Anarcho Syndicalism -> Libertarian Communism

Put simply:

Not all anarcho-syndicalists are libertarian communists, but most are.

Not all libertarian communists are anarcho-syndicalists, and in contemporary terms most libertarian communists are not anarcho-syndicalists, altho historically a pretty sizeable proportion have been.

.

One of the big problems within the discussion is the meaning of the word 'libertarian'.

This can mean two things:

1. 'individualism', as in 'individual liberty';

2. 'democratic', as in 'democratic liberty'.

The first tends to be against any authority, and its aim is 'no power above the individual';

The second tends to be against 'unelected authority', and its aim is 'no power above the collective'.

I'm a Marxist, anti-authoritarian, democratic Communist, so I call myself a 'Libertarian Communist'. I want 'no power above the working class', but I accept that, at times, individuals, including myself, will have to go along with a majority decision, even if against my personal wishes.

For 'Anarcho-Syndicalists', I think the real issue is how much weight an ASer puts on each component of A-S.

Those who put more stress on the 'Anarcho-' bit tend to be more individualistic, and put individual liberty above democratic votes and majority opinion.

Those who put more stress on the '-Syndicalist' bit tend to be more collective, and put working class power above individual concerns.

It seems to me that Libertarian Communist can cover all those who subscribe to democratic working class power, Libertarian Marxists and Class Struggle Anarchists, alike. They want as much liberty for all individuals as is commensurate with collective controls, achieved through democratic methods (which are far wider than simple 'majority voting', and include liberal values like respect for minorities, freedom of information and organisation, right to organised dissent, etc., as per Rosa Luxemburg).

But I see 'Individualist Communism' as an oxymoron.

I hope this helps, the croydonian. I'm sure you'll get some more helpful posts, especially from those who disagree with my characterisations.

Libertarian Communism is a particular kind of society which libertarian communists want. Anarcho-syndicalism is the method by which (almost all) anarcho-syndicalists want to bring about that society - but not all libertarian communists think that this method can work. Anarcho-syndicalism is also a particular tradition within the wider workers movement.

Speakig as a solfed member, i'd say Libertarian communism is a society without a state and without meney/wages of any form. Thus it is the end goal. Anarcho-syndicalism is more the means and forms of organisation we as workers use and advocate in sturggle to get to that goal, when we are struggling against wage cuts, benefit cuts, wars and so on in the here and now whilst still advocating an anarchist society at the same time.
All anarchists generally hold that the means must match the ends and anarcho-syndicalists are no diffwrent in this respect. In short if we think that if we want a world where hospital staff run hospitals or binmen run refuse centres through democratic self management without wages or bosses, then we need to have experience of running our own struggles aswell. If we remain atomised and disempowered waiting for leaders to sort things out for us, we'll never get anywhere.

Given that one is the ends and the other the means obviously, as fb says, you can be a libertarian communist (ie beleive that an anarchist society is both possible and desireable) but think there are different ways of working towards it than what anarcho-syndicalism generally entails.

Is it really true that the majority of Libertarian Communists are not Anarcho syndicalists? I mean theres obviously platformists, but then what other flavours are there that would trump syndicalism?

This potted history might help:

'Syndicalism' comes from the French for (trade) union and revolutionary unionism was called 'revolutionary syndicalism'. When some of them became more specifically anarchist the adopted the term 'anarcho-syndicalism'.

'Libertarian communism' was originally a synonym for 'anarchist communism', the money-less and stateless society many anarchists want to create. Anarchist communism emerged from the anarchist movement around 1880 when previously anarchists had advocated a society that still had some sort of exchange system called 'mutualism' or 'collectivism'.

Most, but not all anarchists adopted anarchist communism, so it is possible to be in favour of anarcho-syndicalism but aim for a more mutualist/collectivist society so not be a libertarian communist.

It is also possible to be a libertarian communist but not be an anarcho-syndicalist if you would like to see a libertarian communist society but don't think building anarchist unions is the best way of going about it.

To complicate matters further in the modern context 'libertarian communist' is usually expanded to included not just anarchist communists but also anti-state, anti-Bolshevik Marxists like the council communists.

Hope that makes sense

^^^ this

agreed. but i would add other than obvious contemporary examples like neo-platformists or especifists, there were also other anarchist communist trends.

for instance one insurrectionary (young malatesta), one for apolitical syndicalism (older malatesta), others more interested in assemblies, councils, communes, etc

I'would doubt that. As i see most of the anarchist movement is synhesist/dont have an acurate vision about their final social goal. They often use words like "mutal aid" but in fact it can mean decentralized commercial relationship.For example the italian USI (a syndicalist union) stands for barter trade.

Most of anarchists advocate some kinf of communalism/direct democracy etc. which can be communistic but NOT necessarily communist. And by the way i think most of the anarchists dont belong to the classwar camp but rather to the vegetrian/squatter/dreadlockhair/ecologist/animal defender/subculture/hacktivist/ scene.

Not really sure what you mean here, libertarian communists see freedom as being both social and individual.

The people I've met from a synthesist organiation (the french anarchist federation) were libertarian communists. And I'm talking about actual anarchist here not rebellious activists. I can't say I've read about the great split between Kropotkin and Malatesta on one side and Swampy the crusty vegan on the other

"

The people I've met from a synthesist organiation (the french anarchist federation) were libertarian communists. And I'm talking about actual anarchist here not rebellious activists. I can't say I've read about the great split between Kropotkin and Malatesta on one side and Swampy the crusty vegan on the other ;-)

"

Yes,but i am not sure that the people you met represent majority of that organisation. Of course its can be,and if it is than i am very happy.

"

And I'm talking about actual anarchist here not rebellious activists.

"

Yes,but this is something what you didnt mentioned before.

Sorry,but the quote box does not work.

I was only doing a brief history to help make sense of some political terms. I suppose you could add "many people that call themselves anarchists don't really know what they're talking about"!

Nice idea!

ho ho ho ho ho, bloody hell, what leftist ghetto do I belong to!

I see your trouble man, I had never thought of distinguishing libertarian communism (Kropotkin) from anarcho-syndaclism (Rocker) before. I described myself as a Marxist for years, but I hated the way marxists pined on Lenin/Trotsky et. al. for years. I started getting interested in Anarcho prefixed stuff and found it probably more fitting. For me, the buck stopped at political/organizational theory. A lot of Marxist politics is too embroiled vanguardism so I eventually had to make some sort of break.

On what grounds can it be claimed that not all anarcho-syndicalists are libertarian communists?

there are some anarcho-syndicalists in the WSA that argue for parecon. they also highlight that some in the CNT even argue parecon is a form of libertarian communism.

As I mentioned before the USI advocate barter trade.

Do they really though? Where did they say that? That's more retarded than capitalism.

I've red it on libcom. It was an article that summarized the activity of an IWA congress. Sorry but I couldnt find it.

I don't know about USI advocating barter trade, but i know they have advocated a three-pronged strategy of union struggle, cultural struggle and self-management; the latter could be construed as mutualist, but I think it's advocated as a strategy towards libertarian communism (or at least when I was at an IWA conference that's the impression I got from the italian-spanish-english and back discussion.

Really? On what basis? Parecon involves remuneration according to effort and sacrifice. Not exactly from each according to ability, to each according to need. So how on earth can they argue its communist?

I think a prominent US Parecon advocate has contacts with the Cataluña CNT and has spoken over there. I don't know any more than that, and I don't know how you can square 'remuneration according to effort' with libertarian communism.

This is where the topic came out:

[Barcelona] Conferences “Alternatives to Capitalism: Self-management in the spotlispotlight”
http://libcom.org/news/barcelona-conferences-%E2%80%9Calternatives-capitalism-self-management-spotlispotlight%E2%80%9D-13032010

The comrade from the USI made their presentation in Leon at an IWA Plenary. I heard some stuff which sounded wierd, but I wasn't there and leave further comments to those who were.
http://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/?q=node/14849

Take it for what it is worth, theoretically, all members of the IWA should believe in the goal of "libertarian communism".

We used to have this discussion, from time to time, when folks would point to the IWA Statutes
which say that"...the reorganization of society on the basis of libertarian communism."
http://www.iwa-ait.org/?q=statutes

Cat has told me that there are some younger CNTistas in the ICEA http://iceautogestion.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=45&lang=es
that have similiar ideas to some elements of parecon. But I'm not a pareconist
nor have any interest in exploring it. Maybe someone who is more familiar with the
some of the ICEA comrades might be able to respond.

Usually the argument that parecon can be a form of libertarian communism is along the lines of:

-Kropotkin narrowed down what communism was, and not everyone agreed with this.
-Some notable Spainish anarchist economists did not exclude remuneration from their vision of communism.