ations and Nationalism (journal)

I'm not expecting you to write my essay for me or tell me the arguments, I was h
oping maybe you might be able to direct me towards some useful readings for the
question, but if you could offer a counter-argument to the assertion that, no, y
ou don't have to be syndicalist to be anarchist, I would much appreciate it.
(I'm looking at anarchist convergence/overlap of ideologies, labour movements, d
irect action, etc., but nothing jumps out at me other than syndicalism is just a
branch of mass anarchism and is not a defining feature of anarchism itself). An
y help is much, much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
4 commentsshare
all 4 comments
sorted by: best (suggested)
[ ]qrx53 1 point 37 minutes ago

I'm not expecting you to write my essay for me or tell me the arguments, I was h
oping maybe you might be able to direct me towards some useful readings for the
question, but if you could offer a counter-argument to the assertion that, no, y
ou don't have to be syndicalist to be anarchist, I would much appreciate it.
(I'm looking at anarchist convergence/overlap of ideologies, labour movements, d
irect action, etc., but nothing jumps out at me other than syndicalism is just a
branch of mass anarchism and is not a defining feature of anarchism itself). An
y help is much, much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
4 commentsshare
all 4 comments
sorted by: best (suggested)
[ ]qrx53 1 point 37 minutes ago
I think the burden of proof is on the other side, the side that states anarchist
s do have to be syndicalists, and it will be easier to write the essay from that
perspective.
Have you found any compelling arguments that that's the case though? (I would ho
nestly be surprised if you did.)
permalinkembed
[ ]Greenbeardus[S] 1 point 31 minutes ago
I haven't found a single word to suggest that it could be possible, but I want t
o try and take other perspectives into account as opposed to it being an extensi
ve list of reasons why it's a ridiculous premise.
permalinkembedparent
[ ]qrx53 2 points 27 minutes ago
Right, well, if you find something I hope to see it!
permalinkembedparent
[ ]hamjam5 1 point 12 minutes ago
Yeah, that's going to be a tough argument to make. I of course wouldn't try to m
ake the argument, but if I were to, I guess the strategy I would take would be t
wo fold:
1) I would try to disparage the functionality of explicitly non syndicalist anar
chistic economic theories in order to show that the only functional anarchist th
eory is syndicalism
2) I would try to collapse as much as possible non-syndicalist theories into syn
dicalism -- basically, take things like anarcho-communism, council communism, co
mmunalism, and demonstrate that, practically speaking, they are really just synd
icalism. This is of course false, but I can imagine an argument being made along
these lines.
so, in short, try to argue for the re-imagining of non syndicalist anarchism as
actually being syndicalism where possible, and where you can't do that attack no
n-syndicalism as either not really anarchistic or as not functional.
permalinkembed
about
blog
about
source code
advertise
jobs
help
site rules
FAQ
wiki
reddiquette
transparency
contact us
apr side, the side that states anarchists do have to be syndicalists, and it
will be easier to write the essay from that perspective.
Have you found any compelling arguments that that's the case though? (I would ho
nestly be surprised if you did.)
permalinkembed
[ ]Greenbeardus[S] 1 point 31 minutes ago
I haven't found a single word to suggest that it could be possible, but I want t
o try and take other perspectives into account as opposed to it being an extensi
ve list of reasons why it's a ridiculous premise.
permalinkembedparent
[ ]qrx53 2 points 27 minutes ago
Right, well, if you find something I hope to see it!
permalinkembedparent
[ ]hamjam5 1 point 12 minutes ago
Yeah, that's going to be a tough argument to make. I of course wouldn't try to m
ake the argument, but if I were to, I guess the strategy I would take would be t
wo fold:
1) I would try to disparage the functionality of explicitly non syndicalist anar
chistic economic theories in order to show that the only functional anarchist th
eory is syndicalism
2) I would try to collapse as much as possible non-syndicalist theories into syn
dicalism -- basically, take things like anarcho-communism, council communism, co
mmunalism, and demonstrate that, practically speaking, they are really just synd
icalism. This is of course false, but I can imagine an argument being made along
these lines.
so, in short, try to argue for the re-imagining of non syndicalist anarchism as
actually being syndicalism where possible, and where you can't do that attack no
n-syndicalism as either not really anarchistic or as not functional.
permalinkembed
about
blog
about
source code
advertise
jobs
help
site rules
FAQ
wiki
reddiquette
transparency
contact us
ap
t? s??????? p?a?at???t?ta ?a? ? ep?st??????
a?a??t?s? ?????ete? t? ???s? t?? Bartholdy
(1803-04), e t? ???? p?? ????e ??p????? epa-
?ap??sa?at???s??? s??
p???t?s???? p??se???se??
t?? ????pa??? t??
a?des??tat? e?d??? st??
????t?????a Clarke (1801),
e t?? a???s?e??te? se??de?
??a t? ????????? ?a?
??f?t??? ep?ped? t??
??????? t?? a????ast?
t?p????f? a??a??????
Gell (1801,... 1811) t? ??af???
?p??? Galt (1809-
10) t? Hughes (1812-14), e ta a??????a pe??
??? pas?- st?? Byron ta ????, t???: Holland
(1812-13) e t?? p????ste?? p?a?ate?a ??a
t? ?? t?? ??????? ?a? t? d??s???????? a?a??t?
t?? ast???? ???t??? ?a? ???e?? ?p?st????t?
t?? ????a Hobhouse (1809-10) ?a???
?a? t?? p?t?s??? e t? ??a?t??? ?d?a e??t?ta?
f?s??, ???? ?a? t????? Stackeiberg
(1810-13), p?? ap?t?p?se e??ast??? t?? a?t?????
t?? ep???? ??a ta ??e?a ?a? t??? s?-
??????? a????p???.
????t?? ?d??? ??a ?????
[ ]bright_viragomarch weather, lousy[S] 2 points 5 years ago
Graeber, quoted in the interview linked by WB2 below: "[in many societies throug
hout history] it's really important to remain in debt to people because debt in
a way is sociology, it is social relationships....There are plenty of societies
where people are giving each other gifts but you always give them back something
a little bit more or a little bit less than they gave you because if you give t
hem an exact equivalent you're really saying I don't want to have anything to do
with you any more."
permalinkembed
[ ]Leg-iron 1 point 5 years ago*
Pssst...
Just outside the text-box, lower right.
"Formatting help".
It da shnizzle, yo.
Edit back:
Yer welcome!
permalinkembed
[ ]WB2 3 points 5 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnOqanbHZi4
The author is interviewed by Thom Hartman.
permalinkembed
[ ]bright_viragomarch weather, lousy[S] 2 points 5 years ago
Thank you for that link! I checked the book out of the library and don't have a
copy handy to refresh my memory on some key points.
permalinkembedparent
[ ]davetoWhat? 3 points 5 years ago
Observation.
Imagine 'botf' as a society.
And then think of the comment of overpaying or underpaying instead of exactly pa
ying the debt, in order to have a reason to remain tethered to your transaction
partner.
This is exactly what we do here. Our tribal instincts (but with posts instead of
chickens and goats).
[e.g. Leg-iron (felt) overpaid you for your post, later felt bad and apologized
for it (i.e. the obligation he left you). Snolly (felt) he underpaid, showed a m
ild bit of embarrassment. etc.]
Or not. You know ..
permalinkembed
[ ]bright_viragomarch weather, lousy[S] 2 points 5 years ago