💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › hatta-shuzo-on-syndicalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:49:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: On Syndicalism Author: Hatta Shūzō Date: 1927 Language: en Topics: anarcho-syndicalism, Japan, japanese anarchists Source: From Robert Graham (Ed.), Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas; Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300 CE to 1939).
In Japan, as elsewhere, anarchists were active in the labour movement.
In 1926, the All Japan Libertarian Federation of Labour Unions (Zenkoku
jiren) was founded. It included both anarcho-syndicalist and anarchist
communist elements. In its statement of principles the Federation
declared:
We base our movement for the emancipation of the workers and tenant
farmers on the class struggle.
We reject participation in politics and insist on economic action.
We advocate free federation organized by industry and forsake
centralism.
We oppose imperialist invasion and advocate the international solidarity
of the workers.
Hatta Shūzō (1886–1934) was an advocate of “pure anarchism,” a Japanese
variant of anarchist communism, and an uncompromising critic of
anarcho-syndicalism. He drew a distinction between class struggle and
revolutionary transformation, writing that “it is a major mistake to
declare, as the syndicalists do, that the revolution will be brought
about by the class struggle. Even if a change in society came about by
means of the class struggle, it would not mean that a genuine revolution
had occurred.” This is because “in a society which is based on the
division of labour, those engaged in vital production (since it forms
the basis of production) would have more power over the machinery of
coordination than those engaged in other lines of production. There
would therefore be a real danger of the [reappearance of classes” (as
quoted by John Crump, The Anarchist Movement in Japan, London: Pirate
Press, 1996). In the following excerpts from an article originally
published in 1 927, Hatta Shuzo sets forth his critique of
anarcho-syndicalism and briefly describes the “pure anarchist”
alternative. The translation by Yoshiharu Hashimoto, originally
published in A Short History of the Anarchist Movement in Japan (Tokyo:
Idea Publishing, 1979), has been modified by the editor for stylistic
reasons.
THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF TRADE UNIONISM. One has as its object
maintaining the livelihood of the worker. Another is organized as the
agent of the Bolsheviks. The third is the syndicalist union that fights
against capitalism face to face. The syndicalists have themselves
gradually divided into two: one group seeks to advance the position of
the workers; the other seeks to achieve communism. What we must
determine is whether this is a corruption of syndicalism or an inherent
defect in syndicalism itself ...
What i s there to syndicalism? I am convinced both anarchism and Marxism
... By examining this point, we understand it is based on the conception
of class struggle as declared in the Charter of Amiens ... As you know,
the class struggle arose from modern capitalism. The industrial working
class is pitted against the capitalist class in relation to the
contradiction of profit. The rising working class becomes class
conscious and begins the class struggle, expecting the complete
emancipation of the working class through a final battle with the
capitalists. This is the Marxist theory behind syndicalism ...
Secondly, syndicalism has adopted the notion of the “creative violence”
of the minority. According to the revolutionary syndicalists, the true
emancipation of the working class is achieved through a creative dynamic
wherein a few convinced militants inspire the majority.
Thirdly, syndicalism has adopted the industrial factors that have
historically arisen within capitalism and seeks to control the new
social organization by means of a division of labour. Of course,
syndicalism emphasizes knowledge of local demand, but it adopts the
division of labour as a form of economic organization upon which to
construct a society of producers. In this sense it contains Marx’s
economic theory and that of socialism in general.
Thus, the theory of syndicalism adopts most of the Marxist theory and
then adds from anarchism the notion of the creative violence of the
minority...
Despite the enthusiasm of syndicalism and its abundance of activists, it
gradually falls into reformism and cannot maintain concurrence with
anarchism because syndicalism ... has two contradictory theories at its
base (i.e .. Marxism and anarchism). The class struggle requires a
majority that does not agree with the violence of the minority; with
enforced cohesion, the enthusiasm of the minority will decline and it
will fall into reformism too ...
Syndicalism advocates the division of labour as the productive
organization in the future society. It is without doubt that all
production is carried out by division in society ... Its typical
characteristics are, in the first place, the mechanization of labour;
secondly. someone engaging in one kind of production has no
responsibility for. understanding of or interest in other industries;
thirdly. it needs a special coordinating body to preside over the
divided work ... carried out by persons who do not engage in that work.
Power will emerge from that group without fail. In contrast, in
Kropotkin’s communal organization. coordinated production is performed
autonomously on a human scale. so that people are able to take
responsibility, to under stand and to have an interest directly in other
industries, even as they are engaged in one system of production.
Because they can coordinate the work process themselves there is no
superior body and there is no place of power. Where production is based
on the division of labour with the people who work in the important
industries acquiring power over the coordinating body, in contrast to
those who work in less important industries. then there is the
possibility of class division again emerging. Moreover, the division
oflabour does not imply that “man produces for himself with his own
hands,” so production and consumption do not cohere at all. We cannot
hope for true freedom where there is no freedom of production and
consumption ... An anarchist society cannot be achieved unless it is a
commune as proposed by Kropotkin, with inner coordination [of
production] that does not depend on a division o flabour... I hope the
present labour unions will advance with the method and in the spirit of
anarchism, not mere syndicalism. Bolshevism or reformism.
[Editor’s Note: Hatta argued that in an anarchist communist society,
production would be based on consumption, instead of consumption being
determined by the demands of production, as in a capitalist or even a
syndicalist economy, which is a denial of the individual freedom to
satisfy one’s desires]:
In a locally decentralized communist system, production springs from
consumption. In place of consumption arising out of production, as in a
system based on centralized power, consumption becomes the causal source
of production in a system of decentralized production. (As quoted in
john Crump, Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan, New York:
St. Martin’s, 1993)