Insurrectionist or Syndicalist?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This is one of the main conflicting points I have in my beliefs, there are times when I will agree with Syndicalism and others when I agree with Insurrectionist tendencies. I suppose I am tolerant to both schools of thought and if one over the other was the prevailing tendency in a period of revolution I would support either. What is your view on the two ideas?

[Holger Meins]

I think they both have it's ups and downs. I think that syndicalism (clear organisations, ie syndicalist unions like SAC in Sweden), if the anarchist movement is rather small, can have more potential to attract new members on the count of anarchism being more easily found. Insurrectionary anarchism, on the other hand, is correct in it's criticism of syndicalism. I think that syndicalist organisations have to look out for stagnation, it has to constantly shield itself from becoming a part of the system, to get sucked up in the ways surrounding society.

On the other hand, if the anarchist movement is fairly large, as in Greece where its enourmous, that insurrectionary anarchism is a very good way of operating. If the "anarchist presence" is already high enough, the insurrectionary ways of organisation should be an ideal way of organisation to anarchists. When there is no clear leader, or even movement, it becomes very hard to stop it. Just take a look at Greece in December 2008.

[Pogue]

This is one of the main conflicting points I have in my beliefs, there are times when I will agree with Syndicalism and others when I agree with Insurrectionist tendencies. I suppose I am tolerant to both schools of thought and if one over the other was the prevailing tendency in a period of revolution I would support either. What is your view on the two ideas?

Its not one or the other in this case. For example, if you believe anarcho-syndicalist groups can stagnate, maybe you'd find the line of SoLFed interesting, which says the union can only be formed in a time of heightened struggle and will neccesarily disppear if this struggle doesn't lead to revolution.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Its not one or the other in this case. For example, if you believe anarcho-syndicalist groups can stagnate, maybe you'd find the line of SoLFed interesting, which says the union can only be formed in a time of heightened struggle and will neccesarily disppear if this struggle doesn't lead to revolution.

I didn't say that. That is what Holger Meins said. I do not believe that. However that statement from SolFed I am unsure about. I don't really believe in it. I think it is importatn to form unions in this time to increase class consciousness. The revolutionary union that is, I'm sure that's what SolFed are referring to aswell.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Like Holger said, both schools of thoughts have their pros and cons.

I'll try to get back to this topic later, when I have a little more time.

[Pogue]

I didn't say that. That is what Holger Meins said. I do not believe that. However that statement from SolFed I am unsure about. I don't really believe in it. I think it is importatn to form unions in this time to increase class consciousness. The revolutionary union that is, I'm sure that's what SolFed are referring to aswell.

I personally find myself sort of inbetween that 'modern' SolFed position and orthodox Anarcho-Syndicalism and its giving me a bit of an headache.

[Unregistered]

Its not one or the other in this case. For example, if you believe anarcho-syndicalist groups can stagnate, maybe you'd find the line of SoLFed interesting, which says the union can only be formed in a time of heightened struggle and will neccesarily disppear if this struggle doesn't lead to revolution.I'm not saying that syndicalist organisation undiscrimanetly will stagnate. I think that thats a possibility that you have to look out for.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I personally find myself sort of inbetween that 'modern' SolFed position and orthodox Anarcho-Syndicalism and its giving me a bit of an headache.

To me the orthodox Anarcho-Syndicalist position seems more relevant in this time than the SolFed one. I like a lot of the stuff SolFed does but I feel that looking at the bigger picture then we must raise class consciousness not through propoganda and through exclusively Anarchist organisations but through mass workers organisations.

[Pogue]

To me the orthodox Anarcho-Syndicalist position seems more relevant in this time than the SolFed one. I like a lot of the stuff SolFed does but I feel that looking at the bigger picture then we must raise class consciousness not through propoganda and through exclusively Anarchist organisations but through mass workers organisations.

I agree, but I struggle with how these organisations can be prevented from stagnating, becoming beurecratic, becoming crippled through their funds being jacked when they carry out 'illegal' actions etc. Basically, how a revolutionary union functions in a non-revolutionary period. But then I think they need to exist for a long time pre-revolution to build up struggle and educate workers for a succesful revolution. I guess you could say the union could be built up in a period of heightened struggle that is not neccesarily revolutionary and then build up to revolution?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree, but I struggle with how these organisations can be prevented from stagnating, becoming beurecratic, becoming crippled through their funds being jacked when they carry out 'illegal' actions etc. Basically, how a revolutionary union functions in a non-revolutionary period. But then I think they need to exist for a long time pre-revolution to build up struggle and educate workers for a succesful revolution. I guess you could say the union could be built up in a period of heightened struggle that is not neccesarily revolutionary and then build up to revolution?

Yes I agree that to counter against stagnation is a concern but to do this the union as you say needs to organise in a period of 'heightened struggle'. We can look to Spain: The period of heightened struggle (or the time when the CNT began to become a large force) was around 50 years before 1936. It is definitely a nescessity in my opinion for the union to exist prior to the revolutionary period.

[Pogue]

Yes I agree that to counter against stagnation is a concern but to do this the union as you say needs to organise in a period of 'heightened struggle'. We can look to Spain: The period of heightened struggle (or the time when the CNT began to become a large force) was around 50 years before 1936. It is definitely a nescessity in my opinion for the union to exist prior to the revolutionary period.

I agree, but at the moment I'm grappling with whether the union has to be formed out of that period of pre-revolutionary struggle or whether it needs to be set up a bit before that. Its all down to how long this period of struggle is, how long it lasts for, etc.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree, but at the moment I'm grappling with whether the union has to be formed out of that period of pre-revolutionary struggle or whether it needs to be set up a bit before that. Its all down to how long this period of struggle is, how long it lasts for, etc.

I think I would go for the latter. I think it is necsecarry to have the union prior to this period as to serve as an organisation which, during this period, will help to educate the workers. Therefore I see nothing wrong with having it before if we avoid stagnation in these organisations and manage to organise democratically.