đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș albert-meltzer-the-lessons-of-history.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:20:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Lessons of History Author: Albert Meltzer Date: June 1952 Language: en Topics: history, anarcho-syndicalism, labor movement Source: Retrieved on 19th May 2021 from https://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/dncm2p Notes: Published in The Syndicalist, vol. 1, no.2 June 1952.
The Syndicalist (The syndicalist for workersâ control) was a monthly
anarchist newspaper published from May 1952 to April 1953 by the
Anarcho-Syndicalist Committee (including Albert Grace, Albert Meltzer
and Philip Sansom). It was an agitational paper, hence the need for this
article explaining the point of putting pieces on history in. Weâve
written elsewhere about âAlbert Meltzer and the fight for working class
historyâ (KSL bulletin 76, October 2013.
. This is an early appearance of his concern with history as inspiration
for future struggles (which led him to play a central role in the Kate
Sharpley Library).
---
The series of articles on syndicalism in various countries has been
short, both for reasons of space, and limitations of knowledge. It is
unfortunate that many of the revolutionary movements of vital concern to
us have not received sufficient documentation. It should be our constant
aim to add to this knowledge, as there is something positive to be
gained from it.
The cursory reader might regard it as being remote from his interest
that such-and-such a revolutionary strike took place in such-and-such a
country. Likewise, as most of the material which comes to be published
on it in English is in the nature of protests against repression, he
might draw the one-sided conclusion that all such revolts are doomed to
failure, and find, perhaps, sympathy but not inspiration. [1]
It is in the nature of revolts that many have been successful in lifting
countries out of a morass of feudalism that persisted in modern times,
but naturally none has finally achieved a free society which exists
unchallenged and flourishing. This could not possibly be the case in the
political circumstances of the world to-day, with an unabated trend to
dictatorship and monopoly. If one thing had not caused a libertarian
achievement to go under, another would have followed. Hence the record
of foreign intervention in countries like Spain and Mexico on occasions
when it was possible that the authoritarian society might collapse.
From the industrial struggles and revolutionary attempts that have taken
place we can, however, draw many conclusions. That a consciously
Anarcho-Syndicalist movement can be built up is proved by the Spanish
experience, and that workersâ control can be put into practice was seen
in the collectivised undertakings of 1936. We have also found that
political influence can creep in (which can be seen in Mexico, when
twice the anarchists have abandoned syndicalist movements they had built
up, which had later been corrupted, in order to build again on a
libertarian basis). The example of the Argentine shows how political
influence can be kept out, and the struggles of the F.O.R.A. are closely
parallel to those of the I.W.W. in North America. In both cases,
however, we have seen the unavoidable wane of influence when militant
workers turned to the Communists under the âglamour valueâ of the
Russian Revolution.
The spontaneous possibilities of the workers, even without a positive
syndicalist movement, are seen in the struggles in Germany after the
fall of the Kaiser [1918â19]. There the workers were in a position to
seize their workplaces, and likewise establish free communes. The
latter, a typically anarchistic conception as opposed to the conquest of
State power, was something seen in Spain which was a rebellion against
the Marxist tradition in Germany.
Syndicalism as an industrial weapon was perfected in France, but with
the decline of influence of the Anarchists owing to the rise of
social-democracy and chauvinism, such syndicalism became corrupted and
used against the workers, both by social-democrats, and later, by
communists. In England we have seen that syndicalism faced the
possibility of becoming merely a âtrend in the labour movementâ. This
proved fatal to it, for revolutionary syndicalism has flourished when it
is separate and apart from the reformist labour movement. It might be
pointed out to those who wail about âsplitting the workersâ that in many
cases it has been the reformists who set up the dual union (often at
governmental instigation or with the blessing of companies) because of
the activities of the revolutionary syndicalists (e.g. Italy, Spain, and
many South American countries). At other times the revolutionary union
has been the challenger, but it has not split the workers according to
crafts, as the reformist unionists take for granted.
A libertarian idea cannot be one that rests upon preconceived
philosophies and written theories, but one that has been fashioned by
experience. It is hoped, therefore, that a historical series such as the
present has contributed towards the clarification of the theory of
anarcho-syndicalism.
[1] The âprotests against repressionâ Meltzer mentions probably include
those against the executions of anarchist militants of the Tallion group
on 14 March 1952. See A Leaflet [protesting the execution of members of
the Tallion group]