Noam Chomsky - The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism (1976)

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Peter Jay - July 25, 1976
What is anarchism, and what would it look like if put into practice?
www.chomsky.info/interviews/19...

[@anonfrank546]

I use to be a janitor . Now that I look back it was more important work , that being public health , than when i worked in public relations(of which i now despise) or janitor work being more important and meaningful than when i was a professional freelance photographer . And I think good janitorial work is more important than what a ceo does which is really nothing .

[@ianreynolds4150]

Long live the ideal of a world led by workers✊!

[@Tyler-cm6vk]

Especially after Reagan, CEOs nowadays barely provide anything either. Most of their profits are spent on buying their own stocks instead of reinvesting and paying higher wages. Its really interesting to see how it costs everything to rise to the top or even maintain at the bottom while it costs barely anything to maintain your status as a CEO or a member of the boards of a corporation.

[@shawn8847]

I always tell people, the next revolution could be ignited by an anarchist union of janitors.

[@ChrisPBacon-nn9vy]

@@ianreynolds4150 this is so laughable. viva la starbucks baristas.

[@User-uj7nz]

You're prioritizing the meaning and importance of 'work' rather than assigning a universal class value to labor... which would negate most executive boards and defer to managers

[@syourke3]

At 23:21, Chomsky points out that after W W 2, the U. S. War Department changed its name to the Defense Department - signalling that the U S would never again fight another defensive war but would only carry on wars of aggression in the future. Indeed, that has been the case ever since 1945. Orwellian, indeed.

[@sammaxwell8362]

All men are created equal.........proceed to enslave the blacks. Orwellian lies were a part of America from the very start.

[@anonfrank546]

yes, the defense department is double speak for sure

[@moodist1er]

It's been true since before the Revolution was fought. They should've called it the Department of We Take Whatever We Want

[@shesh2265]

I went to the founding of the anarcho syndicalist youth of my city today.

[@shawn8847]

Thank you.

[@ChrisPBacon-nn9vy]

what do they tell you anarcho syndicalism is? What does it look like (in reality)?

[@Post_the_most]

That's so great to hear

[@BrandonGates]

@@ChrisPBacon-nn9vy unfortunately for most of the POUM militia it looked like being shot by a communist Soviet firing squad.

[@BrandonGates]

maybe Franco really infiltrated them, but seems doubtful that Orwell wouldn't have figured it out if they had. Stalin didn't like the idea of constant revolution that was Trotsky's idea or at least was the ideology Trotsky supported. Stalin believed in socialism in one country. He had no interest in supporting revolutions in western Europe. He wanted to modernize the USSR, which he was successful at with no real help from anyone

[@paifu.]

1:05 The basis of organization would be "organic communities", which have a direct interest in taking decisions in common. Ex: Workplace, Neighborhood 2:30 Anarchist Critique of Representative "Democracy" 16:20 23:20 "War is defense" 26:13 Socialist revolutions in relation to material conditions 28:38 29:40 31:00 36:08 And also in a society where work could be desirable and rewarding, you could put rules in place so that in order for someone to do desired work, they also have to do a minimal amount of undesired work which is necessary for society as well. In a society where work is free, if not enough people want to do the basic work needed for society to function (Which I don't think would be the case), as opposed to coercive systems, people would be incentivized to do that work not by fear of starvation but by desire to do desired work with which they are passionate and being fulfilled by. 37:50 Compassion and the value it gives to work 48:00 Late stage Capitalism

[@joelaureate]

Wonderful. Thank you for this upload. It's a grand shame that 3-4 decades later we've continued further along the path towards economic centrism and pseudo democracy. It makes discourse such as this increasingly relevant and in fact urgent.

[@WorkerBeesUnite]

I agree, but with the proliferation of even more propaganda, it also makes discourse on this topic super heated, with all sides feeling like they know everything about the subject

[@TeoSarp]

I met chomsky when i was young, i didnt know about him much, and i wasnt an anarchist then, now i know who he is and i feel so ashamed..aaaah i really wanna have a seat with him again and talk about politics

[@davidgn40]

He's quite responsive to emails I believe

[@gamingwithslacker]

How'd you meet him?

[@daveconrad6562]

He has become a shill in his old age

[@TeoSarp]

@@gamingwithslacker i am a journalist, i meet all kind of people all the time, from politicians to terrorists to celebrities.

[@saleens]

@@daveconrad6562 wrong

[@GryanTrux]

Thank you so much for uploading this!

[@paifu.]

Probably his best interview to date imo.

[@greatbeautician]

Wonderful interview thanks. Only heard clips before

[@willywhitten4918]

Anarchy is simply human organization without "government". "Government" is defined by its monopoly on coercion and violence. As George Washington himself said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Add to this the observation by Lord John Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And we see the inherent danger in government; and the need to outgrow our childish need for the abusive "parent state". \\][//

[@moodist1er]

When you quote a historic piece of shit and the quote is full of hypocrisy..

[@poopypoopy32]

God this gives me all the answers. I would die for these beliefs god damn.

[@istraight1]

In what way? "He didn't explain how you can have syndicalism without having a form of the state" the closes example was Catalonia, Spain before the Spanish Civil War.

[@rgaleny]

IF THE SPARTANS EXISTED TO DEFEND THE HELOTS RATHER THAN SUBJUGATE THEM...

[@syourke3]

Chomsky is careful to say that he does not consider himself to be an anarchist thinker. I think he more properly calls himself a libertarian socialist.

[@CMDer101]

I believe he calls himself an anarchist as well. He just has quarrels with calling himself an anarchist "thinker" because he doesn't sufficiently provide anything new to the ideology.

[@infiniteinfiniteinfi]

+Chandler Daversa or maybe calling him self a "thinker" would imply that: - he has special insights that other people cant reach - that politics and philosophy are "deep" fields where there are special smart people and the rest have to listen to them to understand instaed of thinking for them selves

[@Kostly]

+infiniteinfiniteinfi his labeling himself a thinker is simply that. He thinks about things deeply in which most people don't. Since he's a master at language he can nearly communicate his entire train of thought on almost any given subject he studies.

[@riccardo9383]

A thinker would be someone who makes theories, hypothesis, arguments, explanations and so on with regards to a specific topic. He is not too interested in academic discussions with regards to politics in general, and it would consume a lot of effort and use of intelligence to formulate tendencies of an anarchist tradition.

[@sarahcollins190]

I think he does now.

[@IKnowNeonLights]

And what is the unwanted work? Automation/slash calculation. No one wants to do it, even the ones that are good at it, after a while or at many specific uses, will have something else to do the automation/calculation, hence tools all the way to computers. Unless you get others/human beings to do it. Than what comes as a result, and resembles as automation/calculation! Is control. Very automative, and most of all calculated, "civilization surplus/time, without space, space has nothing to do with control, hence the word space, and all of its meanings", thus a place to "guard" the surplus, thus putting a value to the surplus, etc etc

[@simonedevlin7710]

Aldous Huxley "Brave New World" Order, AI, IMF country linked digitalization of monetary system post 2021 Olympics.

[@BenCowles]

Anyone got a transcript to this?

[@BenCowles]

D'oh. Found it in the description.

[@catbuffalo]

It would take a long time to explain but I can break down real quick how you can't have capitalism without a state. How can you have private property rights enforced without a state? How can you have a currency without a state? Even if you had a local community based currency I would say that's statist in nature. If someone wanted to trade bottle caps with me I'd laugh them out of the room.

[@michaelwright8896]

There is a state in anarcho-syndaclsim but a flat state.

[@lukewilliams448]

I think an extremely small state could be acceptable, one that protects positive freedoms and is controlled from the bottom up.

[@BrainInJar]

@@lukewilliams448 I completely agree. This is the libertarian Marxist view.

[@aswinhoola]

Highly decentralised state. Is that possible?

[@istari8454]

@@aswinhoola in libertarianism, there is a thought about the Nightwatchman's state, not sure if it is what you are talking about but say we have something called an ultraminimal state, in which everyone is in the state of nature (there is no government, no laws) and there would form these protective agencies which protect those that wish to pay them. when this would change into the nightwatchman's state, is when these states become aware of their efficency, how to stop theft of their constituents much more efficently. they will eventually come to the conclusion that they must protect others as well as their constituents, BUT the constituents need to pay extra for the protection of others, which will ultimatley protect them. in this moment, the protective agencies are states, because they are protecting all in their area, and providing benefits for them I'll add that this is the only fuction of this state, and economic power is all in the hands of the citizens. I think to my knowledge this is the highst form of decentralization in a state that I can come up with that is a STATE.

[@saleens]

The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors. - Freire

[@brianearner5092]

A photo is the right reason

[@annihilationHaven]

There are a few absolute, universal values that need to be articulated so that we can build a better world. Everyone, including Chomsky refuses to give us their opinion on what these are, yet we all know which values we share in common. That's ultimately a huge reason why we're in the mess that we're in. I do take exception to his term "wage slave". Even Chomsky agrees that a monetary system is likely needed in society, and if so, people will do work for money. And I also disagree that the least wanted jobs shouldn't be the least paid. Yes there are some necessary jobs that most people do not want to do, but sharing these tasks is an awfully complicated solution (a position which Chomsky has stated that he adheres to). Rather, we would want every authority figure to have one of these unwanted tasks as a second, part-time job. If we tie the highly desired positions of power to an individual's willingness to do the dirty work as well (so long as they can do the job of course), we would see a true implementation of the universal value of humility. Of course if people do not value humility, then expect to have a society full of wage slaves, and full of injustices.

[@pramitbanerjee]

good thought

[@masonduke5647]

Wage slave isn't "his term", but has its roots in worker discourse and journalism during the origins of the wage system in England and America during the nineteenth century.

[@Ryan-fc9lq]

"If we tie the highly desired positions of power to an individual's willingness to do the dirty work as well ". That seems to carry the assumption that people could "buy" their way in to positions of power by doing unsavory work, which is something I think people do anyway in our society. Often it is slaving away at a job you don't really enjoy because you will get a promotion and eventually power over people. The antidote I think to man's will to power is not to increase the cost of power, because even if that is done some people will willingly pay the cost - those aren't always going to be the people you want. Even if there is a cost for a while some people will try to remove the cost and keep the power. Better I think to have a highly distributed form of decision making, where councils take the decisions and people are rotated out of positions of power. Then you can rely on human nature in general, which is good, rather than the nature of this or that individual, that might be deviated very far from the average. If the general standard of education is high we don't need to assume that only a special class of people have the capability of taking informed decisions. That should be a capacity we all have and are able to develop over the course of our lives in various roles. Not everyone will be able to lead but there should be enough talent in the population to make up a large pool of potential leaders. Then we simply rotate people in and out of positions of leadership over the course of a lifetime. If we combine this with the assurance that there aren't any material rewards for power, or permitted to be gained from it, along with a decent standard of living for all. How we get people to do undesirable work is a good question. I think rewarding undesirable work more than desirable work is an answer. But I think any anarchist system that would enable people to choose a position of hierarchy exposes itself to a danger, that certain types of personality, who you know from your class at school, would fix themselves on power more than anything and undermine the principles of the system to keep it. As soon as private power is created, it can be preserved and cultivated. Making it so that people can't choose to be leaders is probably absolutely essential to the existence of an anarchist society.

[@BrainInJar]

Wage slave is an important and apt way to describe the wage system. It's description is not made to elicit negative emotions, but to describe a mode of production that has come into existence since the end of feudalism. In a feudalist society, serfs belonged to their lords but the serfs themselves owned the land. They produced on their own land their means of subsistence and the rest was appropriated by the lord. However, in a wage system, the worker does not own the means of production, the capitalist does. The worker must work for the capitalist to acquire their means of subsistence. Under threat of starvation, they must sell their labour power in exchange for the ability to live. This is a system of work or die, much like slavery.

[@saleens]

@@BrainInJar not unlike how the word organizer gets uppity folks riled up

[@andrewirish7720]

!

[@Meekseek]

It's Noam pushing juice into arms.

[@JoaoPedro-is3ze]

Up

[@waindayoungthain2147]

Don’t bother him. Please advise me. Please. In Fool and fulfilling to I am. 🙏🏼🤣🤣🤣.

[@notWaldont]

If we were all anhedonic workaholics like Chomsky, maybe then his ideal society would work.

[@gooddogreallygooddog6157]

We actually are. But you need some freedom to realize that

[@PMetheney84]

I think worker control over production is an important goal, but can anyone explain to me how a society without a state and with no police force could possibly work? There will always be some criminals - people who just kill for fun, even though it may be possible to reduce their numbers in a better society. I don't think you'd want to rule over them via a mob, i.e. democratically decide what's supposed to happen to them. I think judges and laws are a pretty good idea. Also, it's a good idea to have other people, who are democratically elected, who appoint those judges. What is the non-statist/Anarchist approach to this?

[@infiniteinfiniteinfi]

PMetheney84 It's a good question, what do we do with people that on their own decide to do unjust things. I don't really know, but here is a guess: 1. Eliminate all the constructed institutional and cultural reasons to be evil: hirachies, corporations, states, bosses, leaders, privae property, macho cultures, leader worchip, greed and so on. 2. Allow people to construct a society that is volountary, free and equal. That is not based on greed or oppression. Where everyone have what they need and is not badley treeted by others. Enveryone can cultivate their iner productive and constructive instincts and there is plenty of love to go anround. The institutions can be based on volantary contributions and cooperations so there is no need to force others, use violence or steel or lie. There might even be rules for when the community will use force against its members, like when peope are injured or property is destroyed. 3. When someone is for example violent then three things have to happen: a. an investigation into what happend and why and who did it b. if the person responsible is dangerous, then that person has to be prevented from doing harm at this moment c. the person has to be prevented from doing harm later again and the identified problems in a. has to be solved To solve this the following can exist: a. (i) an open ongoing discussion in the community so that infomration about violence and violent people can flow quickley. (ii) a vouluntary of randomly selected group can be made responsible to collect, analyse and present the availeble information from the discussion (iii) people with certain expertise in fingerprint analysis, dna analysis and so on can be contaced to participate b. (i) there can be a voulountary police eduaction for everyone in the community, maby lasting 6 weeks, just like a volountary conscript military. This police force can then be used to apprahend people who are a danger to others. People could serve on this force for let say one month at a time, maby once every five years. Sort of like people in some revolutionary parts of Syria do today. c. (i) the community can have an onganized way of creating courts. These could consists of a number of people randomley selected to serve for say one month for all the cases during that period. Not all that unlike what was done during the revolutionaly civil war in Greece. The court can decide if a person is dagerous to others and conclude the best way do deal with the situation. This will most likeley not result in any punichment of any sort, rather psycological help or a restructuring of the community to take into account the result of the analysis in a. (ii) if all else fails, the person will be locked up. But not in a "high security prison" that will just makt the person much worse. Rather like in Norway, where some prisons are more like a traditional farm, with nature, god jobs and a warm accepting atmosphere. But this is just a guess. Things will have to be learned from experience and adpated to the local conditions.

[@PMetheney84]

infiniteinfiniteinfi You brought up a lot. Here are a few first thoughts: @ 1: Firstly, I don't even agree that those are all the sources of evil. Hierarchies are not only nescessary, but unavoidable in any complex civilization. Even anarchist thinkers like Chomsky acknowledge this. The same goes for bosses and leaders. As far as I understand them, Anarchists merely insist that the Hierarchy should be from the bottom up. Private property is also a good thing, as long as you don't have a crazy credit system and equal access to the means of production. For instance, it's nice for people to be able to own a house and a little land. That makes them more independant from power structures. Secondly, how are you going to accomplish that? It isn't a realistic scenario that it's going to happen everywhere at once. Also, different people have different cultures, and contrary to what lefists think, they don't all value the same things and they're not all morally equivalent (I would argue the west is morally superior to most Islamic countries at least in the way it treats its own citizens, for instance women, homosexuals and other minorities). 3. Sounds an awful lot like in a state, except the guys are doing stuff only temporary. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Laws are pretty sophisticated and have to be and training to be a judge or lawyer takes a long time.

[@infiniteinfiniteinfi]

PMetheney84 "@ 1: Firstly, I don't even agree that those are all the sources of evil. Hierarchies are not only nescessary, but unavoidable in any complex civilization. Even anarchist thinkers like Chomsky acknowledge this. The same goes for bosses and leaders. As far as I understand them, Anarchists merely insist that the Hierarchy should be from the bottom up. " I and, I guess, most anarchist don't have any problem with organisation. I as well as Chomsky want to se a very organised society, but as you say organised from below. This will not mean hirarchy as I use the word, since in a hirarchy orders will be given from the top and followed by those below. Here the "orders" will come from below and be "followed" by those at the "top". The top will only consist of direct representatives with direct orders and instructions from below, which can be changed at any moment by those below and they can also change their representatives at any time. "Private property is also a good thing, as long as you don't have a crazy credit system and equal access to the means of production. For instance, it's nice for people to be able to own a house and a little land. That makes them more independant from power structures." Yes, private property can be a good thing. To use your example, if the state would confiscate all the private property of the lower and middle classes or even the means necesery for a good life from the upper classes, then they would lose their power and be exploited by the state or other sources of power. But this is just a problem because others have property and some dont. When there is no possibility to accumulate property or deny others to use it, and we are all equal in power in society, then there is no point with having property. It will just be in the way for people to structure their lives and societies as they see fit. Property has as I see it a tendency to accumulate into the hands of the few (I might even say that's the whole point of it). "Secondly, how are you going to accomplish that? It isn't a realistic scenario that it's going to happen everywhere at once." It has happend before: --- Spanich Anarchist Revolution 1936 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936 --- Worker-owned cooperatives in Cleveland, Ohio en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Cooperatives --- Worker owned Spanish MONDRAGON Corporation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation --- Partial application of the ideas at the Paris Commune 1871 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune --- Workers doing a work-in, 1971 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Harco_work-in --- Anarchist revolution in Ukraine around 1920 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabat --- German Anarchist Revolution around 1918, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319#Imperial_Council_Convention --- Anarchist Revolutions in Iran 1979 and Iraq 1991 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura#Shura_and_contemporary_Muslim-majority_states --- Revolution in Chile around 1970 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord%C3%B3n_Industrial ... just to list a few "Also, different people have different cultures, and contrary to what lefists think, they don't all value the same things and they're not all morally equivalent (I would argue the west is morally superior to most Islamic countries at least in the way it treats its own citizens, for instance women, homosexuals and other minorities)." I agree some values are moraly superior to others, just as your examples indicate. But this simply implies to me that we have to spread the values where we are superior, and import the values where we are inferior (such as the democracy among large groups of people in Madagascar as explained by anthropologist David Graeber). "3. Sounds an awful lot like in a state, except the guys are doing stuff only temporary. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Laws are pretty sophisticated and have to be and training to be a judge or lawyer takes a long time." True, some elements of a state might have to be present, but as I see it there are some imporatant differences. 1. The "state" is truly democratic (which I mean that the state in western societys are not). 2. The current state as I see it is basically a means for the rich to rob and control the rest. Since these structures will not exist, the state will take on a wery different nature. 3. The only violence done by the state will basically be apprahention of a few violent induviduals, not the enforcement of a complest all encompasing intentionelly over-complicaed and oppressive society. I don't think the complexity of the laws are a reflectin of the progress we have done as a society. Rather as I see it, they are the result of obfuscating the truth by the rich and powerfull to keep the masses down and the laywers well payed. Sorry for another long answer!

[@doctorwhofan2563]

PMetheney84 It's important to consider that much of the crime that exists in modern capitalist societies exists because of capitalism. The inadequate pay of wage slavery and the existence of economic oppression are the primary causes of theft and money related crimes, as well as the greed and materialism which are promoted by capitalism (not all thieves are poor). A capitalist society also prioritizes profit over the health of its citizens (especially poor citizens), while a socialist society would focus more on the well-being of all. Finally, many think that the isolationism, social Darwinism, and anti-social structure of a capitalist society is a major cause of sociopathy. For the second part of your question, anarchism rejects authority that isn't justified, not authority as a whole. Anarchists understand that there are certain types of authority which can be justified or are even necessary, such as the authority of a doctor, who has superior medical knowledge, over a patient. Similarly, an anarchist society wouldn't reject the authority of democratically elected people with superior knowledge of law to appoint judges. That does not require the existence of a state or unjustified authority, so it would be acceptable.

[@theredexistentialist]

+PMetheney84 Also, it's important to consider how many people needlessly die, and how much suffering is needlessly caused because those institutions (the state and police force) exist. These institutions designed to protect us against criminals end up breaking a lot of laws and hurting a lot of people (i.e., America imprisons more people than any country in the world, many for nonviolent offenses causing a ridiculous amount of suffering, and police shoot many people).

[@marshja56]

Monty Python brought me here.

[@jjcustard6378]

How do you persuade someone to give up their class status that isn't inherited?

[@infiniteinfiniteinfi]

Why should one person have a higher status than another? Why should anyone else accept that?

[@jjcustard6378]

@@infiniteinfiniteinfi thats answering a simple question with a question, which doesn't answer the question

[@infiniteinfiniteinfi]

@@jjcustard6378 By trying to find out why the person has that opinion. And that can be done by asking that person questions. And then argue for another point of view. For example the previous questions. But social change has often been accomplished by people disobeying the despot of the system and create another social order together. Hence creating a situation that cannot be argued with.

[@jjcustard6378]

@@infiniteinfiniteinfi what about the people who disagree with your point of view and don't want to give up their hard earned status?

[@infiniteinfiniteinfi]

@@jjcustard6378 Well, if people don't accept to subordinate themself anymore, like they did to the king of France. Then there will be no more king of France.

[@alexd7466]

jibberish

[@noodlesnoodles1]

...Noam,...never figured it out....and never knew it.

[@skwirl828]

The only way I came across Chomsky’s ideas was through the centralized power of a corporation called google/KZbin.

[@redlion145]

Then you've ignored the over 50 books he's written. I mean he existed before google and youtube both. Still, you can't be faulted for how you find something.

[@duncanwallace9072]

Google didn't make KZbin, it just bought it

[@redlion145]

@Blue Traveller I think you'll find you are mistaken. Chomsky is the most cited individual of the last century. That tells us that at the very least, he is read and quoted by other writers. Maybe you don't know anyone who has read him, but he certainly has a wide reaching audience.

[@redlion145]

@Blue Traveller Are you dense? J.K. Rowling writes novels. Serious scholars don't cite novels unless they're doing literary criticism, which is a very small portion of academia. By contrast, Chomsky wrote in fields as varied as linguistics, politics and the social sciences. If you don't believe me, simply google it. It'll be the first, second, and third results. You are demonstrating a very clear lack of academic bona fides. Pop culture is not serious scholarship.

[@simonedevlin7710]

Access to Noam Chomsky's insights were once a distinguished honour gained through scholarships to the world's finest universities.Linguistics and theories of anthropological migratory patterns around the world were at the forefront in the early to mid 1970's.There were pre MENSA groups which congregated at the university library "round tables". Noam Chomsky was a mentor to all who sought truth and enlightenment.I am delighted to hear that you found his interviews on U Tube.

[@ProlificThreadworm]

Back when Chomsky had the ability to fuckin talk😱

[@hklinker]

When did you lose yours to listen?

[@saleens]

relax bro

[@therjparker]

He didn't explain how you can have syndicalism without having a form of the state. For a man that so many believe to be so educated, he spends close to 50 minutes explaining a contradiction.

[@wackityshack]

Public intellectuals and professors like this one should have to spend a third of their work day scrubbing public toilets.

[@kevinschmidt2210]

When I was in high school, I used to laugh at anti-intellectual C- students like you.

[@tteedghihh]

"Anarcho-syndicalism" = fancy way to avoid saying: "MARXIST"

[@RedWinter04]

+журналист You have no clue about anarchy sir.

[@music4thedeaf]

+журналист says the stefanbot infowars brainwashed idiot!

[@tteedghihh]

Abiasaf López No-one has any comeback, just butt-hurt whining. Typical Marxists.

[@RedWinter04]

Anarchy is a tendency, is about individual freedom, self organized society, social justice, legitimacy of any institution and focuses on dignity, self control, kindness and empathy. Some things of marxism are good ideas, and anarchism in some way take some ideas from Marx, Proudhon, and many others, socialists, comunist libertarians, but, but marxism focuses too much on economy, our view is driven to achieve freedom, dignity and self organized communities.

[@tteedghihh]

RedWinter04 Stop avoiding the issue you dishonest fucks. We're not talking about anarchy but "Anarcho-syndicalism", notice that fucking "syndicalism" attached on there. Derpprppppppp.