anarcho-syndicalism

(redirected from Anarcho-syndicalists)
Also found in: Dictionary.

anarcho-syndicalism

a revolutionary movement derived, in part, from the teachings of Proudhon and MARX, and most usually associated with the doctrines of Guillaume and SOREL. The movement emerged in France in the 1890s and thereafter spread to Italy, Spain and Latin America. Anarcho-syndicalists were committed to the overthrow of capitalism by means of a workers’ revolution. Their doctrines were based on a radical rejection of all political roads to socialism, and indeed of all POLITICAL PARTIES, power and planning both before and after the revolution. Such ‘politics’ was associated with compromise which weakened the revolutionary will of the workers. It was also associated with hierarchical party and state organization, and thus with inequalities of power and domination, which would – unless politics was repudiated – persist after the revolution and convert the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT into a dictatorship over the proletariat by party hierarchs and state functionaries. Accordingly, the anarcho-syndicalist ideal lay in a producer-centred revolution: a revolution carried out at the point of production by a loose federation of decentralized, free, autonomous workers’ organizations which is based on a rejection of hierarchy and domination and achieved through the medium of the general strike. This would sweep away capitalist society and the state and replace them with free, autonomous, self-governing workers’ associations which would administer production and society without recourse to hierarchical organization and domination. Although anarcho-syndicalism made some impact in France, Italy and Spain, its influence was short-lived and never widespread, especially since mainstream MARXISM regarded it as a PETTY BOURGEOIS deviation which distracted the working class from its principal task of building a revolutionary party
References in periodicals archive ?
Some people paint the revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalist unions as solely focussed on wages and conditions; this is just not true.
The anarchist-communist, and later anarcho-syndicalist, Union of Russian Workers were active in Canada, as was the Federated Anarchist Groups of Canada (and their paper The Awakener), but apart from the IWW, there was never a strong, permanent anarchist organization in Canada.
Although the speech was reported on in several newspapers and parts of it printed in the Anarcho-syndicalist press, I have always considered it a great loss that this major political document did not survive in its entirety and that the speech could only be vaguely reconstructed on the basis of later and significantly altered versions.
Its most outspoken critics of Soviet Russia's path included leading Russian anarcho-syndicalists like Maksimov, whose outlook and writings rested largely on the "scientific anarchism" of Bakunin, and Aleksandr Shapiro, who pointed out the connection between the syndicalist International and the anarchist wing of the first International led by Bakunin.
Foster, were both anarcho-syndicalists before they became Communists.
A recent appeal of the International Workingmen's Association gives a heart-breaking picture of the condition of Anarchists and Anarcho-Syndicalists in Stalin's stronghold.
Opposing the military rebellion were the forces of the left, including anti-clericals, Communists, Socialists, trade unionists of the UGT (Union General de Trabajadores), and anarcho-syndicalists of the CNT (Confederacion Nacional de Trabajo).
It was fun to read all the old arguments between the traditional reformers and the revolutionaries, between the anarcho-syndicalists and the Maoists, between the feminists and the macho types.
Not that the people involved were anything less than anarcho-syndicalists.
Anarcho-syndicalists and laissez-faire activists were fellow nontheists, but their politics differed sharply from the almost monolithic Progressivism of early- and mid-century humanists.
The same "workplace utopianism" that befuddles historians today misled the leaders of the Popular Front in Paris and the anarcho-syndicalists in Barcelona and resulted, at least in part, in their downfall.
When the first edition of the new series of Now appeared in early 1943 it was published under the auspices of Freedom Press but as Woodcock later recounted 'the anarcho-syndicalists connected with Freedom Press objected that avant-garde poetry and literary criticism had nothing to do with the workers' struggle' (11) These advocates of 'revolutionary purism' led by anarchists Albert Meltzer and Tom Brown instituted a compromise that continued until the journal's demise in 1947.