A-Infos (en) The Union Makes Us Strong? I (from Organise!)

["Peregrine (David)" <peregrine@cybergal.com>]

 ________________________________________________
      A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
            http://www.ainfos.ca/
 ________________________________________________

THE UNION MAKES US STRONG? I
SYNDICALISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Taken from issue 46 (Summer 97) of Organise!,
magazine of the Anarchist Communist Federation

 The ACF has never, despite what some of our critics may have suggested,
made our criticisms of syndicalism, including its anarcho variety, a
"distinguishing characteristic" (see Black Flag Issue 211) of our politics.
In a world-wide “labour movement” dominated by social democratic ideas and
practice and thoroughly integrated into capitalism, our focus of attack has
not been on the relatively tiny syndicalist and “alternative” union
structures which exist. Rather, our arguments have been against trade
unionism and for working class self-organised struggle.

However, anarcho-syndicalism remains the majority current within class
struggle anarchism and is, despite various splits and feuds within its
international organisations, in a state of resurgence. Now, therefore, is a
good time to present a critical analysis of the theory and practice of
syndicalism.

Theory and practice

Rather than separate theory and practice we will attempt to show how the
behaviour of various syndicalist movements has been informed by its
theoretical foundations and the political influences acting upon it.
Syndicalism has been accused of “apoliticism” and, indeed, a certain
anti-politicicism has been a central feature of many syndicalist
organisations. This is only half the story, however, and fails to take into
consideration the fact that syndicalism has come under the influence of
many political currents, not least anarchism, and that it should not be
forgotten that these have included reformist socialism (particularly the
French CGT), nationalism (notably the Italian UIL) and even monarchism
(monarcho-syndicalism in turn of the century France)!

Origins

First we must look at the origins of syndicalism. "Syndicalism" is simply
the French word for "unionism". It was the mass syndicat (or union) in
France, the Confederation Generale du Travail (CGT), founded in 1895, which
gave "syndicalism" the meaning it has today. The CGT was militant,
de-centralised, initially sceptical of parliamentary participation and
considered the workplace as the front-line of the class war. When such
tactics developed in other countries, militants consciously used the term
syndicalism to differentiate themselves from the openly reformist, social
democratic Trade Unions. Syndicalist unions began to become a significant
factor in the decade before the First World War, as both a reflection of
the ongoing class struggle and as the result of the efforts of consciously
“political” minorities critical of “socialist” parliamentarism. The early
syndicalist movement was far from homogenous, politically or
organisationally. In many countries the syndicalist movement developed
through deliberate attempts to organise those workers who had been ignored
by the established social democratic unions, particularly the unskilled and
immigrant workforces (the experience of the Industrial Workers of the World
is a good example of this), whilst in other countries, syndicalist unions
were craft or trade based and organised highly skilled artisans (e.g. the
CGT in France).

Political minorities

Amongst the political minorities attracted to the syndicalist method were
the anarchists. Indeed, anarchists were amongst the earliest syndicalist
organisers in many countries, notably in France, Spain and Argentina. The
syndicalist movement was certainly attractive to many anarchists who,
having seen their influence wane following the period of "propaganda by the
deed" (the 1890s), saw in syndicalism”s combativity and distrust of
parliamentary methods a “natural” home for their politics. In some
countries syndicalist unions were led by ideological anarchists and
everywhere anarchist militants joined syndicalist organisations. Some
anarchists, however, were uneasy about the identification of anarchism with
unionism. Others questioned the syndicalist method itself. In Spain, where
anarchism was to become closely identified with the syndicalist
Confederacion Nacional de Trabajo (CNT), often furious polemics ensued
throughout the 1890s and 1910s between those anarchists, such as the
anarchist communists grouped around the Tierra y Libertad journal, who felt
the syndicalist methods were inherently reformist and a step backwards and
those who believed that syndicalism offered anarchism a vehicle for
reaching the masses.

Amongst the clearest critics of the identification of anarchism with
syndicalism was the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta. In 1907, when
syndicalism was drawing ever larger numbers of workers, including anarchist
workers, to its ranks, Malatesta argued that, "Syndicalism, in spite of the
declarations of its most ardent partisans, contains, by the very nature of
its constitution, all the elements of degeneration which have corrupted the
workers” movement in the past. In fact, being a movement which proposes to
defend the present interests of the workers, it must necessarily adapt
itself to the living conditions of the present" (Les Temps Nouveaux, 1907).

Other anarchist militants held strong reservations about the syndicalist
method. The French anarchist metalworker Benoit Liothier expressed the
fear, held by many, that syndicalism would tend to economism and therefore
to reformism. "Syndicalism cannot be revolutionary if it cannot be
political...whether we like it or not the economic struggle is tied to the
political struggle." (Archives Departmentales de la Loire, 1914). Like many
anarchists of his generation, however, Liothier eventually became a
militant of the CGT.

That anarchists identified with syndicalism and were often at the forefront
of syndicalist organisation is of little surprise. Emergent syndicalism
appeared to offer tactics which related libertarian, direct-action
orientated ideas to the every day struggle of the workers. Anarchist
workers wanted to be where the conflict with the bosses (and, therefore,
the state) was at its most acute and for anarchists to have dismissed
syndicalism at this historical point would undoubtedly have marginalised
them further. For many anarchists the solution to any perceived problems
within syndicalism could be solved by encouraging its tendency towards
anti-politicism and its combatitive spirit. This meant a total engagement
with syndicalist unionism and the birth of anarcho-syndicalism. Many of
these people were dismissive of the idea of creating separate anarchist
organisations and saw in the union the means and the end of the anarchist
revolution.

Against this “fusion” some anarchists argued for the maintenance of
separate anarchist organisations which would be active both inside and
outside the unions. Malatesta, amongst others, advocated such a tactic, as
did the anarchists who became known as "Platformists" during the 1920s. A
fear, which was well founded, was that anarcho-syndicalism would become
dominated by the syndicalist part of the equation to the detriment of a
clear revolutionary perspective which related to all aspects of working
class life, not just the factory or workshop.

Anarcho- and revolutionary syndicalism

The relationship between the anarcho-syndicalists and the “revolutionary”
syndicalists varied from country to country. Many “revolutionary”
syndicalists rejected even the “anti-political” politics of the anarchists
and saw in syndicalism the form and the content of revolution. They created
a syndicalist ideology, at the pinnacle of which was the union organised
General Strike which would usher in the new society. For some syndicalists
the General Strike assumed an almost mythical significance and replaced the
idea of violent revolution, which was considered unrealistic. For
“revolutionary” syndicalist ideologues the union replaced the party and was
identified with the class as a whole. A desire to organise all workers,
regardless of political or religious belief, led to “revolutionary”
syndicalists attempting to marginalise anarcho-syndicalists in order to
appeal to workers who actually remained tied to social democracy.

Whilst this anti-politicism led many of the “revolutionary” syndicalists to
a pronounced anti-statism, it did not stop others from entering into
alliances with “revolutionary” parties and politicians. Although politics
were unwelcome in the syndical organisation itself this did not mean that
“revolutionary” syndicalism was not involved in politics.

Whilst the Italian “revolutionary” syndicalists flirting with extreme
nationalism from 1914 onwards, demanding that Italy join the imperialist
bloodbath (a demand totally opposed, to their great credit, by the
anarcho-syndicalists of the Union Sindicale Italiana) is probably the most
graphic example of syndicalist political alliances, many others existed.

In Norway the pre-war “Revolutionary” syndicalist "fagopposition" (union
opposition), for example, was closely identified with the left wing of
social democracy whilst in the United States the industrial unionist (the
North American equivalent of syndicalist) Industrial Workers of the World
were for the first three years of their existence (1905-1908) riven with
open political rivalry between the Socialist Party of America and the
Socialist Labour Party. In Ireland the syndicalistic Irish Transport and
General Workers Union was led by people who had been or still were active
members of socialist parties and Irish syndicalism, despite its militancy,
rarely exhibited the anti-statism and anti-party sentiment of other
syndicalist movements.

Often “revolutionary” syndicalists appeared to be simply impatient with the
stodgy Second International version of socialism that dominated the Left
and were not against “revolutionary parties” per se. The mass defection of
“revolutionary” syndicalists to Bolshevism in the period immediately
following the Russian Revolution bears witness to this. Collaboration with
the bourgeoisie was not confined to the nominally apolitical
“revolutionary” wing of syndicalism, however. An interesting example of
anarcho-syndicalism being found on the wrong side of the class barricade,
twenty years before the infamous CNT involvement in the Spanish government,
is the experience of Mexico.

The Mexican Revolution - the Casa del Obrero Mundial

During the first twenty years of the 20th century Mexico was engulfed in
revolutionary turmoil. Various “constitutionalist” (i.e. democratic)
capitalist factions vied for power whilst attempting to overthrow the
dictatorship of General Porfirio Diaz . Meanwhile the Agrarian (landless
peasant) movement of Emiliano Zapata and the emerging urban working class
attempted to defend their own interests amidst the chaos. The Agrarians
engaged in guerrilla activity against the various “revolutionary”
governments with the aim of reclaiming and defending the land of the
indigenous population from the landowners. During the years 1906 to 1915
the Partido Liberal Mexicano (P.L.M.) played a leading in role in
attempting to bring together Agrarian and proletarian revolt. Beginning
from an advanced left liberal-democratic position the P.L.M., under the
influence of the Magon brothers, developed into an anarchist communist
organisation with its own guerrilla units involved in the expropriation of
land in the Baja California region and leading strikes in Veracruz, amongst
other areas. The P.L.M. called for "Tierra y Libertad" (Land and Freedom),
the immediate expropriation of the landlords and bosses and the abolition
of the state.

In 1912 the anarcho-syndicalist Casa del Obrero Mundial (House of the World
Worker) was formed and rapidly attracted the urban workers of Mexico City
to its ranks. Yet, within three years the anarcho-syndicalists were
organising Red Battalions to fight in defence of the Mexican state!
Although the Casa emerged with a typical anti-politicism and a desire to
concentrate on economic struggle several factors led it to give support to
one bourgeois faction, the Constitutionalist forces of Venustiano Carranza,
against the Agrarians and their P.L.M. allies. Firstly, the
anarcho-syndicalists viewed the industrial proletariat as the organised
vanguard of the social revolution, in spite of the fact that they
constituted a tiny minority of the Mexican working population. This
vanguard, they argued, had to be developed and expanded as rapidly as
possible and the anarcho-syndicalists sought what they hoped would be the
best conditions for this. Secondly, the anarcho-syndicalists considered the
Agrarian movement as an essentially reactionary one, committed to turning
back the clock, and rejecting the “advances” in technology and
understanding that capitalism had brought. They pointed to the Zapatista”s
"religiosity" and general “backwardness” as proof of their danger to the
“advanced” sections of the working class. Finally, and most importantly,
the anarcho-syndicalists believed that the progressive, democratic
bourgeois state which was offering the Casa freedom to organise (and in
fact was actually encouraging the Casa to organise!) should be defended
against “reaction”, Agrarianist or anti-constitutionalist.

After the anarcho-syndicalist Red Battalions had played their part in
“saving” the Mexican state, the inevitable happened. In the spring of 1916
the Constitutionalist government turned on the Casa, disbanded the Red
Battallions and forcibly closed down the syndicates following the second of
two General Strikes that year. The failure of the anarcho-syndicalists to
recognise the class nature of the state, despite all their verbal
anti-statism, had led them to take sides against genuinely revolutionary
movements.

Bolshevisation and "the end of the mass syndicalism"

Without doubt the high-point of syndicalism was the period between
(roughly) 1895 and 1914. In this period the only current, in the workers
movement on an international level, to offer an alternative to mainstream
social democracy was syndicalism It is of course possible to argue that
much of syndicalism was in fact social democratic in content if not in
form.

However, despite Leninist claims to the contrary, this was far from the end
of the story and the revolutionary wave which engulfed the world following
the 1917 Russian Revolution also saw a “revival” of syndicalism following
the four years of world war. Syndicalism now, however, had two new rivals,
Bolshevism and council or left communism.

Bolshevism”s triumph in Russia sent shock waves throughout the workers
movement. Social Democratic parties everywhere developed would-be Bolshevik
factions. These factions sooner or later split from the old parties and
formed Communist Parties modelled on the Russian example. Many of the very
earliest Communist Parties, however, emerged from the syndicalist,
anarcho-syndicalist and anarchist movements. The CGT in France developed a
powerful communist-syndicalist faction; the IWW in the United States was
wracked by in-fighting between dyed-in-the-wool industrial unionists and
budding Bolsheviks; many of Britain”s foremost pre-war syndicalists such as
Tom Mann quickly gravitated towards the embryonic Communist Party.
Impressed by the dynamism of Bolshevism and its ostensible break with
social democracy, former syndicalists constituted the early rank and file
of such parties everywhere. Amongst anarchists also, Bolshevism possessed a
magnet-like quality, not least because it was associated with the Soviets,
the council organisations which seemed to offer an alternative to state
organisation.

The Workers Councils

When news came through that everything in the Socialist Fatherland was not
rosy and as Bolshevism attempted to create both a Third International of
political parties and a Red Trade Union International under their strict
control, dissension began to emerge. Many of the earliest critics of Moscow
were not syndicalists however but Marxists previously involved with
socialist political parties. These militants began to question the Trade
Union and Parliamentary policy of the Bolsheviks and their closest
impersonators. Groups such as the Workers Socialist Federation in Britain,
the Communist Workers Party of Germany and similar “left” communists
(meaning “left” of the Third International) saw in the experience of the
revolutionary workers councils (or Soviets) in Russia in 1917 and Germany
in 1919 the form, as they saw it, that the new struggles would take. After
coming out against the Bolsheviks and attempting to create their own
International in 1921 (the original 4th International!) this political
current became known as council communism. Council communist organisations
only took anything approaching mass form in Germany although they also
existed in countries such as Holland, France, Belgium and Britain.

At the same time the international syndicalist movement began to
re-organise itself through the creation of the I.W.A.(International Working
Mens” Association). In 1922 the syndicalist movement could still claim
large unions such as the Unione Sindicale Italiana (500,000 members), the
Confederacao Geral do Trabalho in Portugal (150,000) and the Freie Arbeiter
Union in Germany (120,000). They were joined by the Spanish Conferacion
Nacional de Trabajo (CNT) in 1923. By 1923, however, the Leninist/Stalinist
ice-age was beginning and between that and the emergence of fascism,
syndicalism was facing a difficult period, to say the least. Within 10
years the only mass syndicalist union left was the CNT. The others were now
reduced to groups of militants scattered in exile or living in a
semi-underground condition. By 1936 all that was left were small propaganda
groups in various countries, a few minority unions and the 2 million strong
CNT about to play a historic role in the Spanish Civil War and Revolution.

-------------






	***A-INFOS DISCLAIMER - IMPORTANT PLEASE NOTE***

A-Infos disclaims responsibility for the information in this message.


			********
		The A-Infos News Service
			********
		COMMANDS: majordomo@tao.ca
		REPLIES: a-infos-d@tao.ca
		HELP: a-infos-org@tao.ca
		WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
		INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org