What Is ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM?

[MYSTIC OWL]

I eavesdropped on a conversation between two 'old guards' talking about ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM.

What is this, exactly.

I would have asked them, but, I didn&#39;t want to interrupt their conversation . . . (truth be told, they were too busy interrupting themselves). <_<

[Bilan]

What are old guards?
Anyway, this (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secJ3.html#secj38) should help, as should this. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bright/rocker/rockerworks.html)

[apathy maybe]

Anarcho-Syndicalism is a variant of anarchism that focuses on workers councils and worker organisations. It is basically anarchist ideas applied to syndicalism.

From Wikipedia,

Originally posted by Syndicalism
Syndicalism refers to a set of ideas, movements, and tendencies which share the avowed aim of transforming capitalist society through action by the working class on the industrial front. For syndicalists, labor unions are the potential means both of overcoming capitalism and of running society in the interests of the majority. Industry and government in a syndicalist society would be run by labour union federations.

Most anarcho-syndicalists envisage some sort of communist society as the end result of the struggle to eliminate capitalism and the state.

[Tower of Bebel]

The only struggle where anarcho-syndicalism was practiced on greater scale was the Spanish civil war (or revolution).

[syndicat]

anarcho-syndicalism is a revolutionary strategy based on the development of mass organizations (such as unions) in the class struggle that are self-managing, that is, directly controlled by their members. the idea is that the working class builds organizations in which the class itself is involved together in the struggle and which expresses and develops worker solidarity. but it need not be limited to workplace organizations. the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists in the &#39;20s and &#39;30s developed neighborhood based organizations, as in the mass rent strike in Barcelona in 1931.

the mass organizations are the means of struggle today, the means through which class consciousness is developed, but also provide the tools for the struggle for working class power, to replace the bosses and the state. the mass organizations are to be self-managing because the society that anarcho-syndicalism aims at is a self-managing form of socialism. anarcho-syndicalism believes that it is the mass organizations of the working class, not a political party, that are the means to working class power. "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

anarcho-syndicalism advocates direct collective activity and solidarity as the means of struggle, not electoral politics.

anarcho-syndicalism advocates social ownership of the means of production, workers self-management, and political and economic governance of society rooted in the participatory democracy of assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods. the state is to be replaced with a grassroots goverance structure based on a federation of the assemblies, councils or congresses, and an egalitarian militia rather than a hierarchical professional army.

anarcho-syndicalists played a small role in the Russian revolution, a significant role in the worker council movement in Italy after World War I, but historically the only revolutionary process where anarcho-syndicalism was the dominant force was the Spanish revolution of 1936.

WSA is an anarcho-syndicalist political group:

http://www.workersolidarity.org

[Tower of Bebel]

What is the attitude of anarcho-syndicalists to communist parties?

[Rawthentic]

"the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."
You know Karl Marx said that right?

But then again anarcho-syndicalism rejects the political struggle, which is the field where the working class will either win or lose.

[cenv]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 26, 2007 10:32 pm
But then again anarcho-syndicalism rejects the political struggle, which is the field where the working class will either win or lose.
Kind of sad to see comrades from the CL regurgitating this nonsense.

MYSTIC OWL: Syndicat summed it up well. In addition to what&#39;s already been posted, you might want to check out www.anarchosyndicalism.net. And yeah, check out the WSA website -- it&#39;ll give you a better idea of what anarcho-syndicalist groups advocate.

You could also check out Solidarity Federation&#39;s website (www.solfed.org.uk). They&#39;re an anarcho-syndicalist group in the UK.


What is the attitude of anarcho-syndicalists to communist parties?
It really depends on the party. Obviously, anarcho-syndicalists wouldn&#39;t support Marxist-Leninist parties where the party "leadership" acts on behalf of the rank-and-file membership. But if the "party" is self-managed (controlled by the membership) and advocates a society controlled by the working class, an anarcho-syndicalist probably wouldn&#39;t mind them (although there are always people who judge organizations based on labels such as "anarchist," "Marxist," etc. instead of evaluating how the organization functions and what it advocates).

[Rawthentic]

Kind of sad to see comrades from the CL regurgitating this nonsense.
Oh really? So, the anarcho-syndicalists see the need for the working class to be organized as an independent political force to smash the capitalist state? Or do they see the state as a mere "product therein" of capitalist class society and thus reject political organization?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 27, 2007 04:50 am

Kind of sad to see comrades from the CL regurgitating this nonsense.
Oh really? So, the anarcho-syndicalists see the need for the working class to be organized as an independent political force to smash the capitalist state? Or do they see the state as a mere "product therein" of capitalist class society and thus reject political organization?
organization n.- A structure through which individuals cooperate systematically to conduct activities.

state n. A political body of or pertaining to a central civil government or authority.

Anarcho-syndicalists support the creation of an "organization" but not necessarily a government-run "state".

[apathy maybe]

Voz de la Gente Trabajadora: Regardless of what you may think of anarcho-syndicalists and even anarchists in general, please don&#39;t come into threads which are specifically asking about such topics and start ranting.

"But then again anarcho-syndicalism rejects the political struggle, which is the field where the working class will either win or lose."
No, like all anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists reject parliamentary politics. Something different. The slander that anarchists are "a-political" is just that, slander.

Originally posted by An Anarchist FAQ
As it desires to fundamentally change society, anarchism can be nothing but political.

So, anarchists reject capitalist politics (i.e. electioneering), but we do not ignore politics nor wider political discussion. Anarchists have always recognised the importance of political debate and ideas in social movements. As Bakunin argued should "the International [an international organisation of working class unions and groups]. . . cease to concern itself with political and philosophical questions? Would [it] . . . ignore progress in the world of thought as well as the events which accompany or arise from the political struggle in and between states[?]. . . We hasten to say that it is absolutely impossible to ignore political and philosophical questions. An exclusive pre-occupation with economic questions would be fatal for the proletariat. . . [i]t is impossible for the workers to stop there without renouncing their humanity and depriving themselves of the intellectual and moral power which is so necessary for the conquest of their economic rights" [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 301]

Nor do anarchists ignore elections. As Vernon Richards argues, anarchists "cannot be uninterested in . . . election results, whatever their view about the demerits of the contending Parties. The fact that the anarchist movement has campaigned to persuade people not to use their vote is proof of our commitment and interest. If there is, say, a 60 per cent. poll we will not assume that the 40 per cent. abstentions are anarchists, but we would surely be justified in drawing the conclusion that among the 40 per cent. there are a sizeable minority who have lost faith in political parties and were looking for other instruments, other values." [The Impossibilities of Social Democracy, p. 141]

Thus the charge anarchists are apolitical or indifferent to politics (even capitalist politics) is a myth. Rather, "we are not concerned with choosing between governments but with creating the situation where government can no longer operate, because only then will we organise locally, regionally, nationally and internationally to satisfy real needs and common aspirations." For "so long as we have capitalism and government, the job of anarchists is to fight both, and at the same time encourage people to take what steps they can to run their own lives." [Vernon Richards, The Raven, no. 14, p. 179]
You can find more and the rest at An Anarchist FAQ, Section J2 (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ2.html#secj210)


Oh really? So, the anarcho-syndicalists see the need for the working class to be organized as an independent political force to smash the capitalist state? Or do they see the state as a mere "product therein" of capitalist class society and thus reject political organization?Shows (again) how little you know about syndicalism generally, and anarcho-syndicalism specifically.
Revolutionary unions are "an independent political force" that can "smash the capitalist state". As well, I don&#39;t know anyone who says that the capitalist state is a "mere" product of capitalist class society, indeed that sounds more like something a Marxist would say then an anarchist&#33;

Anarchists don&#39;t reject political organisation, we reject organisation to take control of the state (as we define it&#33;, fuck your definition when talking about anarchism, it isn&#39;t relevant). Anarchists reject political parties who run for election. We don&#39;t reject organising, nor political organising.


Back to discussing more specifically anarcho-syndicalism: I&#39;ve always considered anarcho-syndicalists to be closer to Marxists then almost any other sort of anarchism (anarcho-communism perhaps being excepted). The reason is the worker obsession. Most Marxists that I&#39;ve read (including on this board) reject the idea that non-workers can play a significant role in any revolution. Syndicalists also seem to say this. Of course, this may well be a misunderstanding on my part. But this has always put me off syndicalism a bit (especially as I&#39;m a lumpen-prol (to use the Marxian terminology)).

Edit: fixed formatting.

[MYSTIC OWL]

Reading all your replies, the summary of what you&#39;re all saying is that unions or workers cooperatives are good examples of Anarcho-Syndicalism . . . any participatory organisation formed of the workers to protect/promote/regulate their affairs.

YES? Have I got it?&#33;

Does syndicalism work at a sub-governmental level, OR, can there be an example of a government embodying the principles of syndicalism?

Apart from Spain during its civil war, are there examples of syndicalism at work in history . . . (or now)?

Thank you all for forwarding the website links - will go and look.

[Sentinel]

Great post apathy maybe. This needs to be discussed though:


Back to discussing more specifically anarcho-syndicalism: I&#39;ve always considered anarcho-syndicalists to be closer to Marxists then almost any other sort of anarchism (anarcho-communism perhaps being excepted). The reason is the worker obsession.
Most Marxists that I&#39;ve read (including on this board) reject the idea that non-workers can play a significant role in any revolution. Syndicalists also seem to say this. Of course, this may well be a misunderstanding on my part. But this has always put me off syndicalism a bit (especially as I&#39;m a lumpen-prol (to use the Marxian terminology)).

I personally do embrace many aspects of marxism while rejecting others -- I mostly endorse the Marxian class analysis and advocate historical materialism but don&#39;t support many of his actions as a member of the first international, his views on the state post revolution etc. I consider myself a syndicalist, and also am one in practice.

Syndicalism is by it&#39;s very nature obviously a workerist paradigm, but the SAC here in Sweden for instance also welcomes the unemployed and students as associates. Class is not just what you do, but what your background as well as your relation to the means of production and labor are.

Syndicalists are of the conviction that the producers should control production and distribution, and that does in much equal control of society, yes. But this is due to the basic principle that everyone should have a say in all matters that concerns them -- direct democracy.

Thus, much like the producers would control production, housing would likely be controlled by those using the apartments, etc. Like Syndicat pointed out, it is about mass organisations and from bottom to up organising, not just unions in the workplace.

Generally, society would be run along the principles of federalism, and as everyones needs would be met, everyone would have at least an indirect impact on production as well.

***

Also, without the working class there can&#39;t be any progressive mass organisations. The so called &#39;worker obsession&#39; comes from realising the fact that the working class is the only class in whose interests -- as a class -- the abolition of capitalism and seizure of control over the means of production lie and which has the sufficient numbers to do so.

Thus the proletariat is the only class which is ever likely to do such a thing in practice -- the only revolutionary class.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks Apathy Maybe, that helps out.

Anyway, aren&#39;t unions economic organizations?

[rebelworker]

This is one of the biggest critiques I have of syndicalism, that unions are at the base an economic organistion, although in practice they are the most important political organisation of our class in many ways.

Some syndicalist I think realise this contradiction, for example, Some WSA and IWW members are also NEFAC members.

I think the idea of building a radical democratic fighting union is one of the most important steps workers can be doing to advance the class struggle and conciousness of workers. By building our own pure class organisations we learn to govern ourselves and organise.

Now the real problem for me with syndicalism comes later, in a revolutionary period. Here I see the central role of a purely political organisation. Like political parties vying for state power, elements of the leadership and burocracy of a large union will be pulled into the struggle to controll the state/ruling class apparatus. Even the mighty CNT fell victim to this. Here I see the need of an anti state/parlimentarian revolutionary workers organisation to have influence among the rank and file of the workers movement and push for the revolutionary path, as the Friends of Durutti attempted. Unfortunately the FoD were late entering the game and ultimately unsuccessful.

I think that the WSA is unique in many ways because unlike the IWW it works much more as a political organisation than a union.

[Jesus Christ!]

But the whole point is that a political organization suffocates the workers and centers all the power in a select few, which is exactly opposite of what anarcho-syndicalism is.

[syndicat]

JC:
But the whole point is that a political organization suffocates the workers and centers all the power in a select few, which is exactly opposite of what anarcho-syndicalism is.

It does not have to be that way. You need to distinguish a political party -- an organization formed to put its leadership into control of a state -- from a political organization. A left-libertarian political organization may have as its aim encouraging and fighting for self-management of mass organizations (unions etc) by the rank and file, and training, encouraging self-development of, the skills and self-confidence and conciousess of fellow workers so that they are prepared to be a more active factor and effectively control their own mass organizations.

WSA is a political organization that advocates anarcho-syndicalism. There is no contradiction in that.

rebelworker:
This is one of the biggest critiques I have of syndicalism, that unions are at the base an economic organistion, although in practice they are the most important political organisation of our class in many ways.

I&#39;m not sure I understand your criticism.

rw:
Now the real problem for me with syndicalism comes later, in a revolutionary period. Here I see the central role of a purely political organisation. Like political parties vying for state power, elements of the leadership and burocracy of a large union will be pulled into the struggle to controll the state/ruling class apparatus. Even the mighty CNT fell victim to this. Here I see the need of an anti state/parlimentarian revolutionary workers organisation to have influence among the rank and file of the workers movement and push for the revolutionary path, as the Friends of Durutti attempted. Unfortunately the FoD were late entering the game and ultimately unsuccessful.

The problem for your thesis is that it isn&#39;t consistent with what actually happened. The people who pushed for collaboration with the Popular Front parties in July of 1936 were the middle class anarchist intellectuals in the FAI leadership. As Juan Garcia Oliver says in his memoir, this "bankrupted" the FAI because the FAI was formed precisely as you suggest, as political organization, of revolutionaries, to influence the CNT away from reformist and authoritarian or bureaucratic tendencies.

On the other hand, the people who pushed for the CNT unions to take power and overthrow the regional government of Catalonia were worker militants from the unions in the industrial suburban region of Baix Llobregat, an area of blast furnaces, metallurgial plants and textile mills. The view advocated by these syndcalist revolutionaries was later adopted by the CNT as its natioanl program in Sept, but the Popular Front collaborationists won out in the internal struggle inside the CNT and that&#39;s how it joined the Popular Front government in Nov. The progam of Friends of Durruti was derived from the program adopted in Sept 1936, pushed by the revolutionary syndicalists in Catalonia.

I&#39;m not arguing here against the need for a political organization. I&#39;m just pointing out that it isn&#39;t a panacea because there are no guarantees it won&#39;t make mistakes itself.


I think that the WSA is unique in many ways because unlike the IWW it works much more as a political organisation than a union.

well, WSA is a political organization. It was always defined as not a union but a political group. That&#39;s why you&#39;re wrong if you assume that syndicalism is against the existence of political groups or sees no use for them. Moreover, WSA members don&#39;t need to belong to NEFAC to have a political perspective. WSA itself has a political perspective, and is a political organization in its own right.

WSA may be among the minority among contemporary anarcho-syndicalists in seeing the need for a political organization but historically there are precedents like the role of the Turin Libertarian Group in the factory council movement in Italy after World War I.

Moreover, mass organizations have their own politics. And ultimately the aim in a revolution is not just economic reorganization but political reorganization because the working class and its allied oppressed groups must take over governance of the society. The working class can&#39;t liberate itself otherwise. This requires a governance structure for the society. It&#39;s just that anarcho-syndicalism advocates that this be rooted in the participatory demoracy of the assemblies in the workplaces and the neighborhoods.

me: "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

voz:

You know Karl Marx said that right?

When Marx wrote up a draft of the principles of the first International Workers Association in 1864, that was the first principle. But at that time that slogan was well-known in radical worker circles, having been first articulated by Flora Tristan in 1843.

[Janus]

anarchosyndicalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49841&hl=anarchosyndicalism)
anarcho-syndicalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28716&hl=anarcho-syndicalism)
What is anarcho-syndicalism? (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction)
Anarcho-syndicalism by Rocker (http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker)
Anarcho-syndicalism 101 (http://anarchosyndicalism.net/as.php)