From: "Sean Gallagher" <sean-AT-dendro.com>
Subject: RE: So What the Hell is "Left Anarchy"?
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:47:51 -0500


I know I'm interjecting well after this thread has run its course,but I
think the fundamental problem with syndicalism as I understand it is that it
perpetuates the structures created by capitalism as a "worker-mananged"
entity. That inevitably would cause tensions as  a post-capitalist,
post-consumer society attemtped to restructure its allocation of resources
to ensure a sustainable economy and society.
The problem with left-focused anarchy is that leftism inevitably focuses on
who controls the machinery of the economy. It fails to recognize that it is
the machinery itself is doing the controlling--that in a syndicalist,
trade-focused world, the workers may be "managing" the means of production,
but they are also still serving the means of production.
Syndicalism focuses on where you work, and identifies the individual by what
type of work he or she does; pure libertarianism (anarchism) focuses on
where (and how) you live.
 I'd say that's the long-term difference between syndicalism/left anarchy
and anarchy. I don't mean to suggest that organizing the workplace doesn't
fit into the anarchist world--organizing is important. But I think in the
end that the most important organizing that needs to be done is in the
community.
Happy post-modern post-millennial new years.

->-----Original Message-----
->From: owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
->[mailto:owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Iain
->McKay
->Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:21 PM
->To: Sandi and Scott Spaeth
->Cc: Jamal Hannah; anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
->Subject: Re: So What the Hell is "Left Anarchy"?
->
->
->hello all
->
->> >  I really see no reason
->> > to reject anarcho-syndicalism out of hand. It simply means
->> > anarchists who
->> > recognize themselves as workers, and the need to organize among the
->> > working class against capitalism.. is that so bad?
->>
->> I think the problem's right there in your definition.  Syndicalism
->> defines itself in terms of constant opposition to capitalism with the
->> long term goal of superceding capitalism with workers' self management
->> in democratic and non-hierarchial fashion, which sounds all good and
->> peachy but ignores some serious questions; like can once-capitalist
->> organizations and industries be managed significantly differently, and
->> even if so, are there other harmful effects from just the continuing
->> existence of those industries?
->
->I would agree about whether once-capitalist industries can be managed
->differently given how they have evolved within capitalism (i.e. to
->maintain and increase the power of the boss over the worker). However,
->I would have to say that taking over these workplaces is the start
->of their transformation into something better -- if existing workplaces
->are not placed under workers' self-management, how do we produce the
->goods we need to survive on while we are creating new ways of
->producing and modifying existing ones?
->
->I cannot help thinking that the basic idea that workplaces will be
->modified to suit those who work in them and society as a whole is
->contained within the expression "workers' self-management." We
->are not assuming, surely, that workers' will not modify and
->change their working environment under self-management? if so,
->how can this (huge) assumption be justified?
->
-> Is even defining oneself as a "worker"
->> emotionally or psychologically healthy?
->
->Its not a case of choosing to define oneself as a worker. You
->are or are not a worker. Its an objective fact (like being
->human, or white, or whatever). Sure, we don't want to remain
->"workers" -- thats a different issue and one we should stress.
->After all, while we want to get rid of parasites like capitalists
->we also want to end the condition of "worker" and replace it
->with individuals who do productive and enjoyable activity.
->
->> I don't know those answers, but I think syndicalism has a role to play
->> (particularly in regards to short-term goals), it's just a much
->> smaller role than the syndicalists would prefer - it's hardly the
->> be-all, end-all of human relations.
->
->I would agree with that. We have to look beyond the facts of capitalist
->society and aim to transform society in a libertarian direction in
->every aspect of life, and not just work. But that perspective is
->clear from the activities of the anarcho-syndicalists and anarchists
->in Spain. They, nor the CNT, concentrated on workplace struggles
->and issues only.
->
-> That said, nothing I've read
->> from the post-leftists (and the more I read, the more I realize that
->> I'm not in their movement either) comes as close to being true as
->> Carp's criticism that far too many syndicalists are would-be
->> totalitarians trying to sacrifice us on the cross of "organization".
->
->A wee bit unfair, I think.
->
->Iain
->
->