Syndicalism: a socialist economy in which the will of workers are directed through labor unions
So as a word, it means a socialist society without leaders, with an economy controlled by justified hierarchy. From what I’ve found in my search is that anarcho-syndicalists don’t really have any major published political philosophy (I know it’s out there, I just haven’t found it), but it’s typically taken the form of aggressive, sometimes militant methods of organizing workers. Historically, the one extreme example of their success was the anarcho-syndicalist CNT union during the Spanish revolution, which established a wartime socialist economy based on syndicalist values.
An important term I want to point out that’s important to all anarchist strains of political philosophy is justified hierarchy. An extremely common misconception is that anarchists want pure chaos by destroying all of society, which couldn’t be further from the truth. In actuality, they are opposed to all hierarchy that cannot be justified. This includes political parties, governments, and representative democracy. Instead they believe in highly cooperative direct democracy to ensure the will of the people. This is distinct from government due to free association. With syndicalism in the mix, this means that unions direct the distribution of goods within and between communities based on free association; both communities/unions/federations cooperate for as long as both groups see it as beneficial. These unions do not have any influence on what people choose to do, in fact the union itself is a justified hierarchy with limited direct influence on their member’s lives, but controlled via participatory direct democracy. that is what it means to have justified hierarchy.
I am one, so I can shed some light. It’s a tactic more than a philosophy, much like democratic socialism, but in this case arguing that armed unions directly seizing the means of production and serving as a unifier for the working class and training ground for solidarity is the best means to move towards a stateless, classless, and leaderless (or leaderful) society. Philosophy wise we attract everyone from marxists to mutualists (I lean that way).
There’s one major an-synd organization still around, the IWW, a radical union notable for influencing basically every radical, it’s absolutely rock stars of founders and members such as Lucy Parsons (born a slave, married a white man who died for Haymarket, proceeded to call for the homeless to kill the wealthy for decades) and James Connolly (martyred in the Easter rising), and for it being the only group willing to unionize everyone from dock workers to dick workers to freelancers to prisoners.
well, let’s start by breaking down the word.
So as a word, it means a socialist society without leaders, with an economy controlled by justified hierarchy. From what I’ve found in my search is that anarcho-syndicalists don’t really have any major published political philosophy (I know it’s out there, I just haven’t found it), but it’s typically taken the form of aggressive, sometimes militant methods of organizing workers. Historically, the one extreme example of their success was the anarcho-syndicalist CNT union during the Spanish revolution, which established a wartime socialist economy based on syndicalist values.
An important term I want to point out that’s important to all anarchist strains of political philosophy is justified hierarchy. An extremely common misconception is that anarchists want pure chaos by destroying all of society, which couldn’t be further from the truth. In actuality, they are opposed to all hierarchy that cannot be justified. This includes political parties, governments, and representative democracy. Instead they believe in highly cooperative direct democracy to ensure the will of the people. This is distinct from government due to free association. With syndicalism in the mix, this means that unions direct the distribution of goods within and between communities based on free association; both communities/unions/federations cooperate for as long as both groups see it as beneficial. These unions do not have any influence on what people choose to do, in fact the union itself is a justified hierarchy with limited direct influence on their member’s lives, but controlled via participatory direct democracy. that is what it means to have justified hierarchy.
I am one, so I can shed some light. It’s a tactic more than a philosophy, much like democratic socialism, but in this case arguing that armed unions directly seizing the means of production and serving as a unifier for the working class and training ground for solidarity is the best means to move towards a stateless, classless, and leaderless (or leaderful) society. Philosophy wise we attract everyone from marxists to mutualists (I lean that way).
There’s one major an-synd organization still around, the IWW, a radical union notable for influencing basically every radical, it’s absolutely rock stars of founders and members such as Lucy Parsons (born a slave, married a white man who died for Haymarket, proceeded to call for the homeless to kill the wealthy for decades) and James Connolly (martyred in the Easter rising), and for it being the only group willing to unionize everyone from dock workers to dick workers to freelancers to prisoners.