The Anarco-Syndicalist roots of Fascism? WTF?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I found this on wikipedia and was curious about your thoughts.


This prospect in Italian Fascist Corporativism claimed to be the direct heir of Georges Sorel's Anarcho-syndicalism. Wherein each interest was to form as its own entity with separate organizing parameters according to their own standards, only however within the corporative model of Italian Fascism each was supposed to be incorporated through the auspices & organizing ability of a statist construct. This was by their reasoning the only possible way to achieve such a function, i.e. when resolved in the capability of an indissolvable state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

This should be in OI but I'm sure if I put it there it would be flooded by capitalists. I'm more interested in seeing anarchists disprove this.

[JazzRemington]

Well, there is the claim that Max Stirner's Egoism leads to fascism because Mussilini was originally an Egoist.

[Inviction]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 02:05 am
I found this on wikipedia and was curious about your thoughts.


This prospect in Italian Fascist Corporativism claimed to be the direct heir of Georges Sorel's Anarcho-syndicalism. Wherein each interest was to form as its own entity with separate organizing parameters according to their own standards, only however within the corporative model of Italian Fascism each was supposed to be incorporated through the auspices & organizing ability of a statist construct. This was by their reasoning the only possible way to achieve such a function, i.e. when resolved in the capability of an indissolvable state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

This should be in OI but I'm sure if I put it there it would be flooded by capitalists. I'm more interested in seeing anarchists disprove this.
To the best of my knowledge, Mussolini strongly believed in a nationalist state wherein corporations controlled by the government would have total dominance over societal life.

[black magick hustla]

who the fuck cares

third positionists always claim that marxism was one of their theoretical bases, that doesnt disproves marxism though

what is you and your recent tirade of trying to slander ultraleft groups like the POUM and recently anarcho-syndicalists?

[ahab]

yea like the fucking NSM that nazi fucking group their name stands for National Socialist Movement, which they are fighting for radical socialist change they just put that in their name for some damn reason

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 04:02 am
who the fuck cares

third positionists always claim that marxism was one of their theoretical bases, that doesnt disproves marxism though

what is you and your recent tirade of trying to slander ultraleft groups like the POUM and recently anarcho-syndicalists?
what? I am not slandering POUM and Anarcho-syndicalists. I am just bringing up questions. The POUM thread was in learning in case you didn't notice. This is in theory but it posed as a question to anarchists. Instead of claiming I am making tirades you should try to disprove this.

Besides, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and so I do not stand for anarchism and trotskyism. I believe the workers all over the world in the most exploited places have made their choice, and it has always been marxist-leninism or ml-maoism. Look now at Nepal. Look at India. Look at pretty much every place where there is a significant workers movement. Meanwhile anarchism and trotskyism are pretty much a first world phenomenon. There is a small anarchist movement in Latin America, a small trot movement in Pakistan and India and Africa, and a left communist movement in Turkey, but in each of those places, Marxist-Leninism is twice as large and popular.

What I find ironic is that while left-communists and trots and anarchists debate and chat about focusing on the future of anarchist and trot revolutions rather than the past, Maoists are actually acting and creating protracted people's war that is not dogmatic.

[blake 3:17]

As a relatively anarcho-trot -- Blakean Marxist is what I prefer -- I see a strong importance in recognizing similarities between popular leftism, small or large, and fascism. My political development grew out of hardcore anti-fascism and some practices mirrored the neo-Nazis -- primarily physical force. I don't necessarily disagreee with the tactics (they turned out to be highly effective), but they didn't presuppose a positive alternative and many people were attracted to anti-fascism for pretty thuggish quasi fascist motivations.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 04:26 am


Besides, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and so I do not stand for anarchism and trotskyism. I believe the workers all over the world in the most exploited places have made their choice, and it has always been marxist-leninism or ml-maoism. Look now at Nepal. Look at India. Look at pretty much every place where there is a significant workers movement. Meanwhile anarchism and trotskyism are pretty much a first world phenomenon. There is a small anarchist movement in Latin America, a small trot movement in Pakistan and India and Africa, and a left communist movement in Turkey, but in each of those places, Marxist-Leninism is twice as large and popular.

What I find ironic is that while left-communists and trots and anarchists debate and chat about focusing on the future of anarchist and trot revolutions rather than the past, Maoists are actually acting and creating protracted people's war that is not dogmatic.
i am not going to disprove it because it is fucking stupid.

It is not unknown that fascists have had their own fascist unions that had as a future project to destroy class struggle by incoroporating such unions to the state. that has nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism is about self-management and democracy, not fascism.

besides why the fuck are you writing a mini-essay about your convictions? are you trying to justify that you are in fact--slandering?

Most of the working class throughout the world chooses religion, bourgeois democracy and nationalism, this is not new. that they choose MLM theology over real class struggle and communism clearly proves what i am saying.


Who the fuck says that we just focus on "future revolutions"? Radical unions are some of the biggest radical left organizations, and they fight for the empowerment of workers where it really matters--in the workplace. The means of production (the workplace) are the groundworks of society and ideology--it has always been like that.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:23 am








i am not going to disprove it because it is fucking stupid.

:rolleyes: okay then. Don't post on this thread if you think its stupid.



besides why the fuck are you writing a mini-essay about your convictions? are you trying to justify that you are in fact--slandering?

no shithead, I am trying to explain that I am asking simple questions, on in the LEARNING FORUM, the other NOT IN OI WHERE IT SHOULD BE IN ORDER TO GIVE ANARCHISTS A FAIR SHOT.


Most of the working class throughout the world chooses religion, bourgeois democracy and nationalism, this is not new. that they choose MLM theology over real class struggle and communism clearly proves what i am saying.

That is the most retarded shit I have ever heard. Not only do you patronize the entire fucking working class, but you also call an ideology that has been more involved in class struggle than yours will ever be fake.


Who the fuck says that we just focus on "future revolutions"? Radical unions are some of the biggest radical left organizations, and they fight for the empowerment of workers where it really matters--in the workplace. The means of production (the workplace) are the groundworks of society and ideology--it has always been like that.

I was meaning as opposed to past revolutions. A common arguement I hear from anarchists when I bring up all of the worker class struggles from the marxist-leninist ideology is that we should forget the past and focus on the present and future. Of course they don't. The Maoists on the otherhand, do.

[jesuswept]

Originally posted by blake 3:[email protected] 02, 2006 04:54 am
As a relatively anarcho-trot -- Blakean Marxist is what I prefer -- I see a strong importance in recognizing similarities between popular leftism, small or large, and fascism. My political development grew out of hardcore anti-fascism and some practices mirrored the neo-Nazis -- primarily physical force. I don't necessarily disagreee with the tactics (they turned out to be highly effective), but they didn't presuppose a positive alternative and many people were attracted to anti-fascism for pretty thuggish quasi fascist motivations.
Blake you raise an interesting point about similarities between the far-left and the far-right. I've often thought that violence in the left-wing movement is counterproductive (I realise this is heresy for some), since the ends don't justify the means. If you find yourself murdering a bunch of right-wing fuckers, it's a sure sign that something's wrong with your approach. Human societies evolve slowly through the dissemination of ideas (memes), and while forcing change with guns may create immediate benefits for large segments of the population, in the long term this will be offset by the creation of a precedent; "change occurs through violence". It encourages an equally violent swing back to the right, with awful consequences for everyone involved.

A hilarious passage from Coover's "Whatever Happened to Gloomy Gus":
'Workers aren't warriors', he's often said. 'In armed conflict you need some pros.' Not that the unions do much recruiting from the underworld, of course.'Those guys are instinctively reactionary, the boss-pool you might call them, you can't trust them.' I'm sure the regret in his voice was sincere. And then that mustachioed grin: 'Now, psychos on the other hand...'

[Whitten]

Mussolini called his Ideology "National Syndicalism" (much alike Hitler's "National Socialism").

[blake 3:17]

I've often thought that violence in the left-wing movement is counterproductive (I realise this is heresy for some), since the ends don't justify the means. If you find yourself murdering a bunch of right-wing fuckers, it's a sure sign that something's wrong with your approach.

I'm have very very mixed feelings on violence and social change. The biggest internal danger that violence presents to us is that violence becomes the end in itself. Violence can become both the 'high' and the 'low' of a movement.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Lefty Henry
I'm more interested in seeing anarchists disprove this.

I don't understand why we should care either way...

But what is there to 'disprove'? :blink:

It's not as if italian fascists claiming some syndicalist heritage actually has any bearing on anarcho-syndicalism as a theory or movement, true or false, why would it? So again, why should we care?

This thread seems to be more an attempt to provoke some kind of argument with anarchists/syndicalists then anything else, oh well.

[YSR]

Fascism has its roots in non-anarchist syndicalism. I don't think there's really any debate about that. Mussolini used to be a socialist.

There's no really effort to "disprove" it, except among a growing group of scholars who are actually trying to tie fascism more and more to left-wing theory, particularly Marxist and anarchist. (One of these scholars is a professor of mine, and I have yet to be convinced by his arguments.)

[Nusocialist]

Fascism has its roots in non-anarchist syndicalism. I don't think there's really any debate about that. Mussolini used to be a socialist.

There's no really effort to "disprove" it, except among a growing group of scholars who are actually trying to tie fascism more and more to left-wing theory, particularly Marxist and anarchist. (One of these scholars is a professor of mine, and I have yet to be convinced by his arguments.)
I've noticed this,many fundies and utlra rightists I have talked with keep claiming the Nazis are leftists.
Their arguments are usually stupid,some are even as laughable as the nazis are called "national socialists",but this propaganda really pisses me off.

[Dimentio]

Third positionism is hawt :P

Seriously, anarchism, or some aspects of it, in some extent is based on idealist irrationalism, and the lust to make love or destruction. The same is the truth about "conservative revolutionaries" and fascists. ^^

[chimx]

the lust to make love or destruction?? did you get that from a grocery story romance novel?

[Dimentio]

No, from Sorel, and to some extent from the circles around that old dork Niekisch.

[Lamanov]

This is a rather naive question to be raised, so let's close it now for good:

It's quite simple and obvious: Corporatism wants to incorporate collectives into the capitalist system and the state -- anarcho-syndicalism wants to destroy both.

They stem from different practical positions, one from the position of totalitarianization of society, and other from position of working class self-emancipition, and since that's what matters the most, there can be no word of "connection".

Get it?

[Dimentio]

Mussolini and de Riviera tried to find one. But we must remember thay syndicalism and anarchism have different aspects which are attracting different kinds of people. Some anarchists are just anarchists because they like chaos and dislike authority. Such people could easily slant over to the other extreme and begin to dismiss all ethics except brute force, and either turn into libertarians or fascists.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The fascists in Spain tried to rip everything they could from the anarchist syndicalism because it was so popular.

National syndicalists support having a one big union except they wanted this union to collaborate with the state and business interests in order to run production. This is completely different from anarchist unions who want to destroy the state and the business interests and have production run by workers.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 08:39 pm
The fascists in Spain tried to rip everything they could from the anarchist syndicalism because it was so popular.

Nope. That can't be the reason. Fascists wanted to destroy anarcho-syndicalism not becuase of its popularity but because of what it did.

[[email protected]@ns]

Okay, I don't know if anyone already said this but I am too lazy too read all of the posts. There is something called national-syndicalism. National syndicalism is also on wikipedia and I found it very interesting. I am an anarchist and I could not disagree with the ideas of national-syndicalism any more. I think it is funny though how people will take one theory and then try to apply it to the direct opposite theory. Has anyone checked out national-bolshevism? Anarchy is the exact opposite in every way of fascism. Just like in theory marxism is the direct opposite of fascism. In my opinion anarchism is more left due to the fact that it opposes hierarchy.

To respond directly to the thread. Anarchy is in no way related to fascism.

[YSR]

Probably shoulda read the thread. It was pretty much right above your post.

[[email protected]@ns]

No, National-syndicalism is different from corpratism. Corpratism is state sanctioned where as national-syndicalism is abolition of the state but instead of left revolution it advocates class cooperation. Anarcho-syndicalism advocates nothing of the later ideologies.

[[email protected]@ns]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 08:39 pm
The fascists in Spain tried to rip everything they could from the anarchist syndicalism because it was so popular.

National syndicalists support having a one big union except they wanted this union to collaborate with the state and business interests in order to run production. This is completely different from anarchist unions who want to destroy the state and the business interests and have production run by workers.
This guy is absolutely right.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 08:02 am
No, from Sorel, and to some extent from the circles around that old dork Niekisch.
well, sorel essentially was a romance novelist. best not to see him as a theoretical representative of all anarchist though.