Anarcho-syndicalism (anarchist working class organizing) is revolutionary practice and perspective. Its approach to revolution centers working class struggle against exploitation and domination by capital, particularly at the very point of exploitation. It does so through full-on assault against the capital/labor relation (labor markets, the wage relation, ownership, control, and command of productive resources). Revolutionary in orientation and aim. Its goal is ending capitalism, capitalist social relations.

The overriding commitment for doing this is in breaking capital’s central power—its ownership and control of productive resources (especially workplaces, land, housing—sources of value production)—the sites of direct exploitation, extraction of surplus value, that drives capital. Foremost by seizing those productive resources—expropriating them from capital’s control and returning them to the working class that built them in the first place and which may depend of them for their own survival. Communalizing them.

Questions always persist on the struggles that contribute to, lead towards, these ends. Chief among these is how we build base power, in working class communities. How do we not only sustain ourselves or defend ourselves, but actually move to take the offensive—asserting our own needs and conditions against those of states and capital.

Reform v. Revolution?

Part of this process has involved central debates over reform versus revolution within syndicalist organizing.  At the same time, it should be recognized that dualities of revolution and reform are overblown, too often rigidly conceived, and unhelpful.

Building capacities for revolutionary struggle requires increasing capacities, means of sustenance, and preparation. Any of which could be considered reforms on some level.

Winning day to day gains that strengthen capacities of exploited and oppressed people, by and for themselves, on their own terms to elevate their struggles to more fully contest and confront capital and the state more forcefully—to wage class war more effectively—are necessary. But not sufficient of course.

Victor Griffuelhes expressed this at the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) 1906 congress in the following manner: “In its day-to-day demands, syndicalism seeks the co-ordination of workers’ efforts, the increase of workers’ well-being by the achievement of immediate improvements, such as the reduction of working hours, the increase of wages, etc. But this task is only one aspect of the work of syndicalism; it prepares for complete emancipation, which can be realised only by expropriating the capitalist class.”

Several key questions, and cautions, arise over the nature of the reforms pursued. Are they pursued as ends in themselves rather than as means to revolutionary advances? Do they build working class autonomy (from state, capital, and working class bureaucracies) and self-determination? Or do they simply reintegrate or accommodate working class initiatives within existing power structures and relations? Do they help people to live to fight another day or do they becomes substitutes for any real fight at all?

Similarly, syndicalist theorist Emile Pouget put it in these terms, “…trade union endeavor has a double aim: with tireless persistence, it must pursue betterment of the working class’s current conditions. But, without letting themselves become obsessed with this passing concern, the workers should take care to make possible and imminent the essential act of comprehensive emancipation: the expropriation of capital.”

Syndicalists must be clear in their assessments of this and work to expand autonomy, independence, and militant—while fending off efforts of accommodation. The aim cannot be reform for reform’s sake. That is a death trap. The Wobbly Vincent St. John declared: « There is but one bargain that the Industrial Workers of the World will make with the employing class – complete surrender of the means of production. »

Working class mutual aid, alternative and underground economies, the gaining of free time, etc. can be seen as reforms, sure, but ones with potentially revolutionary implications. So perhaps we should view this through a different lens.

Infrastructures of Resistance and Survival Toward Revolution

I have written at length previously on the need for working class infrastructures of resistance. These can take many forms—workers centers, free schools, cooperative food production, communal childcare, defense committees, collective housing, and more. Examples are extensive throughout working class history.

They provide resources, venues, and logistics for supporting and sustaining struggles on a longer term basis. They also provide space for developing revolutionary consciousness, strategies, and tactics. Grounded in working class communities, relationships, and experiences. Organizing practices, sustained and expanded through these “reforms” offer openings for new action, action that stands a better chance at making advances against capital and its protector state.

Capital has vast resources at its disposal and vast infrastructures for deploying those resources. Spontaneous, immediate struggles must come to terms with this reality. Struggles must prepare their own fighting forces—forces that can withstand.

Perhaps in speaking of reform and revolution, we should think instead of the notion of “survival pending revolution” promoted by the Black Panthers. Efforts that not only sustain us but which energize our capacities toward revolution.

Against Reformist Unionism

Anarcho-syndicalists have to do the simultaneous work of building working class autonomy and self-determination, while also battling against reformism and bureaucratism with working class organizations. This means opposing the legalist and administrative tendencies that are taken for granted parts of mainstream trade unionism today. Opposing legally restrained bargaining, and contracts, with employers.

A key feature of virtually every union contract today shows the dangers, the fatal threat, of legal contractualism—the acceptance of clauses within union contracts that prohibit wildcat strikes. For syndicalists, the wildcat is a primary expression of workers power, wielded by rank-and-file workers in an autonomous fashion oriented towards their own specific needs.

With the legalism of unions—their recognition within state capitalist legal structures—working class infrastructures of resistance have withered. Gone are the workers centers and working class mutual aid societies (including in housing and health care). Unions have instead preferred offices where they can carry out union “business.” Even union-based activities of camaraderie and socialization—from union dances to sports leagues to camping—have fallen by the way or lost prominence and are certainly no longer venues for informal class education as happened in union clubs.

But reformist union resources are still working-class resources. Workers have built strike funds, organizing capacities, material resources in unions. They should command them. And these are resources of working-class communities as well. They should be deployed on a class wide basis (supporting struggles of domestic/home workers, non-status workers, unemployed workers, unhoused workers, for example).

Conclusion

Anarcho-syndicalists recognize that revolution is unlikely without wresting control of productive resources from capital—and would hardly be a revolution in the absence of this anyway.

The greatest blow that can be delivered to capital is breaking its control over productive resources. Preventing this is why capital, through its states, developed police forces. Made general, this—at a societal level—is, at base, revolution itself.

So, we need to focus on building the resources and infrastructures that get us through the current capitalist hellscape while also increasing our capacities to fight. Not only survival but survival toward revolution.