Anarcho-syndicalism and industrial unionism?

Hmm, maybe the hint is in the fact that americans were (and are) focusing on different terms. The criticism of the limits of craft unionism seems to be as old as anarchosyndicalism. But I think that the term industrial unionism only got more popular in Europe in the 20s (if I am not mistaken). It was used, for example I know Russian anarchosyndicalists referred to it, but if I am not mistaken, German anarchists of the time didn't use that term as often in those times. Still they advocated it.

Berkman in the ABC of anarchism talks about the importance of industrial organisation for workers, as opposed to by craft (specifically talking about transport workers' strikes and how it is counter-productive to have trains still running when there are bus drivers' strikes for example)

Right quick: My understanding of the evolution is really in stages. The pre-WW1 period was a mixed bag: British syndicalists advocated for "amalgamation" of existing unions into large industrial unions of the same industry. The French revolutionary syndicalists were less industrial union oriented, but not opposed. The CNT had an interesting history on this. While not opposed to localized industrial unionism, there was a whole debate (1920-something, maybe a wee-bit later) over industrial federations....but I need to really look this part up (sorry, at work).

I recall the IWW’s historical argument on their neutrality on using the term syndicalism was the distinct nature of IWW unionism: industrial unionism.

The meld between industrial unionism and anarcho-syndicalism seems to have been gradual, yet completed by WW2 (in terms of both seemingly to believe in one union, one industry).

Hope this sketch is helpful and as accurate as memory serves me in a rush reply.

Yeah, the CNT debate was around 1921-22. Can't be exact, but I do recall it happening parallel to other debates, ie. the profintern debates and rejection of the boring from within strategy which were important at that time in other places in Europe as well, as anarchosyndicalists decided to set up the IWA.

In terms of sources of these developments, can't think of English-language ones off the top of my head and, to be honest, saw more about it in old publications of the times, many of which are not online.

BTW, I don't know which British syndicalists you are referring to, but if I would dare to guess, they weren't anarchosyndicalists.

Akai----

The term "anarcho-syndicalist" really didn't popularize until the time of the founding of the IWMA (IWA) in 1922. So, technically very few syndicalists were used the term. As you noted in regard to the debates around the profinten, so too did the the distinct use of a/s come out of those debates and period.

The pre-WW1 British syndicalists were not all A/S, some clearly were. The majority of the key guiders and organizers were marxian socialists and revolutionary unionists. What they did advocate, much more so then some of their French and some German counterparts, were the amalgamation of all unions in one industry into a unified industrial union. The Swedes (SAC,1910), the Italians (USI 1912) were not only libertarians but also industrial unionists from the git-go.

OK, gotta go!

Syndicalist said:

Well, having some in your union does not make you an anarchosyndicalist union. I would argue that, irrespective of the fact the term anarchosyndicalist really wasn't used, the majority of the pre-WWI British syndicalists still wouldn't have qualifited. A minority of them yes. Am not sure though how significant.

Well, I suspect the title of the topic is very narrow. So in a very narrow sense, what you say is accurate. So I hear you there. But the trajectory of how folks get to where....or don't....is IMHO, equally of value to the development and evolution of our movement.

Apart from a couple of very small examples of self organisation in London pre-WW1, all the syndicalists were in the existing unions, which were social democratic. This would have applied across the board and whichever variety of syndicalist (and bear in mind it was an evolving practice in Britain and Ireland at the time) would have been in them, also reflecting density and militancy. the best known document to come out of the Syndicalist Revolt as this period of 1910-14 is known here, "The Miners Next Step", came from militants in the South Wales Miners' Federation.

The main argument they used at the time was industrial unionism, because it reflected the nature of craft divides, most famously on the railways. These same arguments were still being taken up post war by the likes of Tom Brown. There is much less relevance now, because unions have merged, not for reasons of strength, but weakness.

Martin