Why did Italian syndicalism become fascist?

[gorillafuck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prominent_Syndicalists#Italian_syndicalists

Literally every one of these people joined the fascist party. Why did that happen?

[Paulappaul]

Especially the Anarcho-Syndicalist ones surprised me.

[Widerstand]

My guess would be because both Fascism and Syndicalism have Corporatist features (in the way that unions create the connection between proletarians and bourgeois).

It is of course a very uninformed and most likely wrong guess.

[gorillafuck]

My guess would be because both Fascism and Syndicalism have Corporatist features (in the way that unions create the connection between proletarians and bourgeois).I am pretty sure that syndicalism was never a class collaborationist ideology until it merged with nationalism in Italy. Most of the non-Italians on here, and I admit I'm not looking far into it, seem like they promote class politics and are internationalists.

[Widerstand]

I am pretty sure that syndicalism was never a class collaborationist ideology until it merged with nationalism in Italy.

I didn't say it was. But unions can be easily integrated into class collaboration.

[gorillafuck]

I didn't say it was. But unions can be easily integrated into class collaboration.Radical unions don't create class collaboration, though (or if they do, then you'd basically think that the act of working does). These people are/were mostly very radical unionists.

[Widerstand]

Radical unions don't create class collaboration, though (or if they do, then you'd basically think that the act of working does).

Huh what (bold part)?


These people are/were mostly very radical unionists.

Okay, so? Joshka Fischer once was a militant environmentalist/anti-war activist, a few years later he was in government starting war on Serbia and introducing heavy neoliberal reforms. I'm not claiming that I know the exact reasons (I even fucking said so in my first post, so I guess you're just taking the piss out of me for the hell of it), but being a "radical" doesn't magically prevent you from being coopted and integrated into the ruling ideology / system.

[Joe Payne]

Uh, not everyone in that list became a Fascist. Two of them were anti-Fascists that had to flee Italy.

Further, Mussolini was a socialist, and the founders of the British fascists were former Labour Party MPs. That isn't meant as a dick slingin' contest, just showin that the Fascist movement came together through various fucking traitors of the proletariat.

However the USI (Italy's anarcho-syndicalist union that still exists today) played a major part in the Partisan forces and organized strikes underground, mostly in Turin. They hardcore killed Fascists. :thumbup1:

The defections of a few pieces of shit do not prove some direct corrolation between anarcho-syndicalism and Fascism.

Regardless of what Goerge Jackson says! lol

[gorillafuck]

Okay, so? Joshka Fischer once was a militant environmentalist/anti-war activist, a few years later he was in government starting war on Serbia and introducing heavy neoliberal reforms.Well he de-radicalized, apparently. Also, militant environmentalist? That's hardly proof of being dedicated to class struggle.

You'll need to show how radical unions are class collaborationist. You can't make a blanket statement about unions being class collaborationist without explaining how they are, since different unions can have very different class characters.


I'm not claiming that I know the exact reasons (I even fucking said so in my first post, so I guess you're just taking the piss out of me for the hell of it)Jesus fucking christ you're being hotheaded. I have shown no hostility towards you, and I would definitely not have predicted this response from you since I was being pretty civil. What is up with this?


The defections of a few pieces of shit do not prove some direct corrolation between anarcho-syndicalism and Fascism.Is there a significant difference between anarcho-syndicalism and regular revolutionary syndicalism?:confused:

And I apparently missed the two who didn't, I thought I went down the list and saw that they all did. My mistake.

Also, it should be noted that the Italian section of IWA opposed the fascists.

Edit:
Huh what (bold part)?
Well radical unions are intended to fight their bosses. If that's class collaborationist, then what determines what is? Saying that organizing against capitalists in your workplace is class collaborationist is like saying that being at your workplace is class collaborationist.

[Widerstand]

Well he de-radicalized, apparently.

And these people in Italy couldn't have possibly done that, right? Or maybe they didn't even have to, maybe Fascism, at that time, was pretty radical.


Also, militant environmentalist? That's hardly proof of being dedicated to class struggle.

I never claimed he was, but the German green party (Die Grünen) grew out of a very militant, very grassroots leftist movement. And now they're almost all fucking neoliberal trash. Ideologies can change very fast when your role in the system changes. Base determines superstructure.



You'll need to show how radical unions are class collaborationist. You can't make a blanket statement about unions being class collaborationist without explaining how they are, since different unions can have very different class characters.

As a matter of fact I never made a blanket statement about unions being collaborationist, and I'm telling you this fact for the second time now. What I said is that there are collaborationist features of unions, namely the role they can play in pacifying labor struggles. This is a possible function of all unions, due to the very modus operandi unions have (to fight for better work conditions, to make better contracts with the employer, etc.). Even a "radical union" can be coopted and, once integrated into the system (much in the way that mainstream unions are today), can be an effective force to pacify labor struggles, mediate between workers and bosses, and overall ensure that class collaboration is working fine. My guess would be that the fascists actively worked towards that cooption.

[quote]
Jesus fucking christ you're being hotheaded. I have shown no hostility towards you, and I would definitely not have predicted this response from you since I was being pretty civil. What is up with this?/QUOTE]

just generally sorting things out.

[Os Cangaceiros]

World War One changed things for a lot of people on the left.

I mean, that's a pretty simplistic statement, but looks at when all of those men were born: the mid-1870s to the mid-1880s. That means that they had their syndicalist heyday just prior to WW1 (the early years of the 20th century saw syndicalism at the peak of it's popularity, probably the dominant socialist current in fact) , saw the failure of the working class to stop that war (despite attempts by, among others, syndicalists) and then witnessed the worldwide crisis that happened about ten years afterwards. That's how I look at the situation with the popularity of fascism in Europe during this time period, anyway.

[gorillafuck]

And these people in Italy couldn't have possibly done that, right? Or maybe they didn't even have to, maybe Fascism, at that time, was pretty radical.
One person =/= many theorists of a prominent ideology at the time. Whats confusing is that it's not like it was one guy.


I never claimed he was, but the German green party (Die Grünen) grew out of a very militant, very grassroots leftist movement. And now they're almost all fucking neoliberal trash. Ideologies can change very fast when your role in the system changes. Base determines superstructure.Green parties have always been class collaboration though, and grassroots leftist movements can be too. It's not like it was a proletarian ideology, suddenly took a shine to fascism as happened with syndicalism in Italy. Green parties, despite being leftist, have always been bourgeois. Kind of like bourgeois workers parties like old labour, but not even as left as those.


As a matter of fact I never made a blanket statement about unions being collaborationist, and I'm telling you this fact for the second time now. What I said is that there are collaborationist features of unions, namely the role they can play in pacifying labor struggles. This is a possible function of all unions, due to the very modus operandi unions have (to fight for better work conditions, to make better contracts with the employer, etc.). Even a "radical union" can be coopted and, once integrated into the system (much in the way that mainstream unions are today), can be an effective force to pacify labor struggles, mediate between workers and bosses, and overall ensure that class collaboration is working fine. My guess would be that the fascists actively worked towards that cooption.The way I read what you said it appeared as a blanket statement, but alright. And yes, fascists did fight for co-option of unions. It just seems odd to me what happened to a surprising number of prominent theorists who had earlier promoted class politics.

[gorillafuck]

World War One changed things for a lot of people on the left.

I mean, that's a pretty simplistic statement, but looks at when all of those men were born: the mid-1870s to the mid-1880s. That means that they had their syndicalist heyday just prior to WW1 (the early years of the 20th century saw syndicalism at the peak of it's popularity, probably the dominant socialist current in fact) , saw the failure of the working class to stop that war (despite attempts by, among others, syndicalists) and then witnessed the worldwide crisis that happened about ten years afterwards. That's how I look at the situation with the popularity of fascism in Europe during this time period, anyway.This is probably the best response. Looking at these people more in depth I think it is to do with the initial support of involvement in WWII, which planted the seeds that grew into right wing nationalism and class collaborationism.

[Red Commissar]

Yeah, WW I really impacted and drove a wedge into the "left" spectrum over issues of nationalism, revolution, and so on.

Another issue is to look at the conditions from which Syndicalism grew in Italy. Syndicalism found its greatest audience in Italy, or at least among its theorists, in the South of Italy.

Italy's situation was very different. The North was heavily industrialized whereas the south was mostly rural and operating under an old land system- latifundias- which had created a very difficult political scenario. Essentially what policies benefited the more urban, industrial sectors ran opposite to what southern landowners wanted. By extension the people they employed also were pulled along. For example, when Industrial interests wanted tariffs, southern landowners opposed it. Political parties followed this rule.

There were "reformist" elements attempting to work with the bourgeoisie before WW I, clinging to thought that Italy had to be industrialized and overcome the vestiges of its past. Italian politics before then essentially had a mess of social classes trying to form blocs with one another. Needless to say this produced unpopular results and from this syndicalism began to build support. Not only was it usually much more against political participation (or at least more so after when syndicalists were expelled from the PSI) and not open to collaboration with bourgeoisie, but it proposed an alternative to the workers- an alliance with the rural peasants, particularly in the south, instead of bourgeoisie. For example, some of the leading figures of the movement were those like Arturo Labriola, Enrico Leone, Ernesto Longobardi, Paolo Orano- all of whom emerged from the Southern experience.

In some ways, through the figures that was produced in the south, it became a means for southern rural workers to turn the tables. As opposed to what would be later a Proletarian bloc with the rural workers where the former is the "leading" partner, the rural workers would be guiding the dance here. They wouldn't be crushed under industrialism and capitalism or subordinated to the urban proletariat, with whom some associated the ills the bourgeoisie were bringing them.

There was also some acceptance of cultural positions by syndicalist figures in Italy. Some were more dismissive of internationalism and rather focused on Italy. They dismissed the Second International for being dominated by what they felt was a "German" ideology. Thus some went as far as to line up behind patriotism in WW I, for Italy as well as "Republicanism"- some of them organized volunteer drives to send up men to France in the brief time before Italy's full entrance in to the war.

Some of these syndicalists, more of the theorists who were disconnected from working-class struggles that other syndicalists were doing, toyed with nationalist associations. Nationalism in Italy still had the Republicanism/Garibaldi strain and therefore captured the imagination of some of these types.

For example, the Italian Nationalist Association, had some of these syndicalists participate. Here was their thoughts:

"We are the proletarian people in respect to the rest of the world. Nationalism is our socialism. This established, nationalism must be founded on the truth that Italy is morally and materially a proletarian nation." -Manifesto of INA

Essentially with some of this pseudo-syndicalist tinkering, the INA imagined an organic arrangement between employers/entrepreneurs and a well trained, disciplined workforce in the common goal of the betterment of the Italian nation. We can see some roots of Fascism being built up.

The syndicalists who supported intervention in the war for the same scatter-brained reason that Mussolini did- they thought it would induce enough of a rift to cause class conflict to finally emerge.

Like Explosive Situation there was also the significant issues that WW I brought. It truly tested to how serious some were about internationalism, it broke the morale of those who thought the working class was strong enough to stop the war by cross-border solidarity, etc. It was a draining experience on some, enough to disillusion some and to others make them rethink their ideology. The rise of the Soviet Union and its experience, the strife in the 1920s, all contributed.

It wasn't a problem with Syndicalism per say but more of the thought process of ideologues who lined up behind it as an alternative to revolutionary and reformist currents. In time they began to bastardize industrial concepts into managerial and corporatist concepts, and it went down the crapper from there. We must also consider that considering what their ultimate goal is, some people would be more than willing to adjust or wholly abandon their political commitment to attain it.

[ComradeOm]

I think both Explosive Situation and Red Commissar have hit the nail on the head. I might take a slightly different angle on this though by focusing on the general failure of syndicalism and the specific failures of Italian politics

WWI struck the European socialist movement like a hammer blow. The Marxist parties split but survived and actually went on to thrive in their Bolshevik and reformist incarnations. Syndicalism was not so lucky. It never recovered from the failure of the general strike (which had been massively hyped by pre-war theorists such as Sorel) and, with one or two local exceptions, was very much on the decline as a mass movement during the 1920s. One product of this was the generation of activists who basically 'jumped ship'. Unlike the collapse of Communism in the early 1990s there was no triumphalist party for them to join (capitalism still being very much under threat) so they latched onto other revolutionary sounding movements or, in the case of Italy, came up with their own

I don't want to go into the same detail on Italy, because its considerably more obscure, but the rise of Italian fascism has to be placed in the context of what Gramsci called the 'failed bourgeois revolution' that was the Risorgimento. That was, that the bourgeoisie had been unable to carry out a revolution on the basis of its own strength in the 19th C and had therefore to compromise with the aristocracy in a 'passive revolution'. This explains the peculiarities of much of Italian politics. Both the socialist (including syndicalist) and liberal movements were therefore somewhat underdeveloped and this, when combined with the absence of a hegemonic state, provided exceptionally fertile ground for fascism

So basically I wouldn't focus on syndicalism as a set of ideas but as a movement rooted in its place and time. There was some cross-over between the principles syndicalism and corporatism but in practice this did not amount to much - relations between fascist and syndicalist collaborators in Vichy France were hostile at best

[Dimentio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prominent_Syndicalists#Italian_syndicalists

Literally every one of these people joined the fascist party. Why did that happen?

Until the middle of the 1920's, Fascists were not seen as right-wing extremists.

Those Syndicalists who joined the Fascist party where part of a tendency called "leftist irredentism", who claimed that Italy ought to partake on the side of Britain and France, which were seen as more "progressive" than Germany and Austria. They were also influenced by Italian nationalism (which wasn't racist, unlike German nationalism).