It seems like a completely just ideology, workers owning the means of production and small government. I'm definitely missing something, because I don't understand how this isn't more widely discussed. I don't agree entirely with the ideology in whole. I still think a large government is necessary for defense, enforcing laws, and for implementing large novel infrastructure systems (i.e. canals, highways systems, internet, satellites) but I don't think this is incompatible with workers owning were they work. Any recommendations of material that debunks this ideology would be appreciated.
You shouldnt need a book to tell you that ripping management and ownership out of any business would totally lead to immediate collapse in every case. Are you over 20 years old? Have you ever held a job?
I disagree. You can have a business where the workers are owners and they in some way elect or have a say in their management and it could function as a business. Also yes and I have had a couple jobs.
Then there’s no hope for you, you’re simply moronic. Or maybe Im just american and cant fathom the idea of a workforce not consisting of 90 percent morons. But if youre also american then no excuse youre moronic.
From my experience is not that 90% of the workforce is moronic, they just don't really give a shit. Also long as their bills are paid and the can buy whatever bauble suits their fancy they would rather spend time enjoying life.
moronic irrelevant garbage statement, stop talkijg about business youre clearly an idiot.
moronic take, directives and management are always extremely moronic, a nuisance that every single workforce (unless you're a cuck who works on "tech" and even then it happens too there) needs to get rid of
If you completely removed the owners of the small company I work for and took the general manager and gave him the company things would only work better
This is true I understand our director is only a burden and our supervisor is great but thats only two seats, not stripping ownership entirely. Which is just to say that the supervisor would be better as an owner. You still need an owner obviously or else there isnt the proper incentive to keep the business in some state of uniform operation.
Your entirely wrong here. a worker owned business have the same incentives as a capitalist owned business.
Dude you cant even write a sentence I can tell youre a Hispanic just by how fricking dumb and arrogant you sound. Shut the frick up.
no it doesn't. the more owners there are, the less impact each owner's decisions have on the company as a whole, and thus the less incentive they have to make good decisions.
if you're smart, your next line will be
>what about shareholders?
shareholders appoint a CEO who is able to act as a pseudo-owner because of his enormous salary. somehow I don't think you're proposing a system where CEOs get multiple millions of dollars.
also
>Airliner crashes due to pilot error
>company sued for tens of millions of dollars
>stewardess receives a bill for $500,000
You're helping me prove my point. a worker-owner and CEO dynamic would function in a very similar way to a shareholder and CEO dynamic, that being the both wanting the CEO to maximize ROI.
>somehow I don't think you're proposing a system where CEOs get multiple millions of dollars.
If the company is making a profit and the workers are satisfied with the CEO they elected then they would want that CEO to be well compensated as to keep him retained in that position.
>stewardess receives a bill for $500,000
First, shareholders don't get a bill if the company they have a share in fricks up. Second, a worker owned business would still have insurance.
>First, shareholders don't get a bill if the company they have a share in fricks up.
no anarcho-syndicalist believes in limited liability
>Second, a worker owned business would still have insurance.
>insurance
>ever paying out when you are at fault
also, how is the insurance funded? there's no financial sector. are you saying the government should indemnify all firms against the costs of their own mistakes? that's a recipe for moral hazard. also, where is the money going to come from? I thought you said this was "small government"
basically you want a society with low taxes, limited liability companies, a financial sector and private insurance, and highly-paid CEOs. you're an ancap.
>no anarcho-syndicalist believes in limited liability
that's stupid. limited liability is a great invention.
let me guess, they don't believe in borrowing money from a bank either?
I may be. All I really want is for worker cooperatives be a viable business model. I also don't want to live in a place that I have to live with the consequences of decisions made by someone who I or my peers did not elect or have a say in them being put in that position to make those decisions.
Yes direct democracies fail in a worker owned business, like direct democracies fail in governments. A worker-owned business could be organized in a similar way a republic is set up with the all necessary check and balances to ensure it doesn't devolve this way.
stop playing videogames and start reading books, homosexual
central planning leninists won because they could put the rabble in order. it was never a matter of what "ideology" was better or not. it has always been a matter of finding dependable people who will shoot people in the back of a shed for you.
Read what in particular?
History books
Yeah, why shouldn't you follow an ideology which has been dead for a hundred years and is only a meme because of a video game?
Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy.
Basically an oligarchy will always form.
Yeah a history book involving any anarcho syndicalist anything and their eventual failure
"Basic economics" by Thomas Sowell.
Worker-owned businesses devolve into mobs. The workers with the most social capital (influence) make all the decisions while everyone else just sits back for the ride. If there are naysayers, the influential members make their life hell until they quit or fall in line. This allows the influential members to collaborate for personal corrupt gains.
It falls victim to the same reasons why direct democracies don't work but instead for private enterprise. People don't care, social manipulators can easily abuse it, and leaves the system a sitting duck for outside influence/competition.
>Why I Shouldn't Be An Anarcho-Syndicalist?
Because going all in on an esoteric political ideology isn't a substitute for developing a personality.
You don’t develop a personality your personality develops by experiencing the world around you. You don’t really have much input except deciding what situations you put yourself in.
Lao Tzu Lieh Tzu and Chuang Tzu will tell you why you shouldn't 'be' a conservative, communist, liberal, anarcho this or that
You are literally just describing the marxist distinction between a socialist state and an advanced communal state. The reason you probably don't see this discussed more is because Marx already did it, and probably did it better.
Anything that tells you how to do something isn't anarchy but rather some disguised system of control that will bamboozle you into doing stuff you don't actually want to.
Just be yourself. Thats as much anarchy as you can possibly get into your life but it's ultimately the hardest path to choose because you can't hide behind anything.
this is your inflated ego speaking. If you train combat sports youll understand that you need to cut this thing out before it ruins your life.
1