Syndicalism: a socialist economy in which the will of workers are directed through labor unions
So as a word, it means a socialist society without leaders, with an economy controlled by justified hierarchy. From what I’ve found in my search is that anarcho-syndicalists don’t really have any major published political philosophy (I know it’s out there, I just haven’t found it), but it’s typically taken the form of aggressive, sometimes militant methods of organizing workers. Historically, the one extreme example of their success was the anarcho-syndicalist CNT union during the Spanish revolution, which established a wartime socialist economy based on syndicalist values.
An important term I want to point out that’s important to all anarchist strains of political philosophy is justified hierarchy. An extremely common misconception is that anarchists want pure chaos by destroying all of society, which couldn’t be further from the truth. In actuality, they are opposed to all hierarchy that cannot be justified. This includes political parties, governments, and representative democracy. Instead they believe in highly cooperative direct democracy to ensure the will of the people. This is distinct from government due to free association. With syndicalism in the mix, this means that unions direct the distribution of goods within and between communities based on free association; both communities/unions/federations cooperate for as long as both groups see it as beneficial. These unions do not have any influence on what people choose to do, in fact the union itself is a justified hierarchy with limited direct influence on their member’s lives, but controlled via participatory direct democracy. that is what it means to have justified hierarchy.
I am one, so I can shed some light. It’s a tactic more than a philosophy, much like democratic socialism, but in this case arguing that armed unions directly seizing the means of production and serving as a unifier for the working class and training ground for solidarity is the best means to move towards a stateless, classless, and leaderless (or leaderful) society. Philosophy wise we attract everyone from marxists to mutualists (I lean that way).
There’s one major an-synd organization still around, the IWW, a radical union notable for influencing basically every radical, it’s absolutely rock stars of founders and members such as Lucy Parsons (born a slave, married a white man who died for Haymarket, proceeded to call for the homeless to kill the wealthy for decades) and James Connolly (martyred in the Easter rising), and for it being the only group willing to unionize everyone from dock workers to dick workers to freelancers to prisoners.
Do you still have market pricing for goods under syndicalism? I assume yes, since there’s no central government so there can’t be any central planning committee.
How do trade disputes get settled? Heck, how do we stop environmental damage? Suppose the forest-workers union decides to just clearcut all the forests and then stockpile the wood in their warehouses to drive up the prices like a wood cartel? With no central government and no authority, I’m not clear on the means other syndicates have of resolving this.
Do you still have market pricing for goods under syndicalism? I assume yes, since there’s no central government so there can’t be any central planning committee.
How do trade disputes get settled? Heck, how do we stop environmental damage? Suppose the forest-workers union decides to just clearcut all the forests and then stockpile the wood in their warehouses to drive up the prices like a wood cartel? With no central government and no authority, I’m not clear on the means other syndicates have of resolving this.
Lot of arguments that can go on about this. In a market socialist economy there would be market pricing - but there are non-market ideas of economic distribution. Your mileage may vary on how… realistic you regard them for a modern and complex society.
I have anarchist sympathies, but I’m not an anarchist myself - the issues you describe being among my own. Anarcho-syndicalists tend to assume a great degree of cooperation between unions. Syndicalism is not inherently anarchist, though anarcho-syndicalism is a prominent strain of syndicalism. More traditional Democratic Socialist structures are very much compatible with a syndicalist outlook.
Unions (or workers syndicates) operate as the backbone of the economy. These syndicates are organized into varying levels of syndicates (national, local, etc). They then form a web like structure where they coordinate resources in a decentralized manner while also being partially centralized through central syndicates.
I don’t really know what anarchosyndicalism means
well, let’s start by breaking down the word.
So as a word, it means a socialist society without leaders, with an economy controlled by justified hierarchy. From what I’ve found in my search is that anarcho-syndicalists don’t really have any major published political philosophy (I know it’s out there, I just haven’t found it), but it’s typically taken the form of aggressive, sometimes militant methods of organizing workers. Historically, the one extreme example of their success was the anarcho-syndicalist CNT union during the Spanish revolution, which established a wartime socialist economy based on syndicalist values.
An important term I want to point out that’s important to all anarchist strains of political philosophy is justified hierarchy. An extremely common misconception is that anarchists want pure chaos by destroying all of society, which couldn’t be further from the truth. In actuality, they are opposed to all hierarchy that cannot be justified. This includes political parties, governments, and representative democracy. Instead they believe in highly cooperative direct democracy to ensure the will of the people. This is distinct from government due to free association. With syndicalism in the mix, this means that unions direct the distribution of goods within and between communities based on free association; both communities/unions/federations cooperate for as long as both groups see it as beneficial. These unions do not have any influence on what people choose to do, in fact the union itself is a justified hierarchy with limited direct influence on their member’s lives, but controlled via participatory direct democracy. that is what it means to have justified hierarchy.
I am one, so I can shed some light. It’s a tactic more than a philosophy, much like democratic socialism, but in this case arguing that armed unions directly seizing the means of production and serving as a unifier for the working class and training ground for solidarity is the best means to move towards a stateless, classless, and leaderless (or leaderful) society. Philosophy wise we attract everyone from marxists to mutualists (I lean that way).
There’s one major an-synd organization still around, the IWW, a radical union notable for influencing basically every radical, it’s absolutely rock stars of founders and members such as Lucy Parsons (born a slave, married a white man who died for Haymarket, proceeded to call for the homeless to kill the wealthy for decades) and James Connolly (martyred in the Easter rising), and for it being the only group willing to unionize everyone from dock workers to dick workers to freelancers to prisoners.
Syndicalism is using labor unions as a means of eventually gaining workers’ control over the economy and abolishing capitalism.
Do you still have market pricing for goods under syndicalism? I assume yes, since there’s no central government so there can’t be any central planning committee.
How do trade disputes get settled? Heck, how do we stop environmental damage? Suppose the forest-workers union decides to just clearcut all the forests and then stockpile the wood in their warehouses to drive up the prices like a wood cartel? With no central government and no authority, I’m not clear on the means other syndicates have of resolving this.
Lot of arguments that can go on about this. In a market socialist economy there would be market pricing - but there are non-market ideas of economic distribution. Your mileage may vary on how… realistic you regard them for a modern and complex society.
I have anarchist sympathies, but I’m not an anarchist myself - the issues you describe being among my own. Anarcho-syndicalists tend to assume a great degree of cooperation between unions. Syndicalism is not inherently anarchist, though anarcho-syndicalism is a prominent strain of syndicalism. More traditional Democratic Socialist structures are very much compatible with a syndicalist outlook.
The invisible foot of syndicalism-market will squash those bad people.
Wishful thinking.
It’s a joke.
Thanks! I can never tell around here!
Hey no problem!
It’s a stupid take on the capitalisms “invisible hand” that is supposed to fix the market.
We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,–
–but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more–
Bloody peasant!
It’s when you and your union decide you own the place now and that if the old owners would like to keep it they’re gonna have to outgun you.
Unions (or workers syndicates) operate as the backbone of the economy. These syndicates are organized into varying levels of syndicates (national, local, etc). They then form a web like structure where they coordinate resources in a decentralized manner while also being partially centralized through central syndicates.