Not the same person, but my vote is for nothing. No government. Maybe a national workers council during the transition to no government. Before you ask, no capitalism either. Just a library economy with production managed by worker-led unions
Funny you reference that, because I’m actually an anarcho-syndicalist and that’s actually the system I want to replace our government with (not as described in the skit, but still) The joke is good, but the politics are better
No, I got it. Hence the quote. It’s an interesting system, but not sure how it would scale, especially in terms of defense. On a local level I do like the idea, though adapting to modern systems of globalization would be challenging too.
That’s fair, it’s relatively unattempted as far as political systems go. However I think it’s pretty promising based on the anarchist communes out there and the success of the CNT during the Spanish revolution
It kind of sounds like a confederacy. Also, each union would have its leadership with someone or a few at the top, so what you’re advocating for is a confederation of smaller governing bodies, yes?
Also, this isn’t a gotcha, but how would you ensure certain unions don’t take advantage of their market position? Would there still be national regulatory bodies?
I think you’re imagining these unions to be bigger than what they would be. A library economy is where all nonperishable goods are exchanged at a library. There’s no market to be positioned in. Each union represents their workplace, and these unions coordinate their production to meet the mutual needs of both communities. The unions have a very narrow scope, limited to what the workers produce and have the right of free association. The work needed to protect the environment would be managed by the entire community based on their ability to do so.
I guess I don’t understand how they wouldn’t grow to large size. And I still don’t understand what oversight ensures the Library(s) has safe goods (since history has shown that some people are cut from selfish cloth).
Is there anything I can read to learn more about your position? I don’t think I grasp it from your short explanation
If you’re implying that a union that makes food will have more power than a union making secondary or luxury goods, well, yeah. You’re totally right that’s exactly what would happen. But, it’s all equal because they both have 873 members.
I mean, even if we accept the premise that all products are inherently equal in value, who is making sure the leadership or the union more generally is acting in good faith?
I like the general outline, but I’m struggling to envision how it prevents capitalism from working its way into what look to be, from my lay-perspective, proto-corporations.
I was being facetious. I personally don’t feel like that is a workable system. Don’t get me wrong, neither is capitalism at the scale it’s at, especially. I’ve not seen a system that I think would work beyond a state level.
Presidents don’t have a monopolization on power (in the US); they don’t get to unilaterally order anyone to do anything. The US has three governing bodies which are ideally supposed to balance each other out. Also, the US already had a confederacy, and it didn’t work out so well (even ignoring slavery).
This is beginning to look a lot like it relies upon human goodwill and good faith participation, and it appears like it would be easy to exploit by a bad actor feigning innocence; as we’ve seen throughout history, there’s no shortage of selfish opportunists.
There will always be a leader(s) at the top, even in a confederacy or a union. You need visionaries, and humans, like other apes, are naturally inclined towards having leaders and being told what to do (it saves mental energy for survival).
I’m not saying we should all be mindless slaves—even gorillas and chimps don’t have that—but the way you and others are describing it, it sounds like it isn’t offering anything particularly different than the failed US Confederacy, minus the impotent government at that time.
Anyway, I’ll check out the podcast you suggested. I’m always up for learning! Thanks for the replies, and have a nice day.
Presidents don’t have a monopolization on power (in the US);
Of course they do. Just because they “share” their power with a government, doesn’t mean the government doesn’t monopolize power.
Also, the US already had a confederacy, and it didn’t work out so well (even ignoring slavery).
Please read up on what “democratic confederalism” means. It’s not comparable to what the so-called US did (at least after Europeans arrived - the Iriquois confederacy is more like it).
The so-called US was always focused on giving power to capitalists, while democratic confederalism is fundamentally socialist/usufruct.
This is beginning to look a lot like it relies upon human goodwill and good faith participation, and it appears like it would be easy to exploit by a bad actor feigning innocence; as we’ve seen throughout history, there’s no shortage of selfish opportunists.
You’ve got to realize that the current system is de facto succeptible to these bad actors by enabling them to amass power, right?
There will always be a leader(s) at the top, even in a confederacy or a union. You need visionaries, and humans, like other apes, are naturally inclined towards having leaders and being told what to do (it saves mental energy for survival).
I don’t think that’s true. I think that’s a narrative that’s very convenient to the powerful but not at all necessary. And there’s anthropological evidence that political hierarchies aren’t necessary in society.
Why is that? And as a follow up, what would you have in its place?
Not the same person, but my vote is for nothing. No government. Maybe a national workers council during the transition to no government. Before you ask, no capitalism either. Just a library economy with production managed by worker-led unions
I told you! We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We’re taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week–
Funny you reference that, because I’m actually an anarcho-syndicalist and that’s actually the system I want to replace our government with (not as described in the skit, but still) The joke is good, but the politics are better
No, I got it. Hence the quote. It’s an interesting system, but not sure how it would scale, especially in terms of defense. On a local level I do like the idea, though adapting to modern systems of globalization would be challenging too.
That’s fair, it’s relatively unattempted as far as political systems go. However I think it’s pretty promising based on the anarchist communes out there and the success of the CNT during the Spanish revolution
It kind of sounds like a confederacy. Also, each union would have its leadership with someone or a few at the top, so what you’re advocating for is a confederation of smaller governing bodies, yes?
Also, this isn’t a gotcha, but how would you ensure certain unions don’t take advantage of their market position? Would there still be national regulatory bodies?
Ideally, there wouldn’t be someone like a representative or president at the top
I think you’re imagining these unions to be bigger than what they would be. A library economy is where all nonperishable goods are exchanged at a library. There’s no market to be positioned in. Each union represents their workplace, and these unions coordinate their production to meet the mutual needs of both communities. The unions have a very narrow scope, limited to what the workers produce and have the right of free association. The work needed to protect the environment would be managed by the entire community based on their ability to do so.
I guess I don’t understand how they wouldn’t grow to large size. And I still don’t understand what oversight ensures the Library(s) has safe goods (since history has shown that some people are cut from selfish cloth).
Is there anything I can read to learn more about your position? I don’t think I grasp it from your short explanation
The podcast SRSLY Wrong is a strong advocate for the idea. You can find episodes on library socialism on the bottom of the page.
If you’re implying that a union that makes food will have more power than a union making secondary or luxury goods, well, yeah. You’re totally right that’s exactly what would happen. But, it’s all equal because they both have 873 members.
I mean, even if we accept the premise that all products are inherently equal in value, who is making sure the leadership or the union more generally is acting in good faith?
I like the general outline, but I’m struggling to envision how it prevents capitalism from working its way into what look to be, from my lay-perspective, proto-corporations.
Introducing “value” is already the start of the slippery slope towards capitalism, IMHO.
Ithink a lot would be already gained if you have a usufruct system of commons.
I was being facetious. I personally don’t feel like that is a workable system. Don’t get me wrong, neither is capitalism at the scale it’s at, especially. I’ve not seen a system that I think would work beyond a state level.
What do you mean? Presidents or Emperors? Either way: monopolisation of power corrupts both the ruled and the rulers.
One example of an alternative: Democratic confederalism
Presidents don’t have a monopolization on power (in the US); they don’t get to unilaterally order anyone to do anything. The US has three governing bodies which are ideally supposed to balance each other out. Also, the US already had a confederacy, and it didn’t work out so well (even ignoring slavery).
This is beginning to look a lot like it relies upon human goodwill and good faith participation, and it appears like it would be easy to exploit by a bad actor feigning innocence; as we’ve seen throughout history, there’s no shortage of selfish opportunists.
There will always be a leader(s) at the top, even in a confederacy or a union. You need visionaries, and humans, like other apes, are naturally inclined towards having leaders and being told what to do (it saves mental energy for survival).
I’m not saying we should all be mindless slaves—even gorillas and chimps don’t have that—but the way you and others are describing it, it sounds like it isn’t offering anything particularly different than the failed US Confederacy, minus the impotent government at that time.
Anyway, I’ll check out the podcast you suggested. I’m always up for learning! Thanks for the replies, and have a nice day.
Of course they do. Just because they “share” their power with a government, doesn’t mean the government doesn’t monopolize power.
Please read up on what “democratic confederalism” means. It’s not comparable to what the so-called US did (at least after Europeans arrived - the Iriquois confederacy is more like it).
The so-called US was always focused on giving power to capitalists, while democratic confederalism is fundamentally socialist/usufruct.
You’ve got to realize that the current system is de facto succeptible to these bad actors by enabling them to amass power, right?
I don’t think that’s true. I think that’s a narrative that’s very convenient to the powerful but not at all necessary. And there’s anthropological evidence that political hierarchies aren’t necessary in society.