đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș alan-macsimoin-syndicalism-its-strengths-weaknesses.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:19:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Syndicalism: Its Strengths & Weaknesses Author: Alan MacSimoin Date: 1995 Language: en Topics: syndicalism, Red & Black Revolution, Northeastern Anarchist Source: Retrieved on 8th August 2021 from http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr1_synd.html Notes: This article first appeared in Red & Black Revolution No 1. Re-published in The Northeastern Anarchist Issue #8, Fall/Winter 2003.
SYNDICALISM is the largest organised tendency in the libertarian
movement today. It has built large workersâ unions, led major struggles,
been the popular expression of anarchism in many countries. To
understand the anarchist-communist view of syndicalism we have to look
at its roots, its core beliefs and its record.
In the 1860s the modern socialist movement was beginning to take shape.
The International Working Mensâ Association, better known as the First
International, was becoming a pole of attraction for militant workers.
As the movement grew, points of agreement and of disagreement between
the Marxists and the Anarchists about what socialism meant and how to
achieve it were becoming clear. This led to the Marxists using less than
democratic means to expel the anarchists.
In 1871 the Paris Commune came into being when the workers of Paris
seized their city. When they were finally defeated seven thousand
Communards were dead or about to be executed. A reign of terror against
the Left swept Europe. The anarchists were driven underground in country
after country. This did not auger well for a rapid growth of the
movement. In response to the terror of the bosses, their shooting down
of strikers and protesting peasants and their suppression of the
anarchist movement a minority launched an armed campaign, known as
propaganda by deed, and killed several kings, queens, aristocrats and
senior politicians.
Though very understandable, this drove a further wedge between the bulk
of the working class and the movement. Clandestine work became the norm
in many countries. Mass work became increasingly difficult. The image of
the madman with a bomb under his arm was born. The movement was making
no significant gains.
By the turn of the century many anarchists were convinced that a new
approach was needed. They called for a return to open and public
militant activity among workers. The strategy they developed was
syndicalism.
Its basic ideas revolve around organising all workers into the one big
union, keeping control in the hands of the rank & file, and opposing all
attempts to create a bureaucracy of unaccountable full-time officials.
Unlike other unions their belief is that the union can be used not only
to win reforms from the bosses but also to overthrow the capitalist
system. They hold that most workers are not revolutionaries because the
structure of their unions is such that it takes the initiative away from
the rank & file. Their alternative is to organise all workers into the
one big union in preparation for a revolutionary general strike.
They established their own international organisation with the founding
of the International Workers Association in Berlin in 1922. Present at
that conference were the Argentine Workers Regional Organisation FORA
representing 200,000 members, the Industrial Workers of the World in
Chile representing 20,000, the Union for Syndicalist Propaganda in
Denmark with 600, the Free Workers Union of Germany FAUD with 120,000,
National Workers Secretariat of the Netherlands representing 22,500, the
Italian Syndicalist Union with 500,000, the General Confederation of
Workers in Portugal with 150,000, the Swedish Workers Central
Organisation SAC with 32,000, the Committee for the Defence of
Revolutionary Syndicalism in France [a breakaway from the CGT] with
100,000, the Federation du Battiment from Paris representing 32,000. The
Spanish CNT was unable to send delegates due to the fierce class
struggle being waged in their country under the dictatorship of Primo de
Rivera. They did, however, join the following year.
During the 1920s the IWA expanded. More unions and propaganda groups
entered into dialogue with the IWA secretariat. They were from Mexico,
Uruguay, Bulgaria, Poland, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Paraguay and
North Africa.
Syndicalist unions outside the IWA also existed in many countries such
as the Brazilian Workers Regional Organisation and the Industrial
Workers of the World in the USA (which soon spread to Canada, Sweden,
Australia, South Africa, and Britain[1] ). The influence of its methods,
if not necessarily of its anarchist origins, was even seen in Ireland
where the ITGWU throughout its existence, until it merged into SIPTU a
few years ago, carried the letters OBU on its badge. This OBU refers to
the IWW slogan of One Big Union. And let us not forget that both
Connolly and Larkin were influenced by the IWW. Connolly was an
organiser for their building workers union in New York state and Larkin
delivered the oration at Joe Hillâs funeral.
The success of the Bolsheviks did great harm to the workers movement
outside Russia. Many were impressed by what was happening in Russia,
Communist Parties sprang up almost everywhere. The Bolshevik model
appeared successful. Many sought to copy it. This was before the reality
of the Soviet dictatorship became widely known.
Nevertheless the syndicalist movement still held on to most of its
support. The real danger was the rise of fascism. With the rule of
Mussolini, the Italian USI, the largest syndicalist union in the world,
was driven underground and then out of existence. The German FAUD,
Portuguese CGT, Dutch NSV, French CDSR and many more in Eastern Europe
and Latin America were not able to survive the fascism and military
dictatorships of the 1930s and 40s.[2]
It was at the same time that the Spanish revolution unfolded, which was
to represent both the highest and lowest points of syndicalism[3]. More
about this below.
The Polish syndicalist union with 130,000 workers, the ZZZ, was on the
verge of applying for membership of the IWA when it was crushed by the
Nazi invasion. But, as with syndicalists elsewhere, they did not go down
without a fight. The Polish ZZZ along with the Polish Syndicalist
Association took up arms against the nazis and in 1944 even managed to
publish a paper called Syndicalista. In 1938, despite their country
being under the Salazar dictatorship since the 1920s, the Portuguese CGT
could still claim 50,000 members in their now completely illegal and
underground union. In Germany, trials for high treason were carried out
against militants of the FAUD. There were mass trials of members, many
of whom didnât survive the concentration camps.
One point worthy of mention about the Spanish CNT shows the hypocrisy of
the British government which called itself anti-fascist. Not only were
Italian anti-fascist exiles interned on the Isle of Man but CNT members
whose underground movement assisted British airmen, Jews and
anti-fascists to escape through Spain to Britain were repaid at the end
of the war when their names were handed over to Francoâs secret police.
By the end of WWII, the European syndicalist movement and the IWA was
almost destroyed. The CNT was now an exile organisation. In 1951 the IWA
held their first post-war congress in Toulouse. This time they were a
much smaller organisation than the great movement which existed at their
first congress. Nevertheless they still represented something. Delegates
attended, though mostly representing very small organisations, from
Cuba, Argentina, Spain, Sweden, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands,
Austria, Denmark, Norway, Britain, Bulgaria and Portugal. A message of
support was received from Uruguay.
Things were not looking good for the re-emergence of
anarcho-syndicalism. In Eastern Europe the Stalinists allowed no free
discussion, strikes or free trade unions. Certainly not anarchist ones!
In the West massive subsidies from the US and the Catholic church went
to tame unions controlled by Christian Democrats and Social Democrats.
Meanwhile Russia did the same for their allies who controlled the French
CGT, the Italian CGIL and others. The IWA, in its weakened state
couldnât compete for influence. In the late 1950s the Swedish SAC
withdrew from the IWA. There was now not a single functioning union in
its ranks.
It staggered on as a collection of small propaganda groups and exile
organisations like the Spanish and Bulgarian CNTs. Some wondered would
it live much longer. But suddenly in 1977 Franco died and his regime
fell. The CNT blossomed. Within a matter of months its membership leaped
from a few hundred activists to 150,000. [Problems later developed
within the CNT and a split occurred which left us with two unions whose
combined membership today probably does not reach 30,000, though this is
still a significant number.] The growth of the CNT put syndicalism back
on the anarchist agenda. The IWA now claims organisations which function
at least partly as unions (in Italy, France and Spain) and propaganda
groups in about another dozen countries.
Outside the IWA are syndicalist unions and organisations like the 16,000
strong SAC in Sweden, the OVB in the Netherlands, the Spanish CGT, the
Solidarity-Unity-Democracy[4] union in the French post office, the CRT
in Switzerland, and others. Some are less anarchist and more reformist
than others. Say what we will about them we must recognise that
syndicalism is today the largest organised current in the international
anarchist movement. This means it is especially important to understand
them.
Anarchist-Communists do have criticisms of their politics, or more
accurately lack of politics. Judging from their own statements, methods
and propaganda the syndicalists see the biggest problem in the structure
of the existing unions rather than in the ideas that tie workers to
authoritarian, capitalist views of the world.
Syndicalists do not create revolutionary political organisations. They
want to create industrial unions. Their strategy is apolitical, in the
sense that they argue that all thatâs essential to make the revolution
is for workers to seize the factories and the land. After that it
believes that the state and all the other institutions of the ruling
class will come toppling down. They do not accept that the working class
must take political power. For them all power has to be immediately
abolished on day one of the revolution.
Because the syndicalist organisation is the union, it organises all
workers regardless of their politics. Historically many workers have
joined, not because they were anarchists, but because the syndicalist
union was the most militant and got the best results. Because of this
tendencies always appeared that were reformist. This raises the question
of the conflict between being a trade union or a revolutionary anarchist
organisation.
Syndicalists are quite correct to emphasise the centrality of organising
workers in the workplace. Critics who reject syndicalism on the grounds
that it cannot organise those outside the workplace are wrong. Taking
the example of anarcho-syndicalism in Spain it is clear that they could
and did organise throughout the entire working class as was evidenced by
the Iberian Federation of Libertarian Youth, the âMujeras Libresâ (Free
Women), and the neighbourhood organisations.
The weakness of syndicalism is rooted in its view of why workers are
tied to capitalism, and its view of what is necessary to make the
revolution. Spain in 1936/7 represented the highest point in
anarcho-syndicalist organisation and achievement. Because of their
a-politicism they were unable to develop a programme for workersâ power,
to wage a political battle against other currents in the workersâ
movement (such as reformism and Stalinism). Indeed syndicalists seem to
ignore other ideas more often than combating them. In Spain they were
unable to give a lead to the entire class by fighting for complete
workersâ power.
Instead they got sucked into support for the Popular Front government,
which in turn led to their silence and complicity when the Republican
state moved against the collectives and militias. The minority in the
CNT, organised around the Friends of Durruti, was expelled when they
issued a proclamation calling for the workers to take absolute power (ie
that they should refuse to share power with the bosses or the
authoritarian parties).
The CNT believed that when the workers took over the means of production
and distribution this would lead to âthe liquidation of the bourgeois
state which would die of asphyxiation.â History teaches us a different
lesson. In a situation of dual power it is very necessary to smash the
state. No ruling class ever leaves the stage of history voluntarily.
In contrast to this the Friends of Durruti were clear that, and this is
a quote from their programme âTowards a Fresh Revolutionâ, âto beat
Franco we need to crush the bourgeoisie and its Stalinist and Socialist
allies. The capitalist state must be destroyed totally and there must be
installed workersâ power depending on rank & file committees. Apolitical
anarchism has failed.â The political confusion of the CNT leadership was
such that they attacked the idea of the workers siezing power as âevilâ
and leading to an âanarchist dictatorship.â
The syndicalist movement, organised in the International Workers
Association and outside it, still refuses to admit the CNT was wrong to
postpone the revolution and enter the government. They attempt to
explain away this whole episode as being due to âexceptional
circumstances â that âwill not occur again.â. Because they refuse to
admit that a mistake of historic proportions was made, there is no
reason to suppose that they would not repeat it (should they get a
chance).
Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the syndicalist unions,
where they still exist, are far more progressive than any other union.
Not only do they create democratic unions and create an atmosphere where
anarchist ideas are listened to with respect but they also organise and
fight in a way that breaks down the divisions into leaders and led,
doers and watchers. On its own this is very good but not good enough.
The missing element is an organisation winning support for anarchist
ideas and anarchist methods both within revolutionary unions and
everywhere else workers are brought together. That is the task of the
anarchist-communists.
[1] It was known as the Industrial Workers of Great Britain.
[2] Some, like the Italian USI and German FAU, have been refounded but
exist only as relatively small propaganda groups. Sometimes they are
able to take on union functions in particular localities.
[3] A good introduction to this period is Eddie Conlonâs The Spanish
Civil War: Anarchism in Action.
[4] In workplace elections in Spring 1994 their vote in the post office
rose from 4% to 18%, and in Telecom from 2.5% to 7.5%.