dogsmilk wrote:
Mondragon is an anarcho-syndicalist co-op yes. Thats precisely what anarcho-syndicalism is all about.
I dunno why you're paying any attention to all the above bumf and then saying simply 'a co-op' lol?

Guevarista wrote:
Its not nationalist, they're quite happy to have departments all over the world and trade globally.
A nationalist would ony be concerned with just their own area.

When we talk about anarcho-syndicalism we must make specific mention of the process.

a) 1 man 1 vote direct shared ownership of the means of production.
b) Avoiding taxation and thereby involvement/participation in government.
c) Re-investing profits into social benefits for the workers.
d) Direct democracy within the workers various groups.

^You need clearly defined steps like the above in plain English.

andyh wrote:
It's not "bumf" Andy - I quoted you a figure of immense importance in anarcho-syndicalist thought - arguably the most important thinker - who was a big influence on Noam Chomsky - and the UK's anarcho-syndicalist organisation. Go tell SolFed anarcho-syndicalism is just about co-operatives and see how far you get. Crikey, just look at the wikipedia page.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Anarcho-syndicalism is by it's very nature a form of revolutionary anarchism. That's what it is. In Spain in the 1930s, the anarcho-syndicalists were at the forefront of revolutionary social change until the Stalinists fucked it all up.

Mondragon may have origins in the anarch-syndicalist thought that has such a strong history in Spain, and they have may been very close to that when they started, but I don't think they are anarcho-syndicalists now.

And I haven't spent time researching them and make no big claims for the validity or whatever strong criticisms, but strong criticisms of them there certainly are. For example.

libcom.org/forums/news/mondragon-capital...sion-poland-20072008

I'm well aware of the weaknesses mondragon has .
I'm also well aware of principles of anarcho syndicalism. What you have failed to do is explain the practical process and action which is of far more value as a description.

Democracy for example cannot be accurately defined for intent without identifying the specific process involved, it could mean dozens of things otherwise, everything from Switzerland to the eu superstate and everything in between.

Hence my description of the text you quoted as irrelevant bumf

dogsmilk wrote:
If a community starts from a place where one socio economic system is in place and then seeks to remove the system and replace it with another, is that not by definition "revolutionary"?

Guevarista wrote:

dubmeup wrote:
Yes it is. And one of the good ideas about anarcho-syndicalism is that it is practical in this respect. The point is, it is not just about forming co-operatives, it is part of an overall revolutionary process that ultimately seeks to destroy the whole edifice. Otherwise, you just end up with your own little...sanctum zone. I was disputing Andy's notion "is really not some­thing polit­i­cal or rad­i­cal" because it most definitely is - its very nature is political and radical, this is at its core.
The point I was making is it grew out of class struggle anarchism and has always been a form of class struggle anarchism. It's a war on two fronts - wanting people to improve their lives within the system while also wanting to eventually overturn the system.
And getting people to e.g. adopt an attitude of not needing bosses, of being able to organise temselves is arguably an essential prerequsite for any social change. The problem with wanting a revolution is if most people are still locked in status quo mode, you're probably going to end up with a different version of the old status quo.

So your notion of "seeks to remove the system and replace it with another" is absolutely crucial, because that is the end goal. And that is of course by definition revolutionary. And that is never going to happen without a fight.

andyh wrote:
I don't really understand what you're getting at here. I was laying out the ideological basis of anarcho-syndicalism because you said it's "really not some­thing polit­i­cal or rad­i­cal" and seemed to think it's just about forming co-operatives which is false.
Anarcho-syndicalists get involved will all the standard issues other people do - SolFed have been picketing shops in various areas protesting about this workfare bullshit, they run workshops educating people about their rights at work. Like all the other anarchists, Marxists and socialists, anarcho-syndicalists are preoccupied with issues about the explitation of workers within the current system. Unfortunately all these movements are currently confined to a small minority of people and lack the numbers to really get anywhere or do anything particularly notable.
Which comes back round to how these ideas have been so effectively demonised and buried and how people have been led to internalise notions that go against their own self-interest.

You can always read Catalyst to see what UK anarcho-syndicalists are saying.
www.solfed.org.uk/?q=catalyst

All systems of change seek to replace something old with something new.

So...how does this then specifically describe just anarcho-syndicalism?

It doesn't because there's no description of the practical process and steps involved to attain that goal, all you did dogsmilk was to quote the aims, the goal, nothing else.

Mondragon is not ideal because not all workers are shareholders afaik. So they have deviated from what it ought to be. However it remains the best example I know of as it has been quite successful over a long period and it does have its own social utilities and services funded by itself instead of government.

'Politics' when you really understand it simply means the art of telling people what to do...governance in other words.
Anarchism is directly opposed to this...so how can anarchism then be considered 'political'?
Do you see the dilemma here? So called 'intellectuals' using words that have completely opposite meanings!

A.S. is just a transitionary process, it is not a permanent way of life nor is it intended to be so.

The goal of all such social process is utopia. Probably something unattainable, however we are nowhere near STARTING on such a goal let alone attaining it at the moment.

dogsmilk wrote:
Again where is the process? You have described nothing of substance at all dogsmilk.
How is anarcho-syndicalism implemented?

andyh wrote:
To copy the definition given on wiki (which seems reasonable to me) politics is "the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of society. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[1]"

If you advocate self-government independant of any centralised state, then that is a political position. Anarchism is a political philosophy - it is based on a specific set of notions about how humans should be governed - i.e, by governing themselves without an 'elite' doing it all for them. Anarchism is all about governance. Self-governance. That's a political viewpoint about how things should be run.

Anarcho-syndicalism is not a "transitory process" - it is a revolutionary political ideology of class struggle anarchism with an end goal of abolishing both capitalism and the state. It just has a heavy emphasis on struggle and self-empowerment within existing labour relations and a pragmatic focus on self-organisation and worker mutual support and empowerment in the here and now.
I'd say it's very much a 'way of life' because it is a political philosophy that defines how its adherents view the world - like any other political philosophy.

The 'processes' are basically the same as its ideological bedfellows - worker solidarity, self organisation and direct action. Though like I said, there is comparayively little that can be done right now becauase these philosophies have been so effectively crushed. Worker solidarity is very difficult when so few workers have a sense of it.

No offence Andy, but I've quoted you its foremost thinker, it's current UK organisation and its wikipedia article, but you seem nevertheless determined to argue anarcho-syndicalism is defined by what you personally have decided it is.

Oh and I forget the name of the one I'm thinking of, but I think the reclaimed factories movement in Argentina given at least one great example of a successful factory run without bosses based on shared decision making. I think it might present a less problematic example than Mondragon. I'll see if I can remember more later.

dogsmilk wrote: Anarchism is directly opposed to authority and power outside of the self, so why pander to an elitist word by assigning it to have any relevance or association with something that opposes it?
Anarchism is political? Please....

So anarcho-syndicalism is what then? Killing people in power?
So now its about how they view the world? As in its presently shit? Is that it?
You just described the union movement which has nothing to do with ownership, just trying to get more pay or less hours.
Absolutely yep, what you have quoted is what the establishment wants you to think it is, eg just some generally vague union movement. That really achieves a lot doesn't it?...not.

Thats a bit more like it perhaps, provided they took direct ownership and equal share i all aspects of the business.
If not then its just back to capitalism again.

andyh wrote:
Anarcho-syndicalism is ultimately "implemented" by overthrowing the state and doing away with capitalism. That's what it wants.
The "process" is the same as any other radical ideology. Propaganda, organisation and action in pursuit of your goals. As I said, with anarcho-syndicalism this involves a heavy emphasis on labour relations. So for example encouraging people to self-organise to defend their rights at work without relying on the unions would be the sort of thing that would interest your average anarcho-syndicalist. Organising a (true) co-operative would be in harmony with it, which is where it fuses with the idea of co-operatives and the idea of (true co-operatives) fits in very well with it. What I have been saying all along though is that anarcho-syndicalism is not about forming co-operatives. It is about anarchism.

dogsmilk wrote: How?
How does getting your boss to give you more of what you want and leaving your boss in place really relate to anarchism in this instance if the aim is to remove the boss altogether?!

Anarchism is about anarchism?

How can forming a co-op not be MORE in line with what anarcho-syndicalists want if the stated goal is the removal of govt and the direct ownership of the means of production?
How is merely just a union movement MORE about anarchism than direct ownership of the means of production?!?

You sound like Gordon Brown.

andyh wrote:
No - the self exists in a social context. Being purely preoccupied with the self is egoism.
Anarchism is actually quite a broad church. Anarchist communists, anacho-capitalists and national anarchists can actually have little in common with one another other than their rejection of the state. Anarchism encompasses a range of political philosophies that view the state as undesirable. It is not one thing, nor is it purely about the authority of the self. For example, any anarchist society would be unlikely to tolerate pedophiles. The self authority of pedophiles would not be accepted because it damages others . All anarchists believe in social rules that may conflict with the self-determination of others, specifically where their self-determination is to harm or oppress. Anarchism wishes to enhance personal autonomy and to stop oppression, but it will always recognise the self exists within some sort of community.


It's not about that, but it could include that depending on how things pan out. Enough anarcho-syndicalists fought against Franco and spent a bit of time shooting at Stalinists too. Killed some priests too IIRC.
Anarcho-syndicalists get embroiled in the 'fluffy vs spikey' debate same as anyone else. Some anarcho-syndicalists might be happy throwing a brick through the window of the Ritz, others not. It depends on their personal perspective regarding the use of violence to achieve your goals, same as with anyone else.

No the way people view the world in terms of their political philosophy - the principes that underpin their politics and how they think the world should be. Things like whether they believe in the wage system or not.

And these things have importance. Anarcho-syndicalists are very dismissive of the established unions - mainly because they're bullshit and really now just another self-serving hierarchy. But people winning more pay or less hours has a tangible beneficial effect on their lives. And if people can organise to win this, then this is a good thing, even if it is not the ultimate goal. It still helps working class people improve their lives. And any victory can help working class people appreciate their potential power. Organising to win concessions from power can teach you you can take on power. It's part of 'the process'.

Andy that is totally ridiculous. How in God's name is it 'what the establishment wants you to think?????'. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't conform to Andy's unique ideas about what he's decided anarcho-syndicalism is is following 'what the establishment wants you to think'. Please explain to me in what way Rudolf Rocker was a representative of 'the establishment' - I'd love to hear it. Explain how Emma Goldman was while you're at it.

Yeah, it was very democratic. I just can't recall the one I'm thinking of. It's the first time I regret being banned from the DIF as I brought it up on there on the big anarchy thread and now I can't search for it.

dogsmilk wrote: And yet above you state that anarcho-syndicalism is about anarchism and here you describe different types of anarchism.
Although I would argue there is no such thing as 'national anarchists' or 'anarchonationalism' because its a contradiction.
Community has always existed since we were apes, its of little relevance to use such simple words.
Again whats this got to do with the price of beans? How is this of any relevance to the meaning of anarcho-syndicalism in any practical way?
Again whats this got to do with anything of any practical importance to us here?
Don't we already do that within the present system...a system which has remained since recorded history by the way?
How is this of any use if it takes thousands of years to accomplish?
Also again how is the union movement more relevant to anarcho-syndicalism than co-ops if the stated intent is to take ownership of the means of production? You've failed to answer the question again...
By saying that the union movement is somehow MORE relevant to anarcho-syndicalism than the co-op movement exemplified by mondragon. In the case of mondragon people acted on their own to take ownership of their own jobs and pay and social welfare system etc. How is the union movement anywhere near accomplishing that? It isn't is it? Its way way waayyyyy behind mondragon and has nothing to do with taking ownership, it is merely using the democratic system to gain a tiny bit of extra wealth for the proles now and then. It has achieved sod all else...in fact of late the unions seem to have been infiltrated.

There was iirc a factory abandoned in argentina due to the financial crisis. The workers understood that it was possible for them to simply walk in there and start production themselves without pay and to then try and sell on the goods themselves.
What happened after that I've no idea, I'm assuming they got kicked out by the law or bought out again or whatever.

andyh wrote:

dogsmilk wrote:

andyh wrote:

dogsmilk wrote: