From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Spelling Inconsistencies[edit]

This article switches back and forth between British and American spellings. I think that, given the topic, the article should exclusively use British spellings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it.Hendrick 99 (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Joe Hill[edit]

Unless there's some other Joe Hill who I'm not familiar with, calling him an "individualist anarchist" in this page is totally incorrect. While he didn't have a specific ideology per se except for the revolutionary syndicalism of the IWW, he certainly was not an individualist. All the evidence I've seen from his writings and recollections from friends is that he was basically a non-Leninist Marxist, certainly not a Stirnerite or mutualist. I am removing his name to reflect this. Suggest interested people see Franklin Rosemont's Joe Hill: The IWW and the Making of a Working Class Counterculture for sources. 15:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Murderbike 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist FAQ[edit]

I think the link to the anarcho-syndicalist FAQ is broken? Nelson 17:31, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--- I think the site is just down today.



OK, the link works today, so I guess there isn't a problem... although the site does seem somewhat incomplete. They should make it a wiki ;-) --Nelson 23:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


It looks like that site is down for good now...


Anarcho-syndicalism - pronunciation[edit]

How do you pronounce this please? --Rebroad 19:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, I'm bad at typing out pronunciation, but let's try: ANNE(as in the name)-ark-o SIN-dick-uhl-ism. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the peasant says An-ARK-o, maybe that's one of those British things. 02:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is stimulating a discussion on this topic at Livejournal ( ). -- 11:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Please update these pronunciations once you've decided: , , . Also, FYI, Tom Morello used the word quickly in passing (and confused everyone due to limited awareness) on Real Time with Bill Maher and Overtime on June 10, 2016. JasonCarswell (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


I would like to see a comparison of this and Socialism. In America it seems the left can be criticized for being too much like socialism while the right can be criticized for being too much like Fascism. --Llbbl 17:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Umm... all Anarchisms are forms of Socialism. In America, the left can be criticized for not being left at all actually. The American left, for the most part, is far from Socialist.--Che y Marijuana 01:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but that is just not true. Socialism and anarchism can also be seen as mutual exclusive terms. It is more of a common misconception that anarchism necessarily is connected to the left of the political spectrum. Anarcho-syndicalism is, but that doesn't mean that "all Anarchisms are forms of Socialism." are, e.g. Anarcho-capitalism --User: anonymous coward 01:18, March 07, 2005 (UTC)
    • With the most basic definition of socialism, he is correct. All forms of anarchism advocate a system in which "...the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively..." ( or something that is a derivative of this idea. Even primitivism vaguely applies to this definition: the sticks and whatever that they plan on using to acquire food would not be privately owned. He is especially correct regarding classical anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, which is the subject of this article. But anyway, I'm sure Llbbl was referring to centrally planned socialism to begin with... 03:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • True, this article is about anarcho-syndicalism. And it is also true that I might be a bit anal about this :) But I still consider anarcho-capitalism or any other form of non-government rule a part of the anarchist movement. That is why I argue that one cannot put anarchism inside the left-right political spectrum, and thus it is wrong to say that all forms of anarchism comes from socialism or advocates a specific economical system. So without coming off as to patronizing, and at the same time knowing that I am failing in a second, I would like to say that differentiation is incredibly important while handling political terms... --User: anonymous coward 00:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Anarchism isn't "non-government", it's non-state. It is hard to see the distinction, but there is still one. For example, you can have anarchism in the form of a commune.
    • To get back to the original question, I think it is important to clear the definition of socialism. The Soviet Union, e.g., was not a socialist system--Marx said that communism (for the purpose of this discussion lets assume socialism is the same as communism) cannot coexist with a goverment, therefore Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat is complete BS. Socialism is the theory that the methods of production should be owned by the society as a whole, not by individual members of the society. Therefore most forms of anarchism with exeption of anarcho-capitalism (although many anarchists--I would agree with them--claim that this is not a true form of anarchism, because private property itself is a form of tyranny, i.e. private tyranny opposed to governmental tyranny) are types of socialism.--Angrydruid 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

IWW - Call for Discussion[edit]

The IWW is a syndicalist labour union which advocated the abolition of the wages system and the establishment of an Industrial Commonwealth (the One Big Union) where all workers share equally in the products of labour. The organising structure of the IWW is inherently syndicalist. The opening line of the IWW constitution is "The Working Class and the Employing Class have nothing in common".

This article Anarcho-Syndicalism projected this ideology until 6 Dec 2004, when an unrgistered user revised the document to imply that the IWW was not syndicalist (and thus casting doubt upon the appropriateness of the IWW being featured in the article).

I'd like to open discussion on this topic - is the IWW syndicalist, should it be in the article, if yes, in what ways? An An 22:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the IWW should be included in some way, as it's the closest thing the U.S. ever had to a syndicalist labor union. However, I'm fairly certain the IWW-writ-large has never officially espoused anarcho-syndicalism, or even fully articulated a vision which we could fairly characterize as such. It was founded by a number of radical labor leaders who were committed to industrial unionism, a group which then included some of the country's most prominent Socialists. A number of those left when the union came to be dominated by anarchists, but so far as I know the socialist influence never disappeared completely, and today there are certainly socialist and other non-anarcho-syndicalist Wobblies. RadicalSubversiv E 23:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One of the features of the IWW is that your poltical persuasiions are not a barrier to entry. As long as you work for the abolition of the wage system (and thus the state), you're OK. There is no totalising political line to be adhered to. This surely is a feature of anarcho-syndicalism.An An 03:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eugene Debs, Daniel DeLeon, and Big Bill Haywood, each of whom were instrumental in founding the IWW, advocated abolishing the wage system precisely by seizing control of the state (either through revolution or the ballot box). They weren't anarcho-syndicalists (read Debs writings on the subject -- he left the Wobblies because he was upset with the anarchists and their fascination with dynamite), and neither are a number of Wobblies today. RadicalSubversiv E 03:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what one guy (founder or not) thinks about the IWW. It matters what the members think, the way they use the structure of the organisation as a tool, and the way they behave within the organisation in a poltical context. My understanding of the historical and current practices and ideology of the IWW, seizing control of the means of prodcution (not the state) is the aim. Seizing control of the state cannot be a revolutionary aim, and it cannot be an aim of the IWW because it is inconsistent with the aim of abolishing the wage system. As for the ballot box, have you ever heard "Bump Me Into Parliament" and Australian wobbly song which denies the utility of the fundamentally repressive nature of ballot box democracy? An An 07:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've already acknowledged that the union has often been dominated (as it is today) by anarchists, and that much of its activities and rhetoric were significantly similar to syndicalism. The article should say that. However, it should also make clear that wasn't true at the union's founding, and that at no point has syndicalism been an explicit collective aim of the organization. Whether you personally feel that it was syndicalist in some broader functional sense isn't really relevant. RadicalSubversiv E 12:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Despite what you and the ghost of Big Bill Haywood personally feel is relevant, the IWW is a syndicalist revolutionary union. You seem to be confusing the terms "anarcho-" and "syndicalist". The IWW is the latter, whether or not its members are the former. An An 23:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If they're just syndicalists, as you say, they're still radical, revolutionary, anti-government syndicalists operating according to anarchist principles, which essentially makes them anarcho-syndicalists despite having never issuing a manifesto claiming such (the IWW was/is always more action-based than theory based). Any differences the IWW has with say, Spanish anarcho-syndicalism (upon which the IWW had an influence; many early supporters of national industrial unionism cited the IWW as an inspiration) should be noted, of course, but I think the similarities are more striking. As far as there being statists and other non-anarchists in the IWW, the same could be said of the CNT, though they were a minority and their ideas (or apathy as far as theory goes) was not generally reflected in the structure, goals, or functioning of the organization. I think the same applies to the IWW. Also , the population of the IWW, as has been noted, is mostly anarcho-syndicalist, which is even truer in recent years (check out the red and black motif on their website) 01:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While I'm not familiar with the details of CNT's history, I think the issue here goes beyond a minority of theory-agnostics. The IWW was as much a child of the then-strong socialist movement as it was of the anarchists (who never had the numbers or political strength in the U.S. that the old Socialist Party did). Debs, Haywood, DeLeon, and Jones would all be rolling over in their graves at the notion that they founded a syndicalist union. RadicalSubversiv E 05:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it reads well now. It incorporates the history and original intentions of the founders (not necessarily anarchists) but also the present mindset of members of the organisation (use of anarchist techniques) without totalising them as "all anarchists". An An 04:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate's efforts, the text was still significantly inaccurate; I have endeavored to improve it. As it happens, I'm not convinced this alleged distinction between "syndicalism" and "anarcho-syndicalism" exists anywhere except Wikipedia. The major syndicalist theorists explicitly embraced anarchism, so I think this is more a matter of preference in terminology than anything else. RadicalSubversiv E 05:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am largely happy with this revision. Radicalsubversiv, can you name the European unions which you compare the IWW to? Is it the CNT? I have removed your comparison word "more" because there is nothing to compare to and this is POV. The datum is idealised.
Re: distinction between anarcho and syndicalist. Anarcho means without rule or government, from the Greek. Syndicalist means 'with justice' from the Greek, but I believe that in English it has come to mean a style of collective organising (e.g "to Syndicate"), politically independant of anarchism or capitalism etc. The IWW are definately sydnicalist, their methods and poltics are mostly anarchist.
re: text largely inaccurate. I really can't see what you altered to make it 'more accurate'. It looks like you paraphrased a bit, and re-emphasised socialists in the history (which is fine, but this is the anarcho-syndicalist page). Maybe you could ask for clarification or history, or rationale? An An 21:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You continue to make changes to the article to uncategorically label the IWW as syndicalist. I have explained several times above why I believe this is inaccurate. In fact, our own article (Industrial Workers of the World) states that the union is syndicalist per se in the opening paragraph. If you are going to persist in making these changes, please supply citations, preferably scholarly, on the subject. As soon as I find the time to spend an hour or two in the library, I will look up some myself, and will happily back down and apologize if I find historians labelling the IWW as anarcho-syndicalist without qualification.

Moreover, please spare me the condescending etymology lessons. The issue is not the linguistic origin of these terms, it is their currant definition and usage, and I know of no source outside of Wikipedia that draws some fundamental distinction between anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism. But again, I will do more research and see what I find.

RadicalSubversiv E 06:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Radicalsubversiv, This section is about the IWW through history, and today (not one or the other). I am trying to respond to the points you have raised (i.e. the etymology of the terms, and their common useage). I don't want to condescend any more than I have been condescended to. You've consistently removed the sydnicalist lable from the IWW, whilst admitting that it is syndicalist in some ways, and should definately be included in the anarcho-syndicalist article. You've garbled every modification I've made with parentheical qualifications because you seem to want the IWW to be socialist, or at least not quite anarchist. I don't see the point of putting the IWW in the anarcho-syndicalist page only to say that it isn't really anarcho-sydnicalist.
As for adding a dispute tag, this is extreme. This labels the entire article as disputed, which is incorrect. Only one section is desputed, and this more on an interpretive basis than a strict factual basis. The section currently seems to relfect your described wishes (as above). You haven't yet responded to my request to know which statements make the section "largely inaccurate", or to know which european unions you refer to.
  • You agree that the IWW is anarcho-syndicalist in some ways (and so does the IWW article). In fact the IWW article states that the IWW is the leading light of anarcho-syndicalism in the USA.
  • How can the IWW be syndicalist per se (i.e. intrinsically), but be unable to be described as such?
  • Can you demonstrate how the current text is "largely inaccurate"?
  • Can you name the european unions that the IWW is like? Did you mean the CNT?
  • There is a distinction between anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism and syndicalism (hence the 3 terms). Whichever terms are used popularly is a matter of fashion. They still represent distinct concepts. If the terms are so similar, then you can't sustain an argument that the IWW is syndicalist, but not anarcho-sydnicalist.
  • The IWW is currently in operation. It is defined in the present, not only in the past.
  • By saying you are going to the library, do you mean to ask me not to change the article until you have done this? Fine, I will refrain.
You've upset me, but I don't want to escalate this further. Are you at all happy with the current text?

An An 08:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism[edit]

In my view, it is useful to distinguish between anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism. Put very briefly, anarcho-syndicalism is anarchist (logical!) whereas revolutionary syndicalism is not. In the case of the IWW for example, Debs and Haywood were both members of the SPA (Socialist Party of America) while DeLeon was a leader of the SLP (Socialist Labor Party). Anarcho-syndicalism certainly shared a number of ideas with revolutionary syndicalism but the two are far from identical, notably in their attitudes towards centralisation. Very roughly speaking, anarcho-syndicalism tended to predominate in the less developed "Latin" countries like Spain and France, revolutionary syndicalism in the more developed countries like Britain and America. I've added a link to this series which I think is quite good on this question What is Revolutionary syndicalism?
Incidentally, I've also removed the reference to Rosa Luxemburg since it is historically inaccurate: Luxemburg was assassinated in 1919 - long before anybody had heard of "council communism". I think the reference to Pannekoek is also highly debateable but have left it in for the mome for lack of time. EverHopefull 16:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Who's quesrtioning the accuracy of this article?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 16:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just a guess that it might be MichaelWarron. Though perhaps he might do us the courtesy of explaing his objections on talk. An An 01:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

He has vandalised my userpage and the talkpage for Anarchism .. -max rspct 17:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the black and red flag the colors of anarcho-communism? Kent

They use it as well, as do anarchists who don't specifically claim to be anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-communists as such. 21:57, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This could just be my browser but the flag doesn't show up on my computer. Is this the case for other people? If so it should be replaced with another black/red flag. BTW, does anyone know where I can get a black/red or black/green flag? I could just make one but I'm not good with textiles.
AK Press sells black and red flags.

announcing a policy proposal of general interest[edit]

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this debate has been going on for years and the argument for BCE/CE isn't being accepted. I don't think it matters either way. The superficial neutrality you gain (superficial because we're still basing our calender on the birth of Jesus) isn't worth the confusion it would cause in a lot of people not familiar with the BCE/CE system. I don't support a universal policy on the matter because it's really not worth the controversy... --
I agree with Tothebarricades completely. You are still basing the calender on the birth of Jesus (assuming Jesus ever existed in the first place). I personally prefer BCE/CE over BC/AD but it is superficial and doesn't matter much. There are more important things in the world to focus on.

Direct Action[edit]

It is not true that ALL anarcho-syndicalists ONLY believe in direct action. Although there is a pretty strong consensus for direct action in the anarcho-syndicalist scene, there are exceptions. A few years ago there were heavy discussions when the anarcho-syndicalist group in Sweden SAC called for the participation in elections, e.g.. They were as a result of this kicked out of the IWA, but they mantained that what they did was right. Noam Chomsky also considers himself as an anarcho-syndicalist yet he has called for people to vote for John Kerry ): I would propose beginning the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph with: Most anarcho-syndicalists... --

Secondly I would propose adding examples of direct action: boycotts, strikes, sabotage, occupations...Angrydruid 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Direct Action --> Terrorism?[edit]

There really is no explanation for why the 'Direct Action' is the same as the 'terrorism' article. I'm not sure if this is entirely appropriate, especially in the case of syndicalism. As the reasons aren't defined in the article, I was wondering if anyone had a good explanation for this?-- 01:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

New section?[edit]

Should the information in and below the lines

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are:

be put into a new section (Features of Anarcho-syndicalism?)? This would make the first few summary lines in the introduction a visible introductory paragraph, with info on what Anarcho-syndicalism is in a clearly defined section on its own. I think it would look neater (plus the contents box would be at the beginning of the article, not right at the bottom). Anyone agree/disagree/care?

PJB 20:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Added it.
PJB 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Is Dennis, the anarcho-syndicalist peasant from Monty Python and the Holy Grail worth mention in this article? savidan(talk) (e@) 06:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, perhaps in a movie references division? but don't ask, just do it, be daring, that's the wikipedia way. --Buridan 12:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been daring myself and removed the reference. I just don't see that this is encyclopaedic information. This kind of trivia might be appropriate on a page for, say, a band or an actor, but not for a political philosophy. And should we now reference every other reasonably well known sketch which mentions Anarcho-Syndicalism? Anyway, if anybody really wants to have the Python reference in this article, I'm not going to object strongly, but it's removed for now. Cadr 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
well, yes we should mention every well-known sketch that references it. or make that another article if you don't want it cluttering this one, but i would say a fairly marginal political philosophy having a voice in a hugely popular movie is a notable thing.
okay i just added it back in (with a slight edit for writing's sake). so that's one round of in-out-in, i suppose if anyone is strongly opposed now, take it out again and put it to a vote. --dan 15:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary trivia section[edit]

Does this article really have a burning need for a recital of a Monty Python scene? I don't think so, which is why I removed it. However, I see that Donnachadelong put it back within minutes. Are we to expect, then, that every article on a concept used in a Python movie requires a "Trivia" section explaining the scene in achingly unfunny detail? — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, all trivia sections are, by definition, unnecessary. However, they can show that there has been some recognition of ideas in mainstream culture. The fact that anarcho-syndicalism has had such a major mention in a hugely popular film (and calling it "unfunny" is POV, I find it funny) is a nice, if not hugely important, thing to have on the page. Donnacha 14:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree strongly that all trivia sections are unnecessary. Quite a lot of the time they're just a collection of misplaced facts that need better integration with the article (see WP:AVTRIV). Regarding funny, call me crazy, but I find scenes in films humorous when I watch them, not when other people try to relate them. (By the way, you may notice that I described the description as unfunny, here on the talk page, not in the article, which I am entitled to do. So your describing that as POV is a little pointless.)
At the very least, the inclusion of the names of the actors in that section is unnecessary and smacks of fancruft. To be more encyclopedic in style, I would edit it to read In the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Arthur encounters a group of peasants who declare their community to be an autonomous collective and part of an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Relating the punchline is better left to the film itself. However, I'm really not that bothered. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't being that serious about the POV, this is the least serious discussion on any of the anarchism related pages. That said, the piece did raise a wry smile when I first read it and remembered the film. Anyway, I don't really think the piece does much harm. Donnacha 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I've moved the "anachronism" line from the introduction to a new section. It needs work, such as a specific quote from that book and an explanation of what's meant by anachronism. Also, some Marxist and capitalist anti-union critiques could fill it out. For the record, I am an anarcho-syndicalist, but I've no problem with properly constructed criticism sections.

The claim that Atlas Shrugged was the culmination of Ayn Rands opposition to anarcho-syndicalism is ridiculous. Surely Ayn Rand hated anarcho-syndicalism, along with most other political movements, but I can hardly imagine the villains of Atlas Shrugged being anarcho-syndicalist. Rands villains are portrayed as social-democrats, fascists and statist-communists although she seldom mentions any specific ideologies in her novels. Dankidding 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Including such a claim in the article without any sort of published interpretation to that effect would violate WP:OR anyway. Cowbert 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What's with the mass substitution of the criticism section? Jacob Haller 09:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think their needs to be a major overhaul of the Criticism section. It doesn't sound like a criticism section, more of a rebuttal section. 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Influence on Fascism?[edit]

I completely removed this section, as 1)wikipedia is not for asking questions 2)the reasons given were non sequiturs. Murderbike 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wages vs. Wage System[edit]

The article states that syndicalists oppose the wage system without defining the wage system. I know that many anarchists, including some anarchosyndicalists, have joined organizations condemning the wage system, signed statements condemning the wage system, etc. without opposing wages or remuneration as such. Jacob Haller 06:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The wage system would be wages for labor right? I don't understand how they could support anarcho-collectivism then, which supports wages for labor. Illegal editor 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to support one thing as a lesser-evil until after "the Revolution"? Murderbike 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But some support wages after 'the revolution,' particularly Joseph Labadie and Ralph Chaplin. Then you have mutualists and agorists who (recognizing that they do not generally identify as syndicalists and the union does not identify as anarchist) join the IWW and implicitly endorse its condemnation of the wage system.
Chaplin wrote, in The General Strike for Industrial Freedom, p.6, that:

The ultimate aim of the General Strike as regards wages is to give to each producer the full product of his labor. The demand for better wages becomes revolutionary only when it is coupled with the demand that the exploitation of labor must cease. Labor is exploited at the point of production, and it is at the point of production alone that Labor can stop the idle, absentee drones from receiving any more than they produce.

Jacob Haller 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a semantics issue. If the means of production are in the hands of the workers, it doesn't seem that they would get "wages", they would just make profit from their work. "Wages" sounds like money that someone pays you. Murderbike 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mother Jones[edit]

is referred to in the intro as an anarcho-syndicalist, but I was under the impression that she was a socialist, not of any anarcho- stripe. Am I wrong? Can someone cite this? Murderbike 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I removed the reference per the Talk page at Mother Jones. Murderbike 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The new "and Party Politics" section[edit]

I gotta say, I think this section gives far too much space to non-anarcho socialism. This isn't the article about socialism in the US, it's about ANARCHO-synicalism, which really has hardly anything to do with Eugene Debs. Anyone? Murderbike 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As a defining logism, the term really should be "syndico-anarchism", because anarchism (in its original, non-disparaging definition - not the connotation of 'chaos') would be the resultant form of (non!-)"government", with the modifier "syndico-" describing the 'administration' of the social construct. Looked at another way, trade unions and similar local, decentralized community organizations take the place of the unnecessary, oppressive "government". Adjective/modifier first, root word/final 'state' of things second...I've seen it described this way in other websites,especially a Japanese least a cross reference should be installed into the wikipedia search engine... Nemo Senki (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you've got sources for this term, that's great. But in all my years I've never heard it. Murderbike (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of "The Square"[edit]

The image of "The Square" social centre, in Russel Square London, in this article it is claimed that this was squatted by Anarcho-syndicalists... I find this information to be false. Whilst it is possible that there may be Anarcho-syndicalists amongst those who occupied the building (in either of its two phases of occupation) it is clear that it was not an action of any organised anarcho-syndicalist organisation. The London Social Centre Network website simply claims "students and non students". I think the image would be more appropriate in other articles... such as Social center, or Squatting. --Daniel Cull (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agreee and have changed the image. Chaikney (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuff about "fiat representation of labour"[edit]

I reverted an edit replacing a sentence about money with a longer text on "fiat representation of labour" because IMO that's jargon-y. I have no idea what it means. It also stated that that subject was subject to much debate amongst a-s: I'd like to see a source & specific figures on that if it exists. Was / is much clearer to say that a-s doesn't necessarily imply a moneyless society. Chaikney (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

question about emphasis[edit]

I note that the first sentence is sourced:

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labour movement.

However, in my view it associates anarcho-syndicalism too forcefully as anarchism, and not sufficiently with syndicalism.

I've been a union member for 39 years, with two decades in a union that has sometimes been described as anarcho-syndicalist. While i think any of us cherish the anarchist influence in our philosophy, i feel that for most of us, our world view is shaped more by unionism than by anarchism. I think an equal emphasis might be reasonable, while a slightly greater emphasis on syndicalism would be more appropriate.

The existing opening sentence, however, suggests to me that if i'm an anarcho-syndicalist, then i must also consider myself an anarchist. And that simply isn't the case.

So i'm wondering -- is there support for the statement that "Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism," other than from this one source? Richard Myers (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with party politics[edit]

"...Debs...polled 6% of the popular vote... - a significant portion of the popular vote considering that this was 8 years before the adoption of universal suffrage in the U.S." The last part of this sentence is misleading. 1920 marked the beginning of adult women suffrage, but there is no reason to believe that Debs would have done better if women could vote in 1912. Suggest deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

"anarchosyndicalism is explicitly anti-capitalist" Says who? Does the article bear this out? The deleted essay has some good points to make -- it certainly doesn't seem like a smear piece. I think the "Clarified direct action" edit was the best of the recent edit. Banaticus (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Labor Party NOT anarcho-syndicalist[edit]

While the inclusion of the ideas of Daniel DeLeon and his co-thinkers regarding "Socialist Industrial Unionism" are worthy of inclusion in a discussion of syndicalism, calling that group's ideology "obviously" anarcho-syndicalist is beyond the pale. The SLP ran political candidates in its own name from 1886 and believed in simultaneous engagement in both political action and economic (union) action against capitalism. The organization is certainly "Marxist" rather than "anarcho-syndicalist" — see, for example, the English Socialist League of the 1880s, who made comparable efforts in both the political and economic spheres... One might make the argument that the Socialist Party of America, with its obsession with electoral politics, was Lassallean in essence — but one really can't make the claim, let alone hold it as axiomatic, that the SLP was anarcho-syndicalist. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Albert Camus - The Rebel: Anarcho-Syndicalism and Individual Anarchism.[edit]

The Rebel, Albert Camus. 7th alinea of the foreword

'Camus shows the real quality of his thought in his final pages. It would have been easy, on the facts marshaled in this book, to have retreated into despair or inaction. Camus substitutes the idea of "limits." "We now know, at the end of this long inquiry into rebellion and nihilism, that rebellion with no other limits but historical expediency signifies unlimited slavery. To escape this fate, the revolutionary mind, if it wants to remain alive, must therefore, return again to the sources of rebellion and draw its inspiration from the only system of thought which is faithful to its origins: thought that recognizes limits." To illustrate his meaning Camus refers to syndicalism, that movement in politics which is based on the organic unity of the cell, and which is the negation of abstract and bureaucratic centralism. He quotes Tolain: "Les etres humains ne s'emancipent qu'au sein des groupes naturels"—human beings emancipate themselves only on the basis of natural groups. "The commune against the State . . . deliberate freedom against rational tyranny, finally altruistic individualism against the colonization of the masses, are, then, the contradictions that express once again the endless opposition of moderation to excess which has animated the history of the Occident since the time of the ancient world." This tradition of "mesure" belongs to the Mediterranean world, and has been destroyed by the excesses of German ideology and of Christian otherworldliness—by the denial of nature.'

Chapter: Thought at the Meridian, page 148

As for knowing if such an attitude can find political expression in the contemporary world, it is easy to evoke —and this is only an example—what is traditionally called revolutionary trade-unionism. Cannot it be said that even this trade-unionism is ineffectual? The answer is simple: it is this movement alone that, in one century, is responsible for the enormously improved condition of the workers from the sixteen- hour day to the forty-hour week. The ideological Empire has turned socialism back on its tracks and destroyed the greater part of the conquests of trade- unionism. It is because trade-unionism started from a concrete basis, the basis of professional employment (which is to the economic order what the commune is to the political order), the living cell on which the organism builds itself, while the Caesarian revolution starts from doctrine and forcibly introduces reality into it. Trade-unionism, like the commune, is the negation, to the benefit of reality, of bureaucratic and abstract centralism.[2] The revolution of the twentieth century, on the contrary, claims to base itself on economics, but is primarily political and ideological. It cannot, by its very function, avoid tenor and violence done to the real. Despite its pretensions, it begins in the absolute and attempts to mold reality. Rebellion, inversely, relies on reality to assist it in its perpetual struggle for truth. The former tries to realize itself from top to bottom, the latter from bottom to top. Far from being a form of romanticism, rebellion, on the contrary, takes the part of true realism. If it wants a revolution, it wants it on behalf of life, not in defiance of it. That is why it relies primarily on the most concrete realities—on occupation, on the village, where the living heart of things and of men is to be found. Politics, to satisfy the demands of rebellion, must submit to the eternal verities. Finally, when it causes history to advance and alleviates the sufferings of mankind, it does so without terror, if not without violence, and in the most dissimilar political conditions.[3] But this example goes farther than it seems. On the very day when the Caesarian revolution triumphed over the syndicalist and libertarian spirit, revolutionary thought lost, in itself, a counterpoise of which it cannot, without decaying, deprive itself. This counterpoise, this spirit which takes the measure of life, is the same that animates the long tradition that can be called solitary thought, in which, since the time of the Greeks, nature has always been weighed against evolution.

[2] Tolain, the future Communard, wrote: "Human beings emancipate themselves only on the basis of natural groups."

[3] Scandinavian societies today, to give only one example, demonstrate how artificial and destructive are purely political opposites. The most fruitful form of trade-unionism is reconciled with constitutional monarchy and achieves an approximation of a just society. The first preoccupation of the historical and natural State has been, on the contrary, to crush forever the professional nucleus and communal autonomy.

This book resulting in the famous break between Sartre and Camus. Satre pro communism, Camus an Anarcho-Individualist and Syndicalist. Shouldn't this be incorperated too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esix (talkcontribs) 21:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


I probably should have discussed it prior to editing but I think there are a lot of problems with it. For one its vague as to the definition and has a lot of uneeded verbiage that can be simplified. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Block reversion[edit]

Earl: It seems that you feel perhaps that you have a controlling interest in contributions to this page, and that therefore you should simply block revert good faith contributions. I would ask you to think again, and to try to see other people's contributions as constructive. I will not go through each of the small alterations I made, because I honestly do not care that much about any of it. However, Wikipedia is written to be read, sometimes by people who would not get past the first paragraph of any text from dead political creeds. Therefore, clarity of language (what you bizarrely call "over-grooming"), without unnecessary clauses and verbiage, is to be welcomed. Similarly, people reading that anarcho-syndicalists agree with James Madison, might like to know who James Madison is, without having to look this up. Most people have never heard of James Madison. This clarifying and signposting helps to make the article more attractive and useful. These are fundamentals of writing. I could recommend a number of books about how to improve your writing, but you could find them online. In the meantime, I would ask you to respond constructively, and not simply revert as if you were in charge of this page. Bluehotel (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As said you did not improve it just jockeyed the language and made it denser if anything. Also the person in question, James Madison is linked in the article to his own article so your point is moot about that. I suggest you let my revert stand and look for citations or other information that has value instead of twisting and turning language to no apparent reason, as I said idiosyncratically. By the way its against guidelines and considered extremely bad form to name a contributor in a section title of a talk page. That is a no no. Please remove that and make a reasonable title. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Earl - I see that you assiduously blank your user talk page, but on deeper research I see a mass of similar disputes you get going with people, countless attempts to reason with you by all kinds of folk. I really don't have the time for all that kind of stuff. Have a good life. Or get one. Bluehotel (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I would appreciate it if you would stop doing that too Earl. You revert my changes and leave messages on my talk page suggesting I'm not writing neutrally, but without pointing out specifically what I've done that isn't neutral. Since that's the case it seems to me you're passing off your own opinion as fact, which in and of itself hardly suggests that you yourself have a good understanding of what neutrality looks like, and makes me wonder whether it's not the content you disagree with. If that's the case, what are your motivations for being on the page in the first place exactly, especially given what Bluehotel refers to above in terms of your numerous disputes elsewhere? Ites76 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Earl: Why must you persist in haughty, heavy handed and autocratic conduct? Where did you explain to me what you thought the difference was between my edits and a neutral perspective? You simply stated an opinion as if it had the same weight as fact; if it's so obvious then it shouldn't be any problem to explain, should it? Why is it my fault if you refuse to distinguish between bias and approaches you don't happen to like? Seriously, what is not neutral about "organise effectively against exploitation and reclaim control over the conditions of their work, typically through the establishment of workers' control of the means of production." The only word which is even vague subjective is "effectively," though in the context of the sentence is talking about is perfectly in tune with neutrality. Are you really serious with this complaint or are you just here to disrupt a page that contains controversial subject matter and subject matter that some might find threatening to their social and economic privileges? What is your goal here, Earl? Are you interested in the best interests of the entry or are you attempting to inflame discord by attempting to force your own point of view? Ites76 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also what interest in particular do you have in Anarcho-Syndicalism? Are you a worker or a member of an anarchosyndicalist union? Ites76 (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC) And why are you censoring criticism on your talk page? Ites76 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Its better not to focus on your opinions of editors. I gave you this dif. as an example of you editing non neutrally [1] Its better not to preach or lecture opinions in these articles otherwise they have no credibility. Giving opinions of the way things should be according to an editor is against neutral presentation, that means writing parts into the article that sound missionary or assuming there is a right and wrong aspect. Look at your wording. If you care to bring a request for comment or bring this issue up on some noticeboard that is fine. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've locked the article for seven days because of the edit war between Earl and Ites. The two of you are going to have to engage in civil discussion about the content disputes. If you can't resolve it, you'll need to try other dispute resolution mechanisms. No more comments about editor conduct, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. I just want to work on the page; I have no interest in editing wars. Is there any reason in particular why Earl's most heavy-handed edits yet needed to be locked in for 7 days though? They're barely grammatically coherent. Ites76 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
As an administrator, I'm not taking sides in the content dispute. When I lock an article, unless there's an egregious policy violation, I do so without regard to the current version.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Ites76 I suggest you make a Request For Comment on issues here. That means people not involved in editing this article will take a look, give opinions, and maybe do some editing here. Also there are notice boards that you can alert to the issues you feel important and you can take a look at the various ones and decide to post your ideas to them or not. I apologize if you have the perception I attacked you, I was not trying to do that. I have in my way tried to maintain neutral presentation. This may be a controversial article subject, so a lot of restraint and care has to be given in editing for neutrality. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you might need to let some edits stand that you don't happen to like before that can happen chief. You know? Anarcho-syndicalism is only controversial if you don't happen to agree with it; if you're not willing to allow anarcho-syndcalists to explain what our point of view is, what are you doing here? No one is disputing the need for neutrality; what's problematic is when you start trying to invoke it as a rationale for censorship. Ites76 (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Other people who try to edit the page get fed up up with your heavy handed approach Earl and simply leave rather than provoke an editing dispute by daring to contradict you. Doesn't that tell you something? I could make a request for comment, or you could actually engage with and reflect on what I'm saying about the way you're conducting yourself, if it's not too much of an inconvenience of course. Ites76 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I can do that if the edits are neutrally done. That is number one criteria for an encyclopedia and your comment, Anarcho-syndicalism is only controversial if you don't happen to agree with it; if you're not willing to allow anarcho-syndcalists to explain what our point of view is, what are you doing here? end quote. Sorry but as a single purpose editor with a pov that is not neutral in my opinion, I caution you to give a good look at Wikipedia guidelines for editing and edit the way it suggests. I can tell you that your idea that the article may be being censored is not the case. An article is not for opinions or phrasing things a certain way by adherents to things politically, making political assumptions and working those into an article as you did in your phrasing in the edits I reverted. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It's your opinion that you are not censoring the article; it's my opinion, and one that I'm backing with proof, that you are. It's an article about anarcho-syndicalism; you explain what anarcho-syndicalists think. Neutrality doesn't mean censoring anarcho-syndicalist ideas because you happen not to like them. That's the reason why this conflict exists; because you use your own point of view and neutrality interchangably, while purposefully confusing being criticised with being attacked. It's obvious from your own conduct that you're not of a libertarian persuasion, which begs the question as to your purpose here. Do you want the best and most clearest description of anarcho-syndicalism, or do you want the one that you prefer? Ites76 (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As an editor it is incumbent you edit neutrally according to guidelines. Its a mistake to take this personally because you identify with some political bent and think you are some kind of spokesperson for that. Single purpose editors are o.k. as long as they are neutral and neutrality is the issue, not personality. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a democracy." Those are your words, not mine. The guidelines allow for democratic discussion and reciprocal discussion, not trying to force your own point of view and then accusing anyone who does anything you don't like of not respecting neutrality. Why are you trying to explain neutrality to me when you don't appear to understand or to want to understand any meaning of neutrality that you can't confuse with your own point of view? I know you don't want to see how ridiculous that is, how ridiculous it is to use principles you don't appear to care about to beat those who contradict you with, but it is very much ridiculous. The idea that I think I'm a spokesman for something is pure projection on your part also; if I'm wrong then from whence comes this idea that you can preach to others about principles you don't even respect yourself? Maybe you should consider taking some of your own advice.Ites76 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Earl, if you can't or won't distinguish between edits that aren't neutral and those you don't like you need to disengage. Ites76 (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for neutral editing, please read. Leave requests for citations alone is suggested, the article needs more back up citations. Also the language is cumbersome, in places hard to follow. Simplifying the delivery is a good idea, I am not changing the information, only copy editing the article which has issues with convoluted language. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
That's your opinion, I disagree completely; I think you're confusing cumbersome and substantial. No one else has a problem with my edits besides the one person on this page who won't let any edits but their own stand. Why don't you disengage?Ites76 (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've locked the article again, this time for ten days. Ites76 and Earl King Jr., I'll put it more bluntly: if after the lock expires, either of you edits the article without a clear consensus for your edit, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Locked the article with Earl's edits in place again I see. If you can't see that Earl is trying to dominate this page and prevent anyone else from editing it, you'd have to be stone cold blind. He has not demonstrated at any stage any willingness whatsoever to cooperate with anyone else. What exactly do you expect to come of this other than Earl going back to his previous conduct and anyone who dares defy him ending up being blocked? If you come in new, wanting to learn the ropes, in the first place you have someone who appears to think they own the page not allowing any edits you make to stand, not discussing a single change with you before doing it, arguing until they're blue in the face that there's no difference between edits that aren't neutral and edits they don't like and then running off for a higher authority every time they can't get their own way and force everyone else to do what they want. You've done nothing but reward him for his behaviour so far, especially now that he gets his edits locked in place for another 10 days. I guess he was right, Wikipedia is pretty undemocratic. Ites76 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus edits[edit]

Currently there are some issues here about neutrality in the article. In the future could edits be reviewed here in this section before being added to the article, and perhaps some outside parties could review them? My opinion is the article currently as locked in for 10 days is relatively neutral. It could be better but is not glaringly out of line with neutral presentation now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the main edit that is being reverted. My opinion is that the Earl King version is neutral and not rhetorical polemic sounding from a p.o.v. which seems to be lecturing the philosophy of the subject rather than informing encyclopedia wise what the subject is [2]. The other issue has been editor ites removing tags for getting more citations. My view is that citations are needed in several places that make broad claims. Ites has removed the request for citation tags multiple times. More recently a section for Noam Chomsky has also been added, and since he is notable and written extensively on this subject I think his own section is appropriate in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Richard D. Wolff ?[edit]

Is there a way to include references to, ideas of, or specifically Richard D. Wolff? I know I am way out of my league here, but I do know he is an established figure that recently has had a huge swell of popularity due to growing awareness of alternatives to capitalism, dissatisfaction with the state, and the maturing internet generations. I love Chomsky despite a few of his blinders (we're all human) and I grow more love for Wolff the more I see. I understand Chomsky is a self-described social libertarian and Wolff a Marxist but they are still articulate educators excellent at describing diverse subjects. Chris Hedges might also be good. I understand it's not about popularity but they are quite good at clarifying concepts and may be useful sources and diversifying references. I apologize if my ignorance is out of place here. JasonCarswell (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anarcho-syndicalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)