Is anarcho-syndicalism still a viable theory?

[which doctor]

The following is a passage taken from Alfredo Bonanno's From Riot to Insurrection



The sunset of some of the anarchists’ illusions

Anarchists have also had illusions and these have also faded. Strictly speaking, while these illusions were never about the central role of workers, they often saw the world of wok as being of fundamental importance, giving precedence to industry over the primary (agricultural) sector. It was anarcho-syndicalism that fuelled these illusions. Even in recent times there has been much enthusiasm for the CNT’s rise from the ashes, particularly from those who seem to be the most radical entrepreneurs of the new “roads” of reformist anarchism today.

The main concept of this worker centrality (different from that of the marxists, but less so than is commonly believed), was the shadow of the Party.

For a long time the anarchist movement has acted as an organisation of synthesis, that is, like a party.

Not the whole of the anarchist movement, but certainly its organised forms.

Let us take the Italian FAI (Federazione anarchica italiana) for example. To this day it is an organisation of synthesis. It is based on a programme, its periodical Congresses are the central focus for its activity, and it looks to reality outside from the point of view of a “connecting” centre, ie, as being the synthesis between the reality outside the movement (revolutionary reality), and that within the specific anarchist movement.

Of course, some comrades would object that these remarks are too general, but they cannot deny that the mentality which sustains the relation of synthesis that a specific anarchist organisation establishes with the reality outside the movement, is one that is very close to the “party” mentality.

Good intentions are not enough.

Well, this mentality has faded. Not only among younger comrades who want an open and informal relationship with the revolutionary movement, but, more important, it has faded in social reality itself.

If industrial conditions of production made the syndicalist struggle reasonable, as it did the marxist methods and those of the libertarian organisations of synthesis, today, in a post-industrial perspective, in a reality that has changed profoundly, the only possible strategy for anarchists is an informal one. By this we mean groups of comrades who come together with precise objectives, on the basis of affinity, and contribute to creating mass structures which set themselves intermediate aims, while constructing the minimal conditions for transforming situations of simple riot into those of insurrection.

The party of marxism is dead. That of the anarchists too. When I read criticisms such as those made recently by the social ecologists who speak of the death of anarchism, I realise it is a question of language, as well as of lack of ability to examine problems inside the anarchist movement, a limitation, moreover, that is pointed out by these comrades themselves. What is dead for them—and also for me—is the anarchism that thought it could be the organisational point of reference for the next revolution, that saw itself as a structure of synthesis aimed at generating the multiple forms of human creativity directed at breaking up State structures of consensus and repression. What is dead is the static anarchism of the traditional organisations, based on claiming better conditions, and having quantitive goals. The idea that social revolution is something that must necessarily result from our struggles has proved to be unfounded. It might, but then again it might not.

Determinism is dead, and the blind law of cause and effect with it. The revolutionary means we employ, including insurrection, do not necessarily lead to social revolution. The casual model so dear to the positivists of the last century does not in reality exist.

The revolution becomes possible precisely for that reason.


The syndicalist movement has typically represented the more organised wing of anarchism. It has had varying degrees of success throughout America and Spain, but is it still a viable alternative as we move further and further into post-industrial capitalism? Can a formal movement such as syndicalism work within the system and create an alternative all on it's own or is it doomed to failure? Is the only viable solution an informal approach to anarchist revolution?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think the better question is, was it ever a viable theory? And I don't mean this to be derogatory; this is a serious question coming from a former syndicalist.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The syndicalist movement has typically represented the more organised wing of anarchism. It has had varying degrees of success throughout America and Spain, but is it still a viable alternative as we move further and further into post-industrial capitalism? Can a formal movement such as syndicalism work within the system and create an alternative all on it's own or is it doomed to failure? Is the only viable solution an informal approach to anarchist revolution?

What is it with insurrectionary anarchists and "post industrial society"? It's irrelevant, we all still have to work. While a lot of industrial production has moved to third world countries, this does not stop syndicalist theory from being functional. Do you deny that workers still need to take over production? Yes, we must. Therefore, syndicalism is just as relevant because post revolutionary society must be organized along production.


they often saw the world of wok as being of fundamental importance, giving precedence to industry over the primary (agricultural) sector.

Agriculture is now an industry. This is all historical and irrelevant to todays production. But syndicalist theory is not static either.

And yes, the world of work is of fundamental importance to a revolution which wishes to abolish capitalism. Why? Because capitalism is the mode of production. We wish to replace it with a more efficient system of production run by workers. Therefore, production shall be our main focus, but of course, not our only focus.


By this we mean groups of comrades who come together with precise objectives, on the basis of affinity, and contribute to creating mass structures which set themselves intermediate aims, while constructing the minimal conditions for transforming situations of simple riot into those of insurrection.

While I agree insurrectionary anarchism is romantic and appealing, it is usually never practical.

Insurrections are necessary during the revolution. However an "affinity" group cannot make revolution. They can arm and fight the state, but they have no structure to put production in the workers hands. If all the workers in a particular city were well versed in revolutionary vision, then of course it would theoretically work. In fact, this is what happened in many places in Spain. The CNT was not always as radical as the workers. However, was this a problem with syndicalism or the CNT? I'd say the latter; there are lessons to be learned.

Again, the affinity group is good for direct action. It's necessity, I can't predict. However, even in the above proposed city where the revolutionary population is waiting for a spark, they need organization. Organization is necessary in order to keep the insurrection from a week long uprising into a revolution. The workers must have the means to distribute necessities and goods. They syndicalist union is the tool to do this. Whether or not the workers are formally organized under a union, the same tactics and organizational methods must be learned. Therefore, an affinity group can not provide this organization.

Although the quote above makes it seem possible, a mass organization of affinity groups is really not different in theory than a syndicalist organization. Except of course in reality, the syndicalist organization actually participates in the class war and revolutionizing production. The latter can't be said for affinity groups.

When looking at spontaneous uprisings that the insurrectionary anarchists praise, we must really look at whats happening. Do the workers not form councils? Can we really call the population an "affinity group"? Can we even say the uprising was based on actions from an affinity group?

The formation of post revolutionary production (workers councils) from the onset shows the relevancy for anarchist syndicalism. If we look at Spain for example, the big names of the CNT were taking part in and organizing insurrections. That is why I think creating a seperate branch of anarchism (insurrectionary anarchism) is pointless. The syndicalist union wants to make revolution and if the people are ready to do that an insurrection will commence.


What is dead is the static anarchism of the traditional organisations, based on claiming better conditions, and having quantitive goals.

And an affinity group does not meet this deffinition? Do they not have goals? Do they not wish to create better conditions (through the inssurection)? The difference seems to be they are just to small to be a real organization. Nor do they have any real network connecting them all.

[black magick hustla]

what has let us nearer to the creation of workers' councils has been anarcho-syndicalism.

[BreadBros]

I probably wouldn't call myself an anarcho-syndicalist (despite the CNT-FAI flag I rock as an avatar), although I would put my beliefs somewhat near to theirs and look to them as a movement that was probably among the best in terms of coming close to putting the working class in power.


Strictly speaking, while these illusions were never about the central role of workers, they often saw the world of wok as being of fundamental importance, giving precedence to industry over the primary (agricultural) sector. It was anarcho-syndicalism that fuelled these illusions.

Okay, is agricultural work somehow not in the sphere of "work" in general? Has agricultural production not been industrialized and the rural laboring class proletarianized? I would say it has. Even in some wealthy areas of Western Europe where a rural small landowning class exists, it has to a certain degree been transformed by capitalist production into an aspect of the petty-bourgeois (producing viticultural products; organic, specialty or local produce, etc) instead of what could be determined to be some kind of peasantry. Furthermore, what exactly compels the author to label the agricultural sector as being "primary"?


The main concept of this worker centrality (different from that of the marxists, but less so than is commonly believed), was the shadow of the Party.

Umm, no explanation of how or why? I don't see how his thesis of organizations as being a sort of mediating force leads him to invalidate the centrality of work.


Of course, some comrades would object that these remarks are too general, but they cannot deny that the mentality which sustains the relation of synthesis that a specific anarchist organisation establishes with the reality outside the movement, is one that is very close to the “party” mentality.

This overlooks the fact that a vanguard party is meant to be a representative force that maintains itself through continued hierarchy post-revolution. Traditionally, anarcho-syndicalist groups have functioned as a revolutionary force but not as some post-revolutionary organizational structure. Furthermore, a party is an elite organization, a syndicalist group functions to organize the class itself, it is the class, not a representation, see CNT-FAI workplace democracy in Catalonia.


If industrial conditions of production made the syndicalist struggle reasonable, as it did the marxist methods and those of the libertarian organisations of synthesis, today, in a post-industrial perspective, in a reality that has changed profoundly, the only possible strategy for anarchists is an informal one.

What exactly does "post-industrial" mean? Its such an amorphous term. As far as I can see, most commodities are still produced in industrial ways today. I can only assume he is referring to either the rise of intellectual commodities or the service sector of an economy. But both of these function as either conceptual or distributive aspects of industrial production, and represent a refinement of said production but not a "transcendence" of it. There is something of meaning to this change, it does cause us to reconsider things, but I dont see how it fundamentally changes things or what the connection between such a change and the need for insurrectionary anarchist measures is necessary.


The party of marxism is dead. That of the anarchists too. When I read criticisms such as those made recently by the social ecologists who speak of the death of anarchism, I realise it is a question of language, as well as of lack of ability to examine problems inside the anarchist movement, a limitation, moreover, that is pointed out by these comrades themselves. What is dead for them—and also for me—is the anarchism that thought it could be the organisational point of reference for the next revolution, that saw itself as a structure of synthesis aimed at generating the multiple forms of human creativity directed at breaking up State structures of consensus and repression. What is dead is the static anarchism of the traditional organisations, based on claiming better conditions, and having quantitive goals. The idea that social revolution is something that must necessarily result from our struggles has proved to be unfounded. It might, but then again it might not.

Well, what exactly is significant about this? All hes saying is that the revolution will be made by a class and not by an organization. This doesnt represent some radical new thought. With the exception of Leninists, I think it seems fairly obvious to most Marxists/Anarchists that while organizational structures may play a role in a revolution (and the degree of significance of that role is up for debate), the revolution will ultimately be carried out and determined by the proletariat as a whole. This isn't the result of any new ideas, look at bourgeois revolutions. The Jacobins played a significant and focal role in the French Revolution, but ultimately it was carried out by the bourgeoisie and proletariat as whole classes. As for not having goals, violencia's questions are apt. They have no goals? So their actions exist in some kind of vacuum?


Determinism is dead, and the blind law of cause and effect with it. The revolutionary means we employ, including insurrection, do not necessarily lead to social revolution. The casual model so dear to the positivists of the last century does not in reality exist.

The revolution becomes possible precisely for that reason.

This may be going over my head as I dont think I fully understand this. I dont see how the fact that anarchist insurrections may not lead to social revolution leads to cause and effect and determinism "dying". Under what "positivist" model of thought does one come to the conclusion that an insurrection by a political group automatically leads to social revolution or that social revolution must necessarily be the product of an insurrection? Obviously human society is far more complex than this, and obviously a cursory glance at history would invalidate this.


It has had varying degrees of success throughout America and Spain, but is it still a viable alternative as we move further and further into post-industrial capitalism?

Well, can you clear up what exactly post-industrial capitalism entails?


Can a formal movement such as syndicalism work within the system and create an alternative all on it's own or is it doomed to failure?

I don't see how its working "within the system". Work and production are fairly central to human existence and are not mere creations of capitalism. Organizing based on production does not entail working within the capitalist system.


Is the only viable solution an informal approach to anarchist revolution?

Well, I probably wouldn't call myself an anarchist, so I shouldn't speak for what or who would make anarchist revolution possible. However, it seems to me that proletariat revolution is fairly disconnected from the approach that communists or anarchists may take. It is the result of historical developments and wider class interests.

[SonofRage]

History has shown that, in revolutionary situations, workers councils/soviets seem to be the form of organization that workers spontaneously form in order to defend themselves and to democratically run their workplaces and communities. In my view, a anarcho-syndicalist union is really nothing more than a federation of workers' councils that exists now in a non-revolutionary period.

It would seem to make sense to want to build these structures now so that, in a revolutionary situation, there will already be structures in place that can carry on the revolution. These unions are one strategy in building a Dual Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Power).

[Janus]

The principles behind it are still viable; the problem is that there are few orgs. and members out there. The same problems that plague the anarcho-syndicalists are the same that plague communists and radical labor struggles.

[shadowed by the secret police]

The more soviets, workers' councils and syndicalist unions we have the better. Kick ass. This is the final struggle! Make the most of it!!!!!!

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 09:00 pm
The principles behind it are still viable; the problem is that there are few orgs. and members out there. The same problems that plague the anarcho-syndicalists are the same that plague communists and radical labor struggles.
There are IWA unions all over Western Europe. The CGT in Spain is the countries third largest union with 70,000 members.

[Leo]

Here's a piece we received from a Russian organization called KRAS;


WORKERS' ANARCHISM


Permanent crises of anarcho-syndicalism

Many times, all sections of the IWA-AIT say they are against reformism. They promise to be against collaboration with the state, against trade unionism. This is really funny as again and again reformism has taken power in AIT. There must be an explanation. And we can not say, "Oh, that's the result of a conspiracy, reformists are everywhere and they want to destroy us". That is crazy and it would be real Stalinism to say that because it is a Stalinist method of explaining everything with enemy conspiracies.
We have to say that anarcho-syndicalism is in a permanent crises. If we look at the past, we see the same situations and problems. The Spanish CNT had a revolutionary experience before 1936. There were thousands of revolutionary workers and peasants. Some of them had experience with insurrections. They had anarcho-communist ideas. CNT members and other workers took over plants in Barcelona, organised communes in Aragon and Valencia. But what happened? Why did the CNT join the government? Why did the CNT collaborate with Leninists and bourgeois democrats? Why did the CNT participate in the politics of bourgeois modernisation - the creation of a regular army, state control of industry and exploitation of workers ? Why did CNT fighters leave the barricades in Barcelona in May 1937 and give the city into the hands of the Leninist bureacrasy and Spanish capitalists?
Modern spanish CNT says,"there were mistakes". But it is not an explanation at all. Or if you want, it is also a Stalinist or post-Stalinist explanation. The Communist Party of USSR said after 1956 that " Stalin made some mistakes". But we are not talking about mistakes because both (Stalin and the CNT) supported (in 1936) the politics of state-capitalism and bourgeois modernisation. It was a long term policy, not "some mistakes".
I don't think we have to discuss Stalinism here, so let's go back to the CNT-E. We see a paradox - this organisation had revolutionary and counter-revolutionary members at the same time. And what happens if you mix a cup of honey with a cup of shit? Yeah, you will get 2 cups of shit. What is the reason for having even 100,000 anarchist militants and insurrectionists if they can not make a revolution because of a collective agreement with counter-revolutionary elements? Why give rifles to workers if they cannot use weapons against the state? Revolutionary anarchists who must compromise with their counter-revolutionary comrades (!) cannot make a revolution. Durruti's friends and other revolutionary groups of the CNT almost destroyed the police in Barcelona in May 1937 but then left the barricades because they were afraid to cause a split in the CNT with people who want be friendly to the police and the state!
Part of the explanation is inherent in anarcho-syndicalism itself. Anarcho-syndicalism is a compromise between anarchist workers' organisations such as FORA and neutral syndicalism which talks only about economic struggle and about direct action in the work place but not about anarchist society.
Neutral syndicalist organisation is open for everybody. Syndicalists do not ask what ideas you have. They care only about direct action, workers' assemblies which make economic strikes or even take over plants. Neutral syndicalists believe that common direct action will change the mind of people and make them revolutionary in the end. So it is not important what kind of ideas they have at the moment- workers have to leave all of their political ideas out of the union. Or anyway, their ideas will be changed during the struggle, to be sure!
I think neutral syndicalists (or revolutionary syndicalists) were impressed by the dynamism of the workers' movement at the beginning of the 20th century. They were right to say that only a rank-and-file proletarian movement can become the basis of a social revolution. They were right to say that without rank-and-file proletarian activity, 90% of people cannot change their mind. Resistence is an important part of the social transformation if it is going in a rank-and-file way. Where else and how else ca people get experience in self-organisation? But neutral syndicalists did not understand two important things.
Number one. People never leave their ideas out of the union. That's what FORA said - human beings live, love, work, make strikes, have political or philosophical ideas, dreams.. and who can cut his life into isolated sectors? That is impossible. Everything influences everything else.
Number two. People who start rank-and-file strikes are open to new ideas, dialogue and discussions. Whoever has never seen that will never understand the point. People open collective activity and dialogue for may be the first time in their lives and they see that life is not totally alieneted anymore and that life can be changed. But this is only one side of reality. On the other side, the assemblyist movement is open to different ideas. It can be anarchism, leninism, reformist socialism or even fascism. And what happens if people for example agree with trade unionism and leninism? They will stop the assemblies sooner or later and say it is better to make a compromise with the state. When will they come back to direct action? Maybe in 50 years.


From anarcho-syndicalism to FORA

We have to talk with people, help them to make their own leaflets or newspapers, tell them about other workers' movements and say, "You do not like this society, do you? But what is a good society? There could be a place where workers' assemblies (and council which are totally controlled by the assemblies) control everything - the factory, territory and life itself. And this is a place without money, the state and property. Because assemblies create a new life through dialogue and they do not need anybody else, no institutions like the state or free market. And this is workers' anarchism.
And we can have a collective of militants who can make this work - both make strikes or other forms of assembly resistence (with other workers) and at the same time spread anarchist ideas. This is an integral anarchist union, this is the model of Argentinian FORA, the model of most revolutionary groups of Russian workers, of anarchism at the beginning of the 20 century (like the Federation of Anarcho-communists in Bialystok). The best way this concept was explained was in the text of French comrades from Cannes "Anarcho-syndicalism and People&#39;s Autonomy". (They use the word <syndicalism> but they&#39;re OK). They support the model of FORA and they say it must spread anarchist ideas, initiate strikes and and cooperate with assemblies but not with trade unions and not with beaurocracy.
So what is the anarcho-syndicalism of the IWA-AIT? It was a compromise between the models of FORA and neutral syndicalism. And it is not working. It can&#39;t. The CNT say they are an anarchist union but not a union of anarchists. What does that mean in practice? They have a lot of people who are not anarchists but trade unionists. What happened with USI? The same - they have leninists in their organisation. There is no revolution but we see 1936 again and again. Anarchists &#39;protect their social rights&#39; in the RSU, cooperate with trade unionists and political party members, and even.. fight for trademarks in the state court with another reformists&#33; What else do we need to say - we need to have a finalist movement, <International FORA> or else we are nowhere.


Integral organisation

Anarchist workers&#39; organisation must be finalist, antiautoritarian and integral. Relationships between man and women, struggle against nationalism are important points. But I would like to add something. If we look at the proletarian insurrections like the european and Russian revolutions of 1917-1923, Spain 1936, Budapest 1956, Kvandju 1980, Suleimania 1991, Albania 1996, Argentina and Algeria 2002, what do we see are their causes?

1. People struggle against conditions of their lives
2. People struggle against war.
3. People struggle against police or army violence.

Well, we also can remember the ecological movement in Germany and Japan in 1970-1990.
Of course revolution stem from many reasons and we can not explain them totally by such simple things. But I can not imagine a feminist revolution or antifascist revolution.
Anti-fascism was the main slogan in Spain in 1936 and we remember it was a counter-revolutionary slogan because it was connected (first of all) with an agreement between all anti-fascist groups like anarchists, leninists and democrats. I am sure that the anarchist workers&#39; movement must destroy fascists. But not together with a state coup or red fascists (leninists) or anybody who are not better then fascists. When we destroy roots of capitalism we will smash fascists.
Feminism, if it is the main point of the movement, will bring us to women&#39;s separatism. That is why the Spanish women&#39;s anarchist movement Mujeres Libres did not call themselves feminists in 1936. Thay said they were against feminism because feminism separates people, isolate women from men and makes the collective anti-capitalist fight impossible. That&#39;s exactly what we can see today. As for Russian feminists, they are more or less separatists.
I do not want to discuss words like &#39;feminism&#39; or &#39;anti-fascism&#39;. They can be good or bad -it depends how you use them. I know Czech comrades have revolutionary experience with feminism and anti-fascism. I just wanna say if we want revolution, we need communication between different proletarian groups in the zones of permanent social conflicts like factory, poor proletarian area and university. If we forget the class struggle we become a simple anarchist federation. They don&#39;t have roots in community, no groops who permanently work in the zones of social tension. And they never have influence like the old class struggle anarchists.


International synthesis

People are strongly separated and isolated in modern society. Men and women, immigrants and others, black and white etc. And what you do with all of that? I see only one basis - solidarity in the common struggle of proletarian people. That&#39;s not enough but we can&#39;t change life without it. I understand it sounds banal but it is forgotten by anarchists.
Look at the problem of fascism. We can not destoy fascism until we have no cooperation between people of different nationalities. Anarchist federations can invent only antifa activity. But antifa are struggling (sometimes it&#39;s really important) against the results of national division, not against its roots. On the other hand we can not change things without fusion of different cultures, without a new cultural synthesis. And this culture must not be result of state violence like in the USSR but a result of spontaneous self activity.
I am not talking about multiculturalism. If we look at the modern society we will find a lot of ethnic communities with their charches, newspapers, children&#39;s organisations, schools etc. All of those organisations are controlled by capitalists and bureaucrats. They compete in the free market and in the state, they spread only hate. (States sometimes make ethnic cleansing which are terrible but free competition between ethnic communities is the preparation for that cleansing).
The majority of workers&#39; organisations are also nationalists. Even the CNT in 1936 were nationalists. (For example it rejected the idea to help Jews who escaped from nazi Germany. The General Secretary of the CNT Mariano Vaskes said that if Jews came to Spain, they would increase the power of capitalism).
I think we have to research the experience of FORA also because it was an organisation of immigrants which united Itallians, Spanish people, Serbs, Germans, Jews and Arabs. It opened the space not for ethnic &#39;peace negotiations&#39; (we know that peace negotiations between national bourgoise communities or states are just preparations for the next war) but a place for common struggle, equality and self-organisation. This whole space was permeated with the idea of a golden age - anarcho-communism

[JKP]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 09, 2006 03:01 pm
Here&#39;s a piece we received from a Russian organization called KRAS;


WORKERS&#39; ANARCHISM


Permanent crises of anarcho-syndicalism

Many times, all sections of the IWA-AIT say they are against reformism. They promise to be against collaboration with the state, against trade unionism. This is really funny as again and again reformism has taken power in AIT. There must be an explanation. And we can not say, "Oh, that&#39;s the result of a conspiracy, reformists are everywhere and they want to destroy us". That is crazy and it would be real Stalinism to say that because it is a Stalinist method of explaining everything with enemy conspiracies.
We have to say that anarcho-syndicalism is in a permanent crises. If we look at the past, we see the same situations and problems. The Spanish CNT had a revolutionary experience before 1936. There were thousands of revolutionary workers and peasants. Some of them had experience with insurrections. They had anarcho-communist ideas. CNT members and other workers took over plants in Barcelona, organised communes in Aragon and Valencia. But what happened? Why did the CNT join the government? Why did the CNT collaborate with Leninists and bourgeois democrats? Why did the CNT participate in the politics of bourgeois modernisation - the creation of a regular army, state control of industry and exploitation of workers ? Why did CNT fighters leave the barricades in Barcelona in May 1937 and give the city into the hands of the Leninist bureacrasy and Spanish capitalists?
Modern spanish CNT says,"there were mistakes". But it is not an explanation at all. Or if you want, it is also a Stalinist or post-Stalinist explanation. The Communist Party of USSR said after 1956 that " Stalin made some mistakes". But we are not talking about mistakes because both (Stalin and the CNT) supported (in 1936) the politics of state-capitalism and bourgeois modernisation. It was a long term policy, not "some mistakes".
I don&#39;t think we have to discuss Stalinism here, so let&#39;s go back to the CNT-E. We see a paradox - this organisation had revolutionary and counter-revolutionary members at the same time. And what happens if you mix a cup of honey with a cup of shit? Yeah, you will get 2 cups of shit. What is the reason for having even 100,000 anarchist militants and insurrectionists if they can not make a revolution because of a collective agreement with counter-revolutionary elements? Why give rifles to workers if they cannot use weapons against the state? Revolutionary anarchists who must compromise with their counter-revolutionary comrades (&#33;) cannot make a revolution. Durruti&#39;s friends and other revolutionary groups of the CNT almost destroyed the police in Barcelona in May 1937 but then left the barricades because they were afraid to cause a split in the CNT with people who want be friendly to the police and the state&#33;
Part of the explanation is inherent in anarcho-syndicalism itself. Anarcho-syndicalism is a compromise between anarchist workers&#39; organisations such as FORA and neutral syndicalism which talks only about economic struggle and about direct action in the work place but not about anarchist society.
Neutral syndicalist organisation is open for everybody. Syndicalists do not ask what ideas you have. They care only about direct action, workers&#39; assemblies which make economic strikes or even take over plants. Neutral syndicalists believe that common direct action will change the mind of people and make them revolutionary in the end. So it is not important what kind of ideas they have at the moment- workers have to leave all of their political ideas out of the union. Or anyway, their ideas will be changed during the struggle, to be sure&#33;
I think neutral syndicalists (or revolutionary syndicalists) were impressed by the dynamism of the workers&#39; movement at the beginning of the 20th century. They were right to say that only a rank-and-file proletarian movement can become the basis of a social revolution. They were right to say that without rank-and-file proletarian activity, 90% of people cannot change their mind. Resistence is an important part of the social transformation if it is going in a rank-and-file way. Where else and how else ca people get experience in self-organisation? But neutral syndicalists did not understand two important things.
Number one. People never leave their ideas out of the union. That&#39;s what FORA said - human beings live, love, work, make strikes, have political or philosophical ideas, dreams.. and who can cut his life into isolated sectors? That is impossible. Everything influences everything else.
Number two. People who start rank-and-file strikes are open to new ideas, dialogue and discussions. Whoever has never seen that will never understand the point. People open collective activity and dialogue for may be the first time in their lives and they see that life is not totally alieneted anymore and that life can be changed. But this is only one side of reality. On the other side, the assemblyist movement is open to different ideas. It can be anarchism, leninism, reformist socialism or even fascism. And what happens if people for example agree with trade unionism and leninism? They will stop the assemblies sooner or later and say it is better to make a compromise with the state. When will they come back to direct action? Maybe in 50 years.


From anarcho-syndicalism to FORA

We have to talk with people, help them to make their own leaflets or newspapers, tell them about other workers&#39; movements and say, "You do not like this society, do you? But what is a good society? There could be a place where workers&#39; assemblies (and council which are totally controlled by the assemblies) control everything - the factory, territory and life itself. And this is a place without money, the state and property. Because assemblies create a new life through dialogue and they do not need anybody else, no institutions like the state or free market. And this is workers&#39; anarchism.
And we can have a collective of militants who can make this work - both make strikes or other forms of assembly resistence (with other workers) and at the same time spread anarchist ideas. This is an integral anarchist union, this is the model of Argentinian FORA, the model of most revolutionary groups of Russian workers, of anarchism at the beginning of the 20 century (like the Federation of Anarcho-communists in Bialystok). The best way this concept was explained was in the text of French comrades from Cannes "Anarcho-syndicalism and People&#39;s Autonomy". (They use the word <syndicalism> but they&#39;re OK). They support the model of FORA and they say it must spread anarchist ideas, initiate strikes and and cooperate with assemblies but not with trade unions and not with beaurocracy.
So what is the anarcho-syndicalism of the IWA-AIT? It was a compromise between the models of FORA and neutral syndicalism. And it is not working. It can&#39;t. The CNT say they are an anarchist union but not a union of anarchists. What does that mean in practice? They have a lot of people who are not anarchists but trade unionists. What happened with USI? The same - they have leninists in their organisation. There is no revolution but we see 1936 again and again. Anarchists &#39;protect their social rights&#39; in the RSU, cooperate with trade unionists and political party members, and even.. fight for trademarks in the state court with another reformists&#33; What else do we need to say - we need to have a finalist movement, <International FORA> or else we are nowhere.


Integral organisation

Anarchist workers&#39; organisation must be finalist, antiautoritarian and integral. Relationships between man and women, struggle against nationalism are important points. But I would like to add something. If we look at the proletarian insurrections like the european and Russian revolutions of 1917-1923, Spain 1936, Budapest 1956, Kvandju 1980, Suleimania 1991, Albania 1996, Argentina and Algeria 2002, what do we see are their causes?

1. People struggle against conditions of their lives
2. People struggle against war.
3. People struggle against police or army violence.

Well, we also can remember the ecological movement in Germany and Japan in 1970-1990.
Of course revolution stem from many reasons and we can not explain them totally by such simple things. But I can not imagine a feminist revolution or antifascist revolution.
Anti-fascism was the main slogan in Spain in 1936 and we remember it was a counter-revolutionary slogan because it was connected (first of all) with an agreement between all anti-fascist groups like anarchists, leninists and democrats. I am sure that the anarchist workers&#39; movement must destroy fascists. But not together with a state coup or red fascists (leninists) or anybody who are not better then fascists. When we destroy roots of capitalism we will smash fascists.
Feminism, if it is the main point of the movement, will bring us to women&#39;s separatism. That is why the Spanish women&#39;s anarchist movement Mujeres Libres did not call themselves feminists in 1936. Thay said they were against feminism because feminism separates people, isolate women from men and makes the collective anti-capitalist fight impossible. That&#39;s exactly what we can see today. As for Russian feminists, they are more or less separatists.
I do not want to discuss words like &#39;feminism&#39; or &#39;anti-fascism&#39;. They can be good or bad -it depends how you use them. I know Czech comrades have revolutionary experience with feminism and anti-fascism. I just wanna say if we want revolution, we need communication between different proletarian groups in the zones of permanent social conflicts like factory, poor proletarian area and university. If we forget the class struggle we become a simple anarchist federation. They don&#39;t have roots in community, no groops who permanently work in the zones of social tension. And they never have influence like the old class struggle anarchists.


International synthesis

People are strongly separated and isolated in modern society. Men and women, immigrants and others, black and white etc. And what you do with all of that? I see only one basis - solidarity in the common struggle of proletarian people. That&#39;s not enough but we can&#39;t change life without it. I understand it sounds banal but it is forgotten by anarchists.
Look at the problem of fascism. We can not destoy fascism until we have no cooperation between people of different nationalities. Anarchist federations can invent only antifa activity. But antifa are struggling (sometimes it&#39;s really important) against the results of national division, not against its roots. On the other hand we can not change things without fusion of different cultures, without a new cultural synthesis. And this culture must not be result of state violence like in the USSR but a result of spontaneous self activity.
I am not talking about multiculturalism. If we look at the modern society we will find a lot of ethnic communities with their charches, newspapers, children&#39;s organisations, schools etc. All of those organisations are controlled by capitalists and bureaucrats. They compete in the free market and in the state, they spread only hate. (States sometimes make ethnic cleansing which are terrible but free competition between ethnic communities is the preparation for that cleansing).
The majority of workers&#39; organisations are also nationalists. Even the CNT in 1936 were nationalists. (For example it rejected the idea to help Jews who escaped from nazi Germany. The General Secretary of the CNT Mariano Vaskes said that if Jews came to Spain, they would increase the power of capitalism).
I think we have to research the experience of FORA also because it was an organisation of immigrants which united Itallians, Spanish people, Serbs, Germans, Jews and Arabs. It opened the space not for ethnic &#39;peace negotiations&#39; (we know that peace negotiations between national bourgoise communities or states are just preparations for the next war) but a place for common struggle, equality and self-organisation. This whole space was permeated with the idea of a golden age - anarcho-communism

Where did you get that essay?

And as for the idea presented regrading "FORA" I think it&#39;s very good, although they&#39;re going need to explain how they&#39;re going to get members. The C.N.T and IWW have very low memberships nowadays. Let alone the openly reformist unions.

[propertyistheft]

I think that anrcho syndicalism has lost most of the power it had when it comes to organizing and agitating, but when it comes to an actual anarchist society we need its economic formula for production. Unless you are Primitivist I think wed all agree that factories are neccessary in any modern society.

[propertyistheft]

I think that anrcho syndicalism has lost most of the power it had when it comes to organizing and agitating, but when it comes to an actual anarchist society we need its economic formula for production. Unless you are Primitivist I think wed all agree that factories are neccessary in any modern society.

[propertyistheft]

I think that anracho syndicalism has lost most of the power it had when it comes to organizing and agitating, but when it comes to an actual anarchist society we need its economic formula for production. Unless you are Primitivist I think wed all agree that factories are neccessary in any modern society.

[Leo]

Where did you get that essay?

I think someone from Russia sent it to me.

[Dimentio]

It is viable as long as our society follows the physical laws of thermodynamics. But the best form of anarcho-syndicalist society would be a technocratic form of anarcho-syndicalism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Anarcho-Syndicalism as its&#39; own theory was never viable. Aspects of it though, were/are still viable.

[which doctor]

What is it with insurrectionary anarchists and "post industrial society"? It&#39;s irrelevant, we all still have to work. While a lot of industrial production has moved to third world countries, this does not stop syndicalist theory from being functional. Do you deny that workers still need to take over production? Yes, we must. Therefore, syndicalism is just as relevant because post revolutionary society must be organized along production.
Yes, but a lot of production has moved outside the first world. I do not disagree with the idea that the means of production need to be taken over, but could there really be a first-world revolution built on that idea? Just how do service workers take over the means of production? People are increasingly becoming estranged from the means of production.


While I agree insurrectionary anarchism is romantic and appealing, it is usually never practical.
Weak rhetoric. You have no proof that it is not "practical."


Insurrections are necessary during the revolution. However an "affinity" group cannot make revolution.
Affinity groups don&#39;t make insurrections either. They may incite them, but it is the unorganized masses who fuel them.


Although the quote above makes it seem possible, a mass organization of affinity groups is really not different in theory than a syndicalist organization. Except of course in reality, the syndicalist organization actually participates in the class war and revolutionizing production. The latter can&#39;t be said for affinity groups.
Why can&#39;t the latter be said for affinity groups? Affinity groups can certainly participate in class war and they do. As for unions, it can certainly be debated whether or not they are run along class lines or not.


Can we really call the population an "affinity group"? Can we even say the uprising was based on actions from an affinity group?
You don&#39;t understand affinity groups. An entire population cannot be an affinity group, it negates the purpose. Uprisings are also not based entirely on the actions of an affinity group. As I said before, affinity groups can sometimes provide the spark, or do more clandestine work, but the uprising is based on the masses.


The formation of post revolutionary production (workers councils) from the onset shows the relevancy for anarchist syndicalism. If we look at Spain for example, the big names of the CNT were taking part in and organizing insurrections. That is why I think creating a seperate branch of anarchism (insurrectionary anarchism) is pointless. The syndicalist union wants to make revolution and if the people are ready to do that an insurrection will commence.
You constantly refer to Spain as an example of anarcho-syndicalism. 1930&#39;s Spain was a lot different than modern America or Europe. As I said before, people are much more estranged from the means of production.



And an affinity group does not meet this deffinition? Do they not have goals? Do they not wish to create better conditions (through the inssurection)? The difference seems to be they are just to small to be a real organization. Nor do they have any real network connecting them all.
Affinity groups are for clandestine direct action against capital. They strive to create the atmosphere for radical change by the people. Affinity groups don&#39;t change things, the unorganized masses do.




What exactly does "post-industrial" mean? Its such an amorphous term. As far as I can see, most commodities are still produced in industrial ways today. I can only assume he is referring to either the rise of intellectual commodities or the service sector of an economy. But both of these function as either conceptual or distributive aspects of industrial production, and represent a refinement of said production but not a "transcendence" of it. There is something of meaning to this change, it does cause us to reconsider things, but I dont see how it fundamentally changes things or what the connection between such a change and the need for insurrectionary anarchist measures is necessary.
Post-industrial refers to the increasing service sector and the decline of a first-world industrial economy.


There are IWA unions all over Western Europe. The CGT in Spain is the countries third largest union with 70,000 members.
Yes, but just how radical are these "revolutionary" unions? They main concept of a union involves compromise and agreement between the ruling class and the ruled class. Do these supposedly radical unions differ from this central concept?

[RGacky3]

As far as I know, Anarcho-syndicalists have been the most successful in actually creating worker control of production, and furthering workers toward that control. Lenninists hav&#39;nt come close (they always get stuck on the dictatorship of the proletariate, until they collapse, or give in to capitalism), other Anarchists as far as I know hav&#39;nt accomplished much more than symbolic victories, Most Democratic Socialists have just made Capitalism a little nicer (usually causing bad things like lay offs and Capital flights and not being able to compete with more efficiant and cruel Capitalist countries). Anarcho-Syndicalists actually get stuff done.


Yes, but a lot of production has moved outside the first world. I do not disagree with the idea that the means of production need to be taken over, but could there really be a first-world revolution built on that idea? Just how do service workers take over the means of production? People are increasingly becoming estranged from the means of production.

First of all most Anarcho-Syndicalists will probably agree that the first and third (and second) worlds have to work in Solidarity, and that a revolution is a slow proccess of struggle after strugger. Second of coarse Service industry can take over their production, what are they getting wages for? Either helping distribution (selling) of products, or comfort services, either way, the owners of these firms are using them to do work, and profeting from it, they would take over (in simple terms) by getting rid of the bosses. A lot of the business in first world countries is intellectual property, planning, engineering, and the such, and in most of these &#39;industries&#39; there are bosses and employees. Of coarse, as I said before it must be a combined movement.



Yes, but just how radical are these "revolutionary" unions? They main concept of a union involves compromise and agreement between the ruling class and the ruled class. Do these supposedly radical unions differ from this central concept?

ever read the preamble to the IWW constitution?

[rebelworker]

I think combative unionism is still clearly one of the most importnt components of building a revolutionary movement. Anarcho-syndicalism is a very good critique of taditional beurocratic unionism and historically has been the most cmbative and workers controlled element of the labour movement.

Having said this i think revolutionary syndicalism alone is not enough, spain showed this, the CNT was in a position to destroy the govt and govern catalonia and some other smaller regions, but they didnt.

Why, well there were clearly contradiction within the union, particularly many of the leadership who went on to participate in the govt. had the CNT taken power (in a non centralised way) they probably could have convinced the left wing of the UGt to join them, thus full revolution.

What was needed was a militant grassroots workers organisation with an entierly revolutionary platform, unlike the CNT which was forced for years o struggle as a union, make reforms ect, and unlike the FAI whoch was mre of an intelectual society.

The Freiends of Durrutti group was this organisation, and thier positions were correct, unfortunately they started too late and were unable to lnk up with other isolated regional revolutionary networks within the CNT.

I support comabtative unionism, even AS where possible, but this dose not eliminate the need for a specific revolutionary organisation to work both within and outside of union structures.

[RGacky3]

I agree with you, however I&#39;m very skeptical with revolutionary militant groups unless (like revolutoinary unions) they are non-hiarchal completely grass roots, democratic group, which is very hard to find, as most revolutionary militant groups are vanguardists, or tied with political parties.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Sorry about Necrotizing this thread.

FoB mentioned that workers in the first-world are increasingly estranged from the means of production, because of the rise of service work. But, what about a workers service being a product?

Like factory workers are alienated from their produce, service workers are alienated as to who they can serve and how they can serve. They can&#39;t deny anyone service, and they can never act like they have a shred of dignity.

If a team of wal-mart employees went on strike, it would be a pain in the ass to management to replace them.

Also, these affinately groups would have to do something really amazing.
But, how? Every tactic in the world has been used under many circumstances.


Originally posted by rebelworker
I support comabtative unionism, even AS where possible, but this dose not eliminate the need for a specific revolutionary organisation to work both within and outside of union structures.
But this organization needs to be the unions itself-- not some advisory board and workers just "support them", or an octopus.