I always think of Shevek’s line “It was not only poor Vea who had betrayed him” as simply true. Love and sex are some of the most profound and intimate ways two people can know each other; to use them for advancement and manipulation, as Vea clearly does, is wrong. Even if sexual assault is the greater wrong, and even if it is one of the only forms of agency permitted to you.
Chapter Seven also includes my favourite dialogue in the entire novel, which is Shevek’s critique of Vea’s assertion that femininity is a true form of power on Urras, that allows women to live as they like. His simple critique of this as the mentality of a slave, who can only think of tricking the owners and of getting revenge, has always stayed with me. I often notice women talk about men in extremely flippant and cruel ways (think: ‘men are trash’) in a way I think is very much captured by this dynamic — a complete foreclosing on the possibility of an egalitarian society where women are respected as equals, so instead you settle for petty cruelty. Every time I reread The Dispossessed I am struck by how sophisticated a critique she makes in so few lines of dialogue!
I was really struck in these chapters about Anarres' reaction to the drought. In the face of an event that threatens to end their humanity it seems that everything else is put on pause and everyone shifts their efforts and work to fighting to survive this drought. These are the chapters where the Division of Labor seems to be appear a a government-not-government. But I think its in these times of crises that some orchestrator must appear and coordinate the efforts of millions of people so everyone is doing the absolute most combat the drought. The reason this has stayed with me is because we're not even close to doing something similar in regards to climate change. In the face of something that could end humanity, and that is already having adverse consequences on our well being and environment, why shouldn't we stop everything and focus solely on this? Why are we, instead, actively doing things that continue to worsen our condition? Why is this is even the subject of the debate? I can agree that Anarres isn't perfect, no society is or ever will be, but at least its founded on solidarity between human beings and I see that as the reason why they can react in such a way to the drought as opposed to our reaction to climate change here on earth.
One reason could be that Anarres is a small and relatively homogeneous community and so solidarity is easier to achieve; whereas Earth is large and is riven by tribal, racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and economic differences.
Im pretty sure it's like 20 million people, obviously small compared to Earth but still quite big if you're thinking about organizing that many humans. I agree here on Earth we have many differences but I don't believe that's what's keeping us from organizing against climate change, it's something that is or will affect everyone negatively at some point. Solidarity is achievable is spite of all of the differences between us and that's what so powerful about it.
Unfortunately, climate change became a political issue at this point. If the left is for green energy and addressing climate change, the right is automatically against it. Another factor is that certain people (and there are many, mostly on the right) want more and more "stuff" because they see the meaning of life in accumulating it. They think (and there is some merit to this) that economic growth is what will give them more "stuff." The issue is that they don't want to hear about green energy (even though solar is now dirt cheap) because the left likes it, so they automatically dislike it. We need growth to get poor people out of poverty. Solar is the way to do it without destroying the planet. It would also help if people who buy seven-bedroom houses and three Suburbans for a family of three would cut down a bit on their wasteful consumption and pay more in taxes instead. This is unlikely to happen, unfortunately, as: a) most people who love "stuff" will continue loving it unless something extraordinary happens, a big tragedy that can wake them up to the reality that this is not what the limited time on Earth is about; and b) consumption fuels growth, leading to more consumption that most governments like. So, to sum it up, I am not optimistic that solidarity on the climate change issue can be achieved, not in our lifetime at least...
"Growth" will not get poor people out of poverty, redistribution of wealth will. We already produce more than enough than what's needed to feed, house and provide for everyone. The problem is that this wealth is being hoarded. We don't need a big tragedy for people to wake up, big tragedies happen all the time. It's a matter of educating people about climate change and working to depoliticize issues like it. I get why it's hard to be optimistic about changes like this happening, but try not to loose hope, there's a bunch of people already doing the work that's needed, and looking to pitch in where you can helps in building that optimism and solidarity :)
The way I read that scene was that Shevek’s assault of Vea was the epitome and culmination of his own self-betrayal. Only something of this magnitude—only seeing himself do something this terrible that he never imagined he’d be capable of—could wake him up to his true predicament. So while Le Guin doesn’t given us a window into more drawn-out remorse or an apology, I think the fact that Shevek’s response is to throw himself into the revolution at this point is her way of showing the extremity of his regret, and how catalytic this incident was for his character development and mission.
A word caught my eye which I'll have to investigate on a re-reading, that of the fact that Shevek needs to find a way for "coexistence" between the sequency and simultaneity theories. Is he not also stuck between the lifestyles of Urras and Anarres, finding a way to "coexist" with the best parts of both? Is not the whole Odonian project an attempt to create the perfect "coexistence" of peoples - socially, economically, morally, otherwise? Don't propertarians think that trading is the ultimate form of "coexistence"?
I think all of this also relates back to the book's subtitle, "an ambiguous utopia" (and the showcasing of some pitfalls on the overly idealistic Anarres) meaning that absolutist positions cannot yield the best results and one must pull from various schools of thought.
I actually kind of hate that, because there is this irritating post-modern fallacy going around in our age that all opinions are created equal and "the truth is somewhere in the middle." It was also what gave me my first pause with Aristotle - what do you mean the mean is the best?! I'm simply a person that can't half-ass anything, I'm all in, so when Aristotle or Le Guin tell me to reel it in a bit, my instinct is to resist. Of course, that is what makes philosophical works so useful is allowing us to question and improve ourselves.
Ah, just noticed this comment – just came to the same conclusion about the parallels between the theories of science and social organization. Wrote about it in a comment below :)
I also don't think it's as simple as "we have to take bits from both and mix them", with a very anti-absolutist bent. The criticisms from Shevek's friend on Anarres that highlight that they have gone from a tyranny of the minority to a tyranny of the majority is something that Anarchism has tried to address, and I think Le Guin might consider Annares a proto-anarchic society that still has some kinks to work out (the fact they have a centralized government and a faceless machine that directs people to jobs is definitely not in the spirit of a truly advanced Anarchic society, at least in the way I understand it)
I read somewhere that the only thing that unites all the famous "postmodernists" is that they all decline to accept that label! Hard as I try, I'm unable to recall any "postmodernist" thinker who has claimed that "all opinions are created equal" and that "the truth is somewhere in the middle." David, I agree with you that both these claims are nonsensical; but perhaps they don't accurately capture the spirit of "postmodernism."
In my knowledge, all "postmodernists" (I'm thinking of thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, and Rorty) reject any representationalist or foundationalist stance in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. They simply do not believe in anything (principles, values, ways of life, etc.) that might smack of being universal and absolute; i.e., binding at all times and in all places. In layman's terms, all that these thinkers are arguing is that, outside of religion, we won't be able to find a set of standards that is accepted by everyone to which we can appeal to settle our irreconcilable differences. That's why they are irreconcilable,
However, this anti-foundationalist stance does not mean that these thinkers believe every opinion or deed is just as good or that anything goes. They are only arguing that rules of conduct, criteria for truth, and values can only be compared and evaluated within particular traditions and the accepted norms of specific communities. These ideas are certainly nothing new or "postmodernist;" they can also be found in philosophers as diverse as Dewey, Wittgenstein, Kuhn, and Habermas.
Richard Rorty does a superb job of addressing these central debates in philosophy in the introduction and first section of his "Philosophy and Social Hope," a collection of articles he wrote for the general public.
David, what chance does the world have if we don't try to find a way to "co-exist" by overcoming our drastic differences? Should we simply try to "wipe out" all those people we disagree with?
You’ve delved too far into weird specifics of certain people labeled post-modern; the essence of the thought being there is no objective reality. From there, you get wide acceptance of the middle ground fallacy.
What I’m saying here is, Le Guin could have very easily made *everything* on Anarres perfect. Then of course there’d be no reason for a story, because Shevek would have no reason to leave. What she’s doing is demonstrating that even the most idealistic compromise at times (either individually, or more accurately, as a result of groupthink and imagined social self-preservation).
Shevek also starts to like things on Urras a little bit and certainly approves of the funding for scientific work. So there comes a point where it appears that there might be something worth plucking from each social system. That’s also probably fine, I’m just typically an all-or-nothing person with my beliefs.
Your last line is needlessly provocative and doesn’t really align with anything I said.
The question remains: what happens if people on Earth don't try to co-exist with one another by trying to overcome our differences, however irreconcilable they might be?
Good question. Maybe Shevek or Le Guin will answer it in chapters 10-13. But for all of recorded history we haven’t quite figured it out yet.
There is a good idea on Anarres of the rotating posts in the Divlab. Bukharin mentions this as well in the ABC of Communism, that people take turns in the statistical bureaux thus seeing the aggregate effects of their work and the needs of society. I think that wider knowledge at all levels of society would help.
Note the distinction between hands-on knowledge vs “education.” Right now for example in the USA economics majors get a whole bunch of theories from Smith or Keynes or whoever, then are told they haven’t ever quite worked out that way but trust me bro they would if only xyz conditions were met, but hey at least it’s not Communism THAT one “only works on paper” lmao got ‘em! Anyway the rich are rich because they work harder than you, but with this degree you can be their suppliant accountant.
The rotating position was also supposed to apply to governmental work but we never did put term limits in the USA.
Imagine if everybody had a real and legitimate chance (ie not by fundraising and campaigning) at their local council, state assembly, federal congress, etc? And that those same people also took intermittent shifts at a local, national, global bureau understanding real & present needs in the aggregate? At this point more people have data and authority and they might cooperate more.
Coexistence can maybe be achieved by true practical knowledge sharing. Unlike today where overly self important rich people bash others over the head with their credentials and say SHUT UP AND OBEY I HAVE THE EDUCATION.
Just wanted to say that I agreed with this analysis. Moral relativism implies that morals are relative to something and may vary under different conditions (historic, material, social), not that everything is equally valid, at least as far as I understand it.
I read something the other day about being able to "see" or accept both good and evil simultaneously.
If, as I currently believe, the whole of the universe is connected, forming one interrelated organism, it would seem that one must retain an openess of thought. Since I have, in my opinionated past, held to certain absolutes, this is an uncomfortable concept. I ultimately rely on my personal experience of the spiritual. Something I cannot prove, but refuse to relinquish.
Your comment reminds me of Nietzsche's philosophy of beyond good and evil and the Buddhist Master Thick Nhat Hahn's concept of interbeing. They both believe that all events and beings in the universe are causally connected and that a change in one will inevitably bring a change to everything else. Kind of like Shevek's theories of temporality and simultaneity, both thinkers' ideas also apply to the interconnectedness of past, present, and future.
In Buddhism, one of the absolutes that you alluded to is the Self. As a result, the ultimate goal of its highest level of training is the dissolution of the Self, leading to Nirvana.
I love your last sentence: "Something I cannot prove, but refuse to relinquish." A leap of faith, so to speak.
Your comment reminded me of a meditation class I went to recently where our guide described the process of integrating the good and bad aspects of the world within ourselves (and not just ignoring, repressing, and rejecting the bad) as “combining the shadows and the light in order to make more light.” Seems really relevant to how Le Guin doesn’t shy away from the darker aspects of human nature that come up again and again.
It's not exactly great behavior, but I always thought the text made it clear that Shevek was misreading Vea's cues; Anarresti are so open about such things that he didn't really understand. And he does stop when he finally realizes she's saying no. I think you might be right on him implying he's betrayed himself though.
Really enjoying the book and the weekly substack notes! Just wanted to share a couple thoughts:
I thought it was interesting that Vea had the same philosophical view of Max Stirner – that by "freeing" themselves from despots and hierarchies, the Anarresti have moved into their very own minds their tyrants, and can't be considered free.
Le Guin has noted that her earlier work did not always treat women as well as her later work (she notes that she never even considered female wizards when she started writing earthsea, despite making the "controversial decision" to have the wizards be black and the barbarian invaders white)
Another quick thought that came to my mind was that Shevek's work finding a grand unifying theory for Sequency and Simultaneity is sort of like our search for a theory that unifies individual liberty with justice for all. Does there exist a system that combines the best of capitalism and communism (or whatever you want to call them) seems to be part of the question the book is asking us to consider. I suspect Le Guin would point to a very pure form of anarcho-communism as the solution, without the problems caused by the centralisation on Anarres. When Shevek has his breakthrough about Sequency and Simultaneity, he immediately figures out how to take political action, I don't think that's a coincidence.
I think if we have to put a fine point on it Anarres is anarcho-syndicalist. But for mutual aid at scale you have to know who has what and who needs what which requires a bureaucracy. And syndicalism creates little pockets of people aka mobs aka tyranny of the majority. So it also could be a critique of that political theory.
I always think of Shevek’s line “It was not only poor Vea who had betrayed him” as simply true. Love and sex are some of the most profound and intimate ways two people can know each other; to use them for advancement and manipulation, as Vea clearly does, is wrong. Even if sexual assault is the greater wrong, and even if it is one of the only forms of agency permitted to you.
Chapter Seven also includes my favourite dialogue in the entire novel, which is Shevek’s critique of Vea’s assertion that femininity is a true form of power on Urras, that allows women to live as they like. His simple critique of this as the mentality of a slave, who can only think of tricking the owners and of getting revenge, has always stayed with me. I often notice women talk about men in extremely flippant and cruel ways (think: ‘men are trash’) in a way I think is very much captured by this dynamic — a complete foreclosing on the possibility of an egalitarian society where women are respected as equals, so instead you settle for petty cruelty. Every time I reread The Dispossessed I am struck by how sophisticated a critique she makes in so few lines of dialogue!
I was really struck in these chapters about Anarres' reaction to the drought. In the face of an event that threatens to end their humanity it seems that everything else is put on pause and everyone shifts their efforts and work to fighting to survive this drought. These are the chapters where the Division of Labor seems to be appear a a government-not-government. But I think its in these times of crises that some orchestrator must appear and coordinate the efforts of millions of people so everyone is doing the absolute most combat the drought. The reason this has stayed with me is because we're not even close to doing something similar in regards to climate change. In the face of something that could end humanity, and that is already having adverse consequences on our well being and environment, why shouldn't we stop everything and focus solely on this? Why are we, instead, actively doing things that continue to worsen our condition? Why is this is even the subject of the debate? I can agree that Anarres isn't perfect, no society is or ever will be, but at least its founded on solidarity between human beings and I see that as the reason why they can react in such a way to the drought as opposed to our reaction to climate change here on earth.
One reason could be that Anarres is a small and relatively homogeneous community and so solidarity is easier to achieve; whereas Earth is large and is riven by tribal, racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and economic differences.
Im pretty sure it's like 20 million people, obviously small compared to Earth but still quite big if you're thinking about organizing that many humans. I agree here on Earth we have many differences but I don't believe that's what's keeping us from organizing against climate change, it's something that is or will affect everyone negatively at some point. Solidarity is achievable is spite of all of the differences between us and that's what so powerful about it.
Unfortunately, climate change became a political issue at this point. If the left is for green energy and addressing climate change, the right is automatically against it. Another factor is that certain people (and there are many, mostly on the right) want more and more "stuff" because they see the meaning of life in accumulating it. They think (and there is some merit to this) that economic growth is what will give them more "stuff." The issue is that they don't want to hear about green energy (even though solar is now dirt cheap) because the left likes it, so they automatically dislike it. We need growth to get poor people out of poverty. Solar is the way to do it without destroying the planet. It would also help if people who buy seven-bedroom houses and three Suburbans for a family of three would cut down a bit on their wasteful consumption and pay more in taxes instead. This is unlikely to happen, unfortunately, as: a) most people who love "stuff" will continue loving it unless something extraordinary happens, a big tragedy that can wake them up to the reality that this is not what the limited time on Earth is about; and b) consumption fuels growth, leading to more consumption that most governments like. So, to sum it up, I am not optimistic that solidarity on the climate change issue can be achieved, not in our lifetime at least...
"Growth" will not get poor people out of poverty, redistribution of wealth will. We already produce more than enough than what's needed to feed, house and provide for everyone. The problem is that this wealth is being hoarded. We don't need a big tragedy for people to wake up, big tragedies happen all the time. It's a matter of educating people about climate change and working to depoliticize issues like it. I get why it's hard to be optimistic about changes like this happening, but try not to loose hope, there's a bunch of people already doing the work that's needed, and looking to pitch in where you can helps in building that optimism and solidarity :)
The way I read that scene was that Shevek’s assault of Vea was the epitome and culmination of his own self-betrayal. Only something of this magnitude—only seeing himself do something this terrible that he never imagined he’d be capable of—could wake him up to his true predicament. So while Le Guin doesn’t given us a window into more drawn-out remorse or an apology, I think the fact that Shevek’s response is to throw himself into the revolution at this point is her way of showing the extremity of his regret, and how catalytic this incident was for his character development and mission.
A word caught my eye which I'll have to investigate on a re-reading, that of the fact that Shevek needs to find a way for "coexistence" between the sequency and simultaneity theories. Is he not also stuck between the lifestyles of Urras and Anarres, finding a way to "coexist" with the best parts of both? Is not the whole Odonian project an attempt to create the perfect "coexistence" of peoples - socially, economically, morally, otherwise? Don't propertarians think that trading is the ultimate form of "coexistence"?
I think all of this also relates back to the book's subtitle, "an ambiguous utopia" (and the showcasing of some pitfalls on the overly idealistic Anarres) meaning that absolutist positions cannot yield the best results and one must pull from various schools of thought.
I actually kind of hate that, because there is this irritating post-modern fallacy going around in our age that all opinions are created equal and "the truth is somewhere in the middle." It was also what gave me my first pause with Aristotle - what do you mean the mean is the best?! I'm simply a person that can't half-ass anything, I'm all in, so when Aristotle or Le Guin tell me to reel it in a bit, my instinct is to resist. Of course, that is what makes philosophical works so useful is allowing us to question and improve ourselves.
Ah, just noticed this comment – just came to the same conclusion about the parallels between the theories of science and social organization. Wrote about it in a comment below :)
I also don't think it's as simple as "we have to take bits from both and mix them", with a very anti-absolutist bent. The criticisms from Shevek's friend on Anarres that highlight that they have gone from a tyranny of the minority to a tyranny of the majority is something that Anarchism has tried to address, and I think Le Guin might consider Annares a proto-anarchic society that still has some kinks to work out (the fact they have a centralized government and a faceless machine that directs people to jobs is definitely not in the spirit of a truly advanced Anarchic society, at least in the way I understand it)
I read somewhere that the only thing that unites all the famous "postmodernists" is that they all decline to accept that label! Hard as I try, I'm unable to recall any "postmodernist" thinker who has claimed that "all opinions are created equal" and that "the truth is somewhere in the middle." David, I agree with you that both these claims are nonsensical; but perhaps they don't accurately capture the spirit of "postmodernism."
In my knowledge, all "postmodernists" (I'm thinking of thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, and Rorty) reject any representationalist or foundationalist stance in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. They simply do not believe in anything (principles, values, ways of life, etc.) that might smack of being universal and absolute; i.e., binding at all times and in all places. In layman's terms, all that these thinkers are arguing is that, outside of religion, we won't be able to find a set of standards that is accepted by everyone to which we can appeal to settle our irreconcilable differences. That's why they are irreconcilable,
However, this anti-foundationalist stance does not mean that these thinkers believe every opinion or deed is just as good or that anything goes. They are only arguing that rules of conduct, criteria for truth, and values can only be compared and evaluated within particular traditions and the accepted norms of specific communities. These ideas are certainly nothing new or "postmodernist;" they can also be found in philosophers as diverse as Dewey, Wittgenstein, Kuhn, and Habermas.
Richard Rorty does a superb job of addressing these central debates in philosophy in the introduction and first section of his "Philosophy and Social Hope," a collection of articles he wrote for the general public.
David, what chance does the world have if we don't try to find a way to "co-exist" by overcoming our drastic differences? Should we simply try to "wipe out" all those people we disagree with?
You’ve delved too far into weird specifics of certain people labeled post-modern; the essence of the thought being there is no objective reality. From there, you get wide acceptance of the middle ground fallacy.
What I’m saying here is, Le Guin could have very easily made *everything* on Anarres perfect. Then of course there’d be no reason for a story, because Shevek would have no reason to leave. What she’s doing is demonstrating that even the most idealistic compromise at times (either individually, or more accurately, as a result of groupthink and imagined social self-preservation).
Shevek also starts to like things on Urras a little bit and certainly approves of the funding for scientific work. So there comes a point where it appears that there might be something worth plucking from each social system. That’s also probably fine, I’m just typically an all-or-nothing person with my beliefs.
Your last line is needlessly provocative and doesn’t really align with anything I said.
The question remains: what happens if people on Earth don't try to co-exist with one another by trying to overcome our differences, however irreconcilable they might be?
Good question. Maybe Shevek or Le Guin will answer it in chapters 10-13. But for all of recorded history we haven’t quite figured it out yet.
There is a good idea on Anarres of the rotating posts in the Divlab. Bukharin mentions this as well in the ABC of Communism, that people take turns in the statistical bureaux thus seeing the aggregate effects of their work and the needs of society. I think that wider knowledge at all levels of society would help.
Note the distinction between hands-on knowledge vs “education.” Right now for example in the USA economics majors get a whole bunch of theories from Smith or Keynes or whoever, then are told they haven’t ever quite worked out that way but trust me bro they would if only xyz conditions were met, but hey at least it’s not Communism THAT one “only works on paper” lmao got ‘em! Anyway the rich are rich because they work harder than you, but with this degree you can be their suppliant accountant.
The rotating position was also supposed to apply to governmental work but we never did put term limits in the USA.
Imagine if everybody had a real and legitimate chance (ie not by fundraising and campaigning) at their local council, state assembly, federal congress, etc? And that those same people also took intermittent shifts at a local, national, global bureau understanding real & present needs in the aggregate? At this point more people have data and authority and they might cooperate more.
Coexistence can maybe be achieved by true practical knowledge sharing. Unlike today where overly self important rich people bash others over the head with their credentials and say SHUT UP AND OBEY I HAVE THE EDUCATION.
Just wanted to say that I agreed with this analysis. Moral relativism implies that morals are relative to something and may vary under different conditions (historic, material, social), not that everything is equally valid, at least as far as I understand it.
I read something the other day about being able to "see" or accept both good and evil simultaneously.
If, as I currently believe, the whole of the universe is connected, forming one interrelated organism, it would seem that one must retain an openess of thought. Since I have, in my opinionated past, held to certain absolutes, this is an uncomfortable concept. I ultimately rely on my personal experience of the spiritual. Something I cannot prove, but refuse to relinquish.
Your comment reminds me of Nietzsche's philosophy of beyond good and evil and the Buddhist Master Thick Nhat Hahn's concept of interbeing. They both believe that all events and beings in the universe are causally connected and that a change in one will inevitably bring a change to everything else. Kind of like Shevek's theories of temporality and simultaneity, both thinkers' ideas also apply to the interconnectedness of past, present, and future.
In Buddhism, one of the absolutes that you alluded to is the Self. As a result, the ultimate goal of its highest level of training is the dissolution of the Self, leading to Nirvana.
I love your last sentence: "Something I cannot prove, but refuse to relinquish." A leap of faith, so to speak.
Your comment reminded me of a meditation class I went to recently where our guide described the process of integrating the good and bad aspects of the world within ourselves (and not just ignoring, repressing, and rejecting the bad) as “combining the shadows and the light in order to make more light.” Seems really relevant to how Le Guin doesn’t shy away from the darker aspects of human nature that come up again and again.
Hi. Unfortunately I had to work and missed the call. Was it recorded?
Yes. It’ll be sent out later this week in another post.
It's not exactly great behavior, but I always thought the text made it clear that Shevek was misreading Vea's cues; Anarresti are so open about such things that he didn't really understand. And he does stop when he finally realizes she's saying no. I think you might be right on him implying he's betrayed himself though.
Really enjoying the book and the weekly substack notes! Just wanted to share a couple thoughts:
I thought it was interesting that Vea had the same philosophical view of Max Stirner – that by "freeing" themselves from despots and hierarchies, the Anarresti have moved into their very own minds their tyrants, and can't be considered free.
Le Guin has noted that her earlier work did not always treat women as well as her later work (she notes that she never even considered female wizards when she started writing earthsea, despite making the "controversial decision" to have the wizards be black and the barbarian invaders white)
Another quick thought that came to my mind was that Shevek's work finding a grand unifying theory for Sequency and Simultaneity is sort of like our search for a theory that unifies individual liberty with justice for all. Does there exist a system that combines the best of capitalism and communism (or whatever you want to call them) seems to be part of the question the book is asking us to consider. I suspect Le Guin would point to a very pure form of anarcho-communism as the solution, without the problems caused by the centralisation on Anarres. When Shevek has his breakthrough about Sequency and Simultaneity, he immediately figures out how to take political action, I don't think that's a coincidence.
I think if we have to put a fine point on it Anarres is anarcho-syndicalist. But for mutual aid at scale you have to know who has what and who needs what which requires a bureaucracy. And syndicalism creates little pockets of people aka mobs aka tyranny of the majority. So it also could be a critique of that political theory.