Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ghazkull]

So uhm i opened this thread because i recently started playing Kaiserreich again now that its out for HOI IV and i finally gave up on playing the Authoritarian Democrats and bit the lemon and played Syndicalist France.

In any case, Suddenly there was more than just Stalinism(Totalism) and Syndicalism, but also Sorelians and various Degrees of Anarchism and gods know what else.
To get to the point, could somebody tell me:

How a Syndicalist State would look and work like if it existed? I mean how is it supposed to work beyond the local Syndicate levels?
Sorelians. What the fuck. Also what are Religious/Nationalist/Luddite/Letsgobacktofeudalismwithoutnobles Communists doing in the French Army and Leadership? Why are they there or are those a different kind of Sorelians?
Anarchists...why would they be interested in waging wars of expansion/agression? Doesn't that run counter to what Anarchism stands for by and large?

[Reelya]

Well that's sort of an unanswerable question.

A syndicate, economically, would basically be a company run by democratic vote, with equal shareholding by all in the company based on their contribution. The core idea is that you get as close to 100% to the value of your contribution as possible. Part-payment in non-tradeable shares could be provided as a sort of pension-scheme, or people could pay into insurance-style retirement funds the same as now.

Worker management and ownership is a core concept from both socialism and anarchism, but to understand those who oppose it, you need to understand who benefits from a schism between workers and owners. Management are people placed by owners to represent their interests. They are paid idiotically high salaries so that they as a class align themselves with the owner class. Unions are created to represent workers against the owner class, and theoretically are in opposition to the management class. But in effect, unions only have power because of the schism, so they are often in cahoots with management. Worker's ownership and self-management dooms both unions and management, that's why there's a revolving door with unions, management and government. Management are the guys who spout the most idiotic anti-worker stuff:

- for example that it would paradoxically dis-incentivize hard work, so the boss taking a big percentage will keep you working harder, since you'll lounge around all day if you're paid more. Which is the opposite of their view on other taxes (taxes extracted by anyone except the capitalist in question).

- Also that giving workers more say in how the factory is run will drive it into the ground, because workers are mindless greedy children who can't decide in their own self-interests. But that's contradictory to the whole concept of economic activity being maximized by free economic actors acting in their own rational self interests, which they always know better than some paternalistic know-it-all (unless that paternalistic know-it-all happens to be the capitalist in question, in which case you'll clearly die of hunger without his firm guiding hand).

So you can see the two most plausible arguments against worker-owned collectives being profitable are contradictory to basic capitalist logic. In fact, many worker-owned or worker-run corporations are highly successful, but they're sabotaged by established hierarchical corporations (often blacklisted as suppliers etc), because the managerial class is highly threatened by their existence, and said managerial class is the dominant socioeconomic class in society.

Anyway, the idea is that you've got a bunch of autonomous collectives running most economic activities. Member ship is voluntary. But that means not only that you can leave and start your own collective, but you can also be kicked out if you're an asshole. So there's still hiring and firing. Also there's still wages and division of labor: because if different people into different types of labor into the same product, there's going to need to be some sort of discussion about how much each job is "worth", so that nobody feels exploited. Between the collectives, there would still be competition and trade because each collective makes different things, so they'd need to compete and to make agreements on e.g. how many loaves of bread is worth a pair of shoes. Thus, some form of money would almost certainly exist or spontaneously develop from a commodity in such a decentralized system.

So the question is then what the system outside these collectives would actually look like? The problem with answering that question is that it's "whatever you want it to look like". The collectives are economic units which replace the existing corporations and small businesses. How those groups organize the space between them is completely up to them. The most practical way, fitting with the collective philosophy would be to form a federation with delegates from each collective, representing the amount of votes of each collective's members. So it would be a type of parliamentary system with delegates according to liquid democracy rules. But then, there's a completely separate question of how collective decisions would be made an enforced. The idea of majority rules of other collectives dictating what another collective should do is kind of against the philosophy. However, if individuals in another collective were being mistreated (i.e. being stolen from, abused or treated like slaves), then it would be ethical for the other collectives to use their combined might to stop that happening, so such things as delegated police, laws and punishment, collective defense, armies etc would be perfectly consistent. So overall, it would have many of the same institutions as other types of state.

[Ghazkull]

But how would a Military/Police work in such a system? And more importantly who pays for Infrastructure and services?

I mean a rural doctor has his practice which he operates alone. Without a currency how is he paid and by whom? Or is he basically part of the same Syndicate that occupies i dont know the local car factory?

The same problem appears to my eye with military, police, with bureaucrats and basically everything that is not either farming or industry. How would they survive if they were not part of the syndicate (which i suppose is supposed to care for its members in all regards of life) but at the same time a capitalist market was out of the picture?

Because if those Syndicates pay taxes for military police and so forth, they are just supporting a system they wanted to replace i thought...or am i getting the entire thing wrong?

[Reelya]

Who said there was no currency. You just assumed that. Not having a central bank doesn't mean there's no currency. Look at MMOs where when the "currency" becomes worthless, the players pick some scarce thing to be money.

Collectives make stuff. But they only make 1-2 things each. Therefore any system where the economy consists of multiple collectives will end up with some sort of trade system, and will settle on a unit of currency. They'll fall back to gold if needed. Giving workers a vote and treating them like shareholders isn't going to magically change human nature and our concepts of value. People will value things because other people do. Scarce things will be hoarded not because people want them, but because other people are hoarding them, thus turning them into a unit of currency.

But also, just because you've replaced corporations with collectives changes nothing about the rest of society. How a company runs itself internal has jack shit to do with how it interfaces with the rest of the world. There can still be banks, and a central parliament with powers such as money-issuing and police/military. Why would worker-owned businesses change any of that? The main thing that might change is that the collectives organize voting for the federation's delegates instead of parties, but that's about it. It's just a different way of organizing a democracy, after all.

[ChairmanPoo]

I mean a rural doctor has his practice which he operates alone. Without a currency how is he paid and by whom?

As a specialist working in a backwater hospital I can answer this one: grateful patients sometimes bring you some of their produce as a gift.

[George_Chickens]

I'm surprised that Reelya neglected to expand onindustrial unionism, the concept that all Syndicalists run on, regardless of their other beliefs. Syndicalists (IF I RECALL CORRECTLY) more on the anarchist side tend to support it as a means of cooperation between syndicates and collectives, whereas the more state-oriented socialists support it as a replacement of liberal democracy, having a union structured of representatives directly elected from the workers of affiliated industries.

I think you should probably read up on the literature of those affiliated if you want to know more for yourself and more about the differences within the movement, but I'm afraid I can't recommend much, as it's not something I delve into very often. The only title I can remember off the top of my head is 'On Anarcho-Syndicalism' by Rudolf Rocker. I also am not a syndicalist, or even very socialistic for that matter, so I'm probably not the best person to be commenting on this.


As for Kaiserreich, I am pretty sure the French military is meant to be central government conscripts and militias formed by political radicals. Play Darkest Hour's version of Kaiserreich for a better explanation of pretty much everything in the mod.

Sorelians are also very interesting, and I can't summarize much of it. Georges Sorel had some influences on Fascism, if I'm not mistaken. Reflections on Violence influenced, one way or another, the philosphy of both sides of the spectrum.

[Reelya]

The reason I didn't delve into industrial unionism is that industrial unionism as described in that article is organized against the capitalist class in an entire economic sector, to maximize bargaining power. If you get rid of the capitalists, the entire rational for industrial unionism evaporates on the spot. It's not relevant when talking about a syndicalist society.

For example consider two scenarios:

(1) there are 5 shoe factories owned by different capitalists. Each is competing with the other, but they all agree to keep wages down so that they can increase the total profits they split up. In this case, a "leather workers union" can come in and bargain for the same wage rises in all factories at once. They are still in competition with the other factories, but Organizing all leather workers into a faction makes sense here, because there is an opposing faction - the capitalists who are colluding to control wages.

(2) the shoe factories get taken over by the leather workers. They elect a committee to run each factory. Now, what would be the role of a "leather workers union" now? Are they going to go on strike against themselves to get pay rises? Their direct rivals are now the other factories, since there is no common enemy inside their own factories. In this scenario, a "leather-workers union" no longer makes sense. What makes sense is to collaborate with other collectives who make something different and want your shoes - you can get a better deal by bypassing the market. If the shoe-workers who now own their own factories are going to work together, it would be to form a cartel, not a union.

[Ghazkull]

So basically free market of goods with instead of single owners of a factory who pay people to work for them, the entirety of the worker base owns the factory (either because they took it or paid out of their own pocket for it) and collectively decide on wages and all the minutae and then divvy up the pay?

And the rest stays the same or what? So if before you had a democratic government you still have one as in exactly the same damn government you had before you gave all the factories to the workers/bought them up for the workers?

But wouldn't there be more to it? As in deconstruction of the state and movement of all duties of it to the Different Syndicates?

So for examples and arguments sake lets say the country Shoelandia has 5 Shoe Factories (and no others just to keep things simple) all have turned into Syndicates and the Syndicalists won the elections. Wouldn't they basically also start moving duties such as Providing Electricity and Water also to those local Syndicates?

As in the Shoe Factory Syndicate not only employs the worker but also provides electricity, water and basic amnenities for the worker (and propably also housing)? Or would that move too far into Anarchism?

I'm still a wee bit skeptical about the Military though. Since traditional militaries are surviving on classes (Officers, NCOs and Normal Soldiers) and ranks...since syndicalism is against class-systems in the first place wouldn't they organize their military more democratic/less authorative? Or would that be going too far?

[inteuniso]

Well, a soldier-owned military isn't historically new: most people fought in previous wars against states because you could personally benefit financially from the loot.

Seeing that you would need twenty years from now for any sort of serious push at a syndically(?) governed country, there probably would be little need for a chain of command: most tactical and strategic decisions could be handled by AI and humans would probably fill a supplemental role to a highly roboticized force. I doubt a syndicate country would go to war that often: everyone knows war is bad for business, it distracts people from working.

As for public utilities and basic amenities, they would most likely be provided free/heavily subsidized to incentivize people to move there instead of somewhere else. I think that syndicates will probably compete for human capital fiercely.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Anarchists...why would they be interested in waging wars of expansion/agression? Doesn't that run counter to what Anarchism stands for by and large?

That would depend on their particular bent, much in the same way that it does for communists. From a revolutionary anarchist's perspective, the entire world except for whatever anarchist society they're a part of in this scenario is under the thumb of a cabal of totalitarian empires. It's not hard to make the moral imperative jump from there, or even just the belief that no capitalist society would ever tolerate coexistence with an anarchist one, and thus wars against them are liberation or self-defense.

It's some real Star Wars shit, when you think about it.

[inteuniso]

Anarchists...why would they be interested in waging wars of expansion/agression? Doesn't that run counter to what Anarchism stands for by and large?

It's some real Star Wars shit, when you think about it.

So that's where the autoloading 76mm coilguns are going to be used.

[Reelya]

So basically free market of goods with instead of single owners of a factory who pay people to work for them, the entirety of the worker base owns the factory (either because they took it or paid out of their own pocket for it) and collectively decide on wages and all the minutae and then divvy up the pay?

Yeah, even if the entire economy is collectivized in this decentralized fashion, there's a still the implied discussion about what things are worth. i.e. someone who makes shoes and someone who makes bread. Even if they get pooled at divvied "according to need", at someone point someone is going to complain "you're not producing enough shoes for the amount of bread you're taking". Which implies a market value of both.

And the rest stays the same or what? So if before you had a democratic government you still have one as in exactly the same damn government you had before you gave all the factories to the workers/bought them up for the workers?

Just changing how factories are owned doesn't directly change other institutions, and such a grass-roots change is actually an incremental thing: collectives and other types of ownership can co-exist next to traditional types of business. But economic reality shapes political reality - the billions poured in by big corporate donors is what strongly shapes the "same damn government" we have now.

Just changing the economic power would reshape government over time, without a violent revolution. That's what people don't consider, when Marx was talking about the socialist revolution, he means a revolution in terms of socioeconomic power - his historical example was of how the burghers (bourgeoisie) rose and topple feudalism - an economic revolution. Basically "revolution" as in "industrial revolution". If collectives rose and pushed out the capitalist system via economics then that's a socialist revolution. Marx cites historical precedents in terms of feudalism->mercantilism->capitalism as the "revolutions" he's talking about. And each one was associated with changes in organization and technology related to production and wealth. Changes in the mode of production necessitate changes in social organization, because the old modes of organization become inefficient. Feudal lords gave way to mercantilism, ostensibly because city-based merchants appealed to kings to reduce the political power of lords. But the real reason, is that the countries that took those steps crushed those who did not.

So, when Marx is talking about a socialist revolution as an inevitable stage in human development, he was talking from the perspective of basically an 1800s fascist-style set up where capitalists were like little emperors, and there were hereditary kings backing them via autocratic states. When you look at what we have now, with democracy and the right to move around, change jobs etc (they had indenture servants and poorhouses in Marx's time), welfare systems and worker's rights, that's ALL pretty "socialistic" compared to Marx's time. So where we are right now is WAY towards socialism from an 1800s perspective. Remember, conservatives back then didn't want to give working men the VOTE. So I'd say Marx was correct, and the general drift of society is towards more collectivist, socialistic and civil rights type stuff.

Marx's final economic stage is meant to be connected with a single technology - automation. Basically, automation eliminates the need for labor, and how we share out value becomes disconnected from direct working effort. When you think about how things are going, he was probably right. But humans, both right and left wing, never "got" the time scales Marx is talking about. Historical materialism is what Marx called this theory, and it's meant to take centuries. Very few people have ever "got" that. Trying to "implement" communism with existing factory labor would never work, because the entire Marxist rational for communism is in a far future when labor no longer exists due to technology advancements.

But wouldn't there be more to it? As in deconstruction of the state and movement of all duties of it to the Different Syndicates?

So for examples and arguments sake lets say the country Shoelandia has 5 Shoe Factories (and no others just to keep things simple) all have turned into Syndicates and the Syndicalists won the elections. Wouldn't they basically also start moving duties such as Providing Electricity and Water also to those local Syndicates?

As in the Shoe Factory Syndicate not only employs the worker but also provides electricity, water and basic amnenities for the worker (and propably also housing)? Or would that move too far into Anarchism?

But many duties are not efficient when run by separate local councils. And there's no reason that each syndicate needs to be 100% self-sufficient. They're factory committees, not hippie communes. There would be a syndicate that operates the power plant, they would negotiate to provide power for the other syndicates in a region.

I'm still a wee bit skeptical about the Military though. Since traditional militaries are surviving on classes (Officers, NCOs and Normal Soldiers) and ranks...since syndicalism is against class-systems in the first place wouldn't they organize their military more democratic/less authorative? Or would that be going too far?

The best example we have is of the Spanish Civil War

The Republican government responded to the threat of a military uprising with remarkable timidity and inaction. The CNT had warned Madrid of a rising based in Morocco months earlier and even gave the exact date and time of 5 am on July 19, which it had learned through its impressive espionage apparatus. Yet, the Popular Front did nothing, and refused to give arms to the CNT. Tired of begging for weapons and being denied, CNT militants raided an arsenal and doled out arms to the unions. Militias were placed on alert days before the planned rising.

The rising was actually moved forward two days to July 17, and was crushed in areas heavily defended by anarchist militants, such as Barcelona. Some anarchist strongholds, such as Zaragoza, fell, to the great dismay of those in Catalonia; this is possibly due to the fact that they were being told that there was no "desperate situation" by Madrid and thus did not prepare. The Government still remained in a state of denial, even saying that the "Nationalist" forces had been crushed in places where it had not been. It is largely because of the militancy on the part of the unions, both anarchist and communist, that the Rebel forces did not win the war immediately.

Anarchist militias were remarkably libertarian within themselves, particularly in the early part of the war before being partially absorbed into the regular army. They had no rank system, no hierarchy, no salutes, and those called "Commanders" were elected by the troops.

They were pretty effective and kicked the fascists butts wherever the anarchists were in control, the problem was that the Republican central administration (the mainstream government) dithered and argued and couldn't come to an agreement about what to do about the Fascist coup. A model that could work would be to have local militia operating as syndicates, whereas you have a formal national army under control of the "federation of all syndicates", with more of a formal chain of command. It's a red herring to think that "anarchism" means that nobody can be in charge of anything, at any time. Leaders exist, and people will follow them, but under an anarchist system, they can be recalled and replaced by their subordinates if they do a bad job.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Hey, is this the Anarchism thread?

I'm busy with homework, but I'd just like to note that an "anarchist state" is an oxymoron. Anarchism is anti-state, anti-hierarchy, and anti-ruler.

[misko27]

So uhm i opened this thread because i recently started playing Kaiserreich again now that its out for HOI IV and i finally gave up on playing the Authoritarian Democrats and bit the lemon and played Syndicalist France.

Syndies go home!

It's a red herring to think that "anarchism" means that nobody can be in charge of anything, at any time. Leaders exist, and people will follow them, but under an anarchist system, they can be recalled and replaced by their subordinates if they do a bad job.

I'm busy with homework, but I'd just like to note that an "anarchist state" is an oxymoron. Anarchism is anti-state, anti-hierarchy, and anti-ruler.

I sense a tension between these statements, depending on Dozebom's intended meaning.

Hey, is this the Anarchism thread?

I'm pretty sure this is the threat where we explore Syndies, both in real life and Kaiserreich, and the implications of them and their wars of aggression/defense against the German Imperialists.

[Reelya]

Anarchism can have a state-like structure, but it can only rule by consent rather than force.

They might not have rulers, but all forms of anarchism have delegates, which are basically recallable rulers. So there can be something like a state but it does not have coercive force (unless it's self-defense, in which case it does).

So yes, an anarchist society can have police. The police intervene to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals from oppressors. They are delegated to do so by the collective. The same with military. Militias are volunteer organizations, and their duties are to protect the collective from external threats. A governing council can convene and the various collectives agree to send delegates who can vote on matters. That's not a problem for anarchism at all. But the council cannot turn around and force it's will on the collectives. The council makes the agreements, and the collectives carry out the rulings. Of course, the same structure exists inside a collective. If a collective doesn't like it's own internal delegates, they get voted out. If you don't like the will of the majority of your collective, you leave and start your own one or join a different one. That's the main difference between anarchist structures and statist structures. In a statist structure, the council rules the town and anyone in it has to abide by what the council orders. But in anarchism, a collective's rules only applies to it's own members and membership is voluntary.