💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-syndicalism-anarchism-and-marxism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:39:16. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Syndicalism, Anarchism and Marxism
Author: Anarcho
Date: June 22, 2010
Language: en
Topics: syndicalism, marxism, anarcho-syndicalism
Source: Retrieved on 1st February 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=430

Anarcho

Syndicalism, Anarchism and Marxism

Instead of trying to squeeze Marxism into syndicalism, it would be

better to ask why so many “Marxists” rejected the legacy of Marx and

embraced positions (revolutionary unionism, primacy of economic

struggle, the general strike, unions as the structure of a socialist

society, etc.) which were expounded by Bakunin and attacked by the

founders of their ideology. Looking at what the syndicalists themselves

said, the ideas of Bakunin and what Marx and Engels advocated, it

quickly becomes apparently that Marxism was not one of the “core

ideological elements” of syndicalism. In reality, syndicalism was

simply, as so many syndicalists and others stressed, a new name for the

ideas raised in the IWMA and for which Bakunin was a leading

advocate.Syndicalism, Anarchism and Marxism

“the anarchists ... do not seek to constitute, and invite the working

men not to constitute, political parties in the parliaments.

Accordingly, since the foundation of the International Working Men’s

Association in 1864–1866, they have endeavoured to promote their ideas

directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to

a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in

parliamentary legislation.”

Peter Kropotkin, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910[1]

Introduction

Ralph Darlington[2] tries to defend a provocative assertion in a journal

dedicated to studying anarchism, namely that “the traditional assumption

... that syndicalism was simply an outgrowth of anarchism would be an

over-simplification”. (p. 30)

He does so by two main lines of argument. Firstly, Darlington suggests

that “Marxism also influenced” syndicalism “significantly to varying

degrees,” going so far as to list it as one of its “three core

ideological elements” (p. 46) alongside anarchism and revolutionary

unionism. Secondly, he claims that “many other countries where

syndicalist movements also flourished (for example, Britain, Ireland or

America), anarchist influence was only of marginal consequence”. (p. 30)

Both claims, I would argue, are deeply flawed. The first is simply

assertion, with no supporting evidence, and ignores not only the more

obvious influence of Bakunin’s revolutionary anarchism but also Marx and

Engels explicit rejection of key syndicalist ideas when raised by

libertarians in the International Working Men’s Association (IWMA). It

also stands at odds with a well-established scholarly literature that,

while admitting the affinities between some forms of Marxism and

syndicalism, nonetheless draws a direct and lineal linkage between

anarchism and syndicalism.[3] The second confuses the spread of

syndicalist ideas and their acceptance by Marxists with a pre-existing

ideological influence. As such, it crucially ignores the element of

time. Just because a few Marxists found syndicalism more appealing than

Social Democratic orthodoxy cannot be used to retroactively make

syndicalism indebted to Marx and Engels.

Anarchism and Syndicalism

The first assertion is that “syndicalism was always an alliance between

at least three core ideological elements,” one of which was Marxism

which “influenced it significantly to varying degrees”. More precisely,

“a number of syndicalist movement leaders inherited some central

components of the Marxist tradition” (with the useful qualifier of “in

however a diffuse form”). (pp. 46–7)

This influence was twofold. First was “the Marxist conception of the

necessity and desirability of class struggle (of which strikes were the

primary expression) as a means of collective resistance to capitalism

that could develop the confidence, organisation and class consciousness

of workers”. Second was “a conception of socialism arising from the need

for workers to take power themselves rather than relying on the

enlightened actions of parliamentary and trade union leaders who would

reform capitalism on behalf of workers”. (p. 47)

As far as the first supposed contribution goes, recognising the

“necessity and desirability of class struggle” is hardly uniquely

Marxist as can be seen from Bakunin[4] repeatedly expressing that

opinion. It follows, therefore, that that characteristic of syndicalism

by no means supports Darlington’s inference and so there is no need to

invoke Marxism.[5]

For Bakunin, like the rest of the revolutionary anarchist tradition,

class conflict was inherent in capitalism for there was, “between the

proletariat and the bourgeoisie, an irreconcilable antagonism which

results inevitably from their respective stations in life.” He stressed

that “war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is unavoidable”

and for the worker to “become strong” he “must unite” with other workers

and form “the union of all local and national workers’ associations into

a world-wide association, the great International Working-Men’s

Association”. Only “through practice and collective experience” and “the

progressive expansion and development of the economic struggle” will the

worker come “to recognise his true enemies: the privileged classes,

including the clergy, the bourgeoisie, and the nobility; and the State,

which exists only to safeguard all the privileges of those classes.”

There was “but a single path, that of emancipation through practical

action” which “has only one meaning. It means workers’ solidarity in

their struggle against the bosses. It means trades-unions, organisation,

and the federation of resistance funds.”[6] Thus “unions create that

conscious power without which no victory is possible” while strikes

“create, organise, and form a workers’ army, an army which is bound to

break down the power of the bourgeoisie and the State, and lay the

ground for a new world.”[7]

Bertrand Russell stated the obvious: “Anarchists, like Socialists,

usually believe in the doctrine of class war.”[8]

As for the second supposed contribution, the need for workers “to take

power” themselves rather than relying on leaders, this was precisely

Bakunin’s critique of Marx.

For Bakunin, “the new social order” would be attained “through the

social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and power of the

working masses of the cities and villages.”[9] This meant that

anarchists do “not accept, even in the process of revolutionary

transition, either constituent assemblies, provisional governments or

so-called revolutionary dictatorships; because we are convinced that

revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses,

and that when it is concentrated in those of a few ruling individuals it

inevitably and immediately becomes reaction.” Rather, the revolution

“everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control must

always belong to the people organised into a free federation of

agricultural and industrial associations ... organised from the bottom

upwards by means of revolutionary delegation.”[10] This was because

“every state, even the pseudo-People’s State concocted by Mr. Marx, is

in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, through a

privileged minority of conceited intellectuals who imagine that they

know what the people need and want better than do the people

themselves.”[11]

In short, as well as “anti-state, anti-political action, and

anti-militarist ideas” and “the notions of federalism, decentralisation,

direct action and sabotage” (p. 46), syndicalism took from the

revolutionary anarchism associated with Bakunin the “necessity” of class

struggle and a “conception of socialism” based on workers’ power

organised (to use one of Bakunin’s favourite terms) “from the bottom

up.”

So to claim that class struggle and workers’ power were the

contributions of Marxism to syndicalism means ignoring a far more

obvious source for these ideas – Bakunin and other revolutionary

anarchists in the IWMA. Given this, it seems odd to invoke Marxism to

explain aspects of syndicalism particularly since, as I will show, Marx

and Engels explicitly rejected syndicalist ideas when they were raised

by those libertarians in favour of forming political parties and

utilising elections.

The redundancy of invoking Marxism to explain syndicalism can also be

seen from what Darlington calls syndicalism’s “utter primacy of the

working class as the sole agency of revolution that could liberate the

whole of society”. (p. 47) Bakunin also argued that the “initiative in

the new movement will belong to the people ... in Western Europe, to the

city and factory workers – in Russia, Poland, and most of the Slavic

countries, to the peasants.” “Organise the city proletariat in the name

of revolutionary Socialism”, he stressed repeatedly, and “unite it into

one preparatory organisation together with the peasantry.”[12] However,

“in order that the peasants rise up, it is absolutely necessary that the

initiative in this revolutionary movement be taken up by the city

workers ... who combine in themselves the instincts, ideas, and

conscious will of the Social Revolution.”[13]

Then there is the issue of trade unionism. Here Darlington does indulge

in a tautology by asserting that “arguably we can define” syndicalism as

“revolutionary trade unionism” (p. 31) and then proclaiming that one of

its “three core ideological elements” are “the ideas of revolutionary

trade unionism.”[14] (p. 46, p. 47) Yet revolutionary unionism was a

core aspect of Bakunin’s ideas: “the natural organisation of the masses

... is organisation based on the various ways that their various types

of work define their day-to-day life; it is organisation by trade

association.” Once “every occupation ... is represented within the

International, its organisation, the organisation of the masses of the

people will be complete.” Then, “when the revolution ... breaks out, the

International will be a real force and know what it has to do,” namely

“take the revolution into its own hands” and replace “this departing

political world of States and bourgeoisie.” [15]

As such, it is incredulous to suggest that when the CNT was founded in

1911 it “combined syndicalist principles of revolutionary unionism with

the more traditional Spanish anarchist principles”. (p. 36) This ignores

the well-established recognition that the Spanish anarchists had

traditionally organised revolutionary unions. The Spanish section of the

IWMA “was from the beginning based upon unions” and organised “by local

councils in each town, and national unions for each branch of

production.” One leading Spanish anarchist noted in 1910 that only the

term “syndicalism” was new.[16] In Zaragoza, for example, anarchist

union organising began in 1871 and when the CNT formed 40 years later

that city was the “largest centre of anarchist trade-union influence in

Spain, outside Barcelona.”[17] As such, syndicalism’s “theoretical and

practical links to the nineteenth century are readily apparent.”[18]

As historian J. Romero Maura correctly summarised, for the “Bakuninists”

in the IWMA the “anarchist revolution, when it came, would be

essentially brought about by the working class. Revolutionaries needed

to gather great strength and must beware of underestimating the strength

of reaction” and so anarchists “logically decided that revolutionaries

had better organise along the lines of labour organisations.”[19]

In short, Darlington is incorrect to suggest that “the core of

syndicalist philosophy was not explicitly anarchist in character”. (p.

44) Comparing it with the ideas of Bakunin we discover identical

theories and practice:

“Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise and

paralyse your growing strength by being duped into alliances with

bourgeois Radicalism ... Abstain from all participation in bourgeois

Radicalism and organise outside of it the forces of the proletariat. The

bases of this organisation ... are the workshops and the federation of

workshops ... instruments of struggle against the bourgeoisie, and their

federation, not only national, but international ... when the hour of

revolution sounds, you will proclaim the liquidation of the State and of

bourgeois society, anarchy, that is to say the true, frank people’s

revolution.”[20]

As Bertrand Russell summarised: “Hardly any of these ideas [associated

with syndicalism] are new: almost all are derived from the Bakunist

[sic!] section of the old International.”[21] In this he was echoing the

likes of Malatesta[22], Kropotkin[23] and Goldman[24] (a position Rudolf

Rocker repeated decades later[25]). Many academics have made the same

connection.[26]

If syndicalism is defined as the believe that “unions should go beyond

merely attempting to improve workers’ terms and conditions of employment

within the framework of capitalist society, to become the instrument

through which workers could overthrow capitalism and establish a new

society” (p. 48) then it is clear that Bakunin advocated such a

theory.[27] Sadly, Darlington does not discuss how syndicalism differs

from the revolutionary unionism expounded by libertarians in the IWMA

and after.<[28] However, to claim that “syndicalist principles of

revolutionary unionism combined with anarchist notions” (p. 38) would

suggest unawareness that revolutionary unionism had been advocated

decades before “syndicalism” was used to describe these ideas.[29]

As far as Darlington’s second argument goes, that many syndicalist

movements developed in countries without a large anarchist presence, he

ignores that these movements developed in response to syndicalist

movements elsewhere, such as France, where there was significant

anarchist influence. Given the role of unions in revolutionary anarchist

theory and practice from the 1860s onwards, the rise of these initial

syndicalist movements would testify to that very influence.

The Italian syndicalists, for example, “drew considerable inspiration

from their French brethren”[30] while “the founders” of the IWW “did

draw on the experience of the French syndicalists.”[31] In Britain,

syndicalists “drew much from the overseas syndicalist experience”[32]

(particularly of the CGT and the IWW). Over time, syndicalist ideas did

spread to labour movements in countries without large anarchist

movements but that cannot be used to downplay the links of syndicalism

to anarchism for, as with George Sorel,[33] these self-proclaimed

Marxists utilised the theories and practice of existing syndicalist

organisations in countries which did have significant libertarian

influence.[34]

So while not all syndicalists considered themselves anarchists,

syndicalism itself originally came from revolutionary anarchism which

had advocated revolutionary unionism from the start. This was reflected

both theoretically and practically, with anarchists producing

revolutionary union movements in Spain, Mexico[35], America[36] and

elsewhere before the 1890s. Ironically, Darlington himself shows this to

be the case when he states that “anarcho-syndicalism became a potent

force after the Russian anarchist Bakunin had arrived” in Italy “in the

late 1860s”. (p. 35) This admission contradicts the assertion that

Marxism was one of syndicalism’s “three core ideological elements”.[37]

Marx and Engels against Syndicalism

In addition to the obvious similarities in Bakunin’s politics and

syndicalism, there is the awkward fact for Darlington that while he

proclaims Marxism as one of syndicalism’s “core ideological elements”

Marx and Engels explicitly rejected such ideas.

Marx attacked Bakunin for thinking that the “working classes must not

occupy itself with politics. They must only organise themselves by

trades-unions.”[38] Engels dismissed the general strike as “the lever

employed by which the social revolution is started” in the “Bakuninist

programme” while suggesting they admitted “this required a well-formed

organisation of the working class”[39] (that is, Bakunin aimed to

“organise, and when all the workers ... are won over ... abolish the

state and replace it with the organisation of the International”[40]).

Likewise, they routinely mocked the notion, popular in the libertarian

wing of the organisation, that the International should both prefigure

and become the future structure of a socialist society. For Bakunin, the

“organisation of the trade sections and their representation by the

Chambers of Labour ... bear in themselves the living seeds of the new

society which is to replace the old world. They are creating not only

the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself.”[41] For Engels, the

Bakuninists told the proletariat “to organise not in accordance with the

requirements of the struggle ... but according to the vague notions of a

future society entertained by some dreamers.”[42] For Bakunin, the

“future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards,

by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their

unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great

federation, international and universal.”[43] For Engels the “democratic

republic” was “the specific form for the dictatorship of the

proletariat”[44] (although the Paris Commune showed that “the victorious

proletariat must first refashion the old bureaucratic, administrative

centralised state power before it can use it for its own purposes”[45]).

If “the essence of syndicalism was revolutionary action by unions aimed

at establishing a society based upon unions” (p. 31) then this is found

in Bakunin, not Marx and Engels. Indeed, they highlighted these aspects

of Bakunin’s ideas – the centrality of union organisation and struggle

(including the general strike) – and expressed their opposition to them.

Moreover, as well as rejecting key syndicalist ideas, Marx and Engels

also advocated what many revolutionary socialists, as Darlington admits,

came to consider as the “dead-end of electoral and parliamentary

politics”. (p. 46) The subsequent development of social democracy

confirmed Bakunin’s fears on using elections rather than Marx’s

hopes.[46] So when Darlington correctly suggests that when “many

syndicalists dismissed” political action they were “rejecting” electoral

politics he fails to note that they adopted the same “narrow definition

of political action” (p. 47) as had Bakunin in the First

International.[47] It was precisely this “narrow definition of political

action” which Marx and Engels inflicted upon the IWMA against the

libertarians.[48]

It is true, as Darlington suggests, that many Marxists became

syndicalists as “a reaction” against social democracy.[49] (p. 47)

Sadly, he fails to raise the question of why social democracy became

reformist, instead stating that these were “reformist socialist parties”

(p. 47) so ignoring that, at the time, there were not – they considered

themselves as revolutionary parties explicitly following the ideas of

Marx and Engels on “political action.” True, a substantial revisionist

tendency existed within these parties and, moreover, their rhetoric was

not reflected in their practice, but it should not be forgotten that

they prided themselves in being revolutionary.

So if social democracy put the “emphasis on parliamentarism at the

expense of the direct action of the workers” (p. 47) it is fair to say

that the focus that Marx and Engels placed on “political action” helped

this process immensely.[50]

It is hard not to conclude that if syndicalism is marked, as Darlington

suggests, by a “rejection of political parties, elections and parliament

in favour of direct action by the unions” and a “conception of a future

society” based on “the economic administration of industry exercised

directly by the workers themselves” (p. 29) then not only were Marx and

Engels not syndicalists, they were explicitly opposed to it. Given this,

to claim that Marxism is one of syndicalism’s “core ideological

elements” seems rather strange.

Assessing success

Darlington argues “revolutionary syndicalism was short-lived and

ultimately unsuccessful in achieving its overall aims – particularly

when compared to the architects of the Russian revolution”. (p. 49)

That raises the obvious question of what counts as success. If we look

at the “overall aims” of “the architects of the Russian revolution” then

this revolution was “ultimately unsuccessful” – unless you assume that

the “overall aims” were to create within one year a one-party

dictatorship presiding over a state capitalist economy or that this

counts as a “successful” socialist transformation. So while it may be

correct to say that the Bolshevik Party successfully seized and held

onto power this was utterly unsuccessful in creating socialism which was

the whole point.

Darlington is partially correct to suggest that “it was the seizure of

state power by Russian workers under the leadership of the Bolshevik

Party ... which was to prove a decisive ideological and political

challenge to the revolutionary syndicalist movement”. (p. 49) Partially,

because squeezed between fascism and Bolshevism (and then Stalinism)

syndicalism did become marginalised as the negative influence and

abundant resources of the Comintern (particularly, but not exclusively,

under Stalin) and the illusions generated by the Bolshevik Myth

sidetracked revolutionary movements across the world. The dream of

socialism realised allowed far too many to blind themselves to the

realities of Soviet Russia under Lenin and then Stalin.[51] This cannot

be ignored when evaluating why syndicalism did not flourish after the

First World War as it had beforehand.[52]

I would suggest that Darlington’s summary of the Russian revolution

shows that the Bolshevik Myth still has its adherents. As anarchist and

syndicalist critics of Bolshevism explained, a key problem was precisely

that it had been the Bolshevik Party which seized power, not the Russian

workers[53] – with predictable (and predicted, by the likes of Bakunin)

consequences.[54] While many in the revolutionary movement did expose

the failings of Bolshevism,[55] not enough believed them. Luckily, today

these are too well known in radical circles for this to be repeated.

Ultimately, the Bolshevik revolution has associated socialist ideas with

their exact opposite. It is a legacy which the socialist and labour

movements have still not recovered from. This, by any objective measure,

must be considered far more “unsuccessful” than the syndicalist

movement.

Conclusion

Instead of seeking elements of syndicalism in Marxism, I would suggest

that “the traditional assumption” that syndicalism was “simply an

outgrowth of anarchism” is no “over-simplification”. All of Darlington’s

supposed contributions of Marxism to syndicalism can be found in

Bakunin’s ideas. Moreover, other key elements of syndicalism identified

by Darlington can also be found in Bakunin and, ironically, were

denounced by Marx and Engels.

Rather than see unions and direct action as the key as Bakunin did, Marx

and Engels advocated the creation of socialist political parties and use

of (bourgeois) elections. So strongly did they feel about this they

shattered the IWMA by making those mandatory policies for it. If

syndicalism is marked, as Darlington says, by a “rejection of political

parties, elections and parliament in favour of direct action by the

unions” and a “conception of a future society” based on “the economic

administration of industry exercised directly by the workers themselves”

then it seems strange to seek a “core” ideological influence on it in

the ideas of people who explicitly rejected this.

Kropotkin, therefore, was right to point to “the closest rapport between

the left-wing of the International and present-day syndicalism, the

close rapport between anarchism and syndicalism and the ideological

contrast between Marxism and the principles of Social Democracy and

syndicalism.”[56]