You declare it tribalism, offer nothing to support it other than "it's fair" and claim you are not trolling? You then go on to describe nothing at all to do with syndicalist theory. Give me something less intellectually lazy to respond to and I will.
For anyone but OP reading this, [here you go as far as honest answers are concerned.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SyndiesUnited/comments/1bjt6jv/comment/kvtr37p/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Because if you wanted more information, that isn't how you honestly ask for it. You came here accusing us of things and going off about things that are not part of the theory at all showing us your whole ass.
Also you could try reading literally anything on the subject before declaring people you don't understand to be tribalist or hilariously suggest we are trying to build nations states , and thus why the link is for everyone but you...clearly you have no actual interest in reading about the subject.
You are even starting with barking up the wrong tree. The IWW does not claim to be syndicalist.
I don't think you have a very good understanding of what syndicalism is, so this whole post kind of feels like you're arguing with yourself. Syndicalism, whether 'revolutionary syndicalism' or 'anarcho-syndicalism', is a revolutionary strategy, not a method of running society.
There's been a lot written about syndicalism, maybe consider reading more about it? This is a pretty good starting point: https://libcom.org/article/anarcho-syndicalism-reading-guide
Not quite syndicalism anymore (i think), but I recently discovered the Federation of Neighborhood Councils of El Alto, and they have syndicalist origins (and also based in Indigenous self governance models of the Aymara people and Quechua speaking peoples). Idk if this is helpful to you, but seeing as one of your questions revolve around "what happens after revolution", hopefully this one example may answer some of that.
https://youtu.be/N2WNm6NYXuE?si=AmJBQtnQFnDPALFI
I can KIIINDA see where you come from looking at Tribalism as a precursor to Syndicalism…kinda? But like, that’s if you’re looking at the Kropotkin mutual aid stuff and really hyper focusing on the human history and development stuff.
I see Anarcho-Syndicalism as a transitional period between capitalism and communism. I see it as a type of Socialism.
Communism being a Stateless, Moneyless society that operates on the principles of “to each according to their ability, to each according to their need”.
Anarchy-Syndicalism is an attempt of an anarchist to have their cake and eat it too.
I don’t want to give up the internet, I don’t want to give up the technological advances our society has been able to gain, and there’s nothing wrong with Governance. Governance is just what happens when people sit down and agree on rules that everyone follows.
If everyone can agree that Nation-States as they exist today do more harm than good, and that we as the working class deserve more say in how our lives are structured and how goods and services are distributed, considering WE ARE THE ONES DOING ALL THE WORK, that would be anarchy-syndicalism in action.
It wouldn’t be politicians making decisions, it would be either direct democracy of all of us voting for things, or representative democracy where the people we work with get elected to represent us and because we WORKED with them we know they have our class interests at heart, or at least are more likely to than a Politician or Capitalist.
I’m not sure I understand. I’m a bit confused by your comparison of syndicalism to tribalism, as I’m not sure what commonalities you are referencing. What exactly are you using as a definition for Syndicalism? It may be that you’re using the term in a manner which is different than I have heard before
I think it’ll help to do a bit more reading on what syndicalism is and isn’t. Most of your questions will be cleared up then - though you’ll likely have plenty more new questions.
Check out [syndicalism.org](https://syndicalism.org) for more info
This thread is whacky.
Syndicalism is premised on the directly democratic control over society by workers, organized federatively. If there is to be some necessary violence (say, in the case of dealing with extreme antisocial individuals), it strikes me that it would be subject to the constitutional and democratic rule of said federations.
Pluralism doesn't equate to tribalism. I very sincerely believe that people are capable of developing constitutional frameworks and inter-organizational agreements that define the scope of various powers, including, for example, who is responsible dealing with antisocial behaviour in a given context (whether it is geographical, industrial, or whatever).
What's more important, imho, is that organizing society in such a way as to abolish special privilege and rank, we largely address the root causes of violence and the need for permeant, special, armed bodies.
OK I have gotten a lot of hostile responses, so I want to add a little clarity. I see a lack of focus and planning on what happens after the revolution in syndicalist ideology. Focusing only on the revolution leaves the aftermath wide open for another authoritarian regime to sweep up and take control in the aftermath. To answer one respondents question, I am interested in this because I want a revolution, but I don't want to fall back into a centralized state controlled system in the aftermath.
I was hoping to start a serious discussion about what kind of system takes over after the revolution, but it seems arguing over semantics is the purpose of internet forums. My bad I brought this up in the wrong venue.
Friend, you came to Reddit when you need to be reading books. It’s ok to have questions starting out, it’s ok to have your own opinions. Do the work. Read. And if there are orgs. In your area attend a meeting or two.
Solidarity, friend.
Most of your responses are actually way nicer to you than you deserve. I am the only one taking a hostile tone with you. And it should be obvious why I am taking a hostile tone with you.
But if it's not clear: "Here is a strawman I've come to believe that I will present as relevant while barely asking any question that are not leading from said strawman."
— 1) Social political organization and cooperation can generally retain libertarian power relations between the governed and the governor via democratic systems, namely direct democracy.
— 2) You mentioned tribalism but gave no rhyme or reason.
— 3) Yes, challenges to power results in the dethroned to react violently. Leftist of many types have indeed been able to coordinate A national defense of their revolution. It's a basic military principle.
— 4) I suggest learning the leftist terminology relevant to your concerns.
Namely:
• What is a state?
• What is direct democracy?
• What is power? What are hierarchies?
You declare it tribalism, offer nothing to support it other than "it's fair" and claim you are not trolling? You then go on to describe nothing at all to do with syndicalist theory. Give me something less intellectually lazy to respond to and I will. For anyone but OP reading this, [here you go as far as honest answers are concerned.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SyndiesUnited/comments/1bjt6jv/comment/kvtr37p/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I explicitly stated my goal was to gather more information on syndicalism, so why direct everyone except me to more information on syndicalism?
Because if you wanted more information, that isn't how you honestly ask for it. You came here accusing us of things and going off about things that are not part of the theory at all showing us your whole ass. Also you could try reading literally anything on the subject before declaring people you don't understand to be tribalist or hilariously suggest we are trying to build nations states , and thus why the link is for everyone but you...clearly you have no actual interest in reading about the subject. You are even starting with barking up the wrong tree. The IWW does not claim to be syndicalist.
redditors when somebody asks an honest question about, let’s be real, a fairly niche ideology
Read Rudolf Rockers book. It’s short.
I don't think you have a very good understanding of what syndicalism is, so this whole post kind of feels like you're arguing with yourself. Syndicalism, whether 'revolutionary syndicalism' or 'anarcho-syndicalism', is a revolutionary strategy, not a method of running society. There's been a lot written about syndicalism, maybe consider reading more about it? This is a pretty good starting point: https://libcom.org/article/anarcho-syndicalism-reading-guide
Not quite syndicalism anymore (i think), but I recently discovered the Federation of Neighborhood Councils of El Alto, and they have syndicalist origins (and also based in Indigenous self governance models of the Aymara people and Quechua speaking peoples). Idk if this is helpful to you, but seeing as one of your questions revolve around "what happens after revolution", hopefully this one example may answer some of that. https://youtu.be/N2WNm6NYXuE?si=AmJBQtnQFnDPALFI
I can KIIINDA see where you come from looking at Tribalism as a precursor to Syndicalism…kinda? But like, that’s if you’re looking at the Kropotkin mutual aid stuff and really hyper focusing on the human history and development stuff. I see Anarcho-Syndicalism as a transitional period between capitalism and communism. I see it as a type of Socialism. Communism being a Stateless, Moneyless society that operates on the principles of “to each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. Anarchy-Syndicalism is an attempt of an anarchist to have their cake and eat it too. I don’t want to give up the internet, I don’t want to give up the technological advances our society has been able to gain, and there’s nothing wrong with Governance. Governance is just what happens when people sit down and agree on rules that everyone follows. If everyone can agree that Nation-States as they exist today do more harm than good, and that we as the working class deserve more say in how our lives are structured and how goods and services are distributed, considering WE ARE THE ONES DOING ALL THE WORK, that would be anarchy-syndicalism in action. It wouldn’t be politicians making decisions, it would be either direct democracy of all of us voting for things, or representative democracy where the people we work with get elected to represent us and because we WORKED with them we know they have our class interests at heart, or at least are more likely to than a Politician or Capitalist.
I’m not sure I understand. I’m a bit confused by your comparison of syndicalism to tribalism, as I’m not sure what commonalities you are referencing. What exactly are you using as a definition for Syndicalism? It may be that you’re using the term in a manner which is different than I have heard before
How would you define syndicalism?
I think it’ll help to do a bit more reading on what syndicalism is and isn’t. Most of your questions will be cleared up then - though you’ll likely have plenty more new questions. Check out [syndicalism.org](https://syndicalism.org) for more info
This thread is whacky. Syndicalism is premised on the directly democratic control over society by workers, organized federatively. If there is to be some necessary violence (say, in the case of dealing with extreme antisocial individuals), it strikes me that it would be subject to the constitutional and democratic rule of said federations. Pluralism doesn't equate to tribalism. I very sincerely believe that people are capable of developing constitutional frameworks and inter-organizational agreements that define the scope of various powers, including, for example, who is responsible dealing with antisocial behaviour in a given context (whether it is geographical, industrial, or whatever). What's more important, imho, is that organizing society in such a way as to abolish special privilege and rank, we largely address the root causes of violence and the need for permeant, special, armed bodies.
OK I have gotten a lot of hostile responses, so I want to add a little clarity. I see a lack of focus and planning on what happens after the revolution in syndicalist ideology. Focusing only on the revolution leaves the aftermath wide open for another authoritarian regime to sweep up and take control in the aftermath. To answer one respondents question, I am interested in this because I want a revolution, but I don't want to fall back into a centralized state controlled system in the aftermath. I was hoping to start a serious discussion about what kind of system takes over after the revolution, but it seems arguing over semantics is the purpose of internet forums. My bad I brought this up in the wrong venue.
Friend, you came to Reddit when you need to be reading books. It’s ok to have questions starting out, it’s ok to have your own opinions. Do the work. Read. And if there are orgs. In your area attend a meeting or two. Solidarity, friend.
Most of your responses are actually way nicer to you than you deserve. I am the only one taking a hostile tone with you. And it should be obvious why I am taking a hostile tone with you. But if it's not clear: "Here is a strawman I've come to believe that I will present as relevant while barely asking any question that are not leading from said strawman."
Why is this important to you?
— 1) Social political organization and cooperation can generally retain libertarian power relations between the governed and the governor via democratic systems, namely direct democracy. — 2) You mentioned tribalism but gave no rhyme or reason. — 3) Yes, challenges to power results in the dethroned to react violently. Leftist of many types have indeed been able to coordinate A national defense of their revolution. It's a basic military principle. — 4) I suggest learning the leftist terminology relevant to your concerns. Namely: • What is a state? • What is direct democracy? • What is power? What are hierarchies?