Anarcho-syndicalist politics of autonomy - Jonathan Eibisch

3.4 ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM

“Syndicalism arose in France as a revolt against political socialism, and to understand it, we must provide a brief overview of the position that the socialist parties had attained in various countries” (Russell 1971: 57), wrote Bertrand Russell, a prominent advocate of the autonomous labor union movement, in 1918. Following a historical account, he makes a case for recognizing the significance of anarcho-syndicalism, particularly because of its pursuit of a fundamental reorganization of society (ibid.: 75).[1] Similarly, Noam Chomsky, a public intellectual sympathetic to anarchism, emphasized the significance of anarcho-syndicalism, citing the model of the Israeli kibbutzim (Chomsky 1976/2005: 134). Chomsky is particularly fascinated by the large-scale Spanish Revolution, through which successful self-managed structures were created (ibid.: 135). Similarly, in an influential work, Daniel Guérin advocates for anarcho-syndicalism as a practical and constructive implementation of anarchist ideas (Guérin 1969: 41). Guérin makes it clear that Bakunin had already advocated for the proto-trade union organizations—which were still amorphous at the time—conceived in connection with the concept of decentralized, autonomous communes (ibid.: 57–62). However, as rapid social developments overwhelmed the once-influential anarchists, social democracy gained the upper hand in the socialist movement and increasingly oriented it toward parliamentary and party politics. Consequently, the anarchists found themselves

“the 1890s […] into a dead end […]. They were isolated from the world of the working class, where Social Democrats held a monopoly. They huddled in small groups and barricaded themselves in ivory towers to reproduce an unrealistic ideology; or they devoted themselves to (and applauded) individual acts of violence, allowing themselves to be drawn into the cycle of repression and reprisals. […] In order to free the working masses from the influence of the socialists, who were merely deceiving them, the anarchists had to infiltrate the trade unions. […] The workers’ unions were to be reconnected to the “libertarian-communist” society, which remained the ultimate goal of the anarchists” (ibid.: 77f.).

Finally, Guérin sees the revolutionary councils developed during the Russian Revolution of 1905 as the organizational cornerstones of a “libertarian revolution,” precisely because they took places of production as their starting points (Ibid.: 83ff.) and regards the “apolitical” revolution in Spain beginning in 1936 as the most striking example of a radical social transformation based on anarcho-syndicalist ideas, one that was able to build upon a strong tradition (Ibid.: 118–128). For Guérin, self-management remains the key concept of libertarian socialism through which the relevance of anarcho-syndicalism can be revitalized (ibid.: 145–155).
This concept is also viewed in the most recent German-language book on anarcho-syndicalism as an essential point of reference, one that must be understood in light of its historical origins. Thus, syndicalism

“starts fundamentally with the material basis. […] Contrary to its materialist worldview, however, the Marxist current did not focus primarily on the economic sphere as the basis of social existence and social change. Ironically, they saw their revolutionary battlefield precisely in the political sphere—which they derived from this and which belongs to the ‘superstructure.’ They sought to participate in the state and ultimately take it over, which was consistent with their centralist orientation. In contrast, the anarchist-oriented wing of the ‘International’ adhered to the premise of overturning the foundations of society through economic struggles; the intermediate goal was direct workers’ self-management, without taking over the structures of the state. This was possible only on a federalist basis, since the state was viewed as an expression of political and military centralism” (Döhring 2017: 20).

More so than other socialist currents, its theory of transformation is derived from practical struggles within class society. Despite some successes in union organizing and labor struggles, the theory of anarcho-syndicalism, at least, seems outdated. Consequently, the substance of the anarcho-syndicalist quest for autonomy must be reconstructed in the following primarily on the basis of historical sources. Thanks to works by, for example, Jule Ehms (2023) and Theresa Adamski, however, historical scholarship on this topic has been brought up to date, including for the German context.
The schematic three-step process will be outlined here using the keywords: secession of the autonomous labor movement, strike, and direct action to empower the working class and achieve self-management of production and social functions. This, in turn, involves analysis, distanced criticism, self-organized and empowering social struggles, and finally, the prefigurative path toward the transformation of society as a whole. The sources for this include various texts by Pouget (1903–1907/2014), Cornelissen (1907–1926/2015), Peiró (1931/1986), and Santillán (1936/1986), Rocker (1900–1945), Marcks (2018a, 2018b, 2019), and Schmidt/van der Walt (2009).[2]

3.4.1 THE SECESSION OF THE AUTONOMOUS LABOR MOVEMENT

One of the defining figures of the second wave of the syndicalist labor movement—which adopted this self-designation with the founding of the French CGT—was Fernand Pelloutier, who was elected secretary of the Federation of Labor Exchanges in 1895 (Cornelissen 2015c: 65). He describes the emergence of anarcho-syndicalism as an eminent quest for autonomy in the sense of actively breaking away from the confined position of the labor movement. It began in 1892 with a critique of social legislation, which, from the syndicalist perspective, essentially represented a shift and a cover-up of exploitation. At its core, this entails a critique of the mode of political reform (Pelloutier 1895/1972: 317).
This strategic development was accompanied by an increasing disengagement from politics. Pelloutier writes: “In light of ‘their increasing weakness and their unsuccessful efforts to link politics—which is primarily of interest to the individual—with the economy, which is of social interest,’ the unions finally realized […] that their division had a deeper cause than the conflicts between politicians, and that both […] stemmed from politics” (Ibid.: 320). Due to the perceived ineffectiveness of socialist party politics and its integration into bourgeois parliamentarism, as well as the aforementioned inadequacy of social legislation

“the unions resolved to refrain from any political agitation henceforth, to ruthlessly banish any discussion not purely economic from their educational programs, and to devote themselves exclusively to resistance against capital. The uproar accompanying this shift, however, reached the public. The new motto—“No more politics!”—spread throughout the workplaces […] The unions now seemed sufficiently prepared to the anarchists to embrace and enrich their teachings, and they came to the aid of those who, finally freed from political paternalism, sought to direct their attention—and that of their comrades—toward the study of economic laws” (Ibid.: 321).

Insofar as “pure anarchism” would not be realized in the anticipated socialist revolution, there was all the more need for organization and action in the current historical situation, rather than expecting a “total upheaval.” Therefore, the Federal Committee of the Labor Exchanges has the task of “enlightening the proletariat about the futility of a revolution that is content to replace one form of government with another, even if it were a socialist state” (ibid.: 324).
A specific theoretical foundation of the novel autonomous labor movement lay in the dual function of the syndicates as organizations for the working class’s struggle and as the seeds of a new society. This goes far beyond the function of conventional labor unions in aggregating interests and
representation. Émile Pouget was the first to articulate this innovative claim, from which the organizational and strategic orientations of anarcho-syndicalist groups were further derived: The syndicate is

“a group such as the ‘reformists’ envision: capable of waging the daily struggle against the employers to secure limited improvements and demands. But beyond that, it is also the appropriate organization for carrying out the expropriation of the capitalists and the reorganization of society—goals that socialists, in their illusory faith in the state, hope to achieve through the seizure of political power” (Pouget 2014a: 53f., cf. Rocker 1947: 25).

In this sense, the trade unions explicitly do not constitute political organizations and combine everyday struggles with a long-term strategy. This is intended to productively resolve the contradiction between reform and revolution that exists in socialist politics, thereby predestining the trade unions as social-revolutionary associations. Through this “dual task” of the trade unions, the overarching goal of social transformation—for which the expropriation of the capitalists is a decisive step—is already being gradually realized through the specific focus of labor struggles on better living conditions (Pouget 2014b: 86ff.). However, what is decisive is “social transformation” achieved “by direct means” (ibid.: 95). According to Pouget, the “group of producers”

“be the nucleus of the new society. It is unthinkable that a genuine social transformation could take place on any other basis. It is therefore essential that the producers prepare themselves for the appropriation and reorganization that lies ahead, because they are the only ones who can carry it out successfully. What we want is a social, not a political, revolution. These are two entirely different phenomena, and the tactics that lead to one take us further away from the other” (Pouget 2014b: 97f., cf. Pouget 2014a: 63).

Rocker later agrees with this (Rocker 1947: 25) and also uses the term “germ cell” (Rocker 1919, Rocker 1924c).
Even with a socialist majority, a political path would not make a reorganization of society possible. Starting with the economic base, this must be undertaken by the unions themselves in order to eventually take over production and distribution, as FAUD activist Fritz Kater (1926) also describes. This line of reasoning appears consistent with the assumption that the capitalist class must be completely stripped of power and expropriated, for which the (sometimes idealized) general strike in syndicalism is regarded as a turning point. Pouget further emphasizes that the syndicalist union’s organization for struggle must not be an end in itself, but must engage in confrontation with the capitalist system. The union is “first and foremost a militant organization; its most urgent task is to constantly seek out the causes of social distress, to study them, to combat them, and to eliminate them” (Pouget 2014b: 100). In contrast to political parties, the autonomous labor movement represents the “Party of Labor,” which must orient itself toward the “current demands of the struggle” (ibid.: 130). Precisely because of the simplicity of its theory and its emphasis on practical struggles, syndicalism is superior to other socialist currents (ibid.), provided it is characterized by a unifying “spirit,” as Rocker adds (Rocker 1928).
To realize this goal, a decentralized and federative organizational structure was established, in which there were to be no claims to leadership, but which served “to coordinate and intensify the revolutionary struggle of the working class” (Pouget 2014c: 132). In this way, the CGT “represents the exact opposite of democratic organizations, which stifle the vitality of their sections through their centralism and authoritarianism” (ibid.), whereas the CGT allows for the initiative and active participation of its individual members and autonomous unions. Thus, the desired libertarian-socialist form of society is already anticipated. According to Rocker, this is

“entirely natural, for socialism cannot be decreed from above or artificially conjured into existence by laws. It must spring from the depths of the masses as the result of their creative abilities and actions and create its own organization among the people. In the factories, in the fields, in the mines, in the technical and chemical workshops—that is where the new life of the future will develop. […] Here are the forces at work that alone are capable of creating a new world” (Rocker 1924c).

In anarcho-syndicalism, the metaphor of the birth of a new society is elaborated upon in concrete proposals that stem from the definition of its own understanding (→ 5.2.1). Socialism, it argues, is not the attainment of political power, but the autonomous struggle for economic power—and thus the elimination of all political power structures. Revolutionary syndicalism would “therefore be, in its very essence, anti-state and a staunch opponent of any institution of domination, no matter what new guise it may assume” (Rocker 1924b). Furthermore, Rocker explains in this context that the assumption that the state is necessary for the transition to socialism is based on a false understanding of history, insofar as the beginnings of a future, desirable form of society can only be conceived on the basis of the organizations that exist today. Rather than establishing a new “system of oppression” through political revolution, the goal should be to promote the self-organization of the working class (ibid.). In his reference to supposedly new theories of “embryonic forms” that might already contain the logic of utopian social forms within the capitalist present, Holger Marcks points out that such considerations literally draw on syndicalist terminology without making this explicit or even being aware of it (Marcks 2018a). Schmidt and van der Walt underscore this fundamental idea of the syndicalist movement, according to which trade unions “had the potential to perform a dual role: defending and improving workers’ rights, incomes, and conditions in the present; and acting as the key instrument in the destruction of the old order as well as the basic framework for worker self-management of the means of production in the new one” (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 135). To achieve this, it would be necessary to explicitly distance oneself from “orthodox” unions, counteract the emergence of excessive bureaucracies, and not focus solely on immediate issues—that is, on the mere representation of interests (ibid.: 181).
An important difference from the doctrine of socialist parties of the time lay in the genesis of anarchist syndicalism in its assumption of the plurality of subjects and their interests within the working class. These, however, were to be aggregated into a common class struggle. This starting point drew on the practical experiences of recurring conflicts of interest among various social groups in labor struggles. At the same time, the theory was based on clearly definable class antagonisms, according to which the unions would have to organize themselves (Pouget 2014b: 86ff.). It was also crucial, the theory held, that union members remain individual personalities and unite on the basis of their common interests (ibid.). The syndicalist principle, rather than the democratic one, should apply, as evidenced, among other things, by the granting of imperative mandates. With this anti-political orientation, it is “consequently impossible to draw a parallel between the struggle of the unions and participation in the dismal business of politics—let alone to confuse the two” (Pouget 2014b: 89). Pouget consequently attributes organizational difficulties within the unions to the presence of too much “democratism” and the persistence of “political errors,” and writes of the need to resist the “political virus” (ibid.: 90). This pursuit of autonomy from socialist parties and parliamentary democracy is based on the assumption that plurality and a potential commonality of interests exist simultaneously—a commonality that can only be established through the organization and action of the working class (see Cornelissen 2015b: 57). This process of aggregation and mediation was to take place within the trade unions, which serve to expand workers’ power (Pouget 2014c: 107f.). In the “Party of Labor,” everyone could be admitted, even if they “hold strange philosophical or political views […] [if they] believe, for example, in some god or in the state […]. [W]hat is disapproved of is the interference of the priest or the politician, both of whom have made speculating on the faith of others their life’s work. (Ibid.).
The syndicalist movement, therefore, unlike all other alliances: “Interests, not opinions. Thus, there is inevitably a shared perspective within their ranks” (ibid.). Pouget goes on to explain the resulting consequences: “This ability to neutralize individual differences through the consensus that necessarily arises from shared interests gives the Labor Party an advantage in terms of vitality and fighting spirit and protects it from the shortcomings that plague political parties” (ibid.: 108), since they do not aim to engage in politics. It should be noted that this strategic argument is (often unconsciously) linked to specific ideological and worldview-based convictions, which are linked to debates about what anarchism actually is.[3] What is crucial is that within socialist groups, essential anarchist principles such as decentralization, voluntarism, and autonomy would continue to exist and be practiced (Cornelissen 2015b: 56f.; see Cornelissen 2015c: 70). The advocacy for revolutionary groups illustrates a turn toward the political dimension, whereby Christiaan Cornelissen rejects the view that syndicalism “is self-sufficient.” Syndicalism is decidedly opposed to political parties, yet it collaborates with other movements—such as the cooperative movement—that are not formed on the basis of converging economic interests (Cornelissen 2015c: 80f.). The proletarian standpoint is also evident in syndicalism in that it by no means advocates for the “abolition of factories,” as Werner Sombart claims. Rather, the “struggle against the machine” is “wage laborer’s standpoint.” After all, this struggle is not solely or primarily about higher wages, but rather about the abolition of wage labor and better living conditions in general (ibid.: 73; cf. Marcks 2018a, Mueller 2022).
In their historical account, Schmidt and van der Walt emphasized that the “broad anarchist tradition”—which was largely syndicalist in orientation—had always referred not only to the working class but also to the peasantry (Schmidt and van der Walt 2009: 6, 15f.). The category of class should not be misunderstood as
“crude workerism that fetishizes male factory workers in heavy boots and hard hats. “The working class and peasantry are understood in expansive terms: the working class includes all wage workers who lack control over their work, whether employed in agriculture, industry, or services, including casual and informal workers as well as their families and the unemployed; the peasantry includes all small farmers who are subject to the control and exploitation of other classes, including sharecroppers and labor tenants” (ibid.: 7).

Accordingly, contemporary conceptualizations such as “class struggle anarchism” would also be nonsensical, insofar as they suggest that these are variants of anarchism. However, a class-struggle approach is inherent in anarchism per se. An important question remains: how can syndicalism address those proletarian classes that exist outside of wage labor (ibid.: 181)?
The secession of the autonomous labor union movement is not based on dogmatic political abstention, but on historical experiences. Following the French revolution, it could be observed how the working class organized itself autonomously (Pouget 2014a: 59f.). Through this, it was to attain self-awareness—that is, to understand its own position within the social hierarchy and societal constellation—and to empower itself in rebellion against the living conditions imposed upon it.[4] Cornelissen takes a slightly different view in this context. While modern anarchism “stands, in practice, for agitation as ‘direct action,’ as the ‘self-action’ of the masses—not only in open struggle against capitalists, but in every sphere of social life, in the struggle against state and clerical rule (e.g., as antimilitarism, anticlericalism), and in certain forms also in productive association, etc.” (Cornelissen 2015b: 53). But beyond that, its aspirations manifest themselves

“even in the political sphere, directed against all parties without distinction (street agitation against bad laws, mass demonstrations for or against certain political events, etc.). In the latter sphere, today’s anarchists proceed from the premise that all parliamentary parties—from the most rigid conservatives down to the radicals and social democrats—are all the more willing to abolish certain abuses or to implement minor improvements as concessions the more they are compelled to do so from the outside by the direct pressure of the masses. In this way, anarchist tactics in every sphere have gradually taken on the same character—that of striving and acting through the masses’ own power, and not through the actions of those in power” (Ibid.: 53f.).

Unlike Pouget, Cornelissen does not insist on rejecting “politics” in general. His text is dated 1908, while Pouget’s dates from 1903. It is therefore possible that during this period, the relationship to politics within anarcho-syndicalism shifted in general. It seems more likely that Cornelissen did indeed recognize the necessity of considering the political dimension, as was already evident above in his plea for revolutionary groups independent of trade unions. Yet even those groups should not rely on parliamentary politics. They should not confine themselves to the political arena but address their opponents through direct action. In this way, social progress would be won regardless of its legal codification, and the “class struggle would be brought to the forefront” (Cornelissen 2015d: 107).
The strategy of exerting pressure on the political establishment—and by no means rejecting the passage of “good laws”—almost resembles that of extra-parliamentary movements. However, it must be regarded as anti-parliamentary because the struggle for “good laws” is not the goal of anarchist syndicalism, and such laws are enacted as a reaction by the state to direct actions and self-organization from below. Therefore, syndicalists considered it “considered it their duty to combat the bad laws introduced in present-day society not in parliament, but outside of it, in free social life. They are also happy to lend their support to any good law, such as international legislation regarding the eight-hour workday, but they do so in daily life and through direct action in factories and workshops” (Cornelissen 2015g: 157). The difference from social movements that are entangled with and linked to party-political approaches is a gradual one and does not resolve the tension in dealing with politics—unlike a dogmatic stance of refusal. Interestingly, Cornelissen also has a different understanding of democracy than Pouget. A “democratic-syndicalist opposition” is making itself felt against the “brutally anti-democratic aspect” of bureaucratic, hierarchical leadership (in political parties as well as in the state itself) (Cornelissen 2015e: 112). In this way, syndicalism opposes social democracy, which undermines class power. The autonomous labor movement experienced a surge in popularity over a short period because it articulated the aversion of numerous workers to “politics” (ibid.: 114f.).
Rocker also defines anarchism in contrast to social democracy, which must be distinguished not only because of its “tactical method” but also as “fundamental opposites” with regard to the conception of humanity and the understanding of socialism (Rocker 1900). Rocker rejects parties that claim to “wage a political struggle against the bourgeoisie” (ibid.), even though the social democratic organizations undoubtedly possessed an enormous power base.“Thus, wherever large masses of the working class rallied to its cause, this party developed into a state within a state, and for many years it was able to prevent any other socialist tendency from emerging with systematic and unscrupulous ruthlessness” (ibid.). For Rocker, the quality of socialist organizations and the approach to conflicts in class society—which must not adopt state logic—are decisive, rather than membership numbers. It follows, therefore, that “while the conquest of political power by social democracy appears to be the most important task that must precede the realization of socialism, for anarchism the abolition of all political power is of decisive importance” (ibid., cf. Rocker 1919). In addition to parliamentarism, anarcho-syndicalists also reject nationalism and the drawing of borders, while advocating direct action and an international orientation, writes Rocker in the Declaration of Principles of Syndicalism (Rocker 1919). Secession should take place through the deliberate development of other forms of organization and action. It is interesting that Rocker thereby aims to attain a different political consciousness.[5] This represents a slight shift in his position, with which he responds to the accusation that anarchism is apolitical. On the contrary, his anti-political stance has direct political implications. In summary, the syndicalist premise is that a socialist economic order

“has its natural political complement directly within the workplaces, in the various branches of industrial and agricultural professions […] [and] finds its fullest expression in the council system. However, any external power over the councils and any domination or control of them by political parties or by certain groups of professional socialist politicians must be eliminated from the outset if the social reorganization is not to be disrupted from the very first step and led astray onto the path of state capitalism” (Rocker 1924b).

Rocker thus regards the council system here as an adequate form of political organization, which implies that it must be free from the dominance of parties or politicians (see Senft 2006: 40ff.). Former social democrats like Rocker realized that a void arises when the political dimension is ignored in the name of “pure” syndicalism. Rocker clearly refers to the political dimension of social struggles while insisting that politics should take place outside the state sphere. The goal of “fighting for the greatest conceivable political freedom of movement within today’s system” (Rocker 1924b) makes it clear that he envisions an ongoing process aimed at expanding autonomous spheres of action. Rocker emphasizes that freedom of assembly, the right to strike, the right to form coalitions, etc., were not voluntarily granted by the parliamentary state, but were won through struggle. Because governments must take the demands of the masses into account, this would mean

“indifferently surrendering these achievements, […] surrendering the results of all past revolutionary struggles, and carrying out the agenda of the reactionaries.” As the syndicalists wage the struggle against the business class day after day to improve the living conditions of the proletariat, they never forget for a moment that all these struggles must ultimately aim to put an end to wage slavery and rebuild society on the basis of libertarian socialism. And while they are constantly striving to wrest greater political freedom of movement and opportunities for their propaganda from the governments, they by no means hide the fact that these constant struggles against the political “pressure from governments is merely a step along the path toward increasingly displacing the state from its current positions, with the aim of finally eliminating it from all branches of economic, political, and social life” (ibid.).

This formulation also reflects the anarcho-syndicalist dual approach of simultaneously viewing everyday labor struggles through a social-revolutionary lens. In doing so, Rocker does not treat all political parties equally. They could have a certain value if they act purely as an opposition: “They are always at their best when they can act in a purely critical, i.e., purely negative manner, and this is always the case as long as they confront a despotic system as hopeless minorities and exert a corrosive effect through their agitation” (Rocker 1924c). Once in government, however, they become “slaves of the very same apparatus of power that they supposedly only wanted to conquer” (ibid.). Rocker’s approach can thus be seen as a plea for the possibility of politics free from domination (see Rocker 1947: 3, 30). He insists that anarcho-syndicalism is by no means apolitical and that its adherents

“have no interest in the political structure of the various countries and, consequently, no interest in day-to-day political struggles. This notion is entirely false and stems either from complete ignorance or a deliberate distortion of the facts. It is not the political struggle as such that fundamentally and tactically distinguishes anarcho-syndicalists from modern workers’ parties, but rather the form of the struggle and the goals it seeks to achieve” (ibid.: 29).

Anarcho-syndicalists do not lack “sympathy for political struggle in general” (ibid.: 30); rather, they have experienced it as the “weakest and most helpless form” of action available to workers. Furthermore, in bourgeois democracy, parliamentarism functions as a means of preserving the status quo, which is why class antagonism cannot be abolished through it (ibid.: 31).
That this view was widespread in anarchist syndicalism is also evident in the work of Diego Abad de Santillián. Among other things, he points out the absurdity of labeling the Second Spanish Republic as “socialist.” A “workers’ republic” cannot be created in parliament and introduced by decree. Rather, it can only be won by the workers themselves, outside the reach of the state (de Santillián 1986: 103f.). Therefore, private capitalism can only be overcome if state capitalism is not introduced as a supposed intermediate step, which is why democracy must be realized in concrete relationships and in tangible places (ibid.: 106). This requires a far-reaching organization of society along the lines of production sites and chains. For de Santillián, it is not a contradiction to conceive of politics outside the state. On the contrary, he argues for the rejection of the state on political grounds:

“Politically, we must of course reject the dominance of a committee, a party, or a predetermined direction. This means we must also reject the state as an institution that demands obedience from everyone—whether they consent to it or not. Without rejecting this state and the laws it dictates, there can be no true revolution and no social prosperity” (de Santillian 1986: 143).

In this, he agrees with Malatesta, who defines “political struggle […] as the struggle against the government” (Malatesta 2017: 242). This is particularly evident in the course of the Russian Revolution, in which

“[t]he state’s policies […] destroyed socialism […] [and Russia] became an ideal model for bureaucrats […] [and an] imperialist power among other powers, […] which has as little to do with socialism and the ideals of the proletariat as any other state does. This development may surprise some, but not us, for we have consistently pointed out this danger through our criticism. Once again, history confirms our views. The policies of the state are as incompatible with socialism as water is with fire. If one prevails, the other is defeated, and vice versa. Socialism can only be created if, at the same time, the state is destroyed and institutions of the people are established that take direct control over production and distribution” (de Santillian 1986: 149, cf. Cornelissen 2015g: 155).

The CNT’s program, as adopted at the 1936 Zaragoza Congress—during the onset of the social revolution—also states:

“We must all bear in mind that it would be absurd to attempt to construct the society of the future with mathematical precision, for there is often a veritable chasm between theory and practice. Therefore, let us not fall into the error of politicians who present definitive solutions to all problems—solutions that then collapse with a crash in practice. Politicians fail because, without taking into account the development of human life itself, they believe that a single method can apply for all time” (Framework Program 1986: 169).

To the adherents of historical anarcho-syndicalism, what they associated with politics seemed deeply suspect and alien.
In this vein, Schmidt and van der Walt also note: “Since its emergence, socialism has been divided into two main tendencies: libertarian socialism, which rejects the state and hierarchy more generally; and political socialism” (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 6). At the same time, they view the question of how anarcho-syndicalists deal with the political dimension as a key debate. The issue at hand is “whether anarchists and syndicalists need political groups dedicated to promoting the ideas of the broad anarchist tradition, and if so, what form such groups should take” (ibid.: 22). Accordingly, most anarchists advocated an organizational dualism between popular mass labor union organizations and ideologically committed political groups. In contrast, there was a faction that argued for a unity of the economic and political dimensions within the autonomous labor union movement. For example, in the preamble to the 1937 program of the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World: “‘The IWW is not anti-political. Nor is it non-political. It is ultra-political’” (quoted in: Ibid.: 141).[6]
Based on their research, the two authors therefore conclude that syndicalism is “profoundly political, and takes the state very seriously indeed. Taken to its logical conclusion […], all mass anarchism amounts to a project of taking power in society and creating a coordinated system of stateless governance; this is especially true of syndicalism” (ibid.: 203). There are various concepts and terms for the system of “stateless governance,” all of which ultimately trace back to the fundamental idea of federal self-governance. Experience confirmed what astute observers such as Malatesta (2014: 150–161) had critically pointed out: The labor movement, in and of itself, is not immune to bureaucracy, mere advocacy of interests, and reformism. In other words, its social-revolutionary orientation did not arise eo ipso, but had to be advanced by ideologically committed political activists.[7] This was also archetypically reflected in the practical relationship between the syndicalist Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) and the anarchist Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI). In the tension between anti-politics and politics, Schmidt and van der Walt (2009: 244) argue in favor of politics.
Starting from a more direct examination of the understanding of politics in anarchist syndicalism, it is worth taking a closer look at the pursuit of autonomy, which must be understood as a continuous process rooted in a history from below. They accused Marxists of adopting bourgeois historiography—and thus a bourgeois understanding of revolution—with a “Jacobin” orientation in its Leninist manifestations (Kropotkin 1982, cf. Rocker 2012). Pouget describes the long process of achieving autonomy as follows:

“Throughout the 19th century, the proletariat strove to free itself in its struggle from the purely political approach of the bourgeois parties. This required considerable effort, since the bourgeoisie—which depends on the proletariat’s consent or tolerance to govern unhindered—not only fought against and massacred the proletariat whenever it rose up against its exploiters, but tried to make him compliant through clever education, in order to simultaneously dissuade him from engaging with economic issues and to instill in him the illusion of democratism” (Pouget 2014a: 54f.).

The starting point is the historical experience of the bourgeois reaction against the autonomous actions of the labor movement, which the bourgeoisie countered even under the guise of democracy (Pouget 2014a: 55; see also Cornelissen 2015c: 90f.). At the same time, self-organization from below gained strength and, through its relative autonomy, exerted pressure on government policy, as Pouget (2014c: 125–128) and Cornelissen (2015c: 65, Cornelissen 2015a: 39ff.) demonstrate at several trade union and anarchist congresses between 1888 and 1907. The idea of autonomy had been deliberately introduced into the labor movement by those anarchists who were dissatisfied with the dogmatic disputes within the anarchist political scene. Many of them went on to assume leadership roles in the unions (Pouget 2014a: 52). The emergence of anarcho-syndicalism can thus be understood as a fusion of pure trade unionists, disillusioned party socialists, and pragmatic anarchists (Cornelissen 2015c: 66), whereby the pursuit of autonomy in this specific constellation exerted a kind of magnetic pull. Cornelissen explains that trade-union anti-statism should be about principle, not dogma; this becomes clear in Cornelissen’s writing, where he notes that, much like the Christian commandments, it is about a tendency, “as a striving in a certain direction” (Cornelissen 2015c: 77). This statement is surprising in that—similar to Sorel’s Myth (1908)—it emphasizes and reveals the function of the utopia of a society free from domination as a source of inspiration for radical and autonomous social movements, enabling them to take very concrete steps. This also concerns the quality of organizations and actions, rather than, for example, focusing solely on membership numbers and financial resources, as German union leaders are said to do (Cornelissen 2015e: 116f.). Syndicalist efforts toward autonomy thus constitute a specific strategy that emphasizes the importance of self-organized groups which generate alternative concepts, ideas, practices, forms of organization, etc.—a phenomenon that can also be observed historically in other social movements (Cornelissen 2015g: 156).
This, in turn, reveals an ambivalence toward politics, which arises precisely from the distance to the ruling order and (organized) autonomy. According to Rocker, the trade unionists realized “that participation in the politics of nation-states did not bring the labor movement one bit closer to socialism, but had, to a large extent, helped to destroy the belief in the necessity of constructive socialist activities. But what is worst of all: it robbed people of their initiative by making them believe that salvation always comes from above” (Rocker 1947: 24). Their emancipation, therefore, can only come about through the proletarian classes themselves, as van der Walt and Schmidt also write. Social movements should represent a genuine counterforce and counterculture to the ruling class, confront the state, and ultimately replace it (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 7, 139).

3.4.2 STRIKES AND DIRECT ACTION TO EMPOWER THE WORKING CLASS

As already mentioned, specific forms of revolutionary everyday struggles were developed within anarchist syndicalism. Pouget emphasizes that reform and revolution must not be pitted against one another; in the syndicalist unions, both come together and thus shape the understanding of social revolution (Pouget 2014c: 96). The same applies to attempts to contain unions through legal frameworks and the association system.

“Yet the fact that the unions view the ‘blessings’ the government wishes to bestow upon them with due suspicion does not in any way mean that they reject the struggle for limited improvements. But these improvements must be real. That is why they prefer not to accept them as a gift of mercy from those in power, but to fight for them themselves through direct action. If, as sometimes happens, the demanded improvement depends on a change in the law, the unions will attempt to force it through by exerting external pressure on the government, not by sending representatives to parliament to act in this regard […]” (Ibid.: 97).

The effectiveness of this strategy, which was developed in large part by anarchists, subsequently led to a renewal of the anarchist scene: Thus, “modern anarchists advocate all means that fall under the term ‘direct action’: strikes, boycotts, systematic obstruction […], sabotage. “But the example set by the revolutionary unions could not help but have a lasting impact on the revolutionary groups as well” (Cornelissen 2015b: 53). The actual developments within the social-revolutionary unions overwhelmed anarchist theory, which, in the assessment of the syndicalists, was implemented on a massive scale in practice. This, however, presupposes maintaining the revolutionary course, which is why Cornelissen, among others, opposes the establishment of socialist collective enterprises that could compete with capitalist firms only in individual sectors. What is needed, he argues, is the syndicalist struggle within these enterprises, which should ultimately lead to their takeover (Cornelissen 2015c: 81f., see Cornelissen 2015g: 158f.). Thus, revolutionary syndicalism positions itself between social-democratic reformism and the often marginal and exclusive groups of anarchists, who frequently stood “outside of real life” (Cornelissen 2015g: 152). In this sense, anarcho-syndicalism can be understood as a socialist, anti-authoritarian, and social-revolutionary mass movement. It thereby resolves the contradiction that a majority of the socialist movement advocates for autonomy and self-empowerment, while a large portion has simultaneously internalized Marxist theories (ibid.: 153). In essence, there had previously been a lack of a social-revolutionary theory that draws from real social movements and flows back into them. In this regard, it is important to point out “that the critique of the revolutionary syndicalists today does not stop at the actions of the Social Democrats and the reformist unions, but is equally directed against the ‘Bolsheviks’ and their ‘state communism’ which leads to ‘state socialism’ or ‘state capitalism’” (ibid.: 154).

Cornelissen places particular emphasis on questions regarding “an organizationally structured, constructive activity” (Cornelissen 2015i: 195); in other words, he believes that the focus on propaganda over the past 40 years has not been productive, since workers find it “uninteresting.” Rather, they would be interested in what anarchism and syndicalism stand for and what “positive organizational and practical work [they] can do” (ibid.: 196). The core element of this should be the takeover of industry through self-management, which would also apply to other social institutions (ibid.: 197; cf. Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 136, Rocker 1947: 6). In this context, Rocker emphasizes once again that the “claim that the state must remain in existence until society is no longer divided into hostile classes […] appears, in light of all historical experience, like a bad joke” (ibid.: 7). This, however, also raises the question of how leadership could be exercised, for it is not enough—as Malatesta, for example, argues—to say that anarchists do not want to lead anyone (Cornelissen 2015i: 201). Marcks therefore argues, “Great changes occur only at the culmination of many small processes that must be undergone to reorganize a complex society. In this sense, there are ‘no shortcuts’ on the path to a more social world” (Marcks 2019).
According to Schmidt and van der Walt, this approach reflects two main concerns of “mass anarchism,” within which syndicalism is the largest strand: First, that immediate improvements in the living conditions of the proletarian classes would contribute to their organization and their self-confidence in their abilities; and second, that the unions could thereby assume a leading role in revolutionary struggles while simultaneously embodying the seeds of the new society (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 134). It is understandable that this position stands in contrast to that of insurrectionary anarchism with its maximalist aspirations (ibid.: 138). Reforms, however, should be won in order to move forward. This, on the one hand, refutes the Marxist claim that syndicalism is reduced to economism and, on the other hand, counters the insurrectionists’ assertion that unions cannot be revolutionary (ibid.: 202).
Building on the anarcho-syndicalist understanding of social revolution, its implementation through direct action and self-organization can be discussed as the practiced politics of autonomy. After all, the associated practices and principles had already formed the basis of the resolutions of the First International. The syndicalist movement continues these without becoming politically ossified or entangled in ideological turf wars (Pouget 2014b: 93f.). According to its original anarcho-syndicalist understanding, direct action means that

“The working class, in its constant struggle against the existing order, expects nothing from outsiders, from powers or forces external to itself, but rather creates its own conditions for struggle and draws its means of action from within itself. This means that, from now on, the producer rises up against today’s society, which recognizes only the citizen. And that this producer, recognizing that every form of social coexistence is based on its respective system of production, attempts to directly attack the capitalist mode of production in order to transform it, eliminate the entrepreneur, and thereby achieve sovereignty in the workplace—the essential prerequisite for the enjoyment of real freedom” (Pouget 2014d: 137, see Cornelissen 2015e: 110).

According to Pouget, direct action is about the working class taking the initiative while maintaining its independence. This attacks the principle of authority, and thus direct action reveals itself to be “the authentic embodiment of the principle of freedom, its realization among the masses: no longer through abstract, vague, and unclear formulas, but through clear and practical concepts that generate the fighting spirit that is the order of the day. This destroys the spirit of submission and compliance that paralyzes individuals and turns them into willing slaves, and fosters the spirit of revolt that inspires human societies” (ibid.: 136f., cf. Cornelissen 2015d: 94). In any case, direct action is “the normal mode of operation of the syndicates, their essential characteristic” (Pouget 2014d: 137)—the labor struggle in its concentrated “pure form,” without “admixtures” and “compromises with capitalism, without the flirtations with the bosses of which the apologists for ‘social peace’ dream, without ties to the government, without the involvement of ‘mediators’ in the debate” (ibid.: 140).
Understood in the context of syndicalism, Cornelissen adopts an almost extra-parliamentary perspective when he further writes that, of course, “the use of direct action to influence government bodies and to support good laws or combat bad ones is not ruled out. But even here, it remains action in real life and not in parliament, and manifests itself as pressure on all political parties without distinction” (Cornelissen 2015c: 86). Instead of political representation and union representation, direct action should be used to address and promote workers’ autonomy. In fact, the tactics and methods of direct action would not be tied to a trade union theory but would simply arise as byproducts of labor struggles (Cornelissen 2015e: 122)—which is also why they are difficult to grasp. With regard to forms of action as well as self-organization, practical solutions—the “least[est] means”—will prevail (Cornelissen 2015f: 139). Through this, the skills necessary for taking over the means of production would already be acquired, and workers’ control of these means would ensure far better production conditions than, for example, imposed Taylorism (Cornelissen 2015h: 180). The strategy of self-organization differs from the political dimension, but the following statement should be understood as suggesting that the former could influence the latter: “In the political sphere, the libertarian communists and anarchists will certainly not be able to achieve much of significance. Nevertheless, they should uphold the principles of freedom, autonomy, and federalism here as well” (Cornelissen 2015i: 204, cf. Peiró 1986: 40ff.). Pursuing this insight further, Marcks sees an implicit syndicalist approach in more recent left-wing theories of transformation—which address “embryonic forms,” “prefigurative politics,” and “modes of relation” (→ 5.4.2)—each of which is intended to be constructed in opposition to the state-capitalist social form. Thus, he even asserts that “the ‘Left’ is therefore, by definition, undergoing a shift toward syndicalism without making this explicit” (Marcks 2018a). He understands a “set” of syndicalist forms of organization and practices as “a constructive social technique capable of strategically mediating between reality and utopia” (ibid.: 3). Syndicalist forms of direct action and self-organization should therefore be understood as a strategic “interaction with reality aimed at agency” (Marcks 2019), which expands the scope for action. Unfortunately, the “left-wing scene’s” understanding of transformation often remains “a magical one, in which agency is presented as a mystery” (ibid.). To enable self-organization, Marcks further argues that it is necessary to “distance oneself from the Marxist dogma of trade union unity and advocate for alternative unions. For hardly anyone would claim that the established unions, with their hierarchical central apparatuses, could serve as embryonic forms of an egalitarian-socialist society” (Marcks 2018a). Autonomous unions are a “suitable breeding ground” for such transformative efforts, insofar as they address concrete interests and are ideologically “less prescriptive” than volatile political groups (ibid.). This potentially “successful transformative grassroots organizing” serves to mobilize and empower people to win struggles and enable a “counter-society” with genuine counter-power—one that is not a niche project but a mass movement (Marcks 2018b). This leads Marcks to a course of action marked by contradictions that can be described as paradoxical. The goal is not to “force utopia into reality, but rather to arrive at a new one through engagement with reality. The syndicalist revolt is therefore relative; it focuses on current possibilities […]. It does not shy away from contradictions, but works with them—in order to overcome them” (ibid.). This could be achieved through a strategic “meso-politics” that connects different levels and, building on trade union organizations, develops tangible and communicable visions of transformation (ibid.). According to Schmidt and van der Walt, this is what “mass anarchism” strives for (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 21). The discussion of direct action and self-organization leads back to that of the understanding of politics. In this quotation, the contrast between “direct” versus “political” action. Instead of the latter, one could speak of “political struggles” that do not refer to the state (ibid.: 138).
The autonomous organizational form of the syndicalist union aims to empower and mobilize its members to wage class struggles through direct action. Coupled with the claim to be both a “struggle organization” and the “nucleus of the new society,” great importance is attached to raising the consciousness and shaping the agency of its supporters. In anarchist syndicalism, this specific form of education is conceived as directly linked to one’s own practice. This rejects the position that the path to a libertarian-socialist form of society can be achieved solely or primarily through education and enlightenment (Malatesta 2014i: 205), even though it was necessary to eliminate “one’s own authoritarian upbringing” (Malatesta 2014a: 49) and the ignorance of the exploited and promote self-determination (Malatesta 2014h: 197). Pouget’s statement can be regarded as paradigmatic in this context:

“Direct action thus has an incomparable educational value: it teaches people how to think, decide, and act. It cultivates independence, fosters individuality, and encourages initiative, which it drives. And this abundance of vitality, this expansion of the ‘self,’ in no way contradicts the economic solidarity that unites workers, for it does not stand in the way of common interests but rather harmonizes and strengthens them […].
Direct action thus frees people from the stranglehold of passivity and lack of will […]. It teaches them to will, rather than limiting themselves to obedience, and to exercise their sovereignty, rather than ceding their share of it to a delegate. In this way, it reverses the fundamental social tendency, so that human energies, instead of being exhausted in wretched and depressing inactivity, find in righteous application the fertile ground they need for their continuous growth” (Pouget 2014d: 142f.).

Workers’ growing awareness of their own situation and the broader social context is a building block for their emancipation when viewed in conjunction with the practice of solidarity and revolt, which simultaneously counteract isolation. Ultimately, however, the real goal remains the socialization of wealth by the working class itself (Pouget 2014b: 79). Far from being merely a rebellious reflex, this is a strategic consideration (see Pouget 2014d: 138f.).
Rocker emphasizes that, unlike in Marxist social democracy, anarchism does not reduce people to their role as wage laborers in capitalist society, thereby linking ethical aspects with strategic and organizational ones: “The starting point of his reflections on the nature of society is the individual. Not the individual as an abstract, shadowy concept, detached from their social environment, but as a social being, connected to their fellow human beings through thousands of material, intellectual, and emotional relationships” (Rocker 1900). Accordingly, the development of class consciousness in anarcho-syndicalism is, by its very nature, to be understood not as the instrumental creation of a new collective identity, but as a voluntary association of self-empowering individuals. Rocker, too, supports the view that labor struggles themselves are

“the best school of education for workers, for the practical application and deepening of their social sensibilities and their personal initiative within the framework of mutual aid and solidarity-based cooperation. […] In this way, the organization for economic struggle becomes for him a lever in his ongoing struggle against the forces of exploitation and oppression and, at the same time, a bridge across which workers will pass from the hell of the capitalist state system into the realm of socialism and freedom” (Rocker 1924a).

To build a socialist society directly and from the bottom up, syndicalist unions are needed as spaces for preparation, experience, and the raising of consciousness. Schmidt and van der Walt refer to Rocker regarding the “educational impact” of unions, which is particularly important when—in opposition to the passivity fostered by the theory of impoverishment prevalent in social democracy—emphasis is placed on changing one’s own structures. Independent thinking, action, and class consciousness do not develop on their own, but rather from concrete experiences in the immediate lived world of those involved (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 183f.). This includes the importance of anarchist pedagogy, the effectiveness of which, of course, is difficult to measure. As part of education, the perspective should also be broadened beyond local labor struggles to encompass a pluralistic, networked, and transnational labor movement. For this reason, Cornelissen, for example, collected and compared data on the rights workers have won, the specific relationship between unions and employers, and the degree of union autonomy in various countries (Cornelissen 2015d: 93–108). Divergent conditions—for example, regarding social structure and the behavior of employers—must be specifically addressed in order to develop adequate strategies without thereby abandoning the transnational character of anarcho-syndicalism (Cornelissen 2015f: 138; see Schmidt and van der Walt 2009: 7, 170).

3.4.3 SELF-MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS

The social-revolutionary transformation strategy of anarcho-syndicalism aims to take over production and all social functions, which is to be carried out by the workers through self-management. This “industrial democracy,” as Cornelissen called it, stands in “sharp contrast to the authoritarian system of governance in production […]” (Cornelissen 2015c: 74). Building on the socialization of the means of production, the state, too, should be socialized (see Cantzen 1997: 90–95). To this end, it is necessary to counter false notions, such as those of “miraculous catastrophes,” the supposed “iron law of wages,” and the “theory of impoverishment.” Pouget considers the notion that the collapse of the state-capitalist social system would occur on its own to be a fundamental misjudgment of the (alleged) laws governing capitalist development. This assumption, he argues, leads to passively waiting for a revolution (Pouget 2015d: 147). In contrast, he again cites direct action as a self-driven and empowering form of action (ibid.: 140).
Cornelissen writes that the “collapse theory of the old Marxists is just as categorically refuted by facts as the theory of the disappearance of the middle classes and the growing impoverishment of the masses” (Cornelissen 2015f: 140). Rather, capitalism would collapse or fall into crisis as a consequence of social development—and, within that, of labor struggles as well, one might add.[8] Thus, acute crises seem “inevitable and will likely, in and of themselves, accelerate the development of a society dominated by capitalism into a different society of a socialist or communist nature. It would, however, be wrong to seek to set these acute crises and inevitable catastrophes against general social development” (ibid.: 143). Instead of believing that class antagonism would automatically continue to intensify, the syndicalists would want to “make history themselves.” Cornelissen counters the accusation that this amounts to “voluntarism” by arguing that appealing to the revolutionary will of the workers is necessary, since “enthusiasm” is not necessarily widespread among the working class (Cornelissen 2015c: 82). Pouget echoes this view: “[E]xcessive suffering is not a catalyst for revolt!” This means that every hard-won relief is an absolute prerequisite for the further organization of the working class. This is all the more true for those who live in social misery, are in a state of material and moral dependence, and are therefore unable to rebel. Instead, the confrontation with employers enhances the dignity and consciousness of the workers and must, of course, aim at the abolition of state capitalism as a whole (Pouget 2015d: 152ff.).
In response to the “so-called ‘iron law,’” Pouget argues that wage levels, working conditions, working hours, freedom of association, etc., do not follow an inevitable course of development but are rather a matter of the struggles waged over them (ibid.: 148). This, however, requires that state socialists, syndicalists, and anarchists fill the discourse on the workers’ takeover of industry with concrete ideas, rather than allowing it to remain a vague phrase. Ultimately, this happens “through hard experiences,” which also applies to “the powerful weapon of the general strike” (Cornelissen 2015e: 136). Rocker also writes that socialism cannot be achieved by following pseudo-scientific laws—that is, historical materialism. He further explains that capitalism and the state do not contain any seeds of socialism that could be brought to “maturity”—this, he argues, is a quasi-religious dogmatic belief. Recalling his formulation in a letter to Landauer, he writes:

“No, socialism will not come to us because it must come with the inevitability of a law of nature; it will come to us only when people muster the firm will and the necessary strength to bring it into reality. Not time, not economic conditions, but only our innermost insight, our will, can build the bridge that leads us from the world of wage slavery into the new territory of socialism” (Rocker 1900).

The task, then, would be to overcome “social democratic ideology,” which leads workers to the mistaken belief that they have nothing better to expect from present-day society (Rocker 1924a). Marcks points out that the notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat is also flawed because it assumes that “everything else would follow from the driving forces of history” (Marcks 2018b). Accordingly, he also criticizes what he sees as the widespread contemporary belief among vulgar anarchists, insurrectionists, and Marxists “in magical turns of history. […] [T]he idea that transformation can only be consciously shaped once the new society has developed in the ‘womb’ of the old [is] synonymous with spontaneism. Both negate the creative power of the present and place their trust in a quasi-divine power that will already set the course for the revolution” (ibid.).
In anarcho-syndicalist germ theory, the unfolding of a libertarian-socialist society is conceived on the basis of the organizational forms and relationships of existing unions: “The new social forces, which have developed slowly, bit by bit, under the old order—like the germ in the egg—then break through the shell of laws and customs. A new social life has suddenly emerged and is ready to blossom,” as Cornelissen (2015f: 142) puts it (cf. Pouget 2014a: 74). Peiró views three essential steps as prerequisites for the social revolution: First, an “organized force” is needed to appropriate and defend the means of production and land ownership; then the technical preparation for taking over production and administration; and finally, the preparation for a (coordinated) distribution system for the products (Peiró 1986: 43). He therefore calls for a return to factory and workshop committees, which would have more than just an administrative character but would serve to support the “economic machinery of revolutionary syndicalism” (ibid.: 44). The self-management of production is the ultimate goal. However, the “success of this task depends on the network of relationships that was established even before the revolution among the unions of the various industrial sectors and professions. The prior establishment of such a system of relationships of a pre-revolutionary character must be based on the principles of a social doctrine that serves as a guide and driving force when the revolution breaks out” (ibid.). The development of their own networks is therefore a crucial element for the syndicalist transformation. In this regard, Peiró sees himself in a dual role:

“We anarchists must, as far as possible, build our own world even within the capitalist world—but not on paper, through poetry, or in philosophical—high-flown—night work, but on the ground of practice, by inspiring confidence in our world of today and tomorrow. For the confidence we instill in the proletarian masses is directly related to the possibilities of forming an organized force that takes over and defends the land, all means of production and tools, consumption, transportation, and trade” (ibid.: 46).

However, the initial optimism and fighting spirit later gave way to pragmatism, if not outright resignation. This does not make Pouget’s view incorrect—that social change is inevitable to the extent that class consciousness, autonomy, and organizational capacity are expanded (Pouget 2014c: 116). In practice, however, the anarcho-syndicalist pursuit of autonomy proves to be significantly more complicated.
Cornelissen addresses a recurring gap in the theory of the syndicalist labor movement, namely the question of how the management of production should function in the context of the (concretely conceived and directly implemented) socialization of the means of production. In doing so, he counters the view that workers do not know how complex modern industrial production could be managed. In this context, the concept of self-management is not primarily about taking over the technical management of factories—after all, shareholders have just as little knowledge of it. Rather, it is particularly the capitalists’ ownership of the companies that must be abolished (Cornelissen 2015c: 79, cf. Cornelissen 2015f: 147). Since this is a long-term goal, Marcks advocates for adopting long-term strategies and focusing on small, incremental successes (Marcks 2018a). In his view, a deeper engagement with syndicalist theory and practice would help avoid the dead ends of current theories of transformation (ibid.). After all, the syndicalist theory of embryonic forms—which does not aim for a revolutionary rupture—would be entirely plausible, since it takes the “existing” as its starting point and thus “would counteract the crude notion held by some on the left that anything that does not always concern the whole would inevitably be swallowed up by the system” (Marcks 2018b). Nevertheless, “building the ‘new society within the shell of the old’ […] does not mean seeking out and expanding the new within the existing order, but rather constructing something new and finding points of connection within the existing order from which it can draw resources. […] It means acting from within the existing conditions without relying solely on them” (ibid.: 7).
Despite the emphasis on the day-to-day struggles of the labor movement, as has already been the abolition of class society remains the goal of anarcho-syndicalism, which distinguishes it from other labor movements (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 22). Thus, for Pouget at the dawn of the 20th century, the

“the social question is not a purely material problem. To be happy and content, the ‘daily bread’ is not enough for us; we also want to be free from all forms of coercion and domination. We want to be free, dependent on no one, and to relate to our fellow human beings only as equals, regardless of all diversity in abilities, knowledge, and roles. The goal, therefore, is to transform the structure of society in such a way that only one group, one class, remains: that of the producers. This decisive transformation can only be achieved on a communist basis […]” (Pouget 2015c: 115f).

The realization that this is a complex task has become increasingly widespread over the years, which is why Cornelissen emphasizes that the “problem and its solution” are distinct (Cornelissen 2015f: 139). It should be noted, among other things, “that ‘capitalism’ is by no means a uniform economic order and that, in reality, there are different strata of capitalists who, because of their immediate interests and despite their common origin, fight one another and may differ in terms of their relationships with producers and consumers” (ibid.). Thus, the development toward socialism and communism cannot be understood as a linear process (ibid.: 142), as evidenced by the fact that an increase in common ownership is predicted. A leveling out of the distribution of private property might represent a step in the right direction. What is decisive, however, is that “modern social life is dominated by the development of the large capitalist industries […] [and therefore] the decisive struggle for the universalization of prosperity and freedom must also be waged within them” (ibid.: 145). Realistically speaking, taking over companies is significantly more difficult than, for example, founding educational and welfare associations (ibid.: 146). Thus, the struggle within companies remains decisive; it can be waged either revolutionarily or through a “peaceful form of gradual penetration” (Cornelissen 2015g: 158), for which the capacity to strike represents the essential source of power for the organized working class. This could even enable direct union intervention in the management of capitalist enterprises (ibid.: 159), which, however, should be more than just a little more co-determination (ibid.: 167), but rather aim at the appropriation of economic power (ibid. 161f.). Schmidt and van der Walt further point out that there have been ongoing debates within syndicalism regarding the extent to which wage increases (etc.) should be viewed as an end in themselves or, rather, always as a means to achieving the revolution (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 137). In doing so, they raise the question of the system itself and argue that a global constellation based, as in the 21st century, on such extreme inequality and its consequences will one day be a thing of the past (ibid.: 10). Since neoliberalism was globally established as the sole capitalist model in the 1980s and 1990s, what is needed is the reshaping of popular and revolutionary class struggles (ibid.: 11).
For anarcho-syndicalists, regardless of their vehement emphasis on union organizing and leading labor struggles, the goal is a higher one. The social “upheaval”—which must be conceived primarily in economic terms—aims at a fundamental transformation of today’s “relationships between people—namely, those between wage laborers and capitalists, the ruled and the rulers” (Pouget 2014c: 118), in order to replace them with egalitarian and libertarian ones. In conjunction with the “methods of direct action,” the principle of autonomy, and solidarity, the “idea” of combating and replacing the entire system of domination arises from practical experience. Anarcho-syndicalists lived

“in the here and now, with the greatest possible readiness for struggle, and sacrifice neither the present for the future nor the future for the present. Thus, it follows from this ability to simultaneously meet the necessities of the moment and those of the future—and from the harmony between these two tasks that must be combined—that the ideal to which we aspire is thereby neither obscured nor neglected, but on the contrary becomes clearer, more precise, and more readily recognizable” (Pouget 2014d: 145).

Thus, the revolution is “a matter of everyday life.” This does not, however, involve a desire to return to earlier phases of capitalism, which Cornelissen considers reactionary (Cornelissen 2015f: 137). Rather, all “social revolutions that can arise in modern countries and have a deeper impact than mere political upheavals, […] can only be the result of ongoing economic transformations that have characterized social life in recent decades” (ibid.: 141f.). He describes these trends—which he views as strong forces toward the democratization of enterprises—as the “penetration of socialism,” evident, among other things, in the necessity of state social policy and in forms of worker self-organization (ibid.: 143f.), which is why he consequently advocates for the strengthening of works councils (Cornelissen 2015l: 128). Rocker confirms that political parties lack, for the

“social reorganization of the social organism no less than anything else […]. Social movements and new social formations are not brought about by state decrees and legal regulations imposed from above; they may develop from the very heart of the masses, from the free interplay of all the creative forces within the people, which are hindered in their natural unfolding and gradually stifled entirely by the routine of a government—no matter how revolutionary it may always appear—that is geared toward cookie-cutter work and dead mechanization” (Rocker 1924a).

This is illustrated by the example of Russia, where trade unions and councils were reduced to instruments of the state (ibid., cf. Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 25), leading Rocker to an extremely sober assessment of revolutionary possibilities. Social alternatives could therefore only be expanded through practical experiments, education about freedom and solidarity, and the defense of important achievements (Rocker 1928).
To return to the beginning of this section, we can once again quote Santillián, who asserts that “on the political level, we want to replace the principles of authority and their embodiment—the state and the machinery of oppression—with free agreement among social groups. On this issue, however, we anarchists are very isolated and will occupy a special position even during a victorious revolution” (Santillián 1986: 139, cf. Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 25). In doing so, he emphasizes an underlying ethical dimension that is inherent in anarcho-syndicalism. This is also evident in his emphasis on the necessity of establishing unity within the working class. This unity arises

“the general interest of all […] and [serves] to guarantee the freedom of the individual within the collective. “Our common basis for understanding is the recognition of our different characters, temperaments, and upbringings. We should also share a mutual understanding based on respect. Our common goal is: the abolition of capitalism and the totalitarian state, in order to help the revolution achieve victory” (ibid.: 144).

Burdened with this ethical weight, it becomes clear why anarchist syndicalism constantly finds itself in tension with
politics that are challenged through strikes, boycotts, sabotage, and other forms of struggle and practices (see Rocker 1924c).

3.4.4 ECONOMY AS AN ANTI-POLITICAL POINT OF REFERENCE FOR AUTONOMOUS UNIONS

In summary, it can be stated that the reference to the concept of politics—and, beyond that, the relationship to the political dimension—in anarchist syndicalism is mixed. Pouget’s vehement and forceful rejection of politics serves as the starting point for demonstrating that this tendency toward autonomy exhibits distinct anti-political traits. Even more clearly than in other tendencies, genuine anarcho-syndicalism contrasts politics with the economy as an anti-political sphere. If, at the same time, a social-revolutionary claim is to be upheld, this orientation ultimately leads to a void that must be addressed. Unlike Pouget, Cornelissen proceeds from the premise of the importance of political movements that coexist alongside syndicalism and are intended to interact with it within a libertarian communism, as advocated by Peiró and Santillán. Schmidt and van der Walt refer to this strategy as organizational dualism, which in the practice of social struggles rarely follows an orderly plan but rather arises from the differences and coordination among various groups.
To a certain extent, this reflects the contradictions that the autonomous labor movement has faced—and continues to face—in practice. This concerns, first and foremost, the de facto heterogeneity of the working class—both in terms of its political-economic positioning and its cultural and ideological positioning within society as a whole. Second, there have been experiences of political parties attempting to co-opt the autonomous labor movement. The organizational dualism of syndicalist unions and anarchist-communist groups is the first response to this. Here, platformism represents the most pronounced variant of a political organizational form that (in terms of the history of ideas) can still be considered anarchist. The second response is that “syndicalism is self-sufficient.” This entails, at the very least, the danger of trade union dogmatism and reductive economism. Rocker’s reflections outline a third possibility, according to which anarcho-syndicalists themselves occasionally resort to political means in the rather rare cases where these appear strategically sensible. The question of when political means should be used, however, remains open and is continually contested.
Cornelissen’s reflections highlight the gray area between extra-parliamentary political movements and autonomous social movements. Rocker, too, demonstrates an ambivalent relationship to politics, though he is far from a fundamentalist rejection of it. Nevertheless, this tension does not seem easily resolvable, as political issues repeatedly disrupt autonomous union activism and a critique of politics is reemerging within anarcho-syndicalism. Therefore, even for this anarchist tendency striving for autonomy, one can assume a paradoxical concept of politics.

Footnotes

[1] The confrontational calls for practical class struggle in anarchist syndicalism, its emergence from disillusionment with all previous political regimes, and the rejection of the politicization of the socialist movement exhibit some theoretical and many rhetorical elements of the “anti-politics” of “populist” anti-elitist protest movements—which de Saint-Victor (2015) denounced and from which he clearly distances himself. For “when the people know that they have nothing more to expect from a change in political power, then all that remains for them is to protest against all politicians without distinction” (ibid.: 27) (→ 2.3.2).

[2] I have since presented the anarchist understanding of politics, as discussed in subsection 3.4, in a less academic manner in the article “Anarch@-Syndicalism and (Anti-)Politics” (Eibisch 2022b).

[3] In direct contrast to the later account by Schmidt and van der Walt (2009: 9; 18f.; 41; 170; 241), Cornelissen, in his engagement with Eltzbacher’s study (1900), emphasizes the plurality of anarchism (Cornelissen 2015b: 46). Building on this, however, he criticizes the lack of clarity within anarchism and points out that Eltzbacher fails to recognize its further development in the form of anarcho-syndicalism, which, among other things, entails a near-total departure from the individualistic notion of “unrestricted autonomy of the individual.” With this “evolution of anarchism,” however, the self-determination of individuals is not restricted but rather preserved within the collective organization of labor interests (ibid.). These theoretical assumptions arise precisely from the practice and experiences of workers, who constitute the bulk of anarchism (ibid.: 48f.).

[4] From this perspective, Pouget opposes the philosophy of Rousseau, the “theorist of democratic servitude” (Pouget 2014a: 60), since the concept of social contracts is a bourgeois theory. In the spirit of Kropotkin, he argues against social Darwinism and in favor of the solidarity and sociability of all people. The “spirit of renunciation” preached in religions is equally at work in liberalism. Drawing on the anarchist understanding of social freedom, Pouget criticizes the state as a bad form of order that oppresses the masses and serves only a privileged minority. In this statement, the anarchist in Pouget is undoubtedly alive and well. Accordingly, he views citizenship and bourgeois democracy as an “illusory community” linked to the “superstition” of “popular sovereignty” and “fatherland” (ibid.: 65). The bourgeois revolution merely renovated the “facade of the state,” with democracy acting as a “stumbling block” to social progress. It can thus be said that the differentiation of politics as a social sphere—analogous to the separation of the modern state—must be understood in connection with the expansion of its bureaucracy and political parties.

[5] In this sense, Rocker called on his comrades in 1924 to be “active non-voters.” Anyone who refrains from voting out of a lack of awareness stands “in his or her mental attitude even lower than the voter” (Rocker 1924c). The person “who goes to the ballot box because he is guided by the sincere belief that the ballot is a means of creating better social conditions proves, at any rate, that he possesses social sensitivity and is willing to intervene in the course of events” (ibid.). This makes it clear that Rocker feels compelled, precisely because of widespread disillusionment with politics, to bring forgotten anarchist principles back into focus. Elections should be rejected not out of dogmatism, but on the basis of decades of experience with autonomous social movements (Rocker 1924c).

[6] One conflict in which this tension crystallized was the earlier split in the IWW between the Detroit faction led by Daniel De Leon and the Chicago faction led by James Connolly. The labor leader De Leon formed a syndicalist political party beginning in 1895. Although its representatives viewed parliamentary activity as secondary and elections as inconsequential, they thereby strayed from one of the fundamental principles of syndicalism, leading to a split in 1908 because the “Chicago IWW” explicitly opposed elections and removed all references to the political sphere (Schmidt/van der Walt 2009: 161f.). The French CGT, too, explicitly presented itself as “apolitical” or even “anti-political” after 1895—and thus saw itself in alignment with the anti-authoritarian wing within the First International (ibid.: 142f.). Van der Walt and Schmidt demonstrate that syndicalists did not reject political issues but rather saw them as subsumed within the revolutionary unions, wh ly they spoke out against “political action” (ibid.: 193f.).

[7] Pierre Monatte (1907/1972) takes the opposite position.

[8] Incidentally, this argument—and its elaboration below—anticipates a core theorem of the operaist movement, which emerged in Italy in the 1960s. The organized and conscious working class itself would actively shape history, to which companies would respond, for example, by restructuring production processes, adjusting working conditions, or setting wage levels (see Birkner/Foltin 2010: 19–24). Post-operaist theorists, such as Hardt and Negri or Holloway (2006), also emphasize this as a fundamental theoretical building block.