Part of an ongoing debate in the German syndicalist press.
Paradox-A || I have now had the opportunity to read the first three published parts of Holger Marcks’ text, ” Sketch of a Constructive Socialism .” Since it appeared on the FAU Federation’s website and there are currently hardly any other comprehensive contributions from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective, it seems like a foundational text that FAU members should ideally read. In this context, however, Torsten Bewernitz’s work, ” Syndicalism and New Class Politics: A Polemic,” should also be mentioned.
Unfortunately, I don’t currently have the time or inclination to provide a more detailed review of Holger Marcks’ text, but I would still like to offer a few impressions and points of criticism. First, regarding the structure: The text consists of the following parts: (1) Syndicalist Transformation Policy: The Mediation Between Reality and Utopia , (2) Multiple Unions as a Foundation: Initial Building Blocks of Counter-Power , and (3) Foundations of Construction: The Structure of Transformative Organization . The fourth part, which has not yet been published, will then deal with programmatic consequences arising from micropolitical experiences and the utopian vision .
In his text, Marcks aims to gain agency, effectiveness, and union counter-power through the organization of lower classes, which is indeed a core concern of anarcho-syndicalists. I agree with him that anarchist syndicalism, due to its approach and perspective, at least has the potential to bridge the gap between the desired utopia and the analysis and critique of existing conditions. Thus, syndicalism can be used to develop “realistic” and credible policies of transformation, based on inherent conditions and existing social relations and their interactions. Likewise, Marcks’ call to focus on long-term goals, to start from “real” interests, and to develop strategic thinking is, insofar as it is comprehensible.
His reflections on the idea of using labor struggles and trade union organizations to drill through the thick planks of reality on a “meso-level,” rather than trying to force things through, are also appealing – and fundamentally anarcho-syndicalist. This approach – which I also share – is to be understood as significantly more “radical” than evaluating existing organizations, relationships, practices, and actions based on idealistic and abstract-utopian maximalist visions (which, of course, differ and thus contradict each other depending on the sub-current within “the” social left to which Marcks refers). Finally, some of his criticisms of other “left-wing” transformation theories are also plausible, especially of the poor work Abolishing Capitalism (2018), in which the two authors not only engage in circular reasoning and think too short-sightedly, but – as Marcks correctly points out – with their “germ form theory” literally adopt syndicalist transformation theory – without being aware of it and without naming it.
# # # # #
So much for the aspects of the outline of a constructive socialism that I find understandable and welcome . However, many other points seem implausible or even problematic. First and foremost, the author’s approach must be addressed. When Marcks believes he can fundamentally criticize “the” “left-wing scene,” he resorts to poor stereotypes that clearly demonstrate his frustration with such contexts. This frustration is not to be denied, but he remains completely silent about the role he himself plays or has played in this context. As an academic, Marcks criticizes the bourgeois background of a large part of this clientele—and in doing so, he seems to be implicitly confronting his own class position while simultaneously morally accusing people of possessing a consciousness that stems from structural conditions and could only change with a transformation of those conditions themselves. The situation is no different for the supposedly “real” proletarians, because experience shows that they don’t simply recognize their material interests, which they understand as “objective,” or fight for them in a way that meets emancipatory demands. This certainly isn’t about the maximalist demands of an exclusive scene bubble, but rather about the fundamental prerequisites for an emancipatory practice, which is precisely what the grassroots trade union approach pursues. This is by no means to suggest that workers are inherently less committed to this endeavor, but rather that the moralizing of class positions doesn’t help in waging common struggles with diverse groups.
It seems as if Marcks wants to establish himself and gain prominence as the leader of a libertarian and anti-authoritarian social movement. He certainly wouldn’t be the first or only person who finds grassroots democratic procedures and people as they are disagreeable and therefore develops a disguised avant-gardism. If this is his intention with this text, however, it cannot succeed, insofar as it undermines the fundamental conditions upon which anarchist syndicalism is based. Furthermore, I find a style unbelievable and unattractive in which one’s own current is defined primarily by distancing oneself from real or even perceived competitors. Certainly, one’s own positions can only ever be developed in contrast to others, and this should happen not through a harmony-seeking, conciliatory approach, but through productive debate. What Marcks clearly lacks in his writing, however, is a respectful approach to other currents and a show of solidarity with like-minded comrades. In fact, his attempts at definition are based on direct denigration, for example when he writes of an “infantile anti-authoritarianism”.
In fact, his solidarity fails even with his own, namely with regard to the FAU (Free Workers’ Union). In his opinion, it could/should/must be structured completely differently. Of course. But that’s simply not how it is. Instead, it’s necessary to grapple with the existing conditions. Starting with the organization of the existing unions, their labor struggles, and their relationships, considerations must be made about how better (i.e., more long-term, more forceful, more cross-class, etc.) practices could be developed. This also includes not childishly blaming one’s own comrades or the construct of “the” left-wing scene for problems that have broader societal causes. In my view, Marcks therefore does little justice to his own concerns. Rather, he seems to be constantly operating in a mode of projection. Unfortunately, this also leads him to a problematic construction of past syndicalism and its idealization. The assertion that “syndicalism” has “always been,” “has always been,” or “has always” wanted, thought, and done this and that does not contribute to the credibility of a contemporary class-struggle and libertarian approach. This glorification of historical dinosaurs, primarily serving self-deprecation, is certainly not unusual for syndicalists. More would have been expected from Marcks, who extensively references Emile Pouget, Alexander Moiseyevich Shapiro, Rudolf Rocker, Albert Camus, and the history of anarchist syndicalism as a whole.
Ironically, he then constructs a “straw man” in identity politics, the genesis of which he fundamentally seems not to have grasped. His aversion to it is clearly rooted in personal reasons; otherwise, he could position himself more objectively in this debate. While there are indeed tendencies toward the essentialization of specific identities, whose very existence implies a certain truth in their perspective—which, among other things, triggers a competition of victimhood that is quite horrifying to observe—such distorted liberal excesses of identity politics do not correspond to its original context. This context rightly emphasized the specific nature of the social positioning of groups of people based on class , race , and gender . Identity-political approaches have done traditional class politics a disservice because they exposed its impasse under changing power structures and thus contributed to the possibility of its renewal. Yes, women and migrants face structural discrimination based on their class positions, which is reflected in lower wages, longer unpaid working hours, and worse working conditions, as can be clearly demonstrated statistically. However, people in different situations can only be won over, organized, and inspired for a common class-struggle-oriented politics if their divergent situations are explicitly named and acknowledged.
Marcks’ critique of the FAU’s structure and organizational practices also strikes me as strangely simplistic and knee-jerk. Certainly, “horizontal” and grassroots democratic decision-making procedures are lengthy, sometimes nerve-wracking, and by no means free of hierarchies in which people with greater capacities, resources, and educational opportunities tend to be more privileged. However, this gap is absolutely not closed by the cadre-based organizational model that Marcks seems to be proposing, arguing for its effectiveness. One can consider egalitarian, horizontal, and self-organized structures “ineffective” or boring (for example, because one doesn’t always get one’s way). However, abandoning these principles is tantamount to dismantling the anarchist-syndicalist foundations. Marcks implies that these are fundamentalist dogmas that do not meet the demands of contemporary labor struggles or the organization of the lower classes. On the contrary, I believe that the opposite is true: the principles on which, for example, the FAU is founded were indeed developed from the historical experiences of social movements, and therein lies both their justification and their value. This, of course, only applies if they are correctly understood, learned through application, and brought to life by the members themselves.
In conclusion, I can say that I deeply regret that Marcks discredits himself in this text. Even though I wouldn’t personally use his formulation of a real-utopian and constructive social technology , which anarchist syndicalism could represent, he does raise some truly important points. As I have attempted to illustrate in a free-flowing style, however, he ultimately fails, in my perception, to live up to his own standards, implicitly including, first and foremost, the very nature of human beings. His accusation of making idealistic and utopian maximalist demands on the left-wing, autonomous, or anarchist scene, which he claims retreats into an exclusive bubble and is unwilling to gain organizational agency, is, in my own experience, entirely justified. In this respect as well, I have the impression that he is projecting his dissatisfaction with his own (past) practice onto others, which in itself cannot be a good starting point for outlining a constructive socialism .
