Objections to revolutionary unionism/syndicalism?

[Taters]

Frequently on this board I see a lot of objections to syndicalism (usually in the context of revolutionary unionism of some kind, be it DeLeonism or anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) and many here appear to have a dim view of it. I'm aware of some basic arguments against it (unions are bound to capital and are therefore inherently reformist) but not much more than that.
So, what's wrong with syndicalism?

[TheEmancipator]

If it is a traditional trade union that you find in the West, then it leads to reformism and compromise, as you pointed out, as well as monopoly-style cartels on labour forces. These so called "leftist union leaders" tend to officially only care about their union members and privately their next paycheck. Obviously they were founded in order to counter capitalism in a constructive way, and we must not forget it is largely thanks to them that worker conditions in the West and elsewhere are better, but I find they have been watered down to impotent, loud, annoying pseudo-trotskyists who are really just part of a bourgeois establishment.

I'm not speaking about all trade unions btw, and I do agree with the principle, but I don't listen to their so-called revolutionary talk, as the bourgeois government tends to just goad them with privileges and reforms - which makes them collaborators IMHO.


As for (anarcho-)syndicalism, mutualism, etc.. as an ideology, which i think is your main point. Well, I have no issues with it, and I believe most non-MLs on here don't either. The MLs tend to oppose it since they believe in one single vanguard movement instead of a multitude of loosely allied organisations to represent the revolutionary movement. When you look at the excessive syndicalism in Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War, it pretty much cost the Republican side victory, so despite the clear authoritarian agenda, the MLs have a point.

Syndicalism also leads to tribalism, which itself would probably bring us back to capitalism again (the two complement each other rather well). A lot of mutualists are not for the abolition of private property for example, just the sharing of it within their "group".

[AnSyn Blackflag]

Anarcho Syndicalism uses unions as a sort of plan of action until the capitalist oppressors of workers are completely over thrown and thus the unions will no longer be needed.

I may be somewhat inaccurate about this but it seems as another method as opposed to the Bolsheviks dictatorship which was intended to lay the groundwork for a classless society than remove itself from the equation once communism could stand on its own.

The question to me is if we can trust the Unions to give us the stateless society once they are finished. I identify as an anarcho syndicalist so I would like to think that we can if we never let go of the anti state ideals from which the ideology is ultimately founded.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Personally, I'm pro-union, insofar that unions A: give the working class a chance to unify and develop a political voice/consciousness, B: harry the capitalist class with (hopefully) all their strength (which is usually a good thing) and C: visibly display discontent in society.

On the other hand, I'd prefer that (I think I'm actually paraphrasing Marx here) rather than asking for better wages, the unions demanded the abolition of the wage system altogether.

[RebelDog]

The key requirement of socialism is democratic workers self-management. The revolutionary union is the preparitary tool for building the kinds of horizontal structures that will organise society post revolution and prepare workers for self-management. Whilst the revolutionary union fights for better wages/conditions in the current world it uses these struggles to empower workers and build for the revolutionary takeover of production.

[Sea]

The question to me is if we can trust the Unions to give us the stateless society once they are finished. I identify as an anarcho syndicalist so I would like to think that we can if we never let go of the anti state ideals from which the ideology is ultimately founded.

We cannot trust any organization that tries to stand above the working class. The working class must liberate itself, not task an external force (especially one that is bound to capital, such as a union) to preform this task for it. The workers must organize into their own independent formation, that is, a vanguard party, in order to overthrow capitalism, and must then proceed forward as they see fit.

Union leaders rake in huge amounts of money off the backs of the toiling masses while claiming to be protecting them.

Unions cannot solve the problems of capitalism. That is why you and I are radicals who wish to see the capiralist system overthrown. How, then, can we trust union bureaucrats to swoop down from their thrones and abolish it?

Frequently on this board I see a lot of objections to syndicalism (usually in the context of revolutionary unionism of some kind, be it DeLeonism or anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) and many here appear to have a dim view of it. I'm aware of some basic arguments against it (unions are bound to capital and are therefore inherently reformist) but not much more than that.
So, what's wrong with syndicalism?

This is not a good enough reason for you?

Whilst the revolutionary union fights for better wages/conditions in the current world

This is what the reformist union does -- it fights for reform within the current system, in the form of such measly concessions as a penny extra of pay or perhaps a slightly less miserable workplace. It throws bigger crumbs to the workers. The working class baked it, so it should demand the whole damned pie, not crumbs of any size!

it uses these struggles to empower workers and build for the revolutionary takeover of production.

These promises have been made and broken time and time again. The problem is that the proletariat is ready for revolutionary struggle. Revolution might not exactly be on the horizon at this point, but we are certainly ready for it now.

Why demand concessions in the meantime? The only reason to make such a demand is with the hopes of pacifying the working class, to stave off the revolution that much longer. Workers can only be empowered by their own revolutionary struggles, not by picketing whenever their union says so.

A revolutionary group fights for revolution. It does not grovel for reform and, simultaneously, make a vague and empty promise that it will (somehow) become revolutionary at some unspecified time in the future. If a group has a "Reform now, revolution later." line you must ask: "Why later?"

Take, for instance, those "New Deal" reforms in the US. These were brought on by groups that promised "Reform now, revolution later.". The problem is, however, that they never lived up to their promise, they never became revolutionary. We saw reforms that were largely paid for by workers abroad and minorities in the US. The revolution never came. The 'movement' degenerated, as reform groups always to, into the liberal bourgeois nonsense that haunts the working class to this day. What makes you think that these new groups will be any different?

Such a tactic appeals to workers by being more 'practical'. In reality, however, it only makes the revolution drift further away. If you associate with such groups, I beg you to reconsider. RebelDog, don't fall into the reformist trap!

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Just had an e-mail passed round at work with the local Unite rep asking if people want to join for loads of 'benefits in and out of work' (actually, the rep asked one of the more well-known / liked staff members to send said e-mail).
Now there's a union that's got a lot of pretentions of fighting the system but are a part of it and doing very well out of it despite plummeting membership(half a million golden handshake for Simpson when he left as gen sec).
Anyway, I understand the syndicalist argument and in many ways I feel it could /should work except that if there are so few members of existing mainstream unions and there membership is so politically inactive (even when electing it's own gen sec), I'm very pessimistic about there being a revolutionary movement from more radical unions, who would by default be a lot smaller in numbers and influence.

[TheEmancipator]

We cannot trust any organization that tries to stand above the working class. The working class must liberate itself, not task an external force (especially one that is bound to capital, such as a union) to preform this task for it. The workers must organize into their own independent formation, that is, a vanguard party, in order to overthrow capitalism, and must then proceed forward as they see fit.

Don't you see that the "vanguard" party is just another substitutionist movement just like the trade unions today. I don't care if they originate from the working classes, so do the unions you rightly criticise. The whole point is that representive organisations usually just become a new authoritarian class.

Except in the case of the vanguard, and unlike unions, it is a single party dictatorship. Ask the Mensheviks.

[Quail]

Revolutionary unions differ from ordinary unions in that they are usually run democratically and horizontally by the members (for example using a delegate system to organise on a larger scale), and as well as fighting for short-term goals such as improvements in conditions, better pay, etc., their vision extends beyond that to a society where workers control their own workplaces.

I'm not a syndicalist myself, but I do support participation in traditional unions (while understanding their limitations) to help spread consciousness among the other workers in the union, and I support participation in more radical unions such as the IWW. I think that revolutionary syndicalism does have a place in the general struggle as it can provide a framework for democratic control of the workplace and show people that there is an alternative to top-down organising. I think it is limited as a strategy on its own, however, because there is a need to organise outside of the workplace too, and I'm not convinced that even "one big union" can achieve that.

To summarise, I guess I see syndicalism more as one of many tactics than the road to revolution.

[Tim Cornelis]

As for (anarcho-)syndicalism, mutualism, etc.. as an ideology, which i think is your main point. Well, I have no issues with it, and I believe most non-MLs on here don't either. The MLs tend to oppose it since they believe in one single vanguard movement instead of a multitude of loosely allied organisations to represent the revolutionary movement. When you look at the excessive syndicalism in Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War, it pretty much cost the Republican side victory, so despite the clear authoritarian agenda, the MLs have a point.

Marxist-Leninists seem to be highly supportive of 'revolutionary' trade unions and work well within them, the KKE in Greece has PAME (communist trade union), the Italian Communist Party was influential in CGIL, the Portuguese Communist Party is influential in the CGTP, and the Spanish Communist Party is influential in the CCOO. Leninists, after all, consider it infantile leftism to oppose working in unions.

Syndicalism also leads to tribalism

What, how, whom, where, when?

Don't you see that the "vanguard" party is just another substitutionist movement just like the trade unions today. I don't care if they originate from the working classes, so do the unions you rightly criticise. The whole point is that representive organisations usually just become a new authoritarian class.

Except in the case of the vanguard, and unlike unions, it is a single party dictatorship. Ask the Mensheviks.

Vanguard parties don't necessarily take power on behalf of the working class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The MLs tend to oppose it since they believe in one single vanguard movement instead of a multitude of loosely allied organisations to represent the revolutionary movement. When you look at the excessive syndicalism in Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War, it pretty much cost the Republican side victory, so despite the clear authoritarian agenda, the MLs have a point.

I'm a little confused by this argument. As I see it, the anarcho-syndicalists and other loose groupings were the vanguard forces in Spain, advocating armed defense of the cities and resistance while the Republic, the Popular Front government, tried to make deals with Franco. The CP called itself a vanguard, but it was only the vanguard of the middle class and ultimately counter-revolution.

[TheEmancipator]

Marxist-Leninists seem to be highly supportive of 'revolutionary' trade unions and work well within them, the KKE in Greece has PAME (communist trade union), the Italian Communist Party was influential in CGIL, the Portuguese Communist Party is influential in the CGTP, and the Spanish Communist Party is influential in the CCOO. Leninists, after all, consider it infantile leftism to oppose working in unions.

All the parties you mention are older "eurocommunists" worthy of the name reformist living in a different era and you wouldn't believe the amount of trash talk there is anyway between the workerist trade unions and the more idealist communist parties - on a theoretical level. On a pragmatic level, the union bosses wouldn't want to touch communism with a barge pole with the salary they're getting. Just look how people like George Galloway and some members of the SWP in Britain are unpopular with the trade unions - precisely because they want to get rid of the awful trade unionists like McCluskey and Bob Crowe. Obviously now with the current economic crisis they are uniting because they are affraid to lose their jobs/seats in parliament, but I don't believe for a second these individuals care much for the demise of the elite.

Just for the record, I don't believe for a second that the KKE is the Marxist-Leninist bastion it claims to be. It is just living off past glories when it was an ML party glorifying Stalin and Mao for fun during the Greek Civil War.

What, how, whom, where, when?

Spanish Civil War, numerous anarchist and marxist organisations opposed to each other and only caring about their members. Then there is the mafia (although that is linked more to family. "Syndicalism" itself is not an ideology exclusive to the left. By definition, it is communitarian in its approach, otherwise it is fairly eclectic.

Vanguard parties don't necessarily take power on behalf of the working class.

Not sure I get you here. Are you saying vanguard parties don't take the power off the working class or that they take the power in somebody else's name? Mao is the only guy I can think of whose "vanguard" seized power on behalf of the entire Chinese population, but then again Mao had reached the depths of populist nationalism to try to save his illegitimate regime.

I'm a little confused by this argument. As I see it, the anarcho-syndicalists and other loose groupings were the vanguard forces in Spain, advocating armed defense of the cities and resistance while the Republic,

I am not condemning their organisation to defend their cities while part of the republic, I am condemning their inability to unite to create a better armed force even in the most local battlegrounds (The defense of Barcelona was a shambles for example). I mostly blame Stalinist tactics in the PCE and Popular Front government - which ensured the exclusion of most anarchist, trotskyist and non-ML Marxist groups - instead of the soldiers at the front line.

Also, take the Galician and Basque unions. They served only the interest of their communities and had no interest in fighting for the Republicans, yet they are working class unions. As far as I'm concerned this is third positionist nationalism, yet they claimed they had a successful syndicalist uprising.

the Popular Front government, tried to make deals with Franco.

The liberals tried to make deals with Franco, as well as the former right-wing coalition that lost the election to try and galvanise an opposition to a militarist push. By that time the Popular Front had been hijacked by Stalinists anyway, so I don't blame them or the syndicalists for opposing the Popular Front.

[Hermes]

I know this is a little off-topic, but isn't it a little backward to claim it was the CNT's fault for lack of organization, when it's pretty largely agreed upon that the Popular Front was actively working to either undermine them, or at the least, discredit them?

This is only based on my understanding of the conflict, of course, and could be mistaken.

[Tim Cornelis]

All the parties you mention are older "eurocommunists" worthy of the name reformist living in a different era and you wouldn't believe the amount of trash talk there is anyway between the workerist trade unions and the more idealist communist parties - on a theoretical level. On a pragmatic level, the union bosses wouldn't want to touch communism with a barge pole with the salary they're getting. Just look how people like George Galloway and some members of the SWP in Britain are unpopular with the trade unions - precisely because they want to get rid of the awful trade unionists like McCluskey and Bob Crowe. Obviously now with the current economic crisis they are uniting because they are affraid to lose their jobs/seats in parliament, but I don't believe for a second these individuals care much for the demise of the elite.

The Communist Party of Greece and the Portuguese Communist Party are Marxist-Leninist parties.

Just for the record, I don't believe for a second that the KKE is the Marxist-Leninist bastion it claims to be. It is just living off past glories when it was an ML party glorifying Stalin and Mao for fun during the Greek Civil War.

How do you mean you believe it isn't Marxist-Leninist? The KKE is probably the most puritan Marxist-Leninist party around today. If the KKE isn't Marxist-Leninist, what party is?

Not sure I get you here. Are you saying vanguard parties don't take the power off the working class or that they take the power in somebody else's name? Mao is the only guy I can think of whose "vanguard" seized power on behalf of the entire Chinese population, but then again Mao had reached the depths of populist nationalism to try to save his illegitimate regime.

Vanguard party can take up a leading role in the revolution, by agitating for a complete social transformation. If the vanguard works within organs of workers' power to promote consistent revolutionary principles it leads without taking power on behalf of the working class.

[subcp]

Don't you see that the "vanguard" party is just another substitutionist movement just like the trade unions today. I don't care if they originate from the working classes, so do the unions you rightly criticise. The whole point is that representive organisations usually just become a new authoritarian class.

Except in the case of the vanguard, and unlike unions, it is a single party dictatorship. Ask the Mensheviks.

Substitutionism suggests that the class party is external to the class, rather than an outgrowth of its consciousness. The movement for communism and its necessary content (insurrection, organization of the armed working-class, wielding of all social power in the hands of the commune's and soviet's, shop committee's and assemblies) can't afford plurality- history has born this out in every single revolutionary event; so-called worker's parties and unions joining the side of reaction. The Situationists, those opponents of the party-form, even wrote "you must disarm Noske before he can kill you". You're right about representative organs, not they create a new class, but that they are reactionary. But what exactly are these theoretical massive revolutionary unions other than a technocratic representation of the working-class?

[TheEmancipator]

The Communist Party of Greece and the Portuguese Communist Party are Marxist-Leninist parties.

How do you mean you believe it isn't Marxist-Leninist? The KKE is probably the most puritan Marxist-Leninist party around today. If the KKE isn't Marxist-Leninist, what party is?

Just because you're a Stalin apologist and come up with empty rhetoric over liberal democracy does not mean that you are a consistent Marxist-Leninist party. The KKE regularly engages in reformism and "compromise" as much as anybody out there and the relationship that you point out with the trade unions only reinforces that point.

There are no ML parties left in Europe, and thank goodness too. I'd voucher Syriza's eurocommunism to another Stalinist bourgeois nationalist dystopia any day. Parties like KKE who were Marxist-Leninist are just living off past glories when they fought in the Greek Civil War. KKE's electorate is largely a traditionalist voter-base ie "I vote KKE because my father voted KKE because his father voted KKE". That's how Greek politics work sometimes. Case point : Syriza took barely any votes from KKE, mainly from PASOK and previous non-voters.

Vanguard party can take up a leading role in the revolution, by agitating for a complete social transformation. If the vanguard works within organs of workers' power to promote consistent revolutionary principles it leads without taking power on behalf of the working class.

Perhaps in a theoretical world, yet historical examples show us that giving such power to the vanguard as the representative of the working class is never a good idea. In fact its what lead to the demise of many revolutions.

I very much agree with the syndicalists when they say that a solitary vanguard party is far more dangerous than a series of unions and communities.

[AnSyn Blackflag]

Syndicalism also leads to tribalism, which itself would probably bring us back to capitalism again (the two complement each other rather well). A lot of mutualists are not for the abolition of private property for example, just the sharing of it within their "group".

I have only heard the term tribalism when reading about black power movements and to be honest I skimmed it.

Could you provide me some details on this term or direct me to where I can read more about it?

[ComradeOm]

So, what's wrong with syndicalism?

Essentially that it doesn't go far enough. There is a missing link between workers organising around economic challenges and the need to take political action to force change. The result is what Gramsci called the 'pure mechanicalism' that underlies much of syndicalism; that is, the assumption that the unionisation of workers is in itself enough to force revolution. It ignores the need for the development of a proletariat politically concious enough to go beyond the defence of economic interests and organise itself around an overthrow of the bourgeoisie

Edit: Of course it's worth noting that despite its historical failure, syndicalism was always interesting and did have an important impact on both Marxism and anarchism

[Sea]

Don't you see that the "vanguard" party is just another substitutionist movement just like the trade unions today.

Would you mind enlightening me as to how an organization of leadership, democratically elected and recallable, composed of the most advanced (in their politics) members of the working class, is substitution? A vanguard party can be any such organization. What do you suppose, that all the workers run around willy-nilly with no plan of action? Here is the definition of the vanguard, which in a vanguard party constitutes a politcal organization (a party) and the 'mass', from the MIA:

In any social movement there is a vanguard and a mass; these two concepts are meaningless outside of the movement of which they are integral parts, mutually constituted by their relation in development of the movement. The vanguard are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organised and able to take a leading role in the struggle, and on the other side, the mass, are larger numbers of people who participate in the struggle or are involved simply by their social position, but are less committed or well-placed in relation to the struggle, and will participate only in the decisive moments, which in fact change history. There is a continual movement and exchange between vanguard and mass.

http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#vanguard

Oh no, how evil and substitutionist indeed!

I don't care if they originate from the working classes, so do the unions you rightly criticise.

The unions depend for thier own existence on the existence of exploitation. You're right, it does not matter who comes from where. I never said it did, but it is in the class interests of union beurocracy to see the continued oppression of the working class.

The whole point is that representive organisations usually just become a new authoritarian class.

By what mechanisms, that are inherent to the existance of such an organization, does this occur? How is there to be created a new class? What characterizes this new class? Does it own any means of production? Can it only sell its labor power? Us silly Marxists have thought all this time that, broadly, there were only two classes in capitalism. I do believe you're on the verge of something great here, so please tell us more about this enigmatic third!

All classes, by the way, are "authoritarian". The bourgeoisie is towards the proletariat, and in the taking of power by the proletariat, vice versa.

Except in the case of the vanguard, and unlike unions, it is a single party dictatorship. Ask the Mensheviks.

As much as I value the opinion of the legendary Mensheviks, those heroic fighters for working-class emancipation, I can't help but wonder: What is wrong with the prospect of a political group, organized democratically from the ground up, lively with debate and many internal currents, seizing power? I suppose it would be a "single party dictatorship". Would you rather there be, perhaps, a fascist party and a right-libertarian party on the scene as well? Would that make you feel any better? Your liberal conception of "party diversity" means very little in practice so as long as the party that does exist is democratic internally. But, you may ask, what ensures the internal democracy of this vanguard? How can we know it will not become a festering bureaucratic revisionist cesspit? Well, for that matter, how do we ensure that free and democratic competition between parties? Both of these things, mind you, have degenerated into oppressive, 'totalitarian' regimes many times over. What makes an internally democratic party more likely to succumb?

[TheEmancipator]

I know this is a little off-topic, but isn't it a little backward to claim it was the CNT's fault for lack of organization, when it's pretty largely agreed upon that the Popular Front was actively working to either undermine them, or at the least, discredit them?

This is only based on my understanding of the conflict, of course, and could be mistaken.

Sorry to have missed this, Hermes, you are absolutely right, I would have done the same as the CNT. But what I developed in my answer was the point of view of many Bolshevists, who were the main players in the PCE and therefore the Popular Front at the time, and you can't hide the fact that the secession of some syndicates led to disorganisation and anarchy. The main argument of the Popular Front and MLs was that they must win the war first, decided on what to do after. Which I also think is a fair point we must take into consideration.

I have only heard the term tribalism when reading about black power movements and to be honest I skimmed it.

Could you provide me some details on this term or direct me to where I can read more about it?

Its nothing complicated, wikipedia describe it well :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group

The "tribe" being your union in the case of syndicalism. I'm basically saying that people get personally attached to their union disregarding any analytical or critical thought in the process. You can bet that the leaders and big characters in that syndicate will exploit this loyalty sooner than you can utter the words "Karl Marx".

I recommend further reading than wikipedia if you're interested in the psychological and sociological aspect of artificial tribalism found in syndicates, mafias, hell even races, but unfortunately I am not well read enough to provide you detailed sources.

I think as Marxists we should generally oppose it, while still celebrating our cultural differences and supporting football teams rather tribalistically

Would you mind enlightening me as to how an organization of leadership, democratically elected and recallable, composed of the most advanced (in their politics) members of the working class, is substitution? A vanguard party can be any such organization. What do you suppose, that all the workers run around willy-nilly with no plan of action? Here is the definition of the vanguard, which in a vanguard party constitutes a politcal organization (a party) and the 'mass', from the MIA:

Who are you to decide which members of the proletariat should seize power exactly, and how "advanced they really are? I propose the same thing as Marx proposed : that workers take control of the factors of production instead of electing "vanguard" party members who are just another bunch of softly spoken careerists. It doesn't take a vanguard "Party" to do that. It takes organisation, yes, but not authoritarianism.

And I thought that after the revolution we would rid ourselves of the dishonesty and hero-worship found in liberal democracy...guess its just human nature.

By what mechanisms, that are inherent to the existance of such an organization, does this occur? How is there to be created a new class? What characterizes this new class? Does it own any means of production? Can it only sell its labor power? Us silly Marxists have thought all this time that, broadly, there were only two classes in capitalism. I do believe you're on the verge of something great here, so please tell us more about this enigmatic third!

Exhibit A is the the Bolshevik bureaucracy that had a firm control over capital, effectively making them bourgeoisie, albeit an artificial one.

Exhibit B is any centralised government that has ever claimed to stand up for the working classes, yet pursuing nationalistic interests. Mao's China, for example.

As much as I value the opinion of the legendary Mensheviks, those heroic fighters for working-class emancipation, I can't help but wonder: What is wrong with the prospect of a political group, organized democratically from the ground up, lively with debate and many internal currents, seizing power? I suppose it would be a "single party dictatorship". Would you rather there be, perhaps, a fascist party and a right-libertarian party on the scene as well? Would that make you feel any better? Your liberal conception of "party diversity" means very little in practice so as long as the party that does exist is democratic internally. But, you may ask, what ensures the internal democracy of this vanguard? How can we know it will not become a festering bureaucratic revisionist cesspit? Well, for that matter, how do we ensure that free and democratic competition between parties? Both of these things, mind you, have degenerated into oppressive, 'totalitarian' regimes many times over. What makes an internally democratic party more likely to succumb?

Look at this forum here. You have a myriad of tedencies, opinions, etc all of which for me a generally compatible with revolutionary thought. These are the parties I am suggesting. The ideologies you suggest (fascism; liberalism) are pre-revolutionary ideologies that will be confined to the History textbooks after the revolution, since the bourgeois state and class will cease to exist. Don't you see that all our tendencies, despite our differences, are the parties and ideologies of tomorrow. Don't you see that these debates we are having here are the debates we will be having after the revolution?

I for one would rather we have these debates instead of blindly following a "vanguard" party filled with "expert" theorists. How did that turn out again? Once the proletariat becomes class conscious it will be an overwhelming majority capable of educating and participating in debate and decision making in their communities.