Anarcho-syndicalism vs. Anarchist Communism

[Bilan]

It seems on here that the two biggest political currents (for anarchists) are anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism.

So, I ask, what aspects of Anarcho-Syndicalism are better than A-com? And what aspects of A-Com are better than that of Anarcho-Syndicalism?

[syndicat]

i think it isn't really possible to answer this question unless one defines, or starts with some understanding, of what anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism are.

do you mean an emphasis upon community organization and things like neighborhood assemblies as a strategy (for A-C)? or do you mean focusing on a political activist organization versus trying to build self-managed mass union organizations? do you mean, a conception of the post-capitalist society in terms of strictly communal organizations such as the neighborhood assemblies, or in terms of also workers self-management of industry?

To some extent, these can be false choices. WSA is both a revolutionary political group as well as being anarcho-syndicalist, meaning that we advocate the development of self-managed mass organizations in both the workplaces and the community. WSA is not a union. Anarcho-syndicalism does not have to mean only developing self-managed mass union organizations but can also have an emphasis on community organization (as the CNT in Spain did in the '30s). There are uses to having a revolutionary political organization in addition to the mass organizations.

There is also the question of what "communism" means. Altho most anarcho-syndicalists have been committed historically to "libertarian communism" as a goal, it's not always clear what exactly this means.

it seems to me that in a classless society both community mass organizations -- assemblies of residents in neighborhoods -- and worker self-management organizations are needed, and federations of these over broader geographic scope.

[Bilan]

i think it isn't really possible to answer this question unless one defines, or starts with some understanding, of what anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism are.

Of course, but I didn't define it simply for the fact that, as I stated, "The two main political currents among anarchists are a-com and Anarcho-Syndicalism". It was more asking for a response from people who adhere to those ideologies.



do you mean an emphasis upon community organization and things like neighborhood assemblies as a strategy (for A-C)? or do you mean focusing on a political activist organization versus trying to build self-managed mass union organizations? do you mean, a conception of the post-capitalist society in terms of strictly communal organizations such as the neighborhood assemblies, or in terms of also workers self-management of industry?

I mean all of those things.
There are ideological differences between A-com organising and anarcho-syndicalist organising. I was curious to why people identify themselves with one and not the other; what the upsides of their particular ideology are compared to other, you know?

[Saint Street Revolution]

I personally think Syndicalism is a bit narrow, only serves one class. Though the bourgeois is an enemy now, come revolution they will be equal in wealth and need.

[syndicat]

t y l:
I was curious to why people identify themselves with one and not the other; what the upsides of their particular ideology are compared to other, you know?

well, i could try to compare the specific conception of A-S that WSA has to some conception of A-C, but I can't do that unless somebody explains what they mean by A-C. there seem to be different interpretations.

grandma:
I personally think Syndicalism is a bit narrow, only serves one class. Though the bourgeois is an enemy now, come revolution they will be equal in wealth and need.

i guess i don't understand what you're saying. syndicalism is about the liberation of the working class from class oppression, that's true, but anarcho-syndicalism, at least in the form WSA advocates, is not just about class, but a social revolution against the various structures of oppression, and the creation of a socially owned, classless, economy, grassroots polity for social self-governance, and dissolution of the non-class structures of oppression such as racism and patriarchy.

there are other classes besides the working class. there is the plutocracy (the dominant capitalist elite), the small business class, and the coordinator class (managers and top professionals).

an alliance between the working class and these three elite or dominating classes is impossible because the working class has interests fundamentally inconsistent with their interests. their property and power over the working class has to be taken away to liberate the working class.

but the idea is not to kill them off or personally oppress them or anything like that. with the elimination of the structures of class domination, the situation is equalized, and that means that the needs and desires of former members of the capitalist and coordinator classes are met, just as anyone else. they have a say just like anyone else. that's why i don't understand your point.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Well, my uneducation on Syndicalism lead me to jump to a conclusion about what I have recently read.

I'll be sure to read a bit more in depth on Syndicalism, for it sounds pretty appealing to me at the moment.

[Bilan]

Okay, I have two examples, for which both outline the basic ideals of either ideology.
Both of which are from libcom.org, if this misrepresents your ideas, please say so.

Anarchist Communism (http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction)
Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction)

[RGacky3]

Anarcho-Communism is more of a goal for society,

Anarcho-Syndicalism is a way to get that goal.

For example the CNT was Anarcho-Syndicalist, their goal was libertarian Communism.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:07 pm
Anarcho-Communism is more of a goal for society,

Anarcho-Syndicalism is a way to get that goal.

For example the CNT was Anarcho-Syndicalist, their goal was libertarian Communism.
Anarchist Communists have different means as well.
Different forms of organization, that is.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, as do anarcho-syndicalists, but really in essence its pointless to split them up, Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho Communists are in essence fighting for the same thing and are not mutually exlusive by no means.

[syndicat]

Anarcho-Communism is more of a goal for society,

Anarcho-Syndicalism is a way to get that goal.

For example the CNT was Anarcho-Syndicalist, their goal was libertarian Communism.

T y L:

Anarchist Communists have different means as well.
Different forms of organization, that is.

Do you mean A-Cs favor the formation of political organizations? This is not
really sufficient to differentiate. WSA is a political organization but syndicalist, for example. Historically there were earlier examples, like the FAI and the Turin Libertarian Group in Italy after World War I.

i tend to think of "anarcho-communism" as both too unclear and too narrow. too narrow since not all Left-libertarian revolutionaries regard themselves as "communists".

also not all A-Cs agree with the same conception of a libertarian socialist economy. Some agree with the syndicalists that workers self-management is a central part, some (like the followers of Bookchin) do not.

[Raúl Duke]

I consider myself an A-Communist because of the goal I want: a classless stateless society based on "from each according to their abilities, to each according to need"

When it comes to organization, both in terms of before/during/after the struggle, I prefer whatever seems practical at the moment/situation.

[JazzRemington]

The basic difference is tactics and organizational means. Anarcho-Syndicalists believe that the working class, though more or less explicitly anarcho-syndicaist unions, will over throw the Capitalist system and establish an egalitarian system of some socialist sort.

Anarcho-communists, on the other hand, while agreeing that organization of the working class is important, they disagree that unions will be key in the overthrow of a Capitalist system. They either maintain that 1) unions have become a tool of the capitalists, 2) an all anarcho-syndicalist union will eventually attract non-anarchists and become less anarchist and thus less revolutionary over time, and/or 3) it will take more than just unions to initiate and fight a revolution.

As for post-capitalist society, there is a split with regards to anarcho-syndicalists. Some favor communist principles of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"," while others favor collectivist principles of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution."

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:30 am
The basic difference is tactics and organizational means. Anarcho-Syndicalists believe that the working class, though more or less explicitly anarcho-syndicaist unions, will over throw the Capitalist system and establish an egalitarian system of some socialist sort.

Anarcho-communists, on the other hand, while agreeing that organization of the working class is important, they disagree that unions will be key in the overthrow of a Capitalist system. They either maintain that 1) unions have become a tool of the capitalists, 2) an all anarcho-syndicalist union will eventually attract non-anarchists and become less anarchist and thus less revolutionary over time, and/or 3) it will take more than just unions to initiate and fight a revolution.

As for post-capitalist society, there is a split with regards to anarcho-syndicalists. Some favor communist principles of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"," while others favor collectivist principles of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution."
This is the type of thing I was getting at.
Thanks JazzR, :wub:

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:30 pm
Anarcho-communists, on the other hand, while agreeing that organization of the working class is important, they disagree that unions will be key in the overthrow of a Capitalist system. They either maintain that:
Syndicalist responses to these objections


1) unions have become a tool of the capitalists

That's not a reason to abandon them totally. Anarchists in unions can still engage in class struggle with other union workers, pushing for action outside of official channels or trying to make democratic reforms.


2) an all anarcho-syndicalist union will eventually attract non-anarchists and become less anarchist and thus less revolutionary over time

Anarcho-syndicalist unions are not anarchist unions. They unite based on class, not ideology. AS unions have a structure that facilitates anarchist organizing & interaction that functions regardless of whether the members are anarchists themselves (aka directly democratic blah blah blah).

The inclusion of non-anarchists doesn't make a union less revolutionary. Class struggle happens whether or not there are anarchists there to think about it, and it's participation in class struggle (not holding certain principles) that makes revolutionary situations.


3 it will take more than just unions to initiate and fight a revolution.

I don't think anarcho-syndicalists disagree with this, but I think they would say that the AS unions are the best vehicles for ensuring the success of an anarchist victory (because participation in class struggle via AS unions is inherently radicalizing in some regard, etc).

[syndicat]

JR:
Anarcho-Syndicalists believe that the working class, though more or less explicitly anarcho-syndicaist unions, will over throw the Capitalist system and establish an egalitarian system of some socialist sort.

Actually A-Ss haven't always insisted they be ideologically "anarchist" or that they be called "unions." Many A-Ss in the Russian revolution supported the factory committee movement -- a grassroots workshop unionism -- and the horizontal soviets like the one in Kronstadt in 1917.

The key thing is that there exist mass organizations rooted in the workplaces that are controlled directly by the workers, which prefigures worker self-management of production. Also, A-Ss have at times also advocated, in addition to the workplace organization, forms of mass organization in the community (as at the time of the rent strike in Barcelona in 1931 for example).


Some favor communist principles of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"," while others favor collectivist principles of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution."

Actually there are three such principles that some A-Ss have endorsed:

1. from each according to ability, to each according to need
2. from each according to ability, to each according to the value of their contribution in socially useful work
3. from each according to ability, to each according to their effort in socially useful work

[Bilan]

The key thing is that there exist mass organizations rooted in the workplaces that are controlled directly by the workers, which prefigures worker self-management of production. Also, A-Ss have at times also advocated, in addition to the workplace organization, forms of mass organization in the community (as at the time of the rent strike in Barcelona in 1931 for example).

So, whats the key difference between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarchist communism?

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:00 am
I consider myself an A-Communist because of the goal I want: a classless stateless society based on "from each according to their abilities, to each according to need"

When it comes to organization, both in terms of before/during/after the struggle, I prefer whatever seems practical at the moment/situation.
I'm basically the same.

[syndicat]

T y L:
So, whats the key difference between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarchist communism?

earlier on i said that i can't answer this question unless someone provides a definition of what "anarchist communism" means. Different people seem to have different ideas of what it means, and so I can't really answer your question til you explain what concept you have of what "anarchist communism" is.

some people think of it as an ideal, a vision, of a post-capitalist society. others seem to think it is something else. anarcho-syndicalism is a revolutionary strategy for generating a self-managed, classless society. there is a difference between a strategy and a vision of a different sort of society.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:12 pm
T y L:
So, whats the key difference between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarchist communism?

earlier on i said that i can't answer this question unless someone provides a definition of what "anarchist communism" means. Different people seem to have different ideas of what it means, and so I can't really answer your question til you explain what concept you have of what "anarchist communism" is.
Well, my understanding of Anarchist Communist organisation is tainted, for I have been bombarding myself with Anarcho-syndicalist writings (and moving much in that direction).
I provided the link to the two definitions - one of A-C, the other of A-S - simply because they seem like two bread general definitions of the two.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

IMO anarchist-communist in general identifies any anarchist who desires the abolition of private property, wages and, with that, exchange value.

Anarchist-communists do not have a specific form of organization. However, the tendency in North America seems to be that folks who identify explicitly as "anarcho-communist" gravitate towards permanent collectives, Platformism and other 'organizationalist' tactics. However, anti-organizationalists like insurrectionalists are often anarcho-communists as well.

Confused?

NEFAC (nefac.net) is an anarcho-communist Platformist federation. They adhere to a specific, constitutional form of organization. They practice direct democracy.

The Insurrectionary Anarchists of the Coast Salish Territories (geocities.com/insurrectionary_anarchists) are a loose collection of groups that adhere to similar values. Individuals and groups take action/make decisions without special regard to the group and probably don't even consider themselves part of a larger group.

There are plenty of anarcho-communists who are involved in anarcho-syndicalist groups.

The primary difference is on the question of whether or not anarchists should form groups/unions around specific ideological principles. ACs tend to say yes, so as to push for specifically anarchist methods within other groups & movements. ASs say no, because that tends towards vanguardism.

[syndicat]

AH:
The primary difference is on the question of whether or not anarchists should form groups/unions around specific ideological principles. ACs tend to say yes, so as to push for specifically anarchist methods within other groups & movements. ASs say no, because that tends towards vanguardism.

i don't think NEFAC would say that one tries to push for one's anarcho-communist ideology in mass organizations such as unions.

"Especifismo", a South American form of anarcho-communism, holds that the specific organization -- the organization of revolutionaries -- should not try to impose its ideology on mass organizations, but should respect their autonomy while trying to encourage self-management and militancy and work against reformist or authoritarian tendencies.

Since WSA is a anarcho-syndicalist group "formed around specific ideological principles" WSA contradicts your claim about A-S groups. Also, the IWA -- the anarcho-syndicalist international -- has a set of principles that are revolutionary, and committed to libertarian communism. so how does this show they are against forming unions on the basis of ideological principles?

i would say it's rather that there are is a difference of opinion among A-Ss on this question. Some A-S, such as WSA, say that one should not try to form unions or other mass organizations on the basis of one's revolutionary anarchist ideology. but there are some (not all) in the IWA who say one sould form unions on an explicit revolutionary ideological basis. but even then, they do not say that agreement with the ideology is to be a condition of membership in the union.

there have been historically two different views concerning the relationship of revolutionary politics to the mass organization among A-Ss. there is the "dual organization" view which says that a political or specific organization is built on the basis of agreement with the revolutionary perspective, and its members are active in the mass organizations such as unions, but the development of the perspective of the unions has to respect the autonomy and self-management of the union, so that the mass organization and the specific organization have different roles and a different character. WSA adheres to the "dual organization" view.

and then there is the "unitary" theory of organization, that the union or mass organization can also play the role of the revolutionary organization, a union and revolutionary organization in one. This was historically the viewpoint of the FORA in Argentina for example in the early 1900s.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

hmn, I should have realized this. Thanks for the clarification. I thought I'd read something by Malatesta where this question was the point of contention, but obviously we've all come a long way since then.