According to Gregori Maximov (historian of the Russian Revolution) the term anarcho-syndicalism was first used by members of the 'Chicago' or anarchist current of the IWW. This faction of the IWW was libertarian communist.
Anarcho-syndicalism is the fusion of syndicalism and anarchism; especially in relation to the common development of criticism of capitalism, the state, militarism and the causes of bureaucracy. Concerning anarcho-syndicalism today the Statutes of the International Workers Association (IWA-AIT) insist on both the syndicalist demand for workers control of the economy which workers themselves create (revolutionary unionism) and the anarchist demand for a non-coercive stateless society (libertarian communism).
Until the day that members of the IWW start argueing for a Free Confederation of Workers Community and Union Federations, it is not libertarian communist but nothing more than Internationalist General Union, founded in the USA, by Union delegates from the USA, with its headquarters always in the USA.
Can comment on articles and discussions
Jacque,
No-one's said it's overtly libertarian communist. We could argue that 'economic freedom' and the abolition of the wage system can mean nothing other than base control by workers; 'political freedom'. The rejection of parliamentarianism and power political involvement, the emphasis on self-organisation and solidarity is plainly a part of the basic approach to collective empowerment and that such would inevitably come against government per se. Which is all true but none-the-less up in the clouds as far as the small collection of today's Wobblies are concerned.
What you don't get is that in places where the IWW's trying to grow and become a credible fighting organisation, the apparent need to get everyone to believe in an ideology as a starter practically wouldn't do shit to help them (or if you want, to 'build towards libertarian communism'). It's hard enough as it is to instil in others that you don't need to accept the boss-system or that root improvement can and must come about by their own efforts - as daft as that sounds. But this is also the most crucial thing, the creation of grassroots militancy and radicalism (or if you want, 'building towards libertarian communism'). So its putting our eggs into another pointless ideological propaganda basket or slowly growing a class-struggle network from below?
I've got mucho respect for the the IWA statutes and many of the unions therein (aside from its air of sectarianism and self-importance) but it is not 'anarcho-syndicalism' - it is an a/s international. A/s unions, groups and individuals exist outside it, and yes I'd say in no small part in the inspiration and practice of the IWW itself.
It doesn't really matter where the 'headquarters' or GEB are, but it would have to move from the USA if there was a greater concentration of members somewhere else.
Where did Maximov say that, btw? I think there's been more than a few 'Chicago factions', but the only one I know about is what's sometimes used to represent the main organisation after the SLP split, the former having ditched any political ties to the union. There was anarchists involved in the 'split' (although the decision itself was made by the rank-and-file) but I'm not aware of libertarian communist groups fitting that description. There's the Marine Transport Workers IU closeness to Spanish revolutionaries, the Latin American branches attempt at affiliation to the IWA and so on, however.