Our Differences With Anarcho-Syndicalists

 Nowadays, it is not uncommon to hear someone compare Council Communists to Anarcho-Syndicalists despite the vast gap which exists between the two tendencies. Thus, we thought we should clear the air around the subject and explain the differences between Council Communists and Anarcho-Syndicalists.

Unions

The most obvious point of contention regards unions. Council Communists, such as ourselves, completely disregard unions as revolutionary organizations. Unions have only ever been, and can only ever be, pseudo-reformist bodies. They exist to get concessions from capitalists (i.e. higher wages, shorter working hours) in essentially the same fashion as social democrats. This was true even in their heyday. In the present day, though, they have been almost completely integrated into the capitalist state, and won’t ever vouch for real revolutionary action. The programme of the Communist Workers Party of Germany said it best: “[I]t is necessary to resolutely reject the trade unions, and to be resolutely free from their ideological orientation.”

Anarcho-Syndicalists, on the other hand, reject this notion. They acknowledge that modern unions are reformist and mere arms of the capitalist state, which is a step in the right direction. But instead of realizing that this is universal to all unions, they advocate for the creation of “revolutionary” and/or “rank-and-file” unions. What phrase-mongering! Even the most “revolutionary” unions can only exist to bargain with the bourgeoisie. It is in their nature.

Let us take, for example, the C.N.T.-F.A.I. in Revolutionary Catalonia. While they were indeed very radical and revolutionary, ultimately their pseudo-reformism overcame them, and they began to collaborate with the bourgeois Republican government under the banner of “anti-fascism.” “Anti-Fascism” is itself non-communist, as it mobilizes the working class in a defense of the democratic bourgeoisie against the fascist bourgeoisie. This is the subject best saved for another article. 

The I.W.W. is another good example. While not officially anarcho-syndicalist, you’d be hard pressed to find a Wobbly that wasn’t an avid supporter of the ideology. However, the I.W.W. also falls into the pit trap of reformism. It’s struggles are centered around labor actions like the strike. However, once these actions end, so does the struggle. Thus it can only ever play a negotiator with capital, a wolf dressed in red and black clothing.

Councils

Although we completely denounce unions, this does not mean we denounce organizing in the workplace. In fact it is the opposite, we advocate for it! But workplace organizing cannot be done with union reps (who may be in collusion with management) and  membership cards. It can only be done by forming factory committees and workers councils, which are the real organs of the power of the proletariat. 

The workers councils will not demand reforms and concessions, ending the struggle when they are met. They will further the struggle until the goal of the proletariat is the abolition of capitalism. They will take political and economic power, thus transforming the working class into the ruling class, and transforming the state into the dictatorship of the proletariat. They will not be reformist, they will be revolutionary! And they will rise on the ashes of the unions!