💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rasmus-hastbacka-another-world-is-phony.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:38:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Another World is Phony? Author: Rasmus Hästbacka Date: June 28, 2022 Language: en Topics: syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism, SAC, Sweden, federalism Source: Retrived on July 12 2022 from: https://syndicalist.us/2022/06/28/another-world-is-phony-the-case-for-a-syndicalist-vision/ Notes: First published in the summer of 2022 on the website of US labor magazine https://syndicalist.us/][ASR]]. The first in a series of three essays about syndicalist [[https://syndicalist.us/2022/06/28/another-world-is-phony-the-case-for-a-syndicalist-vision/][vision]], [[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rasmus-hastbacka-r-evolution-in-the-21st-century][strategy]] and [[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rasmus-hastbacka-the-unions-life-after-death][movement building]]. In a fourth bonus article, the author relates these themes to making [[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rasmus-hastbacka-it-starts-on-your-job-syndicalist-proposals][plans for action on the job]]. The fourth article was first published on the US union site [[https://organizing.work/2022/10/it-starts-on-your-job/][Organizing Work]].The author is a member of the Swedish union [[https://www.sac.se/en/.
[Photos of Swedish syndicalists: Food production workers (2019),
Lumberjacks (1975), University employees (2019), Construction worker
(1976).]
“Most people live most of their lives within
totalitarian institutions. It’s called having a job.”
— Noam Chomsky
Syndicalism is a movement of labor unions that aims for a vision beyond
both capitalism and nation-states. But isn’t the nation-state the
guarantor of all citizens’ security? What alternatives do syndicalists
propose? These issues are addressed by Rasmus Hästbacka in the first in
a series of three essays that will be posted to our website.
ASR are presenting this series in the spirit of debate and an exchange
of ideas across national borders. We do not agree with every
formulation, and have been quite explicit in our rejection of
“participatory economics,” which fails to offer a vision of a free
society, is unworkable, and seems to have given no thought as to how
their bureaucratic utopia could be brought into being. We also reject
the notion expressed below that markets are compatible with syndicalism,
or indeed with any vision of social solidarity and emancipation.
The working-class author Folke Fridell (1904–1985) was an active member
of the syndicalist union
– Central Organization of Workers in Sweden, founded in 1910. In
Fridell’s novel Dead man’s hand, we meet the main character David Bohm.
He hates poverty as a worker but even worse is the lack of freedom in
production. Bohm becomes convinced that workers must be allowed to
“participate in decision-making and the sharing of wealth.” This idea is
still subversive today. If the idea guides action on a broad front, we
will end up in a new world.
Syndicalism arose in the 1800s and quickly became a global union
movement. Syndicalism is to a large extent identical to the industrial
unionism of the
(originating in North America). The word syndicalism is borrowed from
French. Directly translated it simply means union movement, but
syndicalism is not just any union movement. It has certain defining
features.
Syndicalist unions are not limited to only one craft or one industry.
They are organizations for all workers as a social class. These class
organizations are intended to fulfill a dual function. They are tools in
the struggle for daily demands and for implementing a vision of a new
society.
A key concept of syndicalism is direct action. That is collective
pressure exerted by the concerned workers themselves, especially in
their capacity as producers. Historian Wayne Thorpe summarizes the
pioneers’ arguments for direct action as follows: “Since inevitable
class conflict was fought out first and foremost on the economic
terrain, direct action through trade unions was more effective than
indirect action mediated through electoralism and parliamentarism” (see
the anthology New perspectives on anarchism, labour and syndicalism,
published in 2010).
In common with many other unions, syndicalist unions rest on three basic
values: union democracy, solidarity at work, and independence from all
religious and political organizations. Why these values? All democratic
associations expect their members to respect the internal democracy (or
else the associations will dissolve). All unions must promote solidarity
or fail as unions. A syndicalist union must stay independent or cease to
be syndicalist.
The long-term vision of syndicalism can be summed up with the terms
economic democracy and federalism. What does the vision entail and how
can organizing through unions lead to it? In this essay, I will approach
the vision and relate it to three major currents of ideas: liberalism,
socialism and democratic theory.
In a
, I will touch on strategies for realizing the vision, strategies
proposed by syndicalists. In a
, I will conclude with syndicalist recipes for rebuilding the labor
movement.
My primary sources of inspiration are Swedish syndicalism, along with
ideas from liberals Adam Smith and John Dewey and syndicalists Noam
Chomsky and Rudolf Rocker. Important references below are Chomsky’s book
American power and the new mandarins (1969), Rocker’s book Nationalism
and culture (1937) and a dissertation by historian Lennart K. Persson in
Swedish, Syndikalismen i Sverige 1903–1922 (1993).
One may ask why syndicalism deserves to be considered at all. During the
1900s, syndicalism lost twice. It lost to its competitors in the labor
movement, the state socialist labor parties. Syndicalism did not become
an effective challenger of capitalism and the nation-state, except for a
brief period in the Spanish Revolution 1936–39. The most important
Spanish labor organization was the syndicalist union CNT. The revolution
was crushed by the combined forces of fascism, nazism, the Soviet Union
and liberal democracies (see for example Chomsky’s essay in American
power and the new mandarins).
Today, however, state socialism has gone bankrupt in the East, West and
South. In Sweden, the Social Democratic Party no longer describes its
goal with the word socialism. After the Second World War, leading social
democrats excelled as world champions of administering capitalism. But
that era too is gone.
Contemporary crises are piled high: economic crashes are travelling the
globe since the breakthrough of neoliberalism in the 1970s; the threat
of nuclear war is still real; we live in a climate crisis and the
legitimacy of capitalism itself falters. These are all good reasons to
take a closer look at the alternative vision of syndicalism.
Syndicalism is often dismissed as youthful utopianism, at best, or at
worst dismissed as stupid and destructive. When the adult in the room
speaks, the only balanced model is welfare capitalism, a mixed
capitalist economy, and centralized nation-states is the end of history
(possibly supplemented by supranational organs). But if the adult in the
room is correct, it is difficult to explain why syndicalism has
attracted such sharp minds as Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russel and Carole
Pateman.
In Sweden, the late Harry Järv was a supporter of syndicalism. As an
author, translator and editor, Järv was referred to as a one-man
university and scholarly giant. He became a war hero in Finland’s
defense against Russia. Later on, he headed the department of
handwritten scripts at the Swedish Royal Library.
reminds us, in the book Participation and democratic theory (1970), that
capitalism is not a democracy. In private corporations, the owners and
bosses exercise dictatorship. Employees in the tax-financed sectors are
ruled by bosses too, even if the political superstructure is of a
parliamentary nature.
Syndicalists are simply consistent democrats when they want to introduce
democracy at work: economic democracy. Syndicalists also use the
expression workers’ self-management. This would mean that the workforce
participates in decisions and has the right to elect, instruct and
replace the management.
Democracy is at best half, if we are citizens in politics but servants
and subjects in the economy. In the United States, workers’ pursuit of
economic democracy has often been described as a pursuit of economic
citizenship (see for instance the book Citizen worker by historian David
Montgomery).
Syndicalists are furthermore consistent heirs to classical liberalism.
Central to liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt was the right
of the individual to decide over herself and her work. To inquire and
create in freedom, without tyrannical control, is the theme that runs
through Humboldt’s work The limits of state action (1852). Karl Marx
addressed the same theme when he criticized exploitation and alienation
under capitalist tyranny (in Marx’s Economic and philosophic
manuscripts, 1932).
joined the call for economic democracy. He drew inspiration from
European syndicalism, IWW and British so-called guild socialism (see for
example Russel’s book Roads to freedom, 1919). Guild socialism is often
described as a compromise between syndicalism and social democracy. I
have repeated that image in the past, but my union friends who have
consulted primary sources and the latest research have given me
homework.
Right from the start, guild socialism included a range of views. One
pole on the scale was a “light version” of state socialism. The other
pole on the scale was an anti-state strand. During the state-directed
economy of World War I, more guild socialists moved to the anti-state
pole. The latter strand is British syndicalism, although guild
socialists continued to stick the label “state” on their vision.
Interested readers can consult the historian
(in Swedish
). ASR 85 addresses this current in a review of Towards A Libertarian
Socialism: Reflections on the British Labour Party and European Working
Class Movements, an anthology of writings by G.D.H. Cole.
There are more currents in the labor movement that are serious heirs to
liberalism: anarchism, council communism and oppositional forces within
social democratic and communist popular movements (see, for example, the
book Chomsky on anarchism, 2005). Political scientist Mats Dahlkvist
gathers all these currents under the Swedish term
(in English movement socialism) in contrast to state socialism.
Noam Chomsky and other syndicalists agree with the liberal critique of
the class character of the state. Adam Smith wrote that: “Laws and
government may be considered … as a combination of the rich to oppress
the poor, and preserve to themselves the inequality of the goods which
would otherwise be soon destroyed by the attacks of the poor.” The quote
can be found in the book Capitalism as a moral system. Adam Smith’s
critique of the free market economy (1991) by Spencer J. Pack.
Karl Marx made similar analyses with the term class-state. The state
preserves the economic power of owning elites. This power, in turn, is
used to influence politics for the benefit of the owners. Today, the
class character of nation-states is perhaps most obvious in the
workplace. The legal system preserves the superior position of
employers.
Chomsky reminds us that the principles of liberalism were formulated in
a feudal system and pre-capitalist market economy. The syndicalist and
historian Rudolf Rocker noted that liberal principles could not be
realized when capitalism broke through and a majority of the population
had to sell their labor power to a class of business owners.
The liberal mainstream went from opposition to state and feudal tyranny
to defending private-capitalist tyranny. Since then, leading liberals
have defended almost everything the state does in service of capitalism,
from subsidies to companies on the domestic scene to foreign wars of
aggression to secure raw materials and markets. Just as the Soviet
empire had a cheering crowd of Bolsheviks around the world, a liberal
crowd has been cheering on the US empire. In several books, Chomsky has
highlighted how liberal intellectuals have developed the same elitism
and contempt for ordinary people as the Bolsheviks (his first book was
American powers and the new mandarins).
Liberals who have remained true to their ideals of freedom have
continued to inspire syndicalists. The liberal John Dewey observed the
conflict between democracy and capitalism: “Power today resides in
control of the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation
and communication. Whoever owns them rules the life of the country”.
Dewey drew the logical conclusion: “In order to restore democracy, one
thing and one thing only is essential. The people will rule when they
have power, and they will have power in the degree they own and control
the land, the banks, the producing and distributing agencies of the
nation.”
This quote can be found in the book John Dewey and American Democracy
(1991) by Robert Westbrook. For liberals like Dewey and John Stuart
Mill, an anti-capitalist stance was natural (see Mill’s book Principles
of political economy, 1848).
A democratic guiding star of syndicalism is that everyone who is
affected by a decision also should have the right to influence that
decision. The syndicalist opposition to capitalism and nation-states is
basically an opposition to concentrations of power. Centralized and
top-down governed corporations and states are illegitimate. Syndicalists
want the concentration of economic and political power to be dissolved.
In other words, power should be transferred down to the people.
A rather silly but common misunderstanding of syndicalism occurs when
institutions are confused with functions. Do syndicalists want to end
the construction of roads and enforcement of traffic rules, since these
functions are carried out by states? Not really. While syndicalists
regard capitalist and state institutions as illegitimate, syndicalists
do not regard every function presently performed by these institutions
as illegitimate. Reasonable functions, socially beneficial functions,
should be taken over by new organs of popular democracy.
As a framework for popular democracy, syndicalists propose economic
democracy within a federalist social order. What does that mean? The
visionary sketches by syndicalists are usually articulated in obsolete
terms. Therefore, I am going to summarize common features of the
sketches in an updated language. Then I will reflect on of how the
security of citizens is promoted (or counteracted) by modern
nation-states. I will end the article with the question of how
syndicalists argue that security can be promoted in a world without such
states.
As said, a democratic guiding star of syndicalism is that everyone
affected by a decision should have the right to influence that decision.
This will be made possible by a combination of industry-specific
federations and geographical federations. The smallest building blocks
are general meetings at workplaces, in neighborhoods and villages. Such
meetings should be held at the base level and elect some form of
workers’ councils, consumers’ and citizens’ councils. Syndicalists
usually refer to general meetings as assemblies as well, for instance a
workers’ assembly that elects a council.
The base organs and their councils should form industry-wide and
geographical federations, from local federations all the way to
large-scale international federations. Syndicalists usually refer to the
representative organ of a whole federation as a congress. In a
federalist society, economic democracy would mean that federations of
local communities own the companies while federations of workers manage
them – for the benefit of consumers and within a framework that all
citizens have the right to influence.
In addition to community-owned companies, syndicalists envisage
worker-owned companies. That includes producer cooperatives, individual
entrepreneurs, and family businesses in which only family members work.
These owners possess means of production that they themselves work with.
They do not buy the labor power of other people to rule over them and
enrich themselves on their labor.
There is an obsolete slogan of the labor movement that goes: “Abolish
private ownership!” The slogan is often perceived as “no one should be
allowed to own anything,” while the actual goal is that we all shall
become owners. On the one hand owners of personal possessions, on the
other hand owners of the means of production.
Syndicalists do not advocate pure decentralism. Federalism is a
synthesis of decentralism and centralism. That means self-determination
in local affairs, but also cooperation and joint decisions in regional
and more far-reaching matters. Within every unit of a federation,
syndicalists advocate base democracy. That is a combination of direct
and representative democracy. At the base level, decisions are made in
assemblies or through voting by a ballot box (or the electronic
equivalent). At the representative level, decisions are made by councils
in accordance with directives from below.
While the base level decides on issues of great importance, the
representative level handles issues of less importance. It is not
decided, once and for all, what should count as great importance. The
base level may delegate more or less power to councils and evaluate it
regularly. Likewise, in a federation, decision-making power can be
transferred from local units to central organs and vice versa.
Allocation is about how economic activities are coordinated and
resources distributed in a given system. Syndicalists advocate both
decentralized planning and market mechanisms.
The best contemporary articulation of decentralized planning (that I
know of) is so-called
developed by Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert. They suggest a procedure
whereby consumers and workers express roughly what they want to consume
and produce. Facilitated by information technology, people arrive at a
plan where supply and demand meet – without resorting to authoritarian
central planning or time-consuming democratic congresses.
During the Spanish Revolution, the syndicalist D. A. Santillan proposed
a kind of community councils, more precisely planning councils composed
of workers’ delegates from all industries. These councils would make
allocation decisions, such as what to produce and how much, identify
shortages or abundance of labor power and decide on mergers of companies
(see Santillan’s book After the revolution, 1937). Santillan’s proposal
can be criticized for giving too much power to the producers’ side,
especially to its delegates. Hahnel & Albert seem to have found a
planning procedure that allows the consumers’ side to express its wishes
too, not only via delegates but directly – both in assemblies and as
individual consumers.
As said, syndicalists also endorse market mechanisms. Defenders of
capitalism have hammered in that market economy is synonymous with
capitalism. Sometimes I wonder if they are so ignorant that they believe
it themselves. It is not difficult to give examples of non-capitalist
market economies. Capitalism was preceded by a household-based market
economy in which artisans and farmers owned the means of production.
Today, there are islands of a socialist market economy based on producer
cooperatives. One such island is the cooperatives in the US state of
Ohio. These companies have been documented by economist
.
A defining feature of capitalist production is that the means of
production are separated from the producers. This fact forces producers
to sell their labor power to those who own or control the means of
production. This is also a fundamental problem with the system,
according to syndicalists, because it is a relationship of exploitation
and domination. This critique of capitalism is shared with all
consistent liberals and socialists.
The notions differ when it comes to the question: what exactly does it
mean that the population should take over the means of production? Many
labor parties have responded that a new class of state bureaucrats will
control the means of production. Thus, workers will still lack
democratic control and be forced to submit to a ruling class that they
haven’t elected and don’t have the right to instruct or replace.
Syndicalists are consistent socialists by opposing concentrated power in
both state and corporations.
When socialism degenerated into authoritarian state socialism in the
1900s, syndicalists found themselves forced to talk about libertarian
socialism. It is reasonable to use quotation marks when referring to the
“labor parties” that have marketed this wreck called “state socialism.”
These parties have proved capable of managing class society in the West
and introducing new forms of class rule in the East, but unable to
abolish class society. All “socialists” who oppose democracy in the
workplace are in fact anti-socialists.
Is the syndicalist vision a stateless society or a fundamentally new
state? The answer lands in semantics. Old-fashioned anarchists call it
“no state” while libertarian Marxists call it “new state.” (I am
referring to Marxists who reject both
Bolshevik “workers’ states”
and the concentration of power in Western welfare states.)
As said, guild socialists too have spoken of a “new state” in their
visionary sketches. Perhaps contemporary guild socialists would approve
the expressions decentralized federal state or a state of participatory
democracy. As a syndicalist, I label the long-term vision economic
democracy and federalism and try to outline the key institutions.
To sum up, syndicalists propose a kind of double governance. That is a
popular governance through workers’ federations and community
federations. While people will participate as workers in the first
structure, they will participate as consumers and citizens in the
latter.
Literary scholar Frederic Jameson has said that in our times it is
easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. It is
indeed a challenge to contemplate the post-capitalist vision of
syndicalism, for us syndicalists as well. The part of our tradition that
is perhaps most tricky to carry on is the critique of nation-states and
the question: what can be put in their place?
Syndicalists have become accustomed to waging defensive struggles. For
syndicalists, it is natural to
against neoliberalism. It is also natural to defend parliamentary
democracy and liberal principles of the rule of law against totalitarian
forces. To look beyond these intermediate goals, and imagine a world
without nation-states, is not easy. Why should people even strive for an
order beyond nation-states? Isn’t the state the primary guarantor of
citizens’ security? This is how the state is usually justified. To then
strive for a different order appears to be a path to chaos.
It is often said that the best way to protect people from violence is to
place the monopoly of violence in the hands of nation-states. That is a
truth with modifications. In the book Nationalism and culture (and later
works), Rudolf Rocker points out that the construction of nation-states
began in Europe by means of extreme violence and culminated in two world
wars. Then came the Cold War and the horror of nuclear weapons.
According to the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
, the risk of nuclear war is even greater today than during the Cold
War.
Syndicalists repeat that all states (despite all reforms) are basically
class-states. Even the most liberal states are machines of violence in
the service of capital-owning classes. Noam Chomsky has pointed out that
the United States is one of the freest states internally, but the most
brutal state abroad. Several million died only in the US attack on South
Vietnam and neighboring wars. They were crude colonial wars dressed in
rhetoric about freedom.
Even if every state puts murderers in jail, the worst mass murderers
usually go unpunished: the gentlemen in high places who are responsible
for wars of aggression carried out by states.
Since the 9/11 terror attacks of 2001, the liberal principles of rule of
law have been undermined under the pretext of protecting citizens from
terrorism. At the same time, Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out
that according to CIA’s assessments, US foreign policy after 9/11 has
contributed to increasing the threat of terror attacks by a
. In Sweden, too, rule of law is undermined by politicians who refer to
terrorism. At the same time, the Swedish arms trade benefits the single
largest financier of Islamic terror: the Saudi regime.
In case after case, syndicalists can demonstrate that the security of
citizens is given a low priority by modern nation-states. Perhaps the
strongest evidence is that the states, in cooperation with the business
world, have pushed humanity ever closer to a climate catastrophe for
more than 30 years. This includes parliamentary states with access to
the latest science.
Perhaps it is not syndicalists who have gotten lost in utopian dreams,
but on the contrary all kinds of state worshipers who lack contact with
reality. As historian
put it: “No, the government is not our friend. Occasionally, it can get
friendly when there’s a great people’s movement that compels it to be
friendly.” In my view it is a kind of superstition to trust the state
like a caring parent or guardian angel. A very dangerous illusion
indeed.
Syndicalists don’t deny the need for formal institutions responsible for
the security of citizens. What syndicalists do question is that
nation-states are the best possible institution to fulfill that
function. If we continue these reflections on security and legal
certainty, what do syndicalists have to say about life after the
nation-states?
The Swedish syndicalist Frans Severin wrote the book Ă„r syndikalismen
statsfientlig? (1924), in English Is syndicalism hostile to the state?
Severin emphasizes that syndicalists don’t deny the need for
legislative, executive and judicial functions in a modern society.
Syndicalists want to embed such functions in a federalist society. A
line of argument close at hand, is that not until we reach a situation
of economic democracy and federalism will it be possible to practice the
liberal principles of rule of law with greater success.
Who can deny that the liberal principles are appealing? They concern
equality before the law, impartial courts and punishment with a focus on
reintegrating antisocial individuals. These principles were originally
intended to ensure individual freedom, democracy and protection against
theft. But the principles are corrupted when combined with a
class-state.
There is not much left of individual freedom and democracy when
individuals are forced to sell themselves to employers. Equality before
the law becomes a joke when the right to make decisions belongs to
employers and workers are expected to be content with the duty to obey.
Employers steal the fruits of worker’s labor, backed by the state. A
form of dictatorship and robbery that ought to be prohibited is on the
contrary legalized. This is class legislation in favor of economic
elites.
The fact that economic elites dominate the political democracies of
today is described by mainstream political science. In the United
States, researchers
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
have found that a majority of US citizens have little or no influence in
politics. On the other hand, the top one percent of the income and
wealth scale get almost everything they ask for. Put bluntly, capitalist
democracy is a formal democracy but seldom a real or functioning
democracy. In constitutional terms it is a democracy, but in substantial
terms it is a plutocracy. Public opinion is seldom transformed into
public policy.
The general opinion among syndicalists seems to be that the principles
of liberalism have married a rotten institution (the class-state) and
that these principles should be transferred to a federalist society.
Then, police and courts will no longer apply class laws but hopefully
administer justice in an equal society. The same idea is put forward by
the contemporary political scientist
. To prevent courts from becoming corrupt elites, Shalom suggests a jury
system to which ordinary citizens are randomly selected. To me, it seems
more reasonable to have a mix of juries and professional judges
Anarchists have proposed serious solutions to the roots of crime, but
weak methods to deal with remaining crime. The method is usually
amateurs patrolling the streets
. That is a reasonable complement to trained police but not a serious
substitute for it. Peter Kropotkin believed that customary law would
promote enough security in the future (see his book The Conquest of
Bread, 1906). Are customs a sufficient protection against, say, axe
killers and mad pedophiles? Perhaps if everyone watches over everyone
else, that is if social pressure becomes unbearable.
The largest syndicalist experiment to date is the Spanish Revolution of
1936–39. The revolution was triggered by Franco’s attempt at a fascist
coup. The Spanish syndicalists had no respect for the police, military
and courts that for decades had crushed unions, held political prisoners
and murdered workers. When workers conquered their workplaces, villages
and cities in 1936, they set up a new police and legal system that was
subordinated to the new organs of popular democracy. In the midst of
war, of course, many fascist coup plotters were simply shot. But
syndicalists also showed a humanitarian backbone. For example, the
syndicalist D.A. de Santillan advocated that fascist leaders be placed
in minimum-security facilities to do community service.
As said, syndicalists propose a double governance through workers’
federations and community federations. In this sketch it is natural that
community federations will be legislators. That includes regulating some
form of police, courts and prisons. I will now turn to common objections
to economic democracy and federalism.
If people elect delegates to community councils, what stops the
delegates from turning into a political class which in turn gives rise
to a bureaucratic class? First, people would not elect politicians to
run the economy. As
put it: “In an ideal democracy, industries or groups of industries would
be self-governing as regards almost everything except the price and
quantity of their product, and their self-government would be
democratic.”
Furthermore, a way to safeguard the self-management of workplaces
against legislative excesses and bureaucracy, might be to give the
legislative organs a mixed composition. It can be a mix of citizens’
delegates and workers’ delegates. Workers’ delegates could be advisors
in this context or real legislators. An additional argument for
including workers’ delegates is to include the knowledge from all
industries and professions in the legislative process.
But still, if people elect community councils to adopt laws and express
consumers’ interests, what prevents them from becoming a ruling class?
And what prevents workers’ councils from becoming a boss class?
Syndicalists propose several checks and balances. All delegates should
follow directives from below and if they don’t, their mandate can be
immediately recalled from below.
Furthermore, delegates in consumers’ and citizens’ councils will be
rooted in the local communities they represent. Delegates in workers’
councils will work in the companies over which they make decisions. All
assignments should have term limits to secure rotation. Finally, people
at the base level will have the right to initiate general meetings or
referendums to overrule decisions by councils.
A federalist order enables collective decision-making by majority rule
in all areas of society. But what about the rights of individuals and
minorities? Here, proposals from Stephen Shalom (mentioned above) and
the late
can be mentioned. Their proposals are inspired by liberalism and
. Bookchin was no fan of syndicalism as a strategy, but he had a lot to
say about democracy in a federalist society. He suggested a constitution
of individual rights. Shalom has added minority rights and courts which
can overrule collective decisions that violate individual or minority
rights.
Courts can also be given the task of clarifying the boundaries between
local affairs and common affairs in federations. Thus, courts can
overrule central decisions that infringe on local self-determination.
Likewise, courts can overrule local decisions in matters that should be
handled by a federation.
A federalist order allows all citizens to participate in decisions, to
elect, instruct and recall delegates and to run for election themselves
to various councils. The philosopher Slavoj Zizek has asserted the right
to be a passive citizen. An individual can of course refrain from
participating in decisions and leave it to the assemblies. The people in
assemblies can in turn delegate more power to councils. If people aren’t
happy with the result, they can always recall decision-making power.
Since syndicalism is a global phenomenon with a long history, the
terminology in syndicalist texts can be confusing. Sometimes the term
workers’ council doesn’t refer to delegates but to the assembly.
Sometimes the expression workplace committees refers to councils, while
the term workers’ council (or labor council) instead refer to community
councils. Two common synonyms for community are commune and
municipality. It becomes even more confusing when some texts use the
term commune to refer to a workplace assembly and its council. Two
synonyms for community assemblies are popular assemblies and citizens’
assemblies. In this essay I have tried to use a clear and consistent
terminology.
If, in the future, community federations will be legislators, they could
be given the task of regulating military defense, a popular army. That
depends on how far-reaching the geographical scope of the federalist
order has become. Today, syndicalists are building an international
union movement, aiming at federalism on a global scale. This aspiration
has been expressed by the Swedish union SAC in the following words:
“Instead of the current system of sovereign states, syndicalism seeks
international, regional, and worldwide federations (…) within the
framework of a common federalist legal order that overcomes nationalism
and makes militarism redundant” (SAC’s Declaration of principles, 1952).
Ever-so-beautiful visions are pointless, however, without strategies to
reach them. SAC advocates neither armed struggle nor revolt through
general strike. So, what do Swedish syndicalists propose? That is the
topic of my
.
Rasmus Hästbacka
Rasmus Hästbacka is a lawyer and has been a member of the Umeå Local of
SAC since 1997. The essay draws from a forthcoming book,
Swedish syndicalism – An outline of its ideology and practice
. A previous version of the essay was published in
. More articles by the author can be found in Anarchist Library
.