/points at mondragon.
The more people doing that the less paying tax until govt collapses. Job done, nuff said. No fighting needed.

So why steal something already in place? That isn't anarchism its just criminal.
Why not walk out and start your own business elsewhere and compete with them?
How is that not improving your life? lol!

Well durh...yeah obviously...anarchism itself is but what about anarcho-syndicalism specifically ffs?
Jesus you're getting on my nerves here, doing this deliberately? Looks like it to me.

BULLSHIT. A co-op is not a union movement, its a private enterprise directly owned by the people.
You are just lamely associating the word 'union' with 'group' and then pointing at the co-op..how pathetic...
Unison or whatever ARE unions for chrissake.

By doing the same thing with more people
The more people who become self employed the more govt collapses in on itself. It will have sod all tax income because self employed are allowed to have expenses, normal PAYE workers are not, they pay ALL taxes in full while the self employed point and laugh at them.
As if unions will ever achieve anything like that

Anarcho-capitalism cannot exist without some kind of global catastrophe at this stage.
It needs a clean table, aint gonna happen.

I brought up anarcho-syncialism in a practical manner with an explanation of how to implement it.
I couldn't give a toss about some pseudo-intellectual bullshit on wikipedia.

Again 'politika' is about authority, anarchism only recognises authority of the self over the self, if you want to somehow associate something that plato talked about as being a ruling elite class as being related to a class of people who have no ruling elite then you need your head examining. Anarchism is anti-govt and therefore anti-political. Its that simple. I fail to see why you would bother using the lame assoication unless you are a tavistock shill...

Why will co-ops NEVER achieve revolutionary change if they prevent people from paying taxes to govt and provide their own services?
The only answer is because people are lazy bastards who don't do anything to help themselves except talk shit like you're doing here all day...

Union of marriage then perhaps? ffs lol
Again how is something like mondragon a union? Do they pay subs to a bunch of guys who bully management for perks?
For all practical intents and purposes thats all a union is. It has nothing to do with a co-op because a co-op doesn't have 'the man' taking 90% of the wealth for himself and sitting on his fat arse does it?
Jesus fucking wept...

The basic idea behind anarcho-syndicalism is to create an industrial workers’ union movement based on anarchist ideas, aiming eventually to abolish the wage system and state or private ownership of the means of production, which anarcho-syndicalists believe lead to class divisions. Its proponents advocate decentralised, federated unions that use various forms of direct action (i.e. action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position) to achieve reforms under capitalism until they are strong enough to overthrow it.

andyh wrote: Damn right they'll change tax laws and whats going to happen then?
Lets say they only allow corporations to dodge taxes how longs that going to last?
The govt just chucked out nearly all its VAT revenue lol.

Do you often just completely ignore what people type?
Lets try again shall we...
Since when did a business have to involve any huge investment or for that matter stupid ideas for a business in the first place?


Try chomsky instead of the establishment shills perhaps?
He does mention co-ops like mondragon as being anarcho-syndicalist and he does say that its about ownership of the means of production not just some lame pathetic whining and crying about not getting enough pay from their overlords.
So now mondragon is just a union movement and anyone who ever cares to look at it will just think its a union movement which is precisely what the elite want everyone to think it is so that they pay no heed to it.
Well done, nice shill work. Its pretty obvious to a pet gerbil that mondragon is not a union movement unless you want to call a union quite literally 'any group whatsoever'.
Far bigger challenges than the loss of its own revenue. Yeah right.
In this instance it has to cut its own nose off. It would have to destroy the middle class completely to continue taxation.

How about those who are NOT self employed doing something to improve their situation?
Not likely, so its probably best to just continue pointing and laughing. All I ever see is whining and griping and looking to others to sort them out...like unions for example

Since you invoked a political philosophy, I assumed you may interested in what that political philosophy was based on. Why is it "pseudo-intellectual bullshit" (not just from wikipedia)?

You are just repeating something I have already addressed.

And please Andy - don't sink into saying daft things like "Tavistock shill". Though as it happens I do find the work of R D Laing very interesting.

Andy, it takes two to tango and if I've been on here "all day", then so have you. So you must be a "lazy bastard" too right? I did pop out to the shops if that's any help. And I have to say I am not very impressed with this elitist attitude that is coming out. Next you'll be saying "on yer bike!"

Again, you need to step outside what you've been programmed to think a "union" has to mean.

Here is another anarcho-syndicalist interpretation of "union"
www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2012/07/07/anarcho-syndicalism/

Or are the anarchists at Freedom Press wrong now too?

dogsmilk wrote:
What will happen then is government will change the rules on tax. And it will never be the case the tax rules for the self-employed could ever bring down the state. That is poppycock.


It doesn't have to involve a "huge" investment. But even a modest investment is beyond many people's needs. And who said anything about "stupid ideas". You seem to be saying well why doesn't everyone just have a really good idea and go out and start their own successful business?.



Is this the same Noam Chomsky who was heavily influenced by Rudolf Rocker who've you've dismissed as "pseudo intellectual" and wrote the preface for the edition of the text I quoted from?

I've not seen Chomsky refer to Mondragon as anarcho-syndicalist - please feel free to quote him. On their wiki page he's quoted as saying

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

Please point to where I said anything remotely resembling "Mondragon is just a union movement".

In the incredibly unlikely event everyone was suddenly self-employed, the tax structure would be tinkered with to reflect this. It's that simple.
The weird thing is, I know a bunch of self employed people and none of think what they're doing is remotely radical. And the only way they perceive they avoid tax is by doing cash in hand. I'm going to be seeing a guy that runs a tiling business with his brother next week - I'm sure he'll be delighted to learn he's doing his bit for the revolution he doesn't care about.

Anarcho-syndicalists would see it as encouraging workers to organise to stick up for their rights at work and take on this bosses - this action itself contributing to the formation of a revolutionary consciousness as well as improving their situation. And this is about being realistic, not imagining everybody is suddenly going to go off and start an independant business that of course will be a total success. And in the process competing with one another like good little capitalists.
They would not sneer at ordinary working people and accuse them of being just a bunch of whingers.

And how many times do I have to explain this??? - A "workers union" is a grass roots oirganisation of workers. In this context not a bloated bureaucratic waste of space like Unison. Why can you not understand this??

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

www.philosophybasics.com/branch_anarchism.html

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/uri-gord...ontemporary-problems

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/uri-gord...ontemporary-problems

www.black-rose.com/articles-liz/intro-@.html

Need I go on? If you wish to disagree with basically the entire world, including 99.9% of anarchists, that anarchism is political, then that up to you.

Because anarchist is a political philosophy. Just as fascism is a political philosophy, just as liberal democracy is a political philosophy. Why on earth do you believe anarchism is somehow outside politics when politics is exactly what anarchism is concerned with? It's not about fishing is it?

Eh?? What "left wing authoritarian paradigm" and what has it got to do with Tavistock?
I think Tavistock is pretty banal these days. It used to be a hotbed of radical ideas - which is as Guervista pointed out the other day is probably why John Birch Society style right wing conspiracy theories have a thing about it.

Bully for you. Go tell the girl on the checkout at Lidl how she got it all wrong and how she should stop whinging and just go out and start a successful business. On yer bike!

Seems like you don't like anarcho-syndicalism then,.

I quoted a short paragraph to make the point about unions. There's nothing stopping you following the link though.

Which of course means worker control of the means of production, does it not?

Marxists want that too though. Marx can't really be blamed for Russia though any more than Jesus can be blamed for burning witches or Adam Smith the IMF - Russia did not pan out either how Marx advocated nor expected.. Lesson learned there is don't buy anything about a 'revolutionary vanguard', because you'll just end up with a new elite. And if anyone like Stalin is on the vanguard team, it's definitely going up shit creek in a big way.

What will happen then is government will change the rules on tax. And it will never be the case the tax rules for the self-employed could ever bring down the state. That is poppycock.

Gue, I'd like to raise a point of order.

You stated this quite legitimate premise:
"I think if we col­lec­tively agree on valu­able source mate­ri­als from which to draw our con­clu­sions, par­tic­u­lar fun­da­men­tals, and wor­thy exam­ples, thus avoid the ten­dency to pro­pa­gan­dize our sub­jec­tive view­points, about how to define these impor­tant issues"

In the very next post you employed what I'd say was thinly veiled propaganda:
"Well I am def­i­nitely inter­ested in hear­ing about what Anar­chist praxis entails, there was a time it entailed Ravachol’s bombs, i;m almost cer­tain you’re not refer­ring to that, so I sense there is a bour­geois ele­ment, or a cap­i­tal­is­tic sur­vival ele­ment to what you call Anar­chism."
Albeit that you picked yourself up on it straight away.

But then in your very next post, the thinly veiled propaganda is back:
"Essen­tially it’s ide­al­ism, that anar­chy can smash the state and then pre­vent the ref­or­ma­tion of the state appa­ra­tus by it’s pre­vi­ous own­ers"
"wrote Marx, ridi­cul­ing the anar­chists for their repu­di­a­tion of pol­i­tics"

This imho is not the way to go about a thread such as this.

andyh you actually have the same view of The Union as the Tory bitch who does my signing on at the job centres, even down to parroting the same "oh they're greedy bullies" line.

Guevarista wrote:
My view of unions is that they are simply there to placate the workers and keep them happy with the illusion that they are doing something for them while they continue to work on low pay to mass produce wasteful consumer goods.
A 2% increase per year on what was already a shit salary is going to remain a shit salary....especially when you pay tax on it.

Thats not a tory view imho. Greedy bullies are the guys who own the business and those who collude with them to maintain the establishment. Unions maintain the establishment. If anarchism is anti-establishment then why would an anarchist support an establishment institution such as unions?
The moronic slaves are supporting their own incarceration.

You need to address the issues Dogsmilk has raised, otherwise it seems you are only inter­ested in a circlejerk.

I was thinking we could maybe

Is this the same Noam Chom­sky who was heav­ily influ­enced by Rudolf Rocker who’ve you’ve dis­missed as “pseudo intel­lec­tual” and wrote the pref­ace for the edi­tion of the text I quoted from?

I’ve not seen Chom­sky refer to Mon­dragon as anarcho-​syndicalist — please feel free to quote him. On their wiki page he’s quoted as say­ing


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

the self employed do pay tax and,.

Have a shirt's off show down,,no andyh could you clarify your position because it seems you're not what you claim to be an Anarcho Syndicalist, what do you think of Chomsky's criticisms of Mondragon why do you seem to have no criticisms yet align your view to Chomsky?
Dogsmilk wrote:

dogsmilk wrote:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

[
And just as dogsmilk has chosen to reply to your post in your place...
I'm beginning to see a typical pattern emerge I know all too well.

Guevarista wrote:
Chomsky is correct in that mondragon is not perfect because it does not have all workers with an equal share.
It started to employ some people as standard paye employees with no direct share.
I already stated that further back up the thread.

they do things that are harm­ful to the soci­ety as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a sys­tem where you must make profit in order to survive.…