On Anarcho-Syndicalism

[FS98]

I have some questions about anarcho-syndicalism, and socialism/anarchism in general. Would I be correct in assuming that not all anarcho-syndicalists are anarcho-communists? If so, do non-communist anarcho-syndicalists support markets? Are the worker cooperatives advocated by syndicalists capitalist or socialist? Are they considered to be privately owned or publicly owned? Private sector or public sector? I'm also curious of what makes the decentralized structures of political orginizations supported by most anarchists different than the state. I would imagine that most anarchists believe that you shouldn't be forced to participate in the political organization that takes place in these small communities. Is this what causes the society to be stateless, or is it the fact that political power is generally decentralized and directly democratic? I'm also curious what you guys think about capitalism and socialism. Should they be viewed as two parts of a spectrum in which people fall somewhere on, or are people definitively one or the other? I appreciate any responses. Thanks.

[LeftistsAreRadical]

An-Synd and An-Com are the same in that they both support greater worker control over the means of production, but they are slightly different in the way that it is implemented. An-Coms generally believe in communism achieved through violent revolution, while An-Synds believe in more of a militarized sort of "labor union" force to meet and act directly in worker solidarity that eventually grows large enough to be able to completely disrupt the capitalist system by going on strike (essentially, enough people are organized and then act directly through strike to force business to close). The next step is to entirely seize the means of production for workers and dissolve the state in favor of a sort of mass meeting/council of workers who can act without bosses or leaders directing them on what to do. So An-Synds and An-Coms have the same end goal, just different means of reaching that end goal.

To answer your question about the difference between the state and decentralized political organizations, I guess I just need to further evaluate on what I said above. Rather than having groups of representatives or bureaucrats assembling to make the decisions for everyone else or a set state body governing everything, anarchist political organization advocates for direct, individual action. Essentially, an accumulation of workers in a town hall that speak with each other rather than speaking to bureaucrats.

As for capitalism and socialism, separating individuals as either definitively socialist or definitively capitalist is dealing with absolutes, which is quite the reactionary way of thinking. There is quite a broad spectrum, and I personally find it silly that people try to definitively place others as capitalist or socialist with no recognition for the wide spectrum. Even within socialism itself there's a massive spectrum of different ideologies.

I hope I could help! However, I may not be entirely correct on my statements or I may not have described it in the best way, as I am not an anarchist myself, so please correct or further evaluate my statements if you feel the need to, anyone!

[lanadelarosa]

I've only ever read Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker, but I'd definitely recommend it if you want to know more about anarcho-syndicalism. I think anarcho-communism and syndicalism are similar in regards to a stateless society where there are free communities instead, and I'm fairly certain there would be no privatization in anarcho-syndicalism as anarchists seem to oppose privatization and private property. According to Rocker it seems like production would be based on cooperative labour, so no bosses, no masters, etc, but a federation of free people seizing production and working together. This is literally all I know, though, and I'm not sure if it's even on point.

I'll link you to the book if you'd like to read it yourself, there are a couple of others as well: https://libcom.org/library/anarcho-s...-rudolf-rocker. Hope that helps.

[ckaihatsu]

As for capitalism and socialism, separating individuals as either definitively socialist or definitively capitalist is dealing with absolutes, which is quite the reactionary way of thinking. There is quite a broad spectrum, and I personally find it silly that people try to definitively place others as capitalist or socialist with no recognition for the wide spectrum. Even within socialism itself there's a massive spectrum of different ideologies.

While your accommodation of various subjective 'stripes' on the revolutionary leftist spectrum is *generous*, I'd like to note that the issue of private property really is an either-or, make-or-break aspect / element for any proposed post-capitalist political economy.

This topic was just discussed at another, recent thread, btw:


The Site's View of Mutualism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...w-of-Mutualism


My take and position is that *any* existence of private property inherently yields a complementary realm of exchange-values, which then needs to be tended-to, at a minimum.

The financial operation of *arbitrage* will be empirically possible with the existence of private property / exchange values, as 'forex' is today over numerous countries' currencies.

I'll remind that in our current era of the Information Revolution, society *already* has the collective administrative means available for implementing fully communist-type *free-access* and *direct-distribution*, with *zero* need for any currency-type abstractions of what items are 'worth', or for any intermediate 'exchanges' of one-thing-for-another -- which implicitly confers the existence and operations of exchange values.

[LeftistsAreRadical]

While your accommodation of various subjective 'stripes' on the revolutionary leftist spectrum is *generous*, I'd like to note that the issue of private property really is an either-or, make-or-break aspect / element for any proposed post-capitalist political economy....My take and position is that *any* existence of private property inherently yields a complementary realm of exchange-values, which then needs to be tended-to, at a minimum.

I agree, private property is a rather definitive feature of either capitalist or socialist, and capitalist and socialist are definitely two different camps of thought. I probably didn't explain myself clearly enough, I apologize. It is true that there are definitive values of the two systems, but I feel like it is greatly important not to deal in absolutes in regards to the spectrum of schools withing those two definitive camps, especially when dealing with the socialist side of the spectrum. I do recognize that there are definitive values of the two camps, I just meant not to count out the spectrum within each camp.

[FS98]

So if I understand correctly, you think that every person is definitively a capitalist or a socialist, but you also believe that it is important to realize that some forms of socialism and some forms of capitalism have more overlap than others. What would you consider a society that has equal amounts of private and public ownership? Also, I'm not sure that I would make the same distinction between anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists. I'm clearly no expert, but I've looked into the two ideologies a bit recently, and I would say that anarcho-syndicalists may or may not desire a communist society, and anarcho-communists may or may not view syndicalism as the best way to achieve a communist society. Therefore subscribing to one of those ideologies doesn't dictate whether or not you subscribe to the other.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree, private property is a rather definitive feature of either capitalist or socialist, and capitalist and socialist are definitely two different camps of thought. I probably didn't explain myself clearly enough, I apologize. It is true that there are definitive values of the two systems, but I feel like it is greatly important not to deal in absolutes in regards to the spectrum of schools withing those two definitive camps, especially when dealing with the socialist side of the spectrum. I do recognize that there are definitive values of the two camps, I just meant not to count out the spectrum within each camp.

Well, without meaning to be too asshole-y, I do have to point out that we have to deal with the 'economic' aspects of any proposed post-capitalist political economy -- how such a society would organize its production and self-propagation, going forward.

Again, any retention of the institution of private property will leave open the potential for small-scale economic opportunism, through the manipulation of accompanying exchange values -- the primitive accumulation of capital, which continues ceaselessly today under capitalism.

We have to consider how a feasible socialist-type social arrangement *could* realistically supersede capitalism's worldwide economic complexity and benefits, *without* succumbing to its well-known shortcomings like the externalization / socialization of 'costs', especially the material-economic exploitation of labor.

The retained existence of private property and exchange values -- albeit in localist-type 'collectives' -- only *begs* for the exploitation of labor in some way so that material value ('complexity') may be *increased* and formally reflected in the private-property's official exchange values.

Exchange values (private property) is an economic strategy for material circumstances of *monetary semi-scarcity*, so that economic interchangeability of inputs and outputs can take place whatever the configuration.

A *post-scarcity* mode of material production -- communism -- wouldn't require this intermediate step of exchangeability because everything that's required for humane productivity outputs could be readily planned in advance, with resulting production going directly to those who need or want it -- in other words people's particular requests would subsequently be fulfilled with collectivized production. (Consider today's online shopping as a tangible example of logistical infrastructure in the service of mass production and fulfillment.)

[LeftistsAreRadical]

Well, without meaning to be too asshole-y, I do have to point out that we have to deal with the 'economic' aspects of any proposed post-capitalist political economy -- how such a society would organize its production and self-propagation, going forward.

Again, any retention of the institution of private property will leave open the potential for small-scale economic opportunism, through the manipulation of accompanying exchange values -- the primitive accumulation of capital, which continues ceaselessly today under capitalism.

I totally agree with what you're saying about private ownership/capital accumulation and exchange values, and I also agree on dealing with "economic" aspects of a proposed post-capitalist economy and how things would work and develop. Until we get to that point, however, it's even more important to recognize the different schools on the leftist spectrum so as to sort of "brainstorm" I guess. I'm sorry if I'm making my explanation really confusing, I don't exactly know how to phrase it.

- - - Updated - - -

So if I understand correctly, you think that every person is definitively a capitalist or a socialist, but you also believe that it is important to realize that some forms of socialism and some forms of capitalism have more overlap than others. What would you consider a society that has equal amounts of private and public ownership?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, especially in the stages before the socialist revolution so as to be able to figure out exactly how the post-capitalist society will carry onward and function. I don't really know what I would consider an equally private/public ownership society, I guess maybe market socialism?

[GLF]

Here's my question: can you really be a communist without also being an anarchist? I don't think you can. You can be a Marxist without being an anarchist, but not a communist. I am a communist and never really considered myself an anarchist, but the more I think about it, the less I think you can separate the two.

[LeftistsAreRadical]

Here's my question: can you really be a communist without also being an anarchist? I don't think you can. You can be a Marxist without being an anarchist, but not a communist. I am a communist and never really considered myself an anarchist, but the more I think about it, the less I think you can separate the two.

Traditional/original communism and Marxism describes the advancement of the state in a communist society as first being a dictatorship of the proletariat and then eventually fading further and further away until the state is no longer needed and individuals can function in a communist society without a state while still maintaining the full properties of a communist economic system. So, if you are a follower of traditional/Marxian communism, then the eventual goal is a utopian anarchic communist society.

[ckaihatsu]

I totally agree with what you're saying about private ownership/capital accumulation and exchange values, and I also agree on dealing with "economic" aspects of a proposed post-capitalist economy and how things would work and develop. Until we get to that point, however, it's even more important to recognize the different schools on the leftist spectrum so as to sort of "brainstorm" I guess. I'm sorry if I'm making my explanation really confusing, I don't exactly know how to phrase it.

Well, what I'm hearing is that you're in the camp of 'we-can't-make-plans-right-now'.

Of course I understand that only those *in* the revolution will have the force of decision-making and implementation, *and* I know that detailed 'blueprints' from the here-and-now are pointless, but I do think that we can start 'outlining' and planning for Day One even if the world may not yet be on the brink of revolution.

I'll also note that, around this topic, things tend to get very *academic* -- in the *disparaging* sense of the word -- because a purely academic approach may tend to produce *passivity* regarding the range of possibilities from our present historical time.


---

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, especially in the stages before the socialist revolution so as to be able to figure out exactly how the post-capitalist society will carry onward and function. I don't really know what I would consider an equally private/public ownership society, I guess maybe market socialism?

I'll note that *this* part of your statement *contradicts* what you said to me, above:

I totally agree with what you're saying about private ownership/capital accumulation and exchange values,

I'll reiterate that the sticking-point is about the system of private property and exchange values -- in a post-scarcity political economy *no* exchanges would be necessary, since all production would be pre-planned and would go directly to the intended consumers upon production.

[LeftistsAreRadical]

I'm sorry, let me start over lol. I'm not saying that it's not time to make plans, I'm saying that knowing and recognizing the different schools of thought, specifically those of the radical left, is very important to the planning of the revolution and the post-capitalist world. I'm not saying that all schools of thoughts are correct, nor am I saying that we need a world where Social Democrats and Marxist-Leninists can find some kind of equilibrium, because that would require private property and, quite frankly, Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists are not in any way compatible with a socialist society. Additionally, Marxist-Leninists and Anarcho-Communists have different views about the state, but the same economic goal, which necessitates strategic and productive conversation among radical leftists. I do agree that there should be no private property, and that all means of production should be socialized. When I made the comment about market socialism, I was not saying that I support or endorse it, I was replying to a question asking me what I thought an economic system with an equal share of private and public ownership was. So I don't support market socialism, I actually find it extremely contradictory and unproductively paradoxical to socialism.

[FS98]

I tend to agree with a lot of what anarcho-syndicalists think. I agree that libertarian municipalism is the ideal form of political orginization, and that syndicates should be used to abolish wage labor. I tend to disagree with the anarcho-syndicalists that I know of when it comes to markets and revolution. I think competition is a good thing as long as it is between worker controlled syndicates. I'm also in favor of a more gradual shift from what we have now to a libertarian socialist society. I think confederations of muncipalities regulating worker controlled syndicates will create the most fair society. I'm I an anarcho-syndicalist, and individualist anarchist, or something else? Is it possible to be both an individualist anarchist and an anarcho-syndicalist?

[ckaihatsu]

I agree that libertarian municipalism is the ideal form of political orginization,

I think confederations of muncipalities regulating worker controlled syndicates will create the most fair society.

My understanding is that a proletarian / working class revolution would finally situate the social locus around commonly used *means of production*, instead of retaining the current bourgeois practice of (essentially) city-states, by geography and real estate, which may or may not also be sites of industrial mass production.

While I appreciate the 'anarcho-' focus on the *local* setting, for reasons of sound production supply-chain logistics -- not necessarily depending on long-distance transportation of materials, as is the case today -- I *don't* appreciate localism for its own sake, as seems to be suggested by the anarchist program. (In other words, what about efficiencies of scale for production by coordinating over *vast* areas, even worldwide -- ?)

[FS98]

I'm I an anarcho-syndicalist, and individualist anarchist, or something else? Is it possible to be both an individualist anarchist and an anarcho-syndicalist?

*Am

[FS98]

My understanding is that a proletarian / working class revolution would finally situate the social locus around commonly used *means of production*, instead of retaining the current bourgeois practice of (essentially) city-states, by geography and real estate, which may or may not also be sites of industrial mass production.

While I appreciate the 'anarcho-' focus on the *local* setting, for reasons of sound production supply-chain logistics -- not necessarily depending on long-distance transportation of materials, as is the case today -- I *don't* appreciate localism for its own sake, as seems to be suggested by the anarchist program. (In other words, what about efficiencies of scale for production by coordinating over *vast* areas, even worldwide -- ?)

I like the idea of libertarian municipalism because it decentralizes power and because I think that it is a more democratic form of political organization. I still think that these communities would need to form federations or confederations of some sort to deal with issues such as trade. Even something like a single-payer healthcare system would probably be done through cooperation among these communities due to the fact that a higher number of people would mean more leverage in the negotiations between the payer and the worker controlled healthcare provider. Although these communities might pressure each other economically to cooperate with one another, I think the important thing is that force isn't being unnecessarily used and that decisions are made from the bottom-up rather than top-down. I don't really think this causes any inefficiencies in terms of large-scale production.

[ckaihatsu]

I like the idea of libertarian municipalism because it decentralizes power and because I think that it is a more democratic form of political organization.

You're not at all concerned about the geographical *arbitrariness* of 'cities' -- ?

Don't you think that a post-capitalist social order, based on collectivist production, would physically orient around their *sites of production*, wherever they may happen to be -- ?

You also may want to elaborate on how you think 'power' would *manifest* itself in a post-capitalist society -- if quasi-city-states are allowed to persist after the demise of capitalism then there *would* be traditional 'turf' and power, based on how such arbitrarily-circumscribed city locations are managed.

(The alternative would be that *workers* would decisively, definitively be in charge of social production if living and lifestyle was arranged around actual sites of production. That way there would be no social 'space' for turf, as predicated on 'city' locations, etc.)

I still think that these communities would need to form federations or confederations of some sort to deal with issues such as trade.

'Inter-communal trade' is too problematic and unworkable because 'trade' implies exchange values, as in more-stuff-from-Commune-B-versus-Commune-A.

(The watchword would have to be *generalization* of cooperative production and supply-chains, even up to the *global* scale.)

Here's my position on the 'lateral patchwork of communes' thing, from past threads:

By definition communism *cannot* be predicated on rewards-for-labor, because that kind of correlation automatically implies *commodification* (of labor). (Those who show themselves to be more productive would be more sought-out for this-or-that group, or commune -- necessarily circumscribed by location or physical / geographical space -- and so society would tend to become *stratified* on the basis of communes' varying productivities, by underlying laboring abilities, which would be different from the premise of 'communism'.)

So, instead, what *should* happen is that all social production is *collectivized*, and distributed according to actual individual *need* and want.

---

Even something like a single-payer healthcare system would probably be done through cooperation among these communities due to the fact that a higher number of people would mean more leverage in the negotiations between the payer and the worker controlled healthcare provider. Although these communities might pressure each other economically to cooperate with one another, I think the important thing is that force isn't being unnecessarily used and that decisions are made from the bottom-up rather than top-down. I don't really think this causes any inefficiencies in terms of large-scale production.

I do recognize the empirical existence of *scale*, as in 'bottom-up' or 'top-down', and I also acknowledge *material quantities and qualities*, as from the efforts of human labor -- but I have to repeat that any retaining of implicit *exchange values*, as in your 'negotiations between the payer and the worker', is just too commodity-like to keep as any kind of a model to aim for.

Also, f.y.i.:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy