Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Pogue]

1.Do any Anarcho-Syndicalist have that minimum demand thing that some Leninists have, i.e. the fighting for small gains like wage increases, etc?

2. Are Anarcho-Syndicalists absolutely opposed to party politics? is it hypocritical/impossible to be an Anarcho-Syndicalist and also support certain parties, socialist ones?

3. How would Anarcho-Syndicalists ensure the transition to, and then, communist society would be democratic and fair?

4. Does Anarcho-Syndicalism negate the need for violence?

5. Would the work of Anarcho-Syndicalists today be geared towards radicalising unions/getting peope to join them?

6. How would Anarco-Syndicalists defend against anti-leftists during/after the revolution/general strike?

7. Is it possible for Anarcho-Synidcalists too co-operate alongside other leftists in their struggle, i.e. Trotskyists, Marx-Leninists, etc?

8. How do Anarcho-Syndicalists bring about a revolution and manage post-revolutionary society?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

1. We don't have a program about it. We believe that fighting at the workplace and in our communities over everyday issues provides a "school of struggle" that will radicalize people and provide them with the tools necessary to organize a self managed and free society.

2.Anarcho-syndicalists oppose all political parties

3. Anarcho syndicalist unions are organized and function in a manner with which, we hope to see in the new society. We use the phrase "creating a new world in the shell of the old," to reflect this value.

4. Anarcho syndicalists believe in the necessity of self defense, by whatever means necessary. However we shy away from most violence, preferring to use direct action at the point of production to get our point across.

5. Anarcho syndicalists are typically in favor of building mass radical unions that will fight the bosses with direct action. However some of us are also in favor of building radical rank and file movements within existing unions.

6. With worker's militias, organized by community and workplace, lead with elected and recallable officers.

7. Why not?

8. Probably some form of mass general strike, followed with the formation of armed militias that will fight the state's forces. Post rev society will be managed much like how the union is manged already, with a federation of workplace councils and community assemblies.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I not much into it, but you can also post your question at http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=6&sid=7d8d3ac0fa750e8522d086df62d5f673. http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/faq probably can help you too.

[Lamanov]

1. Do any Anarcho-Syndicalist have that minimum demand thing that some Leninists have, i.e. the fighting for small gains like wage increases, etc?

- Well, it's not a "minimum" demand, but a realization that workers have to fight for improving their conditions; it helps their further struggle and gives them a militant practice and experience in dealing with the bosses and the state. Of course, direct action is the only way to do it. All representative ways are out of the question.

2. Are Anarcho-Syndicalists absolutely opposed to party politics? is it hypocritical/impossible to be an Anarcho-Syndicalist and also support certain parties, socialist ones?

- It's impossible. Anarchosyndicalists consider parliamentarism to be a mechanism for defence of class society's interests. (Although, in Spain 1936 CNT did reach a conclusion that their members don't have to abstain, but can go on and vote for People's front, and against National front, because the victory for the latter would mean introduction of fascism through Cortes, peacefully and "legitimately".)

3. How would Anarcho-Syndicalists ensure the transition to, and then, communist society would be democratic and fair?

- Transition is achieved through the councils (workplace, professional, local) and their federations and workers' militias taking control of everything. If communist production and distribution (by direct-democratic planning through the councils) can't be introduced because of technical reasons there might be some collectivist practices, if necessary.

4. Does Anarcho-Syndicalism negate the need for violence?

- No. It sees violence necessary in self-defense of the working class, through its own autonomous means of expression; it accepts revolutionary violence; it also accepts physical violence against the bosses in the process of class struggle. It is against terrorism (individual acts separated from the mass; acts of "propaganda by deed").

5. Would the work of Anarcho-Syndicalists today be geared towards radicalising unions/getting peope to join them?

- No. It's working towards weakening of yellow unions (their leaderhip, bureacracy) by inspiring direct action and creation of revolutionary anarcho-syndicates. However, "boaring from within" remains one of the strategies: militants should seek contact with fellow workers where ever they can, and union membership is one of the places.

6. How would Anarco-Syndicalists defend against anti-leftists during/after the revolution/general strike?

- Workers' militias under the control of workers' councils.

7. Is it possible for Anarcho-Synidcalists too co-operate alongside other leftists in their struggle, i.e. Trotskyists, Marx-Leninists, etc?

- Anarchosyndicalism is not an ideology, but a means of self-organising of the working class. All people can join the struggle if they accept the principles. Of course, there is no cooperation with parties and microparties.

8. How do Anarcho-Syndicalists bring about a revolution and manage post-revolutionary society?

- General strike, creating workers' councils, federating them, acquiring means of defence, etc.

[Pogue]

Can't one advocate Anarcho-Synidcalism but recognise the benefits of a certain party gaining power? Say of example if that party was one which sought to increase the power of the unions.

[Lamanov]

No. If a state (or, the party in power) is working to "increase the power of the unions" it can only mean that they are working in direction of strengthening union bureaucrats and the mechanisms of mediation between labor and capital - over the backs of the working class. Supporting this means supporting capitalism itself and giving it legitimacy.

Working class can only be strong over the backs of the bosses and the state, including all "mediators" - "workers' parties" and union bureaucracies.