Syndicalism vs socialism?

[superborys]

While I'm certain that both are socialist in the general and broad sense, there seems to be a more anarchist tendency with syndicalism, and a more central tendency with socialism, or at least state socialism, but do the Marxists and Marxism branch-offs support syndicalism or state socialism?

I myself, as a council communist/anarcho-syndicalist, support syndicalism, as it, to me, appears to represent the largest amount of democracy and 'interest of the people'.

[syndicat]

revolutionary syndicalism is counterposed to state socialism in both its social-democratic and Marxist-Leninist forms. revolutionary syndicalism advocates the development of organized working class based social movements, especially in the workplaces. so the vehicle for liberation is a mass social movement, not a party.

[superborys]

So really on the scale of level of democracy and centralization, anarcho-syndicalism sits on one end and Marxist-Leninism on the other?

[Ned Kelly]

Trade Unions are essentially a means of winning gains from the capitalist system, so pure trade union politics, just like syndicalism, are in a way an acceptance of the permenance of capitalism, as well as the fact that syndicalism virtually skirts around the issue of what to do with all the non - bourgeois, non proletarians, i.e farmers, professionals etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Trade Unions are essentially a means of winning gains from the capitalist system, so pure trade union politics, just like syndicalism, are in a way an acceptance of the permenance of capitalism

The same could be said for parlimentary politics.

[Ned Kelly]

I have a very similar view on parliament.
Btw, some work in trade unions is vital, for radicals in the union though, concessions can't be an end rather than a mean, trade union work can't be the be all and end all

[syndicat]

Trade Unions are essentially a means of winning gains from the capitalist system, so pure trade union politics, just like syndicalism, are in a way an acceptance of the permenance of capitalism, as well as the fact that syndicalism virtually skirts around the issue of what to do with all the non - bourgeois, non proletarians, i.e farmers, professionals etc.


in other words, you deny that it is possible for the working class to create mass organizations to be the basis for its self-liberation from domination and exploitation. that's because, as a Maoist, you don't believe in the self-emancipation of the working class. you substitute the party for the class....with the inevitable result that a new bureaucratic class dominates and exploits the working class...at least for awhile, til they decide that being capitalists would be a better way to enrich themselves (e.g. Russia, China).

Oh, and as to the "farmers and professionals", is your solution to kill them, a la Pol Pot?

In reality revolutionary syndicalism does have a solution for them. As long as we're not talking about growers who employ people or high-end professionals who are part of the bureaucratic class, syndicalism proposes to organize them into unions. if you mean, what role for them in socialism, the idea is that they should be workers on equal terms with other workers.

[superborys]

@syndicat

If trade union has implications other than what I think it does, a group of people who establish a group that directs the doings of a certain thing, with any hierarchy, even if there isn't one (which is preferable to be honest).

In my opinion an anarcho-syndicalism should function almost like a confederation, with council/unions running amok everywhere. There is no real, effective way to get the opinion of millions of people through one level of abstraction, you have way too many conflicting opinions. I think that the further you go in abstraction (to a point), the more happy the people will be.

I do not understand how centralism (i.e. Maoism, Leninism, Marxism [to a degree]) can actually claim themselves as socialist when they actively, at least in practice, deny workers any sort of freedom or say.

[The Hong Se Sun]

@syndicat


I do not understand how centralism (i.e. Maoism, Leninism, Marxism [to a degree]) can actually claim themselves as socialist when they actively, at least in practice, deny workers any sort of freedom or say.


Because you're confused about how Maoism works ;) you must not fall into the averge leftist bullshit of 'everything that happened in China was Maoist' Mao installed communal democracy which was the most democracy that any "Socialist" nation has ever had but it was dismantled by the right wing of the CP.

I even have a anarcho-communist friend who after reading about communal communism as far as the democracy part goes now likes Mao.

[Paulappaul]

I do not understand how centralism (i.e. Maoism, Leninism, Marxism [to a degree]) can actually claim themselves as socialist when they actively, at least in practice, deny workers any sort of freedom or say.

Centralism isn't inclined to only Marxist - Leninism, Left Communists, particularly Council Communists were akin to Centralism, the only difference being that it was Bottom Up and by the Working Class rather then top down from a Political Party as in Marxist - Leninism's historical practice.

[superborys]

@paulappaul
Then I must have my terms mixed up; Top-down centralization is nigh-impossible to institute successfully. I think either you have decentralization, or a very bottom-up centralized system. And besides, a confederation integrates both features.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Syndicalism is more of a tactic, ore a way to achive the control over the production, rather then a actual ideology, thats why some people present themselves as anarcho-syndicalists, just to show a clear statement. I belive in a workers state (but not so much of the ones we have had,for example i want more de-centralisation)
and in the same time i belive in workers council as the premier way of organazing.

[Widerstand]

Syndicalism is more of a tactic, ore a way to achive the control over the production, rather then a actual ideology, thats why some people present themselves as anarcho-syndicalists, just to show a clear statement. I belive in a workers state (but not so much of the ones we have had,for example i want more de-centralisation)
and in the same time i belive in workers council as the premier way of organazing.

This. As I see it, 'syndicalism' can be used to describe any revolutionary tactic utilizing unions. Syndicalism is a way to socialism/communism.

[Paulappaul]

Syndicalism is more of a tactic, ore a way to achive the control over the production, rather then a actual ideology, thats why some people present themselves as anarcho-syndicalists, just to show a clear statement. I belive in a workers state (but not so much of the ones we have had,for example i want more de-centralisation)
and in the same time i belive in workers council as the premier way of organazing.
This. As I see it, 'syndicalism' can be used to describe any revolutionary tactic utilizing unions. Syndicalism is a way to socialism/communism. Goals define means and visa versa. If we build a revolution by means of a party, then the outcome of that revolution will reflect the party. Syndicalism is not just a tactic, it has an outcome as well. Traditional Syndicalists have long stood for the creation of a Socialist Republic consisting of elected delegates from Trade Unions.

Syndicalism is an ideology therefor. Anarcho - Syndicalism is form of Syndicalism, not syndicalism within itself. Marxist-Syndicalists like Daniel De Leon, James Connolly and Eugene V. Debs weren't eye to eye with the tactics of Anarcho- Syndicalists or the outcome they wanted.

[syndicat]

DeLeon believed that socialism had to be achieved by the ballot box, so I'm not sure he should be called a syndicalist since syndicalism is antiparliamentary, even tho his vision of socialism was influenced by syndicalism.

Syndicalism is a revolutionary strategy for acheiving a socialism based on workers directly managing production. it's not merely a "tactic". It's both program and strategy.

After the formation of the Communist international in 1921, the remaining revolutionary syndicalists were generally anarcho-syndicalists, with a few exceptions (such as the remaining Left Socialists in the IWW in the USA).

[Paulappaul]

DeLeon believed that socialism had to be achieved by the ballot box, so I'm not sure he should be called a syndicalist since syndicalism is antiparliamentary, even tho his vision of socialism was influenced by syndicalism.

Deleon believed that the ballot box was a "one legged" attempt. He also believed that Syndicalism alone was "one legged", so he proposed that the party would be the "Sword" and Syndicalism would be the "Shield" of a the revolution.

Why? Because he believed that Trade Unions, in any form don't have any means of challenging the Political Supremacy of the State. An idea which was further developed by the Left Communists a few years after Deleon's publication on the topic. But where as Left Communists dumped Industrial Unionism, Deleon believed that such an

"economic organization is capable of setting on foot a true political party of Labor, and thus raise a bulwark against the power of Capital.”

(A quote used by Deleon from Karl Marx)

Without out the Political Party, the Union would be smashed. The Political Party without the Union would fall on deaf ears. Thus his logic was that both were necessary. Thus the idea of an Economic and Political field of struggle came into flourishing. An idea brought upon into focus in the First Constitution of the I.W.W. which originally sought for Political Party to represent it's interest in Congress.

Syndicalism isn't an Anti-Parliamentary ideology. Some of it's biggest adherents were active in Forming Left Wing Socialists parties and founding Revolutionary Industrial Unions, as that of I.W.W.

[syndicat]

Syndicalism isn't an Anti-Parliamentary ideology. Some of it's biggest adherents were active in Forming Left Wing Socialists parties and founding Revolutionary Industrial Unions, as that of I.W.W.

Of course it's anti-parliamentary. but there were individual syndicalists who believed that there was a point to voting in particular situations, as a tactic. For example, Bill Haywood believed in voting for Socialists so as to have a more neutral local government when organizing. But he believed socialism would come about thru the revolutionary mass strike.

DeLeon's insistence on his party being the be-all and end-all led to an internal sectarian fight for supremacy between the SLP and SPA in the IWW, which is why in 1908 the union changed the constitution to make the union independent of parties. That was when the DeLeonist minority split to form the Workers International Industrial Union (or whatever). DeLeon was akin to the Communist International in seeing the union as a transmission belt of the party. Another reason he's not a true syndicalist. Autonomy of the mass organizations is a revolutionary syndicalist principle.

[Adil3tr]

, trade union work can't be the be all and end all

Until they become soviets

[Paulappaul]

Of course it's anti-parliamentary.

Says who? Syndicalism, like Anarchism isn't a fixed doctrine. It has no Marx or Adam Smith.


but there were individual syndicalists

Sounds like something from an Anti - Socialist, bending the reality to his perception of Socialism which is Totalitarianism despite there being Libertarian sects of Socialism.

Fact of the matter is these weren't some small clique of "Individuals" who butchered Syndicalism to there will, they were well in the Tens of Thousands.


But he believed socialism would come about thru the revolutionary mass strike.

And so did Deleon. From his piece on Industrial Unionism:

"Accordingly, the Industrial Union is at once the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of Capitalism, and the successor of the Capitalist social structure itself."

He called this the "general lockout of the ruling class" i.e. the general strike.

[syndicat]

"Accordingly, the Industrial Union is at once the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of Capitalism, and the successor of the Capitalist social structure itself."

He called this the "general lockout of the ruling class" i.e. the general strike.

but according to DeLeon, the would be pope of socialism, this was not permitted to occur til after his socialist party gained a majority in an election. for the mass strike itself to be the basis of the change was, in DeLeon's argot, "physical forcism." this is why he denounced Haywood as an "anarchist" (even tho he wasn't).

[Paulappaul]

this was not permitted to occur til after his socialist party gained a majority in an election

Not that it "was not" but that a majority in congress would lead to a revolution inevitably as it marks the class supremacy of the working class.

Deleon understood that in the mean time, a party could make "external changes" to Capitalism, but that only a workers' revolution could actually bring about a "internal change" to Capitalism which would transform it into a centrally organized (but bottom up as shared with Council Communists) Socialist Industrial Republic.

I don't necessarily agree with this position, I am just arguing what De Leon actually believed.


for the mass strike itself to be the basis of the change was, in DeLeon's argot, "physical forcism."

And Political action by itself was in Deleon's view "stupid".

[syndicat]

And Political action by itself was in Deleon's view "stupid".

and that would just mean electoral politics without a union base. any Second International socialist party would say they needed a union base. but that ain't syndicalism.

[Paulappaul]

any Second International socialist party would say they needed a union base.

No. What made Deleon an Impossibilist, was the understanding the Union needed to be revolutionary. That the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class. Other non-left leaning Socialist parties agreed that there needed to be a union base, but that it was not be revolutionary.

[ZeroNowhere]

but according to DeLeon, the would be pope of socialism, this was not permitted to occur til after his socialist party gained a majority in an election. for the mass strike itself to be the basis of the change was, in DeLeon's argot, "physical forcism." this is why he denounced Haywood as an "anarchist" (even tho he wasn't).
"Most likely, however, the political expression of the IWW will not be afforded the time for triumph at the polls. Most likely the necessities of capitalism will, before then, drive it to some lawless act that will call forth resistance. A strike will break out; capitalist brutality will cause the strike to spread; physical, besides moral support, will pour in from other and not immediately concerned branches of the Working Class. A condition of things—economic, political, social-atmospheric—will set in, akin to the condition of things in 1902, at the time of the great coal miners’ strike, or in 1894, at the time of the Pullman-ARU strike. What then? The issue will then depend wholly upon the degree, in point of quality and in point of quantity, that the organization of the IWW will have reached. If it has reached the requisite minimum, then, that class-instinct of the proletariat that Marx teaches the Socialist to rely upon, and the chord of which the Capitalist Class instinctively seeks, through its labor fakirs, to keep the Socialist from touching, will readily crystallize around that requisite IWW minimum of organization. The Working Class would then be organically consolidated. Further efforts for a peaceful measuring of strength would then have been rendered superfluous by Capitalist barbarism. Capitalism would be swept aside forthwith." (AtP)

"First. In a country where compulsory military service has not only made the people skillful in the handling of a gun, but has familiarized them with military tactics, an insurrectionary call to arms cannot be imagined to gather 50,000 men without the vast majority of them are readily organizable. From the militarily schooled mass the requisite military chief and lieutenants will spontaneously spring up, and be spontaneously acknowledged. The organized insurrectionary force would be on foot." ('Syndicalism')


He called this the "general lockout of the ruling class" i.e. the general strike.That 'i.e.' is misleading. As he points out, it's somewhat different to what the term 'general strike' usually designates.

Incidentally, in the above article 'syndicalism', De Leon seems to associate the term 'syndicalism' with the rejection of political action on principle, and hence doesn't embrace the term. On the other hand, it depends on how loosely you're using the word 'syndicalism'; some make a distinction between 'syndicalism' in general and 'anarcho-syndicalism', rather than the two being equivalent, and there's definitely a logic behind that, although it may not be entirely accurate historically (on the other hand, it would seem apt going by the etymology of the word 'syndicalism'.)


No. What made Deleon an Impossibilist, was the understanding the Union needed to be revolutionary. That the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class. Other non-left leaning Socialist parties agreed that there needed to be a union base, but that it was not be revolutionary.From what I recall, the term 'impossibilist' would have more to do with stance that the program of revolution is revolution. Regarding the industrial union, he wrote:

"Only the economic organization may and must reach out after crumbs -- “improved conditions” on its way to emancipation. The very nature of the organization preserves it from the danger of “resting satisfied.” of accepting “improvement” for “goal.” The economic organization is forced by economic laws to realize it can preserve no “improvement” unless it marches onward to emancipation."


DeLeon was akin to the Communist International in seeing the union as a transmission belt of the party.This may have held some weight until around 1904.

[Paulappaul]

That 'i.e.' is misleading. As he points out, it's somewhat different to what the term 'general strike' usually designates.

The purpose of saying it was to reinforce that Deleonists are for a National Strike.



Incidentally, in the above article 'syndicalism', De Leon seems to associate the term 'syndicalism' with the rejection of political action on principle, and hence doesn't embrace the term. On the other hand, it depends on how loosely you're using the word 'syndicalism'; some make a distinction between 'syndicalism' in general and 'anarcho-syndicalism', rather than the two being equivalent, and there's definitely a logic behind that, although it may not be entirely accurate historically (on the other hand, it would seem apt going by the etymology of the word 'syndicalism'.)

But as I said earlier, Syndicalism isn't a fixed doctrine. American Syndicalists are very different then say, British Syndicalists. De Leon spoke of French Syndicalism was rightly based on Physical Force rather then Striking power. We know Syndicalism today as laying more stress on Industrial Unionism then general physical force.

[syndicat]

We know Syndicalism today as laying more stress on Industrial Unionism then general physical force.

"industrial unionism" is an outdated term. it came to mean merely bargaining units not based on occupation but everyone. but the CIO proved that was consistent with bureaucratic business union practice.

it would be more accurate to say that the IWW advocated class unionism or solidarity unionism, that is, for the solidarity of the class, and generalizing the struggles more broadly within the class, rather than the sectoral isolation more characteristic of AFL-CIO unions.