this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
599 points (95.3% liked)

Comics

6147 readers
935 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine πŸ‡΅πŸ‡Έ . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Actually, Syndicalism would likely retain class dynamics unless they centralized and dissolved the syndicates, or their worker-cooperative ownership form. Each syndicate would maintain petty-bourgeois cooperative ownership, as opposed to collective ownership, leaving open the methods of Capitalist ressurection. I'm more sympathetic towards it because it still leaves the avenue for centralization and erasure of class.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

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