Anarcho-Syndicalism vs other forms of Anarchy

[sithsaber]

Forgot that description matters a lot here. What differentiates Anarcho-syndicalism in comparison to various other anarchist schools of thought?

[Caj]

Anarcho-syndicalism focuses on the use of unions or syndicates to carry out revolution. Read Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism: From Theory to Practice.

[x359594]

"The term 'Anarcho-Syndicalism' probably originates in Spain, where anarcho-syndicalist characteristics were present in the labor movement from the early 1870's -- decades before they appeared anywhere else. 'Anarcho-Syndicalism' refers to the theory and practice of revolutionary industrial unionism developed in Spain and also later France and elsewhere towards the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century.

"The use of such a long and syllable-intesive word to describe a radical social movement stems from the need in the countries where it first developed to distinguish itself from its reformist counterparts. "Sindicalismo" in Spanish, for example, simply means 'Unionism;' the addition of the 'Anarco' prefix denotes the libertarian branch of the union movement, or that which aims not only at day-to-day improvements in working conditions under capitalism, but also eventually at a fundamental improvement in the social distribution of decision-making power and access to resources -- not simply 'bigger cages and longer chains' -- through social revolution.

"While it might seem redundant to do so, 'Anarcosindicalismo' is generally translated into English as 'Anarcho-Syndicalism,' and not, as one might otherwise expect, as 'Anarcho-Unionism.' It is true that the English word 'Syndicalism' has the same distinguishing effect as the Spanish 'Anarcosindicalismo,' and that it can be and is used to describe essentially the same type of activity, particularly by those keen to avoid dogmatism and a sort of 'ivory tower' mentality . While this is so, the prefixed version is generally used for reasons of straightforwardness and consistency within the libertarian labor movement." [Courtesy of Anarcho-Syndicalism 101]

There are several sub-categories of anarchism ranging from individualist anarchism to anarchist communism. The latter is what is finally aimed at by anarcho-syndicalism.

Somewhat related to anarchist communism is anarchist collectivism, judged to be a precursor to and superseded by anarchist communism, but for some it remains an alternative to anarchist communism.

Insurrectionist anarchism is primarily a means to an end, the end being either anarchist communism or anarchist collectivism. As means, it differs from anarcho-syndicalism in that it advocates all out class war waged by small affinity groups.

I'm sure others will elaborate on these themes.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Anarcho-Syndicalism, as Caj said, sees revolutionary unions as the means to carry out revolution. On other anarchist schools of thought, here is what I posted in an earlier thread on anarchism.

"First off, I am not an anarchist so my response may be somewhat biased. I was an anarchist for a long time though, so I know what I am talking about. It seems like the anarchists on this site haven't seen this, so if you are serious about this question I would seek them out.

"Anarcho-Communism is the belief that not just the state and capitalism, but the idea of money too needs to be abolished. Instead of people working for a wage, workers would ban together, controlling the workplaces themselves, and work for 3-4 hours. No item would cost anything and all things are free. It is hoped that lazy people who wouldn't work would want to work from feeling guilty. There would be no regular police, but instead a voluntary police force. This would be like a worker one day working on the assembly line, the next day working as a police officer, and the next day back to the assembly line. This would be to take the elitism out of police work. Attributed to Kropotkin.

Anarcho-Collectivism is basically the same thing as Anarcho-Communism but with the existence of money. Prices on products would be determined by the workers the their communities before the products are made. While there is money, the market does not exist. Basically this is attributed to Bakunin and James Guillame.

Anarcho-Mutualism is the belief in the existence of a market, money, and prices alongside of the stateless society. Just like the other anarchist ideas, the state and capitalism are gone and the workers would control it all through their own, non-compulsory and voluntary organizations that anyone can or cannot be apart of. Attributed to Proudhon.

Again, I am not an anarchist. I did believe in it for a while though and I went into great study with it. You should ask people this in the Anarchist Discussion group or the Anarchist group. It would probably help you a lot more."

[Caj]

Just to correct something Anti-Capitalist said, there are no theoretical differences between anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism, only historical ones. The idea that anarcho-collectivism advocates remuneration for labor, while anarcho-communism doesn't is a very common misconception.

The anarchists of the First International called themselves collectivists so as to distinguish themselves from the Marxists (who were simply called "communists"). After the expulsion of the anarchists from the First International, they began to call themselves communists. The rhetoric and action of the anarcho-communists was far more utopian and terroristic ("propaganda by the deed") than the collectivists, a reflection of the alienation of the anarchist movement from the labor movement following the expulsion of the anarchists from the International. Theoretically, however, there were no differences.

Both the anarcho-communists and the anarcho-collectivists were concerned with what was a practical solution to the question of remuneration. Thus, we had collectivists like James Guillaume arguing that a system of production and distribution organized around the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs" be established and communists like Errico Malatesta arguing that remuneration will be a necessity immediately following the revolution in regions lacking an abundance of certain essential resources.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Just to correct something Anti-Capitalist said, there are no theoretical differences between anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism, only historical ones. The idea that anarcho-collectivism advocates remuneration for labor, while anarcho-communism doesn't is a very common misconception.

The anarchists of the First International called themselves collectivists so as to distinguish themselves from the Marxists (who were simply called "communists"). After the expulsion of the anarchists from the First International, they began to call themselves communists. The rhetoric and action of the anarcho-communists was far more utopian and terroristic ("propaganda by the deed") than the collectivists, a reflection of the alienation of the anarchist movement from the labor movement following the expulsion of the anarchists from the International. Theoretically, however, there were no differences.

Both the anarcho-communists and the anarcho-collectivists were concerned with what was a practical solution to the question of remuneration. Thus, we had collectivists like James Guillaume arguing that a system of production and distribution organized around the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs" be established and communists like Errico Malatesta arguing that remuneration will be a necessity immediately following the revolution in regions lacking an abundance of certain essential resources.

Thanks for this, I was not aware of this. I thought that Guillaume was supportive of remuneration? For example, in his writing Ideas on Social Organization (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm)the section Exchange seems to argue this.

[Caj]

Thanks for this, I was not aware of this. I thought that Guillaume was supportive of remuneration? For example, in his writing Ideas on Social Organization (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm)the section Exchange seems to argue this.


The problem of property having been resolved, and there being no capitalists placing a tax on the labor of the masses, the question of types of distribution and remuneration become secondary. We should to the greatest possible extent institute and be guided by the principle From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste. In the meantime, each community will decide for itself during the transition period the method they deem best for the distribution of the products of associated labor.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm -- right before section III

Notice the concern for practicality, rather than a dogmatic adherence to one or another system of distribution.

Here's some more from Guillaume on the distinction between collectivism and communism from a letter dated August 24, 1909 (quoted from Bakunin on Anarchy edited by Sam Dolgoff, page 158):


At first [1868 Congress of the International] the term "collectivists" designated the partisans of collective property. . . . [A]t the Basel Congress (1869) the partisans of collective ownership split into two opposing factions. Those who advocated collective ownership by the State were called "state" or "authoritarian communists." Those who advocated ownership of collective property directly by the workers' associations were called "anti-authoritarian communists" or "communist federalists" or "communist anarchists." To distinguish themselves from the authoritarians and avoid confusion, the anti-authoritarians called themselves "collectivists." . . . As to the distribution of the products of collective labor, I wrote ". . . Once the worker owns the instruments of labor, all the rest is of secondary importance. How the products of collective labor will be equitably shared must be left to the judgement of each group." . . . In my essay "On Building the New Social Order" [see selection, p. 56] I stated clearly that in the collectivist society, when machines will triple production, goods will not be sold to consumers but distributed according to needs. . . . These, and many other quotations that I could easily supply, show clearly that the collectivist Internationalists never accepted the theory of "to each according to the product of his [or her] labor."

Malatesta being paraphrased in Daniel Guerin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, page 51:


In 1884 Malatesta, drafting the program for a projected anarchist international, admitted that communism [by "communism" here, Guerin means without remuneration. Guerin perpetuated the false distinction between collectivism and communism.] could be brought about immediately only in a very limited number of areas and, "for the rest," collectivism [as in remuneration] would have to be accepted "for a transitional period."