On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I was initally tempted to reply to this, but a later comment about my essay being total crap, shows it's not the kind of person with whom a dialogue would be fruitful,
In any case there are qualitative differences from the industrial system to which classical syndicalism was supposed to be applied. Syndicalism was based on majority governance of each node, in an environment where individual nodes were expensive and required more than one person to work them, so that it was necessary for the will of a majority to bind a minority. In other words, participation, secession and forking weren't scalable. As a result, coordination had to be social rather than stigmergic. Under classical syndicalism, the New York Times and CBS News, or BMG Records, would be governed by workers' syndicates, because their enormous capital expense would mandate collective ownership and democratic governance. A system in which the "printing press" is universally affordable by individuals is fundamentally different. -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html