• ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Ah I see, my understanding was in fact limited lol. Would the rotation if leadership and democratic nature of the syndicate not mitigate the petit bourgeois aspirations of individuals though?

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The syndicate would be more democratic, but the overall economy would be made up of distinct syndicates working in their interests, unless they centralized and equalized ownership across it (and went towards a Marxian understanding of class). Petite bourgeois individualism need not have people below them, but distinct from in interest. Syndicate A will want favorable conditions for Syndicate A even at the expense of Syndicate B.

      If you collectivized the syndicates across the whole economy, the interests of Syndicate A would be the same or closely linked to Syndicate B. They would coalesce. This is why Marxists and Anarchists have different end goals, they have different analysis of the roots of issues with society, class or hierarchy. The Anarcho-primitivists only manage to reject both class and hierarchy by rejecting industry as well.

      • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Gonna start telling anarchist we just need one big syndicate that covers every industry lol. Thanks for the explanation that made things a lot clearer

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          No problem! I don’t think you’re going to convince Anarchists that way, their chief critique is hierarchy, not class.