Part of an ongoing debate in the German syndicalist press.
Editorial Team Tsveyfl || In 2018, we developed a critique of neomoralism: a left-wing principle of thought and action that holds individuals directly responsible for prevailing conditions and demands immediate solutions from them for structural social conditions, which it can only understand as the sum of these individual actions. It is a left-wing ideology adapted to neoliberalism, ostensibly aiming for liberation, but in reality obscuring power relations and invoking identity and cultural questions and practices as the panacea.
What we didn’t see at the time – and perhaps couldn’t foresee – was that neomoralism finds its counterpart in a supposedly materialistic and class-based expression: revisionist syndicalism.
We ourselves referred to syndicalism as a way out of the neomoralist dead end, since it points to “a new relationship between workers and the means of production” ² and offers the individual space to develop. In this way, syndicalism could assume a prefigurative role in anarchist practice.
The problematic aspect of our own arguments here is the separation between syndicalism and anarchism, as well as the narrowing of syndicalism to the economic sphere. Driven to its extremes, this results in a revisionist syndicalism that, in the misunderstood sense of revolutionary syndicalism, renounces ‘all politics and ideology,’ and thus also anarchism. In the next step, revisionist syndicalism falls even further behind revolutionary syndicalism by abandoning a) revolution and b) the syndicalist organizational principle. What remains is syndicalism as a form of stance intended only to express the desire to speak for ‘those at the bottom.’ The fact that this clearly aligns it with social democracy on the one hand and Leninism on the other is cleverly concealed by this stance.
The starting point: criticism of the left and the concealment of one’s own failures.
The starting point – at least the theoretical one – for revisionist syndicalism is a critique of elements of neomoralism, primarily identity politics, or also of neoanarchism, which formed in West Germany after 1968, and the subcultural references of anarchism. While these critiques may be broadly correct and justified, revisionist syndicalism draws a fallacy from them: it locates the neomoralistic principle, in a paranoid and delusional manner, not only in circles that explicitly present themselves as such, but also throughout its own movement, and holds it responsible for the historical absence (or failure) of revolution and the difficult position syndicalism currently faces. It should be noted here: syndicalism , because anarcho-syndicalism is already considered by syndicalist revisionism to be an ideological aberration that must be overcome.
The paranoid element in revisionist syndicalism prevents it from recognizing societal circumstances such as state intervention, war, counter-revolution, the integration of the proletariat into the distribution of surplus value, and other measures that affect the consciousness of the working class as reasons for historical defeats and current weakness. The blame for historical and current failures appears to be solely ideological, from which organizational problems are supposed to follow.
The driving force and motivation behind revisionist syndicalism can be identified as a profound disappointment that the world is the way it is and that we, as a class, have so far been unable to reorganize it. However understandable this may be, disappointment is not a useful category for analysis. Yet it is precisely as such that it is invoked when revisionist syndicalism examines its own irrelevance. Emancipatory ideas in general have already become suspect to it, and this disappointment is projected onto individuals supposedly steeped in identity politics and neo-anarchism, who are then blamed for their own insignificance – with their ideas of revolution and anti-capitalism, grassroots democracy, a lack of hierarchy, and the rejection of paid bureaucracy. Such whims, it is argued, would only destroy the organization. Discarding all of this presents itself to revisionist syndicalism (or rather, its protagonists) as a way out, a way to finally experience success and avoid having to confront their own contribution to collective failure. In this framework, success is primarily perceived as movement for its own sake, regardless of whether people act as a self-organized workforce or as a compliant mass. The main thing is that something happens.
But those who are indifferent to direction, as long as they march, rarely reach new horizons, but rather remain on the same old paths. It is therefore no surprise that the yearning for movement and meaning inevitably leads to reformism – it can hardly be otherwise when one has dismissed any opposing references due to suspicion of ideology. The goal is thus no longer a break with the existing order, but a processing of reality in such a way that individual insignificance can be lost in the current of the movement, leading to a re-modification of the class compromise. In short: reformism without wanting to admit it. Here we do not confuse the fact that anarcho-syndicalism is not against reforms, but has always supported them for immediate improvements in the living conditions of the proletariat. Reformism , on the other hand, is self-sufficient in reform; it has no higher expression, no expectation.
Revisionist syndicalism, of course, manifests itself in various shades; sometimes it is more authoritarian and sectarian, sometimes it appears as an honestly despairing expression of its own lack of success. What its proponents seem to have in common is a lack of practical engagement with the world; they have no connection to it, cannot intervene constructively, and cannot understand themselves as creative beings. Their relationship to the working class is ambivalent. Either they want to be part of it but fail to grasp that there are practical and therefore also ideological fragmentations within the class—not all wage earners produce traditional goods; some produce services, others order or sales opportunities—or they assume, at least implicitly, an inherent dissolution of class conflict and class order, which is why they primarily see workers as a kind of pawn.
Exemplary sketches of revisionist syndicalism
1. Honest disappointment and the escape into the bosom of order
In several texts, the author Torsten Bewernitz has shifted his perspective away from anarcho-syndicalism and toward revisionist syndicalism. This is clearly evident in his statement that “syndicalism has always been distorted whenever intellectuals have sought to speak for it (Georges Sorel or Robert Michels, who, starting from their own theories, ended up in or near fascism, but also Gustav Landauer or Erich Mühsam, who mixed original syndicalism with anarchist tenets).” 4 It becomes clear that Bewernitz perceives syndicalism and anarchism not as complementary or mutually related, but as opposing poles. Rudolf Rocker’s response to this is that “anarchism and syndicalism complement each other. The syndicalist movement would lose its original character and be degraded to an ordinary trade union movement the moment it lost sight of the great principles of libertarian socialism, or, to put it even more clearly, of communist anarchism.” 5
That is precisely why it is fatal when he states that comrades trained in labor law and organizing processes belong to the DGB’s recruitment pool. Bewernitz interprets this as a sign of the professionalization of the syndicalist movement, but for him, this ‘professionalization’ goes hand in hand with a decline in the comrades’ ‘idealistic commitment’. Thus, his prospects are twofold: comrades who do not know enough about the nature of bureaucratic regimes like the DGB and naively hope for change by joining and working within it; and comrades who think they can learn something for the syndicalist cause within the DGB. Regarding the first point, it should be noted: “An institution is not repurposed simply because comrades are at its head. Only the comrades themselves are repurposed.” 6 Regarding the second point: Syndicalist institutions are naturally far more unstable than the highly concentrated power apparatuses of the DGB (German Trade Union Confederation); here, a transformation of the institutions is still possible – simply because they are in a constant balancing act between organizing ideas and representing interests. With the disappearance of revolutionary ideas, they fundamentally change their character, remaining interest-based organizations only in name, as they embark on the path to reformism and thus to class compromise.
How little Bewernitz understands the issue becomes clear when he reduces the whole thing to a generational conflict, portraying the “old guard” as purely idealistic (which, for him, has decidedly negative connotations), while the “young guard” is pragmatic (which he contrasts positively with the idealistic). For Bewernitz, pragmatism means abandoning anarcho-syndicalism in favor of a self-sufficient revolutionary syndicalism. The lines of conflict Bewernitz outlines do indeed run along generational lines, but these are not their origin. The line—old anarcho-syndicalists/young “pragmatic” syndicalists—only arises from a lack of (self-)education within syndicalist organizations. Thus, there is no theoretical forum for discussing the movement. 7
Let us revisit Bewernitz’s return to revolutionary syndicalism: here he also quotes Karl Heinz Roth favorably, who calls for organizing without ideology (which in this context means a polemic against any form of even remotely fully developed ideas). At this point, we can again refer to Rocker, who explained that syndicalism cannot be self-sufficient, as it is always subject to the material influences of its environment, has always been composed of a wide variety of fragments of ideas, and will continue to be. If we remove the “anarcho” from syndicalism, “the great drive for the reshaping of society in the sense of free socialism […] is eliminated.” 8
Bewernitz even presented a kind of programmatic text in which he completes his turn toward revolutionary, or rather revisionist, syndicalism: “Syndicalism and New Class Politics.” Right at the beginning, he suggests to readers that syndicalism should have as few ideas as possible, because “[t]he cannot be about imposing a separate, closed theory or ideology on the working class, but on the contrary, the initiative must be oriented toward the working class.” 9 This not only sounds like the always-failing approach of “meeting people where they are,” but also means precisely that at its core. It means, and always has meant, setting no standards for anything and pandering to the masses. Now, as is well known, the people in the Federal Republic of Germany are not very revolutionary, and so an organization that operates according to such principles can by no means be. The disastrous situation is to blame – who would have thought it – on the (neo-)anarchist co-optation of syndicalist organizations, or rather, on the traditionalist and dogmatic “stubbornness”. 10
He rejects “the rigid adherence to ‘principles'”—this is unacceptable in today’s world—and proposes dissolving the anarcho-syndicalist unions to allow for broader, class-based organizing; one that would not compete with the DGB (German Trade Union Confederation). It is worthwhile quoting him at length here:
“What is needed is class-based organizing that is not a trade union in the strict sense and does not compete with the DGB unions. Concepts for this certainly exist. Syndicalism, the idea that the interest groups of the working class should already contain the seeds of a transformed society, does not necessarily mean founding separate trade unions. If this does not seem expedient, syndicalism can also mean initiating social organizing.” 11
It is indicative of Bewernitz’s understanding of syndicalism how one-dimensional his concept of a trade union is. The anarcho-syndicalist trade union always aimed to be more than just a trade union; it was not meant to merely wage struggles, but also to be a cultural organization and a school for self-management and socialism, in which the working class was prepared to organize production and consumption and to reinvent itself (not only through this) as human beings.
The envisioned class-based organization would then look like this: the syndicalist organizations would dissolve and form ‘workers’ centers’—that is, local organizations that do not operate as trade unions in the strict sense, but rather address social concerns, neighborhood issues, etc.—in order to “develop a strong complement to the DGB.” 12 Steff Brenner, who quite rightly identified the fundamental conflict of revisionist syndicalism, rightly points out that an anarcho-syndicalist union could, with increasing strength, very effectively push an institution like the DGB ahead of it. 13 Bewernitz does not want to push the DGB ahead of it; he wants to work alongside it. Supposedly in the interest of the working class, and possibly in its actual interest, but with a horizon that extends no further than the next round of collective bargaining. That is better than nothing, but neither anarcho-syndicalist nor syndicalist.
It should be acknowledged that Bewernitz’s disappointment, which drives him to revisionist syndicalism, is quite understandable. Anarcho-syndicalism has not exactly become a success story in Germany over the last 40 years of its organized existence, but it is ridiculously simplistic to attribute this almost exclusively to anarchist elements. Within the framework of the established dichotomous categories of leftist character, however, it is more than fitting: Bewernitz, almost as an ideal type, transfers the forms of neomoralism to anarcho-syndicalism in order to break with it entirely and plunge into reformism with revisionist syndicalism. Like a future DGB (German Trade Union Confederation) functionary, he sees people primarily as pawns to be moved, not organized. Organizing is no longer the goal here, only sporadic mobilization; anything more seems inconceivable to Bewernitz without people being consumed by the “hotbed” of organizational activity. 14 However, for him, mobilization should “not be confused with non-committal behavior.” 15 It should fit into the interests, living conditions, etc., so nothing that wouldn’t also apply to any form of organizing, and one can guess that the mobilization should be just binding enough to still qualify for membership in a DGB union. After all, one can easily be “a member of a reformist unified union and at the same time an (anarcho-)syndicalist; one can reflect theoretically and fight practically.” 16 The only question is, what is being fought for, and if the DGB is the overarching authority, Bewernitz’s sentence reads like: In my free time, I’m incredibly nonconformist.
Anyone who wants to bring anarcho-syndicalism into the DGB (German Trade Union Confederation) has not understood it. Then one is not a “self-confessed syndicalist in ver.di and a doubting syndicalist in the FAU” 17 , but has adapted one’s awareness of material existence, which depends on DGB funds, and is a reformist agitator who merely retains syndicalism as an attitude that lends it a touch of rebellion.
2. The authoritarian backlash and the fight for the established order
Alongside Torsten Bewernitz, Holger Marcks stands out as a particularly active author and agitator of revisionist syndicalism. This is evident in his series of articles in Direkte Aktion (two of which are essentially redundant, as they merely pave the way for greater acceptance of his theses in the final part) and in his online book “Back to the Future: A Social Republican Panorama,” co-authored with Felix Zimmermann (and currently unfinished).
As with Bewernitz, Marcks’s approach involves projecting a full-blown frustration and justified criticism of the neo-moralist left onto anarcho-syndicalism. Its influences (identity politics, gender ideology, neo-anarchism) are blamed for the past failure of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions (Marcks extends this further, essentially equating anarchism with neo-anarchism, which is thus supposedly responsible for every failed revolution and also for fascism ), which is why, he argues , only a radical break with it is possible.
Marcks’ work, however, demonstrates that revisionist syndicalism can take on even more radical forms than Bewernitz’s and that it is not a monolithic bloc. Besides rejecting grassroots democratic structures—Bewernitz clings more to the illusion that there is anything to reform within the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB)—he abandons any form of critique of the state and capitalism, which Bewernitz at least still allows as a personal quirk. Furthermore, despite all his criticism, he fails to break free from the logic of identity politics and instead unconsciously reproduces it.
2.1 Authority is good when a professional has it.
Two things are noteworthy in Marck’s texts on the subject of grassroots democracy: Firstly, that he accuses it of ineffectiveness, which he contrasts with the effectiveness of vertical organization or representative democracy; secondly, that he derives this not least from his critique of anti-authoritarianism, which he also justifies by arguing that long-serving comrades (like himself) are not given enough of a voice.
Grassroots democracy, or as Marcks writes elsewhere, horizontal organization, is “primarily exclusive and creates vertical asymmetries already at the grassroots level; it is only horizontal insofar as a select circle can then have a say on the breadth of all issues. In contemporary syndicalism, however, this latter asymmetry is hardly problematized. Due to the anti-authoritarian bias , only the potential problems between the grassroots and functionaries are perceived. Positive aspects of representation are ignored, as are the problems of horizontalism.” 20 These would include, for example, that “every member is formally equal, but in practice, influence is tied to the use of resources: those who always participate in the meetings where voting takes place implicitly have more voting power than members who can only rarely do so.” 21
There may be legitimate criticism of the formal structures of anarcho-syndicalist unions—he cites general assemblies as an example, but also secretariats with limited decision-making powers—but Marcks is not interested in finding constructive ways to improve participation so that people are involved in the organization. Instead, he wants to promote and perpetuate the process of exclusion from organizational work. According to Marcks, the aim is not to better integrate those with little time, but rather to simply allow them to cast their vote. “Because many of the tasks facing a transformative organization are simply too complex for the average random assembly constellation to competently assess who would be competent to accomplish them.” 22 Here, the arrogance of the ruling class, or rather, of those who identify with the ruling class, speaks volumes.
This claim to power, disguised as participation, is underscored by the assertion that paid functionaries would have a socially integrative effect. 23 In this respect, he falls far short (as he does elsewhere) of revolutionary syndicalism, whose most important theorist, Émile Pouget, to whom he refers both directly and indirectly, expressed himself very clearly on the logic of representation. He contrasted it with the self-empowerment of workers through direct action:
“Direct action thus frees people from the stranglehold of passivity and will-lessness in which democracy tries to keep them. It teaches them to will instead of merely obeying, to exercise their sovereignty instead of ceding their share of it to a delegate.” 24 Furthermore, the system of representation is not suitable if people today are to learn to organize the world of tomorrow:
“But in order to bring about this liquidation of the old world of exploitation, the working class must familiarize itself with the conditions for creating a new social order; it must possess the ability and the will to accomplish this work of its own accord; in order to cope with the difficulties that arise, it must rely only on its own direct performance, on competencies that it develops from within itself, and not on the favor of any ‘middlemen,’ benefactors sent from heaven, bishops in new guise. In the latter case, exploitation would not be eliminated, but would continue in a transformed form.” 25
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with delegating people with existing skills to specific tasks; not everyone has to be able to do everything, division of labor is good and makes sense; but there’s a world of difference between delegates who are accountable and can be recalled at any time and a representative electoral system where people are supposed to cast their votes cyclically.
Furthermore, the instrumental approach of Marcks, but also of Bewernitz, to revolutionary syndicalism can be seen in their repeated assertion that the syndicalist trade union must be an interest-based organization rather than an ideological one. It is true that Pouget vehemently advocates precisely this, as he considers ideological organizations incapable of revolution. What they omit, however, is that the interest-based organization has a very clear mandate – “to rebuild society on a communist foundation.” Thus , it is relative that members should not be selected according to their political views, because by becoming a member, they are already choosing communism.
Pouget’s rejection and separation of the political sphere from the trade union must also be viewed in its historical context and as a rhetorical device. For him, parliamentarism and representative politics were political; for him, the rejection of party work, the drive for class struggle, and the workers’ will to revolution were apolitical. Furthermore, he by no means advocated making any programmatic or organizational concessions to attract supposed membership; rather, he believed that revolutionary upheavals always originated with minorities, and that the revolutionaries of the working class should not allow themselves to be held back by the inertia of the masses. 27
2.2 The state is for the workers, as is capital.
Marcks completely abandons any form of progressive sentiment when he wants to continue freezing the class conflict in a social partnership sense – and proposes this for other possible fields of action of anarcho-syndicalism besides the wage labor sphere – such as the rental sector.
Thus, he cannot view the integration of the labor movement into the system through labor protection laws, social legislation, etc., dialectically, but sees it solely as democratic progress that must be expanded. It is therefore not surprising that he refers, albeit indirectly, but positively to Bismarck – who, after all, had also contributed to this democratization in some way. Bismarck himself, however, fully grasped the dialectical nature of his own actions:
“My idea was to win over, or should I say bribe, the working classes, to see the state as a social institution that exists for their sake and wants to provide for their well-being.” 29
Even in a less polemical way, it can be stated that Marck’s assessments deliberately adopt a pro-government perspective. For example, when he writes:
“Above all, the Works Constitution Act and trade union law provide a constitutional framework in the area of labor that can be understood as a partial democratization of that sphere.” 30
He completely ignores the fact that these legislative procedures were deliberately and intentionally implemented, not because “excessive class contradictions undermine democracy” 31 and because the welfare state was being established out of love for the workers, but because the revolutionary movement was being undermined by its containment through social security, by raising living standards, by partial participation in surplus value, and by representation in parliaments. Not theoretically, but quite literally:
“The nationalization of labor relations proved advantageous for the moderate unions. In effect, it made them less dependent on the control of their membership. Furthermore, the legislation kept competition from the left in check. Based on the Labor Court Act passed in 1926, the labor courts denied the FAUD the right to negotiate collective agreements as a trade union. This was confirmed by a ruling of the Reich Labor Court in 1930. In practice, this prohibited the FAUD from representing its members in court.” 32
Marcks is fully aware of this and identifies the problem – he simply refuses to acknowledge it and prefers to view it all as a democratization process. He claims this process is far from over and could be continued through “micro-revolutions” in other areas. In the housing question, he aims to achieve a new form of legal regulation of tenancy agreements through a tenants’ union (presumably organized hierarchically, according to his vision). Not only would the struggle to abolish all rents be sacrificed for the perpetuation of “fair” rents, leaving property rights entirely untouched, but the obvious conflict of interest would be increasingly obscured – just as in labor law – by suggesting participation without actually challenging the existing power structures.
This does not mean being against tenants’ unions, but rather that they must be part of the working class’s struggle, ideally integrated into an anarcho-syndicalist union whose primary goal is the collectivization of property. The trust Marcks places in parliamentarism and legal systems reveals his own succumbing to their ideological illusion. He correctly observes that the legal sphere has succeeded in gaining recognition as an autonomous order —33 but he completely fails to recognize that this is a fetish. Eugen Paschukanis already demonstrated in the 1920s how legal fetishism, parallel to commodity fetishism, established itself with the constitution of capitalist-bourgeois relations of domination.34 Thus , bourgeois law can never be used against this order; although it is perceived as external, it is immanent within it, and any attempt to use law against the order can only result in its containment.
Since Marcks can only conceive of socialism as state intervention, he sees many socialist elements present in the liberal republic, or rather, the republic appears to him as a partial realization of socialism. For him, socialism is synonymous with technocratic state intervention in the economy, something imposed from above. He rightly distances himself from anarcho-syndicalism with his views.
“The anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a socialist economic order cannot be created by decrees and laws of any government, but only through the unrestricted cooperation of workers, technicians, and peasants.” 36
Rocker then goes on to explain how the administration of consumption can be organized. More elaborate plans for social self-governance, encompassing significantly more areas of life, have certainly existed.37 It is by no means the case that anarcho-syndicalism assumes, as Marcks claims, that “the reorganization of the economic sphere would render a general political superstructure superfluous.” 38 From an anarcho-syndicalist perspective, socialist construction is a comprehensive project that touches all areas of human coexistence and in which new forms of interaction and mediation must be established everywhere. It is not without reason that “socialism is ultimately a cultural question.” 39 This is also why the state cannot introduce it; it must be created by and through the people in a collective process. Not as an abstract blueprint for society in parliament, but where people concretely encounter one another, work together, enter into relationships, and engage in creative activity. Accordingly, Marck’s assertion that people are not only workers but “also citizens who have many other community concerns to address,” with which he justifies the artificial separation and partialization of bourgeois society between the economic and political spheres in line with his project, is capitalist apologetics. He fails to recognize that the fragmentation into a “private person and an economic person,” in which individuals experience a “strange split” within themselves, is part of the problem, part of the alienated condition that must be overcome.
2.3 Under pressure
Despite his extensive critique of identity politics, Marcks fails to break free from its thought patterns and, in turn, argues using identitarian categories. When he accuses syndicalist organizations of ‘classism’ due to their grassroots democratic structure— 41 because only those with sufficient time could be active in them—a fundamental problem becomes apparent: He fails to grasp that class describes the respective relationships to the means of production, but rather sees it as a marker of oppression and privilege, like race and gender. In doing so, he reinterprets class affiliation in an identitarian way and loses sight of its economic implications.
In the next step, with this perspective, he joins the “unbearable dynamic of the oppression Olympiad” 42 when he weighs identitarian politics regarding gender and language against his identitarian understanding of class. 43 While he understands gender-inclusive language as “an internal colonialist project, since here an educated middle-class milieu denies ordinary people—men and women, Germans and migrants alike—their understanding of language and wants to civilize it in its (supposed) own interest,” he contrasts this with his own understanding of the language of the working class: “Plain speaking and emphasis are considered honest and interested in the lower classes, while diplomacy and equanimity are perceived as insincere and indifferent. This cultural discrepancy can also be explained materially, since members of the lower classes not only grow up in a harsher environment that leaves less room for sensitivities, but also because time is a scarcer resource, the need for more direct communication arises.” 44 As in other less or not materialistic conceptions of “the underclass” and how it would speak, Marcks also criminally neglects “the important significance of the shared, tangible, and material reference of interpersonal relationships in the daily work and cooperation process, which significantly shapes the interweaving of workers’ perspectives.” 45 The “simple language” or the “clear words” are functionalistically derived from the work process – Marcks essentializes them as an expression of the brutalization of people “in a harsh environment” in which there is little “room for sensitivities”.
This identitarian glorification of workers, in turn, serves him as justification for the establishment of hierarchical structures: “If syndicalism is not to be rendered absurd by such classist mechanisms, it must include representation. Only if members can elect representatives who represent their interests is it possible to involve the masses necessary for transformative politics.” 46 Anyone who feels sufficiently represented by elected officials in a republic can, of course, find nothing wrong with imagining themselves as the (elected) workers’ leader.
It is therefore not surprising that the ideas Marcks develops are clearly reminiscent of Leninism. There is the artificial separation of the political and economic spheres, the restriction of the trade union to factories and wage struggles, the avant-garde role assigned to oneself and to the functionaries, who show the way to the mass of dull and uncivilized workers in their misery, the planned establishment of numerous front organizations, all hierarchically structured according to the same principle and designed to be systematically integrated into the movement so that the state can be taken over — not through a break with the existing order, but through gradual infiltration. Both, however, amount to identification with it; one cannot simply “transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument for the liberation of the oppressed at will. ”
Class relations and consciousness
There are good reasons to examine the social structure of anarcho-syndicalist organizations—are they truly composed primarily of students and university-educated employees?—but not, as Marcks does, to pit one group against the other. Rather, the aim is to understand the roles each individual plays in the production process and how these roles influence consciousness and respective interests. The increasingly diversified world of work, in which more and more people are employees in various productive and unproductive sectors, the number of traditional blue-collar workers is declining, and the workforce is becoming divided into unskilled and skilled workers, with bullshit jobs sometimes requiring nonsensical qualifications, and sometimes none at all—all of this would be of paramount interest to anarcho-syndicalism.
In this sense, let us consider a concluding example: Academics involved in the university system are not productive in the true sense; they do not create surplus value, nor do they provide a service that would be consumed and paid for in a quantifiable way. Through the various class compromises that liberate them from the most unpleasant forms of being dominated, they generally do not see themselves as intellectual workers—that is, as laborers—but rather perceive themselves only as free and equal civic subjects. “This group remains precarious in relation to the bourgeoisie, with the potential loss of relative privilege through non-fulfillment of the material and habitual role having a disciplining effect.” 49 The self-sufficient expansion of bureaucratization undertaken by them—and other large sections of an salaried class—is particularly “functional for capitalism as the ensemble of all social reproduction contexts.” 50 They function as capitalist senior and junior officers 51 , they produce and reproduce nothing except the constant progress of the apparatus in which they are located and it is precisely in this way that they produce something: order.
The supposed understanding, the scientistic dissection, the sociologically empirical investigation of the world and people, which is constantly compelled to acquire external funding in the right places, is in no sense neutral and certainly not independent. The critical scholar who enters this system will hardly notice how his consciousness changes, but the lack of practical, collaborative work with others, from which recognition and a sense of production also arise, drives him to identify with the academic system as such and thus with the prevailing order – his economic position also reflects this: although he is a wage earner, he lives off “participation in the surplus value created by others.” 52 Thus, he may continue to present himself as verbally radical for a few years, his daily confinement within the prevailing conditions is ensured through his work; sooner or later, however, the open break occurs, and he directly and willingly commits himself to the interests of those in power. Anyone who then tries to present this as a social and somehow democratic project retains a certain working-class chic and radical-sounding phrases, cloaked in historical movement terminology. In this way, syndicalism is preserved as an attitude.
On Farewell
Of course, an academic’s career path in academia doesn’t necessarily have to end this way – it’s just very likely. As is so often the case:
“In terms of potential, everyone is simultaneously oppressor and oppressed, friend and foe . Whether they are actually friend or foe depends on their decision. This decision is not always easy, and certainly not self-evident. But it places a person on one side of the barricade or the other.” 53
Our material circumstances, our relationship to the means of production, our integration into power and administrative structures, our social relationships and how they are structured—whether we encounter people primarily in (often unconscious) competition and merely seek self-affirmation through them, or whether we come together with them, engage in creative activity, and experience solidarity—all of this influences how we decide which side of the barricade we will choose. In anarcho-syndicalist organizations, we assume that our comrades have decided in favor of the working class and against the ruling class. We trust them. This is essential because if we work together, take on and delegate tasks and responsibilities, we must enjoy the trust of others—and in turn extend it to them—to act in our own interests as well as in the interests of the class. Anyone who wants to drive the workers into the state in small micro-revolutionaries of a “constitutional movement” cannot enjoy this trust—they have long since lost trust in their own comrades anyway.
“Where mutual trust breaks down, there is no longer any sense of community, no common bond that unites us as fighters for the great cause of human liberation.” 54
Footnotes
1 See: Tsveyfl – dissent-oriented journal No. 2. Anarchism and Neomoralism. Moers 2018
2. Foot, Frederik: On Ethics and Morality in Anarchism. In: Tsveyfl No. 2, Moers 2018, p. 34
3 This is explained in detail in the work: Rocker, Rudolf: The Struggle for Daily Bread. Moers n.d.
4 Bewernitz, Torsten: Action before function! Organizing in unified or single-member unions. In: Direct Action, online: direkteaktion.org/aktion-vor-funktion/ 25.08.2021
5 Rocker, Rudolf: On the nature of federalism in contrast to centralism. Moers 2022, p. 50
6 Kelb, Bernie: Organize or be organized. Suggestions for comrades (bottom left). Hamburg 2013, p. 34
7 While the FAU ‘s Direct Action , along with its propaganda sheet, had at least partially fulfilled this role, since the printed version was discontinued, it is just one of many blogs where discussions unfold more or less successfully.
8 Rockers: Federalism, ibid.
9 Bewernitz, Torsten: Syndicalism and New Class Politics. A Polemic. Berlin 2019, p. 6; later also elaborated on p. 32
10 Ibid., p. 11
11 Ibid., p. 17
12 Ibid., p. 33
13 Brenner, Steff: Anarchism without anarchists? A contribution to the syndicalist movement and perspectives within the FAU. In: Direkte Aktion, online direktaktion.org/anarchismus-ohne-anarchist_innen/ 010.2020
14 Cf.: Bewernitz: Syndicalism, pp. 33-38
15 Ibid., p. 35
16 Ibid., p. 47
17 Bewernitz: Action
18 Cf.: Marcks, Holger: Sketches of a Constructive Socialism (Part 3) Foundations of Construction: The Structure of Transformative Organizations. In: Direct Action, online directaction.org/sketch-of-a-constructive-socialism-part-3/ 02.09.2019; Marcks, Holger and Zimmermann, Felix: Back to the Future. A Social Republican Panorama, Chapter 7, online social-republic.org/the-misery-of-identity-politics-cultural-barriers-of-democratization
19 See ibid., Chapter 5, especially footnote 18. soziale-republik.org/der-weg-des-konstruktiven-sozialismus-demokratisierung-als-sozialisierung
20 Marcks: Sketch 3
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid. Footnote 51
24 Pouget, Émile: The Revolution is an Everyday Matter, Writings on the Theory and Practice of Revolutionary Syndicalism. Lich 2014, pp. 142f.
25 Ibid., p. 144
26 Ibid., p. 70
27 See ibid., pp. 68ff.
28 Cf.: Marcks/Zimmermann: Zurück, Chapter 6, footnote 18. soziale-republik.org/abtragen-und-aufbauen-die-konstitutionalisierung-der-sozialen-sphaeren
29 von Bismarck, Otto: Collected Works (Friedrichsruh Edition) 1924/1935, Volume 9, pp. 195/196
30 Marcks/Zimmermann: Back, Chapter 6
31 Ibid.
32 Rübner, Hartmut: From Localism to Anarcho-Syndicalism. A Retrospective on the History of the Syndicalist Movement in Germany on the Occasion of the 100th Anniversary of the FAUD. In: Direkte Aktion, online direktaktion.org/vom-lokalismus-zum-anarchosyndikalismus/ 08.01.2020
33 Marcks/Zimmermann: Back, Chapter 3, soziale-republik.org/die-wiederentdeckung-der-sphaeren-eine-neue-gewaltenteilung
34 Cf.: Pashukanis, Eugen: General Legal Theory and Marxism. An Attempt at a Critique of Fundamental Legal Concepts. 2003 Freiburg
35 Cf.: Marcks/Zimmermann: Back, Chapters 2 and 5
36 Rocker, Rudolf: Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism. Moers 2014, p. 27
37 Among others: Study Commission of the Berlin Workers’ Exchanges / Franz Barwich: “This is Syndicalism”. The Workers’ Exchanges of Syndicalism. Frankfurt am Main 2005
38 Marcks/Zimmermann: Back, Chapter 3
39 Rocker, Rudolf: Declaration of Principles of Syndicalism. FAUD: Forward with us! Hamburg 2013, p. 25
40 Ottomeyer, Klaus: Economic Constraints and Human Relationships. Social Behavior and Identity in Capitalism and Neoliberalism. Berlin 2014, p. 48
41 Cf.: Marcks: Sketch 3
42 Volcano, Abbey: Border Police. In: Darin; Rogue; Shannon; Volcano (eds.): Queering Anarchism. Münster 2017, p. 54
43 Cf. Marcks/Zimmermann: Zurück, Chapter 7, here also footnote 7. soziale-republik.org/das-elend-der-identitaetspolitik-kulturelle-barrieren-der-demokratisierung/
44 Marcks: Sketch 3, footnote 69
45 Ottomeyer: Compulsions, p. 97
46 Marcks: Sketch 3
47 Anyone wishing to understand this in more detail in Lenin’s work should read Lenin, WI: What is to be done? Burning questions of our movement. In: Idem: Selected Works Volume 1, Berlin 1979
48 Rockers: Anarchism, p. 9
49 CampusGrün Hamburg: CampusGrün dissolves. Criticism, reflections and open questions from six years of university politics at the University of Hamburg, online www.campusgruen.org/news/CGAufloesung/Aufloesungserkl%C3%A4rung.pdf , p. 30
50 Ibid.
51 According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production contains a quasi-military order in which workers occupy various positions in the hierarchy and control those below them. Cf.: MEW Vol. 23, Berlin 1962, pp. 351f.
52 Ottomeyer: Compulsions, p. 99
53 Kelb: Organizing, p. 11
54 Rockers: Federalism, p. 60
