The best books/websites to read about Anarcho-Syndicalism

[IndependentCitizen]

I've been reading small bits on the internet, and obviously wikipedia. But I wouldn't a comprehensive analysis of Anarchism. I thought this would be a great place to ask, so anyone got any ideas?

[hatzel]

Of course the most sensible place to start would probably be the book by that very name, Anarcho-Syndicalism, by Rudolf Rocker :) It's available online, so you don't have to shell out for it.

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html

[IndependentCitizen]

Thank you, Comrade :D Shall begin reading that immediately.

[Paulappaul]

Rocker is a good read to learn about Classical Anarchist - Syndicalism. To learn about modern Anarchist Syndicalism, check out Strategy and struggle - anarcho-syndicalism in the 21st century. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/Strategy%20and%20struggle%20-%20anarcho-syndicalism%20in%20the%2021st%20century)

Produced in January 2009 by the Brighton Solidarity Federation ;)

[Rowan Duffy]

SolFed's approach is really really stretching the idea of anarcho-syndicalism and I completely disagree that it represents a modern incarnation. I think the idea itself is not actually syndicalism, and indeed I don't think it's modern at all.

My opinion is that it's more rationalisation than strategy. SolFed exists as a typical modern leftist micro-political organisation. They then assume that this strategy is the kernel of the correct strategy.

Of course all theories which are untried might well turn out to be true. However the approach of substituting a single-current political party for a mass organisation (like a union) seems to me to be extremely unlikely to succeed.

The value in syndicalism is in the ability of the working class to gain levers of real power against the ruling class and to unite the working class in opposition leading to improvements in class consciousness. The approach of having a politically "correct" union means you'll not have the sort of class unity required to have strength. A grouping in a workplace needs to be as broad as the workplace. You can not gain syndicalist power by requiring everyone to sign up to your political line. This is not to say that we can't push for greater acceptance of socialist ideas in the unions, that in fact should be one of our goals. However, making it a requirement of entry is crazy.

Oddly, looking at the that which inspires the "modern" syndicalist crowd, we come up with a wealth of examples that really didn't follow the approach at all. One is the USI (Unione Syndicale Italia) which was formed in 1912 because members were agitating inside of the larger CGL and were kicked out. They took with them the residue of the most militant left wing of the CGL. This is entirely different then trying to start with a politically left and militant union. Indeed later, the USI actively attempted to regroup in cooperation with the other unions in order to strengthen the position of the working class.

A good counter-example to the SolFed approach taken by a syndicalist union in the modern era is the CGT Spain, which is in fact much much larger and actually capable of carrying out and not merely threatening strike, unlike SolFed.

EDIT: I should actually answer the original query. The fact is that there is a relative paucity of syndicalist literature in English as compares Spanish and French. Perhaps one of the better syndicalist pamphlets is not actually anarchist (Program of Action of the Red International of Labour Unions - A. Lozovsky) though it is in fact quite anarchistic in parts:


The English trade-unionists as well now admit that the bourgeoisie thinks only of its own interests and laughs at those of the working class. These champions of collaboration are now forced to admit that their line has failed. Why? Because they based their tactics on discussions by the leadership in the name of the masses and not on direct action by the masses against the employers.

[Paulappaul]

However the approach of substituting a single-current political party for a mass organisation (like a union) seems to me to be extremely unlikely to succeed.

There's some truth in this. Paul Mattick warned of this as the "Competitive struggles between Labor Organizations" rather then geniune class organisation as seen in the Workers' Councils. Alot of organizations adopting SOLFED's line has actually tried to divorce Anarchist - Syndicalism and any current at all from its line. The Current Solidarity like organization I am in the midst of forming currently has pursued this.



The value in syndicalism is in the ability of the working class to gain levers of real power against the ruling class and to unite the working class in opposition leading to improvements in class consciousness. The approach of having a politically "correct" union means you'll not have the sort of class unity required to have strength. A grouping in a workplace needs to be as broad as the workplace. You can not gain syndicalist power by requiring everyone to sign up to your political line. This is not to say that we can't push for greater acceptance of socialist ideas in the unions, that in fact should be one of our goals. However, making it a requirement of entry is crazy.

Is it really though? The IWW requires this, which was once a Mass Labor Association. Alot of Syndicalist Unions have actually pursued this.

[IndependentCitizen]

SolFed's approach is really really stretching the idea of anarcho-syndicalism and I completely disagree that it represents a modern incarnation. I think the idea itself is not actually syndicalism, and indeed I don't think it's modern at all.

My opinion is that it's more rationalisation than strategy. SolFed exists as a typical modern leftist micro-political organisation. They then assume that this strategy is the kernel of the correct strategy.

Of course all theories which are untried might well turn out to be true. However the approach of substituting a single-current political party for a mass organisation (like a union) seems to me to be extremely unlikely to succeed.

The value in syndicalism is in the ability of the working class to gain levers of real power against the ruling class and to unite the working class in opposition leading to improvements in class consciousness. The approach of having a politically "correct" union means you'll not have the sort of class unity required to have strength. A grouping in a workplace needs to be as broad as the workplace. You can not gain syndicalist power by requiring everyone to sign up to your political line. This is not to say that we can't push for greater acceptance of socialist ideas in the unions, that in fact should be one of our goals. However, making it a requirement of entry is crazy.

Oddly, looking at the that which inspires the "modern" syndicalist crowd, we come up with a wealth of examples that really didn't follow the approach at all. One is the USI (Unione Syndicale Italia) which was formed in 1912 because members were agitating inside of the larger CGL and were kicked out. They took with them the residue of the most militant left wing of the CGL. This is entirely different then trying to start with a politically left and militant union. Indeed later, the USI actively attempted to regroup in cooperation with the other unions in order to strengthen the position of the working class.

A good counter-example to the SolFed approach taken by a syndicalist union in the modern era is the CGT Spain, which is in fact much much larger and actually capable of carrying out and not merely threatening strike, unlike SolFed.

EDIT: I should actually answer the original query. The fact is that there is a relative paucity of syndicalist literature in English as compares Spanish and French. Perhaps one of the better syndicalist pamphlets is not actually anarchist (Program of Action of the Red International of Labour Unions - A. Lozovsky) though it is in fact quite anarchistic in parts:

Thanks your input, comrade. I don't know much about the 'politics' of Anarchism, and organisation. Still reading, after growing dissatisfaction with party politics. I'll read further into them.