Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Is it worthwhile for syndicalists and insurrectionists to work closely together?

+3 votes
I am wondering first off, if there is a level of organization that would allow both "informal" and "formal" groups to bump elbows in mass struggles.

Second, is it even worth the time? Is there enough in common to justify working together, or is there just way too much difference between the two?

Could the style of informal, decentralized workplace organizing (direct expropriation of goods, slacking off, sabotage) popular with folks influenced by IA blend well with the syndicalism-influenced model of "direct unionism" (not relying on formal recognition by institutions like the NLRB or company, not going after contracts but instead immediate needs) currently being discussed by some Wobblies???

(http://libcom.org/library/direct-unionism-discussion-paper-09052011)
"The core of these models, the shop committees, to some extent already exist in informal work groups. Thus this organizing model develops not out of some purely theoretical framework, but out of how work and workers are organized by capital." (http://libcom.org/library/informal-work-groups-resistance-sunrise-shift)

I am coming from a more anti-civ perspective so I have my reservations about the world that some syndicalists hope to live in (urbanism, factories, specialization of labor, intensive agriculture etc), but it seems to me that at the current time, there is just too much at stake to let particulars get in between what we share in common (undoing of class society).
asked Oct 23, 2012 by anonymous
edited Oct 23, 2012
"not going after contracts but instead immediate needs"
-what are some examples to you of "immediate needs"?

"but it seems to me that at the current time, there is just too much at stake to let particulars get in between what we share in common (undoing of class society)."
-i would also say that i come from a strong anti-civ perspective, so i would answer this by saying that i dont see "the undoing of class society" as more imperative or trumping the destruction of any of the other things that characterize civlization (production, destruction of biomes, etc) nor do i think ending class society as possible without destroying all things that characterize civ.
in addition, the idea that there is "too much at stake to let particulars get in between" tends to me at least to be associated with progressive ideology and bearing the burden of all these things existing that calls for constantly "going at it" and always doing "anything we can" against the system that often characterizes activism

1 Answer

–1 vote
i do think it is worthwhile and i discussed this a bit in the piece Insurrectionary Anarchy & Revolutionary Organization...

i think struggle committees, mass assemblies, self-managed leagues, autonomous workers cells, informal work groups, workplace resistance groups, are all variations on each other what is important is working towards as direct and as unmediated forms of struggle as possible.

"some syndicalists hope to live in (urbanism, factories, specialization of labor, intensive agriculture etc)"

honestly i think this is a caricature inherited from the history of the old workers movement, contemporary syndicalists at least in the vein you cite thinking it is worth working with hardly want to keep alienated factories as a separate sphere of life, or specialized forms of labor...regarding urbanism it is really good thing for queer folks, and we obviously need to look into ways to be more at balance with the earth.
answered Oct 23, 2012 by sabotage (670 points)
"Urbanism is good for queer folks" - can you elaborate on this, sabotage?
...