Syndicalism and Revolution

[commie kg]

I have been reading about Anarcho-Syndicalism lately, and I have been getting conflicting opinions on their views of revolution.

I keep seeing sites that say revolution should only be peaceful, through strikes and such. But to me, that seems ineffective, any truly revolutionary overthrow of existing social conditions must come with some violence attatched.

Are there any syndicalists that can clarify this for me? I am actually quite impressed with syndicalism, from what I've read.

[Valkyrie]

Well, I lean towards broad proletarian revolutionary anarchy, more than syndicalism, I can't speak for all, but I see the theory of strikes and lock-outs a major element of strategy, everyone's strategy. and I imagine also that it would be on the more peaceful side of the struggle otherwise unions would have to radically revolutionize the workers on a large scale--huge scale really, --- or start off radical, like the Wobblies. Yeah, if we can integrate all unions into the IWW or have unions adopt IWW principles. Syndicalism would work and appeal to people during an economic depression in Europe, U.S. and Canada, developed areas.

[Valkyrie]

Though I siderailed your whole question -- do they support peaceful overthrow? I was always under the impression from what I've read and know of it is anarchists of of all stripes support any means of overthrowing The State. There are many many pacifist anarchists and just as many insurrectionist anarchists; and neither would denounce or oppose the others strategy though they themselves wouldn't carry out the method.

It's true that more than a few anarchists have tried to distance itself from Errico Malatesta's "propaganda by deed" --- radical insurrectional actions, which have now come to be associated as terrorist acts.

I don't know how strong syndicalism is on it's own or how many people subscribe to it, but most anarchists I've run into atleast, discount nothing and are thinking of Every means to overthrow The State.

[Blackberry]

Anarcho-Syndicalism comes under Social Anarchism, which is often called "Class Struggle Anarchism" by Individualist Anarchists and such who are not supportive of the class struggle. As "Class Struggle Anarchists" you will find that most anarcho-syndicalists are supportive of direct action, whether that be "violent" or "peaceful".

The General Strike is the most accepted form of initiating revolution amongst Anarcho-Syndicalists, and many Social Anarchists. History has shown that General Strikes have had some success, and that they haven't always been peaceful, thanks to police violence and brutality. So General Strikes are sometimes seen as a way of bringing about an active participation in anti-state action.


On a small and mostly irrelevant note, it is wise to not use "Syndicalism" by itself if you are referring to "Anarcho-Syndicalism". Syndicalism suggests a central body, and makes no reference to any anarchist principles.

[Morpheus]

In theory an anarcho-syndicalist revolution could be either violent or non-violent. The revolution would begin with a general strike, which shuts down capitalism. This would be followed by workers taking over their workplaces and the overthrow (and abolition) of the government. In theory this could all be done without violence. However, there is a high probability that the state/capitalists will use police & military to violently prevent the workers from expropriating the means of production. Should this happen most anarcho-syndicalists advocate arming the workers and forming militias to fight and defeat the police, military, etc. In this case the revolution would be violent. If enough of the police, military, etc. mutiny/defect to the revolutionary cause it could theoretically be non-violent, but there is a good chance that there would be at least a little violence. Most likely, the more police, etc. defect the less violent it would be. There was a real-life example of a syndicalist revolution, the Spanish Revolution, which you can read about online at http://www.struggle.ws/spaindx.html

[sc4r]

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 14 2003, 06:12 AM
I have been reading about Anarcho-Syndicalism lately, and I have been getting conflicting opinions on their views of revolution.

I keep seeing sites that say revolution should only be peaceful, through strikes and such. But to me, that seems ineffective, any truly revolutionary overthrow of existing social conditions must come with some violence attatched.

Are there any syndicalists that can clarify this for me? I am actually quite impressed with syndicalism, from what I've read.
Thw two questions. Anmarcho -syndicalism or not?; and violent revolution or not?; are not really connnected.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a theory about how a post capitalist society could function (not a good one in my view , but thats beside the point here); whereas the means of changing the existing system of liberal democracy and capitalism is a question about how any change can best be achieved.

In practise I'd guess that most most anarcho syndicalists do see some form of 'revolution' as being the only way to achieve change. My guess would be that they are as vague about exactly how they going to organise this, as they are about how they are going to make their system work once it actually is achieved.

[Som]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 01:00 AM
My guess would be that they are as vague about exactly how they going to organise this, as they are about how they are going to make their system work once it actually is achieved.
Though I doubt any anarchist writing would be specific enough for you, its a bit of plan.

http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/theory/after.htm


A more general note, some links
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/documents/iwa.htm
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/theory/asindex.htm
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/theory/basico.htm
Actually, just here and look around:
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/

[sc4r]

Its a good article, better than most; but I'm afraid as usual it skirts around the solution to one of the central problems of a modern economy and fails to mention the other at all, even as a problem. The two problems being respectively: Organisation, and aligning supply with demand.

These are far from trivial ancilliary problems,. Solving them well is absolutely central to a modern economy. Frankly in the west we are all spoilt precisely because for all its other faults Capitalism does solve these two problems rather well, and so tidily that it is probably only those who have looked directly into them who see just what nightmare problems the two actually are.

It is (to my eye) rather strange to see such fabulous detail about exactly how the hierarchy of trades will be determined, about exactly who will sit on the various councils, how seats will be rotated, etc etc. but nothing at all about supply and demand in a theory which is ostensibly socio-economic. The truth is I dont think anarchists know anything at all about economics and as a consequence there is this huge gaping hole in their musings.

The article does allude to a hierarchy of councils at various levels including national level, and it even touches upon funding for new projects. This in itself is unusual, admirable, and realistic. I think it probably downplays the authority that such councils would have to have. Organisation is not really guaranteed if the national council has to allow that every individual can ignore its decisions without penalty, but it is something.

This national (and local) organistion does itself, of course, fly in the face of much of the more didactic pronouncements about lack of centralisation spouted by some Anarchists and 'anarcho-communists'; but frankly it is so inevitable and neccessary that it is nice to see that there are anarchists realistic enough to know that there is no way around it.

But the other question is not even touched upon. It is fantastically difficult to devise an information gathering methodology which will ensure that not only the presence of desire for a product is measured but also the relative strength of it in individuals (or individual syndicates); just as hard to ensure that distribution of goods reflects the strength of this desire.

If you ignore this you end up with a situation where you can be manufacturing lots of choc ice bars (which people want) but not enough bread (which people need) and lots of luxury goods (which people say they want) but not enough basics (which people would settle for if they had to balance their budget). You can end up with a situation where every agricultural syndicate demands a very costly combine harvester and no-one agrees to accept a tractor because the combine will indeed be more efficient for all of them, but crucially is nowhere near as marginally efficient in some places as it is in others.

And all of these questions have to be solved simultaneously for not just the above but for all commodities and all syndicates and all individuals, and they have to be constantly updated and tweaked to reflect changing circumstances.

The only answer I've ever seen has been that people will be 'polled' and their answers centrally co-ordinated (bringing up the question again of justy how this co-ordination is going to be enforced anyway). This answer, frankly, reveals how little the writers understand about how people only make true evaluations of such things when forced to actuallly decide (how many people do you know who constantly talk about all the things they are definitely going to do, but in fact never actually do do because they are not really priorities when the choice is startk, how many times have you yourself set out to buy something and at the last minute pulled away from the actual purchasing decision?).

A market (not neccessarily a capitalist market trading in means of production) does this fantastically well; it crystallises both the decision, communicates it, and allows very fine distinctions between actual percieved use value to be made.

But thanks for going to the trouble of providing the links. They were better than the usual fare.

[redstar2000]

Ah, where would we be without

SUPPLY AND DEMAND?

In the shit, says the reformist.

And we also need money, and wage-labor, and bosses, too.

Something to really look forward to.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 01:00 AM
Anarcho-syndicalism is a theory about how a post capitalist society could function (not a good one in my view , but thats beside the point here); whereas the means of changing the existing system of liberal democracy and capitalism is a question about how any change can best be achieved.
This is not true. Anarcho-syndicalism is as much a way of changing the present than a vision of the future. If anything it's more a method of change than a vision of the future. The main difference between anarcho-syndicalism and many forms of anarcho-communism is over how to bring about the revolution.


My guess would be that they are as vague about exactly how they going to organise this, as they are about how they are going to make their system work once it actually is achieved.

This statement just proves your ignorance of anarchist and syndicalist theory. Syndicalists believe in achieving revolution through revolutionary unionism and have very definite ideas about how to change the status quo. They advocate the formation of revolutionary unions organized along non-hierarchical lines, usually some form of decentralized direct democracy. In the short term this union would fight for better wages, improvements in working conditions, etc. using direct action (and usually boycotting elections). When the movement grows powerfull enough it would launch a general strike, followed by the takeover of the means of production by the workers, the arming of the people and the abolition of the government. The specific details of how the post-capitalist society would work vary, although all believe in worker self-management. Many see some form of libertarian communism as being their final goal, others want anarcho-collectivism, a minority advocates a "free market syndicalism" where different self-managed workplaces compete in a market and some modern syndicalists advocate parecon (http://www.parecon.org). The spanish revolution (http://www.struggle.ws/spaindx.html) was anarcho-syndicalist, and it worked quite well. The reason it was defeated was because people like you (authoritarians) shot them in the back, not because of any failing in how the economy was ran. "supply and demand" and such is just a bunch of hogwash invented by capitalists to defend exploitation. See What will stop producers ignoring consumers? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci47)

[sc4r]

LOL in case no-one else spotted it what this said was that self styled Anarcho-syndicalists seem to have no common view about anything. All you just did was to list numerous concievable outline approaches to replacing capitalism and just about every concievable broad approach to running society after it.

To put it in context according to the description you provided I'm an anarcho syndicalist. I'd simply have to say the magic words 'although this is not hierarcical' when putting forward ideas which coukd not fail to be anything else and i'd fit right in.

The only common view seems to be that no matter what they say, they'll say it is 'non hierarchical'. That comrades is just words. An explanation (what I was saying they dont usually provide) focuses on how co-operation will be ensured and on identifying problems and practical solutions to them. It does not simply state that it wont be [insert slogan here].

I did not say that Anarcho syndicalists were not detailed. They are quite unbelievably detailed. The problem is that they talk in detail about things that dont really matter very much and not at all about things that do. The detail in other words does not address the actual problems of creating and maintaining a society. Anarchoism is rather like a heath roboinson machine; fantastically detailed, fantastically complicated, but not really focused on achieving anything terribly useful.

It was interesting to hear that when uttered by a self styled 'anarcho-syndicalist' a market is apparently not the automatic evil thing that it it when I utter it. Why?

I'm an authoritarian ? really? do you have any justification at all for that statement? or like RS and his 'reformist' BS are you content to defend your views simply by calling people who disagree with them a nice perjurative name?

RS and the last author dismiss supply and demand !!! There in one short phrase RS reveals what an appallingly tenuous grasp of anything beyond his slogans he actually has. IS he really suggesting that there is no need to recognise that people want (and need) things (demand) and no need to find a way to deliver those things (supply)? NO need to make the two things complimentary?

different approaches to supply and demand alignment are what at root distinguishes every ideology. In essence a solution to supply and demand is what the 'economic' side of every socio-economic theory actually is. To dismiss it as RS does is almost beyond believe.

That , of all the pointless crap he posts, is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen anyone post anywhere. It goes beyond optimism and denying practicality. It has descended into a denial that there is anything to be practical about.

What both people have done is fallen for the capitalist propaganda that both 'the market' and 'supply and demand' are exclusively a part of capitalism. Utter rubbush. In the former case the capitalist market is defined by what can be traded in it (rights to production) and in the latter all that capitalist have is one particular solution to the general problem of supply and demand, which every socity needs to find a way of solving.

[redstar2000]

Different approaches to supply and demand alignment are what at root distinguishes every ideology. In essence a solution to supply and demand is what the 'economic' side of every socio-economic theory actually is.

Quite so. But your evident fixation on the market (and the wage-slavery that goes with it) rules out any alternative.

Anything other than a market is, to you, impossible by definition.

It would not matter if I or anyone posted a terabyte of "detailed plans", you would automatically reject them as "impractical" because they fell outside the market paradigm.

I would be the first to grant that there will be some fairly complicated problems in the economics of classless society and would welcome any constructive suggestions for solving them.

You've never offered a single one.

You are a market dogmatist.

Granted that your form of class society would be more humane and egalitarian than the one we have now, it would still be a variation on the theme of market societies.

I don't want that.

Thus I and others like me will "stumble on", trying to "work out the bugs" as we go along. We will be "inefficient", make many mistakes, etc., etc.

We may even ultimately fail completely. Perhaps Marx was "wrong". Perhaps humans are truly doomed to an eternity of class society and wage-slavery...and something like you propose is the "best" that can ever be hoped for.

So be it. It is better to fight for what you want and fail, than it is to fight for what you don't want and "succeed".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Now you are getting desparate Redstar.

It does'nt really need you to point out that I think that a market is the best way to solve such problems, since I've said so many times. That hardly makes me a dogmatist. What dogmatic slogans about markets do I trot out? You cerytainly do trot out dogmatic denunications of markets (that they are capiatlist, that they will turn everone back into capiutalists etc etc etc ) usually without being able to actually say why 'they just will'.

On the other hand you could always try and convince me that you have a better solution. All you would have to do is attempt to do so. You have not done; not in the six months I've been asking the question - the closest you have come is to talk of a 'non centralised central data bank' - A data bank containing what? analysisng what? In what way? Presnting what conclusions? to whom? based on what computation? from what data? collected from where? run by whom? funded by what?

It is news to me that Socialism is about being opposed to 'Market Societies'. I always thought we were opposed to Capiatlist Societies. I always thought that the phrase 'common ownership of the means of production' was what was core to our views.

come PP attempt an answer.

The probable reality is that in order to do anything your 'central data bank' is going to be a market in everything but name. The triouble is that since you so i=obviously know next to nothing about either economics, or markets or organisation, or network theory you simply dont know it. But with your usual arrogance knowing nothing about a thing does not stop you pronouncing (I will never let your forget your repudiation of Arrows theory on the grounds that 'it would mean I RS was wrong').

I will remind you at some future date that I am now (according to you 'more humane and egalitarian' than the current society). That will be the next time you accuse me of being the opposite again.

[Severian]

An anarchist - probably the most serious anarchist I've ever met - once explained to me that he was opposed to revolution, since that implies one group taking political power away from another, and as an anarchist he was opposed to political power and wanted to abolish it.

Seems to me this is the only position consistent with anarchism's basic doctrines.

Sc4r, I don't want to drift this thread, but I gave a critique of your market socialist idea in the thread you started on it. A fairly serious critique, I thought, but you never responded to it.

[sc4r]

wasn't deliberate. I dont remeber but either :

I never noticed for some reason (maybe you posted while I was away and by the time I got back the thread had shrunk below thr bottom). Or :

I was (not for the first time) pre-occupied with rater silly bickering with RS, or

You made valid points I could not refute and I simply let them stand, or

I felt your observations were sufficiently similar to ones I had responded to that I didn't repeat my replies.

I dont recall which. I'll try now to find the thread and see.

[Morpheus]

I'm an authoritarian ? really? do you have any justification at all for that statement?

Yes, you support the state. Anyone who supports the state is an authoritarian because the state is a form of hierarchical authority. Your rants about anarcho-syndicalists having "no common view about anything" etc. is just further proof of your ignorance. Or it shows that you intentionally misrepresent the views of others, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. There has been a considerable body of theory developed on all the issues you have raised, just because you have not read them does not mean they don't exist.

[sc4r]

Then why if this considerable body of theory exists has not one Anarchist ever managed to give me a coherent explanation in summary? I've asked dozens if not hundreds of times. I've even laid out simplified example problems so as to be totally clear what it is that I'm asking.

A very considerable body of theory exists all right. But it does not as far as I can see answer the economic questions. You might think I'm a dumbass ignoranmus, but of course I'm not.

Mate if you seriously think that believing that some central organisation and adminsration is the same as being authoritarian you really seriously need to think about your whole approach to people. Lets face it I'm closer to your views than 99% of the people on this planet*. I'm much closer than the stalinists. the leninists, the mao'ists let alone the liberals, capitalists, etc.

And here you are deciding to call me names ! Not especially bad ones its true, but do not try and tell me that 'authoritarian' was not intended in a bad way (and I have of course been called far far worse by other anarchists). What serious hope do you lot have of convincing people if this is the way you react to anyone not already completely one of you?

* Close enough that RS invited me into his Anarchist 'self governed' forum. Of course once they found out that I was not prepared to simply spout the empty phrases they do, it all turned nasty. I was ejected, not following the democratic voting procedure we had all agreed to, but by a small cabal of what can only be termed 'elite members' simply deciding to do so. And that in a nutshell is how anarchists actually work. They say one thing, realise that in any kind of a crisis it wont work, and actually act exactly like fairly extreme authoritarians. They tolerate no dissent.

Here is an example of RS's 'realism' Day 1 : RS 'NO Scar we will after all never need to expel anbody, we do not need to think about any kind of procedure for dealing with problems'....Day 4: RS ' Scar you are expelled' Hah!

[praxis1966]

Umm... Maybe I'm out of line here but I don't think that anyone responding to the initial question has even begun to discuss syndicalism. It seems to me that everyone is much more focused on the question of Anarchism.

Syndicalism is a very complex theory/system of government of which I am a proponant. It involves workers consulates, election through the work place, and electoral organisation based on the guild system. I haven't once seen the name Antonio Gramsci in this thread; so I must assume the respondants don't know the originator of sydnicalism.

Just for the record, from what I have learned of Gramsci and Italian syndicalism/socialism the theory itself depends neither on violence nor nonviolence.

[Severian]

What? Gramsci was the originator of syndicalism? Huh?

Actually, Gramsci was a leader of the early Communist Party of Italy, and argued against syndicalism.

I don't know who founded syndicalism, but it goes back earlier than that. To 1895 I guess, with its heyday beginning around 1905 when the IWW was founded, or 1906, with the Charter of Amiens.

[redstar2000]

Close enough that RS invited me into his Anarchist 'self governed' forum. Of course once they found out that I was not prepared to simply spout the empty phrases they do, it all turned nasty. I was ejected, not following the democratic voting procedure we had all agreed to, but by a small cabal of what can only be termed 'elite members' simply deciding to do so. And that in a nutshell is how anarchists actually work. They say one thing, realise that in any kind of a crisis it won't work, and actually act exactly like fairly extreme authoritarians. They tolerate no dissent.

Sooner or later, the reformist must resort to outright fabrication. The forum to which he refers was RedGreenLeft, an experiment in a self-moderated message board.

It was not "my forum". The reformist was not "expelled"...he could post to any forum on the board right now if he wished. What happened is that he adopted his usual belligerent and obnoxious tone in his posts there; when people properly criticized his attitude, he threw a little fit and stomped out. After he did that, the Administrator (not me!) deprived him of his moderating powers...but he was still free to post and is still free to do so now.

(Unfortunately, this board is moribund now--"grow or die" really is an "iron law" for message boards.)

I will never let you forget your repudiation of Arrow's theory on the grounds that 'it would mean I RS was wrong'.

Another wild distortion from the reformist! What I actually said was that since Arrow's theorem had passed muster among mathematicians--he was not discovered to have made a mathematical error--that the difficulty was probably in his initial assumptions.

I do not claim "a right to be heard" among mathematicians on this objection; I am not qualified. I do expect such a challenge to be made by someone who is qualified in the future and, when it is made, it will be on the grounds that I suggested.

So what's the matter with that?

In "ReformistLand", even to question the latest and most fashionable bourgeois "wisdom" is strictly forbidden.

Once you start "breaking the rules", there's just no telling where things will end up.

And we can't have that, can we?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

OH Redstar you really are prepared to hide behind very very part truths are'nt you.

RGL was an experiment in self moderation. The only appeal it had was in that experimental nature. I was banned not only from posting in but from reading the part of it that actually dealt with self moderation. It was not only my moderating powers that were removed.

I did not throw a 'paddy' before this happened. I said 'it seems to me that I dont fit in here so I'm not going to contribute after the end of the week; I may look in from time to time, I even wished you all success and said there were no hard feelings'. I was at that time the 2nd biggest contributor, having gone out of my way to produce stuff intended to help ensure the forum both got off the ground and survived (not regurgitated posts from here as you contributed). The 'paddy' came after I discovered that immediately after this I was locked out of the main administrative board without notification or apology (and in outright defiance of the procedure we had not two days previously agreed). The 'paddy' consisted of saying what I've said here BTW, once. It does not mean some sort of spamming or sabotaging fit of rage.

And dont even try telling me that 'the administrator' (who bTW I dont actually even know the identity of anyway) acted alone and unprompted. I know different; and so do you.

If it were true that he/she acted alone I'd be rather surprised that in an 'experiment into anarchic self moderation' you felt no inclination to say 'hey hang on that was pretty authoritarian mr administrator'. At the very least it says you were quite prepared to go along with authoritarian behaviour so long as it got you what you wanted.

Personally I'd say that 'being obnoxious' is pretty subjective. In this case it does not mean handing out personal abuse (I got quite a bit from your little chum Rasberry though, remember?) , or spamming, or flaming, does it? it means disagreeing with you and several others.

A piss poor experiment I'd say - 'can we run a forum in which provided everyone behaves as I want them to, and says what I want them to, they will be allowed to self moderate?'. Fuck me, I wonder !!?? Still it seems we will never know; as that particular little anarchic community seems to have had a shorter existence even than such communities usually do. I wonder why ? could it just possibly be connected to the fact that your cabal ensured it was both sterile and unworkable.

It failed RS.

AS to Arrows impossibity theorem. Its an accepted mathematical theory. This means that expert Mathematicians have evaluated it and found it valid. This includes its 'assumptions'. Frankly you dont even seem to be really aware what a mathematical theorem is. You certainly have no concievable justification for doubting it; and your suspended disbelief is founded solely upon the fact that you would like it not to be true (because it implies that the sort of unorganised 'procedure' for obtaining consensus that you favour, cannot produce a definitive one).

This is in keeping with your attitudes to almost everything. Whether your ideas are plausible (or as in the Arrow case even mathematically proven to be impossible) matters not a jot to you.

you are a bad joke buddy. AS are your notions of a plausible society and how to get there.