Strategy and Struggle - Anarcho-syndicalism in the 21st Century (What should anarchists be doing right now?)

Syndicalism is dead, it may have been possible whent he IWA was formed, but traditional methods of syndicalist organizations are obselete. Unions are naturally reformist organizations, and while the mystical general strike may be a nice idea, it has never been enacted. No revolution was led by a union, in Russia, Germany, Hungary, all the way to Ireland and Portugal, the working class rose by itself without the guidance of a union.

During the Spanish Civil War, Treinista (who had been let back in at the conference of 1936) influence in the CNT meant the syndicalist faction, as opposed to the FAI and later Friends of Durruti faction, took positions in government and refused to take the revolutionary action that the working class wanted. I would suggest reading Bonnano's criticism of unions (I just read it but forgot the name), Bookchin's criticism of Syndicalism (It's available on anarchosyndicalism.net), and the platform of the Friends of Durruti to understand more about the natural reformism supposedly revolutionary unions succumb to.

 

to awnser your question about the most effectif way to organise, getting out there.
i know how that sounds, but i dont think propanda works.
people are allready to bombarded with input, commercial and informational.
most anarchist zine's ect are ignored by people outisde the "scene"
unless we gain control of the major channels of informing, like tv, internet ect, we're just going to reach people allready intrested in the subject of anarchism.
take this forum, i dont think the "regular joe" is going to go online and visit anarcho punk forums. so in my point of view just getting out there and talking to peolpe is the best way to reach them. demonstrations, at work, in you're school and even at shows (Inot all punx are anarchists).

 

This is good debate. If you look again at Bookchin's criticism of anarcho-syndicalism what he is actually suggesting is that we look beyond it and not be confined by it. He is not certainly not condemning it per se:

"From decades of experience in my own life, I learned that industrial workers can more easily be reached as men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, indeed, as neighbours and citizens. They are often more concerned about community problems, pollution, public education, democracy, morality, and the quality of their lives than about whether they 'control' the factories in which they are ruthlessly exploited. Indeed, the majority of workers and trade-union members with whom I worked for years in foundries and auto plants were more eager to get out of their factories after working hours were over than to ponder production schedules and vocational assignments."

and

"Is anarchism to be immunized from further developments and revisions by the guardians of its ossuary? I would hope not, especially since anarchism - almost by definition - is the exercise of freedom not only in the social realm but also in the realm of thought.To lock anarchism into a crypt and condemn any innovative body of libertarian ideas as booty 'filched' from a sacred precinct is an affront to the libertarian spirit and all that the libertarian tradition stands for."

This is an interesting position though I need to delve more into Bookchin's social ecology as a development of anarchism. Simply put there are anarchisms not anarchism, or at least that is preferable. Rather than confining anarchism to syndicalist notions we need to consider that they may well have been products of their time (Bookchin uses the word 'archaic'). But because struggle is relative I wouldn't go so far as to say syndicalism is obsolete - it remains a useful tactic - but it should be seen as one method in a particular (industrial) situation rather as thee only method there is to usher in libertarian communism.

Where does this leave us? Precisely where it has always left us. I am not waiting for a revolution, I see the revolution as something that is ongoing and that we are part of now but I think we need to continually critique our methodolgy and develop strategy that caters for the ongoing chnages in cultural and social reality.

Bringing anarchism into the mainstream is precisely what we want to do, that is to say we want it widely exposed but to suggest we utilise mainstream media to do so forgets the manipulation of that media which has continually buried anarchism in bad propaganda to proetct its corporate interests. Unless anarchists can have full editorial control of their statements, this is a simple playing into the political game where opposing opinions are set against each other to promote spectactle as entertainment, rather than as actual debate.

Independant media is certainly the way forward and we might look to ways to popularise it and offer it as a more trusted analysis (though it too should be continually critiqued).

 

i have recently come across a theory about what anarchist should be doing now, and it seems to me very interesting and could bring a new dimension to this discussion. its has been discussed to some degree but in the one i find most interesting about it.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/insurrec ... ganization

the theory i'm talking about it insurectionism, to put it simply anarchism of the dead. whereby direct action is the best way to inspire and activate other people to do actions.
the link is a text from perter gelderloos, looking at this theory opposed to organisation.
i would like yo hear how other people feel about this, cause to me thing like informing other people through independent media etc is important, but what it all come down to is direct action against the oppressive system in all its forms.
are we too much concerned with trying to broaden "the movement" and thereby loosing sight of the direct confrontation with the state??