marxism and syndicalism

[Comrade Alex]

In my studies of left wing ideas I've come accross Marxism and syndicalism a lot
And although ive made up my mind I've seen many arguments of people stating that thier different, opossing, the same etc
What do you guys think?

[tuwix]

I think that so-called Marxists who strongly oppose to syndicalism aren't Marxists but they are Leninists; Stalinists, etc.
I hardly imagine how syndicalism or anarcho-collectivism opposes to Marx's ideas. Those ideologies advocate transferring means of production to cooperatives ruled by their own workers. I think it was exactly Marx's idea.
Certainly it is in opposition to Lenin's and Stalin's ideas. However, not the Marx's ones.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In my studies of left wing ideas I've come accross Marxism and syndicalism a lot
And although ive made up my mind I've seen many arguments of people stating that thier different, opossing, the same etc
What do you guys think?Radical unions have been part of the Marxist traddition and in the US the main syndicalist union, the IWW was founded by anarchists and marxists alike (including those who would go on to found the US CP and later Trotskyist movement) for the reasons of trying to figure out how to deal with the problems of reform socialism and reform trade-unionism.

As someone who sees "Leninism" as part of my politics I don't think there's anything opposed to syndicalism on principle in the sense that tuwix argued (but I also don't think Leninism is about the kind of party rule that the USSR became and some "[Marxist]-Leninists" i.e. Stalinists have oriented towards). Most Trotskyists probably consider anarchists in the IWW as representing a high-point for US anarchism and radicalism in general (though not without criticism).

The historical disagreement about syndicalism IMO has been not syndicalism as a tactic and strategy for organizing workers, but syndacalism as the main strategy and vehicle for revolution. For example, because class struggle goes in ups and downs, there is still a tendency within radical unions for beuocratization - especially in times of low class struggle where there may be less push and initiative from rank and file workers. Also it can cause problems in relating to wider sections of workers who are still in reformist unions. But in general, trying to organize the unorganized, promoting rank and file and shop-floor strategies and organization are all generally positive aspects of Syndicalism and so I support a lot of these efforts, but I just don't think this organizing alone is enough for workers to actually create their own liberation.

[Hit The North]

The problem with syndicalism is its one-sided insistence on the industrial struggle and its under-developed conception of the political struggle, or its inability to bridge the gap between the two. The polar-opposite counterparts to this are the so-called Orthodox Marxists on this site, like DNZ, who want to completely downgrade and subordinate the industrial struggle to the political manoeuvres of a bureaucratic mass party.

[DDR]

I think that so-called Marxists who strongly oppose to syndicalism aren't Marxists but they are Leninists; Stalinists, etc.
I hardly imagine how syndicalism or anarcho-collectivism opposes to Marx's ideas. Those ideologies advocate transferring means of production to cooperatives ruled by their own workers. I think it was exactly Marx's idea.
Certainly it is in opposition to Lenin's and Stalin's ideas. However, not the Marx's ones.

Anarchosyndicalism has to do more with leninist ideas that any other branch of anarchism. Both belive in the necesity of a vanguard organisation (for leninist is the party, for anarchosyndicalist is the union, or even a "party" like CNT-FAI in Spain), they share a similar way of organizing (democratic centralism and how the CNT works is really close), and so on.

I'm sorry that the only examples that I give is the CNT but is the only case that I have real knowledge.

[Althusser]

I think people forget that Marxist-Leninists ultimately want to dissolve the state...

MLs only see dictatorship of the proletariat/socialist authoritarian phase as a necessary prerequisite to classless society. This is why they see much of the more ultra-left (as they call it) tendencies as a bunch of impotent adventurists and non-violent bourgeois sections as spineless class collaborators.

[Emmeka]

Syndicalism and Leninism differ in tactics more than goals, they're actually fairly similar. And also, "Syndicalism" is more of an umbrella term than a concrete ideology - it just basically described anyone who advocates labour unions as a vessel for the revolution. Syndicalists are pretty much the only Anarchist group to recognize the need for a vangaurd organization (in the form of a trade union).

The predominant difference between the two is that syndicalists think that the revolution can be won using a general strike. Always. They see the general strike as an infallible tactic and labour unions as the ideal organization.

Marxist-Leninists tend to be a bit more dynamic in tactics. While of course we advocate participation in labour unions and support general strikes that have revolutionary potential, we also believe in diversification of tactics. Look into what Lenin had to say about the July Days of 1917, when there was a general strike that the Bolsheviks nervously supported.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For better or worse, there exists Marxist syndicalism, associated with de Leon in the United States, and with Sorel in France. In any case, it should be noted that differences between Leninism and syndicalism are not limited to tactical questions - syndicalists deny the necessity of a proletarian party, before and after the revolution, and they advocate syndical (as opposed to state) ownership of the means of production and the management of economy by mutual aid organisations like the French Bourses du Travail, instead of a planned economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Semendyaev, only that "associated with DeLeon" would count as "Marxist syndicalism." The one "with Sorel" wasn't Marxist, and Sorel was never a Marxist in the first place, but a neo-Bakuninite for his day.

Besides, DeLeonism doesn't deny the necessity of a political party, but in fact demands it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

True; my statement about syndicalism denying the need for a political party was an overgeneralisation. Even so, as far as I know DeLeonism downplays the significance of the proletarian party vis a vis industrial unions, not just in matters of tactics, but in matters of state organisation as well.

As for Sorel, certainly he was not the most consistent of Marxists, and had always been an idealist, but he started his political career in the Marxist L’Ère Nouvelle, and could arguably be considered part of the same revisionist tendency as Bernstein, de Man and so on. (I never said he was a good Marxist.)

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I see syndicalism as a method, not as the end of history so to speak.

[MP5]

Some Leninists i know (by no means in the majority) don't agree with syndicalism at all though i don't see how it goes against Marxist theory as militant trade unionism is a good way to work towards workers self emancipation. It get's them organized and helps get them all on the same page and injects a healthy dose of militant thought into the working class. The Irish Socialist James Connolly for instance was heavily influenced by Syndicalism.

I see it as a very good way to revolutionize the workers. Sadly unions these days are little more then a necessary evil to act as a buffer between the worker and the Capitalist so the worker does not get as screwed over as they would in a non union job. They are not revolutionary anymore at all in North America anyway. But Syndicalism is basically just another tool in class warfare and in my opinion a very good one at that.

[MarxSchmarx]

Besides, DeLeonism doesn't deny the necessity of a political party, but in fact demands it.

Indeed. I think it is often lost that de Leonism was a two-pronged strategy. Of course the industrial unionism (being the "sword") gets much of the attention, but the broader political context in which such a movement operates has never been lost on the de Leonists.


True; my statement about syndicalism denying the need for a political party was an overgeneralisation. Even so, as far as I know DeLeonism downplays the significance of the proletarian party vis a vis industrial unions, not just in matters of tactics, but in matters of state organisation as well.

As for Sorel, certainly he was not the most consistent of Marxists, and had always been an idealist, but he started his political career in the Marxist L’Ère Nouvelle, and could arguably be considered part of the same revisionist tendency as Bernstein, de Man and so on. (I never said he was a good Marxist.)

I think the point that DNZ makes above speaks to this idea that de Leonism "downplays" the party.

It is true that the party is largely ancillary to the industrial unionism, particularly as an instrument for defeating capitalism. However, it is also true that de Leonism recognizes that a party complements "syndicalism". Syndicalism can only advance so far under capitalist regimes, or, perhaps more mildly, the party provides a framework that "enables" syndicalism. This is the "shield" side of the equation. Victory would be contingent upon the industrial unions gaining power, but in the interim the state must be blocked, and the party provides a means to do so by appropriating the state's own logic. The party, in essence, is the jujitsu component. But the engine of progress, as you note, remains the union.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To complement the point above, Semendyaev, DeLeonists see the party as "ancillary" to industrial unionism only to the extent that it is the party's tasks to gain the political power necessary to lift any restrictions on the industrial union from itself launching the "social" revolution.

There are legitimately Marxist (in terms of strategy) variations on the interplay between the party and the syndicate. My own logic is different from comrade MS's, that the syndicate side of things is the rear leg of a combatant vs. the official party being the front leg, and that the syndicate *must* (not inherently is) engage in class-based public policymaking struggle / class-based political struggle / genuine class struggle from the outset. This I call Sociopolitical Syndicalism. What happens if the official party-movement gets compromised, especially by losing its political character (particularly after said official party-movement takes power)?

A comrade who used to post here had a different logic but had a strategically logical interplay, in that it is only from the syndicate that legit workers' councils can form. This he called Revolutionary Industrial Unionism.

[Narodnik]

Marxism and Syndicalism = DeLeonism

[Old Bolshie]

There was a syndicalist faction within the Bolshevik party during the first years of the revolution called "Workers Opposition". This platform was led by Alexander Shlyapnikov and Alexandra Kollontai who was member of the Bolshevik CC in 1917. They argued for the leading role of the Trade Unions in the soviet economy and formed one the main organized oppositions to Lenin's rule within the Bolshevik Party until 1921 when the ban of factions was implemented. Despite their repression as an organized faction within the party Alexander Shlyapnikov was included in CC and some of their proposals adopted.

Lenin accused them of "syndicalist deviation":

"Now we add to our platform the following: we must combat the ideological confusion of those unsound elements of the opposition who go to the lengths of repudiating all 'militarisation of economy', of repudiating not only the 'method of appointing' which has been the prevailing method up to now, but all appointments. In the last analysis this means repudiating the leading role of the Party in relation to the non-Party masses. We must combat the syndicalist deviation which will kill the Party if it is not completely cured of it".

Trotsky sided with Lenin in the defense of the party's leading role:

"They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy !"

''The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class. . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy. . . "

Essentially, the conflict between Leninism and syndicalism lies in whom should take the leading role of the revolution. Syndicalists believe that Unions should take it while Leninists argue for the party.

[Forward Union]

As a syndicalist myself, Id say we need to look at what the difference today is. I suggest reading Partyism vs Syndicalism (http://libcom.org/library/partyism-versus-syndicalism) for why we ought to take a step back and begin rebuilding the grassroots organs of class power, and not political parties.

Frankly, even from a proper Leninist perspective, the role of the party is to gather the most militant layer of the workers movement to form an ideological and political vanguard to lead the mass workers movement. Look around you. You're fighting over leading a collapsed framework, at best. I sincrely believe that Partyism is at best a distraction and at worst a disease preventing modern working people who recognise the need for any form of Socailsim from working together on an economic or "bread and butter" basis, building inclusive, not exclusive economic organisations, Unions, Residents associations, etc, which can bring in the majority of working people.

Since adopting a syndicalist praxis I've got quite alot of my friends, family, and colleagues involved in Unions fighting for their interests as workers on an economic basis. This is far more useful then convincing an rival Trotskyist that Kronstadt was blablabla.

I mean just look how boring, archaic and ultimately out of touch all the replies to this question have been. Would your colleagues or co-workers care about any of this?

[svenne]

Saying marxism + syndicalism = de Leonism is just US-centric, since a lot of countries have had, and still have, anarcho-syndicalist unions that are active to this day. Add onto that each countrys particular tradition, where the anarcho-syndicalists have had different starting points, and different trajectories - and different places in todays society. This makes the idea of attacking syndicalism as an abstract theoretical position bizarre, since their positions on a lot of issues - say, political parties, the unions role in a future revolution etc. - differs a lot. The idea about all syndicalists thinking communist parties are the devil is just bending reality, and the idea that all syndicalists come together in the belief that the general strike is the vehicle of the revolution, is uninformed about the syndicalism existing today.

In short: people can't just pick a quote from Lenin or Luxemburg - and i enjoy both of them, err, well, i read both of them - and use it as an argument today (especially since a lot of it is polemic against opponents which has been dead for 70 years or so). We've got to remember that the class struggle was different 100 years ago. While syndicalism might not be the road to the revolution today, or even yesterday, it still exists - in some places - as a union for the workers, keeps the memory of class struggle alive (in the long wave of wildcat strikes in Sweden in the 1970's and 80's, workplaces which had an active syndicalist presence had more strikes than places without them), and acts as an existing organization of workers' power. And in the end, syndicalism is pretty much only interesting if you live in a country or city with one or more radical unions, which makes syndicalism more of a local phenomenon, rather than a communist party in the international sense.

Note: i use anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism about the same thing, while i guess there exists differences in other languages.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I sincrely believe that Partyism is at best a distraction and at worst a disease preventing modern working people who recognise the need for any form of Socailsim from working together on an economic or "bread and butter" basis, building inclusive, not exclusive economic organisations, Unions, Residents associations, etc, which can bring in the majority of working people.

Where have they addressed smaller political issues like local corruption simplified registration processes to bigger political issues like sweeping media overhaul?

It is the focus on "bread and butter" economic issues that is the distraction from class politics.

[subcp]

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between syndicalism and the early support of labor unions by the IWMA and later the Second International; revolutionary syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism and the Wobblies all developed as a reaction against the 'parliamentary cretinism' of the mass socialist parties and eschewed the political struggle (defining it as participation in local and national electoral campaigns, state office); aside from examples like De Leonism which tried to integrate both ideas (radical unionism and a Second International style mass socialist party)- and also a reaction against craft unionism and trade unionism, the unions associated with the mainstream labor movement in most central capitalist countries for being 'yellow'.

[homegrown terror]

syndicalism without anarchism is a beast without claws or teeth. anarchism without syndicalism is a beast without eyes or ears.

[MarxSchmarx]

DeLeonists see the party as "ancillary" to industrial unionism only to the extent that it is the party's tasks to gain the political power necessary to lift any restrictions on the industrial union from itself launching the "social" revolution.


This is an important clarification. I only hasten to add that DeLeonism argues that "socialism from above", i.e., social transformation directed from a state that grabbed the reigns of power, is simply not viable. As you note, this is why the party mainly serves as a tool to fight against imposition of "capitalism from above", while deLeonists see real change going on outside of state institutions (i.e., within "society").


My own logic is different from comrade MS's, that the syndicate side of things is the rear leg of a combatant vs. the official party being the front leg, and that the syndicate *must* (not inherently is) engage in class-based public policymaking struggle / class-based political struggle / genuine class struggle from the outset. This I call Sociopolitical Syndicalism. What happens if the official party-movement gets compromised, especially by losing its political character (particularly after said official party-movement takes power)?


These are valid distinctions, however at the present stage of the struggle, my feeling is that a lot of this is a matter of degree of emphasis, and not (as yet) of principle. That may very well change, but I think the movement is nascent enough that there is room for both approaches to develop.


Saying marxism + syndicalism = de Leonism is just US-centric, since a lot of countries have had, and still have, anarcho-syndicalist unions that are active to this day. Add onto that each countrys particular tradition, where the anarcho-syndicalists have had different starting points, and different trajectories - and different places in todays society. This makes the idea of attacking syndicalism as an abstract theoretical position bizarre, since their positions on a lot of issues - say, political parties, the unions role in a future revolution etc. - differs a lot. The idea about all syndicalists thinking communist parties are the devil is just bending reality, and the idea that all syndicalists come together in the belief that the general strike is the vehicle of the revolution, is uninformed about the syndicalism existing today.


The issue is to what extent revolutionary syndacalism in America was tied to deLeonism. Of course the United States had a vibrant anarcho-syndicalism movement that was strongly linked to movements in other countries. In fact I would argue that deLeonism played a transient, essentially minor part of the American syndicalist movement. De Leonism's american accomplishments are only better relative to the ideology's succes outside of anglo-saxon countries. It's worth noting that IIRC in teh UK and Australia, deLeonism was about as minor a contribution as it was in the US.



In short: people can't just pick a quote from Lenin or Luxemburg - and i enjoy both of them, err, well, i read both of them - and use it as an argument today (especially since a lot of it is polemic against opponents which has been dead for 70 years or so). We've got to remember that the class struggle was different 100 years ago. While syndicalism might not be the road to the revolution today, or even yesterday, it still exists - in some places - as a union for the workers, keeps the memory of class struggle alive (in the long wave of wildcat strikes in Sweden in the 1970's and 80's, workplaces which had an active syndicalist presence had more strikes than places without them), and acts as an existing organization of workers' power. And in the end, syndicalism is pretty much only interesting if you live in a country or city with one or more radical unions, which makes syndicalism more of a local phenomenon, rather than a communist party in the international sense.

Note: i use anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism about the same thing, while i guess there exists differences in other languages.

I disagree that syndicalism requires the local presence of a radical union. Even moderately reformist or craft unions have rank and file members who are quite sympathetic to radical demands. Organizing caucuses within such unions and occasionally running slates composed of radicals is a way to shift a lackluster union into a potentially syndicalist element. One need not be formally affiliated with, say, the IWW to begin to struggle for revolutioanry industriall unionism.



syndicalism without anarchism is a beast without claws or teeth. anarchism without syndicalism is a beast without eyes or ears.

I wouldn't characterize anarchism without syndicailsm as a "beast". The likes of John Zerzan are more a pimple on a fly's butt. But the second part is a cute slogan. would you care to clarify it?

[homegrown terror]

I wouldn't characterize anarchism without syndicailsm as a "beast". The likes of John Zerzan are more a pimple on a fly's butt. But the second part is a cute slogan. would you care to clarify it?

basically i'm saying that syndicalism without anarchism is all direction and no action, but anarchism with without syndicalism is all action and no direction.

[MP5]

basically i'm saying that syndicalism without anarchism is all direction and no action, but anarchism with without syndicalism is all action and no direction.

I would disagree with you on both points of that. For one thing more then a few Marxists have used Syndicalism with as great of impact as any Anarchist. Also Anarchism need not have Syndicalism as it's driving force to go in a direction per se.

[Forward Union]

Where have they addressed smaller political issues like local corruption simplified registration processes to bigger political issues like sweeping media overhaul?

It is the focus on "bread and butter" economic issues that is the distraction from class politics.

Unless you are in a position to address Sweeping media overhall, all you are doing is discussing how many angels you can fit on the head of a needle. You need a Syndicalist strategy to rebuild the labour movement before your Ideas can be brought back onto the political map.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what about the upcoming minimum wage referendum in New Jersey? Right there ordinary workers realized that being political from the start was the best course of action, not any form of unionism, even syndicalism, or some other economistic course of action.

Switzerland didn't need a union movement to put this to a vote: http://www.revleft.com/vb/socio-income-democracy-t180000/index.html