Anarchy Syndicalism

[Section 8]

I'm interested on what you think of anarchy syndicalsim
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/articles...s/asutility.htm

Organise #1 [paper of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation, Australian AS organisation] contained an introduction to the aims and principles of anarcho-syndicalism. It touched on many important issues pertinent to the anti-capitalist movement: the need for means to be consistent with ends, the need for direct democracy in the unions to them to be able to properly reflect the interests and concerns of their members, the maximisation of the strength of the organised workforce through federation and industrial rather than trade-based unionism, and so forth. In general, this introduction was very good and provided a clear and erudite explanation of anarcho-syndicalism. One aspect that this article failed to address sufficiently, however, was the relationship of anarcho-syndicalism to anarchism, and the differences between the two. The relationship between anarchist philosophy and the methodology of anarcho-syndicalism is an important issue in the anarcho-syndicalist and revolutionary union movement, and deserves further discussion, for reasons which will hopefully become more evident in the course of this article.

"Anarcho-syndicalism simply put," the article begins, "is anarchist-based unionism." This is one-hundred percent correct. Anarcho-syndicalism (or revolutionary unionism) is based on anarchist theory and on anarchist principles, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Anarcho-syndicalism stands for the creation of revolutionary industrial unions in order to make possible working class self-organisation. This self-organisation for the dual purpose of defending decent wages and working conditions in the present, and for abolishing bossdom and wage-slavery and assuming control of production as soon as the degree of workers self-organisation and resistance makes doing so possible. It proposes forging a sense of working class self-consciousness and a custom of mutual aid, reciprocity and unity (as opposed to the present custom of fighting between ourselves for the crumbs the bosses throw us) through workers solidarity. It proposes developing our ability to think and act for ourselves through direct action. It proposes a basic principle of organisation which guarantees the greatest possible amount of individual liberty in a context of collective decision-making and collective action: self-management. Such principles -- workers solidarity, direct action and self-management -- are the cornerstones of the concept of anarcho-syndicalism. All of these principles are orientated towards the self-organisation of members of the working class through unions organised on a libertarian basis, and therefore fundamentally anarchistic.

However, the article continues, describing the product of anarcho-syndicalism as "anarchist unions." What the intention here is is not clear; this way of referring to anarcho-syndicalist unions denotes either a union of anarchist workers, or a union which adopts anarchism as the house philosophy. Either way, it is quite a serious mistake. As noted above, it is impossible to deny the theoretical basis of anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary unionism in anarchist philosophy. At the same time, however, the methodology of anarcho-syndicalist unionism is not the same as that of anarchist political organisation. One does not have to be an anarchist to join an anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary union. Anarcho-syndicalist organisations such as the ASF are unions; that is, they are organisations comprised of people with the same economic interests, because they are all members of the working class and subject to the economic dictation of the bosses. Anarchist organisations are groupings of people with common anarchist beliefs, and admit anybody regardless of their particular economic circumstances. Of course, those of us who are anarchists and participate in anarcho-syndicalist and revolutionary unions do hope that workers who join will take the principles of anarcho-syndicalism -- again, workers solidarity, direct action and self-management -- to heart and make an effort to find out something about the anarchist philosophical ideas which inspire them. Imposing an anarchist line on an anarcho-syndicalist union, and by implication restricting membership of the anarcho-syndicalist union to those who adhere to the principles of anarchy is not only to blur the line between the anarcho-syndicalist union and the anarchist political organisation, and in so doing to destroy its reason for being. It is also to destroy the practical nature of the education that should take place within the anarcho-syndicalist, revolutionary union.

The point here is that it is not merely unnecessary for worker X to be an anarchist to join an anarcho-syndicalist union, but that the primary orientation or focus of the anarcho-syndicalist union should not be on trying to convince her or him of the truthfulness of anarchism, but rather of the utility of organising on an anarcho-syndicalist basis. The primary purpose of the anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary union is to foster the initiative and self-directed activity of the individual member, and to break the habit of obedience, deference and mindless acceptance of the bosses' economic and social order. In joining the anarcho-syndicalist union, the new adherant reserves the right and duty to think and act for her or himself, and to participate in collective and direct decision-making and action. She or he joins on the basis of agreeing with the basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism -- workers solidarity, direct action and self-management -- and builds her or his knowledge base on the foundation laid down by those principles, starting from these simple principles and proceeding to more complex concepts and ideas as time goes by. The racist, sexist, homophobic, nationalistic and/or just plain slavish worker X who eats meat, votes for the ALP (or votes full stop), went to the Olympics and thinks being Australian isn't so bad joins the anarcho-syndicalist union if it achieves tangible material results, if it proves its practical utility for the worker on the ground. He learns the art of taking collective and direct action around the point of production in solidarity with his fellow workers for the purpose of improving basic necessities, such as better wages and less bossdom. In learning to appreciate the benefits of workers solidarity, the opportunity arises to rethink racism and sexism -- in this example, due to the fact that a high proportion of workers are, of course, non-male and non-anglo-saxon -- and the numerous other things which create divisions amongst the working class. This process reveals the anarcho-syndicalist union as a Practical School of Socialism, which provides education through practical means, as opposed to the book learning which intellectuals and savants assume is the only way anyone can ever know anything of value.

To the extent that the above is true is the extent to which it is not of pivotal importance that a new member of an anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary union be a dyed-in-the-wool anarchist. Reserving membership of an anarcho-syndicalist union for those with the proper theoretical qualifications suggests a small amount of arrogance and elitism. The only qualification that worker X should need for membership of the anarcho-syndicalist union is that she or he is pissed off with work and with her or his boss, and that she or he wants to do something about it without having to submit to the dictates of a union or party boss. If worker X sees the ASF or any other anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary union being promoted as an anarchist union, from their point of view it must appear to be less a union which exists to service their needs and their ability to organise for the abolition of bossdom and wage-slavery, than one which exists to service the needs of an informed, educated elite. Worker X can take notice of and learn more about anarchist ideas in the course of their membership of the anarcho-syndicalist union if they so desire. It isn't the place of the anarcho-syndicalist, however, to decide what philosophical line the union member toes, and so the choice must be left up to the individual. If anarchism is really the philosophy which makes the most sense, which we believe it is, we should have the courage, conviction and faith to allow others to discover what it means -- and to make up their minds -- for themselves.

To promote the ASF (and any other anarcho-syndicalist union, for that matter) as a anarchist union, or a union for anarchist workers, where one must be a convonced anarchist to join, is to automatically cut ourselves off from those who do not consciously apply the anarchist label to themselves, but who might hold the same point of view, more or less, whose material and moral interests are the same as ours, and with whom Necessity demands we find a basis for combined action. Those of us who have been around the anarchist movement for a long time tend for forget the fact that political philosophy is still every alien to a lot of people. In general, it doesn't get taught in school, and only a minority of people from working class backgrounds ever make it to university, and even then, only a small minority of that minority studies politics and philosophy in any great depth. The incidence of those who take on independent, self-directed study also seems to be quite small. What this means, of course, is that while many of those we talk to might agree with the idea that work isn't a lot of fun, that being told what to do by the bosses is demeaning and degrading, that they should be paid more than they are for the work they do, that the unions are generally pretty useless and political parties even more so, and that their dignity and self-respect relies quite heavily on their capacity to control their own destiny, people in general do not have the education to appreciate anarchist philosophy in an overall context of the evolution of political and philosophical ideas -- in relation to doctrines such as Socialism and Liberalism, for example. At the very least, they will be skeptical about something like anarchism, although all of the above are fundamental tenets of anarchist philosophy.

This is not to dispute the basic ideas of anarchism, of course. One may argue that the philosophy of anarchism offers the most lucid criticism of capitalism, the state and freedom-challenged society in general, the most self-critical standpoint, and the most rational, egalitarian and free conceptualisation of social organisation of any systematic body of thought that the human race has conceived to date. One may argue that, on the face of it, many of the particular observations of anarchy make a lot of sense -- that the state exists in order to defend the monopolies of the rich, that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, that no matter who you vote for the police, bureaucrats and bosses always get in, that no one should have the right to tell anyone else what to do, and so on. This is not an issue. What is at issue is whether or not we as anarcho-syndicalists have the capacity to approach the class struggle in a cooperative manner and with an open ear, whether those we come into contact with find us approachable, and whether we can make ourselves useful to the working class as a whole and provide a method of organisation which yeilds results for workers. The issue is whether or not all our efforts yield is the creation of yet another leftist church where human beings are sacrificed at the Altar of Socialist Dogma, as seems to be the wont amongst the myriad of Leninist sects one tends to see selling papers on street corners, or stepping stones for career politicans and bureaucrats, as seems to be the wont amongst the mainsteam unions. In a word, what matters above all else is whether or not anarcho-syndicalists can make themselves useful to the working class.

To that end, anarcho-syndicalists are presented with two choices. We can work from a minimum set of guidelines for fighting against bossdom and wage-slavery on a libertarian basis, through the principles of workers solidarity, direct action and self-management, and allow those of our class who have not yet had what me might describe as the good fortune of stumbling across anarchist ideas to study and appraise them in their own good time, if they so desire. That's the first option. The second option is to cut ourselves off from those around us by imposing adherance to an all-embracing, all-encompassing philosophy on our organisations, and making knowing what that philosophy stands for, what the position of that philosophy is in regard to the manifold issues of modern society and acceptance of that philosophy in its entireity a prerequisite of membership. As noted, such behaviour falls under the rublic of political parties and anarchist federations, not anarcho-syndicalist, revolutionary unions.

Furthermore, if one of the most fundamental principles of anarchism is that ends must be consistent with means, and that we must adopt the principles of the society we wish to achieve, rather than perpetuating that which we wish to overthrow, then adopting libertarian principles of organisation should be enough to bring about a society without domination or exploitation, an anarchist society. Imposing an ideological line on top of this basic precept represents a basic arrogance and disdain for the organic process of anarcho-syndicalism -- which, as already noted, begs the question as to one's involvement in anarcho-syndicalist unions to begin with. This sort of approach would appear to be more appropriate for an anarchist affinity group-type setting.

This general point of view is summed up succinctly in a pamphlet entitled "Basic Anarcho-Syndicalism," published by the local federation of the CNT-AIT Sevilla, Spain:

"Anyone can voluntarily belong to the anarcho-union, with the exception of police, soldiers and members of security forces. No ideological qualification is necessary to be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organization in which decisions are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous, federalist structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of professional bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a respect for its rules, and from this point of view people of different opinions, tendencies and ideologies can live together within it. Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties ... can be part of the CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of view about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the anarcho-union is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian structure."

If the revolutionary union based on anarcho-syndicalist principles is to perform properly the work of integral emancipation, the abolition of all forms of authoritarian domination and control, from bossdom to patriarchy to white supremacism to antropocentrism, this work must take place on a basis of equality and mutual respect between anarcho-syndicalist militants and the wider working class. The prerequisite of equality and mutual respect, in terms of convincing workers of the utility of anarcho-syndicalist methods of organising, is an inclusivist attitude on the part of anarcho-syndicalists, or one that focuses on what we have in common with the rest of the working class -- obviously, the fact that we are all subject to the economic dictation of the bosses. This fact can and must form the bridge between anarcho-syndicalist workers and those who are yet to be introduced to the concept. Looking at the world from a point of view of adherants to the philosophy of anarchism versus those who are ignorant of it represents the alternative, more exclusivist point of view. Being precious about their ideology is an almost universal fault amongst party-building, paper-selling, idol-worshipping Marxist-Leninists, and it is most definitely a good thing for anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists, where humanly possible, to avoid.

by Ben, Melbourne ASF
November 2000

[Ainbhlinn]

The Infoshop FAQ is a much clearer introduction, if anyone wants to know more about anarchists/anarchosydicalism.

[Sean]

guys, if you're going to link the article, it might be a good idea to only summarize it in your topic. It's a little easier on the eyes in my opinion.

[Fallen Angel]

Anarchy's for fools.

[Anarchist Patriot]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@10-10-2003 10:57 PM guys, if you're going to link the article, it might be a good idea to only summarize it in your topic. It's a little easier on the eyes in my opinion.

Allow me to summerize:

Anarchism is simply put the disestablishment of any organized government and allowing governence of the people by themselves. Anarchism is simply reducing government to its most basic component. Anarchism does not recognize the importance of centralized government.

Anarcho Syndicalism is putting the mechanics of government in the hands of those who produce. In other words the workers. It is direct democracy by working people.

In the past Anarcho Syndicalist Unions had wielded much power. Especially the IWW in the US and the CNT in Spain.

Anarchism can also take the form of Anarcho Libertarianism which supports the rights of individuals to engage in basically any form of behavior which does not harm others.

Theres is also anarcho communism, which is like Baukinin espoused, which endorses a primitive government based on loose communities. This was a popular idea in 19th century Russia.

Anarcho-pacifism supports a society of voluntary cooperatism. It renounces material wealth. In many respects this form of anarchism most resembles early christian society.

[Section 8]

Does it have any relationship to Communism? You're obviously know more on the matter than me, please share.

[Anarchist Patriot]

Originally posted by Section 8@10-11-2003 03:08 AM Does it have any relationship to Communism? You're obviously know more on the matter than me, please share.

Communism, in the common sense refers to Marxism-Leninism. It provides for a "Dictatorship of the Proletariate" which in practicality became an oligarchy of bureaucrats. This was bound to happen because it was the form of government that Lenin set up. For one thing, Soviet Communism was based on rule by a central authority. Stalin actually took this one step further and turned Communism into a religion, complete with its own pantheon of God-heros, its own saints, priesthood, dogma and heritics. It is little wonder that even today in the homes of some older Russians you will find a "Red Corner" with candles lit and photos of Josef Stalin, often next to religious icons. Stalin was such a monsterous dictator that he became God-like. This is very similar to what other terrible leaders in Russia had acheived. Peter "The Great", for instance killed thousands of people and enslaved the entire nation yet he was regarded as a saint by many for his religious reforms, in spite of the fact that he was disdainful of religion.

Soviet style communism still exists in North Korea and Cuba and a watered down form exists in China. The common traits that communist states have is 1) an all powerful leader. 2) A fascade of democracy, in some cases even puppet opposition parties are allowed (as was the case in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary), 3) Little or no tolerance for opposition, ether political or philosphical, 4) An attempt to indoctrinate the populace in the virtues of the system.

Now Anarchism differes greatly. Primitive anarchism or anarcho-communism is a true example of communism in that it does not recognize a central authority. In an anarchist community, wealth is shared, individual rights are respected, all individuals have rights to have a direct voice in the governence.

[Section 8]

This is the type of thing that I believe in. If you haven't you should read Berkman's view on anarchism, very interesting, and I believe right on. I posted the link in the RATM forum, and you responded.

[Ainbhlinn]

Communism, anarchism, and all of those things grew out of the same 19th century socialist philosophical movement. Bakunin and Marx were contemporaries, they even met each other a few times.

Actually, the ideal communist system that Marx had in mind was anarchist in many ways, even though some anarchist rules are violated.

At the beginning of the Russian revolution, many workers began functioning in very anarchist forms of organization, for example, the "soviets."

50 years earlier you'll see the same thing in the Paris Commune. You can also check out the earliest large scale manifestation of utopianism with Robert Owen. You'll find him dealing with anarchist ideas, even though his time is a half century before anarchism becomes a social philosophy in the West.

[Anarchist Patriot]

Originally posted by @-- This is the type of thing that I believe in. If you haven't you should read Berkman's view on anarchism, very interesting, and I believe right on. I posted the link in the RATM forum, and you responded.

Who were you in RAGE?

[Section 8]

AWOL, I only posted once.

[Joe]

anarchy is complete BS. It is just a bunch of people who think rich people are evil cus they are not rich. The whole idea is kinda stupid. anarchy as an organization is kinda dumb Assad I mean isn't anarchy spoused to be no organization no rules no nothing. It could never be it just can't happen. Some one is going to take charge of someone els. You can other be the guy taking charge or the guy who is getting smacked around.

You need structure to keep things from becoming insane. I mean if you have anarchy that would also mean no money so how would we get things made how would we make drive for people to work. Money is our little thing that keeps us from screwing our selfs over. We would have taken up all the recoses and all that crap long time ago if it was not for money and "the system" who knows what would be going on.

Under anarchy someone could just walk in my house and steel my shit I could kill them for doing it but then someone would probly kill me for killing them and the chain would go on and on and on.

[Section 8]

Joe, I will write to you about communist anarchism, because that is the only form of anarchy that I have in depth knowledge.

anarchy is complete BS. It is just a bunch of people who think rich people are evil cus they are not rich. The whole idea is kinda stupid. anarchy as an organization is kinda dumb Assad I mean isn't anarchy spoused to be no organization no rules no nothing. It could never be it just can't happen. Some one is going to take charge of someone els. You can other be the guy taking charge or the guy who is getting smacked around.

I personally beilieve that the bourgousie create slavery, and contribute nothing to society. For example, the workers built the factory, but the landlord takes a portion of their wages to charge them for something that they created. It's like waking up in the middle of the night and find out that you're getting robbed. You approach the robber and ask him for just one tenth of the things he has stolen from you.

You need structure to keep things from becoming insane. I mean if you have anarchy that would also mean no money so how would we get things made how would we make drive for people to work. Money is our little thing that keeps us from screwing our selfs over. We would have taken up all the recoses and all that crap long time ago if it was not for money and "the system" who knows what would be going on.

There's no need for money, I'll attempt to explain the system to you. There is a web of codependence. Each artisan works for his/her self, and deposits their goods, in some sort of central bank. Others collect their needed portion. Money is a slip of paper, that many men are killed over.

Under anarchy someone could just walk in my house and steel my shit I could kill them for doing it but then someone would probly kill me for killing them and the chain would go on and on and on.

First, you must examine their reasoning. Say they want your fair portion of labor, and are willing to kill/steal it from you. After they do, what will they do with it. Take it to their house? This of course is sheer stupidity. If caught the others in the web would vote to expell the man from their society. Or they could all vote to send him to some sort of prison.

Hopefully that clears some clouds,
Shalom

[Joe]

It is not real anarchy then. It is just some crazy form of government.

[Section 8]

It's communist anarchism. Communism has no government, and neither does anarchy. It's actually quite sane if you think about it.