What is anarcho-syndicalism [Archive]

View Full Version : What is anarcho-syndicalism

cruelmouse

24th July 2015, 14:01

I have heard it is a "tactic" but I still do not understand what anarcho-syndicalism is.

cyu

24th July 2015, 15:00

Quick summary:

If union members had guns and could do whatever they wanted, what should union members do?

tuwix

25th July 2015, 05:29

I have heard it is a "tactic" but I still do not understand what anarcho-syndicalism is.

It's current of anarchism in which the most important role hast a labour union. There are taken decisions about workplace in terms of what to produce how to share incomes, etc.

BIXX

25th July 2015, 05:56

It's the most boring thing don't bother with it it has shit tactics and shit goals

StromboliFucker666

25th July 2015, 07:42

Worker's control of the means of production thru unions or syndicates.

Apply that to anarchism and you get anarcho-syndicalism

StromboliFucker666

25th July 2015, 07:45

It's the most boring thing don't bother with it it has shit tactics and shit goals
Shit goals? Establishing worker's control of the means of production is shitty in your opinion? I'll agree that the tactics aren't very good but to say that shows that you either do not understand syndicalism or you aren't a leftist

BIXX

25th July 2015, 07:51

Shit goals? Establishing worker's control of the means of production is shitty in your opinion? I'll agree that the tactics aren't very good but to say that shows that you either do not understand syndicalism or you aren't a leftist

I'm not a leftist I don't believe in a preconfigured little mold and I don't believe in managing our own misery.

#FF0000

25th July 2015, 08:20

y'all are useless in this thread. christ.

StromboliFucker666

25th July 2015, 08:33

I'm not a leftist I don't believe in a preconfigured little mold and I don't believe in managing our own misery.
Why are you here then? This site is for LEFTISTS. It's kinda in the name of the site.

I take it you're one of those edgy teenager "anarchists" that believe you can just go around doing whatever you want. Is this a correct assumption?

As for managing our own misery, you're missing the point completely. The point of worker control of the means of production is to help get rid of that misery. We could make robots to handle most of the mundane work and provide education so people can do stuff they actually WANT to do.

#FF0000

25th July 2015, 08:38

I have heard it is a "tactic" but I still do not understand what anarcho-syndicalism is.

Here's a rough explanation that is ultra-stripped down and probably sounds ridiculous.

Anarcho-syndicalism's an anarchist school of thought that sees revolutionary unionism as the best means of overthrowing capitalism, with the aim of organizing as many workers as possible into these syndicalist unions until they reach a sort of critical mass where they're able to call the General Strike and seize the means of production.

Some Syndicalist organizations are unions themselves (The Industrial Workers of the World a.k.a. the IWW). Others are typical anarchist federations that support revolutionary syndicalism (UK's Solidarity Federation).

If you want to look into it further I suggest checking out SolFed's Fighting For Ourselves (link (http://libcom.org/library/fighting-ourselves-anarcho-syndicalism-class-struggle-solidarity-federation)), which is an excellent primer on syndicalism and council communism.

There's also the Recomposition blog (link (http://recomposition.info/)) which is a blog run by American members of the IWW, and New Syndicalist (link (http://newsyndicalist.org/)) run by UK members of the IWW.

#FF0000

25th July 2015, 08:39

Why are you here then? This site is for LEFTISTS.

He's "post-left" which is still leftism no matter how much post-leftists want to stamp their feet n insist it isn't.

lets not de-rail

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

25th July 2015, 12:51

Here's a rough explanation that is ultra-stripped down and probably sounds ridiculous.

Anarcho-syndicalism's an anarchist school of thought that sees revolutionary unionism as the best means of overthrowing capitalism, with the aim of organizing as many workers as possible into these syndicalist unions until they reach a sort of critical mass where they're able to call the General Strike and seize the means of production.

Some Syndicalist organizations are unions themselves (The Industrial Workers of the World a.k.a. the IWW). Others are typical anarchist federations that support revolutionary syndicalism (UK's Solidarity Federation).

If you want to look into it further I suggest checking out SolFed's Fighting For Ourselves (link (http://libcom.org/library/fighting-ourselves-anarcho-syndicalism-class-struggle-solidarity-federation)), which is an excellent primer on syndicalism and council communism.

There's also the Recomposition blog (link (http://recomposition.info/)) which is a blog run by American members of the IWW, and New Syndicalist (link (http://newsyndicalist.org/)) run by UK members of the IWW.

Another thing to note about the anarcho-syndicalists was that they rejected both parliamentary politics of the sort the old social-democracy engaged in and the moral persuasion that was particular to the followers of Kropotkin. For quite some time, revolutionary syndicalism, principally anarcho-syndicalism, was one of the most revolutionary and consistent sections of the socialist movement. It is, however, mostly a historical tendency, with the modern organisations being a sort of revival movement. Anarcho-syndicalism petered out between WWI and WWII; first because many syndicalists joined the communist movement (Trotsky, writing about communists in France, saw the former syndicalists as the best element in the party, and the former social-democrats as the worst; this should give pause to anyone who asserts that communism was linearly derived from the old social-democracy), and an extreme minority broke from anarchism in the direction of fascism (DeAmbris for example). Second, the participation of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT in the Spanish Civil War broke the most organised and militant section of that tendency (and while the anarchist workers in Aragon acquitted themselves quite well, the same can't be said of anarchist leaders in Barcelona and Madrid), with fascist and democratic repression in WWII destroying what remained.

Another source on anarcho-syndicalism is Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism (https://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker).

I wouldn't say the SolFed pamphlet is a good source on council communism, though. Councilism is a historical Marxist tendency, a split from the Dutch and German communist left, and to be honest, it's kind of dead, there are no council communist organisations I'm aware of.

Also PC, we get that you're an awesome rebel wh fights leftists and doesn't afraid of anything, now can you please not shit up every thread with that?

The Feral Underclass

25th July 2015, 13:17

Why are you here then? This site is for LEFTISTS. It's kinda in the name of the site.

Actually the name of the site is revolutionary left, not revolutionary leftists.

I take it you're one of those edgy teenager "anarchists" that believe you can just go around doing whatever you want. Is this a correct assumption?

I'm 33 this year and I agree with Placenta Cream, so in what trite, hackneyed way do you intend to patronise me?

As for managing our own misery, you're missing the point completely. The point of worker control of the means of production is to help get rid of that misery.

Except of course this is entirely premised on there being the continuation of 'the worker.'

We could make robots to handle most of the mundane work and provide education so people can do stuff they actually WANT to do.

Great, so our lives are basically going to consist of building robots. Or building the robots to build the robots. Or maintaining the robots that build robots. Or building robots to maintain the robots who have built the robots to maintain the robots. Or building robots to make the robots who maintain the robots who maintain the robots who build the robots. Yawn.

The Feral Underclass

25th July 2015, 13:28

Rudolf

25th July 2015, 14:05

Another source on anarcho-syndicalism is Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism (https://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker).

I'd always reccomend Rocker's Anarcho-syndicalism if for nothing other than because he starts discussing political struggle and it's a ridiculously common misconception that anarcho-syndicalists reject political struggle... it's just we aim to use similar tactics as when dealing with an employer obviously because disrupting capital accumulation is super effective.

Anarcho-syndicalism's an anarchist school of thought that sees revolutionary unionism as the best means of overthrowing capitalism, with the aim of organizing as many workers as possible into these syndicalist unions until they reach a sort of critical mass where they're able to call the General Strike and seize the means of production.

Gotta be careful here. While it's true syndicalists such as the IWW seek a sort of one big union that's not really the case for anarcho-syndicalists, or atleast contemporary anarcho-syndicalism. Im in favour of internal political agreement. More members is nice but you need that agreement, otherwise you'd just keep repeating the past (e.g. CNT, FORA etc) but it's fine as you organise across union lines through mass assemblies.

Some Syndicalist organizations are unions themselves (The Industrial Workers of the World a.k.a. the IWW). Others are typical anarchist federations that support revolutionary syndicalism (UK's Solidarity Federation).

Don't think you can call SolFed a typical anarchist federation. They are in the process of building a union and some of their locals, such as Brighton, are organising at work as SolFed. Probably better to consider it a proto-union atm.

Oh and TFU is right, the IWW isn't anarcho-syndicalist even if you find some anarcho-syndicalists inside.

BIXX

25th July 2015, 17:21

Why are you here then? This site is for LEFTISTS. It's kinda in the name of the site.
Frankly I think I only stay due to Stockholm syndrome.

I take it you're one of those edgy teenager "anarchists" that believe you can just go around doing whatever you want. Is this a correct assumption?
I take it you're one of those anarchists who really just want everyone to follow their own special preconfigured plan of how society should look after some mythical revolution. Good luck with that.

As for managing our own misery, you're missing the point completely. The point of worker control of the means of production is to help get rid of that misery. We could make robots to handle most of the mundane work and provide education so people can do stuff they actually WANT to do.
Who's gonna fix the robots? More Robots? who will fix them? More robots? Is it just robots the whole way down?

It's not just mundane work I want to get rid of but all work.

cyu

25th July 2015, 17:51

I take it you're one of those anarchists who really just want everyone to follow their own special preconfigured plan of how society should look after some mythical revolution.

I prefer to offer alternative tactics. The ruling class loves to present There Is No Alternative propaganda, and if their control of the mass media is sufficient, many people will believe them. However, if people get tired of obeying them and doing exactly as they say, if you regularly remind them they can always do F, K, or U, they don't necessarily have to listen you, but if the ruling class pisses them off enough, eventually some will.

BIXX

25th July 2015, 18:13

I prefer to offer alternative tactics. The ruling class loves to present There Is No Alternative propaganda, and if their control of the mass media is sufficient, many people will believe them. However, if people get tired of obeying them and doing exactly as they say, if you regularly remind them they can always do F, K, or U, they don't necessarily have to listen you, but if the ruling class pisses them off enough, eventually some will.
but what leftists offer isn't an alternative

cyu

25th July 2015, 18:33

#notallleftists ;)

...hmm, I should probably put some real content here...

The above was actually a post about offering alternatives by offering alternatives. A "meta" alternative, if you will. Anyway, a more concrete example...

Say pro-capitalist "libertarians" are saying everyone should use gold, while more "mainstream" economists say paper money is fine. So the question to ask is, are those the only possibilities? Democrats or Republicans? Coke or Pepsi? War or Peace?

Hermes

25th July 2015, 18:40

The Feral Underclass

25th July 2015, 18:48

This is probably slightly offtopic, but I didn't think it deserved its own thread.

To what extent was the CNT itself actually anarcho-syndicalist? I was under the impression that it was more of a solely syndicalist organization, driven to anarcho-syndicalist means through the pressure of the FAI and other groups that entered into it.

I'm fairly certain it has always been an anarchist-syndicalist union. FAI's involvement was an attempt to keep the CNT an anarchist organisation and to struggle against what it considered to be an emerging mediating bureaucracy.

StromboliFucker666

25th July 2015, 20:32

Frankly I think I only stay due to Stockholm syndrome.

I take it you're one of those anarchists who really just want everyone to follow their own special preconfigured plan of how society should look after some mythical revolution. Good luck with that.

Who's gonna fix the robots? More Robots? who will fix them? More robots? Is it just robots the whole way down?

It's not just mundane work I want to get rid of but all work.

1. You should probably seek help if you have Stockholm syndrome. (i know you aren't serious but I cannot justify that with an actual reply)

2. No, there can be alternatives however you don't seem to be offering any so until then, I am not convinced.

3. At first, humans. Then robots.

4. If you get rid of work, then how the fuck will anything get done? If all the doctors decided to just not work, who would take care of the sick?

I am convinced of something, however, that you are either confused or you don't belong here.

StromboliFucker666

25th July 2015, 20:40

Actually the name of the site is revolutionary left, not revolutionary leftists.

I'm 33 this year and I agree with Placenta Cream, so in what trite, hackneyed way do you intend to patronise me?

Except of course this is entirely premised on there being the continuation of 'the worker.'

Great, so our lives are basically going to consist of building robots. Or building the robots to build the robots. Or maintaining the robots that build robots. Or building robots to maintain the robots who have built the robots to maintain the robots. Or building robots to make the robots who maintain the robots who maintain the robots who build the robots. Yawn.

1. Yes, but to be on the "revolutionary LEFT" you must be a "revolutionary LEFTIST"

2. I won't. I have better things to do and I was wrong to make comments like I did to begin with.

3. Perhaps we define "the worker" differently. I consider it to be someone that works. I define work as doing something for something. If I plant a garden, that's work as I am working to gain the fruits and vegetables I planted.

4. No, our lives should not revolve around it. At first, some of us would build these robots, but by the end, robots would take care of themselves without human help at all. BTW this isn't a set in stone idea, I was simply offering an alternative.

StromboliFucker666

25th July 2015, 20:41

He's "post-left" which is still leftism no matter how much post-leftists want to stamp their feet n insist it isn't.

lets not de-rail

If he doesn't consider himself a leftist, I just don't see why he would stay on a site for the revolutionary left. Sure, maybe he is a leftist, but he obviously does not consider himself to be one.

The Feral Underclass

25th July 2015, 21:05

1. Yes, but to be on the "revolutionary LEFT" you must be a "revolutionary LEFTIST"

No you don't.

Just for clarity (and I've said this a lot recently), a 'leftist' for some people is a derogatory term used to describe a section of the left who identify with traditional socialist methods of organising, i.e. party building, placard waving, democratic centralism; those people who still think it's the 1980s and refuse to update their strategies and think any critique or ideas after the miners strike is somehow post-modernism run amok.

3. Perhaps we define "the worker" differently. I consider it to be someone that works. I define work as doing something for something. If I plant a garden, that's work as I am working to gain the fruits and vegetables I planted.

The word drudgery is a synonym for work. Did you know that?

Anyway, I define 'the worker' as Marx defined it: A social relationship which must be abolished. I have no interest in preserving that identity.

4. No, our lives should not revolve around it. At first, some of us would build these robots, but by the end, robots would take care of themselves without human help at all. BTW this isn't a set in stone idea, I was simply offering an alternative.

I'm not convinced it's much of an alternative to be honest.

StromboliFucker666

25th July 2015, 21:14

No you don't.

Just for clarity (and I've said this a lot recently), a 'leftist' for some people is a derogatory term used to describe a section of the left who identify with traditional socialist methods of organising, i.e. party building, placard waving, democratic centralism; those people who still think it's the 1980s and refuse to update their strategies and think any critique or ideas after the miners strike is somehow post-modernism run amok.

The word drudgery is a synonym for work. Did you know that?

Anyway, I define 'the worker' as Marx defined it: A social relationship which must be abolished. I have no interest in preserving that identity.

I'm not convinced it's much of an alternative to be honest.

I am using it to describe someone on the left wing of politics. (socialists, anarchists, etc)

I did not know that but I am inclined to agree. Work sucks, but if no one does anything, nothing gets done.

I am not using it the same way Marx did in this circumstance. I am using worker to describe someone who works. I am not talking about the social position of the proletariat. I agree with you that the social position and class of proletariat needs to be abolished, however I am talking about someone who works. I already told you how I am defining work in this circumstance.

That's your opinion and that's okay. Would you like to critique what I said instead of just stating that you disagree or don't like it?

The Feral Underclass

25th July 2015, 21:28

I am using it to describe someone on the left wing of politics. (socialists, anarchists, etc)

And I'm explaining to you where someone who rejects that label is coming from.

I did not know that but I am inclined to agree. Work sucks, but if no one does anything, nothing gets done.

It's not a question of not doing things, it's a question of what our relationship to those things are.

I am not using it the same way Marx did in this circumstance. I am using worker to describe someone who works. I am not talking about the social position of the proletariat. I agree with you that the social position and class of proletariat needs to be abolished, however I am talking about someone who works. I already told you how I am defining work in this circumstance.

Right, but these terms you're using have meanings beyond what you want them to mean. We're talking about the social transformation of society. When you talk about workers in this new society, that has specific meanings. It doesn't just mean someone who works.

That's your opinion and that's okay. Would you like to critique what I said instead of just stating that you disagree or don't like it?

Not really.

StromboliFucker666

25th July 2015, 22:11

And I'm explaining to you where someone who rejects that label is coming from.

It's not a question of not doing things, it's a question of what our relationship to those things are.

Right, but these terms you're using have meanings beyond what you want them to mean. We're talking about the social transformation of society. When you talk about workers in this new society, that has specific meanings. It doesn't just mean someone who works.

Not really.

Okay and I'm explaining to you what the rest of us mean.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

It's not about what I want them to mean. Some things have more than 1 definition. Not everything is black and white.

Okay, just don't expect me to understand the issue with what i said unless you explain why I am wrong. Believe it or not, I am capable of learning, I just need someone to explain it to me.