Reddit mentions of Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice (Working Classics)

The best advice I can give you is to find out what Noam Chomsky believes, because that's like taking a bullet train to the truth. Or I can just tell you. He's an syndicalist, a market abolitionist, and a contractarian (I'm assuming).

I think you should read as many of his books as possible. But other than that I would suggest reading The Social Contract, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, and The Concept of Law.

The Conquest of Bread.

Mutual Aid: A factor in Evolution.

Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice.

Look at the revolution; how it began. It did not begin with socialists, it did not begin with communists. It began with anarchists. There were no politicians on the sides of the workers until the workers were already dying because the government was protecting the rich and the wealthy. The government was protecting the companies and killing its own people.

As a result a revolution began (see this book for a history on the first revolution). If you ask me; it began with anarchism (makes the most sense for me), if you ask a socialist, it began with socialism and if you ask a communist it probably began with communism. Whatever is true doesn't matter much to me. What matters it the situation;

1. Companies are exploiting people
   
   
2. People are revolting
   
   
3. The state stops the people; kills them and tries to prevent the revolution
   
   Now there are three different solutions given by 1) communism, 2) socialism and 3) anarchism
   
   
4. Increase the size and the power of the state; all means of production belong to the state; demolish the state when the end-goal of communism is reached.
   
   I think this is the most ridiculous solution, especially since it was the state then already who was slaughtering the revolutionaries.
   
   
5. Don't give the state all means of production, but adjust the state. Make the state care more for the people, make the state determine what are humanistic circumstances and let the state enforce these and hope this doesn't happen again.
   
   This is the option we got stuck with. It is a lot better than before, but it is not really a solution to the problem at hand; the problem being that the state was preventing a revolution. Now the state can act as caregiver to the people. The state can look good, while in the end the state is still standing between the people and the companies. The state; the very corruptible state now even more in-between companies and people.
   
   
6. Demolish the state and let the workers (people) decide what will be done in what way. Have direct democracy (there were a lot of different approaches for this; labor unions kind-off resemble one of the models for anarchism) and nobody between the people and the companies.
   
   This to me seems the most accurate solution. In my opinion we don't need to be protected from the companies, because that would create more of a barrier between the people and the companies. We need to be close together so that if a problem arises the people can act without caregiver-states determining that people and companies should be kept divided. In the end; people will win from companies. They would have won already if the state had not been interfering all the time.
   
   edit this is a really short-cut of an explanation and of complete reasoning. If I had my own company; I would prefer an all employees have an equal share and voice in company decisions type of company; a sort of communal company. That being said; I would like to have the choice to do so, I do not like being told what I have to do. Which is why I like capitalism (true- free - market type); capitalism gives me the freedom to determine my own company policy.