Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice

by Rudolf Rocker, Mike Davis (Introduction), Nicolas Walter (Introduction)

In 1937, at the behest of Emma Goldman, Rocker penned this political and philosophical masterpiece as an introduction to the ideals fueling the Spanish social revolution and resistance to capitalism the world over. Within, Rocker offers an introduction to anarchist ideas, a history of the international workers’ movement, and an outline of the syndicalist strategies and tactics embraced at the time (direct action, sabotage and the general strike). Includes a lengthy introduction by Nicholas Walter and a Preface by Noam Chomsky.

“[Rocker’s] approach is far from ‘utopian’; this is not an abstract discourse but a call to action.”—Noam Chomsky

Rudolf Rocker (1873–1958) was a leading figure in the international anarchist movement for over 60 years.

In Oakland, California on March 24, 2015 a fire destroyed the AK Press warehouse along with several other businesses. Please consider visiting the AK Press website to learn more about the fundraiser to help them and their neighbors.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Theory, Economics, Anarchism

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1938

About the author

An anarcho-syndicalist writer and activist of some prominence, whose politics had a major influence in the Spanish Civil War and the jewish émigré community in London, England (see The London Years). His political ideas had emerged from the failings of late 19th century Marxism/Social Democracy under the Germany's SPD, having seen firsthand the erosive influence of electoralism.

Would maintain lifelong relationships with Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta among others.

For more, including e-texts of his works:
http://libcom.org/tags/rudolf-rocker

Reviews

[Ian "Marvin" Graye · Rating 3 out of 5]

Preconceptions

Apart from the dress sense, I've always approached Anarchism with negative preconceptions.

To the extent that I thought it opposed the authority of the State, I assumed that it was accountable to no authority at all.

Therefore, I inferred that no individual would be accountable to any group or collective.

I was wrong in drawing this inference. However, to understand why, I needed to understand that the term "Anarchism" is a roof over many different, competing ideologies.

It’s possible that what I thought was Anarchism is more properly called "Individualistic Anarchism". However, even this inference might be wrong.

This book (written in 1936) is concerned with just one of the forms of Anarchism called "Anarcho-Syndicalism".

Importantly, "Anarchism" is just one limb of a hyphenated ideology. The dual term calls upon us to understand how much "Syndicalism" adds to the hyphenate.

"Anarchism"

Let’s start with some general statements:

"Anarchism [advocates] the abolition of economic monopolies and of all political and social coercive institutions within society.

"In place of the present capitalistic economic order, Anarchists [desire] a free association of all productive forces based upon co-operative labour, [the sole purpose of which is] the satisfying of the necessary requirements of every member of society, and [which would no longer favour] the special interest of privileged minorities within the social union."

"Liberalism"

Anarchism opposes economic, political and social authority. Such authority "undermines the relationship between man and man."

The goal of Anarchism is to achieve a society in which "the individual is no longer subject to exploitation by another":

"The freer, the more independent and enterprising the individual is in a society, the better for the society."

Thus, Anarchism is driven by a passion for the maximum freedom, independence and enterprise of the individual.

Rocker describes this goal of Freedom in terms of "Liberalism" or what some people more recently might call "Libertarianism":

"the right of man over his own person."

"Syndicalism"

The book details the history of Syndicalism.

It derives from the French term for a "workers’ syndicate" or trade union of "producers". It is designed to be both a fighting organization and an educational organization of labor.

Thus, Syndicalism implies a level of collective action, in contrast to my preconceived notion of individualistic and uncoordinated action.

More importantly, what I didn’t recognise was the extent to which the goal of Syndicalism is "Socialism".

However, it’s important to understand what this word means as well.

"Socialism"

Anarchism advocates Democracy, the belief that "all citizens [are] equal before the law".

In order to achieve equality, Anarchists demand –

"...in common with the founders of Socialism…the abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available for all without distinction; for personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages for everybody."

The Confluence

Rocker has arrived at the point where he can assert that –

"In modern Anarchism we have the confluence of the two great currents which during and since the French Revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism."

In a way, Anarchism is designed to achieve Liberalism, and Syndicalism is designed to achieve Socialism.

Together and hyphenated, Anarcho-Syndicalism constitutes Libertarian Socialism.

"Communism"

Most of us associate the concept of "Communism" with "Socialism" and the Soviet Union ("Bolshevism").

The Marxist differentiation between "Socialism" and "Communism" posits a transitional period of Socialism during which there will be a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and the eventual outcome of Communism during which the State would "wither away".

What we know as Communism (i.e., "Bolshevism") strives for Communism by way of Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As early as 1868, the Anarchist Bakunin said:

"I am not a Communist because Communism unites all forces of society in the state and becomes absorbed in it; because it inevitably leads to the concentration of all property in the hands of the state, while I seek the abolition of the state - the complete elimination of the principle of authority and governmental guardianship, which under the pretence of making men moral and civilising them, has up to now always enslaved, oppressed, exploited and ruined them."

How prescient can you be, given that this was 60 years before the Russian Revolution and the "Red Bureaucracy" that emerged from it?

"Anarcho-Syndicalism"

Much of the latter part of Rocker’s book concerns the strategies and tactics of Direct Action and Revolution that are intended to overthrow the State.

The goal is Socialism and Liberalism. However, it aims to avoid the Dictatorship of the Proletariat:

"Dictatorship, however, has nothing whatever in common with Socialism, and at best can only lead to the most barren of state capitalism.

"Dictatorship is a definite form of state power: the state in state of siege.

"Dictatorship is the negation of organic development, of natural building from below upwards, it is the proclamation of the wardship of the toiling people, a guardianship forced upon the masses by a tiny minority."

Rocker attacks Bolshevism in the following terms:

"In place of the creative Socialism of the old International, there developed a sort of substitute product which has nothing in common with real Socialism but the name.

"Socialism steadily lost its character of a cultural ideal, which was to prepare the peoples for the dissolution of capitalist society, and, therefore, could not let itself be halted by the artificial frontiers of the national states.

"In the minds of the leaders of this new phase of the Socialist movement the interests of the national state were blended more and more with the alleged aims of their party, until at last they became unable to distinguish any definite boundaries between them."

The War Between "Anarcho-Syndicalism" and "Bolshevism"

Many of my negative preconceptions about Anarchism derive from the works of Marx and Lenin.

Lenin, in particular, regarded the Anarchists as a spanner in the works when it came to harnessing the forces necessary to effect a Revolution.

He did everything within his power to establish the Bolsheviks as the controlling influence in the Revolution, then in the control of the State and ultimately in the ongoing Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

When many Anarchists visited the post-Revolutionary Soviet Union, it was Socialists and Anarchists whom they found in the jails.

However, these were the very people who had predicted the failure of Communism.

In 1923 (12 months before Lenin died and was succeeded by Stalin), the International Congress of Syndicalists made the following declaration:

"Revolutionary Syndicalism is the confirmed enemy of every form of economic and social monopoly, and aims at its abolition by means of economic communes and administrative organs of field and factory workers on the basis of a free system of councils, entirely liberated from subordination to any government or political party.

"Against the politics of the state and of parties it erects the economic organisation of labour; against the government of men, it sets up the administration of things.

"Consequently, it has for its object not the conquest of political power, but the abolition of every State function in social life.

"It considers that, along with the monopoly of property, should disappear also the monopoly of domination, and that any form of the State, including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will always be the creator of new privileges; it could never be an instrument of liberation."

What Would Anarcho-Syndicalism Look Like?

The question remains: how would an Anarcho-Syndicalist society operate?

As with the question of how the last stage of Communism would work, the details are vague:

"Anarchists desire a federation of free communities which shall be bound to one another by their common economic and social interest and shall arrange their affairs by mutual agreement and free contract."

There is a lot of dependence on the ability to agree and contract with each other.

This assumes that people who negotiate with each other will discover a commonality of interest.

It also tends to assume that they will honor their obligations, and that no version of the State will be required to enforce contracts by way of legal proceedings.

State of Siege

Equally importantly, this vision assumes that this new society will not be immediately subjected to a state of siege by forces that wish to overturn the Revolution.

Arguably, some form of State will be necessary to defend Anarcho-Syndicalism until it is safe from external or internal threat.

Many conservative critics maintain that any form of Socialism is a "Road to Serfdom" (Hayek, Popper).

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy if the forces of conservatism initiate a Counter-Revolution, which would have to be inevitable now.

Wage Slavery

What Anarcho-Syndicalism shares with Socialism or Communism is the belief that the root of society’s problems is the exploitation of labor by capital.

Both ideologies use the metaphor of slavery for a worker who is paid by an employer for their labor.

Because capitalism owns the product of my labor, it is supposed to own me and my person as well.

While I don’t agree with the metaphor of "wage slavery", the goal is to avoid exploitation of labor.

As a result, they both advocate the collective ownership of the means of production.

Communism as we have seen it to date (Bolshevism) makes the State the owner.

For workers, arguably, this makes absolutely no difference to their relationship with the product of their labor.

Anarcho-Syndicalism pushes ownership down to much more localized and democratic syndicates.

State or No State?

Two things supposedly work against the existence of a State.

One is the multiplicity of syndicates.

The other is the belief that the role of the syndicates is not to govern people, but to simply organise and administer labor, production, distribution and consumption.

The opponents of Communism have always asserted that human nature dictates that those in power will cling to it and turn the rest of us into serfs.

It makes no difference to these people whether they are in charge of government or administration.

It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about the State or Syndicates, human nature will prevail.

What is to be Done?

Bolshevism has been tested and failed.

Anarcho-Syndicalism hasn’t been tested for any extended period of time. Where it has been tested, it has quickly plunged into a state of siege.

Anarcho-Syndicalism shares a goal (Socialism) and a strategy (Direct Action and Revolution) with Bolshevism.

Personally, I don’t believe that, if Anarcho-Syndicalism occurred anywhere in the world, it would survive a Counter-Revolution. It would have to embrace dictatorial practices in order to protect its achievements.

However, ultimately, I don’t believe that the essence of the political and philosophical problem is the conflict between labor and capital. Or at least, I don’t believe that the solution is the abolition of private property or the private ownership of the means of production.

I believe that capitalism or any alternative method of production is a relationship between labor and capital, and that the solution lies in the terms of that relationship (just as it does in the case of gender relations).

Joint Venturism

Production (like reproduction) is a joint venture. Both labor and capital are essential. The one must recognise the importance of the other.

I don't see any scope for the State to whittle itself down from government to mere administration.

Ultimately, one major role of the State should be to create an economic environment within which the two negotiate and agree on fair terms.

A single employee cannot negotiate adequately on their own behalf. Therefore, inevitably a greater involvement of collective bargaining via trade unions or syndicates is required.

I don't think that the problem is work in its own right. The problem is not so much the trade of your labor for a wage. The problem is not realistically described as "wage slavery". Work and production will be required under any economic, political and social system.

It is the conditions of employment that need to be changed to convert metaphorical slavery into practical joint venture.

This includes a recognition that it is not capital alone that creates profit, but the relationship between labor and capital.

Thus, apart from the conditions of the work environment (work hours, safety, remuneration, dismissal), I think it involves profit-sharing (i.e., the terms upon which any surplus capital is shared between the contributors to the surplus, especially if they generate a "super-profit").

The role of any State, therefore, is to facilitate joint ventures between labor and capital.



SOUNDTRACK:

The Buzzcocks - "I Believe"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foSC0r...

The Buzzcocks - "I Believe" [Live]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eosuW...

The Buzzcocks - "I Don't Mind" [Live]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIQYOH...

The Buzzcocks - "Harmony In My Head" [TOTP 1979]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrafPl...

The Buzzcocks [Featuring Howard Devoto]- "I Can't Control Myself"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Tyws...

[Kenghis Khan · Rating 3 out of 5]

You see, this is exactly the kind of book I DIDN'T want to read in my spare time. "Theory and Practice" is almost all practice. What little "Theory" there is is confined to platitudes of the sort of "on the premise that all men seek justice and liberty" blah blah blah. Add to this the fact that the author tediously repeats ad nauseum the history of anarcho-syndacalist and labor movements. Yes, he describes in some detail the sufferings of the working classes, but he is maddeningly repetitive about this (after all, the history of the working class is a history of getting screwed time after time). And he tries to highlight the inadequacy of the partisan socialists. But all this creates a rather arrogant, self-servicing, and ultimately dull style. The work reads like a catalogue of names arranged on a time-line "In France, X founded organization Y that met at a congress in Z in 1853" and so on. A professor in college once told me that the history of organizations is rather boring, and while at the time I was skeptical of this remark reading this book just confirmed it. Rarely does the author explain what the individuals did beyond one one-liners after another.

It probably didn't help that the work was originally written in German :( and then translated to English before it was published. However, the work is pedantic, basically boring, and too repetitive to be worth your time. It is interesting to note that luminaries like Noam Chomsky got something out of it. Because I sure didn't. Perhaps its problem was that it was a classic upon which all later historical scholarship of the movement, which I was already familiar with, referenced. Hence I failed to get much out of it.

In any event, if you're interested in learning about Anarcho-Syndicalism as a living ideology, rather than as a dead catalogue of facts, you'd sooner skip this book.

[Donald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of the most quotable defences of anarchism I've read. You can see how influential it was on Noam Chomsky's political views. EH Carr complained that the book had too many exaggerations, which is true, but it's by an anarchist. There are long digressions on British and Spanish history alongside basic discussions of radical union politics. I find I end up agreeing with parts here and there that emphasize libertarian aspects of the labour movement but can't really endorse the clumsy rejection of more boring or "authoritarian" forms of politics. But I can understand why someone in 1938 would not be writing about how parliamentary politics can be "somewhat helpful" or whatever.

[Yngve Skogstad · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not exactly what I had expected. More of a history of the labour movement, focused on England and France in particular, than an introduction to anarcho-syndicalist thought and practice. Which is certainly interesting as well, but not precisely what I was looking for. I kept reading and reading, waiting for Rocker to get to the meat of the book. Turns out only chapter 5, "The methods of anarcho-syndicalism" dealt with the stuff I was interested in, but I felt like it only scratched the surface. Rocker deserves some praise for a very accessible writing style and vocabulary, though it comes off a tad too propagandistic and lacking in nuance for my personal liking.

There's a lot I find attractive about the arguments put forward in this book, and about the little I know of syndicalist practice as well. But I have difficulties mapping: 1) How could this apply to my own life, being self-employed in an occupation that's not really "socially necessary" due to it being the only way I could make some money with my lack of formal skills? 2) How could it be a solution to our current conjuncture, marked by ecological crises, reformist/collaborationist unions playing defense, and an incredibly individualistic zeitgeist? None of these characteristics are fixed, I know, but I just don't see how these radical, ideologically concious, coherent and technically and organizationally capable syndicats can be built more or less from scratch within a timeframe needed to avoid the immense human and non-human suffering currently being built into the earth system by way of our production structure.

[Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent explanation of the history and development of Anarchism from the early labor unions through the first international and the split with the authoritarian socialist to the mid 1900s. This is by no means an expansive examination of theory but Rocker does a good job at clarifying the defining thoughts and strategies of Syndicalism. Perfect for someone who is looking for an introduction into Syndicalism before getting into more in depth theory.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the preface to this book, Noam says that Rocker is “pointing the way to a much better world, one that is within our grasp, one that may well be the only alternative to the ‘universal catastrophe’ towards which ‘we are driving on under full sail’. “The Anarchist represents the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all institutions of power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression.” The function of the state “remains always the same.” “One cannot at pleasure transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument for the liberation of the oppressed. The state can only be what it is: the defender of mass-exploitation and social privileges, the creator of privileged classes and castes and new monopolies.” The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are “self-management, autonomy, direct action, spontaneity, and mutual aid.”

The Poor Law of 1834 “branded poverty a crime, and laid the responsibility for personal misfortune upon alleged indolence.” Rocker defines capitalism as “a system for which man is nothing and dead possessions are everything.” Only with the awakening of revolutionary Syndicalism in France were the creative ideas of the First International rescued from oblivion.” For Rocker, the problem is “inoculating people from the ruinous delusion that salvation always comes from above” which impairs “the impulse to self-help”. During the Spanish Civil War, it was the Anarcho-Syndicalist labor unions which kept the fascists from taking over the country too fast. Meanwhile, when Hitler took power, six million organized workers did nothing to try and stop him. That shows you how the Federalism (Anarcho-Syndicalism is based on its principles) of the CMT worked where the “centralist machine which the Germans had built for themselves” couldn’t. “The general strike is an invaluable weapon, for which there is no substitute.” “Compulsory labor is the last road that can lead to Socialism.” “A general strike leads to a scattering of military forces.” “The whole import of sabotage is actually exhausted in the motto: for bad wages, bad work.” “The sabotage of the workers is always directed at the employers, not the consumers.” “Anarcho-Syndicalists know that wars are only waged in the interest of the ruling classes; they believe therefore, that any means is justifiable that can prevent the organized murder of peoples.” “In Italy, there has always existed, from the days of the First International, a strong Anarchist movement.”

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 4 is where this book shines, IMO. It's where most of the theory is and also includes a lot of accomplishments and snippets from social democratic journalists of the spanish anarchists that just tickled my insides.

[Billie Pritchett]

UPDATED REVIEW: Friday, September 13, 2024 (no rating)

Supposedly at the behest of fellow anarchist Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker wrote this book, penned when state socialism reigned in Stalin's Russia and when the anarchists enjoyed success in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. It was clear to those like Rocker who watched both forms of socialism unfold which path was more promising for a more decent society.

So what is anarcho-syndicalism? According to Rocker, it's built around labor unions. The goal is to build the new from the old, the hope being that unions take larger and larger activist roles and gain public support until the general public supports worker-led, worker-owned enterprises and national government gives way to democratic movements built around necessary production and liberal, democratic conceptions of human rights. All that latter stuff gets rather fuzzy, but Rocker says himself in the introduction that he doesn't seek to decide in advance what a future society will fully fully unfold out into, because such a thing can't be determined in advance. Instead, proper ethical means have to be employed to raise the standard of living, and through a lot of trial and error, humanity will get there.

Rocker's is an interesting program.

ORIGINAL REVIEW: January 8, 2010 (three stars)

Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism was supposed to be the first clear, concise expression of this brand of anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalism, Rocker tells, is the organization of the political and economic structures of life around trade unions, which would collectively make decisions from the bottom up, i.e. democratically, and would control their own means of production. Rocker provides some basic means to achieve these goals, and they involve various kinds of strikes, non-violent sabotage, and, in the most extreme cases, a defensive proto-military mobilization. Rocker spends most of the book, however, explaining countries in which anarcho-syndicalists have been spreading the message and trying to create this sort of society. He uses these examples to insist, moreover, that anarcho-syndicalism is a very real option, and he suggests that it is the only just way for a society and an economic system to be organized. But he believes that the way to achieve this type of society is organically, and that means that it can't be imposed from the top down. He is entirely opposed to state socialism, and he refers to the Russian soviet revolution as a disaster. For anyone who is curious about these ideas, but might find them pie in the sky, it is worth mentioning (and I wish Rocker would have spent more time talking about) Catalonia, Spain, which from roughly 1934-1938 implemented anarcho-syndicalism as a political and economic system, and which thrived and actually improved production--that is, until Franco and the Falangist government came in and toppled it, as well as other forms of developing governance in Spain. The book is a little 'rough around the edges,' but it ain't bad.

[mariana ૮₍˶ᵔ ᵕ ᵔ˶₎ა (perrito lector) · Rating 5 out of 5]

un recuento histórico del movimiento obrero internacional que deviene en la formulación teórica y práctica del anarcosindicalismo así definido por rocker:

"[anarcho-syndicalism is a movement in which] the trade union, the syndicate, is the unified organization of labour and has for its purpose the defence of the interests of the producers within existing society and the preparing for and the practical carrying out of the reconstruction of social life after the pattern of socialism"

una reflexión que me pareció muy interesante también fue la crítica que hace de la dichosa dictadura del proletariado (en la que le dice simpletons a los tankies which???? amamos??? jajaj its what they deserve):

"even if supporters [of the dictatorship of the proletariat] are animated by the very best intentions, the iron logic of the facts will always drive them into the camp of extremest despotism. russia has given us the most instructive example of this. and the pretence that the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat is something different, because we have here to do with the dictatorship of a class, not the dictatorship of individuals, deceives no earnest critic; it is only a sophisticated trick to fool simpletons. such a thing as the dictatorship of a class is utterly unthinkable, since there will always be involved merely the dictatorship of a particular party which takes it upon itself to speak in the name of a class, just as the bourgeoisie justified any despotic proceeding in the name of the people”

en general súper súper interesante!! me parece q es una introducción muy buena al anarquismo en general y a la rama del anarcosindicalismo : )

[Pierre-Olivier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rocker, dans ce classique de la bibliothèque anarchiste, y présente l’anarcho-syndicalisme. Oeuvre maîtresse et de référence du mouvement, mais beaucoup trop axé sur l’analyse contextuelle. J’aurais aimer en savoir plus sur l’idéologie et le stratégies politiques que d’avoir une emphase sur l’histoire du mouvement. Bon livre.

[J · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great introduction to anarcho-syndicalism.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lately I have been trying to educate myself on different schools of leftist ideology. From what I have read so far, Anarcho-Syndicalist theory is the one I liked the most. Voluntary organization of workers into syndicates that would take care of distribution of tasks and the products in a federation of communities where everyone would have a voice in a real democracy. All of this backed by the story of the glorious fight of the CNT in the Spanish Civil War.
Actually, the book is very well researched and shows the development of these ideas both by the theoretical line starting with Proudhon and then analyzing Bakunin and Kropotkin but also taking a look into the history of the labor movement and how labor unions and syndicates operated in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and elsewhere outside of Europe.
Analyzing both history and theory and denouncing the evils of authoritarianism both from the Fascist right but also from the Communist left and encouraging a feeling of community and solidarity it was a great read.
But it was written during the days of the Spanish Civil War and I could see how optimistic it was. I would have given 4 stars if it was just that. But the Epilogue, written 9 years later, that only focus on the reconstruction of the anarcho-syndicalist movement without even a word of self-critic trying to analyze why the revolution failed made me give it just 3 stars.
I know that an in-depth analysis would require a book dedicated just to the history of the Spanish Civil War, but it was a point that I was interested in seeing addressed at least slightly and not just by saying that the communists betrayed the anarchists. I have a lot of issues with the authoritarian left but they do have the point that only their revolutions worked and for that centralism is required. Federalist anarchist revolutions lack the organization to fight back against the reactionaries and that is an issue that I would have liked to see being argued in the epilogue.
Apart from that, I hope to read more on the topic and try to see if there are ways that could make this idea work.

[Willow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice

Rocker sets the stage profoundly well, linking the struggles of working class people, especially, but not limited to, those of industrialized laborers in the late 1800s to early 1900s, alongside with that of the anarchists. He clearly showcases how the state is central to the violent suppression of working class mass movements, both with and without formal legislation, indicating that regardless of if the state comes to “aid” the workers by codifying rights, it will always back the owning class in their constant fight against better working conditions and often times will even go back and overturn the reforms that the working class fought and died for. Rocker also points out early on one of the many flaws of the marxist-leninists, that which is the belief that the state can be a tool of liberation, it just has to be utilized by the right people. Although, in my opinion he does not go into enough depth on this, I suspect because of how early into the USSR this was written, but nonetheless, still comes to the similar conclusions that many anarchists today have come to after seeing the large chunk of state “socialists” get nowhere close to their self-proclaimed goal of socialism, quite the opposite really. “The state is capable only of protecting old privileges and creating new ones; in that its whole significance is exhausted. A new state which has been brought into existence by a social revolution can put an end to the privileges of the old ruling classes, but it can do this only by immediately setting up a new privileged class, which it will require for the maintenance of its rulership.”

Rocker goes on to provide countless examples of the times the state legislatively cracked down on workers fighting for better conditions such as the Combination Acts of 1799-1800 and the Corn Laws of 1815. As well as how the state further increased monopolization of land amongst fewer and fewer people, both right before and during the industrial revolution, with laws like the Enclosure Acts, which started to wake up many of the masses to their mistreatment and identified accurately who the true perpetrators of their problems was, the state and capital. In all this, Rocker identifies socialism being an outgrowth of the labor movement, rather than often times being considered the inverse, as the origins of the labor movement seems to outdate the great socialist thinkers. “While certain schools of Socialism remained quite indifferent or unsympathetic to the young labour movement, others of them quickly recognized the real importance of this movement as the necessary preliminary to the realization of Socialism. They understood that it must be their task to take an active part in the every day struggles of the workers, so as to make clear to the toiling masses the intimate connection between their immediate demands and the Socialist objectives. For these struggles, growing out of the needs of the moment, serve to bring about a correct understanding of the profound importance of the liberation of the proletariat for the complete suppression of wage slavery.”

Rocker goes on to discuss more specific examples of the state siding with capital with the 1832 Reform Bill, which led to early on explicit and radical syndicalist organizations sprouting out, such as the GNC trade union of Britain and Ireland in 1834, which was founded as a federation of trade unions and cooperatives. This is some of the early origins of the fight for a shorter work day and the means to get there was the general strike. This is also some of the origins of calls for labor councils which was supposed to be the institution used to overthrow the state apparatus alongside using the trade unions as the revolutionary body. During the Basel congress of the first international in 1969, we get one of our earliest uses of the concept that many call dual power, Eugene Hins is quoted saying “by this double form of organization of local workers' associations and general alliances for each industry on the one hand the Political administration of the committees, and on the other, the general representation of labour, regional, national and international, will be provided for. The councils of the trade and industrial organizations will take the place of the present government, and this representation of labour will do away, once and forever, with the governments of the past."

From this point on, Rocker discusses the objectives and practices of the anarchist syndicalist, which is to utilize the labor unions as a means of radical change for the working class, it is to be the “elementary school of socialism”. One thing many will critique Rocker on is that he only identified the radical labor unions to be of use to the anarchist, rather than anarchists inserting themselves into unions to convince them to be radical. This seems to be the general belief by most anarchist syndicalists today, but not all.

While ultimately I think this book is a good place to start in one’s understandings of what anarchist syndicalists believe, it falls short in a couple places. Rocker wrote this book prior to the end of the Spanish Civil War, with that limited knowledge, he failed to provide a thorough account for the events that took place that lead to the failing of the CNT-FAI. Another shortcoming I believe is that the anarchist syndicalists put far too much hope into the utilization of the trade unions as a means of revolution. An anarchist revolution in my view, cannot succeed with only relying on radical trade unionism, especially of the industrial workers. This is simply a matter of our current material conditions, we are no longer an economy that is surrounded by industrial workers. That is not to say that the trade unions should be ignored, or underutilized. They are an important section of people that anarchists should insert themselves into and influence them into a direction of horizontal organizing. I have noticed that over time, the less radical the union movement has become, the less present the unions have been, and the more liberal and reformist these institutions have become. If we want to see mass general strikes in the way we used to, it is my belief that the anarchists need to be more present and active in these forms of organizations.

[Tayin Rivera-Dorazio · Rating 2 out of 5]

In a vacuum, a good book. Great use of historical materialism in its criticism and great foundation for the rest of the anarchist theory employed. However it falls short at completely building its theoretical basis for syndicalism over other modes of organization, especially in its failure to compare the syndicate governance to the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat and lack of mention of workers councils. Alongside this, Rocker seems to have a failure of understanding political economy, as the solutions presented by syndicalism merely replace bosses and maybe the current currency form, instead of the whole capitalist or productivist system. It’s an outdated ideology and there’s a reason that the anarchists in Spain didn’t win.

[Max · Rating 5 out of 5]

Total cash money book, I do recommend. Harder on the theory than history which is not my forte, but if you like early chapters on the history of Syndicalism I recommend Louis Levines work on the subject. Other than pulling from examples of his time, this book feels like it was written much later than it was published.

[Nathan "N.R." Gaddis]

For a short bio, a detailed bibliography, and complete e-texts of works translated into English, see: http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/roc...

[Evan Lemire · Rating 4 out of 5]

Feeling a light to decent 4 on this book by Rudolf Punk Rocker

[Jesse Field · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an orphaned young man in Mainz at the end of the 19th century, Rudolf Rocker learned to resist authority and organize with tradesmen, gradually picking up skills as a speaker against nationalism and bourgeois exploitation of the poor. If “red pill” meant anything useful, it should back apply to him and his generation of organizers, who brought anarchism to its worldwide high point in the 1920s. Aging in America after 1933, Rocker wrote this brief guide to the movement he had come to know so intimately, though strangely, he puts none of his personal experiences in. What we get instead is a historical account with clear signs of bias, making it at best a stepping stone to further reading.

An opening chapter explains anarchism as the active pursuit of the elimination of the state, with attention to William Godwin, Proudhon and Bakunin and Kropotkin. Then there is a useful summary of the history of organized labor in the UK, with a few notes on France and other countries. Robert Owen is acknowledged as a significant organizer whose institutional work informs later anarchist organizations. The First International was held at Brussels in 1868, when Marxists broke decisively from the rest of factions, including anarchist. Outside of Russia, which was propelled toward Bolshevism, debates raged on the direction of world socialism, leading to a split between anarchists and state-appropriating communists, the latter followers of Marx. In the years that followed, anarchism lost the initiative in most countries as parliamentary reform won the day, though not in Spain, where the CNT was organizing strikes. WWI, with its rising prices, brought additional organizing and some solidarity with socialists in Spain, but in places like France, anarchist organizations suffered from too much infighting to effectively organize strikes. In Italy, the author sees the rise of fascism as a backfired effort by the bourgeois to outmode labor organizations. Spain is the author’s source of hope.

Given the history of Spain after the book’s publication, this ending is wistful, and full of dramatic irony. And begs the question of a greater accounting for why syndicalism failed in every case. Noam Chomsky says it only failed in Spain because the combined efforts of Britain and a young USSR plotted against the CNT and other organizations. Antony Beevor comments that anarchist methods too often turned to bombing and assassination, driving the middle class rightward. In Peirats, we can read of such violence in Spain in the 1890s, and 1900s, including some of which was staged to justify reactionary authoritarian rule, as with “the Black Hand” in Spain, a conspiracy theory hatched from within Spain’s incompetent Republic.

The history is a real mess. Rocker’s biggest problem is that he bores us in his conclusion with a long recitation of dates and conferences, but doesn’t take a larger historical approach to explain the movements many failures. Which, given how much we are re-assured that labor organizations were welcomed all over, remains an open question. Rocker mentions in chapter 5 that sometimes violence is justified, but discusses the matter no further, either as a matter of general ethics or in any particular instances of bombings, assassinations, and revolts. To read Rocker is to hear that the main tool for gaining advantage is the general strike, or perhaps general slow-down: sabotage. It’s food for thought, but not entirely satisfying fare.

[Aman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book because, in the "theory and practice" of anarcho-syndicalism, this book largely focuses on the practice (through which there often lies theory). It provides a detailed history of the development of the labour movement, in conjunction with the development of socialist thought and movements, throughout the 19th and 20th century; finding its inception at the development of industrial capitalism, mostly focusing on Europe and touching on the Americas (both North and South).

Some important points:

Theory-wise, the anarchism of this book, at least, seems to be indebted to the liberal theorists of the Enlightenment. It derives the "ultimate logical consequences" of liberalism and democracy, as set-forth by thinkers such as Locke and Rousseau (pg. 22-23). It is also, like Marxism and other strands of revolutionary socialism, materialist, as it is invested in the real social conditions; it is NOT Utopian socialism reworked (pg. 10). And its hostility towards the state and capitalism shows through its support of non-parliamentary labour movements.

In chapter 2, Rocker writes much about the formation and development of the proletariat, but I just want to draw attention to two statutes that are indicative of the theft and brutality of industrial capitalism:

- The Enclosure Acts --> these acts "robbed small farmers of the common lands and brought them to beggary." These acts are important to know because they detail a time when "common" land wasn't just public parks, but land which the community could use freely, cooperatively, and productively. That is not to say, let's all go back to feudalism, but to say, there is another way to organize land so that it is not privately- or state-owned. These acts are also important in understanding how "in 1786 there had still existed 250,000 independent landowners, [and] in the course of only thirty years their number had been reduced to 32,000" (pg. 36).

- The Poor Law of 1834 --> This was encouraged by the (then-)popular Malthusian formula: while food growth is arithmetic, population growth is exponential. Spectacularly, this formula failed on both fronts because: after the "Green Revolution" of the 1950s-60s, food production has grown incredibly, so that now there is more than enough food to feed the entire population; meanwhile, universally, as countries get wealthier, their population growth dwindles. Nevertheless, this Poor Law effectively criminalized the existence of the poor: "Material support by money or provisions was for the most part abolished, and replaced by the so-called workhouse" where "everyone had a definite task to perform; anyone who was not able to do it was deprived of food in punishment" (pg. 38-39).

Another thing which Rocker touches upon quite frequently is the general strike, which is the organized refusal to work by the entire labour force of a given region. This was a concept which I was vaguely familiar with, but the reality of it, as well as its strength, was foreign to me. In an age of dynamic work scheduling, contracting, and the disintegration of workers' rights and labour laws (as well as outsourcing and the legacy, and continuation, of union busting), it is hard to imagine, or to even remember, a large-scale strike.

As a student, I am familiar with the teacher's strikes, but even on this relatively small-scale, much of the (Tory) middle-class (of southern Ontario) are quick to turn on the teachers, seeing them not as their allies but as their enemies. However, these strikes were (and as they exist now, are) one of the most effective strategies in the arsenal of the workers. To quote Rocker:

The great importance of the general strike lies in this : At one blow it brings the whole economic system to a standstill and shakes it to its foundations. Moreover, such an action is in no wise dependent on the practical preparedness of all the workers [...] That the organized workers in the most important industries quit work is enough to cripple the entire economic mechanism [...] But when the ruling classes are confronted with an energetic, organized working class, schooled in daily conflict, and are aware of what they have at stake, they become much more willing to make the necessary concessions, and, above all, they fear to take a course with the workers which might drive them to extremes. (pg. 122)

[Md. Nymoom Sakib · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a book for Ideological introduction it's masterpiece. Anarchy- the word me as a learner acquired few years ago at class 11. Got a negative idea over the incepted approach by teachers. Initially a meaning for chaos, may be first enough domes the curiosity. However, later it was found as a theory and field of politics. As a Bangladeshi integral anarchism was no wonder since It's built in nature!

Chomsky fascinates me for his thought for anarchism- read an interview taken in 2014. The concept mazed me and draged me into the pig mali while screaming for rescue. The author saved me.

The book defines the then culture, establishment and sociologistic misconceptions that were fed us in the name of Socialism. Apart from radical approach, this book introduces the more radical, ultra-radical approach. Antistatic concept also relied upon the very anarchy-syndicalism approach, is not just a theory but an idea to spread the knowledge of communal integrity between the masses to masses.

Little bit boring book frankly, but an enlightens the reader as worth sparing time to give. Illuminates regarding the false power, false democracy and a real autocracy that is hided behind the democracy, i.e. false democracy. Post Spain period to Hitler sums up the urgency of building an international approach and fallacy of unorthodox socialism.

4.5 would be perfect but 4 for its equivocal reading and chapters.

[Sugarpunksattack Mick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rudolf Rocker's 'Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice' is the classic and essential read for anyone interested in the history and basics of Anarcho-syndicalism. Written between the two world wars, but during the Spanish Civil War, the book offers an interesting glimpse into the thinking of the time while offering some very timeless points. Among the more salient points covering the time period are Rocker's various critiques of Soviet influence/interference in various political arenas (obviously in Spain) throughout the text. One of my favorite and related points is his criticism of political revolutions. The critique is two sided arguing against 'political socialism' failure to move beyond petty reforms and bourgeois democracy inability and unwillingness to combat fascism: "The era of political revolution is over...On the one hand it becomes constantly clearer that bourgeois democracy is so degenerate that it is no longer capable of offering effective resistance to the threat of Fascism. On the other hand political socialism has lost itself so completely in the dry channels of bourgeois politics that it no longer has any sympathy with the genuinely Socialistic education of the masses and never rises above the advocacy of petty reforms." A warning as important then as it is now.

**Note: This version is the full, unabridged version.

[Stephen Hanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is basically a book describing the history of anarchism and the theory behind it. It does a great job. The consequence of my reading, that being my ideas on how we should implement an anarchist society generally, are below.

Lesson: Unions and syndicates are the best means of efficiently regulating production and properly establishing/enforcing good business practices. AnSyn society would have unions, syndicates, elected officials that act as legislators and mediators and are highly accountable by the community, and enforcers that are highly accountable by the community. Land and means of production would be publicly owned. Labor vouchers, allocated to debit cards, would be used to buy goods or that are limited in quantity, as well as services. A labor voucher would be valued via a democratic compromise between unions, with the acceptance of a decision by the public (probably some kind of labor mediator group), probably along the lines of $(?) Per hours of labor for specific forms of work, possibly also accounting for different levels of efficiency using different means of production within the same sector. A social safety net providing the basic needs for everyone, such as healthcare and housing, would exist.

[Nurul Ulimaz Alif · Rating 4 out of 5]

Berisi cerita perjuangan kaum buruh memperjuangkan kesetaraan antara upah dan jasa. Dari perjuangan melalui aksi mogok pribadi sampai ke parlementer, pun banyak korban yang berjatuhan atas dasar 'hukum'.

Yang saya kagumi dari tulisan Rocker adalah tulisannya yang benar-benar menggambarkan kesengsaraan buruh pada masa itu. Segala keputusasaan, perasaan tersudut, marah dan benci akan sistem industri, sangat terasa walau hanya membaca tulisannya.

Walau banyak kosakata asing, buku ini layak dijadikan bacaan bagi mereka yang penasaran akan perjuangan buruh yang terjadi ratusan tahun lamanya.

Kutipan favorit :
"Sebagaimana pekerja tidak boleh bersikap masa bodoh dengan kondisi ekonomi kehidupannya dalam masyarakat, ia juga tidak boleh bersikap masa bodoh dengan struktur politik Negaranya. Baik dalam perjuangan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan sehari-hari maupun melakukan beragam propaganda yang mengarah kepada kebebasan sosialnya, ia membutuhkan hak dan kebebasan politik, dan ia harus berjuang untuk dirinya sendiri setiap kali hak dan kebebasan mereka disangkal."

[Schuyler · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've really enjoyed AK Press' Working Classics Series, but found this one pretty disappointing.

It read mostly just as a list of organizations and historical figures, without going into enough detail to make the seemingly endless list memorable. It also felt uncomfortably un-anarchist to me... lot's of "great men" "leading" their "followers" in the good fight. And, on top of that, the very few times any women anarchists were mentioned, it was last, after the long list of "great men". Heck, I'm pretty sure Emma Goldman didn't even make the list! I recognize that this latter point may be a "product of the times", but I expect more of my anarcho-writers. Kropotkin navigated gender hierarchies more gracefully decades earlier. In anarchist circles at the time, it was already a part of the discussion. No gods, no masters, and, please, no excuses.

All that being said, the interaction between labor movements and various leftist movements is worth knowing about. And a couple of chapters, especially Methods of Anarcho-Syndicalism, were genuinely interesting and inspiring.

[Abby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Other reviewers are right--there’s a lot of dry cataloguing here, and of course it’s dated. But I still found it useful. You could probably get the history of the movement through a modern scholar and be fine, but I'm not sure where to get the explanation of syndicalism. Next I'm heading to
Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, Homage to Catalonia, and The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936.

[Skyler Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rocker’s short work is long in background history of labor struggles and workers efforts to organize in Britain and most significantly in revolutionary Spain. Typical of an Anarchist, Rocker is more preoccupied with practice than rigorous theory and this is no fault to his work. Readers familiar with Anarchism or Socialism will not be particularly enlightened, though this book does some justice to the oft misunderstood syndicalist approach to social “liberalism” (libertarianism: freedom). As the likely audience for this book is typically well educated in both the theory and practice of the work’s subject matter, it’s value is primarily as a classic of revolutionary thought and as a source text for scholars and those interested in the history of leftist movements and ideology. The heart of the text is the noble mission to free humanity from the destructive influence of coercive institutions.

[Chandler Jameson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This review will be very similar to my other reviews of Anarcho-Communist books I’ve read.

The author’s points about the State are very pertinent, his economic analysis is dreadful.

Rocker doesn’t define any of his terms. He uses the term “exploitation” quite a bit, yet I don’t know what he means by it.

Nowhere does he ever consider the role of the entrepreneur in creating businesses, like Marx to Rocker they are just parasites.

I quite enjoyed the critique of Marx and his intellectual progeny, yet Rocker still relies upon a Marxist framework for his analysis. The dialectics of history, “exploitation,” class consciousness, the state as an edifice on the superstructure. For someone who denounces Marxism, he appears to rely on it heavily.

I also found it quite humorous how much praise he heaped upon the Spanish anarchists, particularly when they were defeated so crushingly, largely thanks to the Communists.

[Marina Girona · Rating 5 out of 5]

Se trata de una pequeña obra que recorre la historia del nacimiento del anarcosindicalismo del S.XIX y XX. Rocker no pretende de modo alguno crear una guía del anarcosindicalismo, por lo que muchas personas que lleguen a él pueden decepcionarse pensando de otro modo debido al título.
Sin embargo, esto es totalmente lógico e importante ya que no existen unas directrices, y la forma de organización de cada sindicato por ejemplo perteneciente a la AIT actual es diferente.
Lo que sí da es un cocimiento básico sobre cómo se desarrolló el anarcosindicalismo que sí es de especial interés, también para entender precisamente lo común.
Elaborado en 1937 aún se remonta a la praxis que se llevó a cabo por la anarcosindical de España en plena Guerra Civil, y ofrece por último un epílogo tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

[Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a decent book, but as others have pointed out, is on the very skinny side as far as theory is concerned. This a book that serves as a great introduction to anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, and Rocker goes into the struggle of various labor movement in different European countries. The book was quite repetitive at times, Rocker elaborates in almost every other paragraph on how the economic monopoly and state colludes in order to constantly undermine any attempt by the proletariat to emancipate itself from what can really only be described as a form of slavery. While that's central to anarchist thought, it didn't have to be repeated as frequently as it was. This is by no means a worthless read, but it could've been abridged. Would've given it a 3 1/2 star if I could.

[Ethan]

Interesting.

It lacks some more concrete economic proposals I think, and contains within it quite a lot of misconceptions of Marxist ideas (such as a common misconception concerning the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) but overall as a history of the movement, and as a call to the workers to take political struggles into their own hands it's admirable.

Overall I can't knock it for not being incredibly rigorous considering it was essentially produced as a pamphlet, but it would have been nice to see slightly less rhetoric, more argumentation for what an anarcho-syndicalist society would look like.