Noam Chomsky on Anarcho-syndicalism

[@sartanko]

A simplified explanation: The way I've understood it from other sources of information is that Anarcho-Syndicalism is a way of achieving an Anarchist society by working through unions to eventually take over the workplace. The tactics and strategies might vary, but the end goal is worker owned means of production and workplace democracy with a flat hierarchy.

[@kodabro4322]

Ive heard that with bigger institutions we wouldn’t have a “flat distribution” because that’s unreasonable, but that we would have a much more fair system where the CEO doesn’t make 300-400x more than the average person with workplace democracy. I think the way things are now is beyond unreasonable

[@RealRougarou]

@@kodabro4322 It's not just the executives, it's the shareholders (the ones with voting shares) who take all the profits in the form of dividends.

[@LinusE]

The Syndicalist part of anarchi-syndicalism is important. Syndicalist unions as they operated in the past would be very active using strikes and other forms of direct action. CNT for example were anarcho-syndicalists and used direct action and enacted revolution in Spain. The conflict that arises from syndicalists and unionists is that unions work with reforming workplaces, while syndicalists use direct action to achieve results. Naturally this is how I’ve been informed. I’m only trying to contribute to the discussion

[@LinusE]

Oh and not flat hierarchies, but horizontal organisations. Anarcho-syndicalists, being anarchists, naturally reject hierarchies. This is why anarcho-syndicalist unions are organised horisontally. It’s a part of revolutionary practice. By organising horisontally, and not vertically, workers will get the chance to practice and live according to anarchist principles. The theory is that when the revolution comes, the people will know how to organise and work according to anarchist principles by having organised according to them previously.

[@will_the_warlord8913]

Yes

[@venture3800]

the most destructive tenet of all societies is the notion that the grounds of any type of social organization is self justified and should not be questioned

[@MK_ULTRA420]

Social organization is self justified because it's an evolutionary advantage. Mankind never had to leave the caves, yet we did.

[@bethenawaltz4190]

@@MK_ULTRA420 i doubt that it's an evolutionary advantage; though it seems plausible there is a difference between plausibility and reality

[@MK_ULTRA420]

@@bethenawaltz4190 Then you've never seen strength in numbers if you think that.

[@bethenawaltz4190]

@@MK_ULTRA420 that doesn't necessarily mean that it's an "evolutionary advantage," just because you say so, even if it sounds plausible it has to be demonstrated somehow through experiment

[@jengel05]

@@bethenawaltz4190 1. I setup an experiment in which two teams physically fight. One has a hundred people, and the other has one. 2. The team with a hundred people brutally massacres the team with one person 3. The concept that you are in a better position to survive, within a group, i.e. strength in numbers i.e. social organization is proven to benefit those within it. 4. An evolutionary advantage is an advantage in which one is placed within a better position to survive and reproduce. 5. Social organization is an evolutionary advantage.

[@dankflyingv6345]

Yo why tf did I get a Trump ad on this

[@uuurettererreeeer]

Me too fuck trump

[@ThatSkeptic]

Same. I don’t see it as an accident

[@thisaccountdoesntexist7512]

Cambridge analytica...?

[@ceka50]

The ad buyer choses what type of videos their ads appear on. Trump's campaign certainly targets political videos

[@balls1441]

Damn it I wanted to transform America to Syndaclism now this fat fuck useless president is

[@thomasralston8432]

You think he ever gets tired of this question

[@markmikolay9019]

"Well I didn't vote for you!"

[@TheWizardYeof]

Márk Mikolay Hoping someone would reference this 😂

[@SamiShah2004]

That Python skit was pure comedic genius though.

[@TheSilael]

"I thought we were an autonomous commune?"

[@willemdafoe9811]

@jdugmar you see what I'm on about? Did you see him repress me?

[@oceania2385]

A watery tart threw a scimitar at me

[@adampaul83]

This was a great segment. But, I really have to applaud Noam for keeping the train on the tracks with this interviewer. Responses of, "So, what you're saying is _____" followed by sometime he didn't say at all. Noam picked up the slack. Multiple part questions asked that has little to no relation to reach other that would require his of face time to address one by one as their own categories. Noam find the common denominator between them all and answered with the utmost simplicity. And, last but not least, something that is seemingly inherent in modern journalism, cornering. Asking questions that aim to discredit instead of verify.

[@TheAwillz]

Could Capitalism become a form of Anarcho-Syndicalism if company's were turned into Cooperatives and company income shared evenly? Or is the Capitalist system just going to turn those involved with the most profitable Cooperatives into the new ruling class? Would love to hear people ideas about this!

[@isaacpeachey8609]

+TheAwillz Competition breeds hierarchy and inequality. Therefore, we must end all systems that endorse competition. That means Capitalism must be ended in order for equality to be reached. If we keep Capitalism, even in a strict cooperative form, we will still see inequality.

[@TheAwillz]

+Issac Peachey Thanks for the reply mate. You bring up a good point about competition which i agree with. However that brings up my next question, if people haven't got the freedom to earn through their own companies, wont that lead to a lack of motivation? it seems to me that the abolition of money and the centralization of an economy is not a good idea either (based on Stalinism and China under Mao). Also is it even possible to completely end inequality? As the Doctor who worked very hard for ten years to gain his PHD is equivalent to the darts player who has sat in a pub all his life and not contributed. Why would anyone in their right mind then become a Doctor in that scenario?

[@Steirebv]

+TheAwillz "if people haven't got the freedom to earn through their own companies, wont that lead to a lack of motivation"...you already have a lack of motivation due to being fcked over in the work place, under payed, increased working hours etc........But more specifically in relation to your question...the way I can only see anarcho -syndicalism developing and becoming an global effect is only through a change in social consciousness in the way we view "work"

[@Steirebv]

+TheAwillz In relation to your scenario...personally I dont think people should make a living from playing sports.....but at the end of the day, its what you want to do...some people are passionate about medicine and a career in it etc......ther is also a reason why people work very hard for years to become doctors, this is due to the fact that a doctor serves a very important position in society as a member of the working class whereas a darts player does not.......In terms of your comments in relation to motivation etc at work...there is a very good book you should read -www.bookdepository.com/Why-We-Work/9781476784861

[@irishdc9523]

Think of it this way. Labour produces everything, but the "-ism" determines who gets paid for it. In capitalism, the profits goes to a pencil pusher who didn't do the work, with the bare minimum trickling down to the workers, and he owns and runs the workplace, which is actually a form of passive slavery. But under a syndicate, the profits go directly to the workers who made the product, and they own and run the workplace. So, you, in a sense, still have competition, or collectives, but it's mainly about who gets paid for the work.

[@imavileone7360]

2:14 OMG thank you!

[@marko_g_korenski]

Thank you for mentioning Yugoslavia's self-menagment! 😊

[@dukewellington7050]

Yugoslavia is a shithole

[@Morgan-cv8bf]

@@dukewellington7050 "is"?

[@dukewellington7050]

@@Morgan-cv8bf was is will be

[@Morgan-cv8bf]

@@dukewellington7050 hate to break it to you bro but Yugoslavia... kinda gone

[@dukewellington7050]

@@Morgan-cv8bf whatever replaced it. You know what I mean

[@sirisaacnewton3755]

So the broadest way to describe anarcho syndicalism is no hierarchies?

[@px7107]

Yes.

[@ravex367]

Dat Boi not at all the syndicate that runs it is owned by 100% of everyone. There’s isn’t a vanguard of specific people who run or control it. It’s everyone living in it. Also it’s no hierarchical because the people elected to male certain decisions don’t have more rights or power than others as the government is structured horizontally.

[@ignatiushazzard]

@@datboi1260 and of course, just like presidents of our unions, all leaders would be democratically elected to their positions

[@nickolasrobert7340]

Yup, that means "No imposed authority". It's an important definition because anarchism is ok with at least SOME forms of "voluntary authority".

[@justinroyse4271]

All the syndicalists in the chat I have a question for you, instead of organizing the economy decentrally under labor unions electing representives to the trade union congress, could you organize the economy under worker cooperatives instead? And if so how would that work? Sorry if my comment is confusing or long.

[@elhumbo7858]

I mean you could, it might be harder to levy the power of the people under a system like that tho

[@ryancox5097]

I like sex.

[@primeroyal7434]

Syndicalist here! I think workers should elect their directors and CEOs and distribute profits among themselves. Anarchism, I am quite skeptical about rejecting total hierachy. I think there should be a transition instead of direct overthrow as it may encourage chaos.

[@skelly33333]

I strongly agree! I'd also add that we should always strive to find a diplomatic solution if at all possible.

[@ezequiel717]

A Revolution is the only solution.

[@nickolasrobert7340]

"Hierarchy" in the anarchist sense generally means "imposed authority", Anarchists tolerate at least some forms of voluntary authority.

[@antynvejil6285]

@@nickolasrobert7340exactly. Hierarchy can exist in anarchist world and so can any other type of social systems that people decide to construct.

[@HunterHunter67]

I still don't know what anrcho- syndicaliam is

[@AnarchistCatGrrl]

It's going to take some getting used to understanding. A simple way to visualize it is that everything is flat in anarcho-syndicalism while hierarchy is a vertical structure. There is no person above the other - no one is dominating the other in anarcho-syndicalism.

[@HunterHunter67]

@@AnarchistCatGrrl thank you that makes more sense to me

[@AnarchistCatGrrl]

@@HunterHunter67 glad to be of service

[@toast4443]

@@AnarchistCatGrrl love your videos!

[@aprioriontoast704]

@@AnarchistCatGrrl Do you know the difference of anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism or are they the same thing?

[@Interstellargaming]

Red world anyone?

[@aiso9198]

Me

[@korppi164]

Read 20th century history. www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851

[@winn3975]

@@korppi164 Stalinist communism and syndicalism have nothing in common.

[@korppi164]

@@winn3975 Both borrow Marx's ideas heavily.

[@winn3975]

@@korppi164 Hahaha, and just like that I cannot take you seriously man.

[@jamesrabbitt]

Watch it, Share it!👍

[@dburgessnotburger]

Question: is it possible that some hierarchies are legitimate? For example, competency hierarchies? Or do anarchosyns only care about the financial hierarchies? Serious question, I want to learn.

[@reverendmar5786]

yes, it is certainly possible Not least of all because it would be absurd to suggest otherwise Hierarchies are to be QUESTIONED (asked to justify their existence, to give testament to their necessity, according to Chomsky here). The ones to be dismantled then are those found to be superfluous, malicious, etc...

[@dburgessnotburger]

@@reverendmar5786 thanks bro. So what hierarchical structures are legitimate according to Noam?

[@thebanditking8502]

@@dburgessnotburgerhey this is old and i’m not too familiar with Chomsky specifically but here’s what i’ve picked up about anarchism: it is the abolishment of unnecessary/unjust hierarchy, specifically state, government, police (as we know it now), military (as we know it now), bosses (in general low risk jobs like coffee shops). justified hierarchies occur when people’s safety is in jeopardy if you remove the hierarchy, like a pilot having power of the passengers. just a few thoughts on the matter :)

[@xxcrysad3000xx]

This is not an answer. Chomsky has had 50 years to prepare an articulate explanation of anarcho-syndicalism and answer some basic questions that any first year undergrad in political theory would think to ask: How is power distributed and what body makes the decisions, and according to what processes? What is the scale of decision making... local, regional, national, global? How much autonomy is granted to local communities, and when are their decisions overridden by the will of larger political bodies? How do you facilitate cooperation and avoid conflict/violence between autonomous communities that disagree profoundly about fundamental issues of great importance to them?

[@KingAntDaProphet]

A constitution

[@xxcrysad3000xx]

Brilliant. A constitution. What a novel concept! And how do we get such a constitution, and on what basis is its authority legitimized? Majority? Unanimity? It's not enough to complain about the present order, you have to present a viable alternative, and Chomsky has had nearly six decades to do so, and he hasn't. Constitutions solve nothing. Most countries have constitutions, Chomsky still finds them problematic. This is not serious political thought, this is just complaining.

[@JibrilPC]

@@xxcrysad3000xx yeah this is my main problem with this, i would really like to have a more practical explanation of this proposed system as it sounds promising

[@cyanrazorCel]

This is what they don't want you to know about.

[@johntatum1969]

@TheAwillz I guess it's very fragile. If you have a direct democratic form of collective decision making the people can decide to break up that co-op

[@TheAwillz]

Only now seeing this John. Thanks for the reply and I think you've really hit one of the key points on the head with the application of direct democratic control by workers. I'm just a bit worried that it might be a case of the "Animal Farm" idea of "all are equal, but some are more equal than others" in so much as worker control of medical facilities could elevate those medical workers above a cleaning company and it's workers, therefore creating a new Bourgeois, albeit one based on skills and perceived value to the collective, as opposed to simple monetary inheritance. For me it boils down to ones belief in societal distribution of rewards. On one hand you have "Total Equitable Distribution" so all are equal regardless of input, and on the other hand you have "distribution based on input" where rewards are based on input into a productive process. Personally I can't decide, both have pros and cons. However I suppose there is an inherent paradox in "total equitable distribution".

[@haider9874]

If people break up the coop, it destroys for themself. Its like saying people can starve themself to death because they can forget to eat

[@jam1087]

Industry without hierarchy, make this make sense. And I believe in anarchy

[@bayreuth79]

Is Chomsky against hierarchy as such or just against hierarchies which are not self-justifying?

[@ishaan9265]

He is just against unjustifiable heirarchies

[@ishaan9265]

@Jacque pays to actually try to read a little instead of just being snide on the internet. He claims heirarchies are only justified if they meet the burden of proof. Any heirarchy by virtue of existing has to constantly prove beyond a pale of doubt that its existence is beneficial for everyone involved. For example jumping traffic lights just because you don't respect authority is silly, whereas questioning the role of finance capital in shaping our lives isnt

[@CAKESLAPPA]

@Jacque Thanks for bringing the "lmao" to the conversation

[@gabitheancient7664]

PLS CHOMSKY STOP GIVING THAT DEFINITION OF ANARCHISM, MINARCHISTS ARE ENTERING THE MOVEMENT THINKING THEY'RE ANARCHISTS, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[@Emel_unlegit]

Anarchia mama

[@heatherwhitehead3743]

Anarchy starts at home! Is your father a dictator?

[@thomasnaess742]

Kind of what made an anarchist

[@alexcossey7537]

No, and now I consider Anarchism. He showed me that no system was self justifying

[@heatherwhitehead3743]

Ok.

[@McMuffinV2]

I am a staunch lefty, and I ask this because I'm interested in this ideology, what incentives would there be for people to innovate or invent new products if they wouldn't be able to own their business and wouldn't become rich for successfully seeing the idea through to the point of profit?

[@thomasnaess742]

The incentive would be the benefits to society from your work as well as the pride in the technical achievements you have made. Given that most research takes place in the public sector and the profits are given away to private companies (smart phone for example) the profit motive does not currently exist in technology research. Hope that helps

[@McMuffinV2]

@@thomasnaess742 The profit motive most certainly exists currently, in fact, its the most powerful motive that moves society. I am interested in these views, but it seems to me that you need some type of material motivator to encourage people to take risks with their ideas and inventions. If there isnt one, why would they bother? And whether you like it or not, many people are not motivated by the wellbeing of society.

[@thomasnaess742]

@@McMuffinV2 obviously the profit motive exists in society, but not in the research that leads to new products. All the science necessary for the internet and smart phones was done in the public sector, often for the pentagon. The public puts in the investment and risk so that Steve Jobs can make a profit.

[@thomasnaess742]

@@McMuffinV2 As for why people would bother with inventions, first of all why do they bother now? Yeah they get a salary, but not corporate profit. It seems to me they are passionate about science and trying to apply it to the real world. The knowledge that you changed society positively seems like a pretty strong incentive.

[@McMuffinV2]

@@thomasnaess742 I agree that it should be. But dont you think its possible that if someone has a great idea, but they wont get rewarded for their work or intelligence in getting it out there and successfully, that they might not even bother? And the reason people innovate now is because they can become very wealthy if its a product many people want.

[@danielfitzgerald2561]

Why does he always sound like he's just telling you about his morning.

[@gandalfstormcrow8439]

Help, help! I'm being repressed!

[@ballisticpug6764]

“Do you see me being repressed?!”

[@georgecostanza30]

DO NOT listen to Noam Chomsky if you have ADHD Can't pay attention to save my own life jesus christ

[@cormeum5371]

lmao

[@missc2742]

Its the occasional mouth smacking for me

[@scytale6]

Rehashed marxism.

[@soensocomrade600]

the cooler marxism 😎

[@nihilgeist666]

I think Blockchain is a technological solution that could make this form of governance a reality.

[@nirajchowdhury67]

nihil geist Very true.

[@nikolademitri731]

How? I do not understand what it is exactly, but I’d love to learn.

[@snowhole2625]

Nikola Demitri Same

[@truthobservatory6767]

Because the blockchain is an open source incorruptible infallible system of accounting. Mainly through BTCat the moment utilizing currency as a medium . But any sort of system that would in theory display its internal net workings to the public for open scrutiny is now entirely viable. See blockchain based steemit to see a beta of how it could work. Steemit is a form of permanent blog posts, but shows how you can have a functional open source communication system. Turn that to voting, record keeping, transaction verification, property ownership, etc etc

[@ValaAssistant]

make it possible when it already formed before and did well? look up CNT-FAI

[@justinjameson8767]

Another important video from chomsky besides his video on corporate capitalism and on crony corporate capitalism which is the current variation/version of capitalism widely-known and commonly-referred to neo-liberal/neo-libertarian/neo-conservative white-market corporate capitalism or just neo-liberalism/neo-libertarianism/neo-conservatism in academic circles/intelligentsia circles since capitalism itself won't be replaced for the next 150/200 year's-and-decades decades-and-centuries centuries-and-millennias to 800 year's-and-decades decades-and-centuries centuries-and-millennias since we live-and-breathe in secular liberal/libertarian representative democratic capitalist republic's so democratic dialogue either as public passive discussion or as public passionate debate has to happen over year's-and-decades decades-and-centuries centuries-and-millennias

[@parvislupisnavis1209]

Justin Jameson this is one sentence. Learn periods man

[@josephsellers5978]

SSDD

[@outsaneoutsane2747]

Intersting how chomsky is averse to coercion here yet supports coercion in people taking covid vaccines

[@JCResDoc94]

*but vote blue no matter who, especially biden.* the end must have been clipped.

[@missc2742]

Have you read Chomsky?

[@hasanyucel3286]

.

[@ddlee5354]

mob rule??

[@duckhuman4657]

Don’t you mean democracy

[@SeanOCallaghan0106]

how can I achieve financial freedom without contributing the existent capitalist system?

[@Daniel-uk6yr]

Win the lottery

[@AMASSIVELOSER]

Rob banks n shit like Stalin

[@chubbyninja842]

The biggest problem with capitalism today is not capitalism at all, but government influence in the market. Corporations, as they exist today, can not exist without government authority. They are registered and formed by government authority. In a free market, there is no way to separate the owner of the business and the liability thereof. If a business causes harm to the environment or to others, the owner is liable for damages. Thanks to government intervention in the market, we now have the concept of limited liability, a government fiat that says "you can't directly sue person X because he paid us to be separate from the business he owns." In a true free market, the owner is inseparable from his business and liability. If the business causes harm, he is personally liable for damages and THAT is why he will not want to cause harm. The EPA doesn't prevent pollution. They literally license it. If you know your factory is going to create X amount of pollution, you buy a license for that amount from the EPA and then you just pollute. If damage is caused by that pollution or people get sick from it, they can't sue you for damages because the GOVERNMENT won't let them. You bought their protection. Without the EPA and without government constructed limited liability, all damages can be held against the business operator, which removes the profit incentive. Without a profit incentive, a business takes no action ... which means it creates no pollution. All freedom is rooted in economic freedom. If you are a free person, you should be able to buy and sell any product or service at any price you can voluntarily agree to with another willing economic participant. Free people should not be dictated to regarding the terms of their transactions and relationships.

[@anonymousalias.5059]

That's a horrible idea

[@weerribben47]

Found the ancap

[@wallyb6051]

AnCap is literal horseshit.

[@Darklord1201FTW]

Utopian concept. How would you stop the conglomeration of companies?

[@notevenironicallyfunny204]

The only think I am thankful for from Neolibs, is the fact that they aren’t ancaps.

[@Tavin-z5j]

Bad interviewer

[@TWE_2000]

Anyone who has taken an economics class understands why syndicalism is a horribly inefficient system that would create huge amounts of poverty. Fun fact, it's not illegal to run a syndicalist business, it's not done because nobody is going to start a business when every worker they add means their own less and less of their own business. Syndicalism also rejects specialization, so good luck getting an appointment with a doctor when he has spend part of his shift being the janitor, the cook, the taxi driver, etc. That is assuming anyone even becomes a doctor, since there would no longer be any financial incentive to go through years of grueling training to become a Doctor.

[@soensocomrade600]

you've redefined syndicalism to just mean "worker co-ops" then made the false claim that they're inefficient... but that's not actually what data shows. then you made up some weird shit about doctors spending part of their shift as cooks and janitors. ya just struck out.

[@missc2742]

Read some theory! Like, at least a little bit of Marx. I'm not at all saying there aren't any good arguments against anarchosyndicalism or that you're dumb/uneducated if you're not into it, but I can tell that you don't know the basics about the thing you're claiming you don't believe in (which there's ofc no reason you should! Theory is a bit esoteric and our society does a great job of discouraging people from looking into this stuff.) Again, I'm not trying to be patronizing, but you can't really say that an idea is stupid if you don't understand it. If you learn about it and still decide its stupid, at least you have a better idea of how to combat that thing and know WHY you believe what u do.

[@antynvejil6285]

⁠@@missc2742I am here to say that they are dumb and uneducated

[@bubblegumgun3292]

anarcho nationalist syndicalism riiise

[@NoOne-go3ml]

cringe

[@Swift-mr5zi]

Read Economics my guy

[@parvislupisnavis1209]

AustrianSchoolSpaceMan what an incredibly insightful and detailed response to an articulate argument about class structures!

[@parvislupisnavis1209]

Blue Traveller are... are you serious?

[@parvislupisnavis1209]

Blue Traveller no money does matter as we live in a culture that fetishizes the attainment of wealth. But I also realize that with the slightest bit of introspection almost anyone can see that it holds no intrinsic value and is only a means to an end. I may be young but im definitely not that much of an idealist.

[@parvislupisnavis1209]

Blue Traveller i want money to be able eat to live but those things could be done without money. You have not disproven my point.

[@parvislupisnavis1209]

Blue Traveller we’ll currently we live in a system where those are the options but in another system if I was starving I would receive food. Living is a right.

[@dragonore2009]

We have one example we know of where anarcho-communism did indeed fail in absolute terms. That would be the Jonestown massacre in 1978. It had no state, no hierarchies, no money, no wage labor, no private property, had community meetings, community shared property.

[@NoOne-go3ml]

It was literally a hierarchical cult centered around the leadership and control of Jim Jones. Its a perfect example of why hierarchical control is so dangerous.

[@PeebeesPet]

@@NoOne-go3ml It blows my mind how utterly stupid people can be. Thinking that a vicious cult is like anarchism. Maybe they need to go back to learning 1+1 at this stage.

[@albanianantivirus6849]

syndicalism is just edgy communism

[@fkujakedmyname]

na its libertarian socialism instead of authoritarian

[@locustalign3777]

@Rayyan Ali That's sort of what he meant

[@morgang5666]

It has more in common with F***ism

[@missc2742]

​@@morgang5666 fukism?

[@antynvejil6285]

Huh are you just brain dead or ignorant?

[@jimrevkin9271]

Philosophy major here. Read Chomsky in Philo 101 and also some of his linguistics work. I simply cannot fathom how someone of intelligence like Chomsky, who is able to connect the dots on so many issues, can suggest that the concept of anarchy and society, can co-exist. What is even more bizarre, is the knowledge that he grew up in a religious environment, a very top down, hierarchical structure of belief in law, albeit that of God. I can understand how his current views might be a reaction to that but it boggles the mind to think that society can exist without some organizing features that at some point, require managers to organize efforts to solve problems that confront the community. Is there any evidence that Chomsky once worked as a member of, or managed a team, dedicated to solving a concrete problem? Glad I got this off my chest.

[@yungkraujas5642]

Anarchy does not mean chaos. First off, there were many religious anarchist groups in the 20th century which I'm pretty sure Chomsky's family was apart of. Christian and religious anarchists think that the only valid authority is god and they are actually in favor of separating church from state. Anyone else claiming to be "god's messenger" like the pope is an illegitimate authority to them. As I said in the beginning, anarchy isn't chaos, or unorganized, anarchism is simply a way of organizing society where UNJUST (not all) hierarchy is gone. For instance, a workplace in anarchism might be democratically run by workers who each vote on major decisions and have a manager which they elect. Anarchism practically just says that anyone can do anything as long as they don't exploit, infringe, and harm others. This principle is only broken when someone is harming others and they need to be put down (not literally, like a dog). Hope this helps.

[@PeebeesPet]

It boggles the mind that a philosopher can’t be bothered to look up definitions instead of blindly assuming anarchism or anarchy in the sense of anarchism means anti-organization. Hierarchies aren’t the only form of organization.

[@antynvejil6285]

The most bizarre thing is that you CANNOT conceptualize a world where multiple types of free association can exist. Not much of a philosopher eh?

[@ljpurdy5124]

Deus Fuckin Vult

[@captainjack7797]

Not to be taken seriously. He's been a gate keeper for years.

[@korppi164]

Our society's hierarchies are naturally formed. People are not equal. People differ in IQ, interests etc. Only the elite in terms of IQ and trait conscientiousness can occupy the highest positions in our society, which require these traits.

[@nicoguerrero64]

This is a bad idea with strong ties to racist/sexist/ageist ideology and has been used to justify inequality. Of course people are different and offer different skills but this shouldn't translate to human suffering or your skills sets (or lack of a certain kind) being used to justify not giving someone the means and resources to live. These "high/elite positions" aren't as high and mighty that demand such human excellence to complete and perform. Especially when there is evidence showing otherwise. With research on mathematical/statistical data showing that luck, not intelligence, high IQ, a good idea, nor hard work, but luck in being the biggest and most prominent factor in obtaining wealth. Putting a damper on that belief system you described.

[@korppi164]

@@nicoguerrero64 Citations for your comment on luck please. Elite positions such as managers and ministers require an elite set of traits, not all of which one can obtain during one's lifetime, such as a high IQ. This means hierarchies form naturally, based on the variance of traits that matter in climbing in the hierarchy.

[@korppi164]

@@willemgloudemans1442 IQ is mostly heritable. It doesn't matter that much whether or not you go to a "good school" or not. Eastern Europeans have about the same average IQ's as White Americans, even though they have considerably lower living standards.

[@korppi164]

@@willemgloudemans1442 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

[@revelaitons3959]

Foudilain The point of equality under anarcho-syndicalism isn't the elimination of all differences between people, but getting rid of unjust hierarchies such as race, wealth, and gender. Just because someones "IQ and interests" are suited to mopping floors instead of running a business doesn't mean that one should make billions of dollars while the other is living paycheck to paycheck. So even if these things are totally genetic, skull shapes and all that, it still wouldn't justify the vast inequality of pay. What if I'm interested in owning a business and have the IQ to do so (whatever that means), but I don't have the startup capital to do it? What if I have to save 20 or 30 thousand dollars to start that business and I don't make enough money to save that much? Is being born to a poor family instead of a rich one my fault? What about my inability to go to a good school because I was born into a poor family? What if the public schools in my area are trash and we can't afford to live in a better school zone? These are all reasons for why social status is heritable, but none of these are natural examples. The reasons why poor people are not as smart is because they don't have the money and free time to pursue education. They have to work as much as they can to support their families. They don't have the disposable income to support their child's dreams of entrepreneurship.