What are some opinions on the Industrial Workers of the World? I am somewhat divided on this issue. A radical union would be a great tool for liberty. But... the stated goal of the IWW is the "abolition of the wage system". I would think that forcibly stopping the voluntary hiring of employees in a free market would be unlibertarian. Also, I have major problems with vulgar syndicalists, such as Chomsky, who make up some of its membership. Any comments?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Some of their views are great but as you mentioned, others are significantly flawed. I don't ever plan on joining and taking a loyalty oath and wouldn't recommend any true voluntarist to do so. I see some left-libs promoting them as a way to reach out to the ansocs, ansynds etc. which I see as similar to the right-libs throwing some carrots to the paleos, white nationalists, etc.
I'm by no means an IWW expert.
wombatron: What are some opinions on the Industrial Workers of the World? I am somewhat divided on this issue. A radical union would be a great tool for liberty. But... the stated goal of the IWW is the "abolition of the wage system". I would think that forcibly stopping the voluntary hiring of employees in a free market would be unlibertarian. Also, I have major problems with vulgar syndicalists, such as Chomsky, who make up some of its membership. Any comments?
Chomsky is charlatan; I do not think any meaningful revolution / change should involve trusting social scientists, due to their privileged status granted by Statism.I think Roderick Long's comments in the following infoshop interview (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2007rod-long-interview) about how the Left & Libertarians could learn a lot from each other are valid, and should be considered.I think efforts at opening dialogue with the Left concerning the concepts of free association, voluntarism might be productive (in small numbers, mind you). I personally think many Leftist's, having been one previously, would eventually warm to the idea of being able to pursue their own communities with a certain setup, within the market, as long as they did not force anyone to follow their system. Although, the whole territorial monopoly thing might be hard to break, especially if any Leftist were to just constantly repeat back to you, "If you don't like it, then leave!".I do not think the IWW would be welcome to any of that, however. I do not think anything productive could be made in trying to deal with them, honestly.The above can be similar said of limited government & conservative types, just with slightly different criticisms.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I have mixed feelings as well. In some respects it seems better than most unions. But personally, I wouldn't join it. I'm not comfortable with this idea of a global federation of unions or a global union, which many syndicalists push for. Seems like a formula for global government quite frankly.
Brainpolice: I have mixed feelings as well. In some respects it seems better than most unions. But personally, I wouldn't join it. I'm not comfortable with this idea of a global federation of unions or a global union, which many syndicalists push for. Seems like a formula for global government quite frankly.
Agreed. Many syndicalists as bad or worse than ancaps, as far as "vulgarism" goes. The better syndicalists, like Jack Ross, do away with the "global labor federation" ideas, and are often Carsonites (ie; "Austrianized" free-market socialists).
wombatron: Brainpolice: I have mixed feelings as well. In some respects it seems better than most unions. But personally, I wouldn't join it. I'm not comfortable with this idea of a global federation of unions or a global union, which many syndicalists push for. Seems like a formula for global government quite frankly. Agreed. Many syndicalists as bad or worse than ancaps, as far as "vulgarism" goes. The better syndicalists, like Jack Ross, do away with the "global labor federation" ideas, and are often Carsonites (ie; "Austrianized" free-market socialists).
Interesting anecdote: back in my RPmania days, I met Jack Ross at a Ron Paul fundraiser and he was so drunk he could barely talk. I was volunteering as the doorman and had a lengthy convo which was surprisingly interesting despite his inability to speak without slurring his words. I read his "Syndicalist Paradigm..." paper a few months later and then halfway through it realized that he was that drunk guy I talked to.
wombatron:What are some opinions on the Industrial Workers of the World? I am somewhat divided on this issue. A radical union would be a great tool for liberty.
I think a minimum of our energy should go to the nation-state's working class. I think investing our energy would be most beneficial with the middle class and "illegal immigrants" of the world. And also a closely affilated and highly organised worldwide counter organisation would mostly likely result in another government. We should probably be a more loosely affilated network of soveriegn organisations that share information and at times resources and basically meet once every year, in other words an umbrella network. That way if one of the larger organisations should fold or a major player in the movement should pass away it won't be nearly as big of a setback to the movement as if it were a defined hiearchy.
Why would anyone want to abolish the wage system? Isn't wage a price? Aren't we pro-prices?
liberty student:Why would anyone want to abolish the wage system? Isn't wage a price? Aren't we pro-prices?
That's what I thought. We shouldn't have to change our beliefs just to fit in with "mainstream" anarchist, who are most likely just a bunch of college kids and rejects who couldn't make it in a pro-market society and who basically worship overrated "intellectuals" like Noam Chomsky. We never compromised ourselves to fit in with the "useful idiots", why the hell should we start now?! They had their chance now it's our goddamn turn, AND WE WILL SUCCEED WHERE THEY HAVE FAILED!!!
My opinion on organizations is that they should facilitate action of the individual, not provide direction or organization per se.
The strongest organization is one that is flexible, not rigid. One that does not have a single point of failure.
liberty student: My opinion on organizations is that they should facilitate action of the individual, not provide direction or organization per se. The strongest organization is one that is flexible, not rigid. One that does not have a single point of failure
The strongest organization is one that is flexible, not rigid. One that does not have a single point of failure
Exactly, that's what I've been saying: A loosely affilated umbrella network of sovereign organisations that merely provide information and at times (very rarely) resources to each other and that yearly, if not more longer, meet up to discuss bussinness. However a organisation is like business, it has goal, so has to provide some direction and coordination to the group, otherwise it's existence is pointless.