Syndicalism

[ComradeGrant]

What is it?

[Maximum Marxist]

I believe it's a form of anarchy communism where they vote for who holds office and on decisions

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Syndicalism, specifically Anarcho-Syndicalism, is more of a strategy than an ideology. It is the thought that a classless, stateless society (socialism) is achievable from the workers, and for the workers, through syndicates (unions). Main features of A-S include solidarity (mutual aid), direct action, workers self-management, etc. A-S's believe revolutionary unions will be the vanguard of the revolution ("syndicalism" meaning "unionism" in French).

I think you should check out Rudolf Rocker's "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice" It's a relatively cheap and short book, and IIRC, it's completely available on Libcom. Written during the Spanish Civil War, Rocker explains everything needed to know on the subject, such as the ideology/theory of anarchism, the history, the evolution and what was happening at the time.

[syndicat]

Syndicalism -- AKA revolutionary syndicalism -- is a strategy for workers emancipation based on building up mass worker organizations, rooted in the struggle with employers, which are directly controlled by the workers themselves, work through widening solidarity throughout the working class (and thus is against racism or other internal class divisions), through independence or autonomy of the workers movement from control by union or political party bureaucracies.

The idea can be generalized in this way: that the working class builds the instruments of its own liberation through developing mass, directly democratic organizations it controls in the various spheres of struggle that the working class is involved in...this does not have to be limited to the workplace, can include rent strikes, or struggles around provision of social services, like the mass struggles against water privatization, and so on.

the idea is that the self-emancipation of the working class is brought about only through the direct efforts of the working class itself.

the largest revolutionary syndicalist movement in the history of Europe was the Spanish CNT movement of the '30s, which was the main force in the revolution in Spain in those years.

there were also large syndicalist labor organizations throughout Latin America in the '20s. my political group, Workers Solidarity Alliance, is a political group that advocates syndicalism.

[ComradeGrant]

Thanks for the info guys. I know wikipedia isn't to be trusted most of the time but the article on Syndicalism talked about a corporatist economy. I know corporatism is one of the keys to fascism, is there any relation?

[Aurorus Ruber]

Thanks for the info guys. I know wikipedia isn't to be trusted most of the time but the article on Syndicalism talked about a corporatist economy. I know corporatism is one of the keys to fascism, is there any relation?

I think they are using syndicalism, or corporatism, in different ways since both have a range of meanings. In some contexts, syndicalism could refer to corporatist economics such as those of fascism, hence the dubious term "national syndicalism". Of course this usage has little in common with that of anarcho-syndicalists and related movements.

[Gorilla]

Thanks for the info guys. I know wikipedia isn't to be trusted most of the time but the article on Syndicalism talked about a corporatist economy. I know corporatism is one of the keys to fascism, is there any relation?

These days nearly all syndicalists are anarcho-syndicalists, but it wasn't always that way. For example the Wobblies were syndicalists (or "revolutionary industrial unionists" but I think that's mostly a distinction without a difference) but many of them supported the Bolsheviks. One place where syndicalism was very strong in the socialist movement was Italy, and a couple of opportunists jumped ship to fascism, where they brought the idea of organizing society by sectors of industry, except in the fascist plan it was the capitalists on top instead of federated workers' councils.

[syndicat]

The only historical relation between syndicalism and fascism was in Italy, in terms of the trajectories of certain persons. Before World War 1 Mussolini was a Left socialist and a big advocate of direct action. Among his supporters were some socialist-syndicalists in the leadership of the Italian Syndicalist Union (USI by its Italian initials). USI had been founded in 1910 on the platform of the American IWW.

when Italy entered World War 1 in 1915, Mussolini took a pro-war, nationalist position. This was when he was just beginning to develop the fascist ideology. He was talking about Italy as a "proletarian nation" exploited by the British imperialists etc. At that time the leadership of USI also took a pro-war, nationalist position. At the next congress of the USI in 1916, the anarchists were able to force out these pro-Mussolini, pro-war leaders. They then left and founded a nationalist labor union, but it only pulled out about 10 percent of USI's membership, who overwhelmingly rejected a pro-war position.

Later on USI participated in the revolutionary events in Italy in 1919-20, such as the factory occupations, formation of the radical factory councils, etc. They formed a militia to try to fight Mussolini's drive for state power. After the left and the labor movement were crushed some of the ex-USI leaders who had followed Mussolini were allowed to run the official fascist trade unions that were set up, as partnership basis with employers...real meaning of "corporatism", and based on the crushing of the real unions. These ex-USI leaders were considered part of the "left wing" of Italian fascism, for what that's worth.

But from a syndicalist point of view, as soon as the ex-USI leaders took a nationalist position and began supporting a corporatist scheme with employers, they'd abandoned the class struggle and internationalism and thus had abandoned revolutionary syndicalism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I am shaky on this but I have heard that some of the original German National Bolsheviks came from a syndicalist background in the KAPD.

[The Man]

I believe it's a form of anarchy communism where they vote for who holds office and on decisions




What is it?Basically it's the thought of a Vanguard by 'Revolutionary Unions' as NoOneIsIllegal has pointed out. If you want a historical viewpoint of Syndicalism, take a look at 1936 Anarchist Spain. The CNT/FAI (Or AIT), was the Vanguard Union for the revolutionaries. A lot, if not most of the Syndicalists, are Anarcho-Syndicalists

[MarxSchmarx]

These days nearly all syndicalists are anarcho-syndicalists, but it wasn't always that way. For example the Wobblies were syndicalists (or "revolutionary industrial unionists" but I think that's mostly a distinction without a difference) but many of them supported the Bolsheviks.

THat's a good point. Another movement that can plausibly be considered syndicalist, but isn't anarchist (at least according to the Marx-Bakunin divide) is Marxist-DeLeonism. Marxist-DeLeonism wasn't "pure syndicalism" in the sense that it held that in addition to industrial unionism and union based political activism, it also had an electoral component. Most were anti-3rd Internationalists (at least in the Anglophone world) but the movement was rapidly eclipsed by Marxisms that developed quite hostile historical relations to anarchism.

But somewhat like Bolshevist wobs, I think it's fair to say that Marxist-DeLeonists today represent a trivial minority of syndicalists.

[The Man]

This is the learning section and that is completely unnecessary. This section is for people to learn not to be mocked by someone trying to bolster their own ego, keep that shit in chit chat.

I'm mocking the original OP?

[ComradeGrant]

I think he was mocking the first answer which was completely vague and unhelpful.

[Manic Impressive]

It makes absolutely no difference who he was attacking, that is completely unacceptable in the learning forum. The correct thing to do would be to explain why the post was vague and unhelpful then the poster would have learnt from their mistake.

[caramelpence]

An important part of the syndicalist tradition as well as anarchism as a whole is the idea that it is possible and desirable to anticipate the future society within society as it exists now - so for syndicalists, the industry-wide unions whose role it is to fight for gains under capitalism are also the bodies that will regulate and manage production once capitalism has been overthrown, by communicating with one another and organizing themselves in a democratic federal structure. In that sense (and even though I would never say that he was a syndicalist as such) you can draw a comparison between syndicalism and anarchists like Proudhon, as Proudhon also called for anticipation in the form of bodies like labour banks and cooperatives, which he believed would ultimately encompass all economic activity and allow for the abolition of capitalism to emerge in an organic way from within capitalist society itself.

The most immediate problem I have with syndicalist strategy is that syndicalists do not seem to give much consideration to limitations that are inherent within the trade-union form - by that I mean they do not seem to consider how trade unions can be integrated into capitalist rationality and become tools for the stabilization of accumulation, and they do not seem to consider how trade unions, because they are above all industrial or economic institutions, might not be able to participate in forms of class struggle or emancipation that do not fit an economic mould. The point of a revolutionary party for me is precisely that it is a flexible instrument that can participate in a range of struggles and draw links between those struggles.

[Maximum Marxist]

Syndicalism -- AKA revolutionary syndicalism -- is a strategy for workers emancipation based on building up mass worker organizations, rooted in the struggle with employers, which are directly controlled by the workers themselves, work through widening solidarity throughout the working class (and thus is against racism or other internal class divisions), through independence or autonomy of the workers movement from control by union or political party bureaucracies.

The idea can be generalized in this way: that the working class builds the instruments of its own liberation through developing mass, directly democratic organizations it controls in the various spheres of struggle that the working class is involved in...this does not have to be limited to the workplace, can include rent strikes, or struggles around provision of social services, like the mass struggles against water privatization, and so on.

the idea is that the self-emancipation of the working class is brought about only through the direct efforts of the working class itself.

the largest revolutionary syndicalist movement in the history of Europe was the Spanish CNT movement of the '30s, which was the main force in the revolution in Spain in those years.

there were also large syndicalist labor organizations throughout Latin America in the '20s. my political group, Workers Solidarity Alliance, is a political group that advocates syndicalism.

I was trying to refer to this in my first post.

[syndicat]

Proudhon and his followers had nothing to do with syndicalism. Proudhon was anti-union, opposed to strikes and revolution. It's true that he helped to develop the ideas of self-management and federalism, which influenced anarchism and syndicalism. But Proudhon was not an anarchist in the modern sense, and certainly not a syndicalist.


The most immediate problem I have with syndicalist strategy is that syndicalists do not seem to give much consideration to limitations that are inherent within the trade-union form - by that I mean they do not seem to consider how trade unions can be integrated into capitalist rationality and become tools for the stabilization of accumulation, and they do not seem to consider how trade unions, because they are above all industrial or economic institutions, might not be able to participate in forms of class struggle or emancipation that do not fit an economic mould. The point of a revolutionary party for me is precisely that it is a flexible instrument that can participate in a range of struggles and draw links between those struggles.

There is no one "form" of unionism as a mass phenomenon of worker resistance to domination and exploitation by the employers. Syndicalism has a critique of bureaucratic trade unionism. Historically in worker unionism there have been bureaucratic tendencies and rebel, grassroots tendencies, which are in conflict. Syndicalism is the view that the rebel, grassroots, autonomist form of unionism can expand in a certain period and become a dominant form of worker unionism and a vehicle for worker self-emancipation.

The problem with "parties" is that their emphasis on taking state power ends up being substitutionist. Leninism has always held that the mass organizations should be transmission belts for the party, thus denying autonomy to the mass movements.

On the other hand, it is possible for a revolutionary political organization...that is, an organization with a tighter degree of unity than a mass organization such as a union...to play a catalytic role and have a presence in a number of different mass movements, not just those at the point of production.

In the the libertarian Left this leads to "dual organizationalism" -- the advocacy of both mass organizations (such as unions but also including other kinds, such as tenant unions or whatever) and a revolutionary political organization. but it isn't a "party" because it doesn't aim to take state power or "manage" the movements for change.

Autonomy of the mass organization is a syndicalist principle and this would apply to other forms of mass social moivement apart from workplace-based unionism.

[caramelpence]

I actually said that I would never call Proudhon a syndicalist, but as you say, he still popularized the ideas of self-management and federalism, and what I would broadly call an anticipatory strategy, that involves radicals seeking to anticipate the future society through the construction of alternatives in the here and now - so it would seem that, by your own admission, it's inaccurate to say that he had nothing whatsoever to do with syndicalism or others parts of the anarchist tradition. I was making a fairly casual comparison, and wasn't aiming to discredit either Proudhon or syndicalism by drawing a link between the two.


There is no one "form" of unionism as a mass phenomenon of worker resistance to domination and exploitation by the employers

I'm not quite sure whether we understand each other. Trade unions do vary in their strategy and organization - the point I was making is that the main part of syndicalist history and theory has involved a focus on the trade union as the main form of organization through which class struggle can and should be conducted, and the problem with this as I see it is that trade unions are necessarily located in the industrial arena and in the immediate confrontation between employer and employee. For that reason, not only is there a constant danger of them being turned into mediating apparatuses between workers and the capitalist class, which is what has happened with bodies like the IWW when they have entered into no-strike agreements with specific employers, it is also difficult to see how they (syndicalist unions) would be able to draw on and support other kinds of struggle that do not take place in the industrial arena or follow a "pure" model of class struggle, such as struggles around political rights, for example. The issue at hand is that syndicalism seems to privilege a certain kind of struggle rather than acknowledging that class struggle takes different forms in different sets of conditions and that it is also through these other forms of struggle, even though they may take place outside the industrial arena, that the working class can enhance its self-confidence and come closer to the seizure of power.

Put differently, how do you, as a syndicalist, respond to struggles like the struggle to defend abortion rights or the ongoing struggle in Britain to defend access to higher education? It makes little sense to say that these struggles should embody syndicalist trade unions and that these unions should be organized in a bottom-up way because a trade union is, by definition, an organization that emerges in the industrial sphere, out of the struggle between employers and employees - not between students/women and the state.


The problem with "parties" is that their emphasis on taking state power ends up being substitutionist. Leninism has always held that the mass organizations should be transmission belts for the party, thus denying autonomy to the mass movements

I find it problematic to speak of "Leninism" as if there is a single and coherent bloc of ideas that has the support of all those who look to Lenin as a theoretical reference point. Lenin never thought that his ideas should be turned into a confined doctrine, impervious to all forms of external influence or critical discussion, and the reification of his ideas in that way was the work of Stalinism. As I see it, Lenin wrote a large number of works over a long period of time, some of it in response to immediate political events, some of it more theoretical in nature, and his entire corpus of work embodies radical differences in emphasis, and numerous changes in Lenin's strategic outlook. To speak of "Leninism" is to assume that Lenin exhibited a level of coherence that he did not ultimately have, and a better way to engage with him and his works (in my view) is to recognize his ambiguities and changes of viewpoint and to be willing to distinguish between what is valid and what is not.

Whatever you think about Lenin and "Leninism", I, as a supporter of a revolutionary party and a partisan of Lenin's role in the Bolshevik revolution, do not think that the role of the revolutionary party is to take state power in any straightforward sense - not least because the bourgeois state has to be smashed in order to consolidate the power of an alternative set of political institutions - and nor do I think that mass organizations and movements should merely be a recruiting ground for the party. The ABC of the revolutionary party as far as I am concerned is that revolutionaries should organize together rather than working alone and that they should act in a coherent way that seeks to promote the development and radicalization of mass movements that are spontaneous in origin without depriving those movements of their mass or spontaneous character. If this means, in your view, that I am not a supporter of the party, then so be it.

[syndicat]

I'm not quite sure whether we understand each other. Trade unions do vary in their strategy and organization - the point I was making is that the main part of syndicalist history and theory has involved a focus on the trade union as the main form of organization through which class struggle can and should be conducted, and the problem with this as I see it is that trade unions are necessarily located in the industrial arena and in the immediate confrontation between employer and employee. For that reason, not only is there a constant danger of them being turned into mediating apparatuses between workers and the capitalist class, which is what has happened with bodies like the IWW when they have entered into no-strike agreements with specific employers, it is also difficult to see how they (syndicalist unions) would be able to draw on and support other kinds of struggle that do not take place in the industrial arena or follow a "pure" model of class struggle, such as struggles around political rights, for example. The issue at hand is that syndicalism seems to privilege a certain kind of struggle rather than acknowledging that class struggle takes different forms in different sets of conditions and that it is also through these other forms of struggle, even though they may take place outside the industrial arena, that the working class can enhance its self-confidence and come closer to the seizure of power.


You're not paying attention. so let me repeat what i said:


Syndicalism has a critique of bureaucratic trade unionism. Historically in worker unionism there have been bureaucratic tendencies and rebel, grassroots tendencies, which are in conflict. Syndicalism is the view that the rebel, grassroots, autonomist form of unionism can expand in a certain period and become a dominant form of worker unionism and a vehicle for worker self-emancipation.


What you call the tendency to become mediating entities and so on is what I have called here the bureaucratic tendency in unionism. But there is also another tendency, in conflict with it, the rebel, autonomous, grassroots tendency. The relative importance of this latter tendency has waxed and waned in different times and places. The bureaucratic tendency has been especially dominant in the "first world" countries since World War 2.

The libertarian left in more recent decades generally does not claim that worker unionism, or struggle at the point of production, is the only place where mass social movements develop through struggles against the various forms of opression & exploitation in late capitalism. Those on the libertarian left who support syndicalism do claim that the struggle in the workplace, the struggle with the employers is a very important, central aspect of the overall social struggle against oppression & exploitation.

The working class cannot liberate itself from capitalist domination and exploitation without taking over the workplaces & industries and directly, collectively managing these places & the work process themselves. A mass grassroots movement based in the workplaces is necessary to have the means to accomplish that. It is also historically a major way for the masses to become participants in, and learn from, struggles.


Put differently, how do you, as a syndicalist, respond to struggles like the struggle to defend abortion rights or the ongoing struggle in Britain to defend access to higher education? It makes little sense to say that these struggles should embody syndicalist trade unions and that these unions should be organized in a bottom-up way because a trade union is, by definition, an organization that emerges in the industrial sphere, out of the struggle between employers and employees - not between students/women and the state.


We don't say that all struggles take the form of a union in the workplace. That is a strawman argument directed against some early 20th century concept. In the late '80s, early '90s, my organization, WSA, which was then an affiliate of the syndicalist international, was very much involved in abortion clinic defense work and the defense of reproductive freedom. But we're a political organization. in the '80s we coined the term "community syndicalism" to refer to forms of grassroots mass organization developed at the point of consumption, such as a tenants union, transit riders union, or other community-based mass organization.

But in Spain the syndicalist union, CGT, is in fact involved regularly in social struggles, and in alliances with other social movements, such as housing groups, radical ecology groups etc., and in the defense of public services.

In fact it's an important aspect of the idea of broadening worker solidarity for the workers movement itself to take on the issues that affect workers in all the areas of their lives, includuing such as public services, housing, etc.

moreover, you don't escape the conflict between rebel, grassroots tendency and tendencies towards bureaucracy and cooptation outside the workplace. many community struggles/organizations evolve into bureucratic nonprofits, closely tied to lobbying and dependent on local government and foundations.


Whatever you think about Lenin and "Leninism", I, as a supporter of a revolutionary party and a partisan of Lenin's role in the Bolshevik revolution, do not think that the role of the revolutionary party is to take state power in any straightforward sense - not least because the bourgeois state has to be smashed in order to consolidate the power of an alternative set of political institutions - and nor do I think that mass organizations and movements should merely be a recruiting ground for the party. The ABC of the revolutionary party as far as I am concerned is that revolutionaries should organize together rather than working alone and that they should act in a coherent way that seeks to promote the development and radicalization of mass movements that are spontaneous in origin without depriving those movements of their mass or spontaneous character. If this means, in your view, that I am not a supporter of the party, then so be it.

in regard to Leninism, it is meaningless or highly misleading to talk of anything as "Leninism" without looking at the actual practice and politics of the Bolshevik party...their concrete role...in the Russian revolution. When you do that, I believe we can see the eventual coalescence of a bureaucratic class as a natural outcome of those kinds of actions...such as the actions the Bolsheviks did once they had set up the Council of People's Commissars, and set up enacting measures topdown through the hierarchies of the new state....statist central planning from above, hiring thousands of tsarist officers to run a rigidly hierarchical army only accountable to the cabinet of ministers controlled by the Bolshevik party leaders, setting up "one-man management" in the workplaces, and so on.