From The Onion:
Private Space TravelQuestion: Monday’s SpaceShipOne flight could usher in an age of privately financed space travel. What do you think?
Response: “Hey, any idea that involves blasting the wealthiest .01 percent of the population into the cold, lifeless vacuum of space is all right by me.”
*mordant chuckle*
###
Have you read TheFireCracker’s post-to-ponder on “How to be a Good Democrat”? It is a nice rundown of commonly espoused conservative responses to common liberal issues. I must admit that I got a number of chuckles out of it. Number 10 is especially entertaining.
There is something to it, and something to be gained from looking at it.
You will find liberals out there who are guilty as charged – they vote the party line, but they don’t give a lot of thought to what or why.
However, what is most interesting to me is that this list represents a method of “debate” that seems to be commonly used – both by liberals and conservatives (although conservatives seem to use it with more effect). When faced with an opinion you don’t like, you don’t worry about changing the opinion holders’ minds – you do your best to ensure that no one else will hold that opinion.
To do so, you find the weakest arguments and the most shallow people supporting the opinion you oppose and focus all your response towards those aspects – completely ignoring well reasoned arguments and deeper support.
The effect is that anyone who isn’t interested in spending too much time digging into the subject but either leans towards your side or is neutral will only see those aspects of your opposition that you want them to see – the weak ones. Consider number 21 in this light and how liberals going along this line end up playing right into the hands of their opposition. It does nothing to highlight the more well-reasoned arguments in support of their point of view and it does nothing to sway anyone towards their side.
I am looking forward to InkTea’s deconstruction of the points.
###
Back to discussing building a better society…
Here is some more groundwork and info laid by a guy named Tom (who, if you’re interested in working with him on building an IWW in the twin cities can be contacted at new48er@yahoo.com:
Why syndicalism, why now?syn di cal ism ‘sin-di-ke-,liz-em n [F syndicalisme, fr. chambre syndicale trade union] 1 : a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy and the government by general strike and other direct means 2 : a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers. (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary)
At the beginning of the 21st century, the large problem faced by anti-globalization activists, anti-capitalists, Greens and other progressive activists is that we have no comprehensive vision of the better world for which we are fighting. This hampers our ability to form coherent rhetoric, to plan effective strategy and tactics, and to offer a goal or vision to those who might join us. This is a stark contrast to the late 19th century and early twentieth century, when anarchism, syndicalism, trade unionism, socialism and various forms of communism were all on the table. The purpose of this brief statement is to act as a small part of a new conversation about what kind of world we want to build. The idea of anarcho-syndicalism has much to offer both for the transitional period (time of struggle for change), and also for a vision of a post-capitalist world.
The failure of American democracy has perhaps been made more apparent than ever before in the judicial appointment of George W. Bush as U.S. president, despite his having lost the popular vote, and the subsequent actions of the neo-conservative administration since then. In 1960, President Eisenhower warned us that the “military-industrial complex” was a new threat to American democracy, and now we can see clearly why he was afraid. Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and Michael Moore, each in their way, have shown us how this plays out.
Critiques of capitalism have been in currency in America for over 100 years, especially in the 1930s and the late 1960s, when “revolution” was in the air across America. Yet, the last thirty years have seen corporate power continue to grow, while wealth is further concentrated in the hands of a few, and the middle-class shrinks. Liberal reformism has failed not only in making progress, but also in evening maintaining the status quo against corporate power. The Democratic Party has been co-opted, and the only alternative Democrats offer is “capitalism lite,” American dominance through markets, versus the Republican strategy of never-ending war. Protests, petitions, and civil disobedience have occasionally succeeded in compelling the powerful to act ethically on narrow issues for a short time; but, the activist community does not have the resources to continually police corporate power. The traditional liberal coalition of pro-choice and feminist activists, ethnic minorities, gay rights activists and labor unions has not been broad or powerful enough to fight corporate power.
And, the old hopes for revolutionary socialism or communism are now empty, not just because of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the gradual introduction of markets in China, but because those systems were shown to be oppressive and authoritarian. In Soviet and Chinese communism, the ruling class of the capitalists was merely replaced by the ruling class of The Party, in a new “state capitalism.” The alienation Marx described continued in these systems.
Anarcho-syndicalism is the idea that every work place should be owned and managed by the people who work there. The various work-places are organized into federations which administer the relations among various industries, among various regions. In most visions of syndicalism, workers are eligible to serve as representatives to a regional council or federation of industries only after having worked in their own industry for a significant number of years. There are no professional managers or administrators.
This system solves the primary problem of democracy. Ever since the time of the Greeks, democracies have been vulnerable to the influence of wealthy families or individuals, who have used the power of their great concentration of wealth to manipulate the democratic system, or to revert to oligarchy. When the means of production are owned and managed by the workers, wealth is more evenly distributed throughout society, and excessive accumulation of wealth (and power) becomes more difficult.
Any small business owner can tell you that we seldom work as hard as when we are working for ourselves. Direct worker control of the work-place increases productivity, as there is now a direct relation between effort expended and what is gained. In “wage slavery” workers are unlikely to work hard, because they make the same wage regardless of effort. Syndicalism gets rid of bosses, so that individuals have more dignity, more direct control over their lives. This is a stark contrast to communism under Lenin, Stalin, or Mao.
Anarcho-syndicalism also offers strategies for change and alternatives for living in a time when authoritarian capitalism is still the dominant paradigm. We can build economic and employment alternatives right now, through worker-owned co-ops like Seward Café and the Hard Times Café. We can vote with our dollars, buy avoiding corporate chain businesses, spending our money at family-owned “mom and pop” businesses. And, we can begin to abandon consumerism by setting up alternative currencies like “Madison Hours,” by bartering instead of using cash, and by avoiding retail shops by going to thrift stores and flea markets. We can join syndicalist unions, like the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World).
Of course, these strategies should be combined with the traditional tactics of protest and participation in electoral politics, as well as direct action such as that of Earth First!, ELF and PETA. But, we need more, and if we are to be powerful within our communities, we must take control of the economy away from the tyrants and oligarchs, by developing our own, progressive economy. Comments are welcome: new48er@yahoo.com
There’s a bit more to Anarchy than bomb throwing radicals, chaos, and punk music, isn’t there! In fact, chaos is not Anarchy and almost guarantees a situation where Anarchy can not exist.
Interestingly, I don’t necessarily see a conflict between what Tom is talking about and Capitalism. It is just the idea of supporting a form of Capitalism which reduces the current levels of abuse.
Recent Comments