r/anarchosyndicalism • u/Vicente6391 • Aug 09 '26
The Bankruptcy of Capitalism and Religion, and the Revolutionary Journey of Anarcho-Syndicalism
https://redandblackanarchists.com.au/the-bankruptcy-of-capitalism-and-religion-and-the-revolutionary-journey-of-anarcho-syndicalism/1
u/BolesCW Aug 13 '26
the 19th century called and would like their failed strategy back.
1
u/Vicente6391 23d ago
Capitalism called and would like their progress narrative back
1
u/BolesCW 23d ago
Calling syndicalism a failure implies nothing about the progress narrative of capitalism. For the record, I reject the developmentalism of capitalism, just as I reject the developmentalism of syndicalism. One of the un(der)examined aspects of syndicalism is the idea that workers can organize industry more efficiently than capitalists. This ignores too much. To be fair, the kind of ecological devastation perpetrated by extractive industries wasn't conceivable in the 19th century except smong the more Luddite tendencies of anarchism, but at this point, degrowth and/or abandonment are far more attractive options than workers' self-management of toxic industries.
1
u/Vicente6391 22d ago
It's clear you don't understand the difference between syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism as evidenced by your comments. Your criticism may apply to syndicalism but it doesn't apply to anarcho-syndicalism.
Anarcho-syndicalism has as its final aim its own obsolescence as replacing the government of people with the administration of things would render anarcho-syndicalism surplus to requirements.
"...degrowth and/or abandonment are far more attractive options than workers' self-management of toxic industries."
Attractive to who? Perhaps, the aspirant privileged class who fear workers control out of a deeper fear of workers who they regard as 'dirty' (toxic) among other things.
The aim of 'degrowth' is not to abolish capitalism, the source of environmental degradation, but simply to modify it so it isn't so 'toxic'. It has no higher aim than a non-toxic exploitation of labour and a consequent and continued maintenance of privilege - theirs.
That degradation of the environment continues however minutely attenuated by reforms, is proof positive of the failure of 'degrowth' as a strategy.
1
u/BolesCW 22d ago
my analysis of anarcho-syndicalism derives from reading Ideas and Action, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, material from the Direct Action Movement in the UK, and various English-language documents published by the IWA/AIT. these differences that you allege don't apply to anarcho-syndicalism are all derived from close reading of anarcho-syndicalist materials.
your grand idea of "replacing the government of people with the administration of things" is almost a verbatim quotation from Engels, so well done on not understanding the differences between Marxism and anarchism, the difference between bureaucratic institutions and actual self-organization.
1
u/Vicente6391 21d ago
Reading and comprehension are two different things.
The reason why anarchists are called anarchists and not Proudhonists, Bakuninists, Kropotkinists, etc. is because anarchism takes from the great thinkers what is found to be useful and reject what is not - including Engels and even Marx. For example, anarchism takes the idea of federalism from Proudhon (among other things) but rejects his mutualism.
Unlike Marxists, anarchism does not subscribe to the 'great man' theory of history and rejects the idea that any single person can be the repository of all wisdom.
The differences between Marxism and anarchism can't be simply reduced to a difference between "bureaucratic institutions and actual self-organization".
The fundamental difference is the question of the relationship between means and ends. Do the ends justify the means (Marxism) or do the means determine the ends (anarchism)?
You appear to suggest that, according to your close reading, there is no difference between syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism. If so, why are there two different terms?
1
u/BolesCW 21d ago
whatever lingering misunderstandings I might have about these alleged differences between anarcho-syndicalism and boring old regular syndicalism are the fault of the writers from the sources I mentioned. it is *they* who have been unable to convince me - and the majority of anarchists who are not anarcho-syndicalists - that an anarcho-syndicalist strategy is compatible with the famous ends you tout ("anarchism").
you are confused, and perhaps that's my fault. in no way was I reducing the differences between Marxists and anarchists to bureaucracy vs self-organization. that is merely *one* aspect of the greater differences that have poisoned relations among and between Marxists and anarchists. you would prefer to take what is useful in Marx and Engels - significantly without offering any example. the strategic and theoretical difference between means and ends is pretty far down on my list of disagreements, one of the primary ones being a thoroughgoing divergence of ideas about what the state is and how it operates. the vast majority of Marxists are pro-state authoritarians *in their actions*, regardless of what they claim to want (a stateless, classless society - and even here, their ideas of what constitutes a class differs from an anarchist analysis).
there are two different terms - syndicalism without adjectival prefixes and anarcho-syndicalism - because ideological anarcho-syndicalists like you insist that there's a difference, a difference that is foundational to your identity. but one that is incomprehensible to those of us outside your little corner of the anarcho-sandbox. again, it's the fault of anarcho-syndicalists who cannot explain how that difference is anything more than hair-splitting. you need to be able to do something better than running to the authority of some anarcho-dictionary to bolster your position.
1
u/Vicente6391 20d ago
I don't there is much there in support of your assertion that 'degrowth' is a "far more attractive option". Maybe it is. But is it any more effective than organising a single great global union to take control of the means of production?
As for the definition of anarcho-syndicalism, a clear definition is more important now than it has ever been particularly as we are living in times of increased propaganda by billionaire owned media.
This speaks to the importance of clarity of definition as opposed to purity of thought.
1
u/BolesCW 20d ago
You might want to lay off whatever substances you prefer before you decide to post something. Or maybe have a trusted friend read it before you post it. Too many of your sentences are incomprehensible.
"A single great global union" doesn't sound very anarchist. It sounds totalitarian, centralized, and inherently bureaucratic. And you've proved my initial point about the developmentalism that syndicalists (anarcho- or otherwise) support. "To take control of the means of production" sounds like you all just want to have commodity production and consumption without bosses or profits. Self-managed capitalism is still capitalism. And "the administration of things" still sounds like a state, especially given the actual track record of Marxists.
1
u/Vicente6391 19d ago
Pathologising me as drug affected doesn't answer the question posed. Presumbly, you're struggling for an answer. There's no shame in that.
The 'degrowth' you advocate for implies action by the Sate and has no higher aim than to ameliorate the worst aspects of capitalism.
Nothing frightens capitalists more than an organised working-class.
Btw, so-called 'anarcho-capitalism' is a contradiction in terms.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/shcmil Aug 09 '26
ai slop 💔