On Monday 2004-03-01 16:39, Julia Thompson wrote: > Trent Shipley wrote: > > I can make a clear distinction between libertarianism and > > syndico-anarchism that has been making a comeback. > > Can you define syndico-anarchism for me? > > Thank you. > > Julia
My understanding of syndycho-anarchism is imperfect, but with that cavat let us proceed. Syndico-anarchism was an historical variation in the socialist family of political thought. Its heyday was in the last part of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th. It is most closely associed with Souther Europe, especially Spain and Italy. In some ways South European syndico-anarchism bears a family resemblence to Anglo-American libertarianism in that both see *legitimate* state-level government as emergent. Libertarians are vested in the Hobbes-Locke master narrative of society as emergent from individuals and their contracts. Continental political thought as always dismissed this anglophone fascination with social emergence as absurd. In Contental master narratives humans are irreducibly social creatures. Society is just as eternal and fundamental as the individual. Thus, you will not be surprised that syndico-anarchists saw the community as the fundamental political actor. In the context of the developing economies of Italy and Spain "community" meant the "primordial" rural village or parish. Village society would be leveled (usually the anarchist saw violence as necessary to level the patron class). Then villages would take care of their own much as they always had and invest in common goods such as schools, roads, clean water, sewage, and village co-ops (socialism). Villages would then combine together to form task-specific regional agreements and organizations. Of course, in cities the village community could not be the the atomic political unit, instead the modern instantiation of the trade guild, the labor union (called a labor syndicate in French, Italian, or Spanish) would be the natural basis of urban proletariat community. Labor syndicates would become the worker-owners of the industries in which they labored, take care of their own, and negotiate with other syndicates to run the city. Ultimately, a National government would emerge from the actions of automomous villages (anarchy) and unions (syndicates). There would be progress, local autonomy (you can see why it would apeal to Basques), a sense of belonging, and no one would be forgotten. Note that historically, syndico-anarchists were quite prone to assasination and terrorism. Today we are seeing a revival of syndico-anarchist ideas both among some virtual communities. (Some say Richard Stallman is a libertarian, but given his devotion the the community-of-hackers, I see him as a virtual-anachist.) Also among anti-globalizationists and greens we are seeing neo-anarchist thinking. Note however, that we now use the word 'anarchy' to mean chaos, especially social and political chaos. This is not what the olde syndico-anarchists meant by anarchy. (Though they were willing to embrace they theory that if central power was sufficiently disrupted the sovereignty of the local communities and labor formations would necessarilly emerge from the resulting chaos.) By the 20th century and still today we often use 'anarchist' to mean someone who for aesthetic or political reasons desires political and social chaos as an end-in-itself. Nevertheless, we need to be aware of anarchy and anarchist as references to syndico-anarchism and its derivitives. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
