Freedomain Radio

Am I right in the understanding that in this type of philosophical/social framework, that you would still need some type of coercive funding to run the different "non-political" unions espoused?

I mean, if we are to assume that decisions will be made for the population by these unions, wouldn't they need coercive funding?

I've never been able to understand Anarcho-Syndicalism, but any large political system that isn't voluntary would have to have violence, by definition.

But I think of an anarcho-syndicalist as the socialist version of a minarchist.  Going pretty far, nearer to market anarchy, but not far enough so thus keep violence in the picture. 

threebobs:

I've never been able to understand Anarcho-Syndicalism, but any large political system that isn't voluntary would have to have violence, by definition.

But I think of an anarcho-syndicalist as the socialist version of a minarchist.  Going pretty far, nearer to market anarchy, but not far enough so thus keep violence in the picture. 

 

Yeah, I can't get my head around it either. It seems to mask itself as the state while claiming to, in fact, not be the state.

From what I understand An-Syn's ' means of production'  is run by autonomous workers' syndicates. Like An-Coms they believe in participatory democracy while claiming to be anti-coercion and anti-violence. Of course they have the logical problem of forcing , with violence , the minority to obey the will of the majority.