Please help me understand a few things.

[Paxil]

Hello everyone… I’m a longtime listener, first time caller.

I've recently joined the IWW and started researching anarcho-syndicalist concepts and reading about the anarchist movement. A great many members of this forum are so well informed and have so much knowledge of the greater anarchist movement and it’s honestly be a pleasure reading the thoughts and opinions expressed on this website.

Thanks to the administration staff for taking the time to provide this valuable resource to the public.

Now that I’ve said that, I would say that while I understand the harmful effects of a capitalist society and that our political oligarchy has failed our people, there are still many things that I'm still learning and several questions running around in my head.

Things I'm trying to work out...

What's the exact relationship between anarcho-syndicalism and the anarchist movement?

There seems to be some level of hostility on the forum between anarchists and syndicalists and I'm curious what that's all about?


How do we get there from here?

Can a sybdicalist society be achieved by any means other than revolution? It's been said for ages that capitalism cannot be reformed and I'm not trying to dispute that in anyway, but can you see any possible scenario where a nation could evolve into syndicalism? Is there a goal that we could work towards that would promote syndicalism thereby promoting a shift to anarcho-syndicalist theories?


Would a viable Socialist Party in the United States help our situation?

Wouldn't having the influence of a Socialist Party in the electoral process help limit the effectiveness of government propaganda? I, as most everyone here, understand how the government manipulates the issues, controls the vocabulary, and uses various levels of mind control techniques to influence public opinion, but most people don't. Wouldn't having Socialist politicians in the system speaking truth to power in the forefront of our body politic help alleviate some of the effects of manufactured consent?


Isn't some level of government necessary?

As I understand it, the intent of anarchist is to abolish all forms of government... is that right? Please correct any misrepresentations. Syndicalists appear to be more focused on the labor movement and economic policies… is that fair to say? So, if syndicalists were able to conform society it would obviously need to address the two party capitalist system of governance that currently operates in the US at some point as a syndicalist society couldn't operate in our current system. And what if the anarchists could successfully abolish government?

In either scenario I ultimately have the same question... What happens next? Isn't some level of government necessary, if for nothing more than organizing purposes? What about a national defense? If we look at the basic needs of a large number of people living in relatively the same place aren't there a few things they need to have organized for them? Wouldn't healthcare be considered a basic need, and would someone organize it?


Wouldn't engaging people with your ideas help your cause?

I question the theory that withdrawing from the process is an effective way of communicating ideas. Is it unreasonable to think that anarchists and syndicalists alike could have more of a social impact if they engaged the public with their ideas from within the political process rather than withdrawing from the process and trying to advance their issues from the margins of the political debate? I realize this would be considered more of a reform movement but I can't help but wonder if that would be more effective in terms of public awareness.


What if you could start over?

What if you had your own private island and you could establish your very own system of governance on this island, what would it look like?

What would the economy look like... would you trade... would it be entirely sustainable? Would people have access to goods and services... who owns the goods... who provides the services... are businesses state ran or privatized? Do people have ownership rights? Would there be any means of defense? What if the island were to be attacked, could the island sustain a prolonged defense... i.e., could it fight a war if it had to?

Remember you're working with a clean slate; it can be anything you want it to be... what would it be?


I think I’ll start there. I’m sure I can come up with a few more questions as the discussion moves forward (assuming of course that it does), but I think this is good start.


Peace

[jacobhaller]

"What's the exact relationship between [anarcho-]syndicalism and the anarchist movement?"

In Europe, syndicalism was at the center of the labor movement by c1880 while collectivism and communism were at the center of the anarchist movement by c1880, and anarcho-syndicalism grew from their union. Thus European syndicalists and European anarchists both placed great trust in their unions.

In America, craft unionism was at the center of the labor movement in c1880 while mutualism and individualism were at the center of the anarchist movement in c1880. Thus American syndicalists and American anarchists both placed less trust in their unions, as in the IWW's dual-unionist position. (Which 'orthodox' anarcho-syndicalists condemned).

Basically, classic syndicalism strengthens the union against the bosses; dual/multiple-unionist syndicalism also strengthens the union membership's position against the union leadership.

Not every syndicalist disagrees with every anarchist, but some syndicalists disagree with some anarchists. Issues might include (1) anti-work, primitivist and pure-communist critiques of syndicalism (2) communist critiques of mutualist syndicalism (3) mutualist critiques of communist syndicalism (4) communist critiques that syndicalism emphasizes workers more than nonworkers (invalids, etc.) (5) syndicalist critiques that communism doesn't address strikes (and the continuing right to stop work) (6) insurrectionist critiques that syndicalism (a) is unwilling to use violence to defeat the state and (b) is unwilling to risk previous advances (successful organization) for further successes, i.e. co-opts itself.


"How do we get there from here?"

Empirically, the IWW grew from about 8,000 in 1912 to 300,000 in 1917 (doubling every year). So syndicalism without violence can still achieve explosive growth - and collapse. Had (1) the federal government been slightly weaker in 1917-1920 and (2) the IWW not been involved in internal reorganizations in 1917 and internal divisions in 1918-on (i.e. the Rowan and Browder splits) this could have continued (reaching 2.4 million in 1920, 35-40 million by 1925).

"Would a viable Socialist Party in the United States help our situation?"

No.

"Isn't some level of government necessary?"

Sure, but federations, unions, community associations etc. can all do this far better without any state interference.

"Wouldn't engaging people with your ideas help your cause?"

Yes.

"What if you could start over?"

As long as there is noone else, there would be no government; when there is someone else, I would be no government over them and I would impose no system upon them. Who am I to dictate to them?

I prefer my freedom most and their freedom next. Given that, I would prefer temperate-cold climates, rugged-wooded terrain, low (sustainable) population densities, matrilineal kinship systems, strong possession (but not property) systems, fanatical religious objections to fishing (fish stocks have to recover somewhere), high F:M sex ratio, mutualist economics except for community health-care, etc. sustained by donations, reasonably-very high technology, good libraries, small houses hidden away in the woods, or built into dry parts of the caves, small boats and seaplanes, limpet mines for defense, deep caves for refuge (and for ambushing attackers who try to get in), reckoning marriage from the time of engagement (wedding? what's that?), etc. and the complete absence of ragweed.

[Paxil]

Thanks for responding.

"What's the exact relationship between [anarcho-]syndicalism and the anarchist movement?"

In Europe, syndicalism was at the center of the labor movement by c1880 while collectivism and communism were at the center of the anarchist movement by c1880, and anarcho-syndicalism grew from their union. Thus European syndicalists and European anarchists both placed great trust in their unions.

In America, craft unionism was at the center of the labor movement in c1880 while mutualism and individualism were at the center of the anarchist movement in c1880. Thus American syndicalists and American anarchists both placed less trust in their unions, as in the IWW's dual-unionist position. (Which 'orthodox' anarcho-syndicalists condemned).

Basically, classic syndicalism strengthens the union against the bosses; dual/multiple-unionist syndicalism also strengthens the union membership's position against the union leadership.

Not every syndicalist disagrees with every anarchist, but some syndicalists disagree with some anarchists. Issues might include (1) anti-work, primitivist and pure-communist critiques of syndicalism (2) communist critiques of mutualist syndicalism (3) mutualist critiques of communist syndicalism (4) communist critiques that syndicalism emphasizes workers more than nonworkers (invalids, etc.) (5) syndicalist critiques that communism doesn't address strikes (and the continuing right to stop work) (6) insurrectionist critiques that syndicalism (a) is unwilling to use violence to defeat the state and (b) is unwilling to risk previous advances (successful organization) for further successes, i.e. co-opts itself.

You've mentioned communists several places in your response. This is another area I find somewhat confusing. Anarchists, communists, socialists, and syndicalists all appear to be working towards the same ultimate goal, however, there also seems to be great divisions within the movements. What's the primary source of solidarity, likewise, what's the primary source of division?

I want to look at some of the possible issues you pointed to.

(1) anti-work, primitivist and pure-communist critiques of syndicalism

Is this to say we are supposed to be hunter-gatherers and work should not be organized and planned in relation to society... i.e., you're all on your own good luck.

(2) communist critiques of mutualist syndicalism

I'm sorry I don't understand this.

(3) mutualist critiques of communist syndicalism

Or this.

(4) communist critiques that syndicalism emphasizes workers more than nonworkers (invalids, etc.)

Who are the nonworkers? Obviously you indicate invalids but is that it, i.e. the only people not working are the people who can't work. So the argument being that syndicalism leaves people who can't (disabled or retired) work out of the system?

(5) syndicalist critiques that communism doesn't address strikes (and the continuing right to stop work)

There's no right to strike in a communist system?

(6a) insurrectionist critiques that syndicalism is unwilling to use violence to defeat the state

This could be a problem, the capitalist are obviously willing to kill us to prevent this sort of up evil... are we honestly unwilling to challenge the system with the very tactics employed against us?

(6b) insurrectionist critiques that syndicalism is unwilling to risk previous advances (successful organization) for further successes, i.e. co-opts itself.

I'm not sure I understand this.

"How do we get there from here?"

Empirically, the IWW grew from about 8,000 in 1912 to 300,000 in 1917 (doubling every year). So syndicalism without violence can still achieve explosive growth - and collapse. Had (1) the federal government been slightly weaker in 1917-1920 and (2) the IWW not been involved in internal reorganizations in 1917 and internal divisions in 1918-on (i.e. the Rowan and Browder splits) this could have continued (reaching 2.4 million in 1920, 35-40 million by 1925).

You've provided a thirteen year growth period and had that growth period continued we might not be having this conversation today. But it didn't, for whatever reason. I've seen estimates that put IWW membership at less than 2000 today and I'm not sure we have another thirteen years to make this happen. Is there a Plan B?

"Would a viable Socialist Party in the United States help our situation?"

No.

Why?

This is something else that confuses me. I've seen people on this very forum say that anarchism is socialism; yet getting one to support the other seems almost impossible. Why is there such animosity between two groups that are so closely aligned?

"Isn't some level of government necessary?"

Sure, but federations, unions, community associations etc. can all do this far better without any state interference.

Okay, so there is some form of centralized control? You may not call it a "government", you may operate on consensus with a direct democratic voting system, you may choose your president, chairperson, leader person (whatever you want to called him/her) from the lot... like a jury notice... you are president next year, cancel any plans. While many things may be different, there IS some form of control? I mean, even affinity groups name someone to talk to the media. Important things need to be done and someone needs to do them.

"Wouldn't engaging people with your ideas help your cause?"

Yes.

Okay, so why do so many anarchists refuse to participate? Where's the Syndicalist Party, or the Anarchist Party? I found a Labor Party in the US but they don't respond to emails so I don't even know if it's real. How about a Respect Party in the US? Again, what about a Socialist Party, every industrialized nation in the world has a viable Socialist Party… a dissenting voice in the system. Where’s ours? I can't imagine being able to raise enough awareness to make any of this a reality without engaging people and their ideas... in their districts and at their workplaces. The people need gladhanding.

We're all so confident that we have the solution and we could do it a better way but nobody is in the system proving it. How is that ever going to change anything?

I also found it odd that you responded yes to this question and no to the Socialist Party question.

"What if you could start over?"

As long as there is noone else, there would be no government; when there is someone else, I would be no government over them and I would impose no system upon them. Who am I to dictate to them?

I prefer my freedom most and their freedom next. Given that, I would prefer temperate-cold climates, rugged-wooded terrain, low (sustainable) population densities, matrilineal kinship systems, strong possession (but not property) systems, fanatical religious objections to fishing (fish stocks have to recover somewhere), high F:M sex ratio, mutualist economics except for community health-care, etc. sustained by donations, reasonably-very high technology, good libraries, small houses hidden away in the woods, or built into dry parts of the caves, small boats and seaplanes, limpet mines for defense, deep caves for refuge (and for ambushing attackers who try to get in), reckoning marriage from the time of engagement (wedding? what's that?), etc. and the complete absence of ragweed.

I was speaking more of a country than a colony but I do appreciate your thoughts. Your response does bring up a few more questions though.

I find it odd that having the opportunity to start over you'd retain religion. I would argue that religion is the very source of all the classism, bigotry, ideology, greed, corruption, and conflict in which we want to abolish. Why would you keep it?

How do you propose managing the F;M sex ratio while retaining any semblance of freedom?

That's a pretty minimal defense. I wonder what the defense strategies are in the Netherlands or in Switzerland. I mean if no one were attacking you there would be little need for a defense. But try telling that to common Americans. You may have a tough time convincing Joe Six-pack to relocate to your utopia.

Ultimately this is what I'm getting at, how do we tell the roughly 300 million Americans living with our current level of hubris and supporting this hegemony with our tax dollars that there's a better way? What's the best way to approach the rest of us, not just us... we’re already here and are fully accepting that a new way is warranted... but the rest of us, who aren't here, how do we get them here?


Thanks again,

Peace

[jacobhaller]

Thanks for responding.

You're welcome.

I expected more replies; I suggest asking Pom or Yuda to transfer this to A101.

You've mentioned communists several places in your response. This is another area I find somewhat confusing. Anarchists, communists, socialists, and syndicalists all appear to be working towards the same ultimate goal, however, there also seems to be great divisions within the movements. What's the primary source of solidarity, likewise, what's the primary source of division?

Within anarchism, we share opposition to hierarchy; within socialism, we share opposition to class division, to capitalism, and to exploitation. Within anarchism we have different ways to achieve these shared goals, within socialism the same. Within anarchism we have alternate complementary economic proposals (communism, collectivism, mutualism, individualism, etc.) but these are not often opposed to one another. Within socialism, we have libertarian socialism, including anarchism and some 'minarchist' socialisms, and we have authoritarian socialism including 'social-democratic' movements and 'Marxist-Leninist' movements. If they seize power, authoritarian socialists tend to shoot each other and shoot anarchists. When the SPD reformists came into power (Germany 1918) they recruited right-wing extremists to kill the left-wing opposition. so these are opposed to one another.

I want to look at some of the possible issues you pointed to.

(1) anti-work, primitivist and pure-communist critiques of syndicalism

Is this to say we are supposed to be hunter-gatherers and work should not be organized and planned in relation to society... i.e., you're all on your own good luck.

Basically, anti-work, primitivist and pure communist anarchists want to eliminate the institution of work if not also the dichotomy between work and play. Fourier was suggesting similar things in the early 1800s.

(2) communist critiques of mutualist syndicalism

I'm sorry I don't understand this.

Anti-market critiques of market syndicalism.

(3) mutualist critiques of communist syndicalism

Or this.

Market critiques of anti-market syndicalism.

Kevin Carson (http://www.mutualist.org) is probably the best-known advocate of mutualism these days. Pure mutualism (advocating markets as part of workers' class struggle) is fairly uncommon these days but mixed anarchism (using markets on the periphery of non-market systems, e.g. for people who opt out of community projects) is not uncommon.

(4) communist critiques that syndicalism emphasizes workers more than nonworkers (invalids, etc.)

Who are the nonworkers? Obviously you indicate invalids but is that it, i.e. the only people not working are the people who can't work. So the argument being that syndicalism leaves people who can't (disabled or retired) work out of the system?

mutualism & workerism &c: from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.

communism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

(5) syndicalist critiques that communism doesn't address strikes (and the continuing right to stop work)

There's no right to strike in a communist system?

How does it work? communism asserts that anyone can use the stores and that noone can demand conditions for taking the goods; so how can the workers demand conditions for making the goods?

(6a) insurrectionist critiques that syndicalism is unwilling to use violence to defeat the state

This could be a problem, the capitalist are obviously willing to kill us to prevent this sort of up evil... are we honestly unwilling to challenge the system with the very tactics employed against us?

No.

(6b) insurrectionist critiques that syndicalism is unwilling to risk previous advances (successful organization) for further successes, i.e. co-opts itself.

I'm not sure I understand this.

In the 1950s the US offered union leaders the following deal: either work for them (support segregation, cold war, etc.) or face their possible assasination, their likely imprisonment, their supporters' blacklisting, etc. They used the membership as hostages.

You've provided a thirteen year growth period and had that growth period continued we might not be having this conversation today. But it didn't, for whatever reason. I've seen estimates that put IWW membership at less than 2000 today and I'm not sure we have another thirteen years to make this happen. Is there a Plan B?

It was the combination of good strategy and good conditions. It was followed (1917-on) with bad strategy (the attempt to centralize the organization in 1917, the failure to adopt either opposition or neutrality vis-a-vis the war, the failure to resolve the 'emergency program' without a split, the failure to enunciate criticisms of Marxism, etc. for the IWW; the legal reform strategy for the AFL, CIO, and CPUSA).

Why?

This is something else that confuses me. I've seen people on this very forum say that anarchism is socialism; yet getting one to support the other seems almost impossible. Why is there such animosity between two groups that are so closely aligned?

See above about the SPD in Germany. The Socialist party armed the Freikorps to shoot the anarchists, shoot the Marxists, shoot their own party members, and ultimately (1932-33, when one of the Freikorps (the SA) and its political wing (the NSDAP) took power, send themselves to the camps.

Frankly, political parties always combine maliciousness with stupidity, but our supposed allies combine more of each.

Okay, so there is some form of centralized control? You may not call it a "government", you may operate on consensus with a direct democratic voting system, you may choose your president, chairperson, leader person (whatever you want to called him/her) from the lot... like a jury notice... you are president next year, cancel any plans. While many things may be different, there IS some form of control? I mean, even affinity groups name someone to talk to the media. Important things need to be done and someone needs to do them.

But it is all voluntary and all non-hierarchical (the two go together).

Okay, so why do so many anarchists refuse to participate? Where's the Syndicalist Party, or the Anarchist Party? I found a Labor Party in the US but they don't respond to emails so I don't even know if it's real. How about a Respect Party in the US? Again, what about a Socialist Party, every industrialized nation in the world has a viable Socialist Party… a dissenting voice in the system. Where’s ours? I can't imagine being able to raise enough awareness to make any of this a reality without engaging people and their ideas... in their districts and at their workplaces. The people need gladhanding.

We're all so confident that we have the solution and we could do it a better way but nobody is in the system proving it. How is that ever going to change anything?

I also found it odd that you responded yes to this question and no to the Socialist Party question.

Parties just aren't the way to do this. We need to remind that the system isn't legitimate, it isn't democratic, and it isn't consensual. We can't point out that the system won't work (for the workers) and the elections aren't fair (it's not who vites that counts, it's who counts the votes), while we say that the system will work (for everyone) if you just vote for our candidates. Talk about mixed messages!

I was speaking more of a country than a colony but I do appreciate your thoughts. Your response does bring up a few more questions though.

I first pointed out that I couldn't impose one system or one situation; I then described my preferred situation. I can't impose that. I can work to wipe out the state to individuals can search for their preferred situations, and people can see what really works, and what they really prefer. I described an interesting and possible society and environment but not the only form of anarchism (or, within anarchism, the only form of desirible society to me).

I find it odd that having the opportunity to start over you'd retain religion. I would argue that religion is the very source of all the classism, bigotry, ideology, greed, corruption, and conflict in which we want to abolish. Why would you keep it?

Because I believe it. Except the seafood bit; I just practice that (for the reasons listed) without religious rationale.

How do you propose managing the F;M sex ratio while retaining any semblance of freedom?

I don't propose any way to get there. I just note (1) I am a heterosexual male (if I were a lesbian female I'd probably include the same bit) (2) I believe women are biologically superior. (basically, if we men have something wrong with our only X chromosome, we are screwed; if women have something wrong they have another copy).

That's a pretty minimal defense. I wonder what the defense strategies are in the Netherlands or in Switzerland. I mean if no one were attacking you there would be little need for a defense. But try telling that to common Americans. You may have a tough time convincing Joe Six-pack to relocate to your utopia.

Lots of machineguns. Lots of people trained to use them. Lots of fortifications. I have nothing against machineguns; I believe swords, however, are more demoralizing.

Ultimately this is what I'm getting at, how do we tell the roughly 300 million Americans living with our current level of hubris and supporting this hegemony with our tax dollars that there's a better way? What's the best way to approach the rest of us, not just us... we’re already here and are fully accepting that a new way is warranted... but the rest of us, who aren't here, how do we get them here?

We organize the networks to ensure people survive when the capitalist networks collapse. We may be in a position to do more, too. But we organize networks which provide food, and shelter, and so forth.

[Poop]

mutualist economics except for community health-care, etc.

Why the exception?

[Paxil]

Quote:
You've mentioned communists several places in your response. This is another area I find somewhat confusing. Anarchists, communists, socialists, and syndicalists all appear to be working towards the same ultimate goal, however, there also seems to be great divisions within the movements. What's the primary source of solidarity, likewise, what's the primary source of division?


Within anarchism, we share opposition to hierarchy; within socialism, we share opposition to class division, to capitalism, and to exploitation. Within anarchism we have different ways to achieve these shared goals, within socialism the same. Within anarchism we have alternate complementary economic proposals (communism, collectivism, mutualism, individualism, etc.) but these are not often opposed to one another. Within socialism, we have libertarian socialism, including anarchism and some 'minarchist' socialisms, and we have authoritarian socialism including 'social-democratic' movements and 'Marxist-Leninist' movements. If they seize power, authoritarian socialists tend to shoot each other and shoot anarchists. When the SPD reformists came into power (Germany 1918) they recruited right-wing extremists to kill the left-wing opposition. so these are opposed to one another.

There appears to be more things dividing us than there are uniting us. I thought the Democratic Party was divided; they ain't got nothing on anarchists. Is there someplace where anarchists are able to find common ground?

Kevin Carson (www.mutualist.org) is probably the best-known advocate of mutualism these days. Pure mutualism (advocating markets as part of workers' class struggle) is fairly uncommon these days but mixed anarchism (using markets on the periphery of non-market systems, e.g. for people who opt out of community projects) is not uncommon.

Thanks for the link, I've been checking out Kevin's site and there's some very informative posts on there.

Quote:
Okay, so why do so many anarchists refuse to participate? Where's the Syndicalist Party, or the Anarchist Party? I found a Labor Party in the US but they don't respond to emails so I don't even know if it's real. How about a Respect Party in the US? Again, what about a Socialist Party, every industrialized nation in the world has a viable Socialist Party… a dissenting voice in the system. Where’s ours? I can't imagine being able to raise enough awareness to make any of this a reality without engaging people and their ideas... in their districts and at their workplaces. The people need gladhanding.

We're all so confident that we have the solution and we could do it a better way but nobody is in the system proving it. How is that ever going to change anything?

I also found it odd that you responded yes to this question and no to the Socialist Party question.


Parties just aren't the way to do this. We need to remind that the system isn't legitimate, it isn't democratic, and it isn't consensual. We can't point out that the system won't work (for the workers) and the elections aren't fair (it's not who vites that counts, it's who counts the votes), while we say that the system will work (for everyone) if you just vote for our candidates. Talk about mixed messages!

I'm not suggesting we run someone for president and tell everyone to vote for our guy and he'll change everything. You and I both know that could never happen... and you're right about the mixed messages that would send.

What I'm suggesting is more Trojan horse like. First of all you probably couldn't penetrate national politics at this point so the focus would have to be at the local and state level. The anarchist "politicians" would run on a platform of truth - the system doesn't work, and here's why it doesn't work - and work to engage the other politicians and the public everywhere they possibly can. The influence of a single anarchist on a city counsel someplace could raise a lot of awareness I would think.

There was a Libertarian who ran for Lieutenant Governor of Missouri once who argued that paying someone to be Lieutenant Governor was a waste of taxpayer's money. He would say elect me and I'll abolish the position, my first order of business would be to fire myself.

I'd love to see anarchists in state houses and on city counsels around the country exposing corruption, proposing bills to abolish certain laws, and expand freedom. All the while raising the awareness level of the average American to the failure that the two party capitalist system has become. As it stands the average American's picture of an anarchist is the guy in the black hoody throwing a Molotov cocktail. I just think it's going to be challenging to gain the support of average Americans if that's the image they hold of the anarchist movement.


Peace