Syndicalism: a socialist economy in which the will of workers are directed through labor unions
So as a word, it means a socialist society without leaders, with an economy controlled by justified hierarchy. From what I’ve found in my search is that anarcho-syndicalists don’t really have any major published political philosophy (I know it’s out there, I just haven’t found it), but it’s typically taken the form of aggressive, sometimes militant methods of organizing workers. Historically, the one extreme example of their success was the anarcho-syndicalist CNT union during the Spanish revolution, which established a wartime socialist economy based on syndicalist values.
An important term I want to point out that’s important to all anarchist strains of political philosophy is justified hierarchy. An extremely common misconception is that anarchists want pure chaos by destroying all of society, which couldn’t be further from the truth. In actuality, they are opposed to all hierarchy that cannot be justified. This includes political parties, governments, and representative democracy. Instead they believe in highly cooperative direct democracy to ensure the will of the people. This is distinct from government due to free association. With syndicalism in the mix, this means that unions direct the distribution of goods within and between communities based on free association; both communities/unions/federations cooperate for as long as both groups see it as beneficial. These unions do not have any influence on what people choose to do, in fact the union itself is a justified hierarchy with limited direct influence on their member’s lives, but controlled via participatory direct democracy. that is what it means to have justified hierarchy.
I am one, so I can shed some light. It’s a tactic more than a philosophy, much like democratic socialism, but in this case arguing that armed unions directly seizing the means of production and serving as a unifier for the working class and training ground for solidarity is the best means to move towards a stateless, classless, and leaderless (or leaderful) society. Philosophy wise we attract everyone from marxists to mutualists (I lean that way).
There’s one major an-synd organization still around, the IWW, a radical union notable for influencing basically every radical, it’s absolutely rock stars of founders and members such as Lucy Parsons (born a slave, married a white man who died for Haymarket, proceeded to call for the homeless to kill the wealthy for decades) and James Connolly (martyred in the Easter rising), and for it being the only group willing to unionize everyone from dock workers to dick workers to freelancers to prisoners.
Do you still have market pricing for goods under syndicalism? I assume yes, since there’s no central government so there can’t be any central planning committee.
How do trade disputes get settled? Heck, how do we stop environmental damage? Suppose the forest-workers union decides to just clearcut all the forests and then stockpile the wood in their warehouses to drive up the prices like a wood cartel? With no central government and no authority, I’m not clear on the means other syndicates have of resolving this.
Do you still have market pricing for goods under syndicalism? I assume yes, since there’s no central government so there can’t be any central planning committee.
How do trade disputes get settled? Heck, how do we stop environmental damage? Suppose the forest-workers union decides to just clearcut all the forests and then stockpile the wood in their warehouses to drive up the prices like a wood cartel? With no central government and no authority, I’m not clear on the means other syndicates have of resolving this.
Lot of arguments that can go on about this. In a market socialist economy there would be market pricing - but there are non-market ideas of economic distribution. Your mileage may vary on how… realistic you regard them for a modern and complex society.
I have anarchist sympathies, but I’m not an anarchist myself - the issues you describe being among my own. Anarcho-syndicalists tend to assume a great degree of cooperation between unions. Syndicalism is not inherently anarchist, though anarcho-syndicalism is a prominent strain of syndicalism. More traditional Democratic Socialist structures are very much compatible with a syndicalist outlook.
That only introduces new problems. Your advocating essentially for socialism as a replacement for capitalism.
…and socialism will never work without a central authority overseeing it.
…so you’ll need a revolutionary war in order to wrestle control from the bourgeoisie…
…which will lead to massive bloodshed and economic turmoil.
I think a more realistic approach would be to instill socialist ideals on our current capitalist system, such as salary caps, wealth taxes, inheretence tax tiers, UBI, socialized safety nets, etc. Rather than trying to redo our entire economic and governmental system.
You’re getting downvoted a bit here since these are very… done-to-death considerations in leftist circles, but for what it’s worth, I think your heart is in the right place. The big points of contention here, I think, would be:
Socialism is a very broad term, and many forms of socialism do not require a central authority, at least no more than capitalism does. I suppose I should take a moment to shill for market socialism - the economy does not fundamentally change in its basic functionality under market socialism - it’s just instead of investors getting voting shares and running companies, employees, instead, exclusively receive voting shares and run the companies. As a barebones explanation, of course.
Syndicalism is actually meant to circumvent the issue of a revolutionary war, if not in preparation, at least in execution. While syndicalists historically have been big on “Si vis pacem, para bellum”, being prepared for self-defense action against the entrenched power, the most essential piece of syndicalism is that the means of production will already be seized by trade unions before the final blow to capitalism is struck, as what is lacking currently is solidarity for workers to shut down all production until their demands are met (a general strike), not capacity. The workers already hold the power in our society, they only need to realize it, sort of thing.
Not to be blasé about the possibility, as there would undoubtedly be turmoil and a non-zero chance of serious bloodshed, but some risks must be accepted to drive society forward. If the American revolutionaries had sat on their hands and said “Taxation without representation is bad, but war would be worse”, that would not have created a better world going forward. Likewise, though war and bloodshed should be avoided if possible, they should not be avoided at all costs. Change is worth turmoil, ultimately; as the alternative is eternal injustice of the current variety - or more likely, said turmoil simply being put off until the next crisis moment, in which case no net lives have actually been saved, but an extra generation has been condemned to the current state of injustices.
Those ideas are all very good, but generally associated with social democracy/welfare capitalism, not socialism.
Unions (or workers syndicates) operate as the backbone of the economy. These syndicates are organized into varying levels of syndicates (national, local, etc). They then form a web like structure where they coordinate resources in a decentralized manner while also being partially centralized through central syndicates.
I don’t really know what anarchosyndicalism means
well, let’s start by breaking down the word.
So as a word, it means a socialist society without leaders, with an economy controlled by justified hierarchy. From what I’ve found in my search is that anarcho-syndicalists don’t really have any major published political philosophy (I know it’s out there, I just haven’t found it), but it’s typically taken the form of aggressive, sometimes militant methods of organizing workers. Historically, the one extreme example of their success was the anarcho-syndicalist CNT union during the Spanish revolution, which established a wartime socialist economy based on syndicalist values.
An important term I want to point out that’s important to all anarchist strains of political philosophy is justified hierarchy. An extremely common misconception is that anarchists want pure chaos by destroying all of society, which couldn’t be further from the truth. In actuality, they are opposed to all hierarchy that cannot be justified. This includes political parties, governments, and representative democracy. Instead they believe in highly cooperative direct democracy to ensure the will of the people. This is distinct from government due to free association. With syndicalism in the mix, this means that unions direct the distribution of goods within and between communities based on free association; both communities/unions/federations cooperate for as long as both groups see it as beneficial. These unions do not have any influence on what people choose to do, in fact the union itself is a justified hierarchy with limited direct influence on their member’s lives, but controlled via participatory direct democracy. that is what it means to have justified hierarchy.
I am one, so I can shed some light. It’s a tactic more than a philosophy, much like democratic socialism, but in this case arguing that armed unions directly seizing the means of production and serving as a unifier for the working class and training ground for solidarity is the best means to move towards a stateless, classless, and leaderless (or leaderful) society. Philosophy wise we attract everyone from marxists to mutualists (I lean that way).
There’s one major an-synd organization still around, the IWW, a radical union notable for influencing basically every radical, it’s absolutely rock stars of founders and members such as Lucy Parsons (born a slave, married a white man who died for Haymarket, proceeded to call for the homeless to kill the wealthy for decades) and James Connolly (martyred in the Easter rising), and for it being the only group willing to unionize everyone from dock workers to dick workers to freelancers to prisoners.
Syndicalism is using labor unions as a means of eventually gaining workers’ control over the economy and abolishing capitalism.
Do you still have market pricing for goods under syndicalism? I assume yes, since there’s no central government so there can’t be any central planning committee.
How do trade disputes get settled? Heck, how do we stop environmental damage? Suppose the forest-workers union decides to just clearcut all the forests and then stockpile the wood in their warehouses to drive up the prices like a wood cartel? With no central government and no authority, I’m not clear on the means other syndicates have of resolving this.
Lot of arguments that can go on about this. In a market socialist economy there would be market pricing - but there are non-market ideas of economic distribution. Your mileage may vary on how… realistic you regard them for a modern and complex society.
I have anarchist sympathies, but I’m not an anarchist myself - the issues you describe being among my own. Anarcho-syndicalists tend to assume a great degree of cooperation between unions. Syndicalism is not inherently anarchist, though anarcho-syndicalism is a prominent strain of syndicalism. More traditional Democratic Socialist structures are very much compatible with a syndicalist outlook.
The invisible foot of syndicalism-market will squash those bad people.
Wishful thinking.
It’s a joke.
Thanks! I can never tell around here!
Hey no problem!
It’s a stupid take on the capitalisms “invisible hand” that is supposed to fix the market.
That only introduces new problems. Your advocating essentially for socialism as a replacement for capitalism.
…and socialism will never work without a central authority overseeing it.
…so you’ll need a revolutionary war in order to wrestle control from the bourgeoisie…
…which will lead to massive bloodshed and economic turmoil.
I think a more realistic approach would be to instill socialist ideals on our current capitalist system, such as salary caps, wealth taxes, inheretence tax tiers, UBI, socialized safety nets, etc. Rather than trying to redo our entire economic and governmental system.
You’re getting downvoted a bit here since these are very… done-to-death considerations in leftist circles, but for what it’s worth, I think your heart is in the right place. The big points of contention here, I think, would be:
Socialism is a very broad term, and many forms of socialism do not require a central authority, at least no more than capitalism does. I suppose I should take a moment to shill for market socialism - the economy does not fundamentally change in its basic functionality under market socialism - it’s just instead of investors getting voting shares and running companies, employees, instead, exclusively receive voting shares and run the companies. As a barebones explanation, of course.
Syndicalism is actually meant to circumvent the issue of a revolutionary war, if not in preparation, at least in execution. While syndicalists historically have been big on “Si vis pacem, para bellum”, being prepared for self-defense action against the entrenched power, the most essential piece of syndicalism is that the means of production will already be seized by trade unions before the final blow to capitalism is struck, as what is lacking currently is solidarity for workers to shut down all production until their demands are met (a general strike), not capacity. The workers already hold the power in our society, they only need to realize it, sort of thing.
Not to be blasé about the possibility, as there would undoubtedly be turmoil and a non-zero chance of serious bloodshed, but some risks must be accepted to drive society forward. If the American revolutionaries had sat on their hands and said “Taxation without representation is bad, but war would be worse”, that would not have created a better world going forward. Likewise, though war and bloodshed should be avoided if possible, they should not be avoided at all costs. Change is worth turmoil, ultimately; as the alternative is eternal injustice of the current variety - or more likely, said turmoil simply being put off until the next crisis moment, in which case no net lives have actually been saved, but an extra generation has been condemned to the current state of injustices.
Those ideas are all very good, but generally associated with social democracy/welfare capitalism, not socialism.
Amarican propaganda is super effective
aw dang man why didn’t you tell anarchists this 100 years ago we’d have saved so much time
Reasonable comments are bad when they’re not fanatical enough
We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,–
–but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more–
Bloody peasant!
It’s when you and your union decide you own the place now and that if the old owners would like to keep it they’re gonna have to outgun you.
Unions (or workers syndicates) operate as the backbone of the economy. These syndicates are organized into varying levels of syndicates (national, local, etc). They then form a web like structure where they coordinate resources in a decentralized manner while also being partially centralized through central syndicates.