A-Infos (en) UK, ACG, Stormy-Petrel #7 - A Critical Analysis of Syndicalism (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Editorial Note: The article below is a document that relates to 
discussions in the Anarchist Communist Group concerning Industrial 
Strategy in the present period and complements the article Unions or 
Councils? ---- A brief history --- Syndicalism is a revolutionary 
current within the labour movement that seeks to unionise workers and 
advance their demands through strikes and other forms of direct action, 
with the eventual goal of gaining control over the means of production 
through the general strike and running it via direct democracy. It has 
precursors in the 1830s with Proudhon's mutualism gaining ground among 
France's artisans and in Britain's Grand National Consolidated trade 
union which was inspired by Robert Owen's Cooperative ideas. It 
developed an increasingly revolutionary outlook during the First 
International through the activities of those sections inspired by 
Bakunin's anarchist collectivism.

Syndicalist ideas and organisational forms emerged in 1880s and 1890s 
amongst the practice of anarchists in the labour movement of North 
America, in the early Spanish labour movement and particularly in 
France, where the trade union movement was hampered by division between 
various socialist parties/tendencies. In France it developed out of the 
labour exchanges (local institutions involved with employment and 
workers' culture) and the nascent General Confederation of Labour, which 
incorporated both local reformist and revolutionary unions of mostly 
artisans where the structure was syndicalist and the revolutionaries 
became dominant. A separate movement developed in the USA with the 
establishment of the industrial unionist Industrial Workers of the 
World. This was as much influenced by Marxism as anarchism and was more 
centralised than the CGT. The IWW followed a dual unionist strategy 
which separated them from the reactionary American Federation of Labour 
union that barred women, Black and unskilled workers.

In Europe and in particular in the Latin countries this dual unionist 
strategy emerged with the creation of specifically anarcho-syndicalist 
unions separate from their reformist counterparts. Post WW1, the CGT 
split three ways: a reformist union, a communist led union and an 
anarcho-syndicalist union. In Britain and Ireland the movement was split 
between those syndicalists advocating the dual unionist strategy of the 
Industrial unionists and those favouring the 'boring from within' 
approach, led by Tom Mann and the Industrial Syndicalist Education 
League. In the UK the movement it was spearheaded mostly by Marxists and 
others disillusioned with the opportunism of Socialist parliamentary 
politics.

Globally, the movement counted in the millions. It declined due to the 
influence of the Bolshevik revolution which pulled many syndicalists 
towards the new Communist parties and due to massive repression at the 
hands of the red scare in the USA and, ultimately, Fascism and Stalinism 
in Europe and Latin America. Despite its decline it remains the most 
militant form of industrial class struggle and a form that is echoed 
spontaneously wherever the tide of class struggle rises, for example in 
the form of workers councils and workplace committees.

Below I have outlined the main strengths and weaknesses of the various 
forms of syndicalism from an anarchist communist, Platformist perspective.

Revolutionary syndicalism

As seen in the pre WW1 CGT in France, its strength lay in its ability 
for a militant minority within the syndicates to lead by example. Many 
members were reformist but the syndicalist structure of these small 
local unions helped prevent a bureaucracy developing to hold back the 
revolutionaries. It was also non-party political which helped bring 
unity to a movement divided by many different socialist and anarchist 
groups.

Its weakness was in the small craft nature of the syndicates which 
divided workshops into separate unions. Many of the anarchists involved 
felt the creation of separate anarchist organisation to be unnecessary 
as they believed that the state would crumble with the general strike. 
Unfortunately the absence of an anarchist organisation to guide the 
union created a political vacuum into which the ideology of reformism 
poured in. Its test came when WW1 broke out and the CGT, lacking a 
coherent alternative to war, led many syndicalists to capitulate to 
national chauvinism.

Another weakness lies in the analysis of Syndicalism. It holds the 
belief that what holds the workers back is the trade union bureaucracy 
and bureaucratic forms of organisation. Whilst this is true, they are 
also held back by their belief in reformism. It takes a political 
organisation of anarchists to challenge these ideas and to ensure the 
state is smashed as even if it crumbling, it will start to rebuild 
itself immediately.

The mass syndicalist organisation is also at risk of reformist 
degeneration because of the very nature of trade unionism. Strikes can 
be lost as well as won and even when won compromise is necessary when 
the workers don't yet have the strength to overthrow capitalism. 
Militant workers have to temporarily accommodate themselves to the given 
situation and this can lead to ideological accommodation too (this has 
occurred with the Swedish SAC syndicalist union though as long as it 
retains a syndicalist structure this can be changed). The independent 
anarchist communist organisation can provide a counterweight to this 
tendency.

Anarcho-syndicalism

The 'fusion' of anarchism and syndicalism in the form of 
anarcho-syndicalism is exemplified in the Spanish CNT in the early 20th 
century. Its strength was that here the anarchists were organised and 
maintained an anarchist line within the union which was strengthened 
further with the founding of the Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI). 
The union would seize control of industry and abolish the state. The 
CNT/FAI had its own militia in embryo and extended well beyond the 
workplace helping to establish the cultural wing of the movement and 
creating alliances with other parts of the oppressed.

However by merging into the union, anarchists lost their independence 
and were subject to the same pull towards compromise as all 
syndicalists. Following a dual unionist strategy was also problematic. 
The CNT had the allegiance of half the working class but was cut off 
organisationally from the rest of the working class organised in the 
socialist UGT. It caused them to become paralysed. The choice to either 
taking power in the form of a dictatorship of the CNT or collaborating 
with the anti-fascist Republic had to be made and they chose the latter 
as dictatorship was anathema to them.

In the current era, the merging of anarchist and syndicalist activity 
into one organisation creates problems of purity. The International 
Workers Association has split, notably over whether to participate in 
work councils (these councils are elected by all staff whether they 
belong to a union or not and are organised by management and funded by 
government-thankfully not a problem yet in the UK). Without a separate 
anarchist organisation the anarcho-syndicalist union has to stay pure to 
maintain its anarchist ideology. This has effectively shut them out of 
these negotiating councils which has made it difficult for them to recruit.

The Friends of Durruti group who advocated an independent anarchist 
organisation and urged CNT members to take power came too late and was 
expelled from the CNT in 1937 following the May events in Barcelona 
where a militant minority tried to resist the dismantling of the 
revolution by the CNT backed Republican government. Anarcho-syndicalists 
continue to argue that the CNT joined the Republican government due to 
the exceptional circumstances of having to fight a common foe in 
fascism. However a military coup is a likely scenario in any revolution 
and therefore shouldn't be seen as exceptional.

Industrial unionism

Best seen in the IWW. Its strengths lie in its industrial union 
organising. No division along craft or skill lines. It is focused on a 
goal of taking control of the means of production via worker's direct 
democratic management. It is non-political though it is anchored by a 
revolutionary preamble. This allows syndicalists of different political 
persuasions to more easily work together. This isn't bullet proof though 
as the 1924 IWW split between centralisers and decentralisers shows.

Its negatives are that its historic strategy of dual unionism splits off 
syndicalist militants from their reformist fellow workers leaving them 
more prey to their reformist trade union leaders. It also lacks the 
ability to effectively carry out political activity like an anarchist 
organisation along platformist lines. Most of the experienced IWW 
members were incarcerated during the red scare in the USA from 1917 
onwards and this helped break the organisation.

The current IWW recruits a lot of non-syndicalist workers who are 
unhappy with the trade unions because they are unresponsive or 
expensive. Many of the anarchists within it are from the synthesis and 
anarcho-syndicalist tradition. As it is currently it would suffer from 
the same issues as the early French CGT or the Spanish CNT if tested.

'Boring from within' syndicalism

In Britain we had a 'boring from within' syndicalism as seen during the 
great unrest 1910-14 and in the pamphlet The Miner's Next Step. They 
managed to capture many TUC branches but those elected to regional and 
national positions became integrated into the bureaucracy quicker than 
the unions could be transformed. Even lay officials at national, 
regional and even branch level come to act as bureaucrats. In Britain in 
1926 many of the leaders that betrayed the general strike had earlier in 
their union careers been inspired by syndicalism.

The boring from within approach is much weaker than both revolutionary 
syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism. Capturing a trade union via a super 
majority at Conference is of course possible but this would have to 
occur very rapidly to succeed or else candidates at national, regional 
and even branch level would become corrupted along the way and 
compromise the 'boring from within' approach. Even facing a 
supermajority the bureaucracy will still have the power to attempt to 
thwart a syndicalist take over. So, whilst this approach isn't 
impossible it heavily relies on last minute mass spontaneity rather than 
slowly building and convincing fellow workers and has a high risk of 
failure.

De Leonism

A syndicalist form of parliamentary socialism was developed in the USA 
by Daniel De Leon and spread to Britain and Ireland with advocates such 
as James Connolly. The theory here was that the workers would 
simultaneously build up industrial control of industry whilst seeking to 
gain power for the Socialist Labour Party in parliament. In reality it 
put parliamentary action above direct action in industry and was highly 
sectarian, leading to its failure.

Revolutionary shop-stewardism

In Germany from 1916 to 1919 there was an organisation of revolutionary 
shop stewards within the bureaucratic trade unions, many of whom would 
form the centrist Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) and who 
helped spearhead the creation of the workers' councils. (Centrists are 
reformists who talk revolution but wish to contain it within legal means).

They acted independently of the trade union and USPD leadership not 
seeking to transform these organisations from within but concentrating 
on winning over the workers' councils to a revolutionary perspective 
instead. In effect they created a dual organisation within the trade unions.

Initially, without an experienced political revolutionary organisation 
they were swayed by the centrist argument that socialisation of the 
means of production should wait until the economy was more stable whilst 
some eventually swung to the opposite extreme of putschism. Beyond a 
network of shop stewards they had no other organisation at this stage.

Some would go on to form the council communist Allgemeine Arbeiter-Union 
Deutschlands (AAUD) union which acted as a politically council communist 
workers' union separate from and in strict opposition to the reformist 
trade union movement. As the revolution receded so did the membership of 
the AAUD which had by then split between advocates of a party and those 
rejected the party form (the AAUD - Unitary) and then again between 
those willing to fight for short term wage deals and those opposed to 
all compromises.

Communist syndicalism

The minority movement. This was the united front tactic used by the 
Communist International in the early 20's and later called for by 
Trotsky in his transitional programme during the 1930s. This combined 
centrist demands from below with a rank and file movement in the trade 
unions. Many sincere syndicalists were part of this and one of its 
stated objectives was workers' management of industry. However, if it 
had been successful the Communist Party's belief in state socialism and 
top-down organising would have sharply come into conflict with its 
stated syndicalist aims. It sought to both develop rank and file power 
below and to subject any Communist regional and national officials to 
rigorous party discipline from above.

The opportunist period from 1924 to 1928 within the Comintern where they 
cosied up to the non- revolutionary left bureaucrats within the trade 
unions was not syndicalist in nature. Nor were the bureaucratic red 
unions of the Comintern's left period in the late 20's and early 30's. 
The orthodox Trotskyists since have followed the boring from within 
method minus any meaningful rank and file movement.

The exception has been the Cliffites of the Socialist Workers Party who 
briefly had a rank and file movement in the 1970s. This was based on 
combining rank and file action with mild reformist (not centrist) 
demands. The theory being that even fighting for reforms would cause 
workers to collide with the state and radicalise them. It was a nod to 
Rosa Luxemburg's spontaneity theory of the mass strike. It begs the 
question however, "what if capitalism decides to allow reforms? What 
then?" It fails to move workers beyond a mind-set of reformism. Whilst 
this approach may attract syndicalists the politics of the SWP are top 
down (more so than the early Communist Party's) and their literature 
whilst talking often of party democracy and workers' councils is almost 
silent on workers' management of industry. For all Trotskyists the 
question of direct democracy in industry (and also the armed forces) is 
a preference rather than a necessity. Even if that preference is made (a 
big if) the iron discipline of a bureaucratic Trotskyist party would 
force delegates within a direct democracy to act like bureaucrats. The 
democratic centralist (and the case of the SWP, bureaucratic centralist) 
party acts as a bureaucracy ready made to graft on to the worker's 
industrial and community councils.

The rank and file movement was abandoned by the 1980s when the party 
adopted the "downturn" theory. Ever since it has acted as a front for 
Labour Left's within the Trade union bureaucracy against even orthodox 
Trotskyist candidates.

The dual card strategy

The overtly state socialist options (De Leonism, Communist Syndicalism, 
the Cliffite rank and file movement) should be discounted as they will 
not lead to workers' power. Boring from within syndicalism carries a 
high chance of bureaucratic degeneration and the Revolutionary 
Stewardism was too easily pulled this way and that by centrism and 
putschism before settling on a sectarian pure council communist union 
that withered once the revolutionary wave passed. I believe that 
non-political industrial unionism provides for greater unity than 
revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism due to the reasons 
outlined above.

Its two major weaknesses (dual unionism cutting it off from reformist 
workers and a lack of strong anarchist influence) can be resolved by

1. It being embedded within but independent of the trade unions via dual 
carding. This will achieve maximum unity but also maximum ability to act 
separately when needed. Recruitment to the revolutionary industrial 
union should be based on militancy and revolutionary goals rather than 
as a cheaper more enthusiastic alternative to a trade union. The 
revolutionary union within the trade unions should be a band of the most 
militant and revolutionary workers. They should seek not to get 
themselves elected to positions of representative power (national 
executive, regional executive) but seek to transform their trade union 
branches along syndicalist lines whilst building (for example) the IWW 
within.

2. Dual Militancy so that its best militants are organised into an 
independent specific anarchist communist organisation that seeks to lead 
the battle of ideas within the working class rather than 
organisationally dominate the industrial union, organises outside of 
industry and keeps its focus on destroying the state and replacing it 
with a society based on direct democracy and generalised workers' 
self-management.

https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/stormy-petrel/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en