A topic for Sunday I have a "friend" who says that he is a syndicalist with Marxist leanings Is there anyone who could put it into simpler terms. He says the monarchy should be replaced by this and that the queen would like to rule like Mugabee if she was allowed Thoughts please
So... On reading up on this it's an ideal of workers being able to control their work place without the need for bosses. Now does that mean that they are still under a union which to me would mean the union run the workforce??
Assuming unions run the workplace would that not get the workers back to square one of not being in control
Yes just like in any aspect of life someone wants to be in control. One might think union is in control and workers control union but I believe there is this bloke called a chairman?
On the other hand I might skip this conversation as I almost started a WW3 today USA v UK on facebook.
Try this: Anarcho-syndicalists do not accept it is necessary to have a specific person in charge. No hereditary monarchs, no military dictators, no elected presidents or prime ministers, no generals, mayors, chief constables ... Rather, all people can take charge of themselves and mutually of each other in every area of life. This is an ideal of perfection which, given the fallibility of human nature, has never been approached anywhere in real life. Perhaps we wll never attain it. On the other hand, people in countries which have only known tyranny find it hard to believe democracy could ever possibly be workable. The whole concept is sometimes called anarchism, but that word has come to be wrongly confused with nihilism; hence the neutral term syndicalism. Does that shed any light?
Because at a core of Syndicalism is a believe that class division of any sort is the source of all evil. All should be equal and such. I do not know which parts of both that person takes inspiration from but my guess is his main issue is class division mentioned in both views as an issue. Marxism does not as such want to get rid of class division they would just create class based on other views/points. For example Syndicalist would want everyone to be equal and all of us be responsible for what we do at work or other wise. We would not work for money. Marxism also says that we would not work for money and that current class division is all screwed up as it enforces rich v poor. However they say that society and all goods needed for it to survive should be divided and distributed equally. Most important, less important and so on down. So what you need to survive is first and so on. There would be people responsible for each level and that would be new class division. Monarchy does not fit in both as they do not provide anything back to society that society needs to survive. AkA we would all still be here if they went poof. I think that is it might be wrong.
Your "friend" must be one of the disenfranchised. All human organisations, of pretty much any size whatsoever, encapsulate a notion of power. No matter how egalitarian they are meant to be, the power is unevenly distributed. Some people have more than others. Even when it seems everyone has the same, there will be areas in which some individuals have more power than the others. Syndicalists with Marxist tendencies are no exception to the rule. Throughout history, those who don't have as much power as they'd like try or seek or want to take it off those who have it. The beauty of the current monarchy is that the population agrees that the Queen, on paper at any rate, has ultimate power. The simple hereditary principle means that that power doesn't need to be called into question, so people only have to bicker about 2nd place - who is the Prime Minister. Political systems with presidents are trickier in that the top spot is always up for grabs. Those with power usually spend a disproportionate amount of their energy in trying to maintain it, if they think they could be stripped of it, which creates all sorts of dysfunctions. There seems to be no evidence whatsoever that the Queen would want to be a Mugabe(e -- buzz buzz) character should she have the chance. She isn't likely to be dethroned so has no motivation to act in this way. The monarchy isn't perfect - it creates a system of courtiers and aristocracy who perhaps have more than their fair share (interesting the BBC Derby commentator who was given a pony by the Queen when she was 5). But any other system would probably produce worse dysfunctions or at least nothing better. Look at the Russian oligarchs - how was the rapid accumulation of such wealth fair? But you could well think that the current capitalist system wherein everything is sacrificed on the alter of shareholder value and the people creating that value are just worthless pawns is perfectible. There seems to be increasing interest in systems such as that employed by the John Lewis Partnership. But even here, let's not kid ourselves. The CEO earns many times more than the shop assistants. Human organisations need leaders - even if it's the guy who decides which restaurant a group of friends is going to attend and books the table. Leaders have more power. It's just how it is.
Gliddofglood is correct. Marxist's see that hence idea of no wages. You just do what you do best. Everything else you can not make/grow as it is not your skill someone else will and all goods will be redistributed equally. Thing is people doing the redistributing (they got the job as they can not do anything else) become more important then others as all they have to do is restrict the flow. In effect create class of their own because they want more power. No system is perfect as there is no utopia. Out of two Marxists have better chances to survive if you ask me. Syndicalist's will have plenty of people doing Duvet day and wanting their share. In that situation if they stick to their rules they have to give it to them or they brake their own rules and start managing that person/people.
Perfect example that this "equality " thing does not work,China. It was, until recently a state where the rule was " each to his own according to need" and what did they have ? A country where no one could be bothered to more than they absolutely had to. Either because it got them nowhere or someone else decided to take it from them and give it to someone else. Once the state decided to let people keep a little of what they produced and profit by that extra the whole place took off and look at them now. They certainly got the concept of capitalism real fast !
Phew I think I'm getting it now. I only have his distorted view and he can't readily come up with answers to my questions and throws the ball back in my court. Luca your on my Facebook take a look at the conversation look at my home page and guide me perleassse
I thought it worked on the basis that everyone is equal but in our society some are more equal than others, in their society everyone would be equal ( pay/house/car/stuf) regardless of position held or job done.
Kind off in Poland we had a small saying about that aspect. We are all equal just some are equal-ier (more equal) then others. BTW I managed to reinstall windows 8 beta between these two posts!! New Beta is fast.
