Syndicalism

[Comrade #138672]

What exactly is Syndicalism? What is the difference between Syndicalism and Anarcho-Syndicalism? Where did it come from and is it still relevant today? Also, what is the Marxist perspective on Syndicalism? How does it fit in with Socialism and Anarchism? Is it really something different?

[Tim Cornelis]

Syndicalism is a broad strategical approach towards furthering socialism and the construction of a socialist society that emphasises the use of trade unions to reach said aim.

A syndicalist can be a socialist of any particular persuasion, while an anarcho-syndicalist, obviously, only an anarchist.

It originated out of class struggle and was adopted as a method of organising the working class as answer to the question how we should go about mobilising and moving towards a socialist society.

It's relevance has dwindled in the Western world since labour markets have become much more flexible. Though anticapitalist trade union membership continues to outnumber anticapitalist political party membership.

Most Marxists reject syndicalism on the basis that it is workerist: it operates on the interest of the individual worker, not in the interest of the working class as a whole. Therefore, they conclude, if syndicalism is used as tactic it leads to self-managed workplace that produce for their own interest (namely profits), and we fail to reach socialism. Some Marxists embrace syndicalism (Daniel de Leon) however.

Syndicalism is not a society (although some argue it will end up as capitalism due to reasons stated above), so it does not differ from socialism or anarchism in that regard.

[Zederbaum]

What exactly is Syndicalism?

Syndicalism is a fancy way of saying "revolutionary trade unionism".

It is the political ideology that socialism can be achieved through economic action of the workers who organise on a class basis. Economic action, namely strikes, sabotage, provided it is channelled through a class wide union, is in itself sufficient to propel the class struggle to a level where revolution arises from economic action (e.g. a massive national strike that spreads throughout all sectors of the economy, drawing in non-socialist inclined workers while weakening the capitalist and state apparatus).


What is the difference between Syndicalism and Anarcho-Syndicalism?

Anarcho-syndicalism is a narrower version of syndicalism that arose after WW 1. As the strength of syndicalism lay in its attempts at class unification, the imposition of anarchism as an official ideology defeated its main advantage.



Where did it come from and is it still relevant today?

Syndicalism is an old tradition that pops up in the early stages of industrialisation. Thus, there was a syndicalist tendency in the Chartist movement in England in the 1830s but it did not give rise to any direct descendants. Syndicalism didn't really receive theoretical expression until the Bakuninists in the First International began formulating their approach into an ideology. It survived in Spain and re-emerged in France in the 1890s as a self-aware ideology.


Also, what is the Marxist perspective on Syndicalism?

Marxism is a broad church at this point, but the dominant Marxists of the 2nd International thought it inadequate, even primitive. Nevertheless, syndicalism exerted a substantial influence on Marxism, e.g. the debate on the mass strike, the worship of soviets as the finally discovered form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the emphasis of modern Leninist groups on every minor bit of industrial action etc. Most modern descendants of the Leninists, with the possible exception of the official communists, are permeated, albeit unconsciously, with the residue of syndicalism.


How does it fit in with Socialism and Anarchism? Is it really something different?
Syndicalism is the non-stupid wing of Anarchism, simply rebranded to not immediately frighten off the potentially sympathetic. Both are a variation of Socialism.

[Igor]

Syndicalism is the non-stupid wing of Anarchism, simply rebranded to not immediately frighten off the potentially sympathetic. Both are a variation of Socialism.

is this shit really necessary on the learning forum?

[Thirsty Crow]

Most Marxists reject syndicalism on the basis that it is workerist: it operates on the interest of the individual worker, not in the interest of the working class as a whole. Therefore, they conclude, if syndicalism is used as tactic it leads to self-managed workplace that produce for their own interest (namely profits), and we fail to reach socialism. Some Marxists embrace syndicalism (Daniel de Leon) however.

This is a little misleading.

I obviously can't and won't speak for all "Marxists" here. But in my opinion, the basic fault of syndicalism is that it does not represent a clear understanding of the role and therby of the limits of the union within capitalism, which is necessarily a mediating institution between the capitalist class and the working class, but ultimately dependent on the existence of capital, and not only that, but also on its successful expansion.
Now, this could be derived from the quoted part but I would definitely object to what you say about operating on the interests of the individual worker; rather, syndicalism fails to transcend the corporatist limits all unions are bound by.

[Zederbaum]

is this shit really necessary on the learning forum?
Not necessary, but not unhelpful either, particularly in the context of the overall reply. But no harm in clarifying further:

The better tendencies within Anarchism, platformism, anarcho-syndicalism, especifismo are pretty much variations on syndicalism.

The weak, counterproductive and sometimes straight up crazy tendencies, e.g. anti-globablisation movementism, insurrectionary anarchism, and primitivism arise from the more individualist streak within Anarchism. Indeed, they can be very hostile to the collectivism that is inherent to the syndicalist lineage.

Implying that these latter tendencies are stupid is certainly something I'll stand over and as for saying in the learning forum, I fail to see the harm in being direct, providing it is not done in an uncomradely way, to those new to socialism. There are an awful lot of bluffers out there who cover themselves with the cloak of radicalism and Anarchism, in particular, suffers from more than its fair share of these.

[greenjuice]

There are reformist syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism. In the reform kind, it's basically workers having unions that organise strikes and give them barganing power when asking for better wages and work conditions.

Revolutionary Syndicalism is about two things- organisation of society and method of struggle.

As far as the organisation of society part is concerned, syndicalism is for unions being the units of society's (economic) organisation (as oppossed to capitalist firms, mutualist co-operatives, or worker coucils toghether with municipality asseblies as in collectivism and communism), and concerning struggle it holds that the unions should be the organisation that do the revolutionary struggle, as opposed to (only) the party.

There are three trends of revolutionary Syndicalism, all emerged in the end of the 19th and the beggining of the 20th century: Anarcho-Syndicalism, National-Syndicalism and De Leonism (Marxist-Syndicalism).

Anarcho-Syndicalists are just Anarcho-Communists that favour revolutionary AnSys unions as the method of struggle and units of economic organisation of the future AnCom society.

National-Syndicalism was made by George Sorel, and it's a statist nationalistic ideology that wants to replace parliament of political parties with a parliament of syndicates representing workers of the nation by a number of delegates proportional to the number of workers belonging to a particular union. A bunch of fascists considered this the ideal to strive for. Sorel was for establishing such a society trough revolutionary NatSyn unions.

De Leonism, which is based on the thought of, as the name says- Daniel De Leon, is similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism, only differs from it in theory by accepting Marxist concepts, and in practice by advocating a two-front struggle, meaning that besides revolutionary socialist unions, there needs to be a socialist party that fights in the elections/ parliament.