[Kon]

IS it possible for there to be a currecy passed around in an anarcho syndicalist society? An example of this would be civil war spain (read homage to catalonia Orwell talks about anarcho syndicalist barbers who still get payed) or the self managing factorys in argentina. Could an anarcho syndicalist claim they want a society where there is money but all workers recieve equal wages according to profit?

[Crazyvichistan]

Yes, you CAN, but I wouldn't see any point. A successful anarchist society needs to abolish the monetary system. The monetary system corrupted the perfectly good idea of agriculture, and lead to the establishment of opressive, central authority. From then on it has caused strife, war and hunger while supporting the unscrupulous ruling classes.

You see it up from Babylon, through Rome, the Monarchs and Pope-kings Middle Aged Europe, Empires of the China, The British Empire, the Rise of Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution and America through to today. Almost every war has been fought for monetary gain, whether it is in the form of gold, land, spice, steel or some other thing.

Think the Crusades, the Conquest of the New World by Iberia, the Europeans in Africa, Napoleon. Its all about power and the money that comes with it. Its extremely hard to guarantee a just society when you are literally swinging a cookie of tempation in front of people. There is no way to regulate "fair wages" without a strong power structure, and then your going down that path of Babylon all over again.

An anarchist society should work towards a better tommorow, without the evils of the past. That means inihliating the money, and the market- economics power game that comes with it, as well as the machines of power.

[Bleach]

I disagree, I believe first off, the thing that corrupts people is power, money is secondary. Money is a tool that is used by people in pwerful positions, it allows them to exercise their power to a greater extent.

[Einherjar]

I believe first off, the thing that corrupts people is power

Thirst for power is innate to human beings. All that is human is good.

[Crazyvichistan]

I disagree, I believe first off, the thing that corrupts people is power, money is secondary. Money is a tool that is used by people in pwerful positions, it allows them to exercise their power to a greater extent.

Chicken or the egg? I basically agree with you, and all I'm saying is that the overthrow of power must involve the overthrowing of the tools that they use, or a these tools will be manipulated by opportunists to create a new ruling class.

Thirst for power is innate to human beings. All that is human is good.

Please explain...

[Einherjar]

Please explain...

My idea is that every specific body strives to become master of its surroundings. Its will to power wants to extend itself and crush all the resistance it encounters. Now it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies. In the end, either this state of continuous struggle continues or it is ended by reaching an arrangement in which power is shared unanimously by some dominant elite.

Not adhering to a set of moral standards which were pulled from nowhere and based on nothing, I fail to see why this will to power is wrong. It is a result of millions of years of evolution, of continuous struggle for survival; in fact we even have this common with other species. To this day, power remains intrinsically part of our nature; who does not feel sadness and anger when his being is not imposing itself on his surroundings?

The problem is that we developed a consciousness which is in full contrast with our innate characteristics and to this day we despise life and earthly things and strive for “utopias”, for unattainable goals, for angels and ghosts. We are never happy with ourselves; mankind is only evaluated in accordance with standards which it has not yet reached but must reach in order to live happily. According to this consciousness; it is not our moral standards which are flawed by failing to represent reality; but the human being himself is flawed by not being able to attain these goals. This consciousness was a direct result of envy, of despise by the oppressed rabble for what was powerful and beautiful. Failing to attain earthly pleasures, the life-despisers devaluated earthly things and dreamed of ideal, supernatural utopias in which tragedy and sadness are unheard of. Leftist Anarchism, Communism or whatever is, essentially, an attempt to bring this supernatural utopia back to Earth - an earthly "Kingdom of Heaven".

I retain, however, that one must first learn to know and love himself in order to be able to change for the better.

[Crazyvichistan]

That whole idea is pure social darwinism, and though it is logical and natural, it is hardly something I would chose to believe.
Though progress can be achieved on a evolutionary level by this willpower struggle, what remains unsaid is the bloodshed this can ultimately devolve into (reminiscent of Mussiolini's "blood alone moves the machinery of history"). Though the ultimate goal of life is simply to propagate your seed, the entire theory of "humanity" is based on the idea that we are advanced to a point in our history and our evolution on earth that triumphing over those around you and having as many offspring as possible before you get runover by a mammoth is not the only thing that matters.
Human expirience and pleasure matters too, and though we could run around like a bunch of savage bashing each others heads in and stealing women from other tribes to rape them, we instead choose to live in a society through which we can become happen and live a life that is worthwhile.
I realize you will attack me for misconstruing your ideas (but this is the root and the leaf of your ideas), so I will restate the above analogy by saying that what you advocate is a zero-sum game of pure existence and self-centric egotism, whereas organization (not neccesarily centralised governmental, which I do not advocate in any way as an anarchist) and to a larger extent cooperation among individuals furthers the actions that are within grasp of the individuals, and you come out in a more positive existence.
As for morality, it is a double edged sword, on the one hand controlling and manipulating through religion, but on the other hand stopping a lot of negative behavior (which you seem not to believe in, but I personally believe that hurting others for no reason other then personal gain would be negative). Yes, they do not represent "reality", but it is a reality in which I can walk up to you with a .22 and blow your brains out.
You then devolve into the argument that I would not do this if you also had a gun, but that argument is over-played and leads to a kind argument for primitivistic chaos, which is the idealogy of a man unable to cope with life around him and devolves into sociopathic discourse. The kind that is from "not imposing itself on its surroundings", however imposing can be for the better, which does not neccessarily have to be a utopia, it can just be making someone's day be special.
I do not think a revolution that brings my ideas to fruition will ever be attained. Am I saddened? No! Advocating a better tommorow, even if it is unattainable in my lifetime lights up my life, and does not detract from it.
That comes from working against hardship and opression by "dominant elites" of the "rabble", because though pain is a fact and invetiablity (and indeed beauty in a strange way) of life, but to knowingly subjugate people to a life of opression shows that you have not really looked around and expirience "reality." It also comes from an almost aristocratic viewpoint rooted in the elite, monarchial idealogy with its history in the same events I describe in my previous post on the evils of the monetary system.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Money is just the tokens for resources, invented beacause it was easier to move around than bulk resources, which could be collected at a particular point using the correct means of transportation, (horse and cart etc), without such means of transportation being needed for all citizens.

I suppose an anarcho-sydicalist society, would still need money, if it's members are to actually to consume individually, as opposed to according to a fixed quota. Else there would be no means to determine exactly what each person needs, but to assign each one a particular amount of money in order so they can exchange for collectively produced and traded resources.