What exactly is syndicalism? What separates the ideology from

File: american_fight.webm (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

Bumping my own thread

Trade Unionism to the extreme, the entire country is managed by experts arranged into councils, syndicates, communes, or whatever they may be called, the workers know their own industries best, so they will be able to manage them best is the core concept, that things will both be more representative and efficient, with all the industries coming together in a rather functionalist way, its the lovechild of the socialist state and the corporate state

>>666382
This, it's a key element in fascism, especially Italian fascism. A popular form of syndicalism is anarcho-syndicalism, where the worker's councils are organized completely democratically and run without a state. The only place where this has really been tried was Catalonia and Aragón during the Spanish Civil War.

>>666348
Syndicalism was a new method of union organisation developed by workers in the late 19th century, it is comparable to the IWW spirit in the Anglophone countries, or the AAUD/KAPD/German Shop Stewards movement.

It opposed the "new unionism" and "craft" unionism of previous forms of unionism, and revived militant industrial tactics on a continuous basis.

Syndicalism is agnostic regarding the marxist/anarchist split: Kun's government was mostly run by syndicalists. The French syndicalists were right up the PCF.

>What separates the ideology from socialism?
By 1895 Marx's criticisms of the gotha programme had been bourne out: the socialist parties of Europe were moribund reformists.

>Has there ever been a functional syndicalist states?
Syndicalists don't aim for a "state," they aim for an equivalent to "the industrial commonwealth" a society of industry. The Seattle Soviet (IWW/AFL), Budapest (not all Hungary) 1919, and Catalonia are the closest examples to significant syndicalist social power.

>>666382
How does the wage system work? Is an individual's wage based off of their quality of work, or do all individuals in a union receive the same wage? Also, how is private ownership viewed in syndicalism?

>>666402
>Catalonia and Aragón during the Spanish Civil War.

Relative to the rest of Spain, how was the quality of life in these regions? Did syndicalism fail as a result of the rise of Franco?

>>666411
>How does the wage system work?
There is no wage system for successful syndicalists.

>private property
With capital abolished there is only personal usufruct.

>>666402
>This, it's a key element in fascism, especially Italian fascism


British fascism too, just check either 'The Coming Corporate state' or 'Fascism: 100 questions asked and answered' both advocate systems which took much inspiration from syndicalist thought, workers owning 50% stakes in any companies growing past a certain size in an attempt to allow private enterprise to grow alongside it as smaller business, and the desire to form a new parliament where voters would vote by their profession for people from that same
field, rather than based on geography as before to create a technical rather than political parliament, or as Mosley called it 'a government of action'

>>666435
I'm still not entirely sure how this system works. Is the idea that everyone is granted an equal amount of goods, or is the individual rewarded for achievements?

>>666423
Wasn't Franco a syndicalist too?

>>666402
>>666448
Effectively Italian and British fascists wanted to integrate syndicalism into the nation state by compromising in some aspects, be it under the proposed democratic British model, or Mussolinis state which at least existed in reality to evaluate

>>666453
>Is the idea that everyone is granted an equal amount of goods, or is the individual rewarded for achievements?
Neither. People appropriate usufruct as required within the democratic structure of their syndicats.

>>666454
I'm not sure. However, from my impression of syndicalism formed by this thread, it would make sense that Franco would incorporate syndicalist aspects into the his fascist system/

>>666423
There's not that much information on how the people lived in these areas, but George Orwell, who fought there, wrote about how there were "very few destitute people". The forms of distributing goods varied throughout the towns and villages, but generally the agrarian areas were as close to "true" communism as possible, with money completely abolished an all private property held in common. As Burnett Bolloten writes:

>In many communities money for internal use was abolished, because, in the opinion of Anarchists, 'money and power are diabolical philtres, which turn a man into a wolf, into a rabid enemy, instead of into a brother.' 'Here in Fraga [a small town in Aragon], you can throw banknotes into the street,' ran an article in a Libertarian paper, 'and no one will take any notice. Rockefeller, if you were to come to Fraga with your entire bank account you would not be able to buy a cup of coffee. Money, your God and your servant, has been abolished here, and the people are happy.' In those Libertarian communities where money was suppressed, wages were paid in coupons, the scale being determined by the size of the family.

>>666469
The urban areas like Zaragoza and Barcelona often used labour vouchers, with wages determined by the worker's committees. There was a syndicate for everything from barbers to butchers, so the situation was pretty chaotic. Almost all the syndicates, however, were part of the CNT, the anarcho-syndicalist labour union that played a large part in the war, which gave it some semblance of organization. The syndicates seized the factories and shops in the cities at the very start of the war in June. Many of their owners were killed or fled in the ensuing "Red Terror".

Whether or not this short-lived social revolution would have lasted in any significant way is debatable, but it's worth noting that they had no allies and many enemies in the struggle. Even their supposed friends, the Stalinists and hardline communists, attacked them in the May Days of 1937. One thing that is sure, however, was that the CNT was massively popular amongst the populace, with the CNT's peak membership of 2 and a half million at the beginning of the war.

>>666462
I'm to stupid to grasp this seemingly abstract idea. Can you possibly provide an example as to how this system works? Or, at least explain what happens to an individual in the situation of unemployment.

>>666471
All in all, it could be said that the denizens of the anarchist society in the Spanish Civil War had it much better than the Nationalists, but it's an unfair comparison because the anarchists controlled the most industrialized areas of Spain, and the nationalists at first held the poor western and northwestern regions. This is a unique example, as it is the only instance of a large-scale worker's revolution in an industrial society besides the Paris Commune.

>>666465
Well, before Franco appeared, there was a political party called the Falange which was national-syndicalist.

But Franco was a quasi-fascist at best, since he ruled with a coalition of many parties which were traditionalist, one of them was obviously the Falange.

>>666454
Franco was absolutely not a Syndicalist. Franco was a Catholic dictator who incorporated some parts of fascism into his government.

>>666465
>I am ignorant
>Here is my opinion
>Here is my arsehole

Fuck off and read.

>>666488
You do your job, as a pleasure, you take what you need.

>unemployment
When work is freedom how can anyone be unemployed?

>>666692
No. Reading is for faggots.

>>666701
Let's say I'm unemployed because I refuse to work. What would happen to me in a syndicalist society?

>>666716
Look at you funny and try to find you something useful to do.

>>666454
He was originally a corporatist, but eventually embraced free market capitalism

>>666454

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism#Iberian_Peninsula

>>666454
No but the Spanish Falange and Jose Antonio were strongly anti-capitalist and pro national-syndicalist. After Franco let Jose Antonio die at the hands of the Republicunts and effectively paralyzed the Carlists and Falangists by merging them into one party it was pretty much dead though.

>>666402
This guy gets it. Syndicalism is heavily intertwined with fascism

>>666454

No, he was just a Spanish Conservative and an Authoritarian.

>>669680
Both the Falange and British Union of Fascists were national Syndicalist organisations, before respectively they were co-opted by the Carlists and National Socialists respectively, while Mussoloni was an early proponent of the ideology.

Despite fascism at its core being an national movement rather than internationalist one, the independently developed parties did all seem to rally round the Syndicalist doctrine, especially noticeable with the British and Italian Fascists born from the Left of politics

>>669729
To be honest, the aims of syndicalists and Carlists weren't that difference.

It's just that syndicalists arrived at it from the revolutionary left, while the Carlists came from the reactionary right.

>>666423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

>>669758
>the aims of syndicalists and Carlists weren't that difference

u wot?

the Carlists were literally fighting to reestablish the Bourbon dynasty on the Spanish throne.

>>669758
There are some dfifferences though
Falange
>centralized state
>not-monarchy
>syndicalism
>Faith is not central to its ideology
>Carlists
>Requetes, meaning decentralized state, regional rights
>monarchy
>corporatism
>deeply in bed with the Church

>>666493

But most of the arable farmland in Spain was controlled by the Nationalists.

>>669776
My point is that Carlist ideology also emphasized a society based on voluntary associations with little to none overreaching central authority.

I think the extend towards which Carlism influenced the anarchist and syndicalist tradition of Spain, specially in the Basque country, is worth investigating. It can't be a coincidence.

I find it hard to believe that everyone heroes calling Facists Syndicalists. Yeah they may have adopted some of the rhetoric but let's look at their action. In literally every state the Facists took power as part of a conservative alliance against the surge of radical left-wing movements rising in europe at the time. See the British Facists getting in street fights with the left in London, Franco teaming up with traditionalists to crush the Anarchists in Spain, or the Nazis teaming up with the conservative establishment to crush the revolutionary communists in Germany. And once in power what did they do? They doubled-down on many traditional power structures, Franco and the Church/Monarchy, Hitler and the industrial elite like Porsche/Mann, and embraced the anti-internationalist policies that have always been favored by the conservative Monarchies before them.

>>670159
italian fascists were anti conservative

>>670214
You can be anti-left without being pro-right. The whole point of fascism is to be a third position between those extremes.

File: 98.jpg (121KB, 1368x1026px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1368x1026px

>>670159
But anon, the British fascists were the left too, they were born out of a desire to do away with the old system, the old men of government had to be done away with and replaced with men of action. Their leader was a former Labour MP, cabinet minister, and seen as the rising star of the radical left and socialism. British fascism was the lovechild of socialism and liberalism, the desire for a state where a democratically elected government elected not through geography but based on franchise would control the commanding heights of the economy, and the workers would be given a 50% stake in any business reaching a certain size, whilst private enterprise was still protected for small businesses, in many cases it was socialism but with a rejection of internationalism, like the Italian fascists, the British were anti-conservative and saw themselves as revolutionaries. Their conflicts with Communists in the East End largely arose from the association that fascism=nazism=hitler, fascism=hitler, and the unfortunate reality that the movement began to attract Hitler sympathising National Socialists by the mid 1930s.

To quote Mosley twice;

"I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics."

"[Fascism] was an explosion against intolerable conditions, against remediable wrongs which the old world failed to remedy. It was a movement to secure national renaissance by people who felt themselves threatened with decline into decadence and death and were determined to live, and live greatly."

>>670225
>>670223
But as I said, sure they adopted some of the rhetoric, because it was attractive rhetoric in those times, but literally everything they actually DID did not at all match up.

>>670223
The whole point of fascism is to bastinade and emetic trade unionists to death.

>>670257
>67. What is the Fascist attitude towards Trade Unions?

No Trade Unionist will suffer under Fascism the loss of any benefit which he now enjoys. On the
contrary, he will derive greater benefits, because Trade Union funds will be available for the full
benefit of Trade Union members when strikes and lockouts are prohibited. The Trade Unions
will no longer be instruments of class war. They will be one of the main pillars of the Corporate
State, participating actively in the industrial government of the country. The workers will have
equal representation with the employers on all corporations. In the event of dispute, the issue will
be settled by consumers' representatives appointed by Fascist Government, which is elected by
and responsible to the whole people. Thus the workers will enjoy, not only security, but full
participation in the profits of industry which they have never yet achieved from strikes. The
Trade Unions, like every other great organ of the nation, will be removed from the political control which has corrupted and perverted their purpose. Trade Union Leaders will look after Trade Union members instead of looking after their political careers.

File: Picture26.png (35KB, 224x599px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 224x599px

>>670225
Well said anon, well said

>>670277
And yet strangely the first actions of the fascisti were to beat trade unionists to death on their feet and force themselves to shit themselves to death with castor oil.

Stop working from claims, start working from actions.

>>670365
>trade unionists

you mean mobsters of course.

>>670365
Yes, but the National Fascisti, and British Fascisti were two separate groups from the British Union of Fascists, and I will join you in denouncing them and their violent methods. But the British Union of Fascists cannot be judged on the actions of another organisation, it is the same as judging the British Labour party on the actions of Stalin CPSU due to them both also being socialist organisations. Ideology especially in the case of fascism is not absolutel, despite taking inspiration from Mussolini's movement it was mostly symbolic and they took only the authoritarian aspect portraying themselves on the right, while the real BUF were born of the radical left. The truth is the British Union of Fascists was attacked unjustly first by certain communist trade unions simply due to their adoption of the term fascist leading to hecklomgs of BUF meetings and organised resistances to any moves, unfortunately the situation was worsened by allowing the Fascisti and National Fascisti to merge with the BUF in 1934, destroying the movements early success and diluting its ideology with the almost reactionary streaks of the Fascisti, though the fact remains that the certain trade unions involved were not innocent in any way, and that the vast majority of Mosley's organisation did not take part in the street violence

>>670225
uneducated and ignorant person here, but could fascism be described as a sort of authoritarian centrism then?

>>670483
In some respects, the best description probably would be authoritarian centre-left, you've got the desire for a strong self sufficient state economy, wishing to avoid intentional finance and free trade, with both seen as the keys of capitalism. While at the same time there is the desire to protect individual liberty for trh most part, the people should have the right to free enterprise to a degree, though once any industry reached a certain size the workers should be given a 50% stake in it to avoid the creation of a monopoly or concentration of wealth in a single individual or organisation, while you also have ideas seen as typically socially conservative in a rejection of immigration believing that the state can only function with its own people, those born and moulded by it, with those of different backgrounds causing efficiency in the grand scheme, but nationalism is limited to cultural in the case of Italian and British fascism race is rarely discussed as an issue, and exceptions are able to be made for naturalised foreign nationals who pledge their loyalty to their new homeland and are able to contribute to it. Fascism is very difficult to place on a poltical compas as it varies massively by nation as a rejection of internationalism is ironically one of the uniting tenets of Fascist movements, fascism grew and developed independently in different nations, and even different fascist movements developed within those countries, what's wrriten here mostly looking at the fascism of the Early British Union of Fascists:

>>670483
Not really. Every fascism in action has been approved and supported by the far right, has made deals with national capital, and has reformed what it is to "conserve."

Progressive conservatives is a better kind of description: fascism moves the "right" of capital during crises. Much like socialists move the "left."

>>670560

>4.) Why is the Movement called Fascist ?

Fascism is the name by which the modern Movement has come to be known in the world. It would have been possible to avoid misrepresentation by calling our Movement by another name. But it was more honest to call it Fascism and thus to let everyone know exactly where we stood. It is up to us to defeat misrepresentation by propaganda and explanation of the real policy and method of Fascism as it will operate in Britain. In the long run straightforward dealing is not only honest but also pays best. The alternative name for the modern Movement is the National Socialism used in Germany. But the German Movement also is known throughout the outside world as Fascist, which is the name commonly used to describe the phenomenon of the modern Movement whether in Britain, Germany or Italy. National Socialism and Fascism in my view are the same Movement, finding different expressions in different countries in accord with different national and racial characteristics. For seven years in the Labour Party before founding Fascism in Britain, I fought for a National Socialist Policy in contradistinction to the International Socialism of that Party.

>>669793
As far as I know Carlism promoted Catholic corporatism or am I thinking of the Catholic party in parliament?

Also I think that syndicalism is similar to corporatism. Is this wrong to think?

>>670618
>As far as I know Carlism promoted Catholic corporatism
No, that'd be the 19th century family wage movement.

>>670225
there's a difference between fascist movements and fascist goverments though. Also Mosley's fascism was certainly anti-liberalism.

File: willie.jpg (35KB, 344x486px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 344x486px

What's going on in here?

>>666382
> the entire country is managed by experts arranged into councils, syndicates, communes, or whatever they may be called,
Soviets?


>>666411
> How does the wage system work?
The same way traditional co-ops work. Though, I suspect some Soviet-style limitations on turning co-op profit into personal income (at least 25% had to be spent on improving the productivity, IIRC).


>>670223
> You can be anti-left without being pro-right.
Nope.

> The whole point of fascism is to be a third position between those extremes.
The whole point of fascism is to bullshit pro-left into supporting pro-right and then give excuses to right-wingers to suppress the left.

>>671783
>NO SYNDIES ALLOWED

>>671852
>The whole point of fascism is to bullshit pro-left into supporting pro-right and then give excuses to right-wingers to suppress the left.

If you want to believe that despite the evidence presented here, so be it, but closing your eyes to the real world won't always help.

I guess the whole point of communism is to bullshit pro-left into supporting a single man through a cult of personality and establish a permanent dictatorship until said man's death

>>672209
> evidence
Please, point me to specific posts containing said evidence.

>>671852
>The whole point of fascism is to bullshit pro-left into supporting pro-right and then give excuses to right-wingers to suppress the left.
The thing is, most people who say that are dirty socialdemocrats who got into bed with establishment and softened their revolutionary message in return for grants. In this case, they spout this crap because fascism is the only ideology that threatens the liberal bourgeois not only economically, but intellectually as well.

So, sod off, unless you're an honest revolutionary socialist, communist or anarchist, in which case accept my apology.

>>666423
Catalonia is the richest part of Spain so probably not that bad.

i'm kind of ignorant here so how does this relate to/compare to marxism? like how are they different? it just sounds like the workers taking control of production to me which sounds like marxism

>>670365
>fascisti were to beat trade unionists to death
>trade unionists
Racketeers and communists in the guise of helping workers, you mean,

New poster to this thread, not to be confused with another anon in case of
>CURSE YOU I ANSWERED YOUR PESTERING QUESTIONS ALREADY

Temporary trip.

>>666462
>Is the idea that everyone is granted an equal amount of goods, or is the individual rewarded for achievements?

>Neither. People appropriate usufruct as required within the democratic structure of their syndicats.

How was an efficient wage determined?

>usufruct
>the right to enjoy the use and advantages of another's property short of the destruction or waste of its substance.

How would this be determined though? Let's say someone applied to the syndicate for a claim of unit of access to this usufruct, and used it to 'purchase' a resource that would then not be used by someone else. Would that be allowed?

Or could I use enough resources of one union syndicate to build another on its heels?

>>666471
>The syndicates seized the factories and shops in the cities at the very start of the war in June. Many of their owners were killed or fled n the ensuing "Red Terror".

I though a pillar of Anarchism was lack of coercion. Isn't this a coercive action? Wouldn't it have been less hypocritical to slowly build up their own means of production in separate communes?

>>674873
Okay, let's get this thread back on track.

>1.
What is good introductory reading material on Syndicalism?

>2.
Where can I branch out to learn about the economics of Syndicalism?

>3.
How did financial statements work in Syndicalist systems? Did 'income' statements, balance sheets, and 'cash' flow statements work similarly as they do in non-profits, or more like co-operatives?


>4.
How can a Syndicalist Commune form?
What happens when there is disagreement among the people living there on who has authority over the area, or how things are run?

>5.
How does voting work in such a commune?

Is it more like a direct democracy, referenda-based?

Do the trade unions each elect a member into the commune commission, within a given geographical area?

If the smiths are 1,000 strong and the farmers 2,000 strong, do they get proportional representation? What of those working in the professions? Do the shoemakers get as much of a vote as the miners?

I also heard a system whereby each union elects a member to the local committee, and in turn a member is elected to the at-large committee

is this based on geographical area or trade?

What if there is a disagreement within the people of Cincinatti of all trades- to the Miners strike in West Virginia. Do the miners there get reprimanded for not striking as well?

>.
what is the demarcation line between this system, at varying levels of complexity, with
>a.
a hierarchy, which anarchists goal is to eliminate

>b.
a state, as for a commune's edicts to be enforceable requires the use of force within a geopgraphical jurisdiction

>>674873
>I though a pillar of Anarchism was lack of coercion. Isn't this a coercive action? Wouldn't it have been less hypocritical to slowly build up their own means of production in separate communes?
Anarchist logic is that the bourgeois is coercing the working class through wage labor and private property, so the retaliation is justified.

>>674920
>7.
So I know 'wage employment' is not a thing in such a system, but if my neighbor wants to have me reshingle her roof, and I have time to do it Saturday, can I do so without the 'roofing union' giving me hell?

What if I say it would not be worthwhile to me, though she offers increasing levels of compensation?

Would such a voluntary market transaction be allowed in a syndicalist commune? What would stop it

>>674926
Are you an anarchist btw, or well-read enough in the matter?

How has the volition of that relationship been deemed to be void?

>>674927
>8.
last for now, but how does law and order work in such a system absent a 'state'?

How are edicts made?

Recognized?

Enforced?

Appealed?