Cover: Via https://classautonomy.info/an-early-history-of-the-international-confederation-of-labour-icl-cit/

---

Syndicalism is one of the most important—and frequently misunderstood—traditions in the history of working-class politics. It emerged from the conviction that workers should not merely organise to obtain better conditions within capitalism, nor delegate their emancipation to political parties, parliamentary representatives, or a revolutionary state. Instead, workers themselves should develop the organisations, capacities, and forms of collective power necessary to transform society.

At its most radical, syndicalism proposes that the organisations workers create through their struggles against employers can become the foundations of a fundamentally different social order. The workplace, rather than parliament or the state, becomes a central site of political contestation. The strike, rather than electoral competition, becomes a principal instrument of collective power. Workers’ associations, rather than a party claiming to represent them, become the potential institutions of social transformation.

Yet syndicalism is not a single doctrine. It encompasses revolutionary syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism, industrial unionism, revolutionary industrial unionism, and various traditions of workers’ control. Its history includes profound disagreements about political organisation, revolutionary strategy, bureaucracy, internationalism, nationalism, gender, race, and the relationship between immediate economic struggles and social revolution.

The central question running through this history is:

Can the working class emancipate itself through its own collective organisations, or do those organisations inevitably become institutions that manage, represent, and ultimately subordinate the workers who created them?

This essay explores syndicalism as both a historical movement and a theoretical challenge to capitalism, parliamentary socialism, Leninism, bureaucratic administration, and the professionalisation of political struggle.

1. The historical emergence of syndicalism

The First International and the foundations of revolutionary unionism

Syndicalism did not emerge from a single intellectual origin. Its foundations developed through nineteenth-century workers’ struggles, anarchist theories of federalism and self-emancipation, socialist critiques of capitalism, and the practical experience of organising workers across industries.

The International Workingmen’s Association, established in 1864, provided an important institutional setting for these debates. The First International brought together socialists, anarchists, trade unionists, mutualists, and other currents of the European workers’ movement. Its internal conflicts concerned not simply competing ideologies but the question of how working-class emancipation should be organised.

The disagreement between Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin is particularly relevant.

Marx emphasised the political organisation of the working class and its need to confront the existing state and capitalist class through organised political struggle. Bakunin feared that political centralisation would reproduce domination within the revolutionary movement itself. He argued that a revolutionary organisation claiming authority over the working class could become a new ruling power.

These disagreements anticipated a fundamental syndicalist problem:

How can workers coordinate their collective power without creating an organisation that claims authority over them?

The answer developed through a combination of workers’ associations, federations, mutual aid, direct action, and the rejection of political authority exercised from above.

Bakunin’s importance to syndicalism was not that he developed a complete syndicalist programme. Rather, he helped establish an anti-authoritarian conception of revolutionary organisation based on collective action from below.

The syndicalist tradition inherited several interconnected ideas:

• Workers must emancipate themselves through their own activity.
• Capitalism is maintained through economic exploitation and political domination.
• Workers’ associations should develop autonomy from employers, the state, and political parties.
• Revolutionary organisation should encourage initiative rather than impose obedience.
• Social transformation requires replacing hierarchical institutions with federated forms of collective decision-making.

These ideas would become particularly influential in France, Spain, Italy, and parts of Latin America.

Haymarket and the international anarchist labour movement

The Haymarket affair of 1886 was a crucial episode in the development of anarchist labour politics.

The struggle for the eight-hour working day brought together workers, anarchists, socialists, and trade unionists. The subsequent bombing, controversial trial, and executions of anarchist labour activists became an international symbol of state repression and working-class resistance.

Haymarket contributed to the development of May Day as an international workers’ day and strengthened the association between anarchism and organised labour.

However, anarchist participation in the labour movement preceded Haymarket and was never uniform. Some anarchists regarded trade unions as indispensable instruments of emancipation; others worried that unions would become reformist institutions concerned primarily with wages and conditions.

Kenyon Zimmer’s historical account emphasises that syndicalism emerged through the interaction of anarchist ideas, working-class organising, migration, international networks, and changing industrial conditions. The Anarchist Library

The resulting tradition was neither simply an anarchist invention nor merely a new form of trade unionism. It was a political synthesis developed through actual struggles.

Industrial capitalism and the changing composition of the working class

The development of syndicalism must also be understood in relation to the transformation of capitalism during the late nineteenth century.

Industrial expansion created increasingly concentrated workplaces, large transport networks, mining complexes, factories, and urban working-class populations.

The concentration of workers created new possibilities for collective organisation.

A strike involving a relatively small number of workers in a strategically important industry could disrupt production throughout an entire economy. Railway workers, dockworkers, miners, and industrial labourers could exercise power extending far beyond their immediate workplaces.

At the same time, traditional craft unionism often excluded workers who were poorly paid, insecure, migrant, unskilled, or employed in industries lacking established union traditions.

Syndicalists sought to overcome these divisions by organising workers as members of a common class rather than according to narrow occupational interests.

This did not mean that syndicalist organisations automatically overcame racism, sexism, or divisions between skilled and unskilled labour. Their history contains serious contradictions on these questions. Nevertheless, the aspiration towards industrial organisation expressed an important critique of the fragmented labour movement.

The problem was not simply that workers lacked unions. It was that existing forms of organisation could reproduce the divisions through which employers maintained control.

2. Revolutionary syndicalism in France

The CGT and the emergence of a revolutionary workers’ movement

France became the principal centre of early revolutionary syndicalism.

The Confédération générale du travail (CGT), established in 1895, brought together workers from different trades and political backgrounds. Its development was associated with the emergence of a revolutionary current that challenged both conventional trade unionism and parliamentary socialism.

The CGT was not simply an anarchist organisation. It contained anarchists, socialists, revolutionary trade unionists, and workers who rejected established political affiliations.

Its significance lay in the development of a practical movement that sought to make the union itself the principal instrument of working-class emancipation.

Three figures are particularly important:

• Fernand Pelloutier
• Émile Pouget
• Georges Sorel

They represented different aspects of syndicalist thought.

Fernand Pelloutier: workers’ education and autonomous organisation

Pelloutier was one of the most important theorists and organisers of the French revolutionary labour movement.

His work with the Bourses du Travail—the local labour exchanges and workers’ associations—was particularly significant.

These organisations were more than employment exchanges. They provided spaces for workers’ education, mutual aid, cultural activity, solidarity, and political discussion.

Pelloutier regarded workers’ organisation as a means of developing the intellectual and practical capacities necessary for emancipation.

This approach challenged the assumption that workers needed to be educated and directed by an external revolutionary leadership.

Instead, workers could develop their own capacities through collective activity.

The Bourses du Travail embodied an important syndicalist principle: the labour movement should develop institutions that meet workers’ immediate needs while also preparing them to organise society themselves.

The distinction is important. A union concerned exclusively with bargaining may improve workers’ conditions without challenging the social relations that make them dependent on employers.

A revolutionary union, by contrast, seeks to transform workers’ collective capacities and their relationship to production.

Émile Pouget: direct action and everyday resistance

Pouget developed a particularly influential conception of direct action.

For Pouget, direct action meant that workers acted collectively through their own organisations rather than relying exclusively on representatives, parliamentary institutions, or legal mechanisms.

It included strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, workplace resistance, and other forms of collective pressure.

The fundamental distinction was between workers acting for themselves and workers delegating their struggle to institutions supposedly acting on their behalf.

Direct action was not necessarily violent or illegal. Its essential characteristic was workers’ autonomous intervention in social relations.

A union negotiating with an employer could engage in direct action when its bargaining power came from collective worker activity rather than reliance on political intermediaries.

Conversely, a supposedly militant organisation could undermine direct action if its leadership monopolised decisions and treated workers as passive supporters.

Pouget’s writings on sabotage are frequently misunderstood.

Historically, the term referred to a range of workplace practices through which workers resisted managerial control or undermined employers’ efforts to intensify production. The concept was associated with the recognition that workers possessed practical knowledge of production and could collectively challenge the authority exercised over that knowledge.

The theoretical significance is broader than any particular tactic.

Workers were not simply interchangeable components of an industrial machine. They possessed the knowledge and collective capacity upon which production depended.

This meant that capitalist authority was not an inherent feature of production itself. It was a social relationship maintained through the organisation of work.

The distinction between productive cooperation and managerial domination would become central to later theories of workers’ control.

Georges Sorel and the myth of the general strike

Georges Sorel occupies a complicated position in syndicalist history.

His Reflections on Violence, published in 1908, defended revolutionary syndicalism against parliamentary socialism and sought to explain the political significance of the general strike.

Sorel argued that the general strike functioned as a myth capable of organising collective consciousness.

He did not mean that the general strike was simply a prediction of a particular future event. Rather, it represented a unifying image through which workers could understand their struggles as part of a larger revolutionary project.

The general strike connected immediate workplace conflicts with the possibility of social transformation.

For Sorel, the working class could not become revolutionary merely through the accumulation of economic grievances. It required a collective identity, an ethical commitment, and an understanding of itself as an independent historical force.

This was one of syndicalism’s most ambitious claims: workers’ struggles could produce not only material improvements but also new forms of social consciousness.

However, Sorel’s emphasis on myth, heroic struggle, and violence has generated substantial controversy.

His later political trajectory, including associations with nationalist and reactionary intellectual currents, demonstrates the dangers of separating revolutionary rhetoric from egalitarian social commitments.

Sorel’s influence should therefore be approached critically. His theory of collective mobilisation is historically significant, but his political legacy cannot simply be treated as synonymous with syndicalism.

The Charter of Amiens, 1906

The CGT’s Charter of Amiens became one of the defining statements of revolutionary syndicalism.

Adopted in 1906, it affirmed the union’s independence from political parties while recognising that individual workers could pursue political activity outside the union.

Its significance was the attempt to establish a distinction between the autonomous organisation of workers and the competing political programmes of parties.

The charter expressed the principle that workers’ economic organisation should not become subordinate to parliamentary or party interests.

It also envisaged the union as an organisation capable of preparing workers for social transformation.

However, the CGT’s political neutrality was never a simple rejection of politics.

Rather, it reflected an argument about where political agency should reside.

The syndicalist position was that workers should not be reduced to electoral constituencies or treated as the social base of a party whose leadership claimed to represent their interests.

This distinction remains relevant to contemporary debates about political representation, trade union independence, and the relationship between social movements and political parties.

The CGT’s development is explored in the historical scholarship on revolutionary syndicalism and the international labour movement. Syndicalism

3. Syndicalism, industrial unionism, and the Industrial Workers of the World

The American industrial unionist tradition

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), founded in Chicago in 1905, became one of the most influential expressions of revolutionary industrial unionism.

Its founding brought together a diverse coalition of radical labour activists, including anarchists, socialist industrial unionists, and revolutionary Marxists.

The IWW emerged in opposition to the limitations of craft unionism and the growing conservatism of established labour organisations.

Its central organisational principle was that workers should be united across occupational divisions.

The slogan “One Big Union” expressed this ambition.

The IWW sought to organise workers regardless of skill, ethnicity, gender, or occupation, although the actual organisation remained affected by the prejudices and exclusions of its historical environment.

The underlying argument was that capitalism divided workers into separate groups and then used these divisions to weaken their collective bargaining power.

Craft unionism could reproduce those divisions by organising workers according to their particular occupational privileges.

Industrial unionism sought to overcome them through common organisation.

The IWW’s preamble declared that the working class and employing class had nothing in common, articulating a particularly uncompromising version of class antagonism.

Unlike the French CGT, the IWW was explicitly revolutionary in its declared objectives. It aimed to abolish the wage system and establish workers’ control over production.

Its approach differed from anarcho-syndicalism in important respects.

The IWW included anarchists but was not exclusively anarchist. Its membership and intellectual traditions included revolutionary socialists and other currents of anti-capitalist thought.

The organisation’s commitment to industrial unionism also meant that it sometimes emphasised the coordination and centralisation necessary to organise large-scale production.

This created a recurring tension between the practical need for coordination and the aspiration to maintain democratic control from below.

The IWW’s historical significance is documented in its own historical archive and in scholarship on the international spread of syndicalism. Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)

The IWW and the critique of craft unionism

The IWW’s critique of craft unionism was not simply a dispute about organisational structure.

It was a critique of the way capitalism organised the working class into competing groups.

Craft unionism often protected skilled workers through occupational monopolies, negotiated privileges, and exclusionary membership practices.

Such organisations could secure substantial benefits for their members while leaving other workers exposed to low wages, insecurity, and managerial coercion.

From a syndicalist perspective, this created a contradiction.

Workers could improve their position within capitalism while simultaneously reproducing the divisions that weakened the working class as a whole.

The IWW therefore sought to establish an organisation capable of representing workers across the production process.

The distinction between craft and industrial unionism remains relevant to contemporary labour movements, especially where employers divide workers through subcontracting, employment status, occupational licensing, and fragmented workplace arrangements.

However, industrial unionism should not be romanticised.

Large industrial unions can develop their own bureaucracies, privileged membership structures, and conservative institutional interests.

The mere fact that workers belong to the same industrial union does not guarantee that they exercise democratic control over it.

The Lawrence textile strike, 1912

The Lawrence textile strike in Massachusetts became one of the IWW’s most famous episodes.

The strike brought together workers from numerous linguistic and ethnic backgrounds who were facing low wages and difficult working conditions.

The IWW played a significant role in organising the strike and coordinating solidarity across these divisions.

The Lawrence struggle demonstrated that workers who were frequently regarded as difficult to organise could develop powerful collective movements.

It also challenged the assumption that effective labour organisation required cultural or occupational homogeneity.

The strike became a demonstration of the possibility of class solidarity across divisions that employers often exploited.

Its importance lies not merely in the particular concessions won but in the organisational experience it generated.

Workers developed collective confidence, solidarity, and an understanding of their common position within the industrial system.

The IWW’s revolutionary limitations

The IWW also faced serious limitations.

Its revolutionary ambition was not always matched by the development of durable organisational structures capable of sustaining mass participation.

The organisation experienced internal conflicts over political strategy, industrial organisation, and the relationship between revolutionary goals and immediate union activity.

It was also subjected to extensive repression.

During and after the First World War, the American government prosecuted IWW members and leaders, while employers and local authorities frequently attacked the organisation.

Repression was a major factor in the IWW’s decline, although internal divisions and organisational difficulties also contributed.

The experience raises an important question:

Can a revolutionary union survive as a mass organisation when its declared objective is the abolition of the economic system within which it must organise?

The IWW’s answer was that workers could organise around immediate struggles while developing the collective power necessary for revolutionary transformation.

Its history demonstrates both the possibilities and the difficulties of that approach.

4. Syndicalism becomes an international movement

Syndicalism was never confined to France or the United States. Between the 1890s and the interwar period, it became a significant international current, particularly in Spain, Italy, Argentina, Mexico, Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, Germany, and Ireland.

Its spread reflected a combination of industrial development, migration, international labour networks, anarchist organising, and dissatisfaction with established socialist parties.

The movement’s international character is important because it challenges the idea that syndicalism was merely a national peculiarity of French labour politics.

Historical research increasingly treats syndicalism as a transnational movement whose ideas circulated through migrant workers, exiles, publications, conferences, and international organisational networks. DOI

Italy: revolutionary syndicalism and the USI

Italy developed a significant revolutionary syndicalist movement.

The Unione Sindacale Italiana (USI), founded in 1912, emerged from conflicts within the established labour movement.

Italian syndicalism included both anarchist and revolutionary socialist tendencies.

Its militants rejected the subordination of workers’ struggles to parliamentary socialism and emphasised direct action, industrial organisation, and revolutionary mobilisation.

Italy’s industrial development was uneven, with a powerful industrial north and a predominantly agrarian south.

This unevenness shaped the movement’s internal contradictions.

Industrial workers, agricultural labourers, and peasants did not necessarily share identical immediate interests or organisational conditions.

The Italian experience therefore highlights a question that syndicalism has never fully resolved: how can workers’ organisations overcome divisions between industrial and agricultural labour, between regions, and between different forms of employment?

The revolutionary upheavals of 1919–1920, often associated with the Biennio Rosso, demonstrated the extent of working-class militancy.

Factory occupations and workers’ councils challenged the authority of employers and the existing political order.

However, the movement did not consolidate into a revolutionary transformation.

The subsequent rise of fascism, employer violence, and state repression devastated the Italian revolutionary labour movement.

The defeat demonstrated that workplace militancy alone could not guarantee revolutionary success.

It also raised difficult questions about the relationship between unions, workers’ councils, political organisation, and the defence of revolutionary movements against authoritarian reaction.

Germany: revolutionary syndicalism and the FAUD

Germany’s revolutionary syndicalist movement developed partly in opposition to the Social Democratic Party and the centralised trade union apparatus associated with it.

The Free Association of German Trade Unions (FVdG) emerged as a radical current that increasingly rejected the parliamentary and bureaucratic orientation of the established labour movement.

It later developed into the Free Workers’ Union of Germany (FAUD).

The German case is particularly important because it demonstrates that syndicalism was not simply a response to the absence of strong socialist parties.

Germany possessed one of the most powerful social democratic movements in Europe.

The syndicalist challenge emerged precisely because that movement had become an enormous institutional structure with its own leadership, administrative apparatus, and political interests.

Revolutionary syndicalists argued that workers’ organisations could become detached from the struggles they were supposed to represent.

They criticised the way union bureaucracies could substitute negotiation and institutional stability for workers’ independent action.

This was not an argument against organisation itself.

It was an argument against organisation becoming an independent authority over its membership.

The German Revolution of 1918–1919 and the subsequent workers’ council movement intensified these debates.

Many syndicalists saw workers’ councils as an alternative to both capitalist management and centralised party control.

However, they also worried that councils could become temporary institutions dominated by established political organisations.

The German experience helped strengthen the anarcho-syndicalist commitment to federalism, workplace autonomy, and workers’ self-management.

Sweden: the SAC and libertarian unionism

The Swedish Workers’ Central Organisation (SAC), established in 1910, developed a syndicalist tradition adapted to Scandinavian labour conditions.

The SAC combined workplace organising with a commitment to direct action and workers’ autonomy.

Unlike some revolutionary syndicalist organisations, it has continued to exist as a labour organisation beyond the early twentieth-century revolutionary period.

Its experience demonstrates that syndicalist ideas need not be confined to a revolutionary moment.

They can also function as a continuing critique of conventional union bureaucracy and institutionalised labour relations.

However, the Swedish case also illustrates the difficulty of maintaining revolutionary aspirations within a comparatively stable welfare-state and collective-bargaining system.

When unions become recognised participants in institutional negotiations, their organisational priorities can shift towards maintaining membership, preserving access, and securing incremental improvements.

This raises a recurring syndicalist dilemma: whether institutional recognition strengthens workers’ power or gradually transforms their organisations into administrators of the existing order.

Argentina: the FORA and the revolutionary labour movement

Argentina developed one of the strongest anarchist and syndicalist labour movements outside Europe.

The Federación Obrera Regional Argentina (FORA) became a major centre of revolutionary working-class organisation.

The Argentine movement was shaped by immigration, urban industrial development, and the concentration of workers in transport, construction, manufacturing, and port industries.

Anarchist ideas circulated through immigrant networks and labour organisations, helping establish a powerful revolutionary tradition.

The FORA’s development also reflected the importance of regional and local organisation.

Rather than simply reproducing European models, Argentine syndicalists developed organisational practices adapted to local working-class conditions.

The movement was particularly influential in Buenos Aires and other urban centres.

Its history illustrates the international character of syndicalism and the importance of migration in transmitting revolutionary ideas.

However, it also experienced serious repression, internal divisions, and the growth of competing socialist and communist organisations.

The Argentine experience demonstrates that syndicalism could become a mass working-class movement in societies where established parliamentary socialism was relatively weak.

It also shows that revolutionary unionism could be deeply rooted in local social conditions rather than merely imported as a foreign ideology.

Portugal, Brazil, and Latin American syndicalism

Portuguese and Brazilian syndicalism developed through anarchist, socialist, and industrial unionist networks.

The Portuguese CGT became an important revolutionary labour organisation.

In Brazil, syndicalist currents were especially influential among urban workers during the early twentieth century.

These movements organised workers in industries affected by industrialisation, immigration, and expanding urban employment.

They also faced repression and conflicts with emerging communist organisations.

Across Latin America, syndicalism often confronted conditions that differed substantially from those in Europe.

Workers’ struggles were frequently intertwined with agrarian conflict, colonial legacies, racial hierarchies, and authoritarian political systems.

This meant that syndicalism could not be understood solely as a theory of factory workers.

Its historical development involved agricultural labourers, miners, transport workers, migrants, and other groups whose exploitation was connected to broader structures of imperialism and social domination.

Research on anarchism and syndicalism in colonial and postcolonial societies has challenged earlier accounts that treated these movements primarily as European phenomena. The Ted K Archive

Ireland: Larkinism and James Connolly

Ireland developed a distinctive form of syndicalist influence through the labour activism of James Larkin and James Connolly.

Larkinism emphasised industrial solidarity, mass organisation, and militant collective action.

The Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union sought to organise workers across occupational divisions.

Connolly combined revolutionary socialism, industrial unionism, and Irish republicanism.

His political thought challenged the separation between national liberation and working-class emancipation.

For Connolly, political independence without social transformation could simply replace one ruling class with another.

His approach was not identical to anarcho-syndicalism, but it shared the syndicalist emphasis on workers’ self-organisation and the transformative potential of industrial unions.

The Dublin Lockout of 1913 became a defining episode in Irish labour history.

It demonstrated the importance of solidarity across workplaces while exposing the vulnerability of workers when employers, political authorities, and established institutions acted together against them.

The Irish experience also reveals the complicated relationship between syndicalism and nationalism.

Connolly’s thought attempted to integrate national liberation with working-class emancipation, but the later development of Irish labour politics often separated these objectives.

This raises a question relevant to anti-colonial syndicalism more generally: can national liberation become a substitute for class emancipation, or can working-class organisation transform the meaning of national independence?

5. Syndicalism and the Spanish Revolution

The Spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement represents the most extensive historical attempt to realise syndicalist principles on a large scale.

The Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), founded in 1910, became a major force in Spanish working-class politics.

Its strength was particularly pronounced in Catalonia, where industrial workers, anarchist militants, and revolutionary trade unionists developed a substantial organisational presence.

The CNT combined industrial unionism with anarchist political principles.

Its objectives included the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of libertarian communism through workers’ and peasants’ self-management.

The CNT was not simply a trade union in the conventional sense.

It functioned as a mass social movement encompassing labour organisation, education, cultural activity, mutual aid, and revolutionary politics.

The CNT and the problem of revolutionary preparation

The CNT developed through decades of labour struggle, repression, and political conflict.

Its militants understood that workers’ emancipation required more than the acquisition of bargaining power.

The union was supposed to cultivate the capacities necessary for workers to administer production and social life themselves.

This meant that revolutionary preparation involved both organisational and cultural transformation.

Workers needed to develop the ability to deliberate, coordinate, manage production, and make collective decisions.

The CNT’s commitment to assemblies, mandated delegates, and federal organisation reflected this aspiration.

However, the organisation contained internal tensions between different conceptions of revolutionary strategy.

Some militants emphasised immediate revolutionary action, while others favoured building a durable mass organisation capable of surviving repression and political isolation.

The relationship between the CNT and the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI), founded in 1927, became a particularly important source of conflict.

The FAI sought to defend the CNT’s revolutionary orientation against tendencies it regarded as reformist.

Yet the relationship between an anarchist political organisation and a mass syndicalist union raised precisely the problem syndicalism was supposed to solve.

Could an organisation of dedicated revolutionaries maintain the union’s revolutionary character without exercising an informal authority over its membership?

The issue was not simply whether revolutionary militants were sincere.

It concerned the relationship between political conviction, organisational influence, and democratic accountability.

The revolutionary events of 1936

In July 1936, a military uprising against the Spanish Republic initiated the Spanish Civil War.

The uprising was resisted by workers, peasants, and other popular forces.

In areas where the CNT was influential, workers responded through collective mobilisation and the occupation of workplaces.

The defeat of the military uprising in Barcelona created conditions in which workers took control of many industries and services.

Factories, transport systems, agricultural estates, and other economic institutions were collectivised in different parts of Spain.

This was not a uniform process.

Collectivisation took different forms depending on local conditions, the strength of syndicalist organisations, the relationship between workers and peasants, and the presence of competing political forces.

Nevertheless, the Spanish Revolution represented a significant attempt to reorganise economic life through workers’ self-management.

Rudolf Rocker, writing during the revolution, regarded these developments as evidence that workers’ organisations could undertake social reconstruction rather than merely protest against existing institutions. Libcom Files

Workers’ control and collectivisation

The Spanish collectivisations were among the most important practical experiments in syndicalist social organisation.

In many workplaces, workers established committees and assemblies to administer production.

In agriculture, collectivisation involved various forms of communal organisation and cooperation.

Some collectives distributed income according to labour performed; others adopted more egalitarian arrangements.

The experiences differed considerably across regions and industries.

The historical record does not support a simple account in which all workplaces became perfectly democratic or all economic problems were solved.

Collectivisation faced shortages, military pressures, disrupted trade, technical difficulties, and disagreements over economic coordination.

The movement also faced political opposition from forces within the Republican camp.

The Spanish experience nevertheless demonstrated that capitalist ownership was not the only conceivable means of organising production.

Workers could operate workplaces, coordinate economic activity, and develop alternative institutions.

The revolution therefore provided a practical challenge to the assumption that modern industry necessarily required capitalist management or state administration.

The problem of coordination

The Spanish experience also exposed one of syndicalism’s most difficult theoretical questions.

How should an economy be coordinated when production involves complex interdependencies between industries, regions, and social needs?

A factory cannot operate independently of energy supplies, transport networks, agricultural production, technical expertise, and broader economic coordination.

A purely local conception of workers’ control would therefore be insufficient.

The syndicalist response was generally to propose federations of workplaces and industries, coordinated through delegates and collective agreements.

However, federation does not automatically resolve the problem.

Large-scale coordination requires decisions about resource allocation, investment, production priorities, distribution, and competing social needs.

The question is how such decisions can be made without creating a separate administrative authority that becomes dominant over the people it is supposed to serve.

This problem is not unique to syndicalism.

It confronts every project of democratic economic planning.

The CNT enters the Republican government

One of the most consequential contradictions of the Spanish Revolution emerged when CNT leaders entered the Republican government in November 1936.

The CNT had traditionally rejected state power as an instrument of social emancipation.

Yet revolutionary leaders faced the practical problem of coordinating military resistance, maintaining relations with other political forces, and confronting the threat of fascist victory.

Participation in government was defended by some as a necessary compromise.

Others argued that it contradicted the fundamental principles of anarchism and syndicalism.

The controversy exposed a profound conflict between revolutionary strategy and revolutionary principles.

If the state is an institution of domination, can it become a temporary instrument of emancipation?

If revolutionary organisations enter government to defend the revolution, do they strengthen their capacity to act—or become subordinate to the political institutions they sought to overcome?

The CNT’s participation in government did not resolve these questions.

Instead, it demonstrated how revolutionary organisations can become entangled in institutions whose logic differs from their own.

The defeat of the Spanish Revolution

The Spanish Revolution was defeated through a combination of military defeat, fascist victory, political repression, internal conflicts, and the destruction of revolutionary organisations.

The CNT and other working-class movements suffered devastating repression under Francoism.

Their defeat cannot be attributed to a single organisational mistake.

The revolutionary movement confronted overwhelming military and political pressures.

However, its experience raises enduring questions about the relationship between revolutionary organisation, state power, political compromise, and workers’ autonomy.

The Spanish Revolution remains important because it demonstrated both the possibilities of large-scale social transformation and the difficulty of sustaining workers’ self-management under conditions of war and political fragmentation.

Historical assessments of the CNT emphasise the importance of its participatory organisational practices while also recognising the tensions between assembly democracy, leadership influence, and revolutionary strategy. Black Rose Anarchist Federation

6. The theoretical foundations of syndicalism

Syndicalism is best understood not as a single doctrine but as a set of interconnected propositions about class struggle, collective organisation, political authority, and social transformation.

Its central theoretical claim is that the working class possesses the capacity to emancipate itself through its own collective activity.

This claim has several dimensions.

First, workers occupy a strategic position within capitalist production.

Second, collective organisation enables workers to transform that position into social power.

Third, the organisations workers create through struggle can develop into institutions of a different society.

Fourth, emancipation requires workers to exercise control over their own organisations and social activity.

These propositions distinguish syndicalism from conventional reformist trade unionism, parliamentary socialism, and authoritarian revolutionary politics.

6.1 Class struggle as the foundation of syndicalist politics

Syndicalism begins from the antagonistic relationship between workers and employers.

Capitalism is understood not simply as a system of unequal incomes but as a social relationship in which one class controls the means of production while another must sell its labour.

The employer’s authority is therefore not reducible to individual personality or managerial competence.

It arises from the ownership and control of productive resources.

Workers are compelled to participate in production under conditions determined by institutions they do not control.

Syndicalism regards this relationship as the central source of class domination.

Its objective is not simply to negotiate a more favourable position within the wage system but to abolish the social relationship that makes workers dependent on employers.

However, syndicalism does not necessarily reject immediate reforms.

Wage increases, shorter working hours, improved safety, and greater workplace autonomy can materially improve workers’ lives.

The distinction lies in whether such reforms are treated as the ultimate objective or as part of a broader process of developing collective power.

A syndicalist union seeks to make immediate struggles contribute to workers’ capacity for independent action.

This means that class struggle is simultaneously economic, political, and organisational.

6.2 The workplace as a site of political power

Conventional political theory often locates political authority primarily in the state.

Syndicalism challenges this assumption by emphasising the workplace as a fundamental site of power.

The workplace is not merely where economic activity occurs.

It is where workers encounter managerial authority, discipline, surveillance, production targets, and the allocation of resources.

The employment relationship is therefore a political relationship in the broader sense.

Workers are subject to decisions concerning their time, activity, movement, and productive capacities.

These decisions are typically presented as technical or managerial necessities.

Syndicalism exposes their political character.

The question of who controls production is also the question of who controls social life.

This is why syndicalism treats workers’ control as more than an economic demand.

It is a demand for the transformation of authority itself.

6.3 Workers’ self-emancipation

The principle of self-emancipation is central to syndicalist theory.

It rejects the idea that workers can be liberated by an external institution acting on their behalf.

A political party may advocate socialism.

A government may introduce reforms.

A revolutionary leadership may claim to represent the interests of the working class.

But none of these activities necessarily establishes workers’ capacity to govern themselves.

Syndicalism insists that emancipation must involve workers becoming active participants in the transformation of their own conditions.

This principle is closely related to the famous Marxian proposition that the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself.

Syndicalists interpret this principle in an organisationally distinctive way.

They argue that the institutions through which workers struggle should cultivate the capacities necessary for social emancipation.

The revolutionary organisation should therefore be a practical school of self-government.

Workers should not merely receive political education.

They should develop their capacities through collective deliberation, decision-making, and action.

The distinction is between political consciousness as something delivered to workers and political consciousness as something developed through their own activity.

6.4 Direct action

Direct action is one of the defining concepts of syndicalism.

It means that workers intervene in social relations through their own collective power rather than relying exclusively on external representatives.

Its underlying principle is autonomy.

Workers do not wait for a government, political party, or sympathetic authority to solve their problems.

They organise collectively and exercise their own influence.

Direct action can take many forms, including:

• Collective bargaining supported by worker participation.
• Workplace organising and solidarity.
• Industrial campaigns.
• Demonstrations and mass meetings.
• Boycotts.
• Collective refusal of unjust workplace demands.
• Community and labour solidarity.

The significance of direct action is not that it always succeeds.

It is that workers develop the capacity to act independently.

This distinction matters because institutions can sometimes deliver concessions while weakening the collective capacities through which workers obtained them.

A union that secures a favourable agreement through worker mobilisation may strengthen collective power.

A union that obtains similar concessions through an insulated leadership may simultaneously weaken the membership’s capacity for independent action.

Direct action is therefore both a means of achieving immediate objectives and a principle governing the organisation of struggle.

6.5 The general strike

The general strike occupies a central place in syndicalist theory.

It represents the possibility that workers can collectively withdraw their labour and disrupt the functioning of the capitalist economy.

The general strike is significant because it reveals the dependence of capitalist production on workers’ cooperation.

Employers possess ownership rights and managerial authority, but production cannot proceed without labour.

The general strike makes this dependence visible.

However, syndicalist theories of the general strike differ.

Some emphasise the general strike as a revolutionary rupture.

Others understand it as a gradual process of expanding solidarity and collective power.

Still others regard it as one possible instrument among many.

The general strike should not be understood as a magical mechanism that automatically produces socialism.

A strike can disrupt production without creating the institutions necessary to organise society differently.

It can also be defeated through repression, economic pressure, political isolation, or divisions within the working class.

The general strike’s theoretical importance lies in the possibility it reveals: workers collectively possess the capacity to interrupt the functioning of the existing social order.

The question is whether they can transform that disruptive power into a durable alternative.

Rudolf Rocker explicitly distinguished different historical forms of general strike, including struggles for immediate improvements, political demands, and revolutionary social transformation. Libcom Files

6.6 The union as the embryo of a new society

One of syndicalism’s most distinctive propositions is that revolutionary unions can become the organisational foundations of a post-capitalist society.

This idea is particularly associated with anarcho-syndicalism and Rudolf Rocker.

The union is not merely an instrument for resisting capitalism.

It is also a potential institution through which workers can administer production.

Under capitalism, workers organise collectively to challenge employers.

In a transformed society, those same capacities could be used to coordinate production democratically.

The union’s industrial organisation could provide a framework for managing workplaces and coordinating different sectors.

This proposition gives syndicalism its constructive dimension.

It is not simply a theory of how capitalism might be disrupted.

It is a theory of how workers might organise economic life after capitalist ownership has been abolished.

However, the idea contains a significant ambiguity.

A union is formed primarily to defend workers’ interests within a particular industrial or occupational context.

A post-capitalist society must coordinate the needs of the entire population.

The transition from union organisation to social administration therefore raises difficult questions.

Would existing unions represent all social interests?

How would they accommodate people who do not belong to unions?

How would they coordinate the needs of consumers, children, elderly people, disabled people, and others whose social interests cannot be reduced to workplace membership?

The syndicalist answer generally involves extending federation beyond the workplace.

However, the institutional details remain contested.

The union can be a starting point for social reconstruction, but it cannot automatically be assumed to provide a complete blueprint for a new society.

6.7 Federalism and decentralised coordination

Federalism is central to anarcho-syndicalist organisation.

It means that local organisations retain substantial autonomy while coordinating through larger federations.

Rather than concentrating authority in a central leadership, syndicalist federations seek to organise collective decisions through assemblies, delegates, and agreements between constituent organisations.

The principle is that coordination should emerge from the association of autonomous groups rather than the subordination of those groups to a central authority.

Federalism therefore attempts to reconcile two requirements:

1. Workers need collective coordination across industries and regions.
2. Workers must retain control over the organisations coordinating their activity.

This is a genuine organisational problem.

Local autonomy can protect workers from distant bureaucracies.

But excessive decentralisation can make coordination difficult.

Industries depend on one another, and decisions in one workplace can affect workers elsewhere.

Federalism must therefore balance autonomy with collective responsibility.

The question is not whether coordination is necessary.

It is how coordination can be organised without becoming a separate power over the people it coordinates.

This issue distinguishes syndicalist federalism from both liberal individualism and authoritarian centralism.

It rejects the idea that freedom requires complete independence from collective institutions.

It also rejects the assumption that effective coordination requires hierarchical command.

6.8 Mandated and recallable delegates

Syndicalist organisations have often advocated delegates who are elected, accountable, and subject to recall.

The purpose is to prevent representatives from becoming independent authorities.

A delegate should communicate the decisions of the assembly rather than substitute personal judgment for collective deliberation.

This differs from conventional representative democracy, in which elected representatives generally possess considerable independence between elections.

Syndicalist delegation seeks to reduce the distance between collective decision-making and its implementation.

However, mandated delegation is not a complete solution to organisational hierarchy.

Delegates may possess greater experience, information, technical expertise, or influence than other members.

Complex decisions may require discretion.

The practical challenge is therefore not simply to eliminate delegation but to ensure that delegated authority remains accountable.

A democratic organisation must also prevent informal power from replacing formal authority.

Recallability can constrain officeholders, but it cannot automatically eliminate charismatic leadership, factional influence, or unequal access to information.

The deeper syndicalist objective is to prevent the development of a permanent separation between those who decide and those who execute decisions.

6.9 Workers’ education and the development of collective capacities

Syndicalism places considerable emphasis on workers’ education.

This is not simply a matter of acquiring technical knowledge.

It involves developing the capacity to understand economic relations, organise collective activity, and participate in democratic decision-making.

Workers’ education can include political discussion, literacy, technical training, cultural activity, and practical experience in organising.

The Bourses du Travail and Spanish anarchist cultural centres exemplified this broader conception.

The objective was to overcome the social division between intellectual and manual labour.

Capitalism frequently concentrates technical knowledge and administrative authority in managerial and professional strata.

Workers may possess extensive practical knowledge while lacking access to the information and authority necessary to make decisions about production.

Syndicalist education seeks to challenge this division.

It aims to develop workers’ capacity to understand and administer the social processes in which they participate.

This is particularly important because a society cannot become self-managed merely by transferring formal ownership.

Self-management requires people to possess the knowledge, time, resources, and institutional opportunities necessary to participate meaningfully.

6.10 Anti-statism

Anarcho-syndicalism rejects the state as an institution of domination.

Its critique is not limited to capitalist governments.

It also challenges the idea that a revolutionary state can become the permanent administrator of social emancipation.

The concern is that state power creates a separate institutional apparatus with its own interests.

Officials, administrators, and political leaders may become increasingly detached from the people they claim to represent.

A revolutionary state can therefore reproduce social divisions between rulers and ruled even when it abolishes private capitalist ownership.

Anarcho-syndicalists argue that social coordination should instead emerge through federated institutions controlled by workers and communities.

This does not mean rejecting all collective administration.

It means rejecting administration that becomes a separate, coercive authority.

The distinction is between coordinating social activity and governing society through an institution standing above it.

The anti-statist argument is one of syndicalism’s most important contributions to socialist theory.

It forces the question of whether socialist transformation should be understood as transferring power to a new ruling institution or abolishing the social relations that make such ruling institutions necessary.

7. Syndicalism, Marxism, and the problem of political representation

Syndicalism developed in continuous dialogue and conflict with Marxism.

It shared Marxism’s critique of capitalism, its emphasis on class struggle, and its commitment to working-class emancipation.

However, syndicalists challenged several assumptions associated with parliamentary socialism and later Leninism.

The disagreement concerned not simply the correct revolutionary strategy but the nature of political power and the organisation of revolutionary agency.

7.1 Syndicalism and parliamentary socialism

Parliamentary socialism seeks to use political institutions to reform or transform capitalism.

Its strategy generally involves electoral organisation, legislative activity, and the development of political parties representing working-class interests.

Syndicalists argued that this approach could subordinate workers’ struggles to the requirements of electoral politics.

A political party has interests that are not necessarily identical to those of the workers it claims to represent.

It must maintain electoral coalitions, negotiate with other political forces, and operate within the institutional constraints of parliamentary government.

These pressures can encourage moderation and compromise.

Syndicalists feared that workers would become passive supporters of political organisations rather than active participants in their own emancipation.

The critique was especially relevant to the development of large social democratic parties and trade union bureaucracies.

However, the syndicalist argument should not be reduced to the claim that parliamentary reforms are always worthless.

Legislation can materially improve workers’ lives.

Political institutions can also provide opportunities for organising, public advocacy, and collective action.

The deeper disagreement concerns whether political representation can substitute for workers’ own activity.

Syndicalism argues that it cannot.

7.2 The separation of economic and political struggle

Conventional socialist movements often divided workers’ organisations into economic and political institutions.

Trade unions would organise workers around wages and conditions.

Political parties would pursue broader social transformation.

Syndicalists challenged this division.

They argued that workplace struggles were inherently political because they concerned authority, ownership, and the organisation of social life.

The distinction between economic and political struggle could therefore become a mechanism for separating workers from the broader objectives of their movement.

The union might be permitted to negotiate wages while political parties claimed exclusive authority to determine the future of society.

Syndicalists rejected this division of labour.

They sought organisations capable of combining immediate economic struggles with revolutionary political objectives.

However, this raises a difficult question.

If a union becomes responsible for every aspect of revolutionary politics, can it accommodate workers with different political convictions?

Can a mass union remain democratic if it is expected to embody a complete revolutionary ideology?

The syndicalist rejection of the separation between economic and political organisation can itself create tensions between organisational unity and political diversity.

7.3 Syndicalism and Leninism

The relationship between syndicalism and Leninism became particularly contentious after the Russian Revolution.

Many syndicalists initially welcomed the revolution because it appeared to demonstrate the possibility of workers’ power through councils and mass revolutionary mobilisation.

The soviets seemed to embody a form of collective organisation distinct from parliamentary representation.

However, the subsequent consolidation of Bolshevik state power produced a major division within the international revolutionary movement.

Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder criticised revolutionary currents that rejected parliamentary participation and conventional trade union institutions.

Lenin argued that revolutionary organisations needed to work within existing institutions to influence workers who had not yet embraced revolutionary politics.

Syndicalists, by contrast, feared that participation in established institutions would subordinate revolutionary movements to bureaucratic and parliamentary structures.

The conflict involved competing conceptions of revolutionary organisation.

The Leninist model emphasised a politically centralised party capable of coordinating revolutionary strategy.

The syndicalist model emphasised autonomous workers’ organisations and direct collective participation.

These approaches should not be treated as internally uniform.

Leninist theory underwent significant development, while syndicalist organisations differed in their attitudes towards political parties and centralisation.

Nevertheless, a fundamental disagreement remained:

Should revolutionary consciousness and strategy be organised through a distinct political leadership, or should they emerge primarily through the autonomous activity of workers themselves?

7.4 The Bolshevik Revolution and workers’ autonomy

The Russian Revolution initially generated enormous enthusiasm among syndicalists.

The emergence of workers’ councils appeared to confirm the possibility of revolutionary self-government.

However, the consolidation of Bolshevik authority, the suppression of opposition, and the increasing subordination of workers’ organisations to the state produced a profound crisis within the international revolutionary movement.

Syndicalists argued that the abolition of private ownership did not necessarily abolish domination.

If workers lost control over their workplaces and political institutions, the transfer of ownership to the state could reproduce their subordination.

The issue was not merely whether the state represented workers in theory.

It was whether workers possessed the practical ability to determine the organisation of production and social life.

The syndicalist critique anticipated later arguments about bureaucratic domination in state-socialist societies.

A revolution could abolish capitalist ownership while retaining hierarchical administrative structures.

In that situation, workers might remain subordinate to institutions claiming to act in their interests.

The syndicalist position therefore insists that workers’ control must be an ongoing organisational reality rather than a declaration made by revolutionary authorities.

7.5 Workers’ councils and syndicalism

Workers’ councils became particularly important during the revolutionary upheavals of the early twentieth century.

Councils emerged in Russia, Germany, Italy, and other countries as institutions of workplace and political coordination.

They differed from traditional trade unions because they often developed through spontaneous mass mobilisation and represented workers across existing organisational divisions.

Some syndicalists regarded councils as superior to unions for revolutionary purposes.

Councils could potentially include workers who were not members of established unions and could develop more directly from workplace assemblies.

However, councils were not inherently syndicalist or libertarian.

They could be dominated by political parties, established union officials, or other organisational forces.

Their democratic character depended on the actual distribution of power within them.

The historical experience therefore suggests that no organisational form automatically guarantees workers’ autonomy.

Unions, councils, assemblies, and federations can all become bureaucratic or hierarchical.

The decisive issue is whether workers retain the practical capacity to participate in and control collective decisions.

7.6 The revolutionary party and the substitution problem

Syndicalism’s critique of Leninism is often described through the concept of substitutionism.

Substitutionism occurs when an organisation claims to act in place of the class whose emancipation it seeks.

The party substitutes itself for the working class.

The leadership substitutes itself for the party.

The state substitutes itself for the revolutionary movement.

The resulting hierarchy may reproduce the division between those who govern and those who are governed.

Syndicalists argue that revolutionary organisation should instead facilitate collective self-activity.

This does not imply that all political leadership is inherently illegitimate.

Organisations require coordination, strategic thinking, and the development of shared perspectives.

The question is whether leadership remains accountable to collective activity or becomes an independent authority.

The syndicalist critique is therefore not a rejection of organisation.

It is a rejection of the separation between organisation and the people whose collective power gives it meaning.

7.7 A critical assessment of syndicalism’s anti-political tendency

Syndicalism’s rejection of conventional political representation is one of its strengths.

It challenges the assumption that social transformation can be delegated to political elites.

However, its anti-political tendency can also become a weakness.

If political institutions are treated as irrelevant, syndicalists may underestimate the importance of legislation, public policy, state repression, and broader political conflicts.

Workers do not struggle in an isolated workplace.

They confront legal systems, policing, public infrastructure, education, housing, and other institutions that shape their lives.

A syndicalist movement must therefore develop a conception of political struggle that extends beyond the immediate workplace.

The challenge is to engage these institutions without becoming subordinate to them.

This is a problem of strategy rather than a reason to abandon syndicalism’s critique of political representation.

The strongest syndicalist approach would distinguish between political engagement and political substitution.

Workers can participate in broader political struggles while retaining autonomous organisations through which they exercise collective power.

8. Syndicalism and the critique of bureaucracy

One of syndicalism’s most enduring contributions is its critique of bureaucracy within the labour movement.

This critique is particularly relevant because bureaucratisation does not necessarily arise from political conservatism alone.

It can emerge from the organisational requirements of mass movements.

Large organisations need administrative structures, financial management, communication systems, specialised expertise, and coordination.

These requirements can create a division between ordinary members and permanent officials.

Over time, officials may acquire information, resources, and institutional influence unavailable to the membership.

The organisation can become increasingly dependent on its administrative apparatus.

This creates a danger that the institution’s survival will become more important than the purposes for which it was created.

8.1 The institutionalisation of workers’ struggle

A union initially created to resist employers may gradually become an institution responsible for maintaining industrial relations.

Its officials negotiate agreements, administer disputes, manage membership records, and maintain relationships with employers and governments.

These functions are not inherently illegitimate.

However, they can change the organisation’s priorities.

The union may begin to treat industrial conflict as a problem to be managed rather than an expression of workers’ independent power.

Its leadership may prioritise organisational stability over disruptive collective action.

Workers may increasingly be regarded as members who require representation rather than participants who exercise collective authority.

This is the institutionalisation of workers’ struggle.

The union remains formally a workers’ organisation, but its practical activity becomes increasingly detached from workers’ direct participation.

8.2 The professionalisation of labour leadership

Professionalisation can intensify this process.

Union officials may develop careers, specialised knowledge, and institutional relationships that distinguish them from the workers they represent.

Their professional interests can become connected to maintaining the organisation’s position within established political and industrial institutions.

This does not mean that all officials become corrupt or that expertise is undesirable.

The problem is structural.

Officials may become dependent on the continued existence of the institutional arrangements that give them authority.

A union leadership may therefore resist forms of struggle that threaten its own organisational position.

The organisation’s survival can become an end in itself.

Syndicalism seeks to prevent this separation by maintaining direct participation, rotating responsibilities, limiting administrative privileges, and preserving workers’ control over collective decisions.

Yet these measures are not sufficient on their own.

Bureaucracy can emerge through informal networks, unequal expertise, charismatic leadership, and control over communication.

The problem cannot be solved simply by abolishing paid officials.

It requires continuous democratic scrutiny of how power is exercised.

8.3 Michels and the iron law of oligarchy

The sociologist Robert Michels developed a famous argument that large organisations tend towards oligarchy.

In his account, organisational complexity creates advantages for leaders who possess specialised knowledge and administrative control.

Members become increasingly dependent on officials.

Leaders acquire the ability to shape agendas, control information, and determine which issues receive attention.

The result is the concentration of power in a relatively small group.

Michels’ theory is frequently interpreted as suggesting that democratic organisation is ultimately impossible.

Syndicalism challenges this pessimistic conclusion.

It does not deny the existence of bureaucratic tendencies.

Instead, it seeks to develop organisational practices that resist them.

Federalism, mandated delegation, recallability, rotation, open assemblies, and independent rank-and-file activity are intended to limit the concentration of power.

However, syndicalism cannot simply assume that its organisational forms are immune to oligarchy.

The history of revolutionary unions demonstrates that informal hierarchies can develop even in organisations committed to anti-authoritarian principles.

The important distinction is between treating bureaucracy as inevitable and recognising it as a recurring danger that requires active resistance.

8.4 Bureaucracy as a form of social domination

The syndicalist critique becomes especially powerful when bureaucracy is understood as a social relationship rather than merely an administrative structure.

Bureaucratic domination occurs when people lose the capacity to determine the conditions under which they act.

They become dependent on specialised institutions whose decisions they cannot effectively influence.

This problem extends beyond trade unions.

It can appear in governments, political parties, workplaces, universities, community organisations, and social movements.

An organisation may formally proclaim democratic principles while its practical operation depends on a small group of people who control information, resources, and decision-making.

Syndicalism therefore offers a broader critique of institutional power.

Its central concern is the separation between collective activity and collective control.

The organisation becomes an independent force standing above its members.

The same problem can arise in a revolutionary movement that claims to oppose hierarchy.

The distinction between emancipatory organisation and bureaucratic domination must therefore be maintained through actual organisational practices.

9. Syndicalism, workers’ control, and the problem of industrial administration

Syndicalism’s most ambitious proposition is that workers can collectively administer production.

This raises questions that extend beyond the traditional concerns of trade unionism.

How would production be organised without capitalist ownership?

How would workplaces coordinate their activities?

How would workers determine what should be produced?

How would technical expertise be distributed?

How would economic planning accommodate environmental limits and social needs?

These questions cannot be answered simply by declaring that workers should control industry.

They require a theory of social coordination.

9.1 Workers’ control versus workers’ ownership

Ownership and control are not identical.

A workplace might be formally owned by workers while its actual administration remains concentrated in a small managerial group.

Workers might receive shares in an enterprise while lacking the power to determine production.

Similarly, a state-owned enterprise may abolish private ownership without establishing democratic control by workers.

Syndicalism therefore emphasises practical control rather than ownership alone.

The issue is who determines how productive resources are used.

This distinction also challenges conventional cooperative models.

A worker cooperative may provide substantial autonomy and democratic participation.

However, cooperatives operating within competitive markets can be pressured to adopt the same practices as capitalist enterprises.

They may intensify work, reduce employment, or prioritise financial survival over social needs.

The cooperative can become collectively owned while remaining subject to the coercive pressures of the market.

Syndicalism therefore seeks to extend workers’ control beyond individual enterprises.

The objective is not simply a society of competing worker-owned firms.

It is a society in which production is organised according to collective social needs.

9.2 The division between conception and execution

Capitalist production frequently separates the conception of work from its execution.

Managers, engineers, administrators, and professional specialists determine how work should be organised.

Workers are expected to carry out instructions.

This division is often justified through claims about efficiency and technical expertise.

However, workers possess practical knowledge that managerial structures frequently ignore.

They understand the everyday operation of workplaces, the consequences of production decisions, and the difficulties created by unrealistic managerial demands.

Syndicalism challenges the assumption that productive knowledge should automatically confer managerial authority.

It argues that technical expertise should be available to collective decision-making rather than used to establish a separate ruling stratum.

This does not mean that everyone must possess identical technical knowledge.

It means that expertise should support democratic administration rather than replace it.

A democratic workplace would need mechanisms through which workers can access information, understand technical decisions, and participate in determining the objectives of production.

9.3 The problem of economic complexity

Modern economies are extraordinarily interconnected.

Food production depends on transport, energy, machinery, fertilisers, distribution systems, and international trade.

Healthcare depends on complex supply chains, specialised knowledge, infrastructure, and coordination across institutions.

The economy cannot be organised entirely through isolated workplace decisions.

Syndicalist federalism recognises this problem.

Its proposed solution is coordination through federations of industries, regions, and workplaces.

However, the practical mechanisms remain difficult.

How would federations resolve disagreements between industries?

How would they allocate scarce resources?

How would they determine investment priorities?

How would they prevent powerful industrial sectors from dominating weaker ones?

How would they balance local autonomy with ecological and social requirements?

These are not objections that automatically invalidate syndicalism.

They are questions any democratic alternative to capitalism must answer.

9.4 The danger of industrial corporatism

Syndicalism has sometimes been criticised for treating industrial organisation as the foundation of society.

If unions become the institutions through which industries are administered, workers may be encouraged to identify primarily with their own sectors.

Industrial federations could become competing interest groups.

Miners might prioritise mining employment.

Transport workers might prioritise transport infrastructure.

Manufacturing workers might prioritise industrial expansion.

But a society must consider the needs of people who are not directly employed in these industries.

It must also consider environmental consequences, care work, education, and social reproduction.

The danger is that syndicalism could reproduce the sectional interests of the existing labour movement on a larger scale.

The answer would require extending democratic coordination beyond industrial unions.

Workplace organisation would need to be integrated with community assemblies, social institutions, and broader forms of collective decision-making.

The objective would be to make industrial self-management part of social self-management rather than a substitute for it.

9.5 Syndicalism and ecological transformation

The ecological crisis poses a particularly important challenge to syndicalist theory.

Traditional syndicalism often emerged in a period when industrial expansion was closely associated with working-class emancipation.

Industrial development could provide workers with greater material security, improved living conditions, and collective bargaining power.

But contemporary ecological conditions undermine the assumption that expanding industrial production is necessarily emancipatory.

Some industries contribute to environmental destruction.

Others depend on unsustainable resource extraction.

Workers may be materially dependent on industries whose continued operation threatens ecological stability.

This creates a conflict between employment security and environmental transformation.

A syndicalist approach would need to develop institutions capable of democratically managing industrial transition.

Workers should not be forced to bear the costs of ecological restructuring while owners and investors retain control over economic decisions.

However, neither should workers’ control be understood as an unrestricted right to continue environmentally destructive production.

The question is how workers and communities can collectively determine the transformation of production in ways that protect livelihoods while addressing ecological necessity.

This requires a broader conception of workers’ interests.

The working class is not simply a collection of people employed in existing industries.

It is also a social class whose members depend on the conditions necessary for collective survival.

Ecological syndicalism would therefore need to integrate workplace democracy with social and environmental planning.

10. Syndicalism, gender, race, and colonialism

Syndicalism’s universalist aspirations have frequently exceeded its historical practice.

The movement proclaimed working-class solidarity across divisions, but its organisations often reproduced the exclusions and hierarchies of the societies in which they operated.

A serious history of syndicalism must therefore examine not only its revolutionary achievements but also its internal contradictions.

10.1 Gender and the limits of class universalism

Women participated extensively in syndicalist movements, particularly in textile production, agriculture, domestic labour, and other sectors where employment was often insecure and poorly paid.

However, syndicalist organisations were frequently dominated by men.

The conventional image of the industrial worker was often implicitly masculine.

Women’s labour could be treated as secondary to the struggles of male industrial workers, even though women’s work was essential to both production and social reproduction.

This created a contradiction.

Syndicalism claimed to represent the working class as a whole while sometimes organising around a narrower conception of industrial labour.

The Spanish anarchist movement developed significant traditions of women’s activism.

The organisation Mujeres Libres, established in 1936, sought to address women’s subordination within both society and the anarchist movement.

Its existence reflected the recognition that class emancipation could not automatically resolve gender domination.

Women’s liberation required independent attention to social relations that were not reducible to the wage relationship.

The lesson is important.

A revolutionary organisation cannot assume that its commitment to class solidarity automatically eliminates sexism.

Democratic organisation must actively confront unequal access to participation, resources, education, and authority.

10.2 Race and syndicalist universalism

The syndicalist commitment to organising workers across occupational divisions also raises questions about racial exclusion.

The IWW developed a significant tradition of organising migrant workers and workers of colour.

Its industrial unionism challenged the exclusionary practices of some established labour organisations.

However, the IWW’s history was not free from racial prejudice.

Its membership and leadership reflected the wider society in which it operated.

Syndicalist organisations in different countries encountered racial divisions shaped by colonialism, migration, and labour-market segmentation.

Workers could be divided through racialised wage structures, immigration restrictions, occupational exclusion, and unequal access to employment.

A syndicalist politics that treated these divisions as secondary would struggle to develop genuine working-class solidarity.

The challenge is not to abandon class analysis.

It is to understand how racial domination structures the working class itself.

Class solidarity cannot be established by ignoring the conditions that make some workers more vulnerable than others.

10.3 Syndicalism and colonial societies

The international history of syndicalism demonstrates that revolutionary unionism developed in colonial and postcolonial contexts as well as industrial Europe.

Workers in colonial societies often confronted exploitation through a combination of capitalist ownership, imperial administration, racial domination, and colonial state violence.

This complicated the syndicalist emphasis on industrial workers.

In some contexts, the most important struggles involved agricultural labourers, miners, transport workers, and workers employed in colonial infrastructure.

The relationship between syndicalism and national liberation was therefore unavoidable.

Some syndicalists argued that national independence was necessary for workers’ emancipation.

Others feared that nationalist movements would subordinate class struggle to the interests of an emerging national ruling class.

The question remains relevant to contemporary anti-colonial politics.

Political independence can abolish foreign domination without abolishing capitalist exploitation.

Conversely, class struggle conducted without attention to colonial domination may reproduce the social relations through which imperialism operates.

Syndicalism’s internationalist principles offer resources for confronting these problems, but they do not provide automatic solutions.

International solidarity must be developed through concrete organisational relationships rather than assumed from abstract declarations.

The scholarship collected in Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1870–1940 is particularly important for understanding these neglected dimensions. The Ted K Archive

11. The decline of classical syndicalism

By the middle of the twentieth century, syndicalism had lost much of its earlier influence in many countries.

This decline resulted from several interconnected developments.

11.1 State repression

Syndicalist movements were frequently subjected to severe repression.

Governments regarded revolutionary unions as threats to public order and capitalist property.

The Spanish CNT faced prolonged repression before and after the Civil War.

The Italian revolutionary labour movement was devastated by fascism.

The German anarcho-syndicalist movement was destroyed under Nazism.

In the United States, the IWW suffered extensive prosecution and repression during the First World War and its aftermath.

These experiences demonstrate that syndicalist decline cannot be explained solely through ideological or organisational weaknesses.

State violence played a major role in destroying revolutionary labour organisations.

11.2 The rise of social democracy and institutional trade unionism

The expansion of social democratic parties and institutionalised trade unionism changed the political environment.

Workers increasingly obtained improvements through collective bargaining, legislation, welfare institutions, and parliamentary reforms.

These reforms were important achievements.

However, they also altered the relationship between workers’ organisations and the capitalist state.

Unions became recognised participants in industrial relations.

Their leaders negotiated agreements, participated in policy discussions, and developed relationships with political institutions.

The revolutionary union increasingly became a bargaining institution.

Syndicalism’s central challenge was therefore not simply repression.

It was the successful incorporation of organised labour into the existing social order.

11.3 Communism and the centralisation of revolutionary politics

The rise of communist parties also affected syndicalism.

After the Russian Revolution, many revolutionary workers were attracted to Bolshevik organisations.

Communist parties offered a model of centralised revolutionary organisation and international coordination.

They also developed extensive organisational resources.

The Communist International and the Red International of Labour Unions sought to influence revolutionary trade union movements.

This created a major division within syndicalism.

Some syndicalists collaborated with communist organisations.

Others rejected communist centralisation and defended the autonomy of revolutionary unions.

The conflict reflected different understandings of revolutionary authority.

The question was whether revolutionary unionism should become part of a centralised political movement or remain independent of party control.

The formation of the anarcho-syndicalist International Working Men’s Association in 1922 reflected the latter position.

It sought to preserve revolutionary labour internationalism independently of the communist movement. Syndicalism

11.4 The changing structure of capitalism

Classical syndicalism emerged during a period of industrial concentration.

Its strategic assumptions were shaped by large factories, mines, railways, ports, and other workplaces where workers could exercise considerable collective power.

Contemporary capitalism has transformed these conditions.

Production is increasingly organised through global supply chains, subcontracting, fragmented employment, digital platforms, logistics networks, and geographically dispersed workplaces.

Workers may be employed by different companies while participating in the same productive process.

This complicates traditional industrial unionism.

The challenge is to organise workers across institutional and geographical divisions.

However, the underlying syndicalist insight remains relevant.

Capitalist production depends on collective labour.

The organisation of production creates opportunities for workers to develop forms of solidarity that exceed the boundaries of individual employers.

Syndicalism therefore requires adaptation rather than simple restoration of its historical organisational forms.

12. Syndicalism in the contemporary world

Syndicalism remains relevant because the problems it addressed have not disappeared.

Workers continue to experience managerial domination, insecure employment, bureaucratic representation, and the separation between those who make decisions and those who carry them out.

The contemporary labour movement faces a different economic environment from that of classical syndicalism, but many of its fundamental questions remain recognisable.

12.1 Precarious employment and the fragmentation of workers

Contemporary capitalism increasingly relies on precarious employment, subcontracting, labour hire, temporary contracts, and platform-based work.

These arrangements fragment workers into different employment categories.

A single workplace may contain permanent employees, contractors, outsourced workers, casual employees, and workers employed through labour-hire agencies.

Their formal employment relationships differ even when they perform interconnected tasks.

This creates organisational difficulties for conventional trade unionism.

Workers may be divided between employers, employment classifications, and contractual arrangements.

Syndicalism’s emphasis on organising workers across occupational and employment divisions offers a useful alternative.

The principle of industrial solidarity can be extended beyond the traditional factory.

Workers in logistics, warehousing, transportation, manufacturing, and distribution may be understood as participants in interconnected productive systems.

Their collective power depends on their capacity to recognise and organise those connections.

12.2 Platform capitalism and the question of control

Digital platforms present a particularly interesting syndicalist problem.

Workers may appear to operate independently while remaining subject to algorithmic management, platform rules, customer ratings, and automated allocation of work.

The platform may not resemble a conventional factory.

Nevertheless, it can exercise considerable control over workers’ activities.

The question of workers’ autonomy therefore remains central.

Syndicalism would ask whether workers can collectively determine the conditions under which their labour is organised.

The issue is not simply whether workers are legally classified as employees.

It is whether they possess meaningful control over their working lives.

This extends syndicalist theory into contemporary debates about digital labour and managerial power.

12.3 Rank-and-file organising and democratic renewal

Contemporary labour movements often contain tensions between established union leadership and rank-and-file workers.

Some workers argue that union institutions have become too distant from workplace struggles.

Others regard existing unions as indispensable organisations that require democratic renewal rather than abandonment.

Syndicalism provides a theoretical framework for examining this conflict.

Its emphasis on direct participation, workplace assemblies, independent organising, and accountability can help identify the conditions under which unions strengthen or weaken workers’ collective power.

However, syndicalism should not be reduced to a rejection of existing unions.

The history of the movement demonstrates that revolutionary unionism often emerged through conflicts within established labour organisations.

The important question is whether workers can transform their organisations into instruments of collective self-activity.

12.4 Syndicalism and Australian labour history

Australian labour history provides an important context for examining syndicalist ideas.

The Australian labour movement developed through a combination of industrial unionism, parliamentary socialism, anarchist activism, and radical labour traditions.

The One Big Union movement and the Industrial Workers of the World influenced debates about industrial organisation and working-class solidarity.

The IWW was active in Australia, particularly during the early twentieth century, and contributed to radical labour politics.

Australian syndicalism also developed through the activities of revolutionary unionists and industrial militants who challenged the limitations of parliamentary labour politics.

The history of the Australian labour movement demonstrates the recurring tension between industrial struggle and political representation.

The Australian Labor Party emerged from the labour movement but increasingly developed as an institution distinct from workers’ direct workplace activity.

Syndicalist critiques of political representation therefore remain relevant to Australian debates about trade union independence, party politics, industrial militancy, and workers’ control.

The central question is not whether parliamentary representation has ever produced benefits for workers.

It is whether political institutions can replace the collective activity through which workers exercise their own power.

Syndicalism insists that they cannot.

12.5 Syndicalism and the professional managerial class

Syndicalism also provides a useful framework for examining the growth of managerial and administrative strata.

Modern organisations increasingly rely on specialised professionals who administer workplaces, institutions, and social systems.

These roles can involve considerable technical expertise.

However, expertise can also become a source of authority.

The distinction between workers and managers is not always identical to the distinction between manual and intellectual labour.

Administrative and professional employees may themselves experience managerial control while simultaneously exercising authority over other workers.

This complicates traditional class analysis.

Syndicalism’s emphasis on workers’ control raises questions about how administrative and technical functions should be organised.

The objective would not be to eliminate expertise.

It would be to prevent expertise from becoming a basis for permanent social domination.

A genuinely democratic organisation must make technical knowledge accessible while ensuring that specialists remain accountable to collective decisions.

This problem extends beyond the workplace into universities, public institutions, political organisations, and social movements.

12.6 Syndicalism and social movements

Syndicalism’s emphasis on direct action and collective autonomy has influenced movements beyond traditional trade unions.

Its ideas appear in discussions of community organising, cooperative production, workers’ councils, mutual aid, and democratic social movements.

The important connection is the principle that collective action should develop the capacities of those participating in it.

A movement becomes less emancipatory when its members are reduced to supporters of an organisation that acts on their behalf.

This does not mean that social movements should reject coordination or leadership.

It means that coordination should strengthen collective participation rather than replace it.

Syndicalism therefore provides a broader framework for thinking about democratic organisation.

Its relevance extends to the question of how social movements can resist the professionalisation and bureaucratisation of political activity.

---

13. The central contradictions of syndicalism

Syndicalism is an ambitious political tradition, but its history reveals several persistent contradictions.

These contradictions should not be treated as incidental problems.

They arise from the central objectives of the movement itself.

Contradiction 1: Revolutionary unions versus reformist unions

Syndicalism seeks to transform unions into instruments of revolutionary emancipation.

However, workers often join unions primarily to improve their immediate conditions.

The organisation must therefore accommodate both immediate economic demands and revolutionary objectives.

This can produce tension between workers seeking practical improvements and militants seeking broader social transformation.

A revolutionary union that ignores immediate needs risks becoming politically isolated.

A union that concentrates exclusively on immediate reforms risks losing its revolutionary purpose.

The challenge is to develop organisational practices through which immediate struggles strengthen workers’ collective capacities.

Contradiction 2: Democratic participation versus organisational efficiency

Syndicalism seeks democratic control.

However, large organisations require coordination and administrative competence.

Assemblies can be time-consuming.

Delegates may possess specialised knowledge.

Collective decisions may be difficult to implement.

The movement must therefore reconcile democratic participation with effective coordination.

This cannot be solved by assuming that democracy automatically produces efficiency.

Nor can it be solved by transferring authority to specialists.

The problem is to develop institutions that make expertise accountable and participation meaningful.

Contradiction 3: Federalism versus economic coordination

Syndicalist federalism protects local autonomy.

However, economic production involves interdependent industries and regions.

Local organisations may pursue conflicting interests.

A federation must therefore coordinate decisions that affect people beyond individual workplaces.

The danger is that coordination becomes centralised.

The opposite danger is that decentralisation prevents effective collective action.

Syndicalism’s challenge is to develop mechanisms of coordination that remain accountable to their constituent organisations.

Contradiction 4: Workers’ interests versus social interests

Workers’ control is central to syndicalism.

However, workers employed in particular industries may have interests that conflict with broader social needs.

An industry may provide employment while contributing to ecological destruction.

A workplace may prioritise its own survival while imposing costs on surrounding communities.

Syndicalism must therefore develop a conception of social emancipation that extends beyond the immediate interests of industrial workers.

Workers’ control should be part of democratic social coordination rather than a form of industrial sectionalism.

Contradiction 5: Anti-authoritarianism versus informal hierarchy

Syndicalism rejects bureaucratic domination.

However, revolutionary organisations can develop informal hierarchies.

Experienced militants may exercise disproportionate influence.

Technical specialists may control information.

Charismatic leaders may shape collective decisions.

The absence of formal hierarchy does not guarantee equality.

Anti-authoritarian organisation therefore requires continuous attention to how influence and authority are distributed.

Contradiction 6: Revolutionary independence versus political isolation

Syndicalism seeks independence from political parties and state institutions.

However, workers’ struggles are shaped by broader political conditions.

A union cannot ignore legislation, public policy, repression, or the wider social environment.

The challenge is to engage political struggles without surrendering organisational autonomy.

This requires a distinction between political participation and political representation.

Workers can intervene in political conflicts without delegating their emancipation to political institutions.

---

14. Syndicalism as a critique of capitalism and bureaucracy

The historical significance of syndicalism extends beyond its particular organisations.

It offers a critique of the way capitalism separates workers from control over their productive activity.

It also challenges the assumption that revolutionary transformation requires the creation of a centralised authority capable of governing society on behalf of workers.

The syndicalist tradition insists that emancipation must involve the transformation of everyday social relationships.

Workers must become capable of organising production, determining collective priorities, and participating in the administration of social life.

This requires more than a change in ownership.

It requires a change in the organisation of authority.

The central syndicalist insight is that the means through which workers struggle must be consistent with the social relationships they seek to establish.

An organisation that reproduces domination internally cannot simply declare itself emancipatory.

A revolutionary party that monopolises decision-making risks reproducing the division between rulers and ruled.

A union that treats workers as passive members risks reproducing the separation between representatives and represented.

A cooperative that operates entirely according to competitive market pressures may reproduce capitalist social relations despite collective ownership.

Syndicalism therefore places organisational democracy at the centre of revolutionary politics.

Its objective is not simply to replace one ruling class with another.

It is to abolish the social conditions through which ruling classes and bureaucratic authorities emerge.

This is why syndicalism remains relevant to contemporary critiques of capitalism, authoritarianism, political representation, and bureaucratic domination.

---

15. Conclusion: syndicalism and the problem of revolutionary self-emancipation

Syndicalism emerged from the struggles of workers who refused to accept that their emancipation could be delegated to political parties, parliamentary representatives, or state institutions.

Its historical development demonstrates the importance of workers’ autonomous organisation in challenging capitalism.

From the French CGT and the Bourses du Travail to the American IWW, the Argentine FORA, the German FAUD, and the Spanish CNT, syndicalist movements sought to transform unions into institutions of working-class self-emancipation.

They argued that workers’ collective power was not simply a means of obtaining better conditions.

It was the potential foundation of a different social order.

The movement’s history demonstrates the importance of direct action, industrial solidarity, workers’ education, federalism, and democratic organisation.

It also reveals the difficulties of sustaining revolutionary movements under conditions of repression, institutionalisation, and political conflict.

The Spanish Revolution remains particularly important because it demonstrated both the possibilities and the contradictions of workers’ self-management.

The collectivisations showed that production could be organised through institutions other than capitalist ownership and managerial command.

But the revolution also exposed the difficulties of coordinating economic activity, maintaining democratic control, and resisting political and military pressures.

Syndicalism’s relationship with Marxism and Leninism further illustrates its distinctive contribution to revolutionary theory.

Its critique of political substitutionism challenges the assumption that workers can be emancipated through institutions that claim to represent them while monopolising political authority.

Its critique of bureaucracy demonstrates that revolutionary organisations can reproduce domination even when their stated objectives are emancipatory.

Its emphasis on workers’ control insists that social emancipation must be an actual organisational practice rather than an abstract political promise.

Nevertheless, syndicalism cannot simply be restored in its classical form.

Contemporary capitalism is characterised by global supply chains, fragmented employment, digital management, ecological crisis, and increasingly complex forms of economic coordination.

A contemporary syndicalist politics would need to address these conditions while preserving the movement’s central commitment to collective self-emancipation.

It would need to integrate workplace democracy with ecological transformation, social reproduction, community organisation, and broader forms of democratic planning.

It would also need to confront the historical exclusions of syndicalist universalism, particularly around gender, race, and colonial domination.

The most important lesson of syndicalism is therefore not that unions should replace governments or that industrial workers alone can administer society.

It is that the emancipation of the working class cannot be separated from the development of its capacity to govern its own collective activity.

This principle challenges both capitalist managerial authority and revolutionary bureaucratic authority.

It asks whether organisations can coordinate collective activity without becoming institutions of domination.

It asks whether expertise can be democratised rather than converted into social privilege.

It asks whether workers can transform their organisations from instruments of resistance into institutions of social self-government.

And it asks whether revolutionary politics can develop forms of collective power that do not reproduce the hierarchy they seek to abolish.

These questions remain unresolved.

But their persistence is precisely what makes syndicalism historically significant.

Syndicalism is not simply a forgotten strategy of the early twentieth-century labour movement.

It is an enduring challenge to every political project that claims to emancipate people while reserving the authority to determine their emancipation for itself.

---

Further reading: primary texts and historical scholarship

The following works provide a foundation for further study. They include classical syndicalist texts, historical studies, and critical perspectives.

Classical syndicalist and anarchist texts

1. Rudolf Rocker — Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice.
   One of the most accessible introductions to anarcho-syndicalist history, theory, and organisation. Rocker discusses direct action, federalism, workers’ control, and the Spanish Revolution.
   Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism
2. Fernand Pelloutier — The Workers’ Movement in France and the Bourses du Travail.
   Important for understanding workers’ education, mutual aid, and autonomous labour organisation.
3. Émile Pouget — Direct Action and Sabotage.
   Important early texts on revolutionary syndicalist tactics and workers’ collective power.
4. Georges Sorel — Reflections on Violence.
   A controversial but historically important work on the general strike, revolutionary myth, and collective consciousness.
5. James Connolly — Socialism Made Easy and The Re-Conquest of Ireland.
   Important for understanding industrial unionism, class struggle, and the relationship between national liberation and socialism.
6. Mikhail Bakunin — The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State and Statism and Anarchy.
   Essential background for syndicalism’s anti-authoritarian and federalist traditions.

Historical scholarship

7. Wayne Thorpe — The Workers Themselves: Revolutionary Syndicalism and International Labour, 1913–1923.
   Important historical research on syndicalist internationalism.
8. Kenyon Zimmer — “Haymarket and the Rise of Syndicalism.”
   A useful overview of the historical relationship between anarchism, labour organising, and syndicalism.
   Haymarket and the Rise of Syndicalism
9. Steven Hirsch and Lucien van der Walt, editors — Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1870–1940.
   Essential for moving beyond Eurocentric accounts of the movement.
10. Marcel van der Linden — Transnational Labour History.
    Useful for understanding the international circulation of labour movements and ideas.
11. Georges Haupt — Aspects of International Socialism, 1871–1914.
    Relevant to the international socialist movement and syndicalism’s historical development.
12. David Berry — A History of the French Anarchist Movement, 1917–1945.
    Important for understanding anarchism, syndicalism, and the interwar period.

Syndicalism and revolutionary organisation

13. Maurice Brinton — The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control.
    A critical account of the relationship between revolutionary government and workers’ autonomy.
14. Rosa Luxemburg — The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions.
    Particularly important for comparing syndicalist approaches to mass struggle with Marxist theories of revolutionary organisation.
15. Anton Pannekoek — Workers’ Councils.
    A council-communist perspective on workers’ self-government and revolutionary organisation.
16. Cornelius Castoriadis — Political and Social Writings.
    Useful for exploring workers’ autonomy, bureaucracy, and democratic self-management.
17. Paul Mattick — Anti-Bolshevik Communism.
    Relevant to the critique of party domination and the relationship between workers’ self-activity and revolutionary organisation.

A useful conceptual framework for further research

The history and theory of syndicalism can be organised around five interrelated problems:

Problem	Central question
Workers’ self-emancipation	Can workers liberate themselves without delegating power to representatives?
Revolutionary organisation	How can collective coordination avoid becoming bureaucratic domination?
Workers’ control	Can production be democratically administered without reproducing capitalist management?
Political power	Can revolutionary movements transform society without capturing or reproducing state power?
Social reconstruction	How can workplace autonomy be integrated into broader democratic and ecological coordination?

These problems provide a framework for comparing syndicalism with anarchism, Marxism, council communism, autonomism, and contemporary theories of workers’ self-management.

The ultimate theoretical question is whether collective organisation can become a means of abolishing domination rather than another mechanism through which domination is reproduced.