What is anarcho-syndicalism? - libertarian reformism, vanguardism or revolutionary unionism?

6 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
#1
Top
syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Oct 29 2006 02:02
What is anarcho-syndicalism? - libertarian reformism, vanguardism or revolutionary unionism?

The author writes in his intro:

"This controversial article was a reflection of how the author saw things at the time. It was published in Black Flag in 1997. It's fair to say that his views have changed since then and events have moved on."

I just had a chance to re-read this article after almost 10 years. I did not share all of the opinions expressed by the authorat the time.Nor do I now. I surely wouldn't use the labels the author useses, but some of the questions raised are nevertheless interesting. It can also be said, in hindsight, that the events which unfolded during the late 1990s, in particular, continue to have a profound effect on the current IWA. I say this with sadness and without any cheer.

I would suggest that this article is still be contoversial. A worthwhile read nevertheless.

Peter Principle
What is anarcho-syndicalism? - libertarian reformism, vanguardism or revolutionary unionism?

#2
Top
JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Nov 1 2006 09:44

how reliable is this article as a source? Especially this bit:

Quote:
This led to only two Sections voting to expel the majority in France and the Rome-based split of USI - CNT-E and Norway's NSF.

SAC wrote a reply to this, or rather one member of their international committee wrote one:
http://libcom.org/library/an-open-letter-to-the-iwa-from-sac-1998

#3
Top
martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Nov 1 2006 11:37

Hi JDMF,

The CNT-Vignoles were expelled by 2 votes to 1 IIRC. USI-Roma walked out.

Regards,

Martin

#4
Top
knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Nov 1 2006 13:50

How about yes to all. Surely it depends who you are talking about? Most of the syndicalists I know are revoltuionaries. Others, well who knows? But surely that applies to any label?

#5
Top
syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Nov 1 2006 13:53

Due to an internal split(literally right down the middle) on the "French question", the WSA delegate was instructed to abstain. It is my recollection that a majority of the Section's voted to abstain. IWA proceedure calls for (or did at the time) that a majority of those voting carries a proposal.

Perhaps in the long run the results may not have been different. But I would think with a majority abstaining, the appropro thing would have been to continue the discussion and tablle the vote until another time or for a special plenary.

Again, with 2 votes in favor, one against (out of something like 13 or 16 section or friends at the time), it left an sort of inbalance and set-up a negative way of dealing with issues. A negativity that carried over into dealing with other issues (including the WSA, I might add).

#6
Top
syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Nov 7 2006 04:29

For the record, the WSA delegates voted at the 1988 IWA Congress with the DAM on the proposal in regard to race and gender, and disagreed with the actual change.

The term "vanguard" in Col's piece is not explained, but it needs to be. We could understand it broadly as the activists and organizers and publicists in the movement who have a vision of a post-capitalist society, of fundamental change, and whose actions and commitment are inspired in part by this. But this vanguard need not bee organized into a political organization apart from the mass organizations. If it is, the Col suggests that is "vanguardist." I think we need to ask: What is it to be vanguardist? I think this is for the activists, revolutionaries, organizers to try to entrench their control, to use their skills and influence to attain hold of a hierarchical power structure, and to substitute their own decision-making for that of the mass who are affected. People who are activists, organizers, publicists who are part of a "vanguard" need not use their skills to secure control in that way, but might focus on securing the power of the base, creating an informed an active and mobilized base, assisting the wide spread sharing in info and skills, and thus facilitating the empowerment of the base. If a vanguard were to act that way, it wouldn't be vanguardist. Although the FAI in Spain in 1936 called itself la vanguardia del proletariado (vanguard of the proletariat), it was not necessarily vanguardist in the sense i defined. Irrespective of how we evaluate the FAI, i think it is in principle possible for a left-libertarian organization of activists, organizers, to not be "vanguardist" in relation to the mass organizations.