In the 1860s the modern socialist movement was beginning to take shape. The International Working Mens' Association or First International was becoming a pole of attraction for militant workers. As the movement grew points of agreement and of disagreement between the Marxists and the Anarchists about what socialism meant and how to achieve it were becoming clear. This led to the Marxists using less than democratic means to expel the anarchists.
In 1871 the Paris Commune came into being when the workers of Paris seized their city. When they were finally defeated seven thousand Communards were dead or about to be executed. A reign of terror against the Left swept Europe. The anarchists were driven underground in country after country. This did not auger well for a rapid growth of the movement. In response to the terror of the bosses, their shooting down of strikers and protesting peasants and their suppression of the anarchist movement a small minority launched an armed campaign, known as "propaganda by deed", and killed several kings, queens, noblemen and senior politicians.

Though very understandable this drove a further wedge between the bulk of the working class and the movement. Clandestine work became the norm in many countries. Mass work within the class became increasingly difficult. The image of the madman with a bomb under his arm was born. The movement was making no significant gains.

By the turn of the century many anarchists were convinced that a new approach was needed. They called for a return to open and public militant activity among workers. The strategy they developed was syndicalism.

This is the text of a talk given to a Workers Solidarity Movement meeting. As such it represents the authors opinion alone and may be deliberately provocative in order to encourage discussion. Also it may be in note form. Still we hope you find it useful. Other talks are here
Its basic ideas revolve around organising all workers into the "one big union", keeping control in the hands of the rank & file, and opposing all attempts to create a bureaucracy of unaccountable full-time officials. Unlike other unions their belief is that the union can be used not only to win reforms from the bosses but also to overthrow the capitalist system. They hold that most workers are not revolutionaries because the structure of their unions is such that it takes the initiative away from the rank & file. Their alternative is to organise all workers into the "one big union" in preparation for the revolutionary general strike.
They established their own international organisation with the founding of the International Workers Association in Berlin in 1922. Present at that conference were the Argentine Workers Regional Organisation FORA representing 200,000 members, the Industrial Workers of the World in Chile representing 20,000, the Union for Syndicalist Propaganda in Denmark with 600, the Free Workers Union of Germany FAUD with 120,000, National Workers Secretariat of the Netherlands representing 22,500, the Italian Syndicalist Union with 500,000, the General Confederation of Workers in Portugal with 150,000, the Swedish Workers Central Organisation SAC with 32,000, the Committee for the Defence of Revolutionary Syndicalism in France [a breakaway from the CGT] with 100,000, the Federation du Battiment from Paris representing 32,000. The Spanish CNT was unable to send delegates due to the fierce class being waged in their country under the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera. They did, however, join the following year.

During the 1920s the IWA expanded. More unions and propaganda groups entered into dialogue with the IWA secretariat. They were from Mexico, Uruguay, Bulgaria, Poland, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Paraguay and North Africa. Syndicalist unions outside the IWA also appeared in many countries such as the Brazilian Workers Refional Organisation and the Industrial Workers of the World in the USA. The influence of its methods, if not necessarily of its anarchist origins, was even seen in Ireland where the ITGWU throughout its existance until merged into SIPTU a few years ago carried the letters OBU on its badge. This OBU referrs to the IWW slogan of One Big Union. And let us not forget that both Connolly and Larkin were influenced by the IWW. Connolly was an organiser for their building workers union in New York state and Larkin delivered the oration at Joe Hill's funeral.

The success of the Bolsheviks did great harm to the workers movement outside Russia. Many were impressed by what was happening in Russia, Communist Parties sprang up almost everywhere. Was not the Bolshevik model proved successful? Shouldn't we copy it? This was before the reality of the Soviet dictatorship became widely known.

Nevertheless the syndicalist movement still held onto most of its support. The real danger was the rise of fascism. With the rule of Mussolini the Italian USI, the largest syndicalist union n the world, was driven underground and then out of existence. The German FAUD, Portuguese CGT, Dutch NSV, French CDSR and many more in Eastern Europe and Latin America were not able to survive the fascism and military dictatorships of the 1930s and 40s.

It was at the same time that the Spanish revolution unfolded, about which more later.

The Polish syndicalist union with 130,000 workers, the ZZZ, was on the verge of applying for membership of the IWA when it was crushed by the nazi invasion. But they did not go down without a fight. The Polish ZZZ along with the Polish Syndicalist Association took up arms against the nazis and in 1944 even managed to publish a paper called Syndicalista. In 1938 after their country being under the Salazar dictatorship the Portugese CGT could still claim 50,000 members in their now completely illegal and underground union. In Grmany over 1,000 trials for high treason were carried against militants of the FAUD. There were mass trials of FAUD members, many of whom didn't survive the concentration camps. One point I would like to mention about the Spanish CNT shows the hypocrisy of the British government which called itself anti-fascist, not only were Italian anti-fascist exiles interned on the Isle of Man but CNT members whose underground movement assisted British airmen, Jews and anti-fascists to escape through Spain to Britain were repaid at the end of the war when their names were handed over to Franco's secret police.

By the end of WWII the European syndicalist movement and the IWA was almost destroyed. The CNT was now an exile organisation. In 1951 the IWA held their first post-war congress in Toulouse. This time they were a much smaller organisation than the great movement which existed at the IWA's first congress. Nevertheless they still represented something. Delegates attended, though mostly representing very small organisations, from Cuba, Argentina, Spain, Sweden, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Britain, Bulgaria and Portugal. A message of support was received from Uruguay.

Things were not looking good for the re-emergence of anarcho-syndicalism. In Eastern Europe the Stalinists allowed no free discussion, strikes or free trade unions. Certainly not anarchist ones! In the West massive subsidies from the US and the Catholic church went to tame unions controlled by Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. meanwhile Russia did the same for their allies who controlled the French CGT, the Italian CGIL and others. The IWA, in its weakened state couldn't compete for influence. In the late 1950s the Swedish SAC withdrew from the IWA. There was now not a single functioning union in its ranks.

It staggered on as a collection of small propaganda groups and exile organisations like the Spanish and Bulgarian CNTs. Some wondered would it live much longer. But suddenly in 1977 Franco died and his regime fell. The CNT blossomed. Within a matter of months its membership leaped from a few hundred activists to 150,000. Problems later developed within the CNT and a split occurred which left us with two unions whose combined membership today probably does not reach 30,000, though not an inconsequential number when we look at our own size. The growth of the CNT put syndicalism back on the anarchist agenda. The IWA now claims four organisations which function at least partly as unions (in Brazil, Italy, France and Spain) and propaganda groups in about another dozen countries.

Outside the IWA are syndicalist unions and organisations like the 16,000 strong SAC in Sweden, the 11,000 strong OVB in the Netherlands, the Spanish CGT, the Solidarity-Unity-Democracy union in the French post office, the CRT in Switzerland, the Syndicalist Bulletin group in Britain, and others. Some are less anarchist and more reformist than others. Say what we will about them we must recognise that syndicalism is today the largest organised current in the international anarchist movement. This means it is especially important to understand them.

We do have criticisms of their politics, or more accurately lack of politics. I will only sketch this as I would prefer to see it expanded on in the discussion rather than have to keep on speaking!

Judging from their own statements, methods and propaganda they see the biggest problem in the structure of the existing unions rather than in the ideas that tie workers to authoritarian, capitalist views of the world.

Syndicalists do not create revolutionary political organisations. They want to creates industrial unions. Their stategy is a-political, in the sense that they argue that all that's essential to make the revolution is for workers to sieze the factories and the land. After that it believes that the state and all the other institutions of the ruling class will come toppling down. They do not accept that the working class must take political power. For them all power has to be immediately abolished on day one of the revolution.

Because the syndicalist organisation is the union, it organises all workers regardless of their politics. Historically many workers have joined, not because they were anarchists, but because the syndicalist union was the most militant and got the best results. Because of this tendencies always appeared that were reformist. This raises the question, in non-revolutionary times, of the conflict between being a trade union or a revolutionary organisation.... another point that can be taken up in the discussion.

Syndicalists are quite correct to emphasise the centrality of organising workers in the workplace. Critics who reject syndicalism on the grounds that allegedly it cannot organise those outside the workplace are wrong. Taking the example of anarcho-syndicalism in Spain it is clear that they could and did organise throughout the entire working class as was evidenced by the Iberian Federation of Libertarian Youth, the 'Mujeras Libres' (Free Women), and the neighbourhood organisations.

The weakness of syndicalism is rooted in its view of why workers are tied to capitalism, and its view of what is necessary to make the revolution. Spain in 1936/7 represented the highest point in anarcho-syndicalist organisation and achievement. Because of their a-politicism they were unable to develop a programme for workers' power, to wage a political battle against other currents in the workers' movement (such as reformism and Stalinism). Indeed syndicalists seem to ignore other ideas more often than combatting them. In Spain they were unable to give a lead to the entire class by fighting for complete workers' power.

Instead they got sucked into support for the Popular Front government, which in turn led to their silence and complicity when the Republican state moved against the collectives and militias. The minority in the CNT, organised around the Friends of Durruti, was expelled when they issued a proclamation calling for the workers to take absolute power (i.e. that they should refuse to share power with the bosses or the authoritarian parties).

The CNT believed that when the workers took over the means of production and distribution this would lead to "the liquidation of the bourgeois state which would die of asphyxiation". History teaches us different. In a situation of dual power it is very necessary to smash the state. No ruling class ever leaves the stage of history voluntarily.

In contrast to this the Friends of Durruti were clear that, and this is a quote from their programme 'Towards a Fresh Revolution, "to beat Franco we need to crush the bourgeoisie and its Stalinist and Socialist allies. The capitalist state must be destroyed totally and there must be installed workers' power depending on rank & file committees. A-political anarchism has failed". The political confusion of the CNT leadership was such that they attacked the idea of the workers siezing power as "evil" and leading to an "anarchist dictatorship".

The syndicalist movement, organised in the International Workers Association and outside it, still refuses to admit the CNT was wrong to "postpone" the revolution and enter the government. They attempt to explain away this whole episode as being due to "exceptional circumstances" that "will not occur again". Because they refuse to admit that a mistake of historic proportions was made, there is no reason to supopose that they would not repeat it (should they get a chance).

Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the syndicalist unions, where they still exist, are far more progressive than any other union. Not only do they create democratic unions and create an atmosphere where anarchist ideas are listened to with respect but they also organise and fight in a way that breaks down the divisions into leaders and led, doers and watchers.

There is no one Marxist theory of the state, different currents within Marxism have developed their own variants. However all share the idea that the State can, and must, be used as a means towards achieving the classless society. There are very few - apart from whatever Trotskyist groups are still burrowing away in the British Labour Party - in the social democratic parties who still claim to be Marxists. As to the few Marxist social democrats, we don't need to analyse their theory of the state in any great detail. They have had the best part of a century to show us what their politics mean in practice. Equally so with the Stalinists. Their deeds have spoken a lot louder than any number of books, pamphlets or speeches full of flowery language.
The main revolutionary Marxist current around today is Trotskyism. The biggest of the Trotskyist internationals is the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (known in Trot circles as USec). Its leading theoretician is Ernest Mandel. Where I put forward a Marxist position it is that put forward by Mandel in a talk given to the Belgian National Federation of Socialist Students and later issued as a pamphlet by the American Socialist Workers Party with the title "The Marxist Theory of the State". Tonight I will concentrate on the fundamental purpose of the State, and not on those socially useful services it provides as an additional function as these are not essential to its purpose nor are they provided by all modern states.

The starting position is common to both anarchism and Marxism, that the State did not always exist. Mandel goes on to say, and we would not disagree with him, that the state has a special characteristic which is "the exercise of certain functions is removed from the community as a whole to become the exclusive perogative of a tiny fraction of members of this community". In other words the emergence of the state is a product of the division of society into rulers and ruled.

This is the text of a talk given to a Workers Solidarity Movement meeting. As such it represents the authors opinion alone and may be deliberately provocative in order to encourage discussion. Also it may be in note form. Still we hope you find it useful. Other talks are here
Two examples will illustrate this development. The first example is the question of arms. In primitive societies all adult men (and sometimes all adult men and women) had the right to bear arms. As the class division emerged and the newly emerging rulers wanted to make it more difficult to challenge their power the community as whole lost their right to bear arms and instead this became the particular perogative of special bodies under the control of the rulers - police and army. It was Engels who said that the state is, in the final analysis, nothing other than a body of armed men.
The second example is that of justice. In primitive societies there were no legal codes, partly because writing had yet to be invented. However, apart from quarrels decided by families or among individuals themselves, only tribal or collective assemblies were empowered to render judgements. There were no special groups of individuals who had to the right to dispense justice. The idea that certain men or women, detached from the tribe or collectivity, had the right to judge would seem to members of a society based on the tribe or clan just as nonsensical as as the reverse appears to most of our contemporaries.

To sum up, at a certain point in human history, before we were divided into classes, the basic functions of the state were exercised collectively by all adult members of the community. It is only with birth of class society that these functions are taken away from the mass and reserved to a minority who exercise these functions in a special way. This special way is that these functions are primarily used to defend and further the interests of the ruling class.

While the modern capitalist state is far more developed and much better at public relations that the state of fuedal times, it has the same essential purpose. Although there is universal suffrage in perhaps half the world, society has no more control than it did 400 years ago. While governments may come and go with each general election the state remains. Its power is a permanent power. The general staff of the army, the special troops, the police, the Special Branch, the top administrators of government departments (often called the "key" civil servants), the national security bodies, the judges, and so on - all all free of the influence of elections. Once in you get to stay in unless other elements within the structure want you out for reasons of their own. Think about the so-called independence of judges, what most of these reactionary old bastards are independent of is any requirement to reflect the wishes of the community they claim to serve.

Anarchists and Marxists do agree that

the state did not always exist
it serves the interests of a ruling class which needs special means because it is a minority
it represents the interests of the ruling class as a whole, it serves as a sort of executive committee for them.
it holds a monopoly of force to defend and further the interests of the rulers
it is not possible to place it under a genuinely democratic control. (The notion of the vote being the highest stage of decision making is a deliberately fostered illusion in a society where real power ultimately lies in the boardrooms of big business. In this regard we need only remember how the big bosses organised an investment strike in Britain in 1974 to warn against the Labour Party getting carried away with its reforming ideas, or how the Chilean economy was destabilised to prepare the way for Pinochet's CIA backed coup in 1973.)
Mandel accepts that the state is part and parcel of the division of society into classes when he says "As long as the state exists it will be proof of the fact that social conflicts remain".

Before moving on to the most important question, that of whether the working class needs a state, there is one point that must be stated. If the capitalist state is fundamentally an instrument in the service of the ruling class, does that we mean we should be indifferent to to the particular form the State takes - parliamentary democracy, military dictatorship, religious fundamentalist, fascist dictatorship? Certainly not. The more freedoms we have to organise and explain our ideas, the more we can do to bring the advent of anarchism that bit closer. We also, of course, wish to enjoy as much freedom as we can because we find freedom a good thing in itself. That is why anarchists must defend what democratic rights we have against every and all attempts to restrict such rights (or to be more accurate 'concessions' as we have no absolute rights under capitalism). This means fighting anti-strike laws, fighting increased police powers and the institution of a "strong state", and it means fight fascism.

To return to the question, Mandel says, and I quote "One can always resort to a hypocritical attitude, as do certain anarchists: Let's abolish the State and call the people who exercise State functions by another name. But that's a purely verbal opposition, a paper"abolition" of the State." As far as he is concerned while there remains shortage or scarcity of goods the State is necessary, such a society cannot function without a State. The State quickly jumps from being the mechanism which allows a small minority to rule to being, and again I quote directly from him, "people who regulate conflicts - that's what the State is".

As a good and longstanding Leninist he sees the working class as ignorant, as the "stupid classes" who are incapable of resolving differences among themselves until we reach the stage where society can produce an abundance for all and so eliminate conflict. It would be easy to write pages upon pages disproving this contention. While all economic conflict will not disappear until there is a society of abundance (which on a world scale capitalism has developed the productive capability for), such conflict can certainly be managed, reduced and minimised. The experience of the industrial and agricultural collectives which affected the lives of at least seven million Spaniards in the 1930s rubbishes his argument.

All the arguments thrown up by Mandel for a so-called workers state are false. They talk of the need for organising the economy, for national defence, for defence against internal counter-revolutionaries, for watchdogs to oversee the industries, for a special body to dispossess the ruling class of its wealth and power. There is not one among these tasks that can not be carried out by bodies under the direct control of the working class and its mandated delegates. And to suggest this is not to call the state by another name, one more acceptable to anarchists. For no statism is acceptable to us. The essence of statism is the removal of powers that should belong to the community as whole (though they may for reasons of efficiency delegate their actual implementation), is their removal into the hands of a tiny minority who claim to act on our behalf and in our interests but who are not under our direct control. In other words it continues the division into rulers and ruled.

Marxists wish to centralise all executive and legislative power in the hands of a tiny minority. They say it and they have done when given a chance. We are all aware of how they behaved and put their politics into practice at the time of their crowning glory - the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia. 99% of contemporary Marxists take their inspiration from the Bolsheviks. The only exceptions I know about are the very small groups of Luxemburgists, council communists and non-Leninists such as Red Action. And none of these has yet stated clearly where they stand on the question of the State except to say they want their State to be more democratic that that of Lenin, but they have yet to say how they will do this.

As I have said, Mandel, though I very much doubt he would put it in these words, sees the working class as ignorant and possibly even stupid. His Trotskyist state will educate them until they are capable of running their own lives and the society they live in. He puts it like this "The withering away of the State should be conceived of as self-management and self-government of producers and citizens which expands more and more until, under conditions of material abundance and a high cultural level of the entire society, the latter becomes structured into self-governing producer-consumer communities".

And how will he stop his "workers state" becoming another Stalinist-type bureaucracy which turns itself into a fully fledged ruling class. Easy. Just obey the five rules of Mandel:

1. The bodies that make decisions shall also implement them, public officials will be elected "to the greatest extent", and no excessive salaries will be paid.

2. Respect the democratic character of workers' self-management committees.

3. Freedom of press and organisation for all parties who respect the government's laws, and independence of the trade unions from the state - with the right to strike.

4. Decision making bodies to have full freedom of debate and be open o public view.

5. Respect the principal of a written law.

We can discuss these so-called protections in the discussion. The most important point is that, like it or not, Mandel has admitted that his State will be different and apart from the organs of the working class. That is why these protections are needed. Unwittingly he has agreed with us when we say that the State does not just serve a ruling class, but one which is a minority. If the working class are running the show why wold thy need trade unions and right to strike, who would they go on strike against? The majority has no need of such undemocratic structures to protect itself.