Results 1 to 11 of 11
What is Syndicalism?
Is it anarchism? Do they believe in strikes as the only method to oppose the bourgeois? Do they believe in political parties at all or that labor unions alone must function on behalf on the workers? Who are the most important exponents of syndicalism - Luxemburg, DeLeon, who else?
Syndicalism is revolutionary unionism. The idea is to get all of the workers of the world organized into revolutionary unions and then using a general strike to take control of the means of production.
Syndicalism is a strategy and can be used by anarchists and communists. So some would believe in the use of political parties and others would not.
Other exponents would be Rudolf Rocker and Bill Haywood.
Free Rosa
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself- Karl Marx
Socialist Worker
Anti-Dialectics
The Dialectical Dialogues
The RedStar2000 Papers
BiteMarx
How do they actually intend to do that? And why haven't they done it already? Labor unions are already in place in most countries, so why is it they can't form an international organization?
Syndicalists are as said, revolutionary unionists, some are anarchists, some are communists, all of them are socialists.
Many syndicalists view unions as the primary method for revolution, as opposed to political parties or other organizations, and they believe that the workers should overthrow the capitalists directly through revolutionary unions. Ultimately sydicalism is a method. Another aspect of syndicalism is radical democracy, internal democracy is extreamly important to syndicalists.
They intend to do that by taking more and more power from the capitalist some envision eventually general strikes as the turn to revolution. Why hav'nt they done it already??? The capitalists are very very powerful ... It takes time.
Many of them have formed international organizations, but why would you want a universal union? A union in the United States would have different needs than a union in bangladesh, of coarse solidarity is umportant but a centralized uniform union is a terrible idea.
They do it through getting workers to join their unions, which are revolutionary ones. I don't know if this phrasing is still used today, but the distiction is between red and yellow unions, red being revolutionary and yellow being run of the mill unions. I don't know most of the differences other than that I know the IWW refused to engage in talks with the bosses during strikes and that red unions have revolutionary goals.
Free Rosa
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself- Karl Marx
Socialist Worker
Anti-Dialectics
The Dialectical Dialogues
The RedStar2000 Papers
BiteMarx
I remember that in the netherlands when the first unions were formed, there was an Union of workers, wich was back then revolutionairy, and as a reaction to that the Catholic conservative politicians started a Union for Workers, which was in fact reactionairy, and not designed as an organisation for action but rather one of top-down 'caregiving'
Whenever 'realism' is posed as antithesis to idealism, disasters are bound to happen.
Gobierno Negrín: ¿dónde está Nin? - POUM (Partit Obrer d'Unificació Marxista)
Syndicalism is badass unionism
nuff said!
however syndicalism is not always revolutionary.
It is what the anarchists and communists use to sound organized. Marx saw unions as being the way to secure his communist future. The problem being unions usually revert back to nationalist interests. Unions are a joke and today all they do is fight for their own power. Take a look at califorinia which is drowning in union bullshit and is about to sink due to its massive debt. Unions negotiate unwarranted wages and pretty much just try to drain the employer not so the workers can prosper but so the union can prosper. SO unionism is practically stalinism on a smaller scale.
Syndicalism especially the anarchist variety is just an idea to connect all the collectives together b/c if they weren't connected somehow they would just fight for resources all the time until one reigned supreme. All it does in the end is create another state all together.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.-Étienne de La Boétie
Comrade Anarchist can you decide for one option?
Either unions increase workers wages or the union only cares about itself and not the workers prospering.
Or is there some fancy way that both can be true?
Depends on the Union, national unions do, many unions are in solidarity with other unions, some are international, ultimately the unions will be directly in the workers interests that they represent.
WHAT? The union can prosper? Not the workers? What facts do you have on this? unwarrented wages? Because when the Capitalist chooses the wages by himself its warrented right? Its stalinism on a smaller scale? Do unions send people to gulags? Unions are directly democratically accountable to the workers.
Also with California? What union bullshit?
You don't know what syndicalism is, leave it to the syndicalists to answer the question.
revolutionary syndicalism is based on workers self-management being pre-figured in the development of a worker-controlled, highly solidaristic form of unionism. through the development of an anti-capitalist consciousness that aims at worker self-management, the working class develops a social force that can takeover the means of production and create workers self-managment, but often this is linked, especially in more recent versions, with the idea of alliances with other social movements, and the replacement of the state by a system of popular power rooted in the worker councils and neighborhood councils.
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
