Still not clear on Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Pogue]

How will the revolution happen?
How will it be defended?
Surely a party is needed to organise the working class who desire socialism as trade unions are about economics and not politics?
Is there/what is the transitionary period?

Clear answers please ;)

[Cohacq]

Me, being a communist who still often sides with the anarchists, thinks that there doesnt really need to be a vanguard party. The workers are fully capably of organising theirselves through the Trade unions and form a leadership through them.

[Coprolal1an]

How will the revolution happen?Who's to say? Generally, it is thought that a majority of people need to be informed before a revolution can take place. Some strains of anarchism reject violent revolution altogether, and think that the state will eventually collapse on it's own anyway--they just need to be ready with alternatives to government institutions.


How will it be defended?With guns, probably.


Surely a party is needed to organise the working class who desire socialism as trade unions are about economics and not politics?Anarchists reject authoritarian parties, though large labour unions and such (See: The CNT/FAI) should be fine, so long as joining is voluntary.


Is there/what is the transitionary period?A transitional period implies Marxist socialism, not anarchism. That's the big difference between the two.

[Black Sheep]

How will it be defended?I would say with the basic training of warfare to every man and woman capable of fighting, guerilla war etc
Maybe even the formation of a temporary war committee,elected by the federation, as a temporary necessary 'evil',considering the circumstances..


Is there/what is the transitionary period? Yes ,there is,the form of which will determine the material conditions and the participation of the peasantry and the proletarians.But it is a transitional period in the way that communist form of reward may not be fully achieved,etc
edit: the transitional period that anarchists recognize does not include neither a state or authoritarian methods,it is not something radically separate from the goal they seek to reach.

But since i am not sure if i call myself an anarchist (as well as every other revleftish branch!), i strongly recommend infoshop:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech25 <<transitional period
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech21 <<defense of the revolution

[Coprolal1an]

Yes ,there is,the form of which will determine the material conditions and the participation of the peasantry and the proletarians.But it is a transitional period in the way that communist form of reward may not be fully achieved,etc

Careful there. Anarchists (or rather libartarian socialists/anarcho-communists) oppose authoritarian transitional socialism. "anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved" - Bakunin on Marxism.

[Bilan]

How will the revolution happen?

The revolution will be (depending on the nature of the union movement in the country) different in every country. Anarcho-syndicalists assert that unions are a vehichle for revolution.
This is not all that there is to anarcho-syndicalists, as anarcho-syndicalists were not only involved in trade unions in Russia, for example, where the union movement was rather alien to the working class at the time of 1917.

Essentially, the revolution will be led by the working class itself. that is the anarcho-syndicalist politic.


How will it be defended?

Often, its taken the form of Workers Militias. It's easy to speculate, but the revolution will decide what is necessary to defend it.



Surely a party is needed to organise the working class who desire socialism as trade unions are about economics and not politics?

Why does it have to be a "party"? The syndicalist union is the model for direct confrontation between the working class and the bosses; it is also a means of education in solidarity and direct action - especially through strikes; it shows workers where they stand now, and where we can be - we are nothing, we shall be all.



Is there/what is the transitionary period?

Clear answers please ;)


Yes, there is. Of course, anarcho-syndicalism is not a goal, though, it is a method. Anarcho-syndicalists can be Libertarian Communists, some are collectivists of varying sorts.

[Black Sheep]

Careful there. Anarchists (or rather libartarian socialists/anarcho-communists) oppose authoritarian transitional socialism.

Yeah, my bad, i edited my post.However i read at infoshop that anarchists do recognize the transitional period,they just do not support the socialist-state form of it.

[F9]

Yeah, my bad, i edited my post.However i read at infoshop that anarchists do recognize the transitional period,they just do not support the socialist-state form of it.

Of course and we do.Saying the opposite is just non-logical!Transition requires transitional stage.
Of course though our transitional stage has nothing to do with the socialists or "authoritarian" communists one!

Fuserg9:star:

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

As far as aunion being economic only this is my understanding;

Through a syndicalist union the workers will fight for short term gains in working conditions etc aswell as educating the workers to look beyond capitalism. They should also mobalize on political topics i.e opposong imperialist wars. The syndicalist union does not restrict itself to economic issues as all issues (environmentall, socialet.) also effect the workres. So the union fights for a better life for the workers through the main power we have: our labour. by the stike, go-slows, sabotage and other forms of direct action we can make a differnece. The worker hold no political power, so pursuing political (parliamentarian) means is worthless.

[Pogue]

You guys keep denying that theres a sociliast authoritarian stage but have not told me what the transitionary phase is. This is key because its the only thing I have doubts about with Anarchism.

[F9]

You guys keep denying that theres a sociliast authoritarian stage but have not told me what the transitionary phase is. This is key because its the only thing I have doubts about with Anarchism.

In my point of view, the Anarchist transitional stage is simply non other than revolution!Revolution dont stops until every factory is "earned", every land has no "owner",and all the means(?) of production are successfully taken away from the capitalists, and passed in our hands!
In our transitional stage there is no another "phase" between capitalism & Anarchism.Is the direct transition from the first to the second!

Fuserg9:star:

[Oneironaut]

I have grown very interested in this movement...

My question is how would defense militias be set up? I don't doubt that it would be possible to defend a revolution of the like that anarcho-communists propose (the direct transition from the first to the second- Fuserg9). Is this revolution going to involve mass workers' movements simultaneously or is it possible that certain factories will be taken over long before others? Who is going to coordinate factory takeovers? I understand that unions will be the primary organization in all of these, but wouldn't it be more efficient to lump all of these unions into what? In the end, they have no conflicting interests... thank you in advance for explanations.

[nuisance]

You guys keep denying that theres a sociliast authoritarian stage but have not told me what the transitionary phase is. This is key because its the only thing I have doubts about with Anarchism.
Anarchists are social revolutionaries, in this we believe that it takes more than merely changing the political landscape and forming a new society based upon this. We want to re-construct the actual relationships which constitute society.
To quote Berkman- "there are revolutions and revolutions. Some revolutions change only the governmental form by putting a new set of rulers in place of the old. These are political revolutions, and as such they are often meet with little resistance. But a revolution that aims to abolish the entire system of wage slavery must also do away with the power of one class to oppress another. That is, it is not any more a mere change of rulers, of government, not a political revolution, but one that seeks to alter the whole character of society. That would be a social revolution."

The Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)by Kropotkin would be the ideal book to read on the transition to an anarchist-communist society. However, I will try to lay down a shorter version. Basically through promoting class conciousness, we advocate the radicalisation of communities and workplaces along egalitarian lines. This of course will lead to run-ins with the State and ruling class in general, whom this sort of organisation serves to destory. Opposed to the often spoke of general strike, we advocate occupations, which then lead to expropriations of the means of production. Once the revolution erupts, community councils and such will seek to draw up lists of the needs of the population in their area, in a decentralised fashion. The newly expropriated tools will be used to produce rations. Of course areas under revolutionary activity will find it hard/near impossible to import items, thus the population shall have to seek to become more self-sufficient, out of necessity. Thes workplace taken over by the workers will then develop free associations with other workplaces to further their common struggle. Right now workers militias will also be combatting the existing relics of the ruling class.
During this time, it is likely that different economic systems shall be practiced in different locations until the people can decide what works best for them, this is becasue anarchism isn't coercive, but the working class taking direct control over their lives. The point is that the revolutionary organs needed to run society, will be produced during revolution, and just prior to, until direct confrontation inevitable.
This is, of course, is a very minimal explanation, howerver I hope that clears abit up on the anarchist transitional stage for you.

[F9]

My question is how would defense militias be set up?

With guns, and other defensive equipment!Personal and community awareness, is going to be the defense "strategy", people can defend their selves from a crushed state!
This of course is about after a successful revolution.During the revolution people are going to get the "responsibility" ,volunteering ,to defend people,places,factories etc.Revolution isnt just attack,but defense too!


I don't doubt that it would be possible to defend a revolution of the like that anarcho-communists propose (the direct transition from the first to the second- Fuserg9). Is this revolution going to involve mass workers' movements simultaneously or is it possible that certain factories will be taken over long before others?

Revolution of course will begin in one time,but wanting to get all the factories in the same time its just not possible.No, we don't "require" movements at the exactly same time, time when masses of productions are varied, just we need is to be taken.A basic thing that can make a difference where something is "caught" is the resistance counter-revolutionaries forces are ging to show!


Who is going to coordinate factory takeovers?

Coordinate?Not needed!The point is the takeover!


I understand that unions will be the primary organization in all of these, but wouldn't it be more efficient to lump all of these unions into what? In the end, they have no conflicting interests... thank you in advance for explanations.

i think i am missing a little your point here, sorry.Though i have to say that i dont see unions as the primary organization of the revolution, and notice that i am not an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

Fuserg9:star:

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Get this. It Explains in detail what anarcho-syndicalists actually did when they had a revolution in spain, how they made their ideas work in the harshest circumstances and despite massive compromise with the capitalist republic. Very Informative.
http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Collectives-Self-Management-Revolution-1936-1939/dp/0914156020/ref=tag_stp_st_edpp_ttl

Syndicalist unions are about politics (in the sense you mean it). They are different from business unions.

Of course you wont get everything you want overnight, it will be a long process. But specifying in advance what transition periods will occur is extreemely authoritarian, and limits grass roots initiative. So much would be learned in the process of a revolution, that ideas would likely change massively. That the masses themselves create the new forms of social organisation, and so are in control of them is much more important than what they are. The trick is to be flexible, inovative etc. In a constructive sense, the transition never ends. As Rocker put it "I am an anarchist not because I believe in anarchism as a final goal, but because I believe there is no such thing as a final goal".

[Pogue]

Anarchists are social revolutionaries, in this we believe that it takes more than merely changing the political landscape and forming a new society based upon this. We want to re-construct the actual relationships which constitute society.
To quote Berkman- "there are revolutions and revolutions. Some revolutions change only the governmental form by putting a new set of rulers in place of the old. These are political revolutions, and as such they are often meet with little resistance. But a revolution that aims to abolish the entire system of wage slavery must also do away with the power of one class to oppress another. That is, it is not any more a mere change of rulers, of government, not a political revolution, but one that seeks to alter the whole character of society. That would be a social revolution."

The Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)by Kropotkin would be the ideal book to read on the transition to an anarchist-communist society. However, I will try to lay down a shorter version. Basically through promoting class conciousness, we advocate the radicalisation of communities and workplaces along egalitarian lines. This of course will lead to run-ins with the State and ruling class in general, whom this sort of organisation serves to destory. Opposed to the often spoke of general strike, we advocate occupations, which then lead to expropriations of the means of production. Once the revolution erupts, community councils and such will seek to draw up lists of the needs of the population in their area, in a decentralised fashion. The newly expropriated tools will be used to produce rations. Of course areas under revolutionary activity will find it hard/near impossible to import items, thus the population shall have to seek to become more self-sufficient, out of necessity. Thes workplace taken over by the workers will then develop free associations with other workplaces to further their common struggle. Right now workers militias will also be combatting the existing relics of the ruling class.
During this time, it is likely that different economic systems shall be practiced in different locations until the people can decide what works best for them, this is becasue anarchism isn't coercive, but the working class taking direct control over their lives. The point is that the revolutionary organs needed to run society, will be produced during revolution, and just prior to, until direct confrontation inevitable.
This is, of course, is a very minimal explanation, howerver I hope that clears abit up on the anarchist transitional stage for you.

Wait, Anarcho-Syndicalists are opposed to the general strike?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Wait, Anarcho-Syndicalists are opposed to the general strike?


we advocate the radicalisation of communities and workplaces along egalitarian lines. This of course will lead to run-ins with the State and ruling class in general, whom this sort of organisation serves to destoryThese run ins would likely include a general strike.

[Pogue]

I thought a general strike was fundamental to Anarcho-Syndicalism? The post I quoted suggests the opposite.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I thought a general strike was fundamental to Anarcho-Syndicalism? The post I quoted suggests the opposite.No, its not fundamental. Just a tactic anarcho-syndicalists have advocated very strongly. And one that fits very well with their general approach.

[ComradeOm]

I thought a general strike was fundamental to Anarcho-Syndicalism? The post I quoted suggests the opposite.Syndicalism, alongside anarchist and Marxist ultra-leftist tendencies, did tend to mythologise the general strike in the decades prior to WWI. The limitations of this supposedly unstoppable weapon were sharply revealed during those turbulent years 1914-1923. The failure of the strike tactic, alongside the apparent success of Bolshevikism, played a significant role in the decline of these movements. Syndicalism in particular never really recovered from this blow and ended up largely being absorbed into other currents that were less reliant on unionism

[Bilan]

I have grown very interested in this movement...

My question is how would defense militias be set up? I don't doubt that it would be possible to defend a revolution of the like that anarcho-communists propose (the direct transition from the first to the second- Fuserg9).

As I said above, there is no certain form it will take. An example of the form it can take was in the Spanish Civil War. This was not perfect. Nothing is. Theory is developed in Practice. Most would support a similar form of organizing - or at least, coordinated workers militias, with officials (of whatever sort) elected by the community (some support by the soldiers directly, and some don't - due to the possible conflict of interest [for example, if a soldier has committed a crime of which there is a heavy penalty, they may opt to have the official removed to avoid punishment]).



Is this revolution going to involve mass workers' movements simultaneously or is it possible that certain factories will be taken over long before others?

The latter is certainly more desirable, but we can't know. We can't predict the future.



Who is going to coordinate factory takeovers?

The Working Class through the organ of their power: The syndicalist union.



I understand that unions will be the primary organization in all of these, but wouldn't it be more efficient to lump all of these unions into what? In the end, they have no conflicting interests... thank you in advance for explanations.


I don't understand what you mean here."Lump them all into what?"???

[Bilan]

Syndicalism, alongside anarchist and Marxist ultra-leftist tendencies, did tend to mythologise the general strike in the decades prior to WWI. The limitations of this supposedly unstoppable weapon were sharply revealed during those turbulent years 1914-1923. The failure of the strike tactic, alongside the apparent success of Bolshevikism, played a significant role in the decline of these movements. Syndicalism in particular never really recovered from this blow and ended up largely being absorbed into other currents that were less reliant on unionism

Spanish Civil War was in 36. Therefor, your claim is completely false.

Furthermore, the General Strike did not "prove to be a total failure". It proved its not an end in itself. It's not enough to refuse to comply with the capitalists by not working. The first step is to generally stop work, the second is to seize the factories, shops, etc and put them under workers control.

This second step is synonymous with crushing the bourgeoisie.

The third step (which follows on rapidly from the second) is a coordinating regionally, nationally (and later, as the revolution spreads) internationally.

The fourth step (which is a by product of the third) is reorganizing production to produce according to the needs of humanity, not the accumulation of private capital by a minority class.

Simply, limitation my arse!

[The Douche]

I don't understand what you mean here."Lump them all into what?"???

I don't think its been made clear to the people with questions here, what kind of union we're talking about. I'm pretty sure all of them are thinking about trade unions. So the poster who made that comment about lumping the unions into something is thinking "we have the carpenters union, the plumbers union, the communication workers union, the steel workers union etc".

Syndicalists (anarchist and otherwise) advocate the building of Industrial unions, not trade unions. The IWW being the main one in English speaking countries, the CNT being popular in France and Spain, and others around the world. It organizes all workers into various groupings (called IUs in the IWW, it stands for "Industrial Union" and is followed by a number denoting your field) and all those groupings fall under the IWW. This idea is generally referred to as "the one big union".

SACT, I don't think you can deny there was a real fetishization of the General Strike in the early years of marxism and syndicalist anarchism. One that has now largely been replaced by a fetish for worker's councils.

[nuisance]

Wait, Anarcho-Syndicalists are opposed to the general strike?
I wasn't arguing anarcho-syndicalism. Read the part I quoted you on, I was merely stating a example of a transitory stage advocated by anarchists.
Also, why strike when coming into a revolutionary situtation? We need the means of production to fight the revolution, therefore we need to expropriate industry.

[revolution inaction]

from what I'v read about anarcho-syndicalism I got the impression that anarcho-syndicalist consider expropriation of the means of production to be part of the general strike.

[The Douche]

I wasn't arguing anarcho-syndicalism. Read the part I quoted you on, I was merely stating a example of a transitory stage advocated by anarchists.
Also, why strike when coming into a revolutionary situtation? We need the means of production to fight the revolution, therefore we need to expropriate industry.

The general strike shuts down industry and helps to organize the workers into a fighting organization in order to sieze and defend thier recently expropriated workplaces. (at least, thats my understanding of it)

[ComradeOm]

Spanish Civil War was in 36. Therefor, your claim is completely falseHmmm? You mean my assertion that syndicalism, anarchism, and ultra-leftism all experienced a major decline in popularity after the revolutionary period of 1917-1923?

Spain was the exception in that it was the one nation where syndicalism had become a mass ideology (leaving aside the growing popularity of the UGT). Virtually every other syndicalist movement in the world, particularly in the US, suffered major falls in membership in the following decade. This is perfectly self-evident today - industrial syndicalism, once easily as influential a current as 'pure' anarchism or Marxism, is practically non-existent. Even its most obvious legacy, anarcho-syndicalism, is far from the most popular strain of anarchist thought. That's not an ideological pronouncement or attack but just reality

Anarchism, which outside Spain had continually failed to connect with a mass base of support, did not have nearly as far to fall but was nonetheless rendered pretty much an irrelevancy until a revival in the West during the 1960's. The same can be said of ultra-leftism (or council/left communism if you like) which was fairly discredited by the failures of 1917-'23 before re-emerging a few decades later


Furthermore, the General Strike did not "prove to be a total failure". It proved its not an end in itselfWhich was exactly what its proponents claimed. The 'myth of the general strike', much nourished by the likes of Sorel, Luxembourg, and Bakunin, was essentially the idea that it was an alternative to revolution. That when the entire proletariat simply refused to turn up to work one day they could bring capitalism to its knees by undermining, in one apocalyptic stroke, their ability to produce. It was to be the unions' equivalent of the nuclear option and was central to syndicalist theory in the late 19th and early 20th C

Of course when the general strike was employed in the 20th C (both the great general strikes from 1917 onwards and the smaller wave of pre-1914 anti-war strikes) they proved to be completely ineffectual in affecting change, radical or moderate. At a stroke the entire myth was shattered. This failure of industrial unionism's primary weapon was as important as the apparent success in Russia of explaining the wave of 'Bolshevikisation' that swept across Europe following 1917. From then on the idea that industrial action alone could bring about revolution was largely discredited

Now this isn't an attack on anarchism or today's anarcho-syndicalism, as you seem to have taken it, but rather the tactics of syndicalism and radical unionism of the early 20th C. Personally I find many aspects of syndicalism to be interesting (although I was introduced to it via Connolly and not anarchism) but that does not mean that I should be blind to its failings and, in particular, that of the general strike

Edit: Of course that is not to write off the role of the strike or the general/mass strike in revolutionary theory. Only that it is not the be all and end all that early theorists proclaimed

[nuisance]

The general strike shuts down industry and helps to organize the workers into a fighting organization in order to sieze and defend thier recently expropriated workplaces. (at least, thats my understanding of it)
However that puts us immediately on the back foot. It is the role of the revolutonary organisation to help workers organise within the workplace. Stikes can be used to encourage and incite miltantcy, however this shouldn't be treated as the staple for revolution. We need to be highly organised and prepared before the revolution, in our communities, workplaces and places of education, for when revolution comes, we need to cease the means of production so that we can fight for social revolution as soon possible and as hard as possible.

[The Douche]

However that puts us immediately on the back foot. It is the role of the revolutonary organisation to help workers organise within the workplace. Stikes can be used to encourage and incite miltantcy, however this shouldn't be treated as the staple for revolution. We need to be highly organised and prepared before the revolution, in our communities, workplaces and places of education, for when revolution comes, we need to cease the means of production so that we can fight for social revolution as soon possible and as hard as possible.

I agree, I am not a syndicalist, for a number of the reasons you have stated. I was just answering the question based on my knowledge of syndicalism.

[Pogue]

So the general strike is important/relevent, just not the main and only anarcho-syndicalists tactic?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

So the general strike is important/relevent, just not the main and only anarcho-syndicalists tactic?Yep.