Anarcho-syndicalism (Violent/Pacifistic)

well yeah i don't think it's practical, but there's no reason in principle why a-s couldn't be pacifist, especially if there was an emphasis on organising in the army rank and file so that when workplaces were occupied and revolution beckoned the troops mutinied and refused to crush you. what you'd then do if invaded i don't know, but thats a practical matter

I know for a fact that there are pacifists in the IWW in the USA. Traditionally the Catholic Workers Movement has been very close to the IWW and they preach an anarchist/pacifist form of Christianity.

check this guy out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Hennacy

oh yeah and her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day

In some places there has been a log tradition of pacifism and anarcho syndicalism being allied, although usually because of the cultural background of the workers in the area. I'm thinking specifically about the Netherlands, where the pacifist and anti-militarist Domela Nieuwenhuis was also an anarcho-syndicalist. There's also quite a strong pacifist streak running through the SAC in Sweden.

I think it also depends on what you mean by pacifism. Most anarchosyndicalists would describe themselves as anti-militarist as well, and many of the European unions have been connected to anti conscription campaigns where they exist. Though of course, being anti-militarist doesn't equate to pacifism per se, it's more about opposing states and their wars and the institution of the armed forces.

regards

Martin

actually pacifism did actually originally only refer to militarism back in the day, but then some fucking liberals came along and turnt it into a instrument of the status quo.

I'm opposed to violence but the way I see it if I refuse to part take in the violent overthrow of capitalism i'm infact further cementing myself into systematic violence. Everyday I live in capitalism I'm bound up in atrocious violence against myself and proletarians around the world. The money I lift from the ATM, that is paid into my wages, is tainted with the blood and suffering of billions, and I'd rather bloody my hands with a bayonet than with bank notes.

oops, double post.

Well Anarcho Syndicalism also involves self defense, you can't have a successful strike if you let the cops sheperd scabs in. You can't have a revolution without defending it.

It's not so much that total pacifism is incompatable with Anarcho Syndicalism as it is incompatiable with living.

where are they buried?

All my hero's killed Cowboys.

And if you say it's a matter of opinion one more time I'll have to punch you, in which case what would you do?

The point about violence is that it isn't an opinion, it's 6 million marched to death.

In 1945 would you have supported the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising?

CoeXisT: fair enough. without getting into the ins and outs of pacifism here, i'd say that pacifist anarcho-syndocalism is everybit as tenable as pacifism generally, however you choose to take that

edit: looks like revol's getting into the ins and outs of pacifism

I think it's worth having. I respect fascists more than pacifists. I mean it might be harder to have a pint with them, but on a certain level I have more respect for them.

yeah but when you run into a bunch of them at night, you fucking wish the fascists were pacifists!

Hence i wouldn't fancy having a pint with them.

but you're a blonde six foot slut, they'd probably wine and dine you as an aryan god/ess

the thing is, you saw what happened in '88 to the burmese students. the army massacred so many they ran out of ammo and started drowning people in a lake (says john pilger).

in such a situation, why is it wrong to resist with force? if you see someone being attacked why not use proportionate force to stop the aggressor? i'm not pro-violence as such, it's just i don't fancy getting the shit kcked out of me/mugged/killed out of some moral absolutism

Aung San Suu Kyi not fighting against capitalism but for the norms of bourgeois democracy to be respected, a very different situation from anarcho-syndicalist revolution. Out of interest, when Franco made his coup in spain in '36, what do you think the anarcho-syndicalists should have done?

Yeah and I beleive in non violent action but I recognise the fact that capital won't just roll over that and we must be prepared to defend ourselves.

If it comes down to a straight fight we are fucked, but if we refuse to defend ourselves and meet violence with raised hands we will not only be fucked but will deserve to go to our graves.

Its worth remembering that the state will resort to violence at the slightest provocation. My father-in-law received a kick in by the Met during the miners strike and subsequently had half of his large intestine surgically removed. He's not a violent man, he was simply standing on a picket line. There will quite simply never be the opportunity for 'non-violent revolution'.

well, if large sections of the military mutineed there would, but thats not really non-violent i suppose becuase it contains the implicit threat to the bourgeoisie: surrender or we'll shoot. if they mutineed and destroyed their weapons it would be, but then we'd be at the mercy of whatever mercenary army the state could cobble together. so i agree, basically

I remember seeing Bugsy Malone on stage when I was a kid, they had those machine guns that shot foam. If we could get both sides to use those instead of AK47s...

aye but what about the Workers Cherry Bomb!

i wasn't suggesting you support her aims, just pointing out that her tactics are intimately related to her non-revolutionary aims and the existence of highly armed states which she hopes will support them.

if i punch you in the throat, you will die. the capacity for violence is something we have to live with - just because i don't rule out violence doesn't mean i think it should be resorted to to settle every dispute. the destruction of weapons doesn't help here, and neither is it even possible, my bare hands, a brick, a stick are all weapons, and a spear or bow can be fashioned with relative ease. Would you ban knowledge of martial arts too? Weapons are not the cause of violence. Again i'll quote Malatesta:

the potential problem with violence post-revolution is tackled by organisation pre-revolution - 'building the new society in the shell of the old'. If a revolution is made by organisations such as workers' councils etc, the forums for debate and indeed for running society already exist once the state is gone, and thus there is no power vacuum for violent competing groups to tussle over, only power diffused among everyone via participatory structures.

i think that sums up my problem with pacifism - why should i have to put up with massive - indeed genocidal - violence in the name of non-violence, and how without some belief in an afterlife, am i supposed to convince myself and others to die so pointlessly. As the first malatesta quote said, the repressive violence unleashed by refusing to meet force with force has to be considered too - and as such 'non-violence' can have very violent consequences, like Gandhi advocating the Jews exterminate themselves to prevent Nazi violence. The paradox is that if we want to minimise violence in the world we have to be prepared to fight, without fetishising violence or dehumanising those who confornt us.

me neither as it happens, i chose that quote because a voluntary throwing away of weapons seemed to be what you were advocating. perhaps i misread you?

well i think any revolution will fail without sufficient support from the rank and file of the armed forces, even if that support consists of simply staying in the barracks when ordered to put down a revolutionary movement.

but like i say i don't think the destruction of weaponry in general serves any purpose, since it isn't the cause of violence. generally social relations are, most people have to be really pushed before resorting to violence and with most people who don't there's generally social relations/social context to their violence. we have the capacity for violence, and we have to deal with that.

i quite like Nietzsche's take on this (not often you hear a communist quote nietzsche, even a libertarian communist ). He basically says that only the strong are moral agents, i.e. only those with the power to do good or bad can make moral choices. pacifism strikes me as a futile attempt to abolish such power, and so escape the complexities of moral agency rather than confronting them.