AnarWiki/markdown/A_Brief_Critique_of_Anarcho-Syndicalism.md

**A Brief Critique of Anarcho-Syndicalism** is a 2010 article by [James
Herod](James_Herod "wikilink") which argues that
[anarcho-syndicalism](Anarcho-Syndicalism "wikilink") is a terrible
revolutionary strategy.

## Transcript

<em>\[Prefatory note: March 2017. This brief critique needs to be
expanded, qualified, and rewritten with more nuance. I still hope to do
that. Maybe I will, but if I don't, here it is as it was read out during
my <strong>Imagining Anarchy</strong> talk at the [Wooden Shoe Book
Store](Wooden_Shoe_Book_Store "wikilink") in Philadelphia on October 15,
2010. That talk is available on [YouTube](YouTube "wikilink"). As I
declared firmly immediately after reading it, the critique does not mean
that I am against organizing at the workplace. It is just that I think
the focus should be on [establishing assemblies at the
workplace](Workers'_Council "wikilink") and then networking these
assemblies across workplaces, thus bypassing
[unions](Trade_Union "wikilink"). So this separates my critique from
[Murray Bookchin's](Murray_Bookchin "wikilink") strident rejections of
anarcho-syndicalism, which practically eliminated any role at all for
[workplace organizing](Workplace_Organising "wikilink"). My position
also puts me at odds with groups like the [Workers Solidarity Movement
in Ireland](Workers_Solidarity_Movement_\(Ireland\) "wikilink"), and
with the strategy of the
[Wobblies](Industrial_Workers_of_the_World "wikilink"), both of which
concentrate on building revolutionary unions.-- jh\]</em>

1\. Anarcho-Syndicalism locates decision making in the wrong place,
exclusively with [workers](Working_Class "wikilink"), rather than with
people in general in their autonomous communities

2\. It locks the [revolution](Social_Revolution "wikilink") into the
[capitalist](Capitalism "wikilink") division of labor. There is no way
for workers in a given enterprise to decide to dismantle the operation,
because their livelihoods are connected to it. They have no way to live
without that income. Anarcho-syndicalism does not provide a way out of
this – that is, it does not create other sources of support for those
workers. This could only be done through community.

3\. It fails to take into account how the content of work has changed
over the past half-century. Vast millions of people are now engaged in
[absolutely worthless work](Bullshit_Jobs "wikilink"). This is work that
should be abandoned not seized.

4\. It has no way to deal with a new, massive, change in the capitalist
labor market -- temp work. These workers are not attached to any
particular workplace, but move frequently amongst many. They are thus
not in a position to seize anything, nor would they ever want to.

5\. It cannot escape the capitalist commodity market. Even if all
workplaces in the entire nation were seized each enterprise would still
be dependent on selling to the market in order to survive. All we would
have would be a nation full of worker-owned capitalist firms. They would
have no way to, nor incentive to, launch and pursue a society wide
de-commodification program, including the de-commodification of labor
and the transition from waged labor to cooperative labor, which could
only be done on the community level.

6\. It has failed to take into account our improved understanding of
capitalism, namely, that capitalists, over the past centuries, have
managed to turn the entire society into the means of production, into a
social factory, for the purpose of accumulating more capital. Thus,
seizing particular workplaces doesn't in fact amount to seizing the
means of production. (Hence the emergence of a [Wages for Housework
campaign](Wages_for_Housework_Campaign "wikilink").)

7\. It mistakes what needs to be seized, thinking that it is the means
of production, whereas in fact it is all decision making that must be
taken away from the ruling class and relocated in our communities.

8\. It encourages wage-slaves to identify themselves as workers. Thus it
perpetuates, and in fact fosters, this false identity. It tries to bring
into being a class consciousness based on work, a working class
consciousness. This is needed in order to seize workplaces, syndicalists
think. But the original goal of the communist revolution was to abolish
wage-slavery, abolish workers as workers, abolish the proletariat,
abolish that whole class. That is, wage-slaves were to abolish
themselves as wage-slaves. As it has happened, hardly anyone identifies
with their work anymore. Nor should they. They know they are more than
just workers. Their identities lie elsewhere, with family, friends,
avocations, leisure activities (i.e., playing), and community. They are
human beings with many interests and identities. They have given up the
identity of worker (if they ever had it) but still have to keep doing
the job in order to live. But that's all it is, just a way to make a
living. Wage-slavery can only be abolished by converting to cooperative
labor. Trying to foster "working class consciousness" is no way to do
this. It can only be done in communities.

9\. It keeps the revolution focused mistakenly on the struggle between
commodified labor and capital, thus blocking the struggle to reestablish
non-commodified labor, use-value labor as opposed to exchange-value
labor. The return to useful labor cannot be done within an
anarcho-syndicalist framework, but only within an
[anarcho-communist](Anarcho-Communism "wikilink") framework.

10\. It leaves out huge swaths of people – the unemployed, old people,
sick people, young people, students, housewives. These people can only
serve as support troops in a revolution defined as seizing the means of
production, which in turn is defined as seizing factories, offices,
stores, or farms. The idea that only people with jobs can play a direct
role in revolution is seriously mistaken.

11\. It has the wrong attitude toward the peasants and the petty
bourgeois (small business families, small farmers, self-employed
professionals and trades people). These categories of people tend to be
seen as enemies rather than as potential allies. And indeed, in the
anarcho-syndicalist model, there is no role for them in the revolution.

12\. It is based on a form of representative democracy (federation, that
is, delegates to regional and national assemblies), rather than on
direct democracy. It has thus nowhere overcome this bourgeois
hierarchical structure or procedure.

13\. It is often closely linked with unions which are organized outside
workplaces. These unions can, and often have, betrayed the working class
when the crunch comes. Two significant cases were the
[CNT](National_Confederation_of_Labour_\(Spain\) "wikilink") in the
[Spanish Revolution](Spanish_Revolution "wikilink"), and [Polish
Solidarity](Solidarity_\(Poland\) "wikilink") in the [Polish revolution
of 1980-81](Polish_Revolution_\(1980-81\) "wikilink").

14\. The [dual power](Dual_Power "wikilink") structure which
anarcho-syndicalists establish is static with regard to the capitalist
state. How exactly is it possible to ever move from a dual power
structure to a single power structure, that is, to the elimination of
the state? The strategy is not equipped to do this, and is thus silent
on the question. (And it has never been done.)

15\. It has no way to deal with counter-revolutionary parties that are
organized outside the structure of the federated workers councils. Thus
the [Bolsheviks](Bolsheviks "wikilink") were able to destroy the
[Soviets](Soviets "wikilink"), [Franco](Francisco_Franco "wikilink") was
able to [destroy collectivized Spain](Revolutionary_Spain "wikilink"),
and Social Democrats were able to destroy the workers' and soldiers'
councils in the [German revolution of
1918-1919](German_Revolution "wikilink"). It could attempt to organize
its own army, but this couldn't be done within the structure of
federated workers councils.

16\. Anarcho-syndicalism derailed, for over a century, the original goal
of all 19th century anti-capitalist radicals, whether communist,
socialist, or anarchist, of restoring power to local communities, and of
establishing a Commune of Communes, without markets, money,
wage-slavery, or states. It sidelined anarcho-communism. Instead, an
artifact of capitalism itself, the capitalist workplace, was taken as
the main organizing arena of the anti-capitalist struggle. This strategy
has failed through over a century of trials.

## External Links

  - [A Brief Critique of
    Anarcho-Syndicalism](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-herod-critique-of-anarcho-syndicalism)
    at [theanarchistlibrary.org](theanarchistlibrary.org "wikilink")