First, I'm not an anarchist, but a left communist and I can't claim to be familiar with a lot of anarchist theory, so please take my question with all due consideration. I am familiar with the anarchists' rejection of vanguardism, something I myself am very weary of and seems to me at the very least as historically obsolete. Now, at the same time, anarcho-syndicalists seem to have no problem supporting revolutionary trade unions, which appears to me as equivalent of a party in so far as it attempts to organize workers and provide a platform for their grievances. If anyone can offer corrections or preferably offer readings which flesh out these differences, I would greatly appreciate it!
We don't reject the concept of vanguardism, we reject the institutionalization of it. It's objective truth that some comrades will have a better understanding of theory, will be more courageous and effective on direct action, more gifted speakers etc Despite that, they are not institutionalized as leaders,nor are they regarded as de facto leaders.On the contrary, we try to even out each one's skills with the others, by improving ourselves. Direct action and democracy support that tendency. How are trade unions equivalent to a party?
...anarcho-syndicalists seem to have no problem supporting revolutionary trade unions, which appears to me as equivalent of a party in so far as it attempts to organize workers and provide a platform for their grievances... In practice, parties organize workers and articulate grievances for them and provide leadership for working people in a direction of their choosing, not that of the workers themselves. Decisions are made by the party leadership and then presented to the rank and file for ratification. In a revolutionary industrial union decision making emanates from the rank and file and is executed by their elected leaders who's positions are revocable at any time.
