Anarchy isn’t the complete lack of all organization and cooperation, especially anarchosyndicalism.
I’m sure you’d agree that anarco syndicalism is a strategy unfamiliar to most people around the world. I’m sure you read the news often enough to know that people don’t know how their own system works, let alone one as exotic as anarcocynicalism.
So instead of crossing your arms and demanding to know why somebody doesn’t know this, you could instead educate them. Provide a link. Give an explanation. Help that person bridge the gap between what they know (for example, I used the word anarchy in my response, so you can safely assume that I’m familiar with that term) and what you know.
This helps people move towards your goal, because now they have tools to begin doing the work.
Or you can stand there, cross because people don’t understand, and you’ve done nothing to educate them, with no forward motion and just a series of complaints. It’s up to you. I wish you the best of luck making your choice.
No, you’re arguing against what you think anarchy is
And your preconception is false.
What’s my preconception? If you’re saying it’s false, you need to be able to say what it is. Otherwise your response is without value.
What’s anarchy? If you’re saying you’re against it, you need to be able to say what it is. Otherwise your response is without value.
You did imply nonexistence of regulatory institutions - and, to dig a bit deeper into that, anything that would sufficiently fulfill their role - in your first comment and contextualized that to anarcho syndicalism in your second, which reveals that your intent was to argue against anarcho syndicalism on the basis of it necessarily being devoid of some sort regulatory body or it’s equivalent. Even without being an anarcho syndicalist I know that to be a bogus argument, and so should you, unless you don’t know or understand it’s propositions.
I’d compare that to a medieval farmhand claiming that the country can not survive without a king, while surviving (barely, sure, but that’s not the point) without any of the institutions you’ve mentioned and disproving your claim completely.
Just a jab at the argument, not at you, please don’t take it too seriously. Radical changes are scary and because of that they seem impossible to attempt and absurd to discuss, but you need to remember we only have that democracy thing for a few hundred years now, and the shift to it was very radical. Sometimes it’s good to consider alternatives to systems that yeld subpar results with very weak promises of stability that are betrayed every 7 years, because you just might find the new neat thing like democracy, or at very least broaden your perspective.
im not sure you know what you’re arguing against based on this response tbh
Very good clarifying follow up! The information you provided is really useful, especially considering a discussion is about a lack of information. Thanks for your input! Twice, by the way.
ahhh one of those “why did you invest low effort in responding to my low effort trolling” folks. It’s not my job to educate everyone arguing in bad faith (or in blatantly incoherent ways if not in bad faith) about the thing they claim to know about. if you want that i recommend putting in the effort to be less entirely hostile to someone who gave you a pretty matter of fact rebuttal to your very low effort concern trolling. Otherwise, ask some questions. actually engage. eduction is a two way street but your side of it appears to be blockaded and actively hostile.
also like, at least skim a wikipedia page or something?
im not sure you know what you’re arguing against based on this response tbh
