Syndicalism...Again: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 263-266

 We’ve done this before, back in the first French Revolution days where Webster did her thing mentioning something as crucially important, I do a bunch of reading on it, and then she drops it three sentences later. On the plus side I did not have to that much reading for this week, but her style is still annoying.

To refresh the memory (I did have to refresh my own memory), syndicalism is another economic/political system. Socialism is equal distribution of authority and economy; the former was accomplished through some process of election or merit. Anarchy is a system where every person has a say in everything. Plato hated this form of government which he equated with Democracy. Aristotle believed Anarchy was a corrupt version of Democracy. People like Bakunin didn’t believe that any person should have more authority than anyone else, no matter what that meant for the rest of society. Syndicalism is a system wherein the various aspects of society are run by the experts in those aspects. Water would be run by the Plumbing trade, electricity by the electricians, the law by the lawyers, etc. Typically understood a syndicalist society is run by the syndicates. This is what the chapter is supposed to be about.

We open our chapter with Webster’s remark that socialism was finding no fertile ground in England or France outside of the “drawing-rooms.” In other words it was all theoretical but no one really liked it. Which is bullshit—if this were true, then Webster wouldn’t have felt the need to write this book. She cites Hyndman, the Socialist convert from last week, who remarks that the French farming classes, the country peasants; are resistant to Socialism.

This is a strange take because the commentary she then references doesn’t say that. Again, people aren’t supposed to read this book, they’re supposed to skim it. What Hyndman says is that “nationalizing the farms” is what will get a person run out of the French Countryside. Now, there is going to be nationalization in a socialist society, but there will also be nationalization in a fascist/communist/even Democratic society as well depending on the context. Webster believes this to be a win against Socialism and she gloats, “it is strange how frankly Socialists at times admit that, for all their talk of democracy, their plans of the people’s welfare are diametrically opposed to those of the people themselves.”

That certainly is strange, but that’s not what is happening in the selections from Hyndman. Hyndman writes, and is quoted by Webster, “The word Socialism need never be used at all; but the ideas of natural and communal organization and administration would soon find their road into his [the rural French peasant] mind.”

Webster thinks it’s strange that if Socialism was so appealing the French peasants, indeed, any peasants, would need to be tricked into it.

The claim reminds of the right wing attacks on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). If you took the average GOP voter and asked them if they supported Obamacare they would say no. They would call it Socialism, Communism, and proof of some vast conspiracy that they was never clear. However, if you asked them if they supported all of things that the ACA did (eliminating denials based on pre-existing conditions, allowing kids to stay on their parent’s insurance much longer, capping certain purchases, etc.) they supported it. You can do this now by asking the average Trump supporter if about the Obama-Biden Iran deal. As long as you don’t mention who signed the old deal, they support it. What Webster is calling a victory is not a victory against the ideas of socialism but the label. It’s a victory of the opponents of socialists, but not over the idea.

We get more infighting between various groups of Socialists, Anarchists, Marxists, Guesdists, etc. and who gives a shit about this? She wants us to think that the infighting is somehow related to some grander problem but it’s just in-fighting between groups that are related by an umbrella idea. She wants us to think that these squabbles between various Socialist groups are proof that Socialism cannot work. If this were true that would mean that the squabbles between Aristocratic systems of government would mean that those cannot work either.

Most importantly, these reports about who is in who’s camp are just boring. No one can find this interesting, and we’re not supposed to. This is something I term “The Bewilder Gambit.” The idea is not to provide information to the individual rather to make the claim seem so complicated that we assume it’s true because we don’t care to look into it. The article I linked above used the “Flat Earth” conspiracy theory’s reliance on a fancy formula to plug a whole in their theory. Most people, as I claim in that article, not only don’t understand that formula but they don’t know where to begin to check on it. Webster is relying on us to just take her word that all of these groups and people are fighting with each other, as well that this means something important. She isn’t going to tell us, but we should trust her because she has all of these names. David Icke pulls this same bullshit in “The Biggest Secret” chapters before he tells us about the lizard aliens (that certainly weren’t ripped off the television series V and the movie “They Live”).

What she does accomplish is reminding us that some of these people are Jewish. That’s important for us to know because they are in charge of the Illuminati, or the Illuminati are running the Jewish plot; no matter what the case they’re all in charge of these Socialist groups, maybe.

It’s not like she has a point here. As I have said several posts in a row—if she wants to argue against Socialism or even just Socialist groups—she can do that without appealing to a vast conspiracy. However, she’s incapable of doing that and it’s seeming more like she’s incapable of coming up with a coherent conspiracy theory as well. Webster has us set up, and next week, maybe we’ll actually get to Syndicalism.