Why are there no Syndicalism threads on leftypol? Is this a ☭TANKIE☭ board...

Luis Collins
Luis Collins

tfw you realize Syndicalism is the optimal way to achieve Communism
why are there no Syndicalism threads on leftypol? Is this a ☭TANKIE☭ board or soemthing?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (66.35 KB, 900x583)

Other urls found in this thread:

iww.org/history/myths/11
workersspatula1.wordpress.com/2018/04/07/how-to-be-class-conscious/)
archive.org/details/LifeTimesDanielDeLeon/page/n93
davidharvey.org/2015/06/listen-anarchist-by-david-harvey/
iww.org/content/black-cats-bond-industrial-workers-world-and-new-afrikan-black-panther-party-–-prison-chapte

Blake Young
Blake Young

b u i l d
u
n
k
e
r

William King
William King

State syndicalism is clearly the way to go.

Sebastian Lopez
Sebastian Lopez

isn't that just 2nd stage Leninism?

Anthony Jones
Anthony Jones

NON SECTARIAN U.S RADICAL UNIONISM TO ACKNOWLEDGE OTHER NATIONS NEED DIFFERENT FORMS OF REVOLUTION

Attached: tumblr-pm0cs4rxgf1whxxzzo1-1280.jpg (196.73 KB, 934x1163)

Adrian Hall
Adrian Hall

you mean deleonism

Oliver Robinson
Oliver Robinson

trade unions devolve into economism and outright reactionary tendencies
oh no!

Attached: 1550362909798.gif (388.44 KB, 607x609)

Leo Jackson
Leo Jackson

Not when structured with protections and rank and file.

Colton Martin
Colton Martin

guess why…anarcho-leftys oder anarcho-what-ever-fucktards are the same retarded coins of the same medal. A workers-council ala Kautsky/Lenin-pre-1919 can work, but not a postmodern-hippiesk 'basic-democratic-lets-discuss-everything-first-and-make-every-decision-revisable

Attached: DeAr84yV0AAmQSf.jpg (65.94 KB, 820x460)
Attached: Anarchisten.png (298.59 KB, 674x754)

Hunter Torres
Hunter Torres

Could you expand on what you mean?

I know next to nothing about trade unionism beyond general osmosis but I'd be very interested in seeing how they can do good in the modern day where they're either vilified as pseudo-mafia clubs or help up as paragons of working class action

Daniel Lopez
Daniel Lopez

iww.org/history/myths/11

Evan Reed
Evan Reed

as someone who was always been in the lower left quadrant of those political graphs, this is probably why i've started creeping up the y axis.
as much as I want to believe in people, don't think the enemies would pass up the chance to stomp it out.

Aiden Parker
Aiden Parker

Terrible post, terrible understanding. You should read moar.

Ethan Phillips
Ethan Phillips

you know shit, read more, I'm a spoiled arrogant little brat that dispise ppl who are not on my side and I think are less educated hur dur

yeah. funny isn't it. no understanding of base and superstructure. you are closet idealists and believe, that superstructure before base like the bourgoise. 'first we have to change da thinkin of da people, than everything will be fine or become better and free stuff for all hur dur'

guess what, beeing educated doesn't mean shit. educated ppls are in every political spectrum

idpol, ancaps, adornites, facist; all oll them have false conciseness

first comes food, than morals -> B. Brecht

Attached: div2.jpg (19.03 KB, 597x306)

Dominic Ramirez
Dominic Ramirez

That post is what Xexziy beleives

Caleb Ward
Caleb Ward

this

Owen Allen
Owen Allen

Aren't most MLs on board with syndicalism though? Why the petty sectarianism and insisting they're diametrically opposed?

Nathan Miller
Nathan Miller

<What's the main error in syndicalist thinking in your opinion? Specifically on the statist side with guys like Daniel Deleon

the main error (which is in fact shared between the DeLeonists and the anarcho-syndicalists) is in seeing the trade union as if it must necessarily be the height of left wing political subjectivity simply because it is formally a collection of workers as workers. thus, just as anarcho-syndicalists fantasise about a revolutionary moment when trade unions simply step in and replace the state, the DeLeonists simply imagine they can overthrow the bourgeois state by collecting a majority of workers who are unionised, and there you go, you now have socialism.

it is no wonder to us that no matter how much syndicalism advances in a given society, the DeLeonist dream is never realised, because that is not how politics works, that is not how Marxism works, that is not how class struggle works: trade unions, like states or political parties, play particular roles at particular stages of class struggle, but it is the conscious proletariat as political class *in its totality* which is the political subject with which we are concerned, and only this subjectivity, which is NOT the same as a unionised worker ( workersspatula1.wordpress.com/2018/04/07/how-to-be-class-conscious/) can overcome capitalism in its totality.

the fact is that the proletariat embraces in material practice the most diverse forms of struggle, thus any vanguard (or vanguard-like, if the DeLeonists want to deny that their attempt to present a framework and strategy for the future of struggle is not an attempt at subjective leadership) must not constrain this political class one or the other particular form of struggle (in the case of groups like the DeLeonists, strikes and elections). once they do this, they necessarily draw a dividing line through the proletariat, "on this side lies our Marxist programme, on that side lies irrelevant issues and reformism", which does *not* erase the contradictions with which it intersects, but sharpens them to a breaking point. through this, the DeLeonists become more sectarian and isolated, and the workers who are close to them are likewise less and less a part of the proletariat as political class. they become the irrelevant ones.

Benjamin Murphy
Benjamin Murphy

of course the error above can be extended to any number of non-DeLeonist groups who fetishise some particularity of class struggle and descend into sectarianism, the reason for which is simple: the main error of all revisionists is fundamentally the same, which is to say, breaking with dialectical materialism. the only "magic bullet" for socialist struggle is to broaden and deepen our struggle of dialectics as theory for our materialist practice.

Julian White
Julian White

No. Trade unions obviously existed in the USSR and whatnot, but the political and economic system wasn't built around them.

De Leon wasn't a "state syndicalist" though (not quite sure what that term is.)

He argued that the Socialist Labor Party existed to propagandize its beliefs and to win elections. Once it won a decisive victory at the ballot box, it would abolish the state and itself, allowing trade unions to take over the running of society. Due to the power of said trade unions, the capitalists would be unable to offer any real resistance.

Jack Rivera
Jack Rivera

Wtf, do you think all anarchists are neocon caricatures?

Attached: 7b7.png (233.07 KB, 807x430)

Connor Ward
Connor Ward

De Leon wasn't a "state syndicalist" though (not quite sure what that term is.)
He argued that the Socialist Labor Party existed to propagandize its beliefs and to win elections. Once it won a decisive victory at the ballot box, it would abolish the state and itself, allowing trade unions to take over the running of society. Due to the power of said trade unions, the capitalists would be unable to offer any real resistance.
Since we all know reformism is useless we can all collectively (even the most autistic sectarian) say "fuck this noise"
basic-democratic-lets-discuss-everything-first-and-make-every-decision-revisable
The IWW isn't anarchist but I know for a fact committees are structured to maximize efficiency.
postmodern
my post above

Easton Morgan
Easton Morgan

Attached: 8fd9acbe665863894b998d7bcf45c3140930e4ee42dc826b0bdae5c5e2818378.png (220.5 KB, 996x1020)
Attached: baa5b9330c452929f2bfefe54c6145435f44c5f1571f70d1f2c8de0d779c1345.png (214.28 KB, 1002x956)

Kayden Kelly
Kayden Kelly

You don't need centralization to protect you and thinking you need it because of "chaotic human nature" is pretty idiotic while being a gommunist. ML parties are still rad tho man.

Attached: durruti-lg.jpg (84.98 KB, 423x600)

Zachary Wright
Zachary Wright

Is there any truth to Lenin being a "fan" of De Leon? I know he talks quite positively of him in LWC (or at least I remember he did, at some point).

Benjamin Powell
Benjamin Powell

Attached: e3e2dfeaf8a0e2421136152492d60560ba3aa2250b6afc940cb2fd0976dac4e1.png (352.07 KB, 595x649)

David Green
David Green

De Leon opposed opportunism in the Second International, which drew Lenin's admiration, but the latter was no "Deleonist."

As Lenin wrote in 1915, "We always quote letters from Marx & Engels (especially to Sorge, active member of American socialist movement), where both condemn the sectarian character of the S.L.P."

There's a book about De Leon from a ML perspective that I scanned a while back. Chapter XVIII deals with Lenin's views of De Leon: archive.org/details/LifeTimesDanielDeLeon/page/n93

Hudson Cox
Hudson Cox

but the latter was no "Deleonist."
Ah I never meant to imply that at all, just that Lenin admired the guy, as you said. Thanks for the link.

David Long
David Long

It hurt production
Internationalist movements aim to radicalize workers abroad as well and hurt unnecessary production so the workers have an advantage when facing a capitalist power.
The conditions weren't quite right yet for a more international revolution in neighboring countries, not to mention based Stalin cutting off funding to not antagonize other countries/being sectarian and not training anarchists and being forced to defend the Soviet Union.

Attached: Flag-of-the-Popular-Front-(Spain).svg.png (2.63 KB, 160x115)

Ryder Rodriguez
Ryder Rodriguez

when you disrupt production in the middle of a war to own the ☭TANKIE☭s epic style

Dominic Fisher
Dominic Fisher

I didn't say that and they were definitely in the wrong for still going through with it

Attached: 3c56494eb39161747758cdd45ae6233be2c3d4d9301ca46e0574dfca4f0c8be8.png (15.12 KB, 181x255)

Joseph Bailey
Joseph Bailey

when people misrepresent your ideologies you should call them out on it. Don't be such a snowflake about it

Josiah Watson
Josiah Watson

Revolutionary Catalonia wasn't perfect Anarchism. But it was perfect Syndicalism

Attached: JD18.GIF (68.78 KB, 320x232)
Attached: JD17.GIF (68.38 KB, 320x232)

Nathan Howard
Nathan Howard

thank u basd sovets for protegting proberdy rites :DDD
t. kulak

Jayden Rodriguez
Jayden Rodriguez

I do agree though. We should use capitalist who are good in organizing

Nicholas Sullivan
Nicholas Sullivan

Obviously. That's just a means of pragmatically pushing them into it though.

Also I strongly wonder what "production" is being discussed here. From the amount of blatant bias this text has I wouldn't be surprised if they would count disrupting fascist held factories as "disrupting production mid-war"

Tyler Diaz
Tyler Diaz

Yeah there is alot of bias. But I accept it. The CNT-FAI did some pretty autistic things. Like not following military obedience.

Colton Moore
Colton Moore

Syndicalism's strength was its ability to take advantage of an already existing and quickly radicalizing labour movement in conditions that couldn't be handwaved away. Its advantages just do not exist in the vast majority of the developed world anymore, where most unions either practically do not exist or are castrated by legislation and work for collaboration between worker and proprietor.

A syndicalist movement would effectively have to rebuild the trade union movement, repeal anti-organization legislation, radicalize said labour movement, ensure it has support of a majority or significant minority of the population, and get enough support among the military and police so that the general strike would not just result in massacres until people are made to work again. All while avoiding parliament and parties, which the first two would be extremely difficult to achieve without.

Owen Collins
Owen Collins

Bangladesh has a huge Syndicate. It's anarcho syndicalist I believe. But true unionism will have to make a comeback. It made a revival in Mexico with the strike

Cooper Thomas
Cooper Thomas

You can't organize a single city district properly, let alone defend a whole country, ffs.
davidharvey.org/2015/06/listen-anarchist-by-david-harvey/

Wyatt Cruz
Wyatt Cruz

The only way to achieve communism is through Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. You can't reach communism without a cultural revolution.

Thomas Ortiz
Thomas Ortiz

not being a ☭TANKIE☭

Cooper Hall
Cooper Hall

Daily reminder that Deleon very specifically envisioned syndicalism as a revolutionary movement that could only succeed if the trade union and labor party worked together, hence the tandem founding of the Socialist Labor Party and the Industrial Workers of the World. Radical trade unions have never had the membership necessary to force a change in government or organize a paramilitary insurrection without the assistance of political organizations. A political party subject to the desires of a union is the only way to actually present socialistic policy in bourgeois government which the unions may exert pressure to enact and political organizations are the only way to create a coherent asymmetrical warfare-capable structure for union militia in the event of revolution.

Hunter Jackson
Hunter Jackson

I am not anti-Maoist but it is incredibly strange to claim that that is the "only" way to communism considering the state of China and the failed terroristic and arbitrarily despotic nature of the Shining Path.

Luis Roberts
Luis Roberts

where's this from?

Chase Allen
Chase Allen

Left Anticommunism: The Unkindest Cut -Michael Parenti

Gabriel Mitchell
Gabriel Mitchell

not syndicalism but radical unionism is ☭TANKIE☭ gang iww.org/content/black-cats-bond-industrial-workers-world-and-new-afrikan-black-panther-party-–-prison-chapte

Juan Myers
Juan Myers

Honestly as soon as people (porkies and porky adjecents) decry unions as using "mafia methods" I just swell with pride. God damn right, the union is the worker's very own mafia so watch your fucking step.

Jason King
Jason King

Hurr durr, can't organize and do class war efficiently anywhere.
Only general strikes were organized by the IWW in the U.S
Just saying

Attached: are-you-retarded.jpg (15.02 KB, 560x232)

Henry Gonzalez
Henry Gonzalez

Rashid is a cool guy, I hope he gets out of prison

Ryder Wood
Ryder Wood

I don't know about US, but I would say that for Europe, mutualism is the optimal path to socialism (after which to communism). Its main advantage is that it is fully possible to achieve through incremental reforms. Low-key mutualist policies already exist in some EU states, like Germany with 30% companies board of directors being democratically elected by the workers, or Scandinavia with its big state support for unions. Over time, with more and more worker liberties and left leaning policies people of the country themselves would become more and more welcome to socialist ideas, accelerating the incremental process. At some point you would likely hit socialism (total control of the means of production by the workers) and perhaps you wouldn't even need worker elected officials for administrative purpose. All of this could be achieved without any bloodshed and without the risk of a corrupt bureaucracy taking over.

Attached: 654732526278132.png (1.01 MB, 4500x1500)

David Parker
David Parker

All of this could be achieved without any bloodshed and without the risk of a corrupt bureaucracy taking over.
That'd be all well and good if people never faced the crises of the bourgeoisie yeeting reformism into the second dimension, paired with reformist vote cuckery.

Tyler Smith
Tyler Smith

I don't know about US, but I would say that for Europe, mutualism is the optimal path to socialism
Mutualism seems incompatible with modern industry. It's why Engels described the consequences of Proudhon's views as follows:

For modern industry obscures the particular share of the individual in the total product, which in the old individual handicraft was obviously represented by the finished product. Further, modern industry abolishes more and more the individual exchange on which Proudhon’s whole system is built up, namely direct exchange between two producers, each of whom takes the product of the other in order to consume it. Consequently a reactionary character runs throughout the whole of Proudhonism; an aversion to the industrial revolution, and the desire, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly expressed, to drive the whole of modern industry out of the temple, steam engines, mechanical looms and the rest of the swindle, and to return to the old, respectable hand labour. That we would then lose nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths of our productive power, that the whole of humanity would be condemned to the worst possible labour slavery, that starvation would become the general rule – what does all that matter if only we succeed in organising exchange in such a fashion that each receives “the full proceeds of his labour,” and that “eternal justice” is realized?

Jayden Peterson
Jayden Peterson

I don't know about US, but I would say that for Europe, mutualism is the optimal path to socialism

Mutualism seems incompatible with modern industry. It's why Engels described the consequences of Proudhon's views as follows:

For modern industry obscures the particular share of the individual in the total product, which in the old individual handicraft was obviously represented by the finished product. Further, modern industry abolishes more and more the individual exchange on which Proudhon’s whole system is built up, namely direct exchange between two producers, each of whom takes the product of the other in order to consume it. Consequently a reactionary character runs throughout the whole of Proudhonism; an aversion to the industrial revolution, and the desire, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly expressed, to drive the whole of modern industry out of the temple, steam engines, mechanical looms and the rest of the swindle, and to return to the old, respectable hand labour. That we would then lose nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths of our productive power, that the whole of humanity would be condemned to the worst possible labour slavery, that starvation would become the general rule – what does all that matter if only we succeed in organising exchange in such a fashion that each receives “the full proceeds of his labour,” and that “eternal justice” is realized?

As an aside, the SLP wasn't founded in tandem with the IWW. It actually has its origins as far back as 1876, and De Leon assumed leadership in the 1890s. The SLP and IWW soon diverged because the latter refused to agree to political action, nor did it accept De Leon's overall dominating personality.

Aaron Wilson
Aaron Wilson

Well I only said "mutualism" in particular because its basic ideas fit from all other ideologies best for me (I still don't fully understand syndicalism so I didn't want to use the term as an idiot). So perhaps the deeper ideas of mutualism are negative in the way Engels described, but I don't see the main ideas that I wrote out in my post (workplace democratisation, pro-unionism, market socialism (at least during the transition), anti-bureaucratism) as incompatible with modern society.

Chase Cruz
Chase Cruz

To clarify our point, let us imagine that the organisation of bread production, and of all other wheat-based products, is entrusted to the "Bakers’ Union", with analogous arrangements for all other trades and industries. In other words, we have to imagine that all the products of a given branch of production have been placed at the disposal of large organisations resembling national trusts. Since all the capitalist managers would long since have been removed, these organisations would need to make decisions about how to utilise the entire product (in our example: bread, pasta etc,) in such a way as to receive, from other parallel organisations, not only what their members require for their personal consumption, but new raw materials, instruments of labour, etc, as well. Such an economy is an exchange economy, and it continues to be so whether or not the exchanges take place at the "higher", or the "lower", levels of the organisation. In the first case, exchange takes place at the apex of the various sectors of production, each of which distributes the various products required for production and consumption down through its hierarchical structure. Here the system of exchange remains, at its upper levels, a mercantile one, that is, it requires some law of equivalence in order to equate the value of the stocks of one syndicate with another; and we can easily suppose that these syndicates would be very numerous, and just as easily suppose that each of them would need to separately negotiate with all the others. Let us not even ask who is to establish this system of equivalent values, or what would guarantee the "social atmosphere" within which all this fantastical independence and "equality" of the various producers’ unions, would take place. But let us be so "liberal" as to think it possible that the various equivalent values could be peacefully determined through a spontaneously arrived at equilibrium. A measuring system of such complexity couldn’t operate without the age-old expedient of a general equivalent, in other words, money, the logical measure of every exchange.

It is no less easy to conclude that the "higher" system would eventually break down into the "lower", since it would be impossible to restrict the handling of money in such a society just to those top people entrusted with arranging the exchanges between one production trust and another (and here the word syndicate is entirely appropriate); inevitably this right would be extended to all trust members, to all trust workers, who would thus be empowered to "buy" whatever they wanted after receiving their quota of money from their particular trade syndicate: in other words, their wages, just like today, the only alleged difference being that it would be ’undiminished’ (as in Duhring, Lassalle et all) by the bosses profit margin.

The bourgeois, Liberal, illusion of a system of trade unions existing independently from one another, and free to negotiate the terms under which they part with their stock of (monopolised) products, is connected with the idea that each producer, having been remunerated with the "undiminished proceeds of his labour" (a nonsense ridiculed by Marx) would then be able to do whatever he liked with it in terms of the consumer goods he acquired. And here is the rub: that these "free producers’ economies" are shown to be just as far removed from the social economy, which Marx called socialism and communism, as capitalism, if not further.

In the socialist economy, it is not the individual who makes decisions about production (what is to be produced, and how much) or about consumption, but society, the human species as a whole. Here is the essential point. The independence of the producer is just another of those vacuous, democratic stock-phrases which achieve precisely nothing.

liberals get out

Attached: bordiga-mad.jpg (20.6 KB, 434x355)

Josiah Ramirez
Josiah Ramirez

explain

Jacob Watson
Jacob Watson

if you need to know how much bread your bread factory is going to make today, that makes you a capitalist
So this… Is the power… Of leftcom…

Noah Jenkins
Noah Jenkins

Is there really much of a difference between syndicism and marxist leninism?

Adrian Lee
Adrian Lee

But does syndicalism assume that there would be no administrative body to direct production? I assumed there was meant to be some federal body elected by the syndicates that could determine what needed to be produced and have some powers to hold the disparate unions accountable for their production and distribution.

Hunter Hall
Hunter Hall

Except that's not what he's saying.

Landon Rodriguez
Landon Rodriguez

This, he's saying "syndicalism uniquely requires equivalent exchange (trade economies) because ???"

Jace Miller
Jace Miller

I dread to think what kind of person is behind this cursed post.

Eli Wright
Eli Wright

babbys first political ideology

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit