Differences b/w Anarchist schools of thought

[Invincible Summer]

I'm getting into the whole Anarchism thing (after a few years as a Leninist-Trotskyist, I can't say I agree with it anymore), and I'm confused as to the differences between Anarcho-syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism.

Does Anarcho-Communism not support the social role of worker's unions? And does Anarcho-Syndicalism not support sharing the means of production (I doubt this point, but I thought that I'd ask anyway...)? Or is anarcho-syndicalism more of a means than an end?


Also, what is the difference b/w Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism?

[Forward Union]

Anarchist Communism is the goal of Anarcho Syndicalism. Syndicalism is simply a tactic that believes in achieving Anarcho Communism by means of the general strike. Communists place emphasis on the need for community organizing as well as industrial.

Different types of Anarcho-Communist have different views of the unions. Some believe that revolutionary unions can help raise class consciousness, some reject all unions. Some such as contemporary Platformist Anarchists believe that reformist trade unions can be used to further the cause of Anarchist Communism.

Libertarian Socialism is a bit of a meaningless phrase. There's no such ideology,

[Black Sheep]

Platformist Anarchists believe that reformist trade unions can be used to further the cause of Anarchist Communism.

Is that like,in analogy to the popular front by marxists? (the participation in reformist unions (and/or parties) )

[Forward Union]

Is that like,in analogy to the popular front by marxists? (the participation in reformist unions (and/or parties) )

I reccomend you read the WSM policy on Trade Unions. Here are some snippits


7.1 Our perspectives for activity within the unions are centred on encouraging workers themselves to take up the fight against the bosses, state interference and the Trade Union bureaucracy. Our most important area of activity is on the shopfloor.



7.2 We encourage 100% union membership and all WSM members are members of their appropriate trade union. When members take up employment in non-union jobs, they are expected to join an appropriate trade union. However, depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary for some considerable time for this person to remain a secret/ "sleeper" member. The process of unionisation of non-union workplaces is extremely varied and complex. In some cases an immediate organising drive can unionise a workplace, in others it is only when a specific issue arises that workers begin to become receptive to unionisation, in yet others it will be the product of slow and undramatic work aimed at convincing people in ones and twos. The WSM members on a particular job are best placed to decide what strategy is most useful in their workplace."



7.3 No WSM member will accept any unelected position that entails having power over the membership.

[Potemkin]

I think all that's been said so far is fairly accurate.

I would also add that from an anarchist-communist standpoint, anarchist-syndicalism is more of a means to an end than its own theory. However, I'm pretty sure that over the years anarchist-syndicalism has established itself as a theory in its own right -- I'm pretty certain there are people that consider themselves anarchist-syndicalist and not anarchist-communist.

As for means of production, it's my understanding that both want to seize the means of production: syndicalists by the workers and communists by the community. In practice this might be fairly similar; in theory, I think there are differences there.

Also, I would imagine syndicalists stress that the worker is entitled to the product of their labor, whereas an anarchist-communist would argue that everyone is entitled to the fulfillment of their needs, which are not always the same thing. For instance, people have different capacities to contribute and produce. If one just owned the product of one's labor, someone that is unable to produce as much (an obvious example is someone who is disabled) might not be able to produce even enough to survive.

Also, the focus on the product of one's labor by syndicalists can translate into the preservation of currency (sometimes in the form of labor notes or vouchers), whereas everything owned in common for the fulfillment of everyone's needs would eliminate the need for currency and the wage system. It's kind of complex, and I'm not an economist, so don't take my word for it. Kropotkin's "The Wage System" touches on some of this, as well as the "Anarchist Economics" pamphlet written by Jon Bekken.

The terms anarchist-communism and libertarian communism or libertarian socialism are often used as synonyms. Technically, I think libertarian socialist is widest net. The narrower definition is libertarian communism, which includes anarchist-communism, but also left and council communists, and perhaps autonomists and other tendencies. So, all anarchist-communists are libertarian communists, but not vice versa.

Hope this helps!

[Invincible Summer]

As for means of production, it's my understanding that both want to seize the means of production: syndicalists by the workers and communists by the community. In practice this might be fairly similar; in theory, I think there are differences there.

So do anarcho-syndicalists would consider the actual workers as the primary revolutionary force, whereas anarcho-communists would say that the primary revolutionary force is anyone who is not bourgeoisie?


Also, I would imagine syndicalists stress that the worker is entitled to the product of their labor, whereas an anarchist-communist would argue that everyone is entitled to the fulfillment of their needs, which are not always the same thing. For instance, people have different capacities to contribute and produce. If one just owned the product of one's labor, someone that is unable to produce as much (an obvious example is someone who is disabled) might not be able to produce even enough to survive.

Also, the focus on the product of one's labor by syndicalists can translate into the preservation of currency (sometimes in the form of labor notes or vouchers), whereas everything owned in common for the fulfillment of everyone's needs would eliminate the need for currency and the wage system.

This is interesting - Syndicalism has influenes of Locke then? Locke stated that when one applies labour to an object (ie. an apple), that object becomes one's property, and that one can accumulate as much property and he can apply his labour to, provided it won't go to waste. Therefore, one cannot amass things such as food or pretty much anything organic that will decay in quality.

Would this aspect of Locke (barring his liberal capitalist ideas) be accurate in describing anarcho-syndicalism? It seems to fit with what you're saying, but I fear I may not be interpreting you correctly.

Also, in respect to anarcho-communism, I suppose it would require a high level of advancement in the means of production to be able to accomodate everyone's needs and without the need for a wage system; could it be said that a syndicalist system is the anarchist equivalent of a "socialist transitional" system, with anarcho-communism being the end result?

[apathy maybe]

A lot of boring people like to jump into boxes, and make sure the boxes have the correct labels. "Anarchist communist" and "anarchist syndicalist" are two examples of labels.

But actually, there is a lot of cross over between these two, they don't neatly divide into two boxes.

The trouble with labels and anarchism is that labels get applied to a few different things. You get economics: mutualist, collectivist, and communist are three examples. There are tactics: (for example) class-war, pacifist, insurrectionist. There are are also green and technocratic anarchists (not always incompatible), there are also queer, feminist, Christian, and many more labels that can be attached to "Anarchism".

Anarchist communists may wish to organise through "unions" and workplaces (a la syndicalists), or they may want mass organisations based on local communities. They may want class war, or they may be pacifists, and oppose all violence. Syndicalists tend from collectivists through to communists (though nowadays almost all collectivists see it as merely a "transition" to communism).

Personally I think that whatever works is good. In many respects, the perfect is the enemy of the good. (Side note: There are some "anarchists" around that seem to think that this idea should be taken to mean that something that is not quite anarchism is good enough. If it isn't quite anarchism, it isn't anarchism, and therefore isn't good.)



So do anarcho-syndicalists would consider the actual workers as the primary revolutionary force, whereas anarcho-communists would say that the primary revolutionary force is anyone who is not bourgeoisie?
The "primary revolutionary force" is another area of disagreement amongst anarchists. Many anarchist communists focus on the workers (and use Marxian terminology and class analysis). But not all do.

(Another side note: Anyone want to start a "class war anarchism" page on Wikipedia, I just had a look and couldn't find one. It is used by people though,
http://illvox.org/2007/09/19/a-short-missive-to-anarchists-of-color-on-primitivism-ideology-and-options/
)

[Potemkin]

Yes, it's true that anarchist currents are definitely not as neatly defined as, say, Marxist tendencies. Still, though, there are characteristics attached to most anarchist labels that let us draw at least a little meaning from them.

Destructicon asks some good questions. Yes, syndicalists see the revolution coming about primarily through worker struggles, and this is usually, though not always the case with anarchist-communists. I think there is a difference, as well, between class and worker issues and struggle. Obviously, class struggles include worker struggles, but not necessarily vice-versa. There are many class issues that fall outside worker and workplace struggle -- issues of identity (race, gender, sex, etc.), neighborhood/community organizing, foreclosure/eviction, unwaged labor (stay-at-home partners), etc.

I can't say if syndicalism is influenced by Locke. I think the concept of ownership of one's product of labor comes from Marx and Proudhon, who may have (or probably were) influenced by Locke. I think what you're talking about is along the same lines, though.

Traditionally, anarchist-communism does feel that higher technology will reduce the workload, and supports the liberatory potential of science and technology. However, I think the technology already exists for us to dramatically reduce our workdays and have a high quality of life.

It's hard to say if syndicalism can be looked at as transitional. Some anarchist-communists might see it that way, but most syndicalists probably would not. One of the things that sets anarchist-communism apart from its Marxist cousin is the rejection of a "transitional period," at least in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat. They believe that a proletariat capable of revolution is capable of implementing the revolutionary society immediately. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a "transition" in other senses of the word, though.

[Cult of Reason]

There are are also green and technocratic anarchists (not always incompatible)

In a way, the original non-Anarchist Technocratic movement was one of the first environmentalist movements, advocating recycling (though I do not think that term had been thought up yet) and energy efficiency among other things. In fact, I originally got interested in Technocracy due to my environmentalist sympathies.

What passes for "Green" Anarchism, though, often seems to be only slight shy of primitivism, or dominated by primitivism, so it is easy to see why this dichotomy seems to be implied, as primitivism and technocracy are completely incompatible with each other.


Traditionally, anarchist-communism does feel that higher technology will reduce the workload, and supports the liberatory potential of science and technology. However, I think the technology already exists for us to dramatically reduce our workdays and have a high quality of life.

In 1932, the original (non-Anarchist) Technocratic movement estimated that North America, if cut off from the rest of the world, would be able to sustain an abundant society where everyone's needs were fulfilled if all citizens between the ages of 20 and 45 (excepting students) worked for 16 hours each week, for four days a week, four hours per day.

For the developed world, this has almost certainly fallen further.

[apathy maybe]

In a way, the original non-Anarchist Technocratic movement was one of the first environmentalist movements, advocating recycling (though I do not think that term had been thought up yet) and energy efficiency among other things. In fact, I originally got interested in Technocracy due to my environmentalist sympathies.

What passes for "Green" Anarchism, though, often seems to be only slight shy of primitivism, or dominated by primitivism, so it is easy to see why this dichotomy seems to be implied, as primitivism and technocracy are completely incompatible with each other.
"Green" anarchism doesn't mean anything though. I am an environmentalist, and would happily call myself a "green anarchist" if I thought it would be useful in the context. But I am sure as hell not a primitivist.

I personally think that technology is the way to end many of the environmental problems in the world (by reducing waste etc.).

[Cult of Reason]

But I am sure as hell not a primitivist.

I am in no way insinuating that you are, just that in my (admittedly limited) experience those who actively self-identify as "Green Anarchists" tend to be much closer to the primitivist stance than to mine.

[apathy maybe]

I am in no way insinuating that you are, just that in my (admittedly limited) experience those who actively self-identify as "Green Anarchists" tend to be much closer to the primitivist stance than to mine.

I understand you weren't. My point is that "green anarchism" is such a broad term, it can be used to mean anyone from me, to full blown anarchist primitivists.

[ZeroNowhere]

From what I've seen, 'green anarchism' is usually used to describe either primmos, or social ecologists, who are in no way primitivists.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Best thing to do is not get caught up in schools of thought, go with what you agree with. You're a free person, think like one.

[HoChiMilo]

I would also add that from an anarchist-communist standpoint, anarchist-syndicalism is more of a means to an end than its own theory. However, I'm pretty sure that over the years anarchist-syndicalism has established itself as a theory in its own right -- I'm pretty certain there are people that consider themselves anarchist-syndicalist and not anarchist-communist.



You need to read Malatesta!:cool:

I would think from any sort of revolutionary anarcho-communist or even communist standpoint the union as a "means to an end" would only result in the beating of a dead horse.

During the course of revolution, unions would lose their intended function. Unions are in place to negotiate, not to overthrow the boss and certainly not to overthrow a government. Unions have been known to have politicians in their pockets as well.

Upon the arrival of a class war, unions would only serve as a sort of pre-revolutionary list of able men who are potentially willing to overthrow the ruling class. There would be no "bargaining" or "negotiation" at this level. When workers are afforded the practices of bargaining on behalf of organized labor, they are pacified with just enough concessions to keep the bosses way up in the bourgeoisie without any fear of mutiny or internal unrest.

I believe anarchism is an ideal, whereas minarchism is the practical application of this ideal. When I put the anarcho and communist epithets together, I tend to think of this;

Society is arranged in pre-revolutionary russian-style soviets (a local council, originally elected only by manual workers, with certain powers of local administration). This local administration would have only two functions - to keep one individual or group of individuals from harming one another, and to be in charge of the administration of works projects and homesteading. All people living within their autonomous communities would be responsible for its' maintenance and well-being.

If none of you believe this is possible, look up C - squat in brooklyn. I'm from New York I know what I'm talking about ;).

[Potemkin]

Perhaps we're speaking of two different union types. Of course, the modern trade unions are as you describe, and not a revolutionary vehicle. I'm not an anarchist-syndicalist, but it's my impression that they don't really concern themselves with these, but rather industrial unions, such as the CNT of Spain or the IWW. I don't see why these could not be/are not revolutionary. Indeed, the CNT was a vital force during the Spanish Civil War. Of course, they did some controversial things that later compromised their revolutionary potential, but I don't think this was the fault of it being a union.

The Industrial Workers of the World call for the abolition of the wage system. I don't see why, during a revolution, they would back down from this. Also, the general strike has often been thought of as a revolutionary catalyst by anarchist-syndicalists.

"Minarchism" seems a pretty strange position to hold. I don't see anarchism (anarchist-communism) as being unattainable, and in fact see it as rather practical and realistic.

I don't really understand your outline of society. It seems like it could just as easily be setup in an anarchistic way.