Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 19:20:36 +0000
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
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