anarcho-syndicalism

[L.A.P.]

I've been reading about anarcho-syndicalism and it's lead me to a fundamental question: does anarcho-syndicalism advocate for a society in which there's a "cooperative economic system where each factory/shop/department is democratically controlled by the producers who work in it"? Because that sounds a lot different from the common ownership of the means of production. I actually liked Bordiga's criticisms that under such a society where each of those entities needs to exchange with other entities, there would need to be some equivalent, thus the reintroduction of a money-system (not to mention it sounds a lot like mutualism). However, from what I understand, most anarcho-syndicalists today would consider themselves more Marxist than anything else. Also, the SAC is supposed to be one of the most well-known anarcho-syndicalist labor unions even though it contradicts the theory itself (revolutionary unions are supposed to be organized to represent the collective interests of workers in a specific trade or department. Yet the SAC not only includes workers of all types, but even allows students and the unemployed). So how has anarcho-syndicalism as a real movement historically changed and what distinguishes it from just a vague form of libertarian socialism.

I've also been reading Workers' Councils by Anton Pannekeok (very boring) and I still can't figure out what the theoretical differences are between anarcho-syndicalism and council communism that aren't historical. Pannekeok says that labor unions are ran by a bureaucracy while the workers passively make up the organizational base. While in workers councils, the workers do the staff work and the production. But the delegate system that Pannekeok advocates for doesn't seem to be all that different from the revolutionary syndicates.

help a person out

[Comrade Chernov]

does anarcho-syndicalism advocate for a society in which there's a "cooperative economic system where each factory/shop/department is democratically controlled by the producers who work in it"? Because that sounds a lot different from the common ownership of the means of production.

It sounds exactly like common ownership to me.

[Skyhilist]

I've been reading about anarcho-syndicalism and it's lead me to a fundamental question: does anarcho-syndicalism advocate for a society in which there's a "cooperative economic system where each factory/shop/department is democratically controlled by the producers who work in it"?

That sounds about right, and there is also a lot of bottom-up structuring. All of the factories would be just isolated and separate. Different industries would be working cohesively.


Because that sounds a lot different from the common ownership of the means of production.

What makes you think so? The idea of delegates is found in left communist theory, council communist theory, etc. as well. Some criticize the idea of "democracy" who are left-coms but really they usually just mean that there should be thorough discussions about things where people then try to arrive at a common agreement, rather than just voting on a whim. And I really don't think many anarcho-syndicalists would disagree with that either. The only really striking different I can see is that anarcho-syndicalists want to use these syndicates/councils as a main strategy for achieving revolution.


I actually liked Bordiga's criticisms that under such a society where each of those entities needs to exchange with other entities, there would need to be some equivalent, thus the reintroduction of a money-system (not to mention it sounds a lot like mutualism).

That's a common criticism. But it misunderstands the way things work. The idea is that communities negotiate needs with syndicates and the syndicates under a common federation (e.g. clothing production) negotiate what syndicates will do what to produce the amount required.

If the people making the demands for resources are being unreasonable, here's what happens: the syndicates negotiate with the communities. In the unlikely event that they can't reach an agreement, it should be obvious that one or more of the parties involved is being unreasonable. In which case, there can be consequences such as refusal to trade certain resources until a syndicate/community becomes reasonable again. Consider it like how when a company gets very bad reviews or does something people don't like, there's a consumer boycott. Being unreasonable hurts the party that's being unreasonable. At the same time, if some other group boycotts or cuts ties for a silly reason with a syndicate/community, they can face similar consequences. So really, common reason prevails because being unreasonable never helps.

The negotiation process therefore need not involve money.


However, from what I understand, most anarcho-syndicalists today would consider themselves more Marxist than anything else.

Nah, anarcho-syndicalists are not marxists, although most have been strongly influenced by Marx. Marxist DeLeonists on the other hand are both Marxists and syndicalists.


Also, the SAC is supposed to be one of the most well-known anarcho-syndicalist labor unions even though it contradicts the theory itself (revolutionary unions are supposed to be organized to represent the collective interests of workers in a specific trade or department. Yet the SAC not only includes workers of all types, but even allows students and the unemployed).

Being a student still involves some pretty serious work I'd say. Besides, students and unemployed people who were capable of working at somewhat would be organized into workforces during a revolution anyways, so it makes sense to include them I'd say, although some other unions that are syndicalist-influenced like the IWW choose not to. Probably not a huge deal right now since we're nowhere near achieving any revolution.


So how has anarcho-syndicalism as a real movement historically changed and what distinguishes it from just a vague form of libertarian socialism.[/QUOTES]

Anarcho-syndicalism is very structured. It attempts to achieve large scale political action without hierarchy whenever possible. And specifically it's emphasis on syndicalist unions is stronger than other types of libertarian socialists who don't necessarily see this as a main strategy.

Most anarcho-syndicalists would want to follow the methods of scientific socialism. This means that our praxis should change when we note mistakes are made by anarcho-syndicalists previously. One good example of this is with the CNT-FAI. One common mistake that many anarcho-syndicalists point to is that everything was organized in terms of syndicalist movements with no straightforward outlet for community needs that didn't necessarily relate to the workplace. The republican government seemed to offer this, which caused the FAI to spur a successful vote to compromise with them. This weakened revolutionary fervor in the CNT-FAI. A common criticism therefore is that communities need to be thoroughly organized with outlets for expression, debate, and decision-making rather than just work-places. This is likely something that would be addressed in any syndicalist-influenced revolution in the future.

Another problem is that the CNT-FAI sort of didn't help themselves internationally. Their support for anarchists in Morocco, for example, was quite weak. This led to them getting less genuine support in return. So really, they could have been a lot better with helping out with international struggles. Also they should have built up arguments with revolutionaries from different parts of the world involving reciprocal promises to help each other fight should they ever have a shot at revolution. Things like these would also be addressed and implemented in the future most likely.

Basically I think these are the two main ways that anarcho-syndicalists would change their praxis from what it's historically been.

[QUOTE]I've also been reading Workers' Councils by Anton Pannekeok (very boring) and I still can't figure out what the theoretical differences are between anarcho-syndicalism and council communism that aren't historical. Pannekeok says that labor unions are ran by a bureaucracy while the workers passively make up the organizational base.

If that were happening then a union by definition would no longer be anarcho-syndicalist because it'd contain hierarchy. In true syndicalist unions there is absolutely no unaccountable authority and absolutely all delegates must report back to the workers, and can be recalled at any moment if they act according to what they want rather than what the workers want.

The differences between anarcho-syndicalism and council communism are largely semantical though. The latter, being Marxists, believe in DOTP (a state), and anarcho-syndicalists don't. That's mainly because they don't have the same definition for terms like "the state". The biggest difference that isn't semantical is that the central, most important strategy in syndicalism utilizes syndicalist unions.


While in workers councils, the workers do the staff work and the production. But the delegate system that Pannekeok advocates for doesn't seem to be all that different from the revolutionary syndicates.[/QUOTES]

They are not largely different. The ideas of strategy are different, and historically there have been some disagreements, but a lot of the differences as I've said, are based mainly on semantics. The two are nowhere near polar opposites, and in fact any council communist who can't get along with an anarcho-syndicalist (or vice versa) is incredibly sectarian.

[QUOTE]help a person out

I hope this helped.

[Remus Bleys]

That sounds about right, and there is also a lot of bottom-up structuring. All of the factories would be just isolated and separate. Different industries would be working cohesively.
And that's how it doesn't seem to be common ownership. Common ownership is society "owning" every means of production, not the workers in an isolated factory owning that isolated factory.


What makes you think so? The idea of delegates is found in left communist theory, council communist theory, etc. as well.
Delegates is, as far as I know, found in all communist theory. However, the whole one factory owns that factory isn't really common ownership, its sounds like a more communist-friendly version of mutualism.

Some criticize the idea of "democracy" who are left-coms but really they usually just mean that there should be thorough discussions about things where people then try to arrive at a common agreement, rather than just voting on a whim.
I mean not really but whatever.

And I really don't think many anarcho-syndicalists would disagree with that either.
Now they don't.

The only really striking different I can see is that anarcho-syndicalists want to use these syndicates/councils as a main strategy for achieving revolution.

Otto Ruhle is famous for the phrase "the revolution is not a party affair" and as far as i know, he also saw the factory councils as the only way the revolution could be achieved.


That's a common criticism. But it misunderstands the way things work. The idea is that communities negotiate needs with syndicates and the syndicates under a common federation (e.g. clothing production) negotiate what syndicates will do what to produce the amount required.
What do you mean by "negotiate"?


The negotiation process therefore need not involve money.
Is there exchange in this process at all?



Nah, anarcho-syndicalists are not marxists, although most have been strongly influenced by Marx. Marxist DeLeonists on the other hand are both Marxists and syndicalists.
Many modern day anarcho-syndicalists would consider themselves marxists?



Being a student still involves some pretty serious work I'd say. Besides, students and unemployed people who were capable of working at somewhat would be organized into workforces during a revolution anyways, so it makes sense to include them I'd say, although some other unions that are syndicalist-influenced like the IWW choose not to. Probably not a huge deal right now since we're nowhere near achieving any revolution.Students are typically liberal reactionary filth. And that's coming from a student.




Anarcho-syndicalism is very structured. It attempts to achieve large scale political action without hierarchy whenever possible. And specifically it's emphasis on syndicalist unions is stronger than other types of libertarian socialists who don't necessarily see this as a main strategy.
I think we would have to define what you mean by "union."


If that were happening then a union by definition would no longer be anarcho-syndicalist because it'd contain hierarchy. In true syndicalist unions there is absolutely no unaccountable authority and absolutely all delegates must report back to the workers, and can be recalled at any moment if they act according to what they want rather than what the workers want.
Yes, but why wouldn't it happen? What do you think a syndicalist union is?

The differences between anarcho-syndicalism and council communism are largely semantical though. The latter, being Marxists, believe in DOTP (a state), and anarcho-syndicalists don't.
So what does the anarcho-syndicalists argue in place of a dictatorship of the proletariat?

That's mainly because they don't have the same definition for terms like "the state". The biggest difference that isn't semantical is that the central, most important strategy in syndicalism utilizes syndicalist unions. I have heard that Council Communism is highly centralized.




They are not largely different. The ideas of strategy are different, and historically there have been some disagreements, but a lot of the differences as I've said, are based mainly on semantics. The two are nowhere near polar opposites, and in fact any council communist who can't get along with an anarcho-syndicalist (or vice versa) is incredibly sectarian.

Nah I've heard they are very different, though I haven't been very well read in either of the two theories so I wouldn't know.

[Skyhilist]

Well, you've turned something that should've been educational for the OP into a long argument about whether or not anarcho-syndicalism is a good idea. The idea in this particular thread is to help the OP understand, not attack the idea that a person is still comprehending. Now I must respond to re-clarify what anarcho-syndicalism actually is.


And that's how it doesn't seem to be common ownership. Common ownership is society "owning" every means of production, not the workers in an isolated factory owning that isolated factory.

Society controls the production by telling syndicates what needs to be produced. And like I said, there's nothing isolated about it. Workplaces and communities all needing each other work in cohesion.


Delegates is, as far as I know, found in all communist theory.

No, many communists want representatives instead of delegates.


However, the whole one factory owns that factory isn't really common ownership, its sounds like a more communist-friendly version of mutualism.

That's an exaggeration. Communities explicitly tell syndicates what needs to be produced. They control production. The thing workplaces have control over is how production is done and how their workplace is run internally. It makes sense because for example, workers in a steel factory are going to understand how production of steel can be done most efficiently rather than society as a whole.


I mean not really but whatever.

1. Wow rude
2. Yes really, I've heard numerous left-coms on here argue that point


Otto Ruhle is famous for the phrase "the revolution is not a party affair" and as far as i know, he also saw the factory councils as the only way the revolution could be achieved.

Ok that's fine, but anarcho-syndicalists in general still tend to place more importance on syndicates being the central strategy for achieving revolution.


What do you mean by "negotiate"?

I'll give an example. A community decides "We need 100,000 fifty inch TVs in the next month so every person here can have a large screen TV"

The syndicates respond: "There's no way we can produce that much in a single month. We can make 100,000 smaller TVs though or meet your demands over the course of a few months"

Community responds: "Ok well how about we compromise and instead do x, y, z?"

Over time they come to an agreement. These negotiations wouldn't usually be needed since the ordinary needs most communities would have could likely be met fairly easily with large coordinated syndicates. If rarely did happen and the two parties didn't reach an agreement, one could cut ties with the other and spread the word to other labor confederations and communities at meetings of delegates. It'd likely be bad for whichever party was being unreasonable because they could have further ties severed with them until they changed and became reasonable again. So really, common reason and fair compromises when necessary should prevail because it's in everyone's best interest.


Is there exchange in this process at all?

Not really. Syndicates serve communities. Members of syndicates are also part of communities. So they both meet other people's needs and proclaim their own needs for other syndicates to meet.


Many modern day anarcho-syndicalists would consider themselves marxists?

No, but you can be influenced by Marx without being a marxist.


Students are typically liberal reactionary filth. And that's coming from a student.

Yeah, today's students. Obviously things aren't the same with a class-conscious majority.


I think we would have to define what you mean by "union."

A coordinated body of workers that strive for a goal. In syndicalist unions, the structuring is bottom-up and one of the long term goals is always revolution.


Yes, but why wouldn't it happen? What do you think a syndicalist union is?

A syndicalist union implies bottom-up structuring and total accountability. Class conscious anarchist workers wont just voluntarily give up their say and let delegates make all the decisions without question, relinquishing their control. Besides if you think it would happen, the burden of proof is on you.


So what does the anarcho-syndicalists argue in place of a dictatorship of the proletariat?

We argue something very similar it's just that we don't call it that because we have a different definition of what DOTP is. Like I said, it's largely semantical.


I have heard that Council Communism is highly centralized.

The idea is unity via bottom-up structuring the leads to action by a single large body. So it is coordinated effort without unaccountable, central authority.



Nah I've heard they are very different, though I haven't been very well read in either of the two theories so I wouldn't know.[/QUOTE]

[helot]

I've been reading about anarcho-syndicalism and it's lead me to a fundamental question: does anarcho-syndicalism advocate for a society in which there's a "cooperative economic system where each factory/shop/department is democratically controlled by the producers who work in it"? Because that sounds a lot different from the common ownership of the means of production. I actually liked Bordiga's criticisms that under such a society where each of those entities needs to exchange with other entities, there would need to be some equivalent, thus the reintroduction of a money-system (not to mention it sounds a lot like mutualism).

Anarcho-syndicalists are communists hence the IWA-AIT statutes advocating 'libertarian communism'.





Also, the SAC is supposed to be one of the most well-known anarcho-syndicalist labor unions even though it contradicts the theory itself (revolutionary unions are supposed to be organized to represent the collective interests of workers in a specific trade or department. Yet the SAC not only includes workers of all types, but even allows students and the unemployed).

It's best to understand an anarcho-syndicalist union as a workplace and community union.




And that's how it doesn't seem to be common ownership. Common ownership is society "owning" every means of production, not the workers in an isolated factory owning that isolated factory.

Delegates is, as far as I know, found in all communist theory. However, the whole one factory owns that factory isn't really common ownership, its sounds like a more communist-friendly version of mutualism.

Anarcho-syndicalists do advocate common ownership.



Many modern day anarcho-syndicalists would consider themselves marxists?


Nope.




So what does the anarcho-syndicalists argue in place of a dictatorship of the proletariat?

To quote IWA-AIT statutes:

"economic communities and administrative organs run by the workers in the field and factories, forming a system of free councils without subordination to any authority or political party"

So a federation of workers councils.







Btw, doesn't council communism advocate spontaneity?

[Remus Bleys]

Well, you've turned something that should've been educational for the OP into a long argument about whether or not anarcho-syndicalism is a good idea. The idea in this particular thread is to help the OP understand, not attack the idea that a person is still comprehending. Now I must respond to re-clarify what anarcho-syndicalism actually is.
Not really. And debates are the best form of learning.

Anarcho-syndicalism to me has always been more of a tactic than an end goal.


Society controls the production by telling syndicates what needs to be produced. And like I said, there's nothing isolated about it. Workplaces and communities all needing each other work in cohesion.
Yes and this was unclear.



No, many communists want representatives instead of delegates.
This isn't really true. At all.


That's an exaggeration. Communities explicitly tell syndicates what needs to be produced. They control production. The thing workplaces have control over is how production is done and how their workplace is run internally. It makes sense because for example, workers in a steel factory are going to understand how production of steel can be done most efficiently rather than society as a whole.
Isn't this still division of labor? Can I be a book keeper monday, a farmer tuesday, a steelworker thursday?



1. Wow rude
I didn't want to turn it into that debate so thats why i just commented.




Ok that's fine, but anarcho-syndicalists in general still tend to place more importance on syndicates being the central strategy for achieving revolution.
Okay. I was just throughing that out there.



words
I apologize for not being clear enough. I meant what do you mean by negotiations. Like, was there exchange between the two parties, etc? Why follow through with this exchange?



Not really. Syndicates serve communities. Members of syndicates are also part of communities. So they both meet other people's needs and proclaim their own needs for other syndicates to meet. So why doesnt society control and plan everything?




No, but you can be influenced by Marx without being a marxist.Im saying most of the anarcho-syndicalists i have encountered say they are marxists. But I could be wrong anyway.



A coordinated body of workers that strive for a goal. In syndicalist unions, the structuring is bottom-up and one of the long term goals is always revolution.So how does it serve traditional union things such as working with the bosses?





We argue something very similar it's just that we don't call it that because we have a different definition of what DOTP is. Like I said, it's largely semantical. This didn't really answer my question.

[tuwix]

I've been reading about anarcho-syndicalism and it's lead me to a fundamental question: does anarcho-syndicalism advocate for a society in which there's a "cooperative economic system where each factory/shop/department is democratically controlled by the producers who work in it"? Because that sounds a lot different from the common ownership of the means of production.

Absolute common ownership will happen only after eliminating of money that means when communism (second phase) will come. But what you describe is workers's ownership of its work place. It looks similarly in many left-wing ideologies from mutualism to pure Marxism.

[Hrafn]

Re: Students:

To my know,edge, SAC accepts students yes, but most students would normally join my own organization, SUF (official translation is Swedish Anarcho-Syndicalist Youth Federation, correct translation is Syndicalist Youth Federation). It's not in any way formally connected to SAC, but often works closely with them, sharing resources and what not. Some SUF members are also unionized in SAC where applicable, I'm not due to b eing a filthly student, and many "move on" to the union when they consider themselves having gone too old for a youth group.

[Radio Spartacus]

I'm curious about the division of labor in syndicalist society. Also, would there be some mechanism in place to ensure the workers of such and such syndicate (im new to syndicalism, apologies if i'm using the term wrong) are being honest with the community? How does one stop them from exploiting what could be construed as a position of power over society? When everyone works at different places whenever they wish I think there's a safeguard against that, but it seems like there's a large division of labor in this society.

I may be misunderstanding, I'm poorly read as far as syndicalist ideas go

[argeiphontes]

I've been reading about anarcho-syndicalism and it's lead me to a fundamental question: does anarcho-syndicalism advocate for a society in which there's a "cooperative economic system where each factory/shop/department is democratically controlled by the producers who work in it"? Because that sounds a lot different from the common ownership of the means of production.


There can be a difference in the level at which something is "owned" and who is empowered to control it as it is used for production.



I actually liked Bordiga's criticisms that under such a society where each of those entities needs to exchange with other entities, there would need to be some equivalent, thus the reintroduction of a money-system (not to mention it sounds a lot like mutualism).
As Chomsssssssky said, it can be done through in-kind calculation or other coordinated means besides buying and selling in money-equivalents.



Anarcho-syndicalism to me has always been more of a tactic than an end goal.


Anarchists like to create institutions that have a function in the current struggle but also prefigure the future society. (Remember my love for worker cooperatives? ;) )

From the Anarchist FAQ Section I 2.3 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI2.html#seci23):



For Kropotkin, like Bakunin, libertarian labour unions were "natural organs for the direct struggle with capitalism and for the composition of the future social order." [quoted by Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p. 81]


From Anarchist FAQ J.3.8, "What is anarcho-syndicalism?" (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ3.html#secj38) (bold and italics in original):



Thus Emma Goldman:
"Of course Syndicalism, like the old trade unions, fights for immediate gains, but it is not stupid enough to pretend that labour can expect humane conditions from inhumane economic arrangements in society. Thus it merely wrests from the enemy what it can force him to yield; on the whole, however, Syndicalism aims at, and concentrates its energies upon, the complete overthrow of the wage system.

"Syndicalism goes further: it aims to liberate labour from every institution that has not for its object the free development of production for the benefit of all humanity. In short, the ultimate purpose of Syndicalism is to reconstruct society from its present centralised, authoritative and brutal state to one based upon the free, federated grouping of the workers along lines of economic and social liberty.

"With this object in view, Syndicalism works in two directions: first, by undermining the existing institutions; secondly, by developing and educating the workers and cultivating their spirit of solidarity, to prepare them for a full, free life, when capitalism shall have been abolished.

"Syndicalism is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 91]
Which, in turn, explains why syndicalist unions are structured in such an obviously libertarian way. It reflects the importance of empowering every worker by creating a union which is decentralised and self-managed, a union which every member plays a key role in determining its policy and activities. Participation ensures that the union becomes a "school for the will" (to use Pouget's expression) and allows working people to learn how to govern themselves and so do without the state. After the revolution, the union can easily be transformed into the body by which production is organised. The aim of the union is workers' self-management of production and distribution after the revolution, a self-management which the union is based upon in the here and now. The syndicalist union is seen as "the germ of the Socialist economy of the future, the elementary school of Socialism in general" and we need to "plant these germs while there is yet time and bring them to the strongest possible development, so as to make the task of the coming social revolution easier and to insure its permanence." [Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 59]





So why doesnt society control and plan everything?


This is a feature of decentralized, federated anarchist ideas of society versus the ones from the Marxist tradition. Placing control of everything in the hands of society abdicates real worker control of production. It can't be in the hands of a coordinator class. The Anarchist FAQ Section I (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html) is pretty good, but a long read I suppose. (Italics and bold are in the orignal text.)




Socialism, as Proudhon put it, "is egalitarian above all else." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 57] This applies to inequalities of power as well, especially to political power. And any hierarchical system (particularly the state) is marked by inequalities of power -- those at the top (elected or not) have more power than those at the bottom. Hence the following comments provoked by the expulsion of anarchists from the social democratic Second International:
"It could be argued with much more reason that we are the most logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power, which is to say, the real ability to make his [or her] influence felt, along with that of everybody else, in the administration of public affairs." [Malatesta and Hamon, Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 20]
The election of someone to administer public affairs for you is not having a portion of social power. It is, to use the words of leading French anarcho-syndicalist Emile Pouget, "an act of abdication," the delegating of power into the hands of a few. [Op. Cit., p. 67] This means that "[a]ll political power inevitably creates a privileged situation for the men who exercise it. Thus it violates, from the beginning, the equalitarian principle." [Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 249]


From this short discussion we see the links between libertarian and socialism. To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers' control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships. To support workers' control, by necessity, means that you must ensure that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and distributing the goods they create. Without ownership, they cannot truly control their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a socialist.


Similarly, a true socialist must also support individual liberty of thought and action, otherwise the producers "possess" the means of production and distribution in name only. If the state owns the means of life, then the producers do not and so are in no position to manage their own activity. As the experience of Russia under Lenin shows, state ownership soon produces state control and the creation of a bureaucratic class which exploits and oppresses the workers even more so than their old bosses. Since it is an essential principle of socialism that inequalities between people must be abolished in order to ensure liberty, it makes no sense for a genuine socialist to support any institution based on inequalities of power (and as we discussed in section B.2 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB2.html), the state is just such an institution). To oppose inequality and not extend that opposition to inequalities in power, especially political power, suggests a lack of clear thinking. Thus to be a true socialist requires you to be a libertarian, to be for individual liberty and opposed to inequalities of power which restrict that liberty.




George Barrett's words also seem appropriate:
"The modern Socialist . . . have steadily worked for centralisation, and complete and perfect organisation and control by those in authority above the people. The anarchist, on the other hand, believes in the abolition of that central power, and expects the free society to grow into existence from below, starting with those organisations and free agreements among the people themselves. It is difficult to see how, by making a central power control everything, we can be making a step towards the abolition of that power." [Objections to Anarchism, p. 348]
Indeed, by giving the state increased economic activities it ensures that this so-called "transitional" state grows with the implementation of the Marxist programme. Moreover, given the economic tasks the state now does it hardly makes much sense to assert it will "wither away" - unless you think that the centralised economic planning which this regime does also "withers away." Marx argued that once the "abolition of classes" has "been attained" then "the power of the State . . . disappears, and the functions of government are transformed into simple administrative functions." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 76] In other words, the state apparatus does not "wither away" rather its function as an instrument of class rule does. This is an automatic result of classes themselves withering away as private property is nationalised. Yet as class is defined as being rooted in ownership of the means of production, this becomes a meaningless tautology. Obviously, as the state centralises the means of production into its own hands then (the existing) economic classes cease to exist and, as a result, the state "disappears." Yet the power and size of the State is, in fact, increased by this process and so the elimination of economic classes actually increases the power and size of the state machine.

...

Unsurprisingly, therefore, anarchists are not convinced that a highly centralised structure (as a state is) managing the economic life of society can be part of a truly classless society. While economic class as defined in terms of ownership of the means of production may not exist, social classes (defined in terms of inequality of power, authority and control) will continue simply because the state is designed to create and protect minority rule (see section H.3.7 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html#sech37)).

[L.A.P.]

sorry Chomsssssky, the more I read about revolutionary syndicalist unions like the National Confederation of Labor and council communism, the more I disagree with your answers. You say it would cease to be a syndicalist union if it had a professional staff, but I would say, on the contrary, it would cease to be a union if it didn't incorporate a group of specialists handling affairs with other factories and such separate from the producers themselves. The CNT, IWW, and SAC all have salaried staffs that aren't working anywhere outside of the unions. I actually don't think anarcho-syndicalism is a revolutionary ideology. It may be radical, but it wants to retain commodity-exchange managed by unions in place of private capitalists. No one specific body ever owns the factory in a classless society, even an organized union of the producers working in it. Sometimes the collective interests will supercede the immediate interests of one group of workers in a given factory, and there isn't any room in communism for a union to claim "ownership" that supercedes collective interests. Not to mention anarcho-syndicalists' rejection of overt political struggles that lead to compromising actions and collaborationism as in the case with the CNT's refusal to take political power (not guaranteeing protection and support of the committees and collectives set up during the insurrection, absorbing the workers militias into the Republican Army, thus stigmatizing the expansion of these entities from isolated workplace struggles into broad political forces) passing it off to the Republicans. Just as it's appropriate to say M-L's want to (unconsciously) establish state capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seem to want a form of trade union capitalism.

[helot]

You say it would cease to be a syndicalist union if it had a professional staff, but I would say, on the contrary, it would cease to be a union if it didn't incorporate a group of specialists handling affairs with other factories and such separate from the producers themselves.

I don't think it's particularly useful to define what is a union on only one of multiple models that have existed throughout the historic union movement.



The CNT, IWW, and SAC all have salaried staffs that aren't working anywhere outside of the unions.

Unless something's changed recently the CNT doesn't have paid staff.


It may be radical, but it wants to retain commodity-exchange managed by unions in place of private capitalists.


What you're doing is a bit dishonest in a way as it seems you're implying that anarcho-syndicalism is some sort of distinct society when it's not, it's a method of engaging in struggle in capitalist society. Of course anarcho-syndicalists are anarchists and thus do seek a new society but that is communism. What you're doing is taking the fact anarcho-syndicalists see forms of unions as integral to building a movement capable of destroying capitalism and then extrapolating that this must mean a union controlled society like it could be anything other than a monstrosity.


self-managed capitalism would go to negate the very function of unions anarcho-syndicalists draw on: namely their associational/combative function. Anarcho-syndicalists do not want social partnership with capital. This can easily be shown by the consistent rejection by IWA sections of involvement in works councils across Europe.

Further, most anarcho-syndicalists would flat out refuse to work in a co-op as it makes organising way fucking harder due to the workers following the dictates of capital more directly by lacking a representative of capital (i.e. the boss, management etc).




No one specific body ever owns the factory in a classless society, even an organized union of the producers working in it. Sometimes the collective interests will supercede the immediate interests of one group of workers in a given factory, and there isn't any room in communism for a union to claim "ownership" that supercedes collective interests.

What purpose would a union serve in a classless society? Surely the material conditions of a classless society would dictate a union couldn't exist. How about a bit of materialism?




Not to mention anarcho-syndicalists' rejection of overt political struggles that lead to compromising actions and collaborationism as in the case with the CNT's refusal to take political power (not guaranteeing protection and support of the committees and collectives set up during the insurrection, absorbing the workers militias into the Republican Army, thus stigmatizing the expansion of these entities from isolated workplace struggles into broad political forces) passing it off to the Republicans. Just as it's appropriate to say M-L's want to (unconsciously) establish state capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seem to want a form of trade union capitalism.

The failure of the CNT isn't a result of a patently false claim that anarcho-syndicalism rejects 'overt political struggle', that is unless you're resticting the definition of this to parliamentary activity or seizing the bourgeois state, but based on other factors. Your "critique" is terrible.

It seems you mistake form and content. Anarcho-syndicalism does not reject political struggle (meeting a fascist coup with expropriation is pretty damn political btw) but tries to focus its tactics on where the workers are strongest; in their capacity as producers. This doesn't mean a rejection of political struggle in favour of simple economic demands but that workers, in their capacity as producers, have far more strength than anywhere else in society. The social strike is, afterall, one of the most effective tools in the political struggle.


As for the Spanish revolution in the CNT's heartland of Catalonia it only accounted for less than half the working class. The CNT saw itself as having two options: to take power as the CNT and thus substitute itself for the class or to join the popular front.

This of course is no defense of the CNT. It had structural problems. It was both a reformist and a revolutionary union. It held reformist and class collaborationist tendencies within it well before the 30s in part because the CNT had never really moved away from the French CGT’s model of ‘neutral’ economic unionism, but had nonetheless tried to bolt anarchist politics on top. To prevent the tendency of neutral syndicalism towards reformism the FAI was formed to act as a counter weight to the reformist factions within the CNT but what this meant was a split between an economically recruited rank and file and political factions vying for control which created a space for a creeping representative function to develop.

This wasn’t a problem inherent to all anarcho-syndicalism, but one specific to the CNT’s particular contradictory fusion of ‘neutral syndicalist’ structures and anarchism, a fusion that was only tentatively possible under particular conditions. The problem doesn't lie simply in the CNT’s openness to 'all workers' resulting in a lack of anarchist ideology (the rank and file, after all, made the revolution), but rather in its contradictory and contested nature. The problem was not that the leadership were anarchist or reformist, but that a leadership layer had emerged.

The CNT failed on multiple accounts, it failed by tolerating the separation of a leadership layer from the rank and file and failed to smash the state (in Catalonia at least) when given the chance and thus allowing it to recompose its forces against the revolution and co-opt the CNT’s leadership to that end.