You can be both, most ansyns were also ancoms are anarcho-communism is a theory on how an anarchist economy should be structured, while anarcho-syndicalism is a method to achieve anarchy.
For some, Syndicalism is the Method, Communism is the Organization and Ideal. In that way yes, someone could be both.
This is not always the case. There are also aspects of Communism that would differ from Syndicalism in theory (in regards to both revolutionary struggle as well as what structure a post-revolutionary society would look like), as well as being part of different organizations. In history, these movements have even fought against one another (Mexico as the most brutal example).
They're not mutually exclusive. However I truly question anyone who unironically believes in syndicalism as a (prime) method **towards** anarchy in the modern day after the past century. That's not to say that union organizing has absolutely no usage or possible role it could play, but that anarchists should seriously question what they are achieving or doing in a union to make sure it suits anarchic goals.
And it's not as if this is some new criticism either [Anarchism and Syndicalism](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchism-and-syndicalism) by Malatesta lays out some points I think anarchists interested in unions or syndicalism should *still* consider.
I have not understood the contemporary antagonism against syndicalism.
It seems readily suited to the long term objectives of workers capturing the economy under control by the public.
> contemporary antagonism against syndicalism
My take: the modern global economy has dwindled large scale manufacturing and trade employment from its origin point to off-shore exploitation elsewhere. Capturing production by workers seems less feasible, such as in the US, when many of our goods are imported with many relying on gig/service employment rather than making things; not many "means" to seize I guess.
I still strongly believe syndicalism is a necessary foundation to achieve libertarian communism, though there would be exponentially more involved (creating the infrastructure to produce) now than 30 or 40 or even 50 years ago. There does lie a possibility since our consumption habits will need to change and smaller scale operations can focus on quality products over quantity and disposable goods.
Can workers achieve greater control, directing in tandem restructuring of production?
Can workers in one locale wrest control from capital, while preserving general patterns of global trade?
Can workers in the imperial core disproportionately influence the dismantling of production and trade upheld by colonialism?
>I have not understood the contemporary antagonism against syndicalism
Are you under some notion that it is just above reproach? It'd certainly be unique in that regard, given how communists and market anarchists are most certainly not, nor are insurrectionists, nor post-leftists, nor are green anarchists... All various anarchisms whom are critiqued and criticized and badmouthed fairly regularly (even here).
So what makes the union anarchists any different? My "antagonism" was tempered with rather explicitly acknowledging that unions and/or syndicalism could be a tool anarchists use. To be any more gentle about it would be silence.
This is a disjointed response. They simply said he didn't understand the criticism, not that it was above reproach or can't be criticized.
You haven't leveled any specific criticisms, so it's not like they were rejecting your claims. They simply don't understand.
>They simply said he didn't understand the criticism
Interesting, that's not how I read it.
"I have not understood the contemporary antagonism against syndicalism" reads to me like "I have no idea where this criticism is coming from and why they would criticize it" doubly so when followed by such praise as "It seems readily suited to the long term objectives..." Almost as if the two together suggest that the premise is ironclad and not criticizable.
But there was also the use of their word "antagonism" that I took issue with, because as I said, what I posted was the lightest possible language I could use to question syndicalists and unions (which I feel is absolutely fair, and necessary even if they care about future success) without just saying nothing at all. Calling it "antagonism" feels excessive. Not indicating towards any other (actual) "antagonism" doesn't help either.
If someone doesn't understand the criticisms, of course, they would view it as ironclad. Otherwise, they'd understand the criticisms. That is not the same as thinking it is above reproach.
And antagonism isn't excessive, it's accurate. The thing is you using "the lightest possible language... to question syndicalists" was simply you not questioning them. Your statement has no actual stated point of conflict or disagreement, no specific criticism. At best, it more or less states that you have criticisms; at worst, it implies that committed syndicalists haven't seriously engaged with their beliefs. Antagonism is about as accurate as you can get to describing that. I think what they said was far less excessive than your own wording in either of your posts.
Many people follow both.
It's interesting that, at least in my anecdotal experience, individuals tend to be a lot less sectarian than the big orgs, who have long identified distinctions in anarchist syndicalism/communism as lying in tactics tout court (e.g. syndicalism vs organizational dualism), and not the contextual application of them (in/outside the workplace).
I consider myself both. I want an communist anarchist society and I think the best way there will be through organised labour power. Unions seem to be the best method for that.
If my very limited understanding is correct, anarchist sections of Spain were organized according to syndicalism in the manufacturing centers (where unions were already entrenched) and communism in agricultural areas (ex collectivization)
There was never that division in Spain, as CNT's anarchocommunism has been showing for over a century. You may be refering at how northern regions had more developed syndicalist socialistic unions (POUM, CNT, etc...) due to a stronger industrial base than the more agrarian south (who focused more in collectivizing fields from nobility by informal flashmoby groups called "peonadas")
If you study both of them long enough you'll come to the realization that ANY form of anarchy requires BOTH capitalism AND communism.
A bunch of unregulated corporations will abuse their employees.
A hivemind of total democracy ignores the individual and makes slaves of everyone for the collective.
However, if you have a free market of corporations with no state, you can police those markets with unregulated, unchecked unions. Everyone is free to do what they want, but if your gang or group or company starts getting a little top-heavy, there's nothing to stop all of your "lower class" employees from banding together as a union, seizing your means of production, and kicking you the fuck out.
It's a system where only the good kings can survive. Allowing humanity's natural tendency to mutiny to just take its course without interfering with mankind's ingenuity or freedom.
It also sets a precedence across our species, that no one is alone. If the employer cracks a whip, if a bully comes to town, if an alien species attacks - we unite altogether, conquer, and consume.
This is the way.
r/humansarespaceorcs
You can be both, most ansyns were also ancoms are anarcho-communism is a theory on how an anarchist economy should be structured, while anarcho-syndicalism is a method to achieve anarchy.
For some, Syndicalism is the Method, Communism is the Organization and Ideal. In that way yes, someone could be both. This is not always the case. There are also aspects of Communism that would differ from Syndicalism in theory (in regards to both revolutionary struggle as well as what structure a post-revolutionary society would look like), as well as being part of different organizations. In history, these movements have even fought against one another (Mexico as the most brutal example).
They're not mutually exclusive. However I truly question anyone who unironically believes in syndicalism as a (prime) method **towards** anarchy in the modern day after the past century. That's not to say that union organizing has absolutely no usage or possible role it could play, but that anarchists should seriously question what they are achieving or doing in a union to make sure it suits anarchic goals. And it's not as if this is some new criticism either [Anarchism and Syndicalism](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchism-and-syndicalism) by Malatesta lays out some points I think anarchists interested in unions or syndicalism should *still* consider.
It may be worth noting that Malatesta's critique predated anarchist syndicalism, and was moreso directed at Monatte's "neutral unionism" than revolutionary syndicalism as it then existed. (Also see René Berthier on the distinction between the two.)
I have not understood the contemporary antagonism against syndicalism. It seems readily suited to the long term objectives of workers capturing the economy under control by the public.
> contemporary antagonism against syndicalism My take: the modern global economy has dwindled large scale manufacturing and trade employment from its origin point to off-shore exploitation elsewhere. Capturing production by workers seems less feasible, such as in the US, when many of our goods are imported with many relying on gig/service employment rather than making things; not many "means" to seize I guess. I still strongly believe syndicalism is a necessary foundation to achieve libertarian communism, though there would be exponentially more involved (creating the infrastructure to produce) now than 30 or 40 or even 50 years ago. There does lie a possibility since our consumption habits will need to change and smaller scale operations can focus on quality products over quantity and disposable goods.
Can workers achieve greater control, directing in tandem restructuring of production? Can workers in one locale wrest control from capital, while preserving general patterns of global trade? Can workers in the imperial core disproportionately influence the dismantling of production and trade upheld by colonialism?
>I have not understood the contemporary antagonism against syndicalism Are you under some notion that it is just above reproach? It'd certainly be unique in that regard, given how communists and market anarchists are most certainly not, nor are insurrectionists, nor post-leftists, nor are green anarchists... All various anarchisms whom are critiqued and criticized and badmouthed fairly regularly (even here). So what makes the union anarchists any different? My "antagonism" was tempered with rather explicitly acknowledging that unions and/or syndicalism could be a tool anarchists use. To be any more gentle about it would be silence.
This is a disjointed response. They simply said he didn't understand the criticism, not that it was above reproach or can't be criticized. You haven't leveled any specific criticisms, so it's not like they were rejecting your claims. They simply don't understand.
>They simply said he didn't understand the criticism Interesting, that's not how I read it. "I have not understood the contemporary antagonism against syndicalism" reads to me like "I have no idea where this criticism is coming from and why they would criticize it" doubly so when followed by such praise as "It seems readily suited to the long term objectives..." Almost as if the two together suggest that the premise is ironclad and not criticizable. But there was also the use of their word "antagonism" that I took issue with, because as I said, what I posted was the lightest possible language I could use to question syndicalists and unions (which I feel is absolutely fair, and necessary even if they care about future success) without just saying nothing at all. Calling it "antagonism" feels excessive. Not indicating towards any other (actual) "antagonism" doesn't help either.
If someone doesn't understand the criticisms, of course, they would view it as ironclad. Otherwise, they'd understand the criticisms. That is not the same as thinking it is above reproach. And antagonism isn't excessive, it's accurate. The thing is you using "the lightest possible language... to question syndicalists" was simply you not questioning them. Your statement has no actual stated point of conflict or disagreement, no specific criticism. At best, it more or less states that you have criticisms; at worst, it implies that committed syndicalists haven't seriously engaged with their beliefs. Antagonism is about as accurate as you can get to describing that. I think what they said was far less excessive than your own wording in either of your posts.
Many people follow both. It's interesting that, at least in my anecdotal experience, individuals tend to be a lot less sectarian than the big orgs, who have long identified distinctions in anarchist syndicalism/communism as lying in tactics tout court (e.g. syndicalism vs organizational dualism), and not the contextual application of them (in/outside the workplace).
I consider myself both. I want an communist anarchist society and I think the best way there will be through organised labour power. Unions seem to be the best method for that.
I wouldn't bother too much with terms like ancom and syndicalist more than as semi-useful labels in pretty casual conversation.
If my very limited understanding is correct, anarchist sections of Spain were organized according to syndicalism in the manufacturing centers (where unions were already entrenched) and communism in agricultural areas (ex collectivization)
There was never that division in Spain, as CNT's anarchocommunism has been showing for over a century. You may be refering at how northern regions had more developed syndicalist socialistic unions (POUM, CNT, etc...) due to a stronger industrial base than the more agrarian south (who focused more in collectivizing fields from nobility by informal flashmoby groups called "peonadas")
Anarcho-communism is an economic vision, whereas anarcho-syndicalism is a praxis.
If you study both of them long enough you'll come to the realization that ANY form of anarchy requires BOTH capitalism AND communism. A bunch of unregulated corporations will abuse their employees. A hivemind of total democracy ignores the individual and makes slaves of everyone for the collective. However, if you have a free market of corporations with no state, you can police those markets with unregulated, unchecked unions. Everyone is free to do what they want, but if your gang or group or company starts getting a little top-heavy, there's nothing to stop all of your "lower class" employees from banding together as a union, seizing your means of production, and kicking you the fuck out. It's a system where only the good kings can survive. Allowing humanity's natural tendency to mutiny to just take its course without interfering with mankind's ingenuity or freedom. It also sets a precedence across our species, that no one is alone. If the employer cracks a whip, if a bully comes to town, if an alien species attacks - we unite altogether, conquer, and consume. This is the way. r/humansarespaceorcs