Syndicalism is defined as direct governance of the economy by the trade unions. Anarcho-syndicalism is based on opposition not simply to the existence of capital itself, says jack ross. Ross: syndicalism and anarchism have much in common.
Syndicalism is defined as direct governance of the economy by the trade unions. Anarcho-syndicalism is based on opposition not simply to the existence of capital itself, says jack ross. Ross: syndicalism and anarchism have much in common.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Syndicalism is defined as direct governance of the economy by the trade unions. Anarcho-syndicalism is based on opposition not simply to the existence of capital itself, says jack ross. Ross: syndicalism and anarchism have much in common.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
We stand today at a unique, precipitous, and paradoxical moment in economic history.
The American dispensation of state capitalism is triumphant, but faces grave challenges, not only in the strict economic realm of globalization and its backlash, but also as this is closely tied to America’s world standing teetering on the brink of freefall. At once the fall of communism has demonstrated how right Marx was as we witness globalization’s race to the bottom, and at the same time the failure of every ostensibly socialist project ever put into practice, not only of Stalinism but with the deep roots both politically and economically of the emerging global system in historic social democracy. It is completely logical therefore that we should look to the historic syndicalist movement to yield at least some if not the bulk of answers for what radicals and progressives should stand for and seek as an alternative in our time. But there remains much to learn and rediscover in this undertaking, lessons from history along with innovations in economic science, that is vital for the road ahead. Let us first address and define our terms, namely syndicalism along with the term preferred by many if not most in this room, anarcho-syndicalism. To begin with, what is syndicalism? By its proponents in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was defined as direct governance of the economy by the trade unions over their respective industries, and by historians and others looking back on the movement it is defined as distinct from socialism because it calls for the collectivization of individual industries and shops unto themselves as opposed to the state or any larger collective. So defined, syndicalism absent any prefix is already inherently anarchist, as its central organizing principle is premised on independence from state action, and that worker control is necessary to ensure its integrity. What then is anarcho-syndicalism? Believed by most to have originated as a concept with the IWW, which, having split with the AFL entirely over tactical disputes on the question of direct action, took its emphasis on direct action absent larger theory to its logical conclusion, of adopting opposition not simply to the state but to the existence of capital itself. It was thus that much of the IWW and classical anarchist movement were so shrewdly co-opted by the Communists in the 1920s and 30s. As the great historians of the new left such as Gabriel Kolko and the late James Weinstein taught it, the early 20th century witnessed the triumph of Keynesianism over classical socialism and any of its more classically liberal rivals, such as syndicalism, and if it can be agreed that whatever changes there have been in America’s political economy since then are nothing more then the difference between left-Keynesianism and right-Keynesianism, the question becomes what can constitute a new radical alternative in light of the failure of socialism, if not as an ideal as an organizing principle. The most prominent and popular such alternative to emerge in the 20 th century has been in the Austrian school of economics, whose principles, while very often perverted by present day neo-liberals, when properly understood stand not as a competing outlook with syndicalism for the loyalty of opponents of the present order, but in fact as its necessary corollary. The Austrian school first emerged early in the 19th century to articulate a radical liberal alternative to the classical economy then at its zenith, and thus made a prime point of contention its rejection of the labor theory of value, in favor of the principle of subjective utility. But this must be understood in its context. The leading Austrian contemporary of Marx, Eugen Von Bohm-Bawerk, put it thus: “I have criticized the law of labor value with all the severity that a doctrine so utterly false seemed to me to deserve. In the future anyone who thinks that he can maintain this law will first of all be obliged to supply what his predecessors have omitted - a proof that can be taken seriously. Not quotations from authorities, not protesting and dogmatizing phrases, but a proof that earnestly and conscientiously goes into the essence of the matter. On such a basis no one will be more ready and willing to continue the discussion then myself.” Bohm-Bawerk thus left the door wide open for a labor theory of value to be established within the context of the principle of subjective utility, which is simply the self-evident principle that value is in the eye of the beholder. This was achieved late in the 19th century by Benjamin Tucker, the leading American proponent of the classical anarchist tradition who championed a doctrine he called “individualist anarchism”. A disciple of the early American anarchist theorist Lysander Spooner, who began by synthesizing his work with that of Proudhon, Tucker recognized the principle of subjective utility as key to a proper systemic articulation of Proudhon’s critique of Marxism. Subjective utility dictating that value is attached to a product by its consumer, Tucker developed the simple and self-evident formulation that “the natural wage of labor is its product”. Tucker’s writings had an incredible and decisive impact on many of his more famous contemporaries. Most famously and obviously of these was Henry George, who identified himself most closely with the milieu represented by Tucker, and whose writings served to provide the macroeconomic framework to complement the classical anarchist microeconomic framework. In particular, George’s championship of free trade - the real thing and not what goes by that name today - served as an articulation of both the ultimate aim and underlying principle of labor’s aspirations under the syndicalist ideal, as defined by Tucker’s principle of labor value. While the Austrian school today claims both Tucker and George, it has rejected their fundamental innovation, insisting on closing the door which Bohm-Bawerk had left wide open before. What says the Austrian school of syndicalism? The most accomplished of the Austrian economists, Ludwig Von Mises, in his epic volume Socialism, after examining the different professing variances of socialism (written in 1921), concludes that the one which is truly distinct and worthy of being classified as such is syndicalism, for the very reason so enunciated already, that it called for the collectivization merely of individual enterprises which would remain still freely and fully engaged in the market. As Von Mises put it, “The petty bourgeois ideas which Marx thought to overcome are very widespread, even in the ranks of the Marxian socialists. The great mass desire not the genuine socialism, that is, centralized socialism, but syndicalism. The worker wishes to be the lord of the means of production which are employed in his particular undertaking. The social movement round about us shows more clearly every day that this and nothing else is what the worker desires.” In Socialism Mises already expressed significant doubts about the practicality of syndicalism, and decades later when he wrote his second major work, Human Action, in 1949, he declared it fundamentally flawed because he felt it made production an end in itself, which is the economic essence of fascism. Coming so shortly after World War II - Mises was himself an exile from Nazi-occupied Austria - this is certainly understandable. However it can be reasonably deduced that it was the state, not the producers and workers themselves, who demanded production as an end in itself, and this is the lesson of fascism, both the European variety as well as in the case of the New Deal and its present collapse, the necessity of independence from the state. We must then look back to the syndicalist idea in the time of Tucker and George, and its influence on the American labor movement which was just coming into being in their time. Subscribing to this syndicalist outlook and first establishing itself in opposition to the notions of political action toward “cooperative commonwealth” which defined the then-dominant Populist movement, the programmatic doctrine of the early AFL was therefore essentially “Austrian syndicalist”, and the greatest advocate of this dispensation was the father of the American labor movement, Samuel Gompers. Gompers, of course, received his early political indoctrination not from anarchists but from Marxists, yet even so this is highly informative to the Austrian syndicalist paradigm, indeed is a critical component of it. Deriving his classically liberal syndicalism from his original Marxism, Gompers thus emerged as the most radical of the Marxist revisionists. As Austrian political theory developed in the second half of the 20th century, a subject to which I will return shortly, extending its paradigm from the birth of classical liberalism, Marxism became so defined as seeking the stated ends of liberalism by conservative means, meaning the means of the state and the elite, namely, coercion. This was of course the essence of Leninism, and it ultimately became so of social democracy as well - for while the leading revisionists such as Bernstein and Kautsky readily acknowledged the problem of seeking liberal ends by conservative means, they contented themselves to the avenue of electoral politics, which history proved to be too great a compromise with the state, whereas Gompers was able to establish a practicing syndicalist movement which was able to seek liberal ends by liberal means. Let us examine this then in light of the history of the American left. The main revisionist narrative was, of course, adopted in America by the early Socialist Party, and as numerous sections of it were won over as time went on to New Deal liberalism and ultimately today to neo-conservatism, it was those who remained committed over time to the principle of seeking liberal ends by liberal means who would constitute the better part of the new left. It was Von Mises’ greatest student, Murray Rothbard, who formulated the above paradigm of ends and means in the course of his prolific collaboration with the best scholars of the new left. It was Rothbard who developed the fusion of Austrian economics with the political doctrine of individualist anarchism that originated with Benjamin Tucker and Henry George, which is the overarching paradigm of modern libertarianism, its now overwhelming debasement by thinly veiled Beltway Republicans notwithstanding. Indeed, as what has become of libertarianism demonstrates, this Austrian syndicalist paradigm never materialized in its logical place as the putting into practice of Rothbard’s paradigm. In the seminal essay of his new left collaboration, Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty, Rothbard disregarded the relative liberalism of the revisionists’ means and simply said that Leninism followed by Maoism, because of their commitment to “national liberation”, remained of the real left. This appealed to the destructive biases of the new left, while also without second thought carrying on Mises’ reflexive rejection of any place for labor value contrary to Bohm-Bawerk, which also served to indulge the anti-labor biases of the new left. So what of Austrian syndicalism as a paradigm for our time? As a completion of the libertarian framework that emerged in the time of the new left, it is highly relevant to our time. Those libertarians who remain squarely opposed to the Bush regime readily acknowledge that in this period they must cast their outreach increasingly leftward and not rightward, but the American left has aged terribly these last few decades. But more important is its application to the present upheavals in the labor movement, to which the above elaborated history offers many lessons. Most writers on the recent events in the labor movement have simply maintained that there is no definite left and right in the dispute, and this is but a shoddy excuse for lack of insight. If we apply Rothbard’s reconstruction of the political spectrum as a template to understanding the nature of the political spectrum of the labor movement in the new situation, we can see how what was once the ostensible left has now become the ostensible right. The first thing that must be acknowledged in understanding this is that the old social democratic right wing of the labor movement which was dominant throughout the second half of the 20th century is plainly dead and buried, and we all should, and no doubt do, rejoice in that fact. But it is necessary in that context to understand the more ostensibly leftist outlook that has replaced it in the labor establishment, and what about it has provoked the current rupture in the labor movement. It is most often by its academic partisans referred to as “social movement unionism”, and arbitrarily applies the mores of the new left to the notion that there are “social movements” that labor must subordinate itself and its interests to, that is, in the politics of the present day, the coarse social agenda of the left wing of the Democratic Party. It originated as the traditional critique from the left of business unionism, with some roots in the outlook of the CIO, but it has become in the last several years the conservatism of the labor movement, and is conservative in the most real sense, in that it hearkens back not for a new dispensation but a restoration of the old, in this case, of the New Deal, or of a romanticized version of it. Thus to the untrained eye the dissident coalition appears to be not at all to the left but in many ways to the right of the more traditional leftist dispensation in the labor movement, but considering the history that has been elaborated here, it is the older, largely unrecognizable, more authentic left, seeking liberal ends by liberal means in opposition to the partisans of a tired old ideology. The approach to trade unionism championed by the dissident leaders certainly does in its substance reflect many of the old guard mores, but in this day and age this tends not toward business unionism, but toward the fundamentally anarchist tradition of trade unionism, of organizing for mutual aid, and let us therefore call it “mutual aid unionism”. The numerous proposals for capital forming ventures by many of these leaders is a powerful reflection of this in practice, but there are two important theoretical edifices on which it rests, and which deserve acknowledgment. The first is from the late Louis Kelso, who developed the employee stock ownership program and who championed it as the fulfillment of what he called “binary economics”, essentially the Austrian syndicalist paradigm in practice, emphasizing most of all the need to shift from labor intensive to capital intensive means of economic growth. The second is from a young amateur radical economist named Kevin Carson, who recently wrote what is essentially the macroeconomic complement to Kelso, deriving it directly from the writings of Benjamin Tucker, entitled Studies In Mutualist Political Economy, which is on sale here. Carson has, far more thoroughly than I could ever be able, placed this new syndicalist paradigm into the larger history of economic thought, and together with his current project, Studies In The Anarchist Theory Of Organizational Behavior, may well constitute the greatest work of political economy since Das Kapital, defining the new syndicalist paradigm for our age.