Anarcho-syndicalism seems to be the best compromise today....

[RadioRaheem84]

Considering the massive disinformation campaign against Marxist Leninism and Socialism in general, I think most youth, most people especially in the States would be more susceptible to Anarcho Syndicalism.

I mean it isn't as objectionable to Libertarians because for some reason they think it's "capitalism".

The only history it has is one fighting and losing against Fascism in Spain. The only present day example it has is the autonomous region controlled by the Zapatistas, which you have to be a real heartless bastard to be totally against.

I just see it as the only real radical ideology that hasn't been completely overrun with propagandist disinformation.

I mean even when I told my hardcore free enterprise loving Ron Paul adoring gf's father about it, he thought it was a dreamy utopian idea but he didn't object to it like he does with Communism thinking it's the same as fascism. Progressivism is now under attack facing the same link with Stalinism and then Fascism.

This is not to say at socialism isn't gaining appeal, but I just picture the United States to be really cynical of any State involvement in the economy or their lives that they would really behind the notion of anarcho syndicalism.

I am not trying to say I would but that it could have major appeal.

[Tim Cornelis]

Well, "syndicalism" has even more neutral connotation because it doesn't have the "anarchist" aspect, which many perceive as utopic.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, but who would want a return of national syndicalists if anarchism isn't stressed?

[Conscript]

Sometimes I think about being anarchist just because it's not as much of a pain in the ass and I can call everyone else authoritarian and claim victory.

[Tim Cornelis]

Sometimes I think about being anarchist just because it's not as much of a pain in the ass and I can call everyone else authoritarian and claim victory.

It truly is a privilege.

[Conscript]

Admittedly I already do it in college because my pol sci class is full of lolbertarians. The black flag makes a great cover.

Best thing is, I can say I'm the 'original' libertarian :lol:

[Zeus the Moose]

Considering the massive disinformation campaign against Marxist Leninism and Socialism in general, I think most youth, most people especially in the States would be more susceptible to Anarcho Syndicalism.

I mean it isn't as objectionable to Libertarians because for some reason they think it's "capitalism".

The only history it has is one fighting and losing against Fascism in Spain. The only present day example it has is the autonomous region controlled by the Zapatistas, which you have to be a real heartless bastard to be totally against.

I just see it as the only real radical ideology that hasn't been completely overrun with propagandist disinformation.

I mean even when I told my hardcore free enterprise loving Ron Paul adoring gf's father about it, he thought it was a dreamy utopian idea but he didn't object to it like he does with Communism thinking it's the same as fascism. Progressivism is now under attack facing the same link with Stalinism and then Fascism.

This is not to say at socialism isn't gaining appeal, but I just picture the United States to be really cynical of any State involvement in the economy or their lives that they would really behind the notion of anarcho syndicalism.

I am not trying to say I would but that it could have major appeal.

This may be the case right now, but if anarcho-syndicalism as a political project starts to become major, you can best they'll be a media smear campaign against it, trying to link it with communism any way it can. If such a thing can be done to mealy-mouthed "Progressivism," you can bet it can be done to anarcho-syndicalism as well, despite political disagreements that may exist. In general, I'd warn against picking a political perspective just because it seems to not have caught the attention of the bourgeois propaganda machine yet.

[Искра]

Ok, so few words from an ex-anarcho-syndicalist.


Anarcho-syndicalism will always be associated with anarchism. That is inevitable, because anarcho-syndicalism is anarchist tradition, movement, way of organising, political ideology etc. You can not just erase that connection. Regarding syndicalism as such, syndicalism it problematic because it’s quite reformist, shortsighted and it’s not revolutionary on the long terms.



But if we are talking about anarcho-syndicalism in 21st century I have to say that I doubt in it. Before I go further I would like to say that I still have a lot of sympathies towards anarcho-syndicalism and IWA (especially CNT, SolFed, ZSP and FAU), so I’m not the kind of person who will start to shit on everything he used to support. My problem with anarcho-syndicalism comes from the historical development of neoliberalism (or to say – today’s capitalism), especially employment policies. Today more and more people work on so called precarious jobs.




Precarious work is a term used to describe non-standard employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment) which is poorly paid, insecure, unprotected, and cannot support a household



Precarious work is frequently associated with the following types of employment: “part-time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part-time) employment, self-employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-employment), fixed-term work, temporary work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_work), on-call (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-call) work, homeworkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeworker), and telecommuting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommuting).”[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work#cite_note-4) All of these forms of employment are related in that they depart from the standard employment relationship (full-time, continuous work with one employer).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work#cite_note-Id._at_12-3) Each form of precarious work may offer its own challenges but they all share the same disadvantages: low wages, few benefits, lack of collective representation, and little to no job security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_security).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work#cite_note-5)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work



So, when you read what is precarious work you could guess what my concerns are. It is extremely difficult to organise revoltionary syndicate when workers do not have full time jobs. Workers will not fight for their rights if they know that they’ll work here for 3 months and then they’ll move to another job or they’ll be unemployed. This situation needs new strategies. So far, I think that SolFed made good start with the idea of workers networks.

[syndicat]

There are various potential ways around this problem. There is the notion of a community union or a union in which people stay in from job to job.

In the USA we have solidarity networks, which mobilize working people throughout the community in cases where individuals are victimized, fired, not paid, evicted by their landlord, their security deposits are stolen, etc.

CNT in France has the idea of "social combat groups" in towns which are similar.

The idea of syndicalism is using the leverage people have as workers. After all, this is really where the working class potential power...because they are needed for making profits. Cut off production, and you cut off profits.

Another way around the problem of the difficulties of implantation in particular workplaces is through general social campaigns that mobilize people...such as the Spanish encampments, or the similar protest going on on Wall Street. And if there is sufficient mass base developed the union organizations can develop to the point of a general strike....as the radical unions in Spain are trying to do right now. There they also have an increase in temp contracts and very high unemployment.

Syndicalism is both strategy and program. the strategy is solidarity, direct worker actions and organizing against employers & state, and the aim is eventually workers taking over and managing directly the various industries, in a coordinated way.

Anarcho-syndicalism does have the advantage that it hasn't suffered the general discredit of the various partyist forms of socialism that tried to work through the state, such as social democracy and Communism (MLism). this is an advantage from the point of view of its potential to gain working class support.

Nonetheless, it is true that, if sizeable movements of a syndicalist character were to develop, they would also be subject to an intense propaganda barrage in the corporate media and the police would start paying closer attention. from 1917 on the IWW was seriously damaged by FBI and state repression, such as the Criminal Syndicalism laws (tho these were eventually declared unconstitutional in 1970).

[Susurrus]

Not to mention that unionizing the unemployed, or as Marx called them, the reserve army of labor, basically renders the bourgeoisie economically powerless.

[MarxSchmarx]

The only history it has is one fighting and losing against Fascism in Spain. The only present day example it has is the autonomous region controlled by the Zapatistas, which you have to be a real heartless bastard to be totally against.


This isn't quite true, as it has quite a history of for example playing a decisive role in the Mexican revolution and of anarchist unions were quite powerful in Italy, the US, Argentina and to a lesser extent places like Portugal and France for decades. But you are right, these aspects are largely ignored and the only (comparatively) well-known large-scale experimentations were in civil war Spain.

However, it is important to understand that this is also among the ideology's greatest weakness. Social democrats and Marxist-Leninists for example can point to some very concrete successes across quite different societies and to varying degrees can explain the failures as lessons to be learned the next time their ideas are tried. It is in many respects an advantage to have a history of failure that they can learn from. If revolutionary spain is taken as a case-study in anarchism, this is a sample size of one and the lessons are ambiguous.

Is this a fatal concern? Probably not. But anarchism's failure to be realized in any existing society on a large scale for a significant length of time does cast it in many people's eyes as alongside New Harmony and the like. So in some respects a blank slate is helpful, it's power to attract and retain a powerful movement should be regarded with some care.

[Susurrus]

Ukrainian Free Territory and Shinmin Autonomous Region were also anarchist.

[syndicat]

The high point in syndicalism was in the period from the Russian national general strike in 1905 til the Spanish revolution. in the '20s the syndicalist international (IWA) had between 2 and 3 million members, with a very large proportion in Latin America. this included the important CGT in Mexico, the FORA in Argentina, FORU in Uruguay, and major union federations in Brazil and Peru. Syndicalism played a key role in the almost-revolution in Italy in 1919-20, via the shop assembly/council movement in Turin and the Italian Syndicalist Union elsewhere (with over half a million members in 1920). (See Williams, "Proletarian Order.") Syndicalist influence also spread to South Africa with the Industrial Workers of Africa and to Shanghai and other coastal cities in China in the early '20s, and also to Japan.

However, these movements were decimated through several factors. First there was repression. in 1934 the Portugese CGT (anarcho-syndicalist union with about 150,000 members) was banned after the Gaetano fascist regime came to power. Fascism in Italy led to the destruction of the labor movement and left in general. The anarcho-syndicalists had proposed formation of militias, which was resisted by the Socialist Party and the social-democratic CGT union...until it was too late. Various military regimes came to power to crush syndicalism in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.

An authoritarian type of populism in Latin America combined repression, thug controlled unions, and clientelist forms of government assistance. The Mexican CGT was broken through these efforts, and thru the Mexican Revolutionary Nationalist Party's importation of Mussolini's fascist labor codes, plus thug unions like CROM.

Also, in the '20s and '30s Marxism-Leninism seemed the "wave of the future" to many people inclined to radical ideas, and the myth of the "successful revolution" in Russia had great impact. Before the Russian revolution syndicalism had been a dominant form of radicalism, and now it had to compete with MLism.

Finally, the anarcho-syndicalist cadre often failed to form well-organized political groups in addition to the mass unions, so repression or decline in the mass organization left them without an organized means to continue the fight by new means.

but now the situation has changed. both social-democracy and MLism are largely discredited within the working classes. they have the aura of attempts that failed. the various Euro socialist parties have been rotted out by neoliberalism, and abandoned all pretense to any socialist transformation of society. MLism suffers the burden of having given birth to the authoritarian statist regimes in China, Russia and elsewhere...which eventually collapsed or evolved towards capitalism.

altho one can object that the Spanish revolution is the only case where a revoluiton was largely shaped by anarcho-syndicalism, there are really only two revolutions where it is plausible to say the working class built substantial counter institutions and transformed society...the Russian and Spanish...and both were defeated, in quite different ways. so we don't really have large numbers of cases to study.

certainly there are other cases where the working class had built organizations and aspirations for control were coming to the surface and a rebellion was in play...Italy 1919-20, Chile 1970-73, Portugal in 1975. And then you have revolts like the massive general strike etc in France in 1968.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just see it as the only real radical ideology that hasn't been completely overrun with propagandist disinformation.

I mean even when I told my hardcore free enterprise loving Ron Paul adoring gf's father about it, he thought it was a dreamy utopian idea but he didn't object to it like he does with Communism thinking it's the same as fascism. Progressivism is now under attack facing the same link with Stalinism and then Fascism.

This is not to say at socialism isn't gaining appeal, but I just picture the United States to be really cynical of any State involvement in the economy or their lives that they would really behind the notion of anarcho syndicalism.

I am not trying to say I would but that it could have major appeal.

Before flirting too much with Anarcho-Syndicalism, answer for yourself this: When was the last time the IWW did something purely political, like organizing a mass ballot spoilage campaign?

That, and what comrade Zeus the Moose said.

[syndicat]

Before flirting too much with Anarcho-Syndicalism, answer for yourself this: When was the last time the IWW did something purely political, like organizing a mass ballot spoilage campaign?
a purely symbolic action like that would be pretty silly.

IWW free speech campaigns back in its heyday were obviously political.

IWW reached its peak in 1917, suffered significant repression after that, and hasn't yet rebuilt itself to the status of a large mass union yet...tho the recent formation of a national Food & Retail Union is a start. but it still has very skimpy resources and not a lot of members (about 1,500 in USA). it needs to first develop significant industry-based ongoing organizations.

today there was a day of actions all over Spain by a class front formed by the three anarcho-syndicalist labor groups (CNT, CGT, SO) in alliance with other radical left unions (CSC, SAT, IAC, COBAS). they are building towards a general strike to fight austerity and cuts to worker rights enacted by the neo-liberal PSOE at the behest of the banks, Euro institutions & central banks and big capital. all of these unions have been highly supportive of the movement of encampments and assemblies in the town squares in protest of the politicians & their austerity. surely these actions are all highly political...as they're directed squarely against the state and the poiticians.

[Die Neue Zeit]

a purely symbolic action like that would be pretty silly.

IWW free speech campaigns back in its heyday were obviously political.

What was the content of the free speech campaigns, specifically? I think it had more to do with free speech for unionization drives and worker grievances (i.e., mere labour disputes and economism). Also, the IWW didn't organize spoilage "back in its heyday." That just goes to show its aversion towards politics in general.

[syndicat]

That just goes to show its aversion towards politics in general.

it was a highly political form of unionism, seeking overtly to replace capitalism with a social economy managed by workers. it's opposition to World War 1, based on international solidarity, led directly to FBI roundups and huge harassment.

and, as i said, spoiling ballots is a silly symbolic act that would do nothing.

syndicalists back then meant by "anti-politics" that the union would be independent of parties. it meant denying subordination of leadership in the working class fight to parties.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That was merely a smaller point of mine. My bigger, more implicit point was that the syndicates would themselves become mass political parties, like what the General German Workers Association aspired to be. Public policies would be discussed within, and political action in support of the majority decision would be taken.

The "political action" (and no, socialism doesn't really count) was limited to anti-war activity and perhaps free speech campaigns, nothing else.

[RebelDog]

Sometimes I think about being anarchist just because it's not as much of a pain in the ass and I can call everyone else authoritarian and claim victory.

Sometimes I think about being Trotskyist so I can call everyone else a counter-revolutionary and shoot them.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The main flaw in your logic is that you see the persistence of capitalism as a result of "bad marketing" of this or that 'alternative ideology.'

Capitalism won't be overthrown when 50%+1 of the population is convinced by activists. Communism isn't a product to be sold. That's not how things work. It's a tough lesson to learn, but a necessary one nonetheless.

"...Communists know only too well...that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” - Engels

[Искра]

There are various potential ways around this problem. There is the notion of a community union or a union in which people stay in from job to job.

In the USA we have solidarity networks, which mobilize working people throughout the community in cases where individuals are victimized, fired, not paid, evicted by their landlord, their security deposits are stolen, etc.

CNT in France has the idea of "social combat groups" in towns which are similar.

(...)

Of course that there are different ways of struggle within the anarcho-syndicalism, mostly because of doubts and questions I pointed in my last (first) post. I’m not the only one who had such questions or doubts and I know that some people and organisations in IWA work hard to resolve the question of precarious workers. I was on the IWA’s conference on that matter, so I heard a lot of ideas and some experiments from practise (such as french “social combat groups” you mentioned). Still, a lot of these ideas, even they have great potential and they are on the “anarcho-syndicalist line” haven’t achieved much. Also, a lot of these ideas depend on socio-political and economical relations and history of certain country or culture.

I’m writing from a perspective of post-socialist country citizen. Here people are very sceptical of unions (one note, in Croatian language union and syndicate are the same thing) mostly because historical inheritage of state capitalist Yugoslav regime and the idiotic role of unions in it. Also, as we are at the EU’s doorstep our government and big reformist unions implemented really bad neoliberal policies. I do not support past regime, but I’m not an idiot so I recognize really good Labour law which we got from that system and which guarantee great rights to workers, rights that many of Western European workers (not to mention the rest of the capitalist world) can just dream about. There are reformist unions who are trying to fight the class struggle, who really try to help workers in their everyday life etc. but really few workers participate in them as activists. A lot of ideas which anarcho-syndicalists promote are good in theory and some of them are realised in practise, but in Croatia it is impossible to implement most of them. Main reason is because they depend on great amount of class conscious and solidarity within the workers which do not exist. So, the first job of us as revolutionaries in Croatia is to create that class conscious (Saying this I’m also pointing to the “biggest sin” of Marxsism-Leninism (in all forms) and that is – destruction of class conscious within the working class.).

In Croatia 87% of new work contracts are temporary. Also, there’s great unemployment rate and people live in poverty (for example in area where I’m come from 43% of the work force is unemployed!). In these conditions bosses have great power and workers are without any power. The worst are, of course, small bosses who are creating small enterprises called “d.o.o.’s” (society of limited responsibility), which can be founded with 20 000 HRK capital (around 2700€). In these enterprises workers never get paid and when the law comes to “protect “ them, bosses just shut down the enterprise and found another one. In these conditions workers have no class conscious, no class solidarity and they only hope that one day they’ll really get their pay check. But, seriously who are we to judge them?

Ok, so I’m finally moving to my conclusion which is that most of these anarcho-syndicalist strategies (but this can also work for other tendencies) depend on (i) strong organisation, (ii) success in previous struggle, (iii) experience of militants, (iv) mass organisation and (v) class conscious. In other words, workers will not join or participate in anything which is unknown, small and which can not offer them protection. They don’t want to be unemployed and, pressed by “army of unemployed”, they know that they are replicable. So, what we need as a left, especially there where we are just starting is a strategy how to win a class struggle with few people and how to attract workers towards us.

The only solution I see lies in spontaneous movements and revolts, which started to happen inspired by Tunis and Egypt, and in which we need o participate. Also, I’m very fond of SolFed’s “workers networks” idea, because I see that as really good answer for precarious work.


Another way around the problem of the difficulties of implantation in Nonetheless, it is true that, if sizeable movements of a syndicalist character were to develop, they would also be subject to an intense propaganda barrage in the corporate media and the police would start paying closer attention. from 1917 on the IWW was seriously damaged by FBI and state repression, such as the Criminal Syndicalism laws (tho these were eventually declared unconstitutional in 1970).
First we need to build a movement so that we could worry about this. Many leftists (especial ML’s) are too paranoid even when nobody cares about them.



Not to mention that unionizing the unemployed, or as Marx called them, the reserve army of labor, basically renders the bourgeoisie economically powerless.
Have you ever tried that in a practice or do you talk just from theoretical perspective? As you said: “as Marx said”, Marx who lived in different times where there was greater class conscious, where workers knew “who’s their enemy” and where you didn’t have Keynes, social-democracy and ML's.


Ukrainian Free Territory and Shinmin Autonomous Region were also anarchist. Who cares about that in 21st century where you have to build an organisation first? Don't get me wrong, I'm verry fond of Makhno and stuff (hence my username - Kontrrazvedka), but he lived in different conditions than I'm living and until I get the chance to build a proletarian army I have no use of him :)

Generally guys, you talk too much about anarcho-syndicalism (or anyother tendency) and the past. Let's talk about present for a change.

[Alf]

Kontrrazvedka: your change of view regarding anarcho-syndicalism is very interesting. From what i have understood, you are recognising that the traditional project of building a revolutionary union - ie a mass organisation of workers openly committed to the overthrow of capitalism - is simply not feasible in the present conditions facing the working class. I think the problem of precarious work is a real one, but I think there are deeper and more historical reasons for this whole phenomenon.
You mention the Solfed idea of networks. I think Solfed is doing some very serious work in making active links between militant workers, which I also regard as essential. But they also continue to call themselves anarcho-syndicalists, mixing up the idea of networks of militant minorities with the idea of a revolutionary union or revolutionary union initiative. However, I think that it is possible for such anarcho-syndicalists and left communists to work together, and they should certainly discuss with each other.

[Искра]

I agree with you.

Regarding precarious work I agree that historical reasons are deeper and I didn't write them all, because I don't wanna be "boring" and write a book. I wrote few articles on that subject for anarcho-syndicalist organisation I used to be in.

SolFed's strategy is really important, but personally I can't see how could my comrades in Croatia build an revolutionary union. They can make network of militants, but wokrer's union is imposible... (Of course, they can make something which is called the Union, but dosen't have its functions and it's complete shit, but when I'm taking about types of organisations I mean on organisations who can fulfil their purpose.)

I agree that anarcho-syndicalists and left communists must work together. Radical left is really small and marginal and we must try to find "simmilar language", we must find way how to work together :)

[Alf]

Thanks for your response, very encouraging. Completely agree that calling a network of militants a union is a mistake - it can only spread confusion. And (I am sure you agree with this also) it's not only impossible to create a revolutionary union in Croatia, but everywhere.
The present movement for assemblies has shown (once again) that the union form itself is obsolete. The experience of Spain is especially important in this respect.
I noticed on libcom that you were looking for material on these movements. There is a new article on the Indignados on our site, written by comrades who took part in a number of assemblies in Spain. http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2011/september/indignados. You will be able to find a lot of other material about the movement in Spain on our site; also, the article by the TPTG group on Greece.

[Искра]

Thx comrade.

I'm writing an article called "Direct democracy and 'new mass movements'". It's about all those new movements which emerged Croatia, Greece, UK, Tunis, Egypt, Spain... etc. I wanna make an analysis of them form some kind of a Marxist perspective (hehe). I want to make emphasize on direct democratic, mass and spontaneous character of these movements, but also to debate on what exactly is “direct democracy”, what is it’s purpose and can it be achieved in its fully power within this system (of course not). My article is actually a response on one short article by my sociology professor who claimed that students in Croatia do not want direct democracy but participative democracy (and we all know the differences – don’t we? ;)), which is complete bollocks because students movement in Croatia is anti-capitalist and most of the “militants” are Marxists (without an adjectives haha). So, thank you for texts I’ll read them.



Sorry for offtopic hehe

[thefinalmarch]

I think most youth, most people especially in the States would be more susceptible to Anarcho Syndicalism.
"Susceptible"? Bro, anarcho-syndicalism isn't some sort of contagious disease :p (although some here would beg to differ)

Firstly, in terms of practice, what actually is it that separates anarcho-syndicalism from other communist tendencies? A greater focus on the revolutionary potential of unions and the general strike perhaps? Maybe so, but all communists worth their salt recognise that trade unions and the tactic of the general strike can definitely have their advantages in revolutionary contexts.

All communists worth their salt also recognise that, come the revolution, the workers may be organised as a body such as the "one big union" or they may not necessarily be organised as a distinct and conscious political entity at all.

What even are the practical differences between different tendencies anyhow? The basic and the most fundamental tactic for communist revolution is the seizure of the means of production by the working class - aside from some mumbo-jumbo about an organised vanguard party, this is what all pro-revolutionaries advocate. Indeed, it is the only possible fundamental revolutionary course of action for the working class.

Secondly, make no mistake about it, there will never be an Anarcho-syndicalist, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Trotskyist or Left Communist revolution anywhere in the world ever. Revolutions are not ideological conflicts - they are the overthrow of presently-existing material conditions. It's not as if the thousands of feeble communist sects currently existing in the world will have (or indeed, should have) any role in a revolution beyond that of agitating workers to revolt against their existing conditions.

Workers have no interest in sectarian inter-tendency conflicts. When the revolution which overthrows the bourgeoisie comes, the proletariat will most likely not march under the banner of the mass Marxist-Leninist party or the revolutionary libertarian socialist union or whatever. The revolution which overthrows capitalism and the bourgeoisie will in all likelihood not be identified by its participants as a communist revolution. The revolution will be born from the organic struggle of the working class. It will be the final expression of class struggle and, dare I say it, conscious pro-revolutionaries will be largely irrelevant given such a situation.

[Искра]

Regarding what's anarcho-sydicalism I made this topic: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-syndicalism-dummies-t121236/index.html while I was still one :)

Working class do not care about inter-tendency conflicts but they are quite important. Revolution is not just a word and what makes revolution a revolution is outcome. And outcome depends on ideology, politics, methods etc. Working class can not liberate itself if you create yet another state-capitalist system.

[syndicat]

The main flaw in your logic is that you see the persistence of capitalism as a result of "bad marketing" of this or that 'alternative ideology.'

who are you replying to?

ideology is relevant because ideas will inform and shape practice. no revolution could possibly be spontaneous, but depends on a protracted period of development within the working class. there won't be widespread acceptance of a revolutionary ideology without a willingness of growing numbers of people to engage in collective action and solidarity. but this also is not likely to lead in the direction of revolution without growing belief in an alternative path for society -- a strategy and vision for liberation.

[Conscript]

Sometimes I think about being Trotskyist so I can call everyone else a counter-revolutionary and shoot them.

At least mine made some sense..

[RebelDog]

At least mine made some sense at least..

To you maybe.....

[Conscript]

But anarchists, and me occasionally, really do do that. How many trotskyists are shooting at people right now?

It seems like you think I'm making fun of anarchism, when I was being serious.

[Искра]

But anarchists, and me occasionally, really do do that. How many trotskyists are shooting at people right now?

It seems like you think I'm making fun of anarchism, when I was being serious.

Oh, why don't you get a job?

Stop offtopicing. I don't give a fuck about Trots and they have nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism and it's perspectives...

[Conscript]

Oh, why don't you get a job?

Stop offtopicing. I don't give a fuck about Trots and they have nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism and it's perspectives...

Then why do you feel the need to open your mouth? Your post has the least to do with this thread and I certainly didn't derail it.

[MarxSchmarx]

The main flaw in your logic is that you see the persistence of capitalism as a result of "bad marketing" of this or that 'alternative ideology.'

Capitalism won't be overthrown when 50%+1 of the population is convinced by activists. Communism isn't a product to be sold. That's not how things work. It's a tough lesson to learn, but a necessary one nonetheless.


Really? Look at how capitalism operates - it must persistently and systematically inject gobs of "marketing" to keep itself afloat. And in many respects, it works very well for them. Sure it's not 50%+1, it's probably not even 33% when you look at it globally, and it helps to have powerful military machinery on your side. But enough people in enough places feel that capitalism is the only viable way forward, or that it is basically just, or that it will benefit them personally, or some combination of the above - enough people that keeps capitalism afloat in most of the world despite its horrendous costs. Given those circumstances, I can't possibly imagine how an anti-capitalist movement, at least one that isn't profoundly anti-democratic, can succeed.

Don't get me wrong - such propagandizing by capitalists is hardly sufficient to ensure their hegemony. There is also a very real material basis for capitalism's strength and, to some extent, its weakness. But capitalism only works because a large fraction of the population in some very real sense "accept it". The capitalists understand this very, very well, and have crafted an enormous intellectual and social edifice quite literally from the cradle (which you have to buy) to the grave (on which your children have to pay rent), in some sense "non-material" to sustain their ideology. That is no small part why the OP comes up against the walls they describe.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sure it's not 50%+1, it's probably not even 33% when you look at it globally

Well, comrade, since NHIA said "of the population" and not "of the working class," he may have a point.

However, if you interpreted his statement to be the latter, then would you care to elaborate? Are you suggesting sufficient apathy even during a revolutionary period?


it helps to have powerful military machinery on your side.

That's still not a shortcut for majority political support from the working class.

[MarxSchmarx]

Sure it's not 50%+1, it's probably not even 33% when you look at it globally Well, comrade, since NHIA said "of the population" and not "of the working class," he may have a point.


Hmm I'm a bit confused. I guess I was conceding NHIA's point that you don't need 50%+1 to impose your agenda (just look at capitalism).



Are you suggesting sufficient apathy even during a revolutionary period?

That's still not a shortcut for majority political support from the working class.

I agree it's not. Eventually I don't see how socialism can work long term if more than a majority persistently oppose it. But with respect to the transition from capitalism to socialism, if we look at how feudalism transitioned out of its tribal/slavery-based society or how capitalism transitioned out of its predecessors, then it's not clear "a majority" even of the capitalist classes favored the transition every time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hmm I'm a bit confused. I guess I was conceding NHIA's point that you don't need 50%+1 to impose your agenda (just look at capitalism).

Not everyone in the population is working-class. A 50%+1 majority in the class /= 50%+1 majority in the population. Yet it's clear from previous posts that NHIA rejects the former (of the class), placing all his eggs on ad hoc organs of agitated action upon agitated action (up to and include those for riots).

[There's also the question of proletarian demographic majorities vs. minorities.]

[MarxSchmarx]

Not everyone in the population is working-class. A 50%+1 majority in the class /= 50%+1 majority in the population. Yet it's clear from previous posts that NHIA rejects the former (of the class), placing all his eggs on ad hoc organs of agitated action upon agitated action (up to and include those for riots).

Hm? If 50% + 1 of the general population support capitalism and 50%+1 of "the working class" support capitalism, it doesn't matter. This was the case I was referring to.

I am guessing you are getting at a situation where if 50%+1 of the general population support capitalism and 50% + 1 of the working class oppose capitalism. Well then there is maybe a question but in societies where 80%+ of the population is working class (e.g., industrialized liberal democracies) I doubt seriously that the difference between whether 50%+1 of the working class support A whilst 50%+1 of the general population support not-A amounts to all that much in terms of concrete outcomes. Or do you think that such variation should be of concern?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am guessing you are getting at a situation where if 50%+1 of the general population support capitalism and 50% + 1 of the working class oppose capitalism.

That's right, but on top of that there is a proletarian demographic majority (like today's most developed capitalist countries) vs. a proletarian demographic minority (what revolutionary Russia had).


Well then there is maybe a question but in societies where 80%+ of the population is working class (e.g., industrialized liberal democracies) I doubt seriously that the difference between whether 50%+1 of the working class support A whilst 50%+1 of the general population support not-A amounts to all that much in terms of concrete outcomes. Or do you think that such variation should be of concern?

In the case of the First World, and assuming internal breakdowns and hostilities from the state apparatus, 50%+1 majority political support from the proletarian demographic majority (most concretely in the form of honest, party-movement voting membership or "party citizenship") means it's OK for seize power and establish a DOTP, even if 50%+1 of "the population" oppose it. Liberal "Democracy" arguments be damned at this point.

Re. your last question, there would be a concern if the reverse were true: if 50%+1 of "the population" supported "revolution" but 50%+1 of the proletarian demographic majority opposed it, then I would deem any seizure of power "on behalf of the proletariat" as a coup d'etat.

[zenmaster]

Considering the massive disinformation campaign against Marxist Leninism and Socialism in general, I think most youth, most people especially in the States would be more susceptible to Anarcho Syndicalism.

I mean it isn't as objectionable to Libertarians because for some reason they think it's "capitalism".

The only history it has is one fighting and losing against Fascism in Spain. The only present day example it has is the autonomous region controlled by the Zapatistas, which you have to be a real heartless bastard to be totally against.

I just see it as the only real radical ideology that hasn't been completely overrun with propagandist disinformation.

I mean even when I told my hardcore free enterprise loving Ron Paul adoring gf's father about it, he thought it was a dreamy utopian idea but he didn't object to it like he does with Communism thinking it's the same as fascism. Progressivism is now under attack facing the same link with Stalinism and then Fascism.

This is not to say at socialism isn't gaining appeal, but I just picture the United States to be really cynical of any State involvement in the economy or their lives that they would really behind the notion of anarcho syndicalism.

I am not trying to say I would but that it could have major appeal.

You have a good point, bro. I also think Anarcho-Syndicalism would be a lot more functional than traditional Communism or Socialism. With Communism, you have a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is really a contradiction if you think about it. It's hard to have an egalitarian society if everything is controlled by a dictator. With Socialism, you have everything centrally planned by the government, which can "chock" government bureaucracy. If everything were democratically planned by the collective, the economy would be easier to manage and make an egalitarian society more viable.

I think the appeal of Anarcho-Syndicalism is that it puts more faith in the general public by giving them more self-determination rather than have a central authority make all the decisions. It's more structured than Anarcho-Capitalism or Individualist Anarchy, so it won't end up with a 'strong man' taking advantage of everyone else.

[MarxSchmarx]

In the case of the First World, and assuming internal breakdowns and hostilities from the state apparatus, 50%+1 majority political support from the proletarian demographic majority (most concretely in the form of honest, party-movement voting membership or "party citizenship") means it's OK for seize power and establish a DOTP, even if 50%+1 of "the population" oppose it. Liberal "Democracy" arguments be damned at this point.

Re. your last question, there would be a concern if the reverse were true: if 50%+1 of "the population" supported "revolution" but 50%+1 of the proletarian demographic majority opposed it, then I would deem any seizure of power "on behalf of the proletariat" as a coup d'etat.

How likely do you think such a scenario is (i.e., disagreeement between the majority of voters and the majority of "proletarians")? I personally don't think it is very likely, at least under late-stage industrial capitalism in the first world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, Kautsky wrote of revolutionary periods at a time when Germany had a proletarian demographic majority but not to the extent that it or any of today's most developed capitalist countries has. He made the error of stating "of the population," and from there Lenin relied too much on petit-bourgeois swings.

The scenario you're envisioning, I think, is of supermajority political support from the proletarian demographic majority.

[Jose Gracchus]

Show me the proof that 1880s Germany was over 51% industrial proletarians.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Show me the proof that 1880s Germany was over 51% industrial proletarians.

You're slightly off. The Road to Power was written in 1909, so the appropriate timeframe is from 1900 to 1914.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=4IW6qicUdSgC&pg=PA35&dq=social+democrats+ascendant+party+imperial+germa ny&hl=en&ei=7-GJTqqWB8_fsQKUorWyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=social%20democrats%20ascendant%20party%20imperia l%20germany&f=false


Of all the political parties in Imperial Germany, the Social Democrats had the most dramatic electoral history. An insignificant splinter group - actually, two insignificant splinter parties - at the first elections in 1871, the Social Democrats received more votes than any other party twenty years later in the general elections of 1890. In 1912, at the last prewar elections, more than one voter in three cast his ballot for the SPD, which thus received more votes than any other two parties combined. Yet the history of the rise of the labor movement in German politics is far more dramatic than a bald recitation of the figures would imply.

[...]

The bourgeoisie, the lower middle class and the peasantry were ultimately outside the circle of SPD voters. This assertion that the SPD was a workers' party, picking up on debates from the turn of the century, generally includes a confessional qualification: the SPD was a party of Protestant workers, their Catholic counterparts far more likely to cast their votes for the Center and the French or Polish nationalists than for the SPD. Urban, blue-collar and Protestant: these three characteristics defined all levels of the labor movement before the First World War in Germany, typifying the SPD's electorate and its membership, as well as the membership of the "free" (that is, pro-SPD) trade unions and the various cultural and recreational organizations tied to the Social Democratic labor movement.

Catholic support for the SPD stayed at 5% throughout the 1890s and rose to 12.3% in 1912, and the overall Catholic electorate in Germany was 35% to the Protestant electorate's 65% (p. 57).

Continued:


Crucial to understanding the whole line of argument is noting that the blue-collar workers were a much smaller portion of the electorate than they were of the population. Depending on how you define the categories, blue-collar workers made upwards of 60% of the labor force in Wilhelmine Germany, but they were only one third of those eligible to vote in 1895, and under 40% of them in 1907. The reason for this discrepancy was the high voting age (25 years) and the very different age structures of different social classes.

[Jose Gracchus]

Uh, nowhere there do I see any evidence that industrial proletarians were 51% of the overall adult population in Wilhelmine Germany. I see evidence they were "60% of the labor force." Not the same thing.

[syndicat]

proletariat not identical with working class? in fact they are the same.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So when did the plethora of small business owners become "working-class"? :glare:

[syndicat]

people who have employees obviously aren't part of the working class. nor are managers, judges, generals and others in the bureaucratic class.

it may have been the case that in Germany in the late 1800s farmers and small business people made up a large class, so that the working class wasn't yet a majority, if that's your point.

self-employed farmers were a part of the laboring population and an alliance between them and the working class was feasible.