Anarchosyndicalism against fascism: a response to recent insinuations

Workers Solidarity Alliance was just having a similiar convo

Real quick on MS yapping on about "purist" anarcho-syndicalism being close to national tendencies I get the sense that is an attack as the platformists have always made on IWA or FORAista style anarcho-syndicalism. But since the authors of the exposes are so far from our milieu they surely wouldn't understand that.

Great article.

I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist myself (while supporting syndicalism as one anarchist strategy among several) but the kinds of attacks by so-called post-left anarchists on Anarchist News and other outlets in the wake of the Schmidt affair have made my blood boil. It's guilt-by-association nonsense.

It's a good point that syndicalism alone is a purely economic union-focused philosophy - able to be tied to socialism, nationalism, or even fascism - while anarcho-syndicalism is (and should be) inherently connected to an egalitarian and anti-hierarchical ethos which is in stark opposition to all forms of nationalism, racism, sexism, and queerphobia.

The only point I would emphasise which might come across as critical of anarcho-syndicalism (though it isn't intended as such) is that a lot of the more workerist/class-reductionist elements within the anarcho-syndicalist milieu can come across as somewhat dismissive of the egalitarian/inclusive ethics which are meant to guide social anarchist practice. By which I mean referring to a theoretically homogenous "working class" (singular) or proletariat with a common material interest and being somewhat dismissive of struggles around other trans-economic hierarchies like race, nationhood, gender, and sexuality. At worst dismissing even talking about these things as "identity politics".

Perhaps this unwillingness (only by some!) to incorporate concerns that go beyond class into a class struggle framework has unwittingly left the door open to those who see economic class struggle as reconcilable with masculinist, heterosexist, and indeed nationalist elements?

Perhaps this unwillingness (only by some!) to incorporate concerns that go beyond class into a class struggle framework has unwittingly left the door open to those who see economic class struggle as reconcilable with masculinist, heterosexist, and indeed nationalist elements?

Sadly, the answer to this (rhetorical) question is a big fat yes. I've experienced this in my former org and have read too many accounts from other orgs. And if we just consider the composition of most anarchist orgs (workerist or not), it is quite evident from the dominance of white heterosexual meales that we are most likely, even if unaware, a bit sexist, racist etc.

And great post Akai.

Quote:
Perhaps this unwillingness (only by some!) to incorporate concerns that go beyond class into a class struggle framework has unwittingly left the door open to those who see economic class struggle as reconcilable with masculinist, heterosexist, and indeed nationalist elements?

FWIW, I think anarchosyndicalist organizations which have always had decent stuff on LGBQT and racial liberation in their statements have had "attraction" problems and implementation problems as well. I can only speak of our experiance (workers solidarity alliance). Since our formation in 1984, we've had some good stuff in our "where we stand" document. I don't think we have been real succesful in attracting folks of color or large numbers from the lgbqt community. We made some small strides and steps, but not everything works out as hoped for. Obviously a different discussion.

First of all, salutations and thank you to Libcom.org for including me in valuable and critical discussions. I was encouraged by the scope and intelligence of akai's recent post about Chapter 5 of "About Schmidt." I want to express even greater gratitude for akai's contributions to this discussion. For me, the question is whether the word correlation can be applied in a negative context, as in "there is a correlation between two sides fighting against one another in a war" versus a lack of correlation, for example, between a hawk and a handsaw.

This miscommunication probably falls on me as a writer for not being more clear, and I apologize for whatever ambiguity. As to akai's article, I read through it virtually without criticism, gripped by the striking solidarity and powerful courage expressed throughout.

With regards to the Russian false-left, I thank akai for referring to my book. I was only in Russia briefly, for five months, studying in Moscow and working as a translator for the samizdat group, Chronicle of Human Rights. In that amount of time, my close friend, Muslim, was attacked on the streets in the Novoslobodskaya area of Moscow on two different occasions by National Bolshevik skinheads wearing the Strasserist Black Front insignia—a hammer and sword. Perhaps now it is easy to observe one of the many things that I'm forced to take personally regarding Schmidt's "Black Battlefront."

At any rate, I appreciate akai's work, and insight into these important issues both in Russia and in Poland. In the last few weeks, I've been told I'm anti-syndicalist, anti-platformist, and a green anarchist. In fact, I have held a red card for years, tried to join a platformist group this year (there were some quotas on membership, so it didn't work out), and have always taken a very critical approach to green anarchism. (As an aside, the only small critique I have about akai's article is the place where they doubt that one could say there's a correlation between ecology and fascism—there is a very real correlation, which you can check out in Ecofascism by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier).

At my current job as a canvasser for a local environmental NGO, I've participated in "shop-floor" organizing that led to increased participation of the canvass in management. Of course, canvassing and the general NGO industrial complex are two sides of the same exploitative labor conditions under capitalism, but I believe strongly in our current project stopping nestle from extracting the water from Mt Hood, and I also believe powerfully in the vital role played by syndicalists throughout the world in international collective liberation.

Before moving on to further detail, I would like to briefly add that i have also taken part in international struggles against free trade agreements along with comrades from South Korean, Latin American, and US-based syndicates with the Trade Justice group in NYC, as well as the pro-immigrant rights and indigenous solidarity movements on the US-Mexico border.

The underlying miscommunication can hopefully be clarified in three points:

1) Schmidt identifies nationalist and anarchist syndicalism as non-correlative, and then in the same breath says that a "post-revolutionary" state (implying a white nationalist Boerestaat) would approximate national syndicalism.

2) The contradiction here is breathtaking; Schmidt at once disassociates anarchist syndicalism from nationalist syndicalism, and then calls for an approximation of a national syndicalist Boerestaat.

3) My own point here is that if there is a correlation between anarchist and nationalist syndicalism it should be posited as a negative one—one of conflict and yes, even war—however, in Schmidt's estimation there is not only a correlation, but a *positive* one!

Why I say there might arguably be some sort of negative correlation (remember that the term correlation does not imply a positive relationship) is because, as in the case of the Portuguese National Syndicalists before and at the beginning of Salazar's reign, or for that matter former-anarchist Georges Valois who worked closely with Sorel and Maurras to develop the underpinnings of national socialism, numerous anarchists did change sides.

This is because, in my opinion, European nationalism was created as a way to destroy popular struggles for liberation. The term "nationalist socialism" was created by Maurice Barrès to funnel the proletariat into a class collaborationist "movement" on the basis of a mutual desire to destroy the republican system. It was this mutual animosity toward parliamentarism that brought Sorel and Maurras together, and thinkers like Arturo Labriola clearly described a nationalist syndicalism in which all state authority would broken down and be distributed among the syndicates. For this reason, many national syndicalists gave platitudes to anarchists and attempted to win them over. At the same time, anarchists like Malatesta were too smart for this kind of thing, created the Arditi del Popolo, and fought the fascists in the streets with great bravery and courage. While I disagree with his uncritical emphasis on the Enlightenment, I would recommend checking out Zeev Sternhell's The Birth of Fascist Ideology for a good history of the development of nationalist syndicalism and corporatism.

What this history shows, in my view, is that anarchist syndicalism can never be an "approximation" of national syndicalism, as Schmidt implies—particularly not in the form of white nationalism! At the same time, there is arguably a directly negative correlation between nationalist and anarchist syndicalism that has led to an unfortunate "crossing over between sides" (as seen in the Schmidt case), and a long and brutal class struggle against fascism.

Thank you again to Libcom.org for hosting this important discussion, and I am very grateful to akai as well for this critical article. We are all intellectuals in our own ways as we struggle together for a better world.

"we are all intellectuals in our own ways"

Thanks for that.

Frankly, this is an extremely weak essay. Primarily(but not exclusively) because it ignores the historical connections between syndicalism and fascism- actually it is totally devoid of historical references.

Any serious attempt to distance anarcho-syndicalism from nationalism and fascism must contend with the "crossover" which occurred, historically, between syndicalism and fascism(fascism proper, not national socialism, necessarily). The truth is that fascism was founded by anti-parliamentarist syndicalist who emphasized direct-action and general-strikism; anti-modernism and anti-rationalsim, anti-Marxism; and ultimately, the rejection of working class as a revolutionary subject in favor of a sort pf producerism and volkisch communitarianism around concepts like "the popular classes" or "the people". Guys like Sorel, D'Annunzio and Alceste De Ambris come to mind.

kingzog

Any serious attempt to distance anarcho-syndicalism from nationalism and fascism must contend with the "crossover" which occurred, historically, between syndicalism and fascism(fascism proper, not national socialism, necessarily). The truth is that fascism was founded by anti-parliamentarist syndicalist who emphasized direct-action and general-strikism; anti-modernism and anti-rationalsim, anti-Marxism; and ultimately, the rejection of working class as a revolutionary subject in favor of a sort pf producerism and volkisch communitarianism around concepts like "the popular classes" or "the people". Guys like Sorel, D'Annunzio and Alceste De Ambris come to mind.

Well, as the article points out syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism are not at all the same thing and their goals couldn't be more different. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "producerism" but certainly there was no widespread appeal to any type of volkishness among Anarcho-syndicalists as anarcho-syndicalists were internationalists and emphasized the solidarity of global proletariat regardless of national territorial boundaries, and to this end they formed transnational organizations such as the IWA, an internationalist Anarcho-syndicalist organization formed in the 1920's which still exists to this day. Thus the popular classes for Anarcho-syndicalists, as opposed to National-syndicalists, were not "the people" per se, but are instead the working-classes.

As for the accusations of anti-rationalism and anti-modernism these had nothing to do with Anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-syndicalist movements often went to great lengths to promote education among workers so they would be self-actualizing individuals who could make up their own minds about the pressing issues facing the workers without having to be dependent on intellectuals outside of the working-class to manage their movement. I think the idea that Anarcho-syndicalists, and by extension Anarchists, promote anti-intellectualism comes largely from sloppy journalism and from the baseless slanders of various hierarchical political factions perturbed over the idea that Anarcho-syndicalists promote that the workers should lead themselves as a class instead of blindly accepting the leadership of self-proclaimed revolutionary intellectuals.

You really should visit the Libcom library and actually read some of the works about Anarcho-syndicalism. Rudolph Rockers classic book on the subject is as good starting point as any.

My apologies for any sloppy grammar but I'm using a tablet and it's a real pain to write anything substantial with, and now it wants to freeze up on me.

Reid & Stephens

“I don’t think that there is any real correlation between anarchist syndicalism and national syndicalism,” Schmidt told us in our interview — a strange denial given that a number of origin voices within national syndicalism, including Mussolini, Valois, and De Ambris, either had been or were supporters of anarchism.

Valois, yes, the others I’ve seen no evidence for that claim (happy to be corrected).

Kingzog

Any serious attempt to distance anarcho-syndicalism from nationalism and fascism must contend with the "crossover" which occurred, historically, between syndicalism and fascism(fascism proper, not national socialism, necessarily). The truth is that fascism was founded by anti-parliamentarist syndicalist who emphasized direct-action and general-strikism; anti-modernism and anti-rationalsim, anti-Marxism; and ultimately, the rejection of working class as a revolutionary subject in favor of a sort pf producerism and volkisch communitarianism around concepts like "the popular classes" or "the people". Guys like Sorel, D'Annunzio and Alceste De Ambris come to mind.

“The truth”? Yet none of those “guys” were anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists – all were much more marxist-influenced syndicalists (see below). And Reid & Stephens’ use of Italian national anarchists as an example is more revealing than they may realise. The USI Italian syndicalist union had national-syndicalist entrants who tried to steer it towards pro-militarist and nationalist positions in WWI but they were successfully resisted by the mass of the USI which retained its anti-militarism and internationalism under a strong anarchist influence. De Ambris led his patriotic faction out of USI and merged with Mussolini’s group to form Fasci autonomi d'azione rivoluzionaria. Post-WWI; after fierce clashes with a rising fascist movement USI was outlawed by Mussolini in 1926.

"It is no coincidence that the strongest working-class resistance to Fascism was in . . . towns or cities in which there was quite a strong anarchist, syndicalist or anarcho-syndicalist tradition" (Tobias Abse,"The Rise of Fascism in an Industrial City", page 56, in Rethinking Italian Fascism)

Sorel was never an anarchist but much more a marxist (as anyone who cares to read him would see), he was at times both critical of and sympathetic to aspects of anarchism. He had a nationalist period before, late in life, enthusiastically supporting Lenin and the Bolshevik regime.

D'Annunzio was elected as a conservative to the Italian parliament in 1899. In 1900 he crossed the floor and stood for Mussolini’s socialist PSI, failing to get re-elected. He later embraced fascism.

Valois had been anarcho-syndicalist in his youth - after which he became national-syndicalist, fascist, later becoming a libertarian communist and dying in Belsen. (See; From Fascism to Libertarian Communism - George Valois Against the Third Republic - Allen Douglas)

Prior to his nationalist turn, De Ambris seems to have been always a non-anarchist revolutionary syndicalist who turned to fascism before becoming disillusioned with it; he’s described in 1913 at the London international syndicalist congress;

In the course of the sessions serious differences surfaced between those who, like the Italian delegate Alceste De Ambris, tried to soften the anti-statist and anti-capitalist slant of the proposed resolutions and avoid “splitting the working class” by creating a new trade union International; and adherents of a more consistently revolutionary line. https://libcom.org/library/chapter-3-revolutionary-syndicalism-anarchism

After an initial enthusiasm he became a syndicalist opponent of fascism;

The most famous revolutionary syndicalist opponent of fascism was Alceste De Ambris. N 1919 and 1920 he had been closely associated with Mussolini, but the attitude of the latter in the Fiume episode greatly disappointed him. Moreover, he had come to the conclusion that Mussolini was in the process of betraying the ideals of national syndicalism and that he was moving further and further to the right. It should be remembered that the “economistic” view of syndicalism held by De Ambris accepted nationalism only within the limits necessary to productionism. This view owed a great deal to the theories of Labriola and Leone and remained within the Mazzinian tradition of social justice and national identity. When fascism became openly antileftist and still more violent after 1920, other syndicalists such as Ugo Dalbi, Elio Laceria, Enzo Ferrari, and Ulisse Luchessi joined De Ambris in his opposition. These were the very people who had once believed that Fascist syndicalism had a positive effect, inasmuch as its labor component would be bound to cause a division between the socialistically minded and the reactionaries in the movement. In 1922, when fascism came to power, De Ambris and his group went into opposition. De Ambris finally went into exile.
(The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution By Zeev Sternhell, Mario Sznajder, Maia Asheri)

The same book describes the transition from Marxist-based revolutionary syndicalism to fascism;

...those ... group of intellectuals ... had long before distanced themselves from Marxist-socialist analysis, with its materialist implications. They had replaced the working class with the nation – a voluntaristic nation in which social change was entrusted to activist elites. They held that socialism had completely lost its revolutionary spirit and that materialism had succeeded only in poisoning the party and labor organizations. Olivetti explained how the replacement of the idea of class consciousness by an ethiconational vision was to be understood. In his “Manifesto dei Sindicalisti”, drafted in the first half of 1921, he declared: “The producer, in achieving his moral liberty and in accomplishing his whole duty, will realize the social revolution, which is above all a national revolution and a moral revolution.” Olivetti left no room for doubt about the relative importance of class problems and national problems. “The nation is above classes,” he declared, “and all considerations of class should give way before things of a national character.” ...

Mussolini was a marxist member of the socialist PSI, though with some early influence of anarchism via his father who had;

Been a member of Bakunin’s anarchist International in Italy in the 1870s ... [Mussolini junior] even translated ... into Italian ... two of Kroptkin’s major books... https://libcom.org/files/Mussolini,%20Sacco-Vanzetti%20and%20the%20Anarchists.pdf

The original emergence of Italian revolutionary syndicalism came from socialists (Labriola & co) within the PSI - there is a necessary distinction;

Italian revolutionary syndicalism should be distinguished from anarcho-syndicalism: the former, which arose as an effort to revise Marxism, had a profound influence on Mussolini's thought and provided early Fascism with some of its leading figures, including Edmondo Rossoni, Alceste De Ambris, and Angelo Olivetti; the latter, however, arose out of the Bakuninist tradition and was led by anarchists, such as Armando Borghi, who worked for anarchist goals through the syndicalist movement. https://libcom.org/files/Mussolini,%20Sacco-Vanzetti%20and%20the%20Anarchists.pdf

The USI split on the opposition of anti-parliamentary, anti-militarist anarchist principles to the nationalism and party orientation of the revolutionary syndicalists (who were soon to gravitate to fascism).

Of all those named by Reid & Stephens and Kingzog in support of a correlation between anarcho-syndicalism and national-anarchism and/or fascism only one, Valois, was ever actually an anarchist. There was much more marxist influence on syndicalists who became prominent fascists. The vast bulk of anarcho-syndicalists led the fight against fascism. Yet such misleading simplistic claims as those above are made. The claims made are no better than claiming that because some anarchists are influenced by reading Marx or have ever been engaged in struggles alongside marxists that they bear some responsibility for stalinism.

one of the first NSDAP branches outside Bavaria, the one in Dortmund-Mengedde was in 1922 founded by people who were in its majority former members of the FAUD, but they were neither representative for the FAUD, nor for the Nazis

Entdinglichung

one of the first NSDAP branches outside Bavaria, the one in Dortmund-Mengedde was in 1922 founded by people who were in its majority former members of the FAUD, but they were neither representative for the FAUD, nor for the Nazis

They left because?Just curious, not meant disrespectfully

Hi there,

Thanks for all the interesting and insightful comments. The issues around Proudhon and his "influence" on Valois and Sorel I find extremely sketchy. Proudhon during the Second Republic was actually in favor of involvement in the state on a progressive measure, and actually played the role of deputy. It was only when Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte took over that Proudhon abandoned involvement in the government. From Proudhon's final, uncompleted work, Sorel took an ultimate rejection of all parliamentarism forever, which kind of reduced his entire oeuvre and misconstrued the character of his philosophy. That's really a separate point, but I find it interesting.

With regards to national syndicalists who had switched over to or supported anarchism, I think the examples of Mussolini and De Ambris still hold. In his younger years, Mussolini translated a couple works by Kropotkin into Italian, wrote a defense of the Haymarket martyrs, and supported Gaetano Bresci. He also wrote a review of Kropotkin's work in which he puts forward his thesis, “It is necessary therefore, that as of today, the revolutionary minorities acquire the technical capacity to reorganize the economic production on a new basis of justice, the day that the capitalist landholdings will be expropriated. The suppression of private property, will achieve a new form of political organization. The State—the committee of defense of the interests of the propertied classes—will have no more reason to exist.”

De Ambris supported what he called the "destructive gesture of the anarchists," which was to him the revolutionary general strike. There was also Francesco Saverio Merlino who left anarchism to become a socialist and became the main influence of Panunzio. If you look into Ottavio Dinale's journal La demolizione, it's supposed to be an anarchist journal and there are numerous anarchist names featured alongside Marinetti and other Sorelians. Sternhell calls it "an anarchist journal with a revolutionary-syndicalist orientation," and Dinale would come into collaboration with Mussolini.

In Spain, there was Nicasio Alvarez de Sotomayor, who led a strike for the CNT before being expelled and joining Ladesema's national syndicalists.

Also in Portugal, Stanley Payne notes that people went from anarchist syndicalism to a national syndicalist-led coalition. Here's a link to the page.

I don't think that any of the above should be blown out of proportion as though fascism came from anarchism or anything like that. There's no sense in stretching the associations, when whatever correlations exist are built on co-optation and the relationship is one of hatred. The core aspect of the claim of "correlation" between anarchist syndicalism and national syndicalism here lies in Schmidt's views, not mine. Schmidt claims "no correlation" and then says there's not just a positive correlation, but an "approximation."

- sasha

syndicalist

Entdinglichung

one of the first NSDAP branches outside Bavaria, the one in Dortmund-Mengedde was in 1922 founded by people who were in its majority former members of the FAUD, but they were neither representative for the FAUD, nor for the Nazis

They left because?Just curious, not meant disrespectfully

people being radicalised through the period 1918/19, looking for something more radical, becoming disillusioned, then finding something "new" and "radical"... not all of them stayed very long in the Nazi party

akai

Hi,
l didn't know of the FAUD thing

it was a quite marginal event and none of them was a long-time FAUD/FVdG member, there is an article in German (Aufbruch in neue Zeiten : Anarchosyndikalisten und Nationalsozialisten in Mengede in der Frühphase der Weimarer Republik. by Müller, Andreas. In: Archiv für die Geschichte des Widerstands und der Arbeit Nr. 8 (1987), S. 121-154., republished as a booklet by a FAU branch around 2000) about it ... in general, there were relatively few Nazis with a background in the workers movement and even fewer high-profile cases (e.g. Sepp Oerter, Barthold Karwahne)

I was clear in my first post that the connection between fascism and anarcho-syndicalism was through syndicalism. AS is a fusion of anarchism and syndicalism, guys, come on.

For straight anarchism, I'd say there are quite a lot of localist tendencies which can manifest as nationalism. We see this in the politics of anarchists themselves. A lot of talk here has been about excluding nationalism from anarchism by stipulating a definition of anarchism which precludes nationalism or other features. While it may be technically correct, its a useless way to actually analyse and determine why there has been so much crossover and fusion between the two over the years.

This whole matter has certainly raised a lot of thorny questions ranging all the way from early 20th century history to present dynamics in the pitifully small (especially in North America) anarchist 'scene', through intellectual trends in Europe around the time of WW1 and ending up in the final circle of intellectual Hell, philosophy. It's a hard thing to comment on it all, and in some cases I have to admit great ignorance such as the nature of Portugal's 'fascism' (how 'fascist' as opposed to traditionalist authoritarianism was it actually ?) or lesser ignorance (the situation in Ukraine, Russia and especially Poland). Some things I feel more confident about.

First of all the relations of anarchism and fascism. The French contribution by people such as Sorel had a certain nature, a very confused nature that was later mirrored in fascism, especially in Mussolini. He went from relatively orthodox Marxism to 'revisionism'., to trying to give a 'theory' (which was equal parts social psychology and the typical bloodthirst of what used to be called 'déclassé intellectuals) to syndicalism, to collaboration with marginalized 'intellectuals' of the French far right to end up as a great admirer and apologist of Bolshevism. I wonder how long he was able to hold any one position. The 'trend' in French syndicalism that he represented was always marginal, or at least the circle of his fans was very small. The members of the French CGT were, on average, more concerned with day-to-day activities such as preparatory organization, strikes, cooperatives, etc.. The 'syndicalism' of Sorel appealed much more to intellectual fireflies who flitted about the light of the CGT.

No doubt the belief in the cleansing apocalypse of the 'rrrrevolution' carried on in a minor key amongst CGT members - in a Sunday-go-to-meeting way, and it bore its own bitter fruit post WW1 in the Communist takeover of the union, the Communists playing to a 'feeling' that valued Revolution and its illusions over any socialist or anarchist content in any future, or even present, society.

Sorel is only interesting in terms of his 'intellectual' theories - whatever they were at any given time. In this he bears a resemblance to the figure of Proudhon whom the French far right adopted, no doubt to the great distress of Proudhon's ghost, as some sort of forefather. I've only read 'Reflections on Violence' by Sorel, nothing else. As to Sorel the major impression I went away with, aside from a few simplistic assertions which could have been fully expressed in one paragraph, was that this was a confused babbler who decorated his intellectual Christmas Tree with thousands of ornaments of useless digressions.

I've read a lot more Proudhon, and I can see how anybody who wants to base their beliefs on 'Holy Writ' could find anything they might want in his long and contradictory career. There's a Proudhon for all seasons, and in my opinion that which is most valuable in him, his ideas that developed into mutualism, were lifted bodily from the practice of the French workers of his day. No doubt they took him as a 'revered icon', but I doubt that many French workers 'understood' him. I doubt that few people have understood him to this day. I doubt that he can be understood. The most telling sign of this was his trial in Bescançon concerning his views on property. He was acquitted because the jury came to the conclusion that they had no idea what he was talking about.

The question of Mussolini and Italian fascism is similar, and there was indeed an influence on this fascism from the extremely marginal circle of the French far right who attempted to appropriate syndicalism for their own uses. But that's another subject that I will hopefully return to tomorrow. For now it should be mentioned that Mussolini's father was a socialist and in no way an anarchist. The tendency to present politics in as dramatic a fashion as possible, with great admiration for violence of all sorts was common to both socialists and anarchists in Italy at that time, and Benito's father's admiration for the anarchists was based pretty much on this alone. The worship of violence, in fact, is pretty much the only thread aside from extreme nationalism that is common to all the varieties of fascism.

Let me elaborate a little more. A lot of political movements and ideologies have contradictions. A lot are born of syncreticism(combining things which are ostensibly at odds with one another). Fascism itself is syncretic. So of course it can appropriate other tendencies. The better question is why so many anarchists start out anarchist and then gravitate towards nationalism and sometimes fascism.

When it comes to anarcho-syndicalism, it shares theories and anecestors with syndicalism proper. Syndicalism proper had a major influence on fascism. Like I wrote earlier, fascism borrows a lot of elements from syndicalism that anarchism also borrows or shares. Direct action, anti-parliamentarism, general-strikism and sometimes a skepticism of enlightenment thought or even rationalism- like Nietzscheian philosophy for instance.

Quickly, one can see this makes it easier to crossover, especially if one has nationalistic tendencies in the form of being soft on national self determination in general.
There is also a lot of crossover with Maoism on that basis, bte. That dude from MAS comes to mind.

There is also the issue that general-strikism itself does not pose the question of the conquest of political power, which is always required. Anarchists think simply seizing production sidesteps political power. This is false. Crypto-fascism or outright fascism offers a solution to this which keeps the elements of a mass movement but which is also anti-marxist. So dissatisfied anarchists who turn nationalist might gravitate towards it once they realize the inadequacy of general-strikism without a strategy for taking power.

When it comes to anarcho-syndicalism, it shares theories and anecestors with syndicalism proper

Almost every theory has crossover with other theories, they grow out of and learn from each other for heaven's sake.

John Zerzan

What isn't happening is the Left. Historically, it has failed monumentally. What war, depression or ecocide did it ever prevent? The Left now exists mainly as a fading vehicle of protest in, say, the electoral circuses that fewer and fewer believe in anyway. It hasn't been a source of inspiration in many decades. It is dying out. The Left is in our way and needs to go.

This is a line from primitivist Zerzan's 2008 piece "The Left? No Thanks!" and could be lifted nearly word for word from any anarcho-syndicalist tract written in the last century. Now Zerzan also rejects anarcho-syndicalism, but clearly there's ideas which resonate even in his world, and doubtless reading a-s works has influenced some of his thinking even while he rejects other parts of it. This happens all the time, so it's utterly ludicrous to say any tendency particularly risks becoming another simply because you can pick out similar lines or trace links to old thinkers.

On the specific idea of anarcho-syndicalists becoming fascists, of course some will. There's fascists who become anti-fascists, Swappies who become Tories, people's views change over time depending on their material circumstances and interpretations of the world. Anarcho-syndicalism, generally, is less prone to that ime than most - I've seen people drift into leftist reformism (usually through frustration with a lack of progress) but very rarely towards active rightism.

Thanks for writing this article! Connecting anarcho-syndicalism with fascism is an insult to all the CNT comrades killed by General Franco. I doubt any other flavour of anarchism has done more to fight fascism, or lost more comrades to it.

Reid

Mussolini translated a couple works by Kropotkin into Italian, wrote a defense of the Haymarket martyrs, and supported Gaetano Bresci.

Lots of other marxists also supported the Haymarket martyrs, as did most of the international labour movement and many liberals – that’s entirely irrelevant. Bakunin translated the Communist Manifesto – but to make misleading statements on that basis that he ‘had been or was a supporter of marxism’ would be similarly ridiculous. Or to say that Marx ‘had been or was a supporter of anarchism’ because he had been in an organisation - the 1st International - with anarchists. That Mussolini & Ambris never joined anarchist groups or called themselves anarchists – but instead chose always membership and identification within a much more marxist-oriented arena makes clear the limits of any allegiance to anarchism.

Reid

De Ambris supported what he called the "destructive gesture of the anarchists," which was to him the revolutionary general strike.

That’s actually a quote from Marinetti (“il gesto distruttore dei libertarî”) in a very un-anarchist statement;

"We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman... We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all... utilitarian cowardice." (Marinetti, Futurist Manifesto 1909) http://www.academia.edu/1255766/Being_a_Posthuman_Human_Enhancement_in_Banks_Fiction

You’re probably confusing this with the Fascist Manifesto that Marinetti co-wrote with De Ambris in 1919. And all syndicalists, including non-anarchists like De Ambris, supported the tactic of the general strike and knew it wasn’t exclusively an anarchist tactic – so again, irrelevant.

The significance of the fact that anarchism, amongst other things, had some lesser influence on those who became fascists is being overstated; and they are stretching the ‘facts’ of that influence in, ironically, a similar way to how the Black Flame authors stretched their ‘facts’ on Italy; see - http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/books-italian-anarcho-syndicalism-05102010#comment-400771

Marxism, syndicalism and anarchism can all be shown to be part of the background of some who became national anarchists and fascists. (Bear in mind those discussed here are a handful of intellectuals rather than the millions(?) of anarcho-syndicalist workers of that time.) And in this case Marxism, via the PSI and revolutionary syndicalism, has had a bigger influence on those named who became fascists. Yet Kingzog mentions all influences on syndicalism except his favoured Marxism. But ‘any connection at all’ doesn’t mean “a correlation”. I don’t see any shared integral logic that suggests such a claim, but rather basic incompatibilities between anarchism’s principles of anti-statism and egalitarianism and national-anarchism and dictatorship. In the evolution of political theories just about any one thing can be shown to have some link with another; but mostly this line of ‘reasoning’ seems to be simplistic shallow claims at the service of the claimant’s ideological agenda rather than sincere attempt at clarity.

Just gonna chip in on the Mussolini was an anarchist thing too - at the time fascism started getting big, anarchism was really popular (hard to imagine now right?). How do we know people that dabbled in anarchism weren't just following the tide, attracted by an extreme but slightly popular idea?

I mean, Jack Straw was in CND. Does that mean there is a correlation between Pacifism and New Labour? Probably not.

The sort of "Marxism" the proto-fascist syndicalists favored was hardly Marxist. It rejected materialism and rationalism. It was a historic revisionism and in the end, they became anti-marxist(because this revision was untenable), rejected the working class as a revolutionary subject and sought to impose harmony between classes, rejecting class struggle.

And at any rate, syndicalism wasn't borne of Marxism, it was already incompatable on many levels. Whereas, anarchism and syndicalism are not incompatable.

Earlier, I mentioned localism and that it has a tendency to progress to nationalism. Federalism is a localist tendency. Famously, we find these ideas in Bakunin, who was of course, a pan-slavic nationalist.

zog

The sort of "Marxism" the proto-fascist syndicalists favored was hardly Marxist. It rejected materialism and rationalism. It was a historic revisionism and in the end, they became anti-marxist(because this revision was untenable), rejected the working class as a revolutionary subject and sought to impose harmony between classes, rejecting class struggle.

Then by your own logic theirs was also a “historic revisionism” of syndicalism and so contradicts your claims. But their original Marxism was the bog standard social democratic 2nd Int. variety. You’re confusing the later development of their ideas with their origins in the Marxist movement they undeniably came from. It doesn't suit your position to have a homogenous "Marxism" but it does to have a supposedly homogenous anarchism and syndicalism.

And at any rate, syndicalism wasn't borne of Marxism, it was already incompatable on many levels. Whereas, anarchism and syndicalism are not incompatable.

That’s a bit simplistic; some anarchists have always been critical of syndicalism. It’s true that syndicalism emerged partly in reaction to the parliamentary reformism of the dominant 2nd Int. social democracy – unsurprisingly, it therefore attracted some Marxists and socialists, like Sorel, Mussolini, De Ambris & co..

Earlier, I mentioned localism and that it has a tendency to progress to nationalism. Federalism is a localist tendency. Famously, we find these ideas in Bakunin, who was of course, a pan-slavic nationalist.

Bakunin had once been a pan-slavist long before he was an anarchist – so his progression was the opposite of what you claim, from nationalism to anti-statism and internationalism.

And at any rate, syndicalism wasn't borne of Marxism, it was already incompatable on many levels. Whereas, anarchism and syndicalism are not incompatable.

Some other Marxists of the time found some compatibility with it and got involved with the industrial unionist IWW and showed sympathy towards the syndicalist CNT, including some pretty good ones, eg, Mattick & Karl Korsch;

Most of his [Korsch’s] early writing, which he did in England, displays the influence of Fabianism and of the syndicalist and guild-socialist tendencies within the labour movement. His concern even then was with the practical activities of the movement rather than its theories. ... The Spanish Civil War and its partial transformation into an imperialist contest found Korsch siding with the anarcho-syndicalists and their short-lived attempts to collectivise social production and distribution. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1964/korsch.htm

Do they count as ‘real’ Marxists? Even the Bolsheviks tried to attract syndicalists to their RILU international union body.

Your convenient opinions are backed up by no more than wishful thinking. The fact remains that the “syndicalist proto-fascists” – including some you named earlier, in an attempt to pin the blame on anarchism - were actually from the camp of the dominant form of 2nd Int. Marxism of their time. It may not be a Marxism we like much but to say there’s more clear distance between that Marxism and your cherry-picked “ideal” Marxism than there is distance between anarchism and fascism is unconvincing.

How was sorelianism a revision of syndicalism in the same sense soreal rejected the materialism and rationalism at the heart of marxism Remariot? Syndicalism has little to say about those things, on the contrary its tactics, and its mostly a strategic/tactical position(from which we can infer some problematic philosophical underpinnings) can indeed fit right into sorelianism(which provides more of a philosophical basis).

Let me clarify, I'm not saying anarchism itself is a sort of crypto fascism. That's an absurd caricature of what I've said. What I have been saying is anarcho-syndicalism is a fusion of syndicalism, and there are nationalistic and proto-fascist tendencies within syndicalism. So its not surprising that anarchos who take a nationalistic turn(and I do think anarchism has some immenant problems which may lead to nationalism- namely, localism and federalism, but also a corelary of blood and Soil in the tendency to glorify pastoralism and primitivism) may keep their identifies as anarcho-syndicalists- perhaps syncreticize increasingly sorelianism theories of syndicalism into their politics.

Is it that hard to imagine?

I also think the councilists and communizationists suffer from these nationalistic tendencies. Let's not forget about Dauve's comrades who took a far right turn.

kingzog

The sort of "Marxism" the proto-fascist syndicalists favored was hardly Marxist. It rejected materialism and rationalism. It was a historic revisionism and in the end, they became anti-marxist(because this revision was untenable), rejected the working class as a revolutionary subject and sought to impose harmony between classes, rejecting class struggle.

The sort of "Marxism" the proto Marxist Karl Marx favoured was hardly Marxist. He rejected Materialism and rationalism on the Polish and Irish question to support nationalist movements.
The German SPD which came to dominate the Marxist international based its intellectual legitimacy on its members who knew Marx and where his most devout disciples, and they joined a Nationalist war for greater colonial territory...

Furthermore we see that all Communist organisations of every hue and stripe have a depressing tendency to ditch internationalism and organise through national organisations and branch, thus capitulating to a national(ist) consciousness.

And furthermore the Communists favoured tactic of centralism within its political structure, clearly mimicking the states tendency to centralise political power over a geographic territory in order to establish a nation state.

Clearly Marxism et al is infested with nationalism root and branch, and since Fascism is a more extreme version of Nationalism, this proves a positive correlation between the more extreme a communist group, the more fascistic it becomes.

Undoubtedly, nationalistic tendencies existed in Marxism of the SPD- Maoism and third worldism is another great example. In Marx's case tho, it made sense to support Irish and polish independence, just like it made sense to support Germany in the franco-prussian war- it was the right position from the point of the working class and ultimately good for internationalism. We can get into that, but I'll keep it short for now.

Problem with anarchist nationalism is it supports a blood and Soil corellary, often masked by localism, federalism, and the romantic valorization of pastoral life. These things run much deeper. Combine this with the naive lack of an approach to political power and its fertile ground for third positionism. Look at how the FORA was unable to deal with politics and fell into the arms of Peronism, for instance.

Problem with anarchist nationalism is it supports a blood and Soil corellary, often masked by localism, federalism, and the romantic valorization of pastoral life. These things run much deeper.

Examples being?...

kingzog

Undoubtedly, nationalistic tendencies existed in Marxism of the SPD- Maoism and third worldism is another great example. In Marx's case tho, it made sense to support Irish and polish independence, just like it made sense to support Germany in the franco-prussian. We can get into that, but I'll keep it short for now.

Problem with anarchist nationalism is it supports a blood and Soil corellary, often masked by localism, federalism, and the romantic valorization of pastoral life. These things run much deeper. Combine this with the naive lack of an approach to political power and its fertile ground for third positionism. Look at how the FORA was unable to deal with politics and fell into the arms of Peronism, for instance.

Ah I see so when people you like demonstrate things you've criticised its perfectly fine, when people you don't like do the same thing its cause for alarm.

Very `rational` of you.

Marx's basis for supporting Irish and Polish independence was not on the basis of nationalism. When third positionists support ethnic seperatism(explicitly in they're case), or petr Kropotkin, it is on that basis (nationalism) however.

So, no, its not the same. Do you have any idea why Marx supported Polish and Irish independence? Or why he sided with Germany in the Franco-Prussian war?

I would say the "blood and soil" comes mainly from strains of anarchism and ultra-leftism (communizationism, primarily) which are crypto-primitivist and pro-localist- or even "anarchy-in-one-country". These tendencies are pastoralist and localist- internationalism in that context is a bad joke.

I also think soc-dem type anarchists (George cicarillo-maher and z mag types) are prone to a third-worldism which is not fascist or third positionists, but closer to maosist third-worldism.

Ironically, anarcho-syndicalism, as it exists, is typically oppossed to all this, but its still a part of the anarchist family... Also, its prone to fallacies about oligarchy inevitably befalling from bureaucracy, which tends to, eventually, promote a structurelessnes tyranny.

Sorel was a big believer in the iron-law-of-oligarchy and he was very skeptical of political authority in any republican sense. He also believed in the power of the ideologically pure sect which conspires to influence and push the masses to revolt and yet also positions itself as the leader of the movement to abolish society during the great cataclysmic revolt.

Because Sorel didn't believe in formal, ostensibly republican political organization, or the need for a political formation to work for mass support, this leaves a vaccumm for demagoguery and strong men, who position themselves as ideologically infallible- by virtue of their charisma, the performance of their identity, and political shrewdness. These persons eventually come to exercise supreme leadership, isemi-formally, over a loosely structured(where, again, personalities rather than procedures and pluralistic argumentation prevail) organization.

One can see the evolution of the "il Duce" idea from this starting point as a solution to Sorelianisms practical shortcomings. Anarchism itself suffers from this false starting point just as much as Sorelianism. This is why the FORA fell into the arms of Peron and why the councilists failed to rise to the challenge of ascending to political power.

Damn, Kinzog I can see the stars in your eyes while reading these posts.

kingzog

Marx's basis for supporting Irish and Polish independence was not on the basis of nationalism. When third positionists support ethnic seperatism(explicitly in they're case), or petr Kropotkin, it is on that basis (nationalism) however.

So, no, its not the same. Do you have any idea why Marx supported Polish and Irish independence? Or why he sided with Germany in the Franco-Prussian war?

Oh dear resorting to italicisation are we? Why Marx supported them is irrelevant (though for the record I am well aware of his excuses), he supported Nationalist movements, therefore he supported Nationalism. The fact you can't explain the "difference" beyond baseless denials speaks volumes.

Third worldists and bolsheviks (groups you've previously admitted supported nationalism) supported independence struggles for their own reasons too, and yet curiously you aren't extending them the same courtesy. It's almost as if your letting emotions cloud your `rational thinking`.

No true Marxist, heh?

Well, this old nonsense has surfaced again! Luckily, it is covered in "An Anarchist FAQ":

A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations

Relevant bits...

First, the Italian Syndicalist movement was unusual in that a large section of it came from the Italian Socialist Party, that is they were Marxists. As David D. Roberts notes "In Italy, the syndicalist doctrine was more clearly the product of a group of intellectuals, operating within the Socialist party and seeking an alternative to reformism." They "explicitly denounced anarchism" and "insisted on a variety of Marxist orthodoxy." The "syndicalists genuinely desired -- and tried -- to work within the Marxist tradition." (The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism, p. 66, p. 72, p. 57 and p. 79)

This is the standard work on this subject -- and, ironically, the one those who seek to link anarcho-syndicalism to fascism often reference. In short, the few syndicalists who became fascists were Marxist-syndicalists. As for Mussolini, he was a leader of the Italian Socialist Party...

Second, the few syndicalists who became fascists where those who had become "national syndicalists" and supported the first world war. This was minority of the syndicalists in Italy if by syndicalists we mean members of the USI (the Italian Syndicalist Union). Roberts states that:

"The vast majority of the organised workers failed to respond to the syndicalists' appeals and continued to oppose [Italian] intervention [in the First World War], shunning what seemed to be a futile capitalist war. The syndicalists failed to convince even a majority within the USI . . . the majority opted for the neutralism of Armando Borghi, leader of the anarchists within the USI. Schism followed as De Ambris led the interventionist minority out of the confederation." (The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism, p. 113)

However, if we take "syndicalist" to mean some of the intellectuals and "leaders" of the pre-war movement, it was a case that the "leading syndicalists came out for intervention quickly and almost unanimously" (Roberts, Op. Cit., p. 106) after the First World War started -- but these were those Marxist-syndicalists mentioned above. In fact, it was the First World War which saw anarchists become dominant in the USI -- because they opposed the war from a class war and internationalist position.

Third, the anarchists and syndicalists where those who most consistently fought the fascists:

"It is no coincidence that the strongest working-class resistance to Fascism was in . . . towns or cities in which there was quite a strong anarchist, syndicalist or anarcho-syndicalist tradition." [Tobias Abse,"The Rise of Fascism in an Industrial City", pp. 52-81, Rethinking Italian Fascism, David Forgacs (ed.), p. 56]

Finally, may I also recommend my review-article: The irresistible correctness of anarchism

You’re really having to twist the facts to ‘prove’ the supposed superiority of your undefined Marxism – which doesn’t include the Marxists (eg, Sorel) you keep criticising to ‘prove’ the inferiority of anarchism. It would help if – rather than your repeated assertions backed up by nothing - you could show some evidence and quotes to back up your claims. Eg, where does Sorel make his claim for an elite governing body? Where is this “blood and soil” ideology in anarchism? Is it more or less present than in Marxism? I don’t have an ideological bias one way or other but your bias is so blatantly distorting that I’d like to question its basis.

Kingzog

Syndicalism ... can indeed fit right into sorelianism

Sorel’s ideas are not something syndicalism “can indeed fit right into” – as his ideas were largely an external response to, commentary and reflection on the emergence of a pre-existing syndicalism. Nor did he have much, if any, influence on an already-established syndicalist practice.

zog

Ironically, anarcho-syndicalism, as it exists, is typically oppossed to all this, but its still a part of the anarchist family...

Unlike your undefined cherry-picked Marxism which has conveniently disowned the close marxist relatives that don’t fit your convoluted argument. You're the biggest "revisionist" of the lot.

zog

Sorel ... believed in the power of the ideologically pure sect which conspires to influence and push the masses to revolt and yet also positions itself as the leader of the movement to abolish society during the great cataclysmic revolt.

Kingzog (and others who don’t seem to have read Sorel) regularly repeat that this elitist concept was present in Sorel. Kingzog, can you please point out exactly where it occurs in Reflections on Violence, his central and most influential work? I can’t find it – but can find plenty suggesting the opposite. As summarised by a recent editor of Sorel;

Syndicalism conceived the transmission of power not in terms of the replacement of one intellectual elite by another but as a process diffusing authority down into the workers’ own organizations. Those organizations,
unlike a system of political democracy replete with Rousseauian
baggage, provided a pattern of genuine and effective representation.
http://libcom.org/files/Sorel-Reflections-on-Violence-ed-Jennings.pdf

Direct quotes from Sorel’s RoV;

“The works of my friends have been treated with great contempt by
the socialists who mix in politics, but at the same time with much
sympathy by people who do not concern themselves with parlia-
mentary affairs. We cannot be suspected of seeking to carry on a
kind of intellectual industry and we protest every time that we are
confused with the Intellectuals who are the very people who make
the exploitation of thought their profession. The old stagers of
democracy cannot understand why so much trouble should be taken
unless one secretly aims at the leadership of the working class. How-
ever, we could not act in any other way.

The man who has constructed a utopia designed to make
humanity happy is inclined to look upon his invention as his own
personal property; he believes that no one is better placed than he
is to apply his system; he finds it quite unreasonable that his writ-
ings should not secure for him a post in government. But we, on
the contrary, have not invented anything at all, and even assert that
there is nothing to be invented: we have limited ourselves to defin-
ing the historical significance of the idea of the general strike; we
have tried to show that a new culture might spring from the struggle
of the revolutionary trade unions against the employers and the
State; our greatest claim to originality consists in having maintained
that the proletariat can emancipate itself without needing to seek
guidance from those members of the bourgeoisie who consider
themselves experts in matters of the intellect. We have thus been
led to regard as essential in contemporary affairs what had pre-
viously been seen as accessory: what is really educative for a revol-
utionary proletariat that is serving its apprenticeship in struggle. It
would be impossible for us to exercise any direct influence on such
a work of preparation.

We may play a useful role, but only if we limit ourselves to
attacking bourgeois thought in such a way as to put the proletariat
on guard against the invasion of ideas and morals from the hostile
class.”

[...] “In the mouths of these would-be representatives of the proletariat
all socialist formulas lose their real sense. The class struggle still
remains the great principle, but it must be subordinated to national
solidarity.

Internationalism is an article of faith about which the
most moderate declare themselves ready to take the most solemn
oaths; but patriotism also imposes sacred duties.

The emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves, as their newspapers tell us every day, but real emancipation consists in
voting for a professional politician, in securing for him the means
of obtaining a comfortable situation, in subjecting oneself to a
leader. In the end the State must disappear and they are very careful
not to dispute what Engels has written on the subject; but this
disappearance will take place only in a future so far distant that one
must prepare oneself for it by using the State, meanwhile, as a
means of allowing politicians to gorge themselves; and the best
means of bringing about the disappearance of the State consists in
strengthening temporarily the governmental machine. Gribouille,
who threw himself into the water in order to escape getting wet in
the rain, would not have reasoned otherwise. And so on and so on.”

[...] “A decisive step towards reform was made when those Marxists
who aspired to think for themselves began to study the syndicalist
movement; they discovered that ‘the genuine members of the
syndicates have more to teach us than they have to learn from us’.”

[...] “Too much stress cannot be laid on the fact that Marxism con-
demns every hypothesis about the future constructed by the utopi-
ans. Professor Brentano of Munich relates that in 1869 Marx wrote
to his friend Beesly (who had published an article on the future of
the working class) to say that up till then he had looked upon him
as the sole revolutionary Englishman and that henceforth he looked
upon him as a reactionary – for, he said, ‘whoever draws up a
programme for the future is a reactionary’. He considered that the proletariat had no need to take lessons from the learned inventors of solutions to social problems but simply to take up where capitalism left off.” [...]

“Experience gained in strikes leads us to a conception identical
with that of Marx. The workers who put down their tools do not
go to their employers with schemes for the better organization of
labour and do not offer them assistance in the management of their
business; in short, utopias have no place in economic conflicts.
Jaures and his friends are well aware that this is a very strong argu-
ment against their own ideas of the way in which socialism is to be
realized:they would like even now to have fragments of the indus-
trial programmes manufactured by learned sociologists and accepted
by the workers introduced into strike negotiations; they would like
to see the creation of what they call industrial parliamentarism
which, exactly as in the case of political parliamentarism, would imply
masses who are led and demagogues that show them the way. This
would be the apprentice stage of their sham socialism and might
begin at once.

With the general strike all these fine things disappear; the revol-
ution appears as a revolt, pure and simple, and no place is reserved
for sociologists, for fashionable people who are in favour of social
reforms, and for Intellectuals who have embraced the profession of
thinking for the proletariat”.
http://libcom.org/files/Sorel-Reflections-on-Violence-ed-Jennings.pdf

Why was supporting Prussia a good idea? It was fucking stupid and all of Marx's practical proposals and strategies were really shit and wrong.

I am lost here. The quotes from Sorel are meant to be the evidence of what exactly?

MT

The quotes from Sorel are meant to be the evidence of what exactly?

Red

Kingzog (and others who don’t seem to have read Sorel) regularly repeat that this elitist concept was present in Sorel. Kingzog, can you please point out exactly where it occurs in Reflections on Violence, his central and most influential work? I can’t find it – but can find plenty suggesting the opposite.

Red Marriott

MT

The quotes from Sorel are meant to be the evidence of what exactly?

Red

Kingzog (and others who don’t seem to have read Sorel) regularly repeat that this elitist concept was present in Sorel. Kingzog, can you please point out exactly where it occurs in Reflections on Violence, his central and most influential work? I can’t find it – but can find plenty suggesting the opposite.

OK, so the point is that Sorel was more or less egalitarian (when I read the the quotes, it almost seemed so)? (Sorry, it is not quite easy to understand everything when you say as I am not a native speaker.)

I am lost here. The quotes from Sorel are meant to be the evidence of what exactly?

Exactly, they're flailing about, text dumping (a form of info overload meant to confound the recipient) irrelevant quotes from Sorel. A true sign of desperation...

It was right to support Prussia in the Franco-Prussian war. Marx was not very public about this- his address to the International was ambiguous on the subject.

Nonetheless, I think it would be correct to not be defeatist from a German Perspective. The war was a defensive war against reactionary Bonapartism, had France won, the working class on the continent would be worse off. And conversly, a french defeat would cause the collapse of the Bonapartist regime and the possibility of a more favorable government from the french working class perspective, which would in turn put pressure on more conservative regimes in Europe- Germany included. It would be moronic to always be defeatist in any war. Conversly, defeatism made sense in the case of Russia in ww1, which was a very regressive regime(much more than Imperial Germany), even though this effectively aided Imperial Germany! A lot of people forget that. Kropotkin included, who bo doubt would have had the Russians fight to the death. Which is moronic.

As far as Sorel goes, its ironic that now we have his defenders here arguing he wasn't effectively elitist. My point before was his strategy effectively leads to an elitism(similar I'd say to Bakunins invisible dictatorship). It's basically a tyranny of structurelessnes bases on a skepticism of bureaucracy and republican democracy. This standpot is not disputed, but I can provide textual evidence if anyone desires. So anyway, pleads that he felt his system was more egalitarian are irrelevant- what matters is what logically follows from his strand-point, not his intentions per se.

And on Sorel's Marxism and the Italian syndicalists; no one disputes they once considered themselves "Marxists", but they were as much Marxist as Bernstein was a Marxist. That is, they were revisionists- and what a revision! But I find this version of, revision of(and Sorel did not dispute this was revisionism), Marxism(which factully has very little to do with Marxism) much in line with all that is wrong with anarchism and left-communism today, frankly- it takes a gross perversion of " Marxism" to lead to anarchistic proto-facism essentially.

kingzog

And on Sorel's Marxism and the Italian syndicalists; no one disputes they once considered themselves "Marxists", but they were as much Marxist as Bernstein was a Marxist. That is, they were revisionists- and what a revision! But I find this version of, revision of(and Sorel did not dispute this was revisionism), Marxism(which factully has very little to do with Marxism) much in line with all that is wrong with anarchism and left-communism today, frankly.

Actually, Sorel considered himself as rediscovering the real, revolutionary, ideas of Marx and saving them from the "Marxism" of the Second International...

In terms of the Italian syndicalists, they considered themselves Marxists -- and they later became fascists. I think this significant -- particularly if (as seems usually the case) that the Italian syndicalists are being used to attack anarcho-syndicalism!

Proclaiming that the fate of the Italian (Marxist-)syndicalists indicates "all that is wrong with anarchism" today is frankly crazy... What a few Italian marxists ended up becoming has little to do with anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism.

...think of it this way. The proto-fascist syndicalists had some vague affinity for a watered down Marxism, which they then revised into its opposite. One would be stretching the truth to say this was a "perversion" of Marxism. Especially orthodox Marxism(which was Parliamenary, believed in republican Democratic organization, revolutionary patience and building mass support, rationalism, etc). However, many of he basic principles are entirely in line with anarchism-left-communism and this is why, IMO, we see people start out anarchist or ultra-left, but then sometimes turn into far-rightists or third-positionists.

kingzog

Exactly, they're flailing about, text dumping (a form of info overload meant to confound the recipient) irrelevant quotes from Sorel. A true sign of desperation...

Another kingzog claim backed up by nothing - an attempted dismissal to avoid dealing with the content that shows that, yet again, your claims are false. I'm plainly disproving yet another of your assertions by plentiful relevant quotes from Sorel. All you've done is keep making various assertions backed up by no evidence or quotes. If I''ve missed it then show where "this elitist concept was present in Sorel" is evident - otherwise admit that you're again wrong.

Anarcho, my argument isn't based necessarily on how people identified themselves, which is essentially irrelevent, or "who came from where". But more the " how" and especially the actual theoretical and practical similarities between sorelianism and anarchism-ultra-leftism- which are substantial.

So far, no one has disputes the connections between the two other than to plead to how the sorellians (incorrectly, although again, this is irrelevent) identified themselves.

What the hell is this discussion about?! That anarchism and anarchosyndicalism - with federalist and direct democracy mechanisms - have nationalism in their DNA (and of course, should be avoided...)? And the evidence being some shitheads in Italy claimed (?) that they are the true bearers of anarchism and anarchosyndicalism, and therefore shifted to fascism?

But for Akai's initial OP and some of the immediate comments, this thread has devolved into: throwing feces, see what sticks.

Khawaga

But for Akai's initial OP and some of the immediate comments, this thread has devolved into: throwing feces, see what sticks.

Ah, that's what's on the bottom of my shoe!

really, I thought Akai made some good, solid points. The devolution from that is, well, not surprising any more, but adds little to anything.

However terrible or tedious it may've been to read I see a point to countering the revisionism and historical distortion expressed here by kingzog, Reid - and by Black Flame earlier. I don’t even have a particular preference for anarchism, syndicalism or Sorel over marxism(s) – but much of what’s been said is blatant distortion; whether based on ignorance, dishonesty, ideological bias and/or blinkered rigid belief systems I don’t see a problem with pointing that out. Especially as such revisionism seems to be a growing trend.

FWIW, my comment wasn't directed at Red Marriot at all.

The problem here for me is with Kingzog and some segment of the left and anti-syndicalist anarchists who have exaggerated the point, one to throw shit on anarchism, the other to through shit on organization, class struggle or whatever it is they are against.

Indeed.

Entdinglichung

one of the first NSDAP branches outside Bavaria, the one in Dortmund-Mengedde was in 1922 founded by people who were in its majority former members of the FAUD, but they were neither representative for the FAUD, nor for the Nazis

just to add: if I remember correctly from Mueller' article, we are talking about eight people from an FAUD branch which was in 1920 around 1000 members strong (less than 1%)

But you know, 8 is more than 0 ergo anarchism is just fascism in disguise:)

My point isn't to show anarchism has fascist dna- that's an exaggeration and a caricature of what I've been demonstrating. My point is that Sorelianism and anarchism share a few of the same starting points and methods- so its not too surprising that anarchists who come to reject internationalism and so on, can move to being far rightists, or third-positionists, but still maintain a sort of "anarchist" identity. Ultra-lefts fit in this category too.

kingzog

My point isn't to show anarchism has fascist dna- that's an exaggeration and a caricature of what I've been demonstrating.

You haven't been demonstrating anything, all your claims have been disputed and you don't provide a counter response, you just change what you've said previously a little bit.

You've also exposed yourself as being very close to the things you criticise in the process.

My point is that Sorelianism and anarchism share a few of the same starting points and methods- so its not too surprising that anarchists who come to reject internationalism and so on, can move to being far rightists, or third-positionists, but still maintain a sort of "anarchist" identity. Ultra-lefts fit in this category too.

So how far right have you moved may I ask?

This isn't about my politics reddebrek(I'm an orthodox center-left Marxist).

None of my claims have been adequately challenged either. Instead, there has been obtuse defense of Sorel, mischaracterization of what I've written, and attacks on Marxism and myself. Frankly, its been pathetic.

kingzog

This isn't about my politics reddebrek(I'm an orthodox center-left Marxist).

Kingzog, just out of curiosity, what exactly is an "Orthodox center-left Marxist"?

Sike

kingzog

This isn't about my politics reddebrek(I'm an orthodox center-left Marxist).

Kingzog, just out of curiosity, what exactly is an "Orthodox center-left Marxist"?

It's indistinguishable from this:

kingzog

anarchists who come to reject internationalism and so on, can move to being

............. here you can add whatever you like.

anarchists who come to reject internationalism? yeah, these truely represent anarchism...

such a strawman.

"Orthodox Marxist" is definitely code for one of the 57 varieties of Trot

kingzog

My point isn't to show anarchism has fascist dna- that's an exaggeration and a caricature of what I've been demonstrating. My point is that Sorelianism and anarchism share a few of the same starting points and methods- so its not too surprising that anarchists who come to reject internationalism and so on, can move to being far rightists, or third-positionists, but still maintain a sort of "anarchist" identity. Ultra-lefts fit in this category too.

What the hell is this meant to mean? "Sorelianism" does not equal fascism -- indeed, Sorel considered himself as a Marxist, indeed trying to reclaim the "true" Marxism from those who had turned it into reformism. Claims that before his death said a few positive things about fascism in Italy are not credible.

In terms of this thread, so far no one has shown that Italian anarcho-syndicalists became fascists -- or "reject[ed] internationalism." Quite the reverse as it has been shown that it was Marxist-syndicalists who rejected internationalism and, for some, embraced fascism.

In terms of "anarchists" who "can more to being far rightists", I am not aware of many. Perhaps because they weren't really anarchists to begin with? Also, even if they want to keep calling themselves "anarchists" does not make it the case. The example of the editor of "Green Anarchist" being a (the only?) case in point -- primitivism is not anarchist and so his move to the right shows that.

kingzog

...think of it this way. The proto-fascist syndicalists had some vague affinity for a watered down Marxism, which they then revised into its opposite.

They considered themselves as the real Marxists fighting against the "watered down" Marxism of orthodox Second International Marxism. And so nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism...

kingzog

One would be stretching the truth to say this was a "perversion" of Marxism.

But of they had been anarcho-syndicalists then it would have been good evidence against anarchism?

kingzog

However, many of he basic principles are entirely in line with anarchism-left-communism and this is why, IMO, we see people start out anarchist or ultra-left, but then sometimes turn into far-rightists or third-positionists.

So correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be arguing that the activities of these Marxist-syndicalists says nothing about Marxism but a lot about anarchism... I'm not sure how that follows.

Overall, Kinzog is talking pants -- a classic case of trying to have it both ways.

kingzog

This isn't about my politics reddebrek(I'm an orthodox center-left Marxist).

So confirming my first comment about capital M Marxism being an ardent crutch for nationalism (which is quite sad because I did that as a joke), thanks.

None of my claims have been adequately challenged either.

If this were true you wouldn't keep changing them.

Instead, there has been obtuse defense of Sorel, mischaracterization of what I've written, and attacks on Marxism and myself. Frankly, its been pathetic.

Funnily enough I think you're the only ones whose attacked Marxism here by exposing him as an ardent Nationalist and then defended it, whilst having ago at others for the same perceived slight.

I mean someone who supports a nation state in a war with another is bad enough, but one who backs one of the butchers of the Paris Commune, has no business wagging the finger at anyone else.

Is the phrase about throwing stones in glass houses just not said anymore?

You guys keep missing the point about syndicalism, its similarities and shared starting points with bakununism(councilism too) and Sorelianism. This is all I've been saying. This says nothing about Marxism or marxists' failings, but about the shared theoretical ground between Anarchism and Sorelianism- and councilism and communizationism I'd ad.

What's really telling is how, in desperation, a lot of you guys are trying to attack my politics- which is irrelevent to the initial questions.

Sike and Hieronymus, are you two that politically illiterate to not understand what an orthodox Marxist is? Or center-left in that context(hint, Karl Kautsky- though not isomorphic)? cheeky question, yes, but come on guys, don't embarrass yourselves.

Reddebrek, what do you think nationalism means? The definition? Do you think Marx feeling it would be positive for the working class if the Bonapartist regime in France collapsed is an example of nationalism? Hint- Nationalism would be if he supported Prussia because his politics were nationalist.

Next, I think we should play a game of "who said it, Bakunin or Sorel?"...sounds fun, right? Stay tuned...

kingzog

politically illiterate to not understand what an orthodox Marxist is?

I must be cause I've no clue what an "orthodox marxist" is.

but come on guys, don't embarrass yourselves.

Don't worry, in the embarrassment department you're winning by a mile.

Syndicalist, yes you are probably ignorant in that dept. That's not an insult, ignorance and stupidity and idiocy are seperate. One can be smart and also ignorant.

But orthodox Marxism is reffering to 2nd international Marxism- which was dominated by the German SPD. The center-left was the dominant tendency within the SPD whose theortician was Karl Kautsky. I don't agree with Kautksy on everything- and like I said, my politics(or you're politics) is irrelevent here. It's a red herring(a logical fallacy) from some bitter anarchists and councilists(communizationismists) who get defensive when you point out the elitism inherent in their essentially Bakuninist politics.

It's a red herring(a logical fallacy)

Complaining about logical fallacies is a bit rich coming from someone whose entire argument on this thread has been one big logical fallacy (guilt by association).

One can be smart and also ignorant.

Reminds me of something the late Sam Dolgoff often said:

" S/he's read everything and learned nothing."

orthodox Marxism is reffering to 2nd international Marxism-

Is this how that time period commonly is refered to in marxian circles?

elitism inherent in their essentially Bakuninist politics

Yikes.

So Kingzog the “real Marxist” considers 19th-early 20th C social democracy to be that real Marxism; and all critique of that parliamentarist reformism to be “revisionism”. This is the same SPD that crushed all revolutionary tendencies (including Marxists) in the post-WWI aftermath. The same SPD that voted for WWI like good German nationalists (while Kautsky advocated abstention) – yet he claims it's anarchists who have the tendency to abandon internationalism and embrace nationalism, duh...

His Marxism is the same 2nd Int. Social Democracy that, via the PSI, inconveniently produced those same Italian national syndicalists-turned-fascists Kingzog has been so keen to try to disown. Kingzog has still failed, despite repeated requests, to reference where the “elitist concept” can found in the Marxist Sorel’s writings or where the “blood & soil” ideology can be found in anarchism – so we can conclude on that score he’s wrong and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Kingzog seems to be thoughtlessly parroting some Leninist cut’n’paste central committee official line on ‘ultra-left deviationism’ etc; that is perhaps the main source of his arrogance and historical ignorance.

kingzog

You guys keep missing the point about syndicalism, its similarities and shared starting points with bakununism(councilism too) and Sorelianism.

Anarchists generally point out the clear links between Bakunin's ideas and syndicalism -- I've take a SWPer to task for denying them (see my review-article here). Its "shared" starting point is working class self-organisation and struggle at the point of production.

In terms of "sorelianism", well, depends what you mean -- but Sorel was a Marxist who utilised an already existing syndicalist union movement to try and push marxism back to being revolutionary after the Second International made it reformist (although that was predicted by Bakunin due to the tactics Marx was advocating).

kingzog

This is all I've been saying. This says nothing about Marxism or marxists' failings, but about the shared theoretical ground between Anarchism and Sorelianism- and councilism and communizationism I'd ad.

Sorel was a Marxist. The Italian syndicalists who became fascists were Marxists. I would suggest that it does say a lot about Marxism -- far more than it says about anarchism.

kingzog

What's really telling is how, in desperation, a lot of you guys are trying to attack my politics- which is irrelevent to the initial questions.

Your politics is a problem in-so-far as they are stopping you seeing the blindly obvious -- and the obvious flaws in your "initial questions"

kingzog

Reddebrek, what do you think nationalism means? The definition? Do you think Marx feeling it would be positive for the working class if the Bonapartist regime in France collapsed is an example of nationalism? Hint- Nationalism would be if he supported Prussia because his politics were nationalist.

Let me quote Marx:

The French need a thrashing. If the Prussians win, the centralisation of the state power will be useful for the centralisation of the German working class. German predominance would also transfer the centre of gravity of the workers' movement in Western Europe from France to Germany, and one has only to compare the movement in the two countries from 1866 till now to see that the German working class is superior to the French both theoretically and organisationally. Their predominance over the French on the world stage would also mean the predominance of our theory over Proudhon's, etc.

Sounds pretty nationalistic to me -- not to mention incredibly egoistical. The notion that it was good workers slaughtered themselves in a capitalist war to ensure his ideas take over from Proudhon's is shocking.

kingzog

Next, I think we should play a game of "who said it, Bakunin or Sorel?"...sounds fun, right? Stay tuned...

While you are at it, please quote Sorel on how he was a Marxist and how he was seeking to return Marxism to its revolutionary core...

kingzog

But orthodox Marxism is reffering to 2nd international Marxism- which was dominated by the German SPD. The center-left was the dominant tendency within the SPD whose theortician was Karl Kautsky. I don't agree with Kautksy on everything- and like I said, my politics(or you're politics) is irrelevent here.

That would be the second international Marxism which Sorel and the Italian syndicalists came out of, turning to syndicalism in an attempt to return Marxism (their stated ideology) back to what they considered its revolutionary core?

You know, those Marxists who seem to be using to try and link anarchism to fascism...

kingzog

It's a red herring(a logical fallacy) from some bitter anarchists and councilists(communizationismists) who get defensive when you point out the elitism inherent in their essentially Bakuninist politics.

Oh, hmm. I would suggest you read up on "Bakuninist politics" before sprouting off on it. May I suggest:

The Revolutionary Ideas of Bakunin

Review: Bakunin: The creative passion

Bakunin: Ignorance or Lies

Will the real Bakunin please stand up?

I could add more, but that is enough with going on with...

Bit of a diversion, but; has anyone read (or have access to) the book by Michael Freund - Georges Sorel.Der revolutionäre Konservativismus (1932) [Georges Sorel: Revolutionary Conservatism] ? This seems to be the original source of the claim of 'elitism' in Sorel. But it doesn't seem to have been translated into English from German.

Red, that's Nazi stuff as far as l know.

Thanks, I didn’t realise that; in Marcuse’s book ‘A Study on Authority’ – where he confusingly mixes quotes from Freund’s book and from RoV - Freund’s book on Sorel is just mentioned as “a good compilation of the material”.

I guess you mean this guy; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Salwyn_Schapiro

can't tell about the book by Michael Freund, only found out that it was published in 1972, not 1932 ... the publisher is an academic publishing house with a focus on philosophy, especially Martin Heidegger and Arnold Gehlen, will ask someone who may know more

Thanks, Ent. It's referenced in Marcuse's 1936 book as 1932 (and referenced elsewhere for same date) so I reckon 1972 would be a reprint.

according to German Wikipedia: Freund was during the 1920ies for a few years a member of the antiauthoritarian "Free Socialist Youth" (FSJ) and then an SPD member, after 1933, he was first involved as an editor in the weekly Blick in die Zeit, a paper run by social democrats which was up to 1935 when it was banned on of the few papers in Germany which managed to print uncensored news (mainly by quoting extensively foreign papers), after some professionel problems, Freund joined the NSDAP in 1940 and was aligned to an anti-semitic research body of the SS, after 1945, he was again close to the SPD ()with other people who worked 1933-45 on Blick in die Zeit) and became an important scholar, the Sorel book was republished in a new edition in 1972

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Freund

my guess is, that he belonged to what was called the neo-revisionist "activist" wing of the SPD before 1933: mostly younger politicians like Mierendorff, Leber, Schumacher, Haubach, etc. who belonged mostly to the party's right wing but were pressing to a more combative stance towards the Nazis but unlike the left wing of the party not through a revitalization of class struggle and a united front policy but through a more emotional, nationalistic, etc. style to beat the Nazis on their own terrain (including street politics)

akai

Apparently Shapiro was one who saw the genesis of fascist ideas in France and had his theories not only about Sorel but also Proudhon as being a source for fascist thought.

Shapiro was a joke -- his so-called critique of Proudhon just showed how little he understood Proudhon or, more accurately, how willing he was to distort Proudhon's ideas to support his thesis. I critique some of his nonsense here:

Proudhon: Neither Washington nor Richmond

also:

"Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: an uncomfortable thinker" by Nicola Chiaromonte

I would go so far as to say, if you take Schapiro seriously then you simply don't know how wrong you are... he is up there with Marx for deliberate distortion about Proudhon.

Anarcho's claim that the Roberts book is some kind of credible treatment of syndicalism doesn't hold up. Syndicalism was a mass unionist trend built by worker militants, mainly auto-didacts, who were active in union organizations. To put it another way, syndicalism was a trend in radical labor movement politics, not developed in separation from the labor movement by isolated intellectuals. But the Roberts book never actually discusses the labor movement. It never actually discusses the reality of the USI for example. Rather, it solely focuses on certain individuals...Alberola, Sorel, Rossoni mainly. But Sorel was an isolated intellectual with no connection to the CGT militants in France. Moreover, there is no evidence that very many actual syndicalist militants paid much if any attention to Sorel. Yet Roberts defines syndicalism by reference to the writings of Sorel....a completely bogus methodology.

Rossoni at least had been involved in Italian revolutionary syndicalist activities. As someone pointed out, De Ambris, who was general secretary of USI, was a member of the Italian Socialist Party, as was Mussolini. As was the case in USA in years just before World War 1, a substantial part of the left of the socialist party was syndicalist in Italy. Musscolini was also a socialist & part of this direct actionist left of the socialist party. When Mussolini moved towards nationalism in 1915, it was De Ambris and other USI people from the socialist party left who moved to nationalism with Mussolini. It was at that point that the anarcho-syndicalists in USI rallied & at the 1916 congress removed De Ambris and the other nationalists from the secretariat of USI. At that time the nationalists split from USI, but they only took out 15,000 members, according to the account by Gwyn Williams in "Proletarian Order". that was only 10 percent of the membership at the time.

So this means they didn't even get that much support from the other USI members from the left of the socialist party. USI had been formed originally as a united front of militants with a direct action, syndicalist, anti-parliamentary orientation, including people from Socialist Party as well as anarchists. So the idea there was some major support for Mussolini's rightward moving nationalism among Italian syndicalists at the time is without foundation. People like Roberts are charlatans with an anti-syndicalist ax to grind. They try to make their case by not actually looking at the actual syndicalist movement but focusing on only a small handful of individual intellectuals.

so the people who went with Mussolini were *abandoning* syndicalism. When Rossoni visited the USA after World War 1, his former comrades of the Italian Syndicalist Federation in USA refused to talk with him. He was persona non grata.

Moreover the union that De Ambris, Rossoni and the others formed, UIL, very soon became characterized by a stance of class collaboration & conciliation towards Italian employers. In other words, they were rejecting syndicalism. Syndicalism is based on a hard class line...seeing an unbridgeable class antagonism between the dominating classes and the working class. To move to a conciliatory and corporatist direction is to abandon syndicalism. "National syndicalism" is no more syndicalist than "national socialism" is socialist.

The people who went from syndicalism to Mussolini were abandoning syndicalism by moving to the right. There is a long history of this...of former radicals moving to the right...examples of former anarchists, communists, syndicalists, socialists moving to the other side. This is a well known story.

syndicalistcat

Anarcho's claim that the Roberts book is some kind of credible treatment of syndicalism doesn't hold up.

I said it was the standard work on the subject -- namely the "syndicalists" who became fascists. Roberts showed that these intellectuals came out of the Marxism and that the USI rejected their turn to nationalism in 1914.

syndicalistcat

But the Roberts book never actually discusses the labor movement. It never actually discusses the reality of the USI for example. Rather, it solely focuses on certain individuals...Alberola, Sorel, Rossoni mainly.

None of which changes my point, which was Roberts is the standard book on these intellectuals who came out of Italian Marxism, proclaimed themselves syndicalists and latter turned to nationalism and fascism.

I thought that was obvious in my comments -- particularly when I quoted Roberts on how these intellectuals became isolated in 1914: "The syndicalists failed to convince even a majority within the USI"

syndicalistcat

So the idea there was some major support for Mussolini's rightward moving nationalism among Italian syndicalists at the time is without foundation. People like Roberts are charlatans with an anti-syndicalist ax to grind. They try to make their case by not actually looking at the actual syndicalist movement but focusing on only a small handful of individual intellectuals.

As Roberts indicated -- his book is focused on a few intellectuals and as I noted, it is usually anti-syndicalists who misuse it to claim that "most" syndicalists became fascists!

as I indicated in the articles I linked to ("The irresistible correctness of anarchism" and "A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations"

Re-read the blog and the comments, and this stuck out to me.

kingzog

Problem with anarchist nationalism is it supports a blood and Soil corellary, often masked by localism, federalism, and the romantic valorization of pastoral life. These things run much deeper. Combine this with the naive lack of an approach to political power and its fertile ground for third positionism. Look at how the FORA was unable to deal with politics and fell into the arms of Peronism, for instance.

What on earth are you talking about? FORA was driven underground when Peron came to power with a number of its members tortured to death. Despite that it continued to resist clandestinely organising strikes and demonstrations. The union confederation that capitulated to Peron was the CGT, an organisation that was founded by a merger of Marxist socialists and Marxist leaning syndicalists.

Actually I was incorrect, the trade union movement itself, which remained syndicalist, fell into the arms of Peron. The FORA, however, as an institution had essentially ceased to exist by the early 30's and only remained in existence on paper.

In fact, I can't even find info about it under peron, looks like it officially dissolved around 32, but somehow survived in some fashion within a successor type org.

kingzog

In fact, I can't even find info about it under peron, looks like it officially dissolved around 32, but somehow survived in some fashion within a successor type org.

Really? That must have been an exhausting 3 minute search you undertook.

I'm not sure if this should be given its own thread, but last year, Reid Ross published a piece demonstrating 'how fascists court the post-left', which was inevitably shared on FaceBook over 2000 times. It angered a lot of post-leftists, whom issued a wide range of responses, some sincere attempts at rebuttal, others not so much. Ross followed those responses with a second piece, with the aim of defending his position.

I noticed there doesn't seem to have been any discussion regarding this on this site, which is understandable, considering the focus is on post-leftism. But what I find interesting in all of this is the author's continued treatment of syndicalism, in a way that is kinda muddled. The author also talks about the "utlra left", communisation theory, G. Dauve, et al., in an attempt to show their influences on the kind of post-leftist and individualist/egoist ideas that lends itself towards fascist entry-ism.

I wonder what thoughts any of you have on this, if you have the time to read those two pieces above, if you haven't already.

I read the first one at the time, can't now remember how many of the responses and counter-responses I got through. I thought this bit was pretty sloppy:

Even if they have for the most part denounced Guillaume and his entourage, the ultra-leftist rejection of specialized antifascism has remained somewhat popular—particularly as expounded by Dauvé, who insisted in the early 1980s that “fascism as a specific movement has disappeared.”

(highlighting mine)
I don't like the suggestion that the ultra-left/Dauve critique of specialised antifascism somehow undermines the position of those ultra-leftists who broke with Guillaume - that "even if" seems to suggest a contradiction that I don't see myself.

Also, because I think most of the post-left is absolute garbage but I like Ultra, I thought this bit was worth taking seriously, and that he really could've done with providing more evidence for it:

In another unsettling example of crossover between post-leftists and fascists, radicals associated with a nihilist group named Ultra harshly rebuked Rose City Antifa of Portland, Oregon, for releasing an exposé about Jack Donovan. An open member of the violent white nationalist group, Wolves of Vinland, Donovan also runs a gym called the Kabuki Strength Lab, which produces “manosphere” videos. As of November 2016, when the exposé was published, one member of Ultra was a member of the Kabuki Strength Lab. Although Donovan runs a tattoo shop out of the gym and gave Libertarian Party fascist Augustus Sol Invictus a tattoo of the fasces there, a fellow gym member wrote, “Obviously Jack has very controversial beliefs and practices that most disagree with; but I don’t believe it affects his behavior in the gym.” Donovan, who has publicly parroted “race realist” statistics at white nationalist gatherings like the National Policy Institute and the Pressure Project podcast, also embraces bioregionalism and the anticipation of a collapse of civilization that will lead to a reversion of identity-bound tribal structures at war with one another and reliant on natural hierarchies—an ideology that resonates with Ultra and some members of the broader post-left milieu.

FWIW, this is a discussion I had with someone involved with Ultra on the topic:
me

while I'm being nosy, do you have any idea what the deal is with Alexander Reid Ross claiming that Ultra people defend Jack Donovan?

them

well, arr is a fucking toad, but the truth is that one person who was sort of part of the ultra clique (we don’t have any kind of membership) went to the same gym as donovan and co and was defending the gym itself, quoting another gym-goer as saying that Jack and co kept their politics out of the gym (a claim that I’m honestly very skeptical of. ARR posted the quote from the other gym-goer and attributed it to ultra.

the one person who was part of the ultra clique, in my honest opinion, was waaay too soft on the issue, but saying that Ultra is pro-donovan or soft on the fash is just fucking irresponsible, especially when you consider that arr and I have mutual friends and have talked to each other before. he legit could’ve asked, but he didn’t because whatever he says, he is not a fucking journalist.

me

I did think it seemed pretty irresponsible for him to claim something that serious and then not provide screenshots, or a link, or any kind of context at all for readers to make up their own mind about what was going on.

them

i mean, like i said, the ultra person handled the situation poorly. i was on the thread too, and I also handled it poorly, albeit in a dif way, but sloppy fact-checking, nonexistent argumentation, guilt by association, those are the tools in arr’s box.

Also, I think he missed a trick by not pointing out that as well as Exile and Sadie going over to the fash as individuals, there was a concerted effort made by some of their friends, including an article in Black Seed, to defend them and discredit their critics as being witch-hunting moralists. The "Field Guide to Straw Men" article, imo, does a very good job at establishing the fact that there definitely are some people in the post-left scene, just as in many other spaces, who definitely are willing to turn a blind eye to this shit.

Finally, I guess that the publication date being last spring means that it predates most of the controversy over the ITS/GITS/Wild Reactionaries, but the whole Atassa/LBC drama shows that there are definitely some post-left nihilist types who have no standards whatsoever, even if the Wild Reactionaries aren't quite coherent enough to be called fascists. If anyone doesn't know what I'm on about, "Of Indiscriminate Attacks & Wild Reactions" is long but it absolutely annihilates the Atassa/LBC crowd.

R Totale

If anyone doesn't know what I'm on about, "Of Indiscriminate Attacks & Wild Reactions" is long but it absolutely annihilates the Atassa/LBC crowd.

I honestly could not read through that whole piece. I'm sure the author does some "annihilating", but the text itself is pretty dense, and is revealing of the author's clique ness, as well as contempt for what they perceive as left or social anarchists.

As for ARR; while there is definitely a level of irresponsibility on his part, what's telling about his approach to exposing fascist entry-ism, is that he seems to actually believe that these fascist tendencies are indeed 'syncretic', a word he uses a good number of times in his work. "Anarcho" or "syndicalist" fascists/nationalists like to present themselves as having successfully combined Left and Right ideas, or having transcended the dichotomous Left-Right political spectrum. Afaik, they are the only ones who describe their pet ideologies as 'syncretic', as a way of signifying their so called theoretical accomplishment. I think he misses the distinction between the content of these types - which is straight up fascist - and how they would like to present themselves.

Following from this, I think he presses too hard on trying to establish a bridge, which exists on an intellectual plane, between Left and Right, in a way which might prevent him from being able to appreciate the finer details.

Agent of the International

I honestly could not read through that whole piece. I'm sure the author does some "annihilating", but the text itself is pretty dense, and is revealing of the author's clique ness, as well as contempt for what they perceive as left or social anarchists.

Hah, fair enough. That text is definitely one where I kind of think that it's good, but the author certainly wouldn't have much time for me. But the fact that the author is so firmly in the anti-civ/nihilist/whatever camp is part of what makes it interesting to me - like "class struggle anarchist says anti-civilisation nihilist anarchists are acting like dangerous idiots" isn't really news, "anti-civilisation nilihist anarchist says anti-civilisation nihilist anarchists are acting like dangerous idiots" is kind of more notable, if you know what I mean? But anyway, thinking about it I probably should've recommended these two much shorter pieces as starting points for anyone who's not encountered the ITS controversy before:
There’s Nothing Anarchist about Eco-Fascism: A Condemnation of ITS
Not Our Comrades: ITS Attacks on Anarchists

As for ARR; while there is definitely a level of irresponsibility on his part, what's telling about his approach to exposing fascist entry-ism, is that he seems to actually believe that these fascist tendencies are indeed 'syncretic', a word he uses a good number of times in his work. "Anarcho" or "syndicalist" fascists/nationalists like to present themselves as having successfully combined Left and Right ideas, or having transcended the dichotomous Left-Right political spectrum. Afaik, they are the only ones who describe their pet ideologies as 'syncretic', as a way of signifying their so called theoretical accomplishment. I think he misses the distinction between the content of these types - which is straight up fascist - and how they would like to present themselves.

Following from this, I think he presses too hard on trying to establish a bridge, which exists on an intellectual plane, between Left and Right, in a way which might prevent him from being able to appreciate the finer details.

Hah, your critique of ARR is much more well-thought-out and intellectual than mine, I'd not really gone much further than "this guy feels like a kind of sloppy writer who has some tendencies towards sensationalism".
Oh, and we've also established that, as well as fascists themselves, people who've copied and pasted bits written by fascists from their wikipedia pages will also tend to describe them as syncretic, but that's a whole other story.

Not actually new, but new to me: another critique of ITS highlighting exactly how weird the conclusions the "eco-extremists" have arrived at are.

And it is that several blogs that were participating in one way or another in the dissemination of these criticisms (translating, sending, publishing), we started to receive ridiculous threats from these people, in which, in addition to revealing data relating to comrades (and compromising their security and that of those spaces), are also happy about the attacks of the Islamic State in large European cities as well as the death of one of our comrades, for example Heather Heyer, whose fatal attack at the hand of neo-Nazis during a counter-demonstration in Charlottesville a few weeks ago was celebrated by an email we received recently.

Then I’ll transcribe a fragment of one of the… intimidating(?) messages which I did get, as I find it especially revealing. I do not transcribe it in full because in the non-diffused part this gang of parapolice mouths give data about specific comrades, informing of where they collaborate or stop collaborating in their political action; to spread it, would compromise those people.

“(…) the anarchist humanists of the United States were trampled by the neo-Nazis (the two sides are both cocksuckers), the Islamic State finally hit Spain where you find yourself, son of a thousand whores!

While it is true, none of these events were perpetrated by eco-extremists, it is a sign of the savage curse that has fallen on you and your loved ones for defaming us. Fucking Atheist, care that the ancestral spirits get loose and they will torment you until your death!”

In the face of this, I can only burst out laughing, though bitterly. It does not stop me being curious that the person who sent me this crap (and whose e-mail, incidentally, is “[email protected]”), made from a Riseup account. Is Riseup not a server managed precisely by those American “humanist anarchists” who are compared to neo-Nazis and whose murder they celebrate so merrily? What happens, perhaps, your spirits and your wicked middle-class college witchcraft of savage rebellion does not allow you to develop your own server from which to communicate?

R Totale

sloppy fact-checking, nonexistent argumentation, guilt by association, those are the tools in arr’s box.

The truth of this can be seen from Page 1 of this thread; where A. Reid Ross & co's misuse of historical facts to attempt to distort the relations between historical anarchism, syndicalism & fascism are exposed by several posters. Fortunately, in the case of Shmidt, the indisputable facts and Schmidt's later admissions were plentiful enough to override ARR's association with the original exposure of Schmidt.

Since this is the closest thing to an ITS thread, a few bits of news:
I'd missed that someone connected to ITS had claimed responsibility for a bomb left on a street in Edinburgh last year.
Big mainstream press article on Kaczynski fans, featuring ITS as well as Graham Linehan's weirdo Deep Green Resistance mates.
325 doxxed the main person behind Atassa, the English-language ITS fanboy journal, after which everyone connected to the project suddenly disavowed it, and the target of the doxxing also threatened to get the FBI involved. Meanwhile, Little Black Cart are still selling Atassa.

What does ITS mean?

ITS = Individuals Tending towards the Wild (Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje), started out as a kind of anarcho-primitivist group in Mexico but went further and further into extreme misanthropic reactionary positions, so they did stuff like claim the murder of a woman, celebrate the fascist killing of Heather Heyer, claim responsibility for bomb attacks on anarchist spaces and so on. Meanwhile Little Black Cart, one of the main US post-left/individualist "anarchist" publishers still sells a magazine essentially glorifying them (which is why I'm posting about them on here, since a little way upthread someone posted an Alexander Reid Ross article about fascism and the post-left). Not much to do with anarcho-syndicalism as such, other than Alexander Reid Ross writing about them both.
As mentioned above, I'd recommend There’s Nothing Anarchist about Eco-Fascism and Not Our Comrades: ITS Attacks on Anarchists as the best shortish introductions to the whole mess.

Thanks

ARR is over-reaching in his alarmist hunt for fash among the post-left crowd. the single citation for his dismissive smear against post-left anarchists sliding into fascism is the website Anarchy 101, a free-for-all open forum for basic questions that is often inactive for months; it's not exactly a think tank for post-left discussions.

and didn't anyone ever let you know how authoritarian and demeaning -- and in this case, sectarian -- it is to use quotation marks to indicate irony? a writer much more intelligent than either of us had this to say:

Quotation mark should be used only when something is quoted and if need be when the text wants to distance itself from a word it is referring to. They are to be rejected as an ironic device. For they exempt the writer from the spirit whose claim is inherent in irony, and they violate the very concept of irony by separating it from the matter at hand and presenting a predetermined judgment on the subject.

Since this is the closest thing going to a general third position/anarchists-turned-fash thread, might as well leave these here: https://www.unoffensiveanimal.is/unoffensive-reports/walter-bond-and-his-eco-fascist-trajectory/ https://anarchistsworldwide.noblogs.org/post/2020/07/27/ua-goodbye-walter-bond/