anarchist syndicalism

[violencia.Proletariat]

Ok I've been trying to refine my ideas on this subject and hope a discussion would help. I think the union is very necessary, but, I dont think it can bring about a revolution because the union before the revolution is not really the same as afterwards. What I mean by this is that a union today fights for reforms for better conditions and whatnot, but a union after the revolution goes from reformist in nature to controlling the workplace. I just dont see a union which has reformist tendencies should be the tool to bring about revolution. I see it as an advancement to the revolution, and necessity to running part of society after the revolution. Any thoughts on this? Any arguements for anarchist syndicalism?

[JazzRemington]

Unions cannot in and of themselves bring about revolution and topple capitalism, as well as the State. It takes teh struggle of both individuals inside and outside the workplace.

I support anarcho-syndicalism as a way of coordinating production of complex goods and as a way to also coordinate work places to produce goods more effeciently and in greater quantities for more individuals.

[RASH chris]

What I think nate is after here, as we have talked about it before. Is, what is the anarcho-syndicalists proposal for creating a revolution. As the union itself is not capable of doing so. Or is it? And if it is please show how. And if it is not, then what is the anarcho-syndicalists proposal for bringing that revolution about?

[JazzRemington]

THe anarcho-syndicalism method of bringing about a revolution is similar to the mutualist method. Both want to build alternative institutions (aka "building a new world within the shell of the old"). Anarcho-syndicalists want to seek a gradual building of one big union so that they can one day use their leverage to overthrow capitalism and have the workers seize control of the means of production.

This in and of itself will not cause a revolution. This is merely an economic revolution and not a social revolution. For the overthrow of capitalism and the State to be anywhere near successful, there MUST be a social revolution, in which the State and capitalism is completely crushed.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:45 PM
THe anarcho-syndicalism method of bringing about a revolution is similar to the mutualist method. Both want to build alternative institutions (aka "building a new world within the shell of the old"). Anarcho-syndicalists want to seek a gradual building of one big union so that they can one day use their leverage to overthrow capitalism and have the workers seize control of the means of production.

This in and of itself will not cause a revolution. This is merely an economic revolution and not a social revolution. For the overthrow of capitalism and the State to be anywhere near successful, there MUST be a social revolution, in which the State and capitalism is completely crushed.
Why can't this be made through a union?

I believe that unions are also the perfect place to spread propaganda and to educate workers about a social revolution. Not all unions need to be necessarily reformist.

[violencia.Proletariat]

but unions are always going to be somewhat reformist UNTIL the revolution in which they are necessary for helping workers maintaing their control over production. thats what i was trying to point out in my first post, the union today is playing a different role than it will after the revolution.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:47 PM
but unions are always going to be somewhat reformist UNTIL the revolution in which they are necessary for helping workers maintaing their control over production. thats what i was trying to point out in my first post, the union today is playing a different role than it will after the revolution.
They NEED to be reformist before the revolution.

You cant wage revolutions whenever you want, you know.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Marmot+Aug 1 2005, 09:17 PM--> (Marmot @ Aug 1 2005, 09:17 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 07:47 PM
but unions are always going to be somewhat reformist UNTIL the revolution in which they are necessary for helping workers maintaing their control over production. thats what i was trying to point out in my first post, the union today is playing a different role than it will after the revolution.
They NEED to be reformist before the revolution.

You cant wage revolutions whenever you want, you know. [/b]
exactly my point! we cant rely on the union becuase of their somewhat reformist actions to lead us in a revolution. again, im not dismissing unions, i plant on joining the iww when i get a job, its just that i dont think its going to lead us to revolution.

[Holocaustpulp]

Anarcho-syndicalism in the end becomes a subset of the revolution, for it tries to retain a reformist body that serves a purpose in a revolution (but is not the purpose in a revolution) as the revolution itself. This cannot be done because it unions do not mobilize enough among the general populace, it is too vunerable a system against the authorities, it has no decisive organizaton, and hence is utterly incapable of performing a revolution.

Anarcho-syndicalism cannot be the purpose, but it can serve the purpose.

- HP

[enigma2517]

Theres a good amount of talk about reform but what most people miss out on a very important point. That is, anarcho-syndicalism is actually supposed to radicalize unions.

Whether or not it does is debatable, since "reforms" often placate and pacify the working class. Its arguable that the context highly determines that since a group of class conscious workers might see it as only the first step while those simply in a union to "get a few more bread crumbs" would be satisfied after a few superficial changes.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a very useful tool for revolution. For one, it focuses on the seizure of economic power. Remember the state and classes exist as a result of that. The police and army protect the assets but only because those assets first accounted for their own creation. Attempting to seize purely political power would be to ignore objective material conditions. Hey! Its time for revolution, lets storm the palace! Even if you could pull it off the new "organ of power" would crumble as soon as it was erected. A federation of militant, class concious trade unions and workers' councils would be ten times more effective than the takeover of some legislative body.

However, as holocaustpulp mentioned there is not enough mobilization amongst the masses. Not everybody may happen to work at a certain trade or what have you. Anarcho-syndicalism is enough to put an immense amount of pressure on capitalism (I suspect that a well organized general strike would be enough to bring it down). However, the unemployed, homeless, and middle class are all also potential revolutionaires which should not be neglected. Thus, the need for anarcho-communism arises :)

[coda]

Yes, anarcho-syndicalism aims for radicalized workers unions to bring about revolution through pesistent repeated direct action.


Rocker's Anarcho-syndicalism chapters 4 and 5 gives a brief overview.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...ockerworks.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/rocker/rockerworks.html)

The working class seizing power from the point of the factory or economic platform follows Marx's ''base and superstructure." The base is always economic, & determines the "superstructure" or the framework of society and the social conditions.