You could just as easily define everything horrible in history as the corruption of humans and argue that human interaction is counter-revolutionary.
The corruption of trade unions
anarcho-syndicalists believe that an a-s union will be different from trade unions because all decisions are made by the union members themselves using direct democracy. There are no paid full-time officials with different interests from those of the membership, and so there is in theory no point in anyone being corrupt since by causing the union to fail they would be damaging their own position as a worker. Also since decision making is open and democratic there is less opportunity for anyone to make secret, corrupt decisions as they would have to argue for them at a meeting and convince workers to agree to them.
I think thugarchist has a point in that you seem to be saying that just because unions have been 'corrupt' in the past, that means that all unions now, even if they are organised completely differently, will also be corrupt and 'the same.'
kiopje wrote:
since anarchism is meant to free people from the oppression of hierarchical social structures, then what has anarcho-syndicalism got to offer?
An anarcho-syndicalist union is not a 'heirarchical social structure', whereas trade unions are. This is the main difference.
A-S unions can still have problems (not sure I'd use the loaded term "corruption" though.)
To work properly A-S unions need to be able to operate openly, which means that in repressive situations where the union locals get closed down, militants get arrested etc. it is all too easy for a small number of delegates to be isolated from the broader membership and if they have powers delegated to them, they can take decisions not necessarily in line with what the membership wants.
Also during day-to-day class struggle under capitalism, there is always the possibility of any union seeking an accommodation with the prevailing regime to allow it to operate legally, whereas the ideology of an A-S union confederation is supposed to be revolutionary and ultimately illegal. This may also cause serious disruption amongst the membership, between those wanting to be effective within capitalism and those wanting to overthrow it. This tends to be made worse in pre-revolutionary times when there is an influx of militant but not necessarily revolutionary workers into an A-S confed.
Equally in times of dramatic and fast-moving political and economic change, a large A-S union federation, if its mandated representatives are to be effective, may be put in situations where they don't have time to convene and circulate the necessary information to locals to have a proper informed decision making process. The leadership ends up making decisions without proper mandating and accountability. Or the organisation becomes paralysed because of the time lag between a situation become apparent and the time taken to call meetings, make decisions.
Ironically (one might argue) a revolutionary situation would inevitably cause so much disruption to A-S processes that some dislocation between membership and delegated "leaders" is almost inevitable. Whereas a post-revolutionary situation, where social calm has returned with workers in control of means of production and distribution (and esp if they have electronic comms) there would be less likelihood of "Corruption".
(have a read of Abel Paz "Durriuti in the spanish revolution" or Stuart Christie "We, the anarchists" if you get time for an account of such situations with the CNT.)
magnifico wrote:
anarcho-syndicalists believe that an a-s union will be different from trade unions because all decisions are made by the union members themselves using direct democracy. There are no paid full-time officials with different interests from those of the membership, and so there is in theory no point in anyone being corrupt since by causing the union to fail they would be damaging their own position as a worker. Also since decision making is open and democratic there is less opportunity for anyone to make secret, corrupt decisions as they would have to argue for them at a meeting and convince workers to agree to them.I think thugarchist has a point in that you seem to be saying that just because unions have been 'corrupt' in the past, that means that all unions now, even if they are organised completely differently, will also be corrupt and 'the same.'
kiopje wrote:
since anarchism is meant to free people from the oppression of hierarchical social structures, then what has anarcho-syndicalism got to offer?An anarcho-syndicalist union is not a 'heirarchical social structure', whereas trade unions are. This is the main difference.
I wasn't aware of the distinction between modern-day trade unions and those proposed to be used in an anarcho-syndicalist society - i thought they'd be exactly the same, hence what i wrote. thanks for clearing that up.
As far as I understand, anarcho-syndicalism concerns itself with the establishment of the trade union as the highest level of power, where all decisions are made mutually, etc.
If I am correct - then what about the terrible history of corruption of trade unions? I think we can take it as a given that power corrupts otherwise good people, and so I am by no means singling trade unions out in this criticism.. I just get the feeling that, since anarchism is meant to free people from the oppression of hierarchical social structures, then what has anarcho-syndicalism got to offer?
It seems like swapping one thing for another.. Another that will eventually turn out to be as tyrannical as the previous.