Re: AUT: Syndicalism vs. Fascism

[guy debord <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>]

jamal has completely misunderstood my intentions. as
someone who once advocated a sort of syndicalism, and
participated in syndicalist groups, i know exactly
what syndicalism is. i know that syndicalism as
practiced by anarchists/marxists and syndicalism as
practiced by fascists are two different things.

my point was this: what is it in syndicalism that
lends itself so easily to bureaucratization at the
very least, and co-optation by stalinists and fascists
at the worst? an example of the "least" would be the
cnt in the spanish civil war, and the "worst" would be
the cgt in france (esp. around 1968) and the "fascist
syndicalists" in italy and argentina.

and whether jamal wants to admit it or not... my
understanding of the fascist syndicalist movement is
this: it was primarily made up of proper syndicalists
who saw in mussolini (and peron in argentina) the
realization of "socialist" ((according to marxist and
anarchist (and, yes, syndicalist) definitions,
sometimes)) goals.

my understanding of the fascist syndicalist union is
that it did, in fact, operate in a realitively
decentralized fashion, relied on direct action
(against fascism's enemies for the most part... but
direct action none-the-less), the structure was used
as the means of organizing labour under fascism, etc.
etc.

this may not be jamal's syndicalism, but it is *a*
syndicalism none-the-less.

> 4) An organizational structure that is intended to
> be the structure that
> replaces capitalism... decentralized, democratic,
> libertarian and
> autonomous.

this right here is another of my big problems with
syndicalism: this strucutre, which is somehow supposed
to be different than capitalism, maintains capital's
choice method of organizing work: the division of
labour... regardless of how decentralized, democratic,
or supposedly libertarian it is.

it is division of labour which fosters specialization,
and specialization which plays into the creation of
hierarchies... and thus classes, etc.

this all also carries with it another problem: i do
not believe liberation is possible unless we
completely destroy the "planetary work machine" (i.e.
the whole of capitalism, it's structures and methods
of organizing, etc. [including and especially the
state/government]). syndicalism does not seek this
machine's end, but merely wants to put it under "new
managment", a "workers' managment". to me: this is a
kin to wanting to put a government under new
manegment, via a political party. and will fail just
as well.

> 5) A reliance on libertarian labor unions as the
> revolutionary force.

this seems daft to me. how do, and why should, we rely
on some set structure as a revolutionary force? it
seems to me that when *any* set structure becomes
"institutionalized", it becomes oppressive (esp.,
methinks, one which maintains the division of labour
[union] or the state [political party]).

personally, i rely on the international proletariat as
a revolutionary force. maybe that's daft too. but
relying on a dynamic and fluid group of human beings
seems a hell of a lot more reasonable than relying on
a static and inhuman strucutre.

> 3) A partnership with sympathetic corporations which
> funded the movement

also a partnership with labour unions. look at the cgt
in argentina, if nothing else. there you have a case
of a (i'm pretty sure) syndicalist union completely
proping up a fascist dictator.

> The practice
> of fascists using words like "socialism" or
> "syndicalism" was clearly
> intended to trick working class people into
> supporting their causes.

this is a nice reduction, but it doesn't deal with
fact. some "fascist" movements (like in italy and
argentine) actually saw themselves as part of the
socialist movement, and were against marxists and
anarchists as competators... just as marxists and
anarchists have been (offen stupidly, esp in the case
of libertarian marxists/left-communists vs.
anarchists) at each other's throats. in italy and
argentina fascism was primarily, and initially, a
working class movement. of course, the bourgeoisie saw
the advantage in supporting fascism as it quieted the
class war, while maintaining, generally speaking,
previous structures (which worked "more efficiantly",
of course -- all the better for them).

saying that fascists used socialist rhetoric to prop
themselves up is like saying that leninists used
socialist rhetoric to prop themselves up. they do
honestly believed what they are saying, methinks... at
least at first.

> They
> always used the word "natuional" in conjunction with
> the words
> "syndicalist" and "socialist" to make it clear that
> they were in fact
> nationalists.

so have left-wing "nationalists" like the ezln, etc.

> Mussolini was an editor of a major SOCIALIST
> newspaper before he became a
> fascist leader, and never claimed to be a
> syndicalist.

but i'm pretty sure that he, like many socialists at
the time, wrote articles supporting syndicalism and
syndicalist struggles. i think i've seen some
quotes... but i'm not absolutely sure about this.

guy
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---