core conceit of anarcho syndicalism - to own the fruits of your own labor amd it not be intermediated or alienated by anything which reappropriates the capture of value.

So for example, if I own a table saw and my neighbor doesn’t and needed one for his labor, anarcho-syndicalism would suggest that if my saw was not planning to be used for a day, and he uses it for a day of creation, then the neighbor owns 100% of the resulting value. Much like if you rented a tool from Home Depot.

That makes sense and there’s no reason to believe that simply because I own a fallow tool, would benefit even equally from the labor.

Now look at how companies are created they are created in such a way that 100% of the value is retained by the organization and labor does not get to set its own rate. It Hass to simply be responsive to the rate offered by the organization decoupled from an alienated from, the labor that I’m inputting into it.

This isn’t accidental it’s a type of accounting that assumes labor inputs are not valued based on the productivity outcome they are simply, and only based on the relative bargaining power of the respective organizations.

This is why you see corporations, so aggressively fight the concept of collective bargaining because it creates the power dynamic that is actually appropriate for equitable relief, but reduces the amount that the more powerful organization can determine the relationship between the less powerful individual.

So anarcho-syndicalism is really about ensuring the individual worker cannot be put into a position of deprivation or suffering such that they have so little relative bargaining power in labor production that they can only choose between oppressive tyrants.

The key fallacy that people love here is that it’s all about relative deprivation so people have exceptionally varied views on what is considered oppressive or what a lifestyle would look like that is, let’s say inequitable.

Often times and you’ll see in many threads is the argument that “Actually we’re objectively more comfortable and well off that really, you shouldn’t be complaining about anything because you’re not starving to death”

The problem here is that it’s a completely separate argument than the argument for long term concentration of power, and who is actually controlling the economy, and has the ability to be flexible and create a life free of intermediaries that are confiscating your labor.

It all comes back to who has the power to set their own destiny in the economy, and the reality is, it’s always been small groups of exploiters who are able to do whatever they want to do because they’re taking advantage of the relative deprivation around them to not make things actively better for everybody. The people in situations like this, take no responsibility for their surroundings, their community their environment, they simply say how do I take advantage of this environment to my own best ends, and if that is the foundational conceit of a society, then you will not have a society that long and history tells us that society is built on this go through this political cycle, which so far has been basically every society in recorded history, unfortunately.

Anyway, there’s a lot of Intersectionality here with, for example, global finance, how this got really amplified after Bretton Woods two and the kind of fiatization, and then financialation of all possible value so there’s a giant kind of systematic thing here that is encoded in a lot of these as foundational assumptions in western capitalist economics.