Hey Anarcho-Syndicalists

[727Goon]

Hey I'm honestly wondering why a lot of you guys are so against insurrectionary tactics? I mean I consider myself an insurectionary anarchist but I support union action as well as direct action, I just dont consider the union the end all and be all of revolutionary organization.

[ContrarianLemming]

Ok lets be clear with our definitions of these tendencies first

whats anarcho syndicalism? It's a very organized form of social anarchism based on unionism. It uses periodic congress', federations, vangaurd like organizations - yes, I think anarcho syndicalists (I count myself among them) support a form of non party vangaurdism,.

Insurrectionary anarchism on the other hand opposes such organizational practices, opposes congress, federations and anything with a whiff of vangaurdism, for the same reason they oppose Platformism.

I oppose insurrectionary tactics as - and I really hate using this term - individualistic, to much emphasis on individual action, I think it reeks of a sort of propaganda of the deed for the new age ideal. It's all very spontanious and presumptious that people will work it without any sort of organizational backdrop. I don't think the spanish revolution would have happened without the CNT-FAI, which was most definitly an anarchist vangaurd group, in fact I think the FAI once called themselves vangaurds.

It just seems like wishful thinking.

[McCroskey]

I don't think the spanish revolution would have happened without the CNT-FAI, which was most definitly an anarchist vangaurd group, in fact I think the FAI once called themselves vangaurds.


The CNT was not an "anarchist" organisation in the sense of primitive anarchism, ie opposition to all kinds of authority and social responsibility without a class distinction. They were advocates of "libertarian communism", so in action, if not in words, they were just proposing communism from below. They were opposed to party and military discipline, but they were a highly disciplined bunch in terms of strategy. They were not your usual "no authority" romantic burguoise anarchist (there was an actual contradictory "anarchist government" in parts of Aragon during the war), they were mostly socialists who adhered to the idea of socialism from below and permanent revolution, and as such they were opposed to USSR communists because of the USSR theory of winning the war and renouncing the revolution, but they were working with marxists like the POUM.

Anarcho-syndicalism basically is a term that defines socialism from below, directed by a trade union movement and organisations of workers (you may call them soviets if you want), rather than by a vanguard political party. It was socialism from the workplace, rather than from the parliament. And that is the main difference with traditional anarchists. They were not opposed to all kinds of authority, only to state authority.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Ok lets be clear with our definitions of these tendencies first

whats anarcho syndicalism? It's a very organized form of social anarchism based on unionism. It uses periodic congress', federations, vangaurd like organizations - yes, I think anarcho syndicalists (I count myself among them) support a form of non party vangaurdism,.

Insurrectionary anarchism on the other hand opposes such organizational practices, opposes congress, federations and anything with a whiff of vangaurdism, for the same reason they oppose Platformism.

I oppose insurrectionary tactics as - and I really hate using this term - individualistic, to much emphasis on individual action, I think it reeks of a sort of propaganda of the deed for the new age ideal. It's all very spontanious and presumptious that people will work it without any sort of organizational backdrop. I don't think the spanish revolution would have happened without the CNT-FAI, which was most definitly an anarchist vangaurd group, in fact I think the FAI once called themselves vangaurds.

It just seems like wishful thinking.

Organization does not mean vanguardism. There is a big difference between an anarchist organization that is highly influential in swaying the masses and a vanguard which CONTROLS the masses through hierarchical relationships. Vanguards usually reference some form of centralized authority which no anarchist would support.

[Dimentio]

It is impossible to just stomp out a revolution from the dust by behaving like a chimpanzee in public. People don't naturally or spontaneously regress back to the chimpanzee behaviour unless they need to, that means if those in power are behaving in such a manner or the economy is in such a bad state that all figments of legality and legitimity are stripped from the body of society.

[Paulappaul]

Organization does not mean vanguardism. There is a big difference between an anarchist organization that is highly influential in swaying the masses and a vanguard which CONTROLS the masses through hierarchical relationships. Vanguards usually reference some form of centralized authority which no anarchist would support.

No it doesn't. Your being very presumptive of the meaning of Vanguard. Socialists used the word Vanguard before it had any Centralized Authority tacked on to it. The Panthers for one used the word to describe those who fought on the front lines in a physical fight.

Anarchists too use the term vanguard to describe their tactics and they do so without the "centralized authority" bullshit. Infact have you ever heard of the Vanguard Group? A really famous Anarchist organization which brought news from the Spanish revolution into America?

Your right a Vanguard usually references some sort of "Centralized Authority" but in alot of cases it doesn't, so don't flip shit when someone uses the term.

[AK]

inb4 shitstorm over a word's definition

[Widerstand]

Hey I'm honestly wondering why a lot of you guys are so against insurrectionary tactics? I mean I consider myself an insurectionary anarchist but I support union action as well as direct action, I just dont consider the union the end all and be all of revolutionary organization.

We are talking about insurrectionary tactics here, right? Not the tendency "Insurrectionary Anarchism".

Insurrectionary tactics can be useful and anarcho-syndicalism, to my understanding, doesn't exclude the use of insurrectionary tactics, when appropriate.

However, insurrectionary tactics are not the end-all-be-all, just like the union isn't - however, I believe they should never be a priority, while unionism, at least to me, deserves to have a rather high priority. I believe that revolutionary struggle needs a mix of tactics, which is something Insurrectionary Anarchists seem to firmly oppose.

[revolution inaction]

The CNT was not an "anarchist" organisation in the sense of primitive anarchism, ie opposition to all kinds of authority and social responsibility without a class distinction. They were advocates of "libertarian communism", so in action, if not in words, they were just proposing communism from below. They were opposed to party and military discipline, but they were a highly disciplined bunch in terms of strategy. They were not your usual "no authority" romantic burguoise anarchist (there was an actual contradictory "anarchist government" in parts of Aragon during the war), they were mostly socialists who adhered to the idea of socialism from below and permanent revolution, and as such they were opposed to USSR communists because of the USSR theory of winning the war and renouncing the revolution, but they were working with marxists like the POUM.

Anarcho-syndicalism basically is a term that defines socialism from below, directed by a trade union movement and organisations of workers (you may call them soviets if you want), rather than by a vanguard political party. It was socialism from the workplace, rather than from the parliament. And that is the main difference with traditional anarchists. They were not opposed to all kinds of authority, only to state authority.

what the fuck are you talking about? anarchists have always been socialist, they made up a large part of the first international, (maybe a majority?), and developed out of the workers movement.

[Dimentio]

Besides, riots are an extremely inefficient mean to achieve change. If you want to create real chaos, attack the installations outside the cities providing the cities with heating and electricity. And learn to haxx.

That won't make you loved for sure. But it would create chaos.

[Fietsketting]

what the fuck are you talking about? anarchists have always been socialist, they made up a large part of the first international, (maybe a majority?), and developed out of the workers movement.


In 1872, the organization was relocated to New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City). The First International disbanded 4 years later, at the 1876 Philadelphia conference. Attempts to revive the organization over the next five years failed. However, the Second International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International) was established in 1889 as its successor. Meanwhile, the anarchists continued to consider that they were unfairly ejected from the IWA, and in 1872 held a new congress of the international at Saint-Imier over two days, September 15 and 16 1872. Later, after both rival internationals had collapsed, the anarcho-syndicalists decided to re-found the 'First International' in a congress held at Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin) in 1922 as the International Workers Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers_Association). The IWA still exists.

[Q]

In 1872, the organization was relocated to New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City). The First International disbanded 4 years later, at the 1876 Philadelphia conference. Attempts to revive the organization over the next five years failed. However, the Second International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International) was established in 1889 as its successor. Meanwhile, the anarchists continued to consider that they were unfairly ejected from the IWA, and in 1872 held a new congress of the international at Saint-Imier over two days, September 15 and 16 1872. Later, after both rival internationals had collapsed, the anarcho-syndicalists decided to re-found the 'First International' in a congress held at Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin) in 1922 as the International Workers Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers_Association). The IWA still exists.

And I thought us Trots had a monopoly on recreating internationals :p

[Delenda Carthago]

I am an anarchosyndicalist and a rioter too...

[ContrarianLemming]

The CNT was not an "anarchist" organisation in the sense of primitive anarchism, ie opposition to all kinds of authority and social responsibility without a class distinction. They were advocates of "libertarian communism", so in action, if not in words, they were just proposing communism from below. They were opposed to party and military discipline, but they were a highly disciplined bunch in terms of strategy. They were not your usual "no authority" romantic burguoise anarchist (there was an actual contradictory "anarchist government" in parts of Aragon during the war), they were mostly socialists who adhered to the idea of socialism from below and permanent revolution, and as such they were opposed to USSR communists because of the USSR theory of winning the war and renouncing the revolution, but they were working with marxists like the POUM.

Anarcho-syndicalism basically is a term that defines socialism from below, directed by a trade union movement and organisations of workers (you may call them soviets if you want), rather than by a vanguard political party. It was socialism from the workplace, rather than from the parliament. And that is the main difference with traditional anarchists. They were not opposed to all kinds of authority, only to state authority.

top notch bullsh!t right there buddy

[ContrarianLemming]

Organization does not mean vanguardism. There is a big difference between an anarchist organization that is highly influential in swaying the masses and a vanguard which CONTROLS the masses through hierarchical relationships. Vanguards usually reference some form of centralized authority which no anarchist would support.

incorrect, a vanguard is an organization with places itself at the centre of a movement in order to lead it or bring towards a desired outcome, this is exactly what both the Bolsheviks and CNT-FAi did. A vanguard can be bottom up or top down, it can be decentralizaed or not, it's simply a group which spurs the masses into a wanted direction.

[Widerstand]

top notch bullsh!t right there buddy

Well, you gotta admit that primitive anarchism was pretty shitty before it merged with socialism.

[syndicat]

Well, what is an "insurrection"? If you were to be clearer about that concept, then the discussion might be clearer.

Anarchosyndicalism advocates mass, class organization. It's not just advocating any old form of unionism but worker-controled class-solidarity-based unionism. This is because of its commitment to the principle, the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves. For that to happen the working class needs an organizational instrument that it can use to liberate itself. Hence the emphasis on the mass organizations, and I would add, an alliance of mass social movement organizations. There is no assumption that struggle occurs only at the point of production.

The vanguard in reality is simply the most active element within the working class...people who have thought more about things, come up with ideas and directions in meetings, have developed abilities like public speaking and so on. Acknowledging the existence of a vanguard merely acknowledges the existence of uneven consciousness within the class. This does not commit one to the Leninist notion of a "vanguard party."

However, from an anarcho-syndicalist point of view, the aim is not to empower the vanguard or have a minority making the decisions but to empower the class. Hence the idea of assemblies as decision-making locations.

Ongoing organization is needed in order for the development of class consciousness. That's because people develop more of a sense of having the power to take on the system and of changing things if they have a sense of collective power, and have experience of running things democratically through their own organizations. An organized class movement also provides the means to taking over the running of industry in a revolutionary situation, which anarcho-syndicalism thinks of as something of a mass strike situation.

But because the issue is mass/class organization, mass/class education and mass/class action, separate actions by elements of the vanguard (such as anarchists) have the problem that they can be unaccountable and maybe substitutionist or adventurist. It really depends on the relation to the organized movement. For example, Uruguayan anarchists organized OPR-33 as an armed group in the '60s during a period of increasing repression for the purpose of defending worker strikes. But the anarchists in question were members of those unions, and were acting in ways that aimed to defend a course of action (a strike) decided on by the workers.

[McCroskey]

what the fuck are you talking about? anarchists have always been socialist, they made up a large part of the first international, (maybe a majority?), and developed out of the workers movement.

Well, yes. I was talking about the anarchist philosophy before the XIXth century, individualist anarchism. And the essence of it was individual freedom and oposition of collectivism. That´s why I said "traditional" anarchism, as opposed to libertarian socialism. The opposition from anarcho-syndicalists to a vanguard party comes in part from the traditional anarchist hatred of all kinds of authority.

P.S. You don't need to be so agressive if disagreeing on historical facts.

[syndicat]

Well, yes. I was talking about the anarchist philosophy before the XIXth century, individualist anarchism. And the essence of it was individual freedom and oposition of collectivism. That´s why I said "traditional" anarchism, as opposed to libertarian socialism. The opposition from anarcho-syndicalists to a vanguard party comes in part from the traditional anarchist hatred of all kinds of authority.


there was no anarchist or libertarian socialist movement prior to the first international. and there was certainly no such movement before the 19th century. Once an organized anarchism got underway in the late 19th century, it would be accurate to say that individualist elements of classical liberalism sometimes had an influence on the writing or thinking of certain individual anarchists. For example, Malatesta's opposition to majoritarian democracy was rooted in individualist assumptions.

But this is not a general characteristic of late 19th century and 20th century libertarian socialism or social anarchism. Bakunin was a direct critic of individualist liberalism as was Kropotkin.

You are also entirely mistaken when you say that anarcho-syndicalism's opposition to the vanguard party theory is rooted in "opposition to all kinds of authority." It is simply false that anarcho-syndicalism is "opposed to all kinds of authority." When workers have meetings and decide on a strike and run the strike through their elected delegates and committees and so on, they expect some collective discipline by the workers. The strikers' collective organization has authority over their strike movement. That is a form of authority. And it can be coercive authority...as when they act to prevent scabs from taking their jobs.

Anarcho-syndicalism is opposed to the vanguard party concept because it advocates a form of hierarchical power and a partyist strategy, that is, a party capturing control of a state and then implementing its program top down through the hierarchies of the state. this would tend to create some kind of bureaucratic class regime.

What anarcho-syndicalism is opposed to is hierarchical structures in both social governance as well as in running of workplaces or running of a union for that matter. Leninism, on the other hand, tries to reduce mass organizations and movements to transmission belts for the vanguard party, and this violates mass self-management of struggles by the people who are affected.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But this is not a general characteristic of late 19th century and 20th century libertarian socialism or social anarchism. Bakunin was a direct critic of individualist liberalism as was Kropotkin.

Bakunin and Kropotkin both had their fair share of quotations that could be interpreted as being defenses of "individualist liberalism".

[727Goon]

A few things
-I'm not an anarcho syndicalist or an insurrectionary anarchist, I consider myself a whatever-worksist. I think unions were very relevant in the early 20th century and especially during the Spanish Revolution, but nowadays it seems like they have either been hijacked by reformists and mobsters, or are like the IWW and arent relevant. I tried to get with the IWW, but there was no point, I'm not going to pay union dues to a group that's not going to do shit to defend my interests, especially not one that's primarily made up of middle class white people who have no connection to the working class. Now if I worked in an IWW shop obviously it would be different and I would be a member, but on the east coast at least they do a very poor job of organizing. Also in the US I'd say the most successful leftist group on the latter half of the 21st century were the black panther party as well as other community based groups rather than unions, I feel like unions only address one aspect of the struggle, which is why I'm down with the RAAN program (aside from the animal liberation haha).
-I support vanguardism in the way that Huey P Newton described the Black Panthers as being a vanguard, a vanguard is the point of the spear and the people are the shaft, and it's the people that should move the vanguard, not the other way around.
-I have yet to see any mature dialogue or criticism of RAAN on here, it seems to all be just dismissive insults "Oh fuckin RAAN kiddies what do they know they need to get down with the real leftists blah blah blah"

[727Goon]

there was no anarchist or libertarian socialist movement prior to the first international. and there was certainly no such movement before the 19th century. Once an organized anarchism got underway in the late 19th century, it would be accurate to say that individualist elements of classical liberalism sometimes had an influence on the writing or thinking of certain individual anarchists. For example, Malatesta's opposition to majoritarian democracy was rooted in individualist assumptions.

But this is not a general characteristic of late 19th century and 20th century libertarian socialism or social anarchism. Bakunin was a direct critic of individualist liberalism as was Kropotkin.

You are also entirely mistaken when you say that anarcho-syndicalism's opposition to the vanguard party theory is rooted in "opposition to all kinds of authority." It is simply false that anarcho-syndicalism is "opposed to all kinds of authority." When workers have meetings and decide on a strike and run the strike through their elected delegates and committees and so on, they expect some collective discipline by the workers. The strikers' collective organization has authority over their strike movement. That is a form of authority. And it can be coercive authority...as when they act to prevent scabs from taking their jobs.

Anarcho-syndicalism is opposed to the vanguard party concept because it advocates a form of hierarchical power and a partyist strategy, that is, a party capturing control of a state and then implementing its program top down through the hierarchies of the state. this would tend to create some kind of bureaucratic class regime.

What anarcho-syndicalism is opposed to is hierarchical structures in both social governance as well as in running of workplaces or running of a union for that matter. Leninism, on the other hand, tries to reduce mass organizations and movements to transmission belts for the vanguard party, and this violates mass self-management of struggles by the people who are affected.

your politics are boring as fuck bruh :laugh:

[AK]

Besides, riots are an extremely inefficient mean to achieve change. If you want to create real chaos, attack the installations outside the cities providing the cities with heating and electricity. And learn to haxx.

That won't make you loved for sure. But it would create chaos.
That's what we anarkies want: chaos :thumbup1:

Well, you gotta admit that primitive anarchism was pretty shitty before it merged with socialism.
Was?

[Widerstand]

your politics are boring as fuck bruh :laugh:

Face it, your politics are boring as fuck.

You know it's true. Otherwise, why does everyone cringe when you say the word? Why has attendance at your anarcho-communist theory discussion group meetings fallen to an all-time low? Why has the oppressed proletariat not come to its senses and joined you in your fight for world liberation?

On an anecdotal note, Crimethinc.'s Expect Resistance was my first anarchist literature. They make a somewhat easily understandable emotional argument for why we need a revolution, but were they completely fall short is when it comes to critical analysis, how to bring about revolution, how to organize, etc. Sure, they can craft lots of engaging and romantic imagery, and their fictional books are, from what I've read, rather enjoyable, but ... lifestylism as a revolutionary tactic is bullshit. You can be a lifestylist for yourself all you want, and I agree that it can make your life more interesting. But to bring about revolution by the measures Crimethinc. suggests, you'd need the vast majority of people to actively follow. And that's not gonna happen within the next 500 years, like Lenin put it (IIRC).

Yes, politics need to be engaging and relevant, else people won't care. No, dumpster diving is not engaging and relevant politics.


Was?

I was just making sense of his post. Uh.

[revolution inaction]

dear crime ethic fans http://www.anarkismo.net/article/3664

"Your politics are bourgeois as fuck"

There are two ways out of capitalism, revolution or death. Anybody who tells you otherwise is simply wrong. The US based sub-cultural cult "Crimethinc" (CWC) who mix anarchism with bohemian drop-out lifestyles and vague anti-civilisation sentiment would have you believe that capitalism is something from which you can merely remove yourself by quitting work, eating from bins and doing whatever "feels good". They carry on the legacy of prize-idiot Abbie Hoffman, printing books and zines which fetishise scams, petty crime and useless activist/punk sub-cultural activity like food not bombs, squatting, etc. They are anarchists by name only with little relevance to the rest of the anarchist milieu and no class analysis, let's venture into their secret underground "anarchy club".

[bcbm]

why do people always get on about shit crimethinc put out a decade ago? today their magazine rolling thunder and a lot of the analysis pieces (http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/12018) they regularly put out are really good, especially compared to the rest of the stuff being vomited up by the us anarchist milieu. get with the times.:rolleyes:

[syndicat]

your politics are boring as fuck bruh

another RAAN bonehead it seems. "boring" is not a valid argument. unless you think social change is about your individualist search for entertainment.