Re: AUT: Syndicalism vs. Fascism

[fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jamal Hannah made the following suggestions, to which I append counter examples:

>Syndicalists are syndicalists based on several basic principles:
>
>1) relying on direct-action, not the voting process which brings
>beuracrats to political power.

Syndicalists have elections within their own bodies and have stood for
municipal positions EG Antonio Martin was mayor of Puigcerda when he was
assinated by the Stalinists in April 1937 (The May Days Barcelona 1937,
Augustin Souchey etc, Freedom Press)

"We are authorised to state that neither the National Confederation of
Labour [CNT] nor the Iberian Anarchist Federation, or any of its dependent
organisations, broke, or had any intention of breaking the anti-fascist
front. The CNT and the FAI continue to collaborate loyally as in the past
with all political and trade union sectors of the anti-fascist front. The
best proof of this is that the CNT continues to collaborate with the
central government, the government of the Generality and all the
municipalities.
        When the conflict started in Barcelona, the Regional and National
organisations of the CNT offered every means to the government to help
solve the conflicy as quickly as possible. On the second day of the
struggle, the secretary of the CNT, and the minister of Justice, also a
member of the CNT came to Barcelona . . ." (I find this really all to
depressing to continue typing)
CNT manifesto 6th May 1937

>2) decentralization of duties and responsibilities within any syndicalist
>organizations, so that no-one has a monopoly on power and members remain
>autonomous.

"All workers of the CNT and the UGT are ordered to return to work . . ."
Joint Manifesto of the Local Federation of the CNT and UGT Barcelona.


>3) Reliance on the general strike to bring industry to a halt and usher in
>a worker-run economy.

Check out Michael Seidman's "Work and Revolution in Barcelona in the
Spanish Civil War, 1936-8 (Journal of Contemporary History Vol. V17 (1982),
409-433.

He shows how the CNT used lock-outs,and indeed promoted tStakhnov as a
model whilst abandonning resistance to piece work and wage differentials:

"The idea of class consciousness held by the union militants conflicetd
with that of the rank and file. For the militants, class consciousness
meant active and enthusiastic participation in the unions or parties which
were building 'socialism' or 'libertarian communisim' byrapidly developing
the productive forces. However many workers expressed their class
consciousness by continuing to avoid the space and time of the rationalised
workplace and of work itself."

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

"The majority of workers are an inert mass who, carried by circumstances,
came to the unions because life was impossible without a union card." (CNT
Maritimo, 11-6-1938

>5) A reliance on libertarian labor unions as the revolutionary force.
"Historians of the Spanish Revolution have focused on the political and
ideological divisions among Communists, Socialists and anacho-syndicalists
and have thereby neglected the v=central problem of the divorce between
miltants committed to a certain vision of the future and workers who were
reluctant to sacrifice to fulfill this ideal. Therefore the militants used
coercion to force the workers to work harder bith to win the war and to
build the new society." Miachael Siedman

>6) An internationalist, anti-nationalist orientation.

"In Italy the synthesis of nationalism with revolutionary syndicalism was
based on the same principles as in France: on the one hand a rejection of
democracy, Marxism, liberalism, the so-called bourgeois values, the
eighteenth century heritage, internationalism, and pacifism; on the other
hand a cult of heroism, vitalism and violence."
...
"Not all Italian revolutionary syndicalists became Fascists, but most
syndicalist leaders were among the founders of the Fascist movement"
"The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell


[...]

>Thus, even if someone called themselves a "syndicalist", but they followed
>fascist ideals, they could not be considered a syndicalist.
This reminds me of Humpty Dumpty

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

Perhaps the same could be said of anarcho-syndicalists!!!

>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 they didn't want to trick people after all?

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

I understand he also translated Kropotkin into Italian!!


What I find curious about your position is that you seem to be more
concerned with putting "anarchism" and "syndicalism" in a good light rather
than coming to terms with certain grim episodes of working class history.

This is what I regard as an IDEOLOGICAL position.

It appears that you do not wish to root your viewpoint in the real world at
all, and when I have asked for evidence that all anarchists are now class
struggle anarchists and indeed provided evidence to the contrary, you have
failed to respond.

I think the purpose of debates on this list is to help deepen our
understanding of what is happening in society rather than providing
ourselves with the illusion that we can have a comprehensive understanding
of society if we adopt the identity of "@narchist" or "Syndicalist".

>No doubt there are autonomists who have become fascists.. does this mean
>that >autonomism leads logicaly to fascism?  In debord's logic, it does.

I think it is important to be aware that the counter-revolution will always
be ready to pick up on aspects of the revolutionary movement and integrate
them into itself, albeit in a modified form. As such modification of ideas
happens in precise historical circumstances I see little point in appealing
to logical schema which exist outside time. It is thus important to
maintain a critical awareness which does not see revolutionary theory as a
repository of truths but as a mode of expression of our need to overthrow
capitalism.

As long ago as 1979 Gregory Pons writing in the French newspaper Le Figaro
remarked :
"the constant cbrake which market society applies  in confiscating life and
perverting man's pleasures and desires, reveals a clear convergence between
Vaneigem's "Le livres des plaisirs" [Book of Pleasures] and the new
currents of thought such as that of Alain de Benoist, who bases a large
part of his critique of contemporary ideas on the refusal of "market
imperialism": between the two poles of intellectual sphere, sparks begin to
crackle which could form a new flux of energy." (The New Right: Nietsche
buries Marcuse - as quoted in "The Echo of Time" by Jacques Cammatte).

I feel that if you are sincere in your love of anarchism, your time would
be better spent dealing with the rapprochement currently occuring within
certain sections of the anarchist scene (I detect no movement) and the New
Right rather than attempting to "defend anarchism".

Surely if anarchism is as as good as you pretend it should be used as a
weapon to defend working class interests rather than a liability which then
relies on energy to be diverted from ither struggles for its defense.

Happy New Year

Leutha Blissett.




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