Syndicalism vs Economism

[Paul Pott]

While I was browsing through Revleft's dictionary and the Marxists.org glossary of terms, I came across these two things, and they seem to be very similar former tendencies within the working class movement. I'm sure there has been discussion on this before.


Syndicalism



A form or development of revolutionary unionism, originating in France which aims at the possession of the means of production and distribution, and ultimately at the control of society, by federated bodies of industrial workers. Lacking a distinct theoretical model, it's sometimes refereed to as "The ideology that isn't". While baring many similarities with Anarchism, Syndicalism seeks to organise all workers on non-political lines, and states that real unity can only be built on the economic self-interest of the working class. It is opposed to or skeptical of both political organisation and political unionism.


The relevant part of the entry on "economism".


The "economists" theoretically limited the aspirations of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, asserting that further political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the vanguard role of a party with the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events.
In their deference to spontaneity in the working-class movement, the economists were against the importance of revolutionary theory and class-consciousness, and instead asserted that socialist ideology could arise out of the spontaneous movement.

Would I be mistaken in saying these are fundamentally the same creature, with economism here lacking the explicit call for "federated bodies of...workers"?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Syndicalists aren't necessarily opposed to political organization. Marxian syndicalists like Bill Haywood were often also members of some political body (in Haywood's case, the Socialist Party up until just before WW1). The FAI was a political organization, for instance, dedicated to keeping the mass syndicalist organization CNT anarchist-oriented. The modern-day Solidarity Federation in the UK warns against relying on "spontaneity" in "Fighting For Ourselves" and says that there must be a bedrock of political organization involved in the movement. Etc. It is true though that syndicalists often stress more importance on the economic struggle in contrast to other left tendencies, who often view that aspect as little more than potential "muscle" for the more explicitly political campaigns.

[Paul Pott]

So, what is syndicalism, and what is its relation to communism?

What's the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism?

[Art Vandelay]

So, what is syndicalism and what is its relation to communism?

It has the same relation to communism as any other leftist tendency, ie: communism/anarchy is our goal.

What's the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism?

Well I guess one could be a Marxist, as well as a syndicalist, and choose to not preface the word with 'anarcho.' For example the book 'black flame' (which as far as I came across in my anarchists days, is a pretty good book for a broad overview of anarchism) lists the Marxist Daniel DeLeon in the broad anarchist tradition, due to his syndicalist bent.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

For example the book 'black flame' ...lists the Marxist Daniel DeLeon in the broad anarchist tradition, due to his syndicalist bent.
Somehow, I don't imagine De Leon would be pleased by that, even if his socialist industrial unionism did have some commonality with syndicalism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The book's authors also include James Connolly and William Haywood in their "broad anarchist tradition". This is especially problematic seeing as how Haywood's Marxist faction of the IWW explicitly criticized anarchists. It's one of the problems with the book IMO

[Art Vandelay]

Somehow, I don't imagine De Leon would be pleased by that, even if his socialist industrial unionism did have some commonality with syndicalism.

I'm certainly not an expert on his thought, but I was always under the impression that De Leon was essentially a syndicalist. This might just be ignorance on my part, but that's why (re: Os's post) I never had an issue with him being included in Black Flame, since the subtitle of the book was 'the revolutionary politics of anarchism and syndicalism. I mean surely DeLeon has more in common with most anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, the the latter do with insurrectionary anarchism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think calling De Leon a syndicalist is defensible, I'd agree with it. It's really more the issue of lumping him and others into anarchism that bothers me a bit.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm certainly not an expert on his thought, but I was always under the impression that De Leon was essentially a syndicalist.
His advocacy of the necessity of a political party to fight for the working class, a party which would be voted into office, would set him apart from most syndicalists, I should think.

[Art Vandelay]

Well the book was right beside me in my bookshelf so I figured I'd read the part on Connolly and De Leon:


The question of Marxism and the IWW does bear more examination, though. There is no doubt that many prominent IWW figures like Haywood and Trautmann admired Marx, identified as Marxian socialists, accepted Marx's economic determinism to an extent unmatched by most other anarchists and syndicalists, and sometimes denounced anarchism. At the same time they advocated a "government" of "industrial socialism" through One Big Union rather than a political state. This is not a serious objection to the IWW being included within the broad anarchist tradition. As we have argued, self-identification as a Marxist or an anarchist is less important than the content of the ideas adopted, and the ideas of the IWW are certainly within the ambit of the broad anarchist tradition. It was not necessary that every IWW leader declare themselves as anarchist; their syndicalism was anarchist in itself, for syndicalism was a type of anarchism.

You were definitely right, there is a whole host of problems with what they say here. I can understand including him in a book about anarchism and syndicalism, but the conclusions they draw here are way off. I thought I remembered the book being pretty good overall, but maybe not.