What do you think?
Rate this book
Fighting For Ourselves - Anarcho-syndicalism and the class struggle
The Solidarity Federation's book, Fighting for ourselves: anarcho-syndicalism and the class struggle, aims to recover some of the lost history of the workers' movement, in order to set out a revolutionary strategy for the present conditions. In clear and accessible prose, the book sets out the anarcho-syndicalist criticisms of political parties and trade unions, engages with other radical traditions such as anarchism, syndicalism and dissident Marxisms, explains what anarcho-syndicalism was in the twentieth century, and how it's relevant - indeed, vital - for workers today.
124 pages, Paperback
First published October 27, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 14, 2020
Solidarity Federation’s pamphlet ‘Fighting For Ourselves; Anarcho-syndicalism and the class struggle’ is easily on the same level, and perhaps even a much needed update to Rudolf Rocker’s “Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice.” This pamphlet is very accessible and very clearly written; it avoids jargon when possible and thoroughly explains all the basic concepts surround anarchism and syndicalism as well as briefly covering other radical currents.
The most powerful parts of this book are the sections that situate Anarcho-syndicalism historically and theoretically apart from other radical currents and reformist, progressive, or just basic bureaucratic unions. They make a clear distinction between the strategy and commitments of anarcho-syndicalism as opposed to syndicalism and council communism, which is not always easy given their general similarities. Likewise, they present the differences between anarcho-syndicalism and other radical currents that are certainly more antagonistic towards them like those that push radical political parties as the vehicle of revolutionary change. Despite their clear opposition to this approach, I think the book presents the ideas of the revolutionary party accurately while obviously being critical. Highly recommended.
The most powerful parts of this book are the sections that situate Anarcho-syndicalism historically and theoretically apart from other radical currents and reformist, progressive, or just basic bureaucratic unions. They make a clear distinction between the strategy and commitments of anarcho-syndicalism as opposed to syndicalism and council communism, which is not always easy given their general similarities. Likewise, they present the differences between anarcho-syndicalism and other radical currents that are certainly more antagonistic towards them like those that push radical political parties as the vehicle of revolutionary change. Despite their clear opposition to this approach, I think the book presents the ideas of the revolutionary party accurately while obviously being critical. Highly recommended.
September 19, 2021
This book gives a comprehensive overview of the history of Anarcho-syndicalist movement and serves as a guide on how to organize on the workplace. Do not expect a lot of theory - the book is suitable for people already familiar with the topic and is relevant mainly for people working in production, members of labour unions etc. If you want to learn about Anarcho-syndicalism, read Bookchin or Rocker or perhaps Chomsky.
February 14, 2026
TLDR:
• The Bureaucratic Betrayal: SolFed exposes how mainstream unions shifted from associational combatants to representative service providers, policing the working class to maintain capitalist stability.
• The Political-Economic Core: Rejecting the separation of economic struggle (unions) and political struggle (parties), the text advocates fusing anarchist goals with syndicalist tactics to resist the neoliberal state.
• Prefiguration as Strategy: The "Revolutionary Union Initiative" asserts that the means must mirror the ends
• The Mechanism of Revolution: Reform is impossible; the insurrectionary general strike is posited not as a bargaining chip, but as the decisive act of destroying state power and seizing production.
Solidarity Federation (SolFed) provides a compelling work to the library of radical labor politics. Written in 2012 (which seems like yesterday to me, but it is actually more than 14 years ago, crazy) against the backdrop of the 2008 global financial crisis and the following imposition of oppressive austerity measures across Europe. Thus, the text serves a dual purpose: it is both a historical reclamation of the "forgotten side" of the workers' movement and a strategic manifesto for a "new revolutionary unionism" adapted to the dangerous realities of late stage capitalism. I think the text ultimately asserts that the popular style of working-class organization through parliamentary social democracy and mainstream trade unionism, have failed. Basically, SolFed argue that the "post-war social democratic settlement" has collapsed. Instead, giving way to a "neoliberal counter-revolution" that has dominated global capitalism since the late 1970s. In this context, SolFed posits that the institutions built during the era of compromise are no longer capable of defending working-class living standards, let alone transforming society in any revolutionary way at all.
Redefining the Language of Class Struggle
The theoretical core of the book relies on a precise, revisionist lexicon that distinguishes its specific brand of anarcho-syndicalism from mainstream trade unionism and from other revolutionary traditions. Understanding these terms is prerequisite to grasping the strategic interventions proposed by the SolFed. This was actually my favorite part of the work, for I always found the language around unions confusing and misleading (possibly by design due to appropriation?). So SolFed offers valuable analysis by interrogating the historical evolution of these terms.
Trade unions are defined as "small and transient" associations that were formed for specific conflicts until they evolved into permanent, bureaucratic institutions. Historically, these unions began as small bodies responding to immediate grievances. However, through the "amalgamation movement," they stabilized membership via benefits (unemployment, sickness, etc.) and paid organizers, until becoming "an end in themselves". In the mainstream sense, modern trade unions are described as organizations that have accepted a role within the capitalist system. They view themselves as "purely economic organisations" that leave politics to separate parliamentary parties (such as the Labour Party in the UK), creating a division of labor that disempowers the rank-and-file.
The text distinguishes between the Associational Function and the Representative Function. This dichotomy is very very important as it offers a framework to understand why modern unions often fail to empower workers (frequently actually doing the opposite directly). The representative function is defined as acting "on behalf" of workers, more like a "service provider" for the worker. This manifests as a hierarchical and bureaucratic trend in many of these organizations as paid officials mediate between capital and labor. The associational function is defined as "simply that of an association of workers, joining together for some common purpose". This association can be horizontal, where workers relate directly to each other. It generates strength in numbers and facilitates direct action and liberation. Of course, the representative function has dominated most trade unions while the associational function is diminished and thus these trade unions have become declawed and deradicalized. How does this happen? SolFed explains: when a union acts as a representative, it enters a legal and contractual framework with the employer. To maintain its position as a negotiator, it must discipline its own membership, ensuring they adhere to contracts and labor laws. Thus, the representative union becomes a manager of labor discontent rather than an instrument of liberation. Instead, SolFed aims to build unions that embody the "associational function... stripped of any representative functions". This will include a refusal of paid officials, permanent bargaining rights that restrict striking, and the bureaucratic apparatus that separates leadership from the base.
Anarcho-syndicalism is defined as a "fusion of the anarchist and syndicalist currents". It represents a dialectical synthesis where anarchism provides the "ideas and goals" (a stateless, classless society based on solidarity and freedom) and syndicalism provides the "organised labour strategy" (the revolutionary union and direct action). I particularly appreciate how this is presented as a "practice of trial and error around a political-economic core". This definition moves away from dogmatic adherence to a rigid blueprint, but as an "adaptable weapon for the working class". Critically, it also separates SolFed from "neutral" syndicalism, which seeks to unite all workers regardless of political ideology solely on economic grounds. Instead, SolFed advocates for an organization that is explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-state, rejecting the separation of political and economic struggles.
Revolutionary Worker’s Party is the term used by SolFed to describe organizations originating in the Marxist-Leninist tradition. These parties are characterized by "inherent statism". The text argues that their strategy revolves around capturing state power, whether through the ballot box or insurrection, to impose socialism "from above". SolFed rejects this approach, positing that the emancipation of the working class must be the task of the workers themselves. The party form inevitably substitutes the agency of the party leadership for that of the class, replicating the hierarchy of the state it seeks to capture.
Council Communism is defined as a "dissident Marxist tradition," it is presented as a sibling to anarcho-syndicalism in its critique of party politics and mainstream unions. It is a current that emerged in the early 20th century (particularly in Germany and the Netherlands) that emphasized workers' councils (soviets) over trade unions and political parties. SolFed uses council communism as a "point of reference" for those breaking with party politics. However, they critique the council communist tendency to reject all permanent economic organizations in favor of spontaneous councils formed only during revolution. SolFed argues this leaves the working class without infrastructure during non-revolutionary times (most would agree we need prefigurative politics), necessitating a permanent "revolutionary union" that avoids the pitfalls of reformist trade unions.
Finally, the insurrectionary general strike is defined as the mechanism for the "overthrow of capital and state", unlike symbolic protests or limited industrial disputes that aim for reforms or policy change. It serves a destructive function (halting production to paralyze the state) and a constructive function (workers seizing factories and land to restart production under self-management). The general strike links the immediate tactics of the union to the ultimate goal of liberation.
SolFed "nails its colours, red and black, to the mast" of the International Workers' Association (IWA-AIT). This affiliation is both symbolic and strategic. It asserts that capitalism is global, and therefore the resistance must be coordinated internationally. The IWA statutes provide the definition of the union's role of fighting in the here and now, while preparing the structure for the future society.
The Lessons of Defeat
The text argues that the "mainstream" history of the labor movement, dominated by Social Democracy and Marxism-Leninism, eclipses a "forgotten side" of international class struggle. By analyzing specific historical organizations, SolFed constructs a lineage that justifies its current strategy, specifically the "Revolutionary Union Initiative."
Firstly, the Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) in Spain (1936) is cited as both the "high and low point" for anarcho-syndicalism. It is a classic example that many readers here will of course, be aware of already. The CNT demonstrated the immense capacity of the working class to self-manage industry and agriculture on a mass scale, validating the syndicalist premise that unions could serve as the infrastructure of the new society. The text reflects on "what went wrong," particularly the collaboration of CNT leaders with the Republican government during the Civil War. SolFed argues this betrayal was not a failure of anarcho-syndicalism, but a failure to apply it fully. Specifically, the failure to destroy the state when the opportunity arose. Of course, many other works and analyses elaborate even further and indicate the influence and pressure applied by the USSR not to mention the military and economic support that the fascists were provided by Mussolini and Hitler, but I digress. This history informs SolFed's rejection of the "representative function." They argue that the CNT’s leadership layer became detached from the base, acting as representatives rather than delegates, which allowed them to be coopted by the state (aaaah vanguardism strikes again). This reinforces the need for a structure that prevents the emergence of a bureaucracy and refuses integration into state apparatuses.
Secondly, SolFed mentions the Federacion Obrera Regional Argentina (FORA), specifically the "FORA V Congress, as a counter-model to the neutral syndicalism" that plagued other movements. I knew very little about this movement, other than the few pages written about it in Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible, and look forward to learning more (if anyone can recommend a book about it). Unlike the IWW or the French CGT, which sought to include all workers regardless of politics (neutral syndicalism), the FORA explicitly adopted "anarchist communism" as its goal. SolFed argues that "neutral" unions inevitably drift toward reformism because the majority of members in non-revolutionary times are reformist. By adopting an explicit revolutionary goal ("ideological unionism"), the FORA maintained its revolutionary coherence even as a mass organization. This directly informs SolFed’s current strategy. They reject the idea of building a broad, neutral union from scratch. Instead, they advocate for a "Revolutionary Union Initiative" that begins with a political-economic core of committed anarcho-syndicalists and grows through struggle, rather than diluting its politics to attract numbers.
Finally, the Freie Arbeiter-Union Deutschlands (FAUD) represents another critical lineage, particularly regarding the integration of political and economic struggle. Operating in the turbulence of post-WWI Germany, the FAUD rejected the separation of the political (party) and economic (union) spheres. The FAUD is cited for its ability to act as a cultural hub, organizing the broader lives of workers. Thus, the FAUD model supports SolFed's assertion that "doing and thinking" are moments of the same process. The organization is a space for political education and cultural transformation, which is essential for prefiguring the new society.
Anarcho-Syndicalism and Other Anarchist Trends:
A central theoretical tension addressed in the text is the relationship between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism (often referred to as libertarian communism in the text). SolFed does not approach this as a conflict between rival sects, but as a relationship between method and goal. Basically, Anarcho-Syndicalism is seen as the method, as a strategy or "weapon". It is the organizational form (the revolutionary union) and the practice (direct action, trial and error) used to engage in class struggle. While, Libertarian Communism is seen as the goal, the destination, a "stateless society based on the principle 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'". It is the socio-economic arrangement with which we hope to replace capitalism. The text references the historical debate between Errico Malatesta and Pierre Monatte (syndicalist) at the 1907 Amsterdam Congress. Monatte argued syndicalism was self-sufficient; Malatesta argued it was merely a means and could become reformist if not guided by anarchist goals. SolFed sides with the need for anarchist goals within the union structure (the FORA model). By embedding the "ideas and goals of anarchism" into the "organised labour strategy," they argue that the daily struggle for better conditions becomes inextricably linked to the revolutionary goal. This creates a "political-economic core" that prevents the separation of economic struggle (unions) and political struggle (parties).
Now we must consider the critiques that different anarchists traditionally level against the positions outlined in Fighting for Ourselves. These critiques often center on the inherent risks of permanent organizations and the potential for "workerism." Malatesta, as mentioned earlier, argued that syndicalism serves a vital function but cannot be an end in itself. He warned that unions, by their nature, are reformist because they must include as many workers as possible to be effective bargaining units. If a union is open to all workers (as the IWW or "neutral" syndicalists advocated), it will inevitably reflect the conservative or reformist views of the majority, diluting revolutionary politics. Furthermore, if a union becomes permanent and manages funds (strike funds, benefits), it requires paid officials, leading to the emergence of a bureaucracy that seeks to preserve the institution rather than risk it in revolution. Malatesta famously stated, "any anarchist who has agreed to become a permanent and salaried official of a trade union is lost to anarchism". SolFed attempts to answer this by rejecting "neutral" syndicalism in favor of "ideological" unionism (the FORA model), and by rejecting the "representative" function (paid officials/bureaucracy) in favor of the "associational" function. However, critics might argue that any permanent mass organization is susceptible to these pressures regardless of its ideological constitution.
A more modern critique comes from the "communization" theory (e.g., Gilles Dauvé), which argues that anarcho-syndicalism suffers from "workerism", an affirmation of the working class as the working class. By organizing as workers to manage production, syndicalists may perpetuate the categories of capital (wage labor, the enterprise, the economy) rather than abolishing them. The critique suggests that a revolution must abolish the worker as a category, not elevate it to the manager of society. SolFed’s focus on the worker "in their capacity as producer" makes them vulnerable to this critique. However, SolFed attempts to mitigate this by emphasizing that they organize "class conflicts" that extend beyond the workplace into the community, aiming for a society of "from each according to ability, to each according to need,". Still one is left wondering if the worker label is useful at all, syndicalism sometimes focuses too heavily on the point of production (the workplace), ignoring the reproduction of daily life (housing, gender, race) and the struggles of the unemployed. However, SolFed explicitly argues that their definition of "worker" includes the unemployed and those doing unpaid domestic labor. Their strategy involves "community unionism", organizing tenants and claimants with the same direct action methods used in the workplace. Furthermore, SolFed includes students in their historical analysis and thus recognizes them as another revolutionary force and ally in the struggle (even though they don't explicitly say so, but one can assume). By applying the "associational" model to community struggles, they attempt to bridge the gap between workplace and community that traditional syndicalism is often accused of widening.
Another critique that has been pushed sometimes against the text, is that it is too Eurocentric and even UK-centric in its analysis and theory. But to be very fair, I find this critique lacking because it is not the job of every pamphlet or revolutionary manual to address the world at large. SolFed is UK based and I would rather they give specific advice and analyze locally derived insights rather than try and speak for all anarcho-syndicalists worldwide. Plus, the trends of austerity economics, trade union depoliticization, neoliberalism, etc. are all universal topics, anyway, that are of interest to most radicals.
The book is really lacking in fluff and useless filler, thus, I risk rewriting the whole book here if I continue my analysis. I also barely mentioned their discussion of neoliberalism as a historical force, but this is because it has already become foundational knowledge for most of my readers (you can check out my analysis/review of the Shock Doctrine or the Jakarta Method, if interested). Also, SolFed goes further than most liberal critiques, positing that the state cannot be recaptured, only replaced. SolFed distinguish the associational power of workers from the representative trap of bureaucracy. Furthermore, by retrieving the histories of the CNT, FORA, and FAUD, they provide a lineage of resistance that bypasses the failures of both state socialism and neutral syndicalism. Whether their theory can hold in practice remains a challenge. Yet, in emphasizing the unity of means and ends, Fighting for Ourselves asserts a timeless anarchist truth: that the seeds of the future must be sown in the struggles of the present. "It is while going forward that we overtake. Don't hold them back, even to teach them the most beautiful theories".
• The Bureaucratic Betrayal: SolFed exposes how mainstream unions shifted from associational combatants to representative service providers, policing the working class to maintain capitalist stability.
• The Political-Economic Core: Rejecting the separation of economic struggle (unions) and political struggle (parties), the text advocates fusing anarchist goals with syndicalist tactics to resist the neoliberal state.
• Prefiguration as Strategy: The "Revolutionary Union Initiative" asserts that the means must mirror the ends
• The Mechanism of Revolution: Reform is impossible; the insurrectionary general strike is posited not as a bargaining chip, but as the decisive act of destroying state power and seizing production.
Solidarity Federation (SolFed) provides a compelling work to the library of radical labor politics. Written in 2012 (which seems like yesterday to me, but it is actually more than 14 years ago, crazy) against the backdrop of the 2008 global financial crisis and the following imposition of oppressive austerity measures across Europe. Thus, the text serves a dual purpose: it is both a historical reclamation of the "forgotten side" of the workers' movement and a strategic manifesto for a "new revolutionary unionism" adapted to the dangerous realities of late stage capitalism. I think the text ultimately asserts that the popular style of working-class organization through parliamentary social democracy and mainstream trade unionism, have failed. Basically, SolFed argue that the "post-war social democratic settlement" has collapsed. Instead, giving way to a "neoliberal counter-revolution" that has dominated global capitalism since the late 1970s. In this context, SolFed posits that the institutions built during the era of compromise are no longer capable of defending working-class living standards, let alone transforming society in any revolutionary way at all.
Redefining the Language of Class Struggle
The theoretical core of the book relies on a precise, revisionist lexicon that distinguishes its specific brand of anarcho-syndicalism from mainstream trade unionism and from other revolutionary traditions. Understanding these terms is prerequisite to grasping the strategic interventions proposed by the SolFed. This was actually my favorite part of the work, for I always found the language around unions confusing and misleading (possibly by design due to appropriation?). So SolFed offers valuable analysis by interrogating the historical evolution of these terms.
Trade unions are defined as "small and transient" associations that were formed for specific conflicts until they evolved into permanent, bureaucratic institutions. Historically, these unions began as small bodies responding to immediate grievances. However, through the "amalgamation movement," they stabilized membership via benefits (unemployment, sickness, etc.) and paid organizers, until becoming "an end in themselves". In the mainstream sense, modern trade unions are described as organizations that have accepted a role within the capitalist system. They view themselves as "purely economic organisations" that leave politics to separate parliamentary parties (such as the Labour Party in the UK), creating a division of labor that disempowers the rank-and-file.
The text distinguishes between the Associational Function and the Representative Function. This dichotomy is very very important as it offers a framework to understand why modern unions often fail to empower workers (frequently actually doing the opposite directly). The representative function is defined as acting "on behalf" of workers, more like a "service provider" for the worker. This manifests as a hierarchical and bureaucratic trend in many of these organizations as paid officials mediate between capital and labor. The associational function is defined as "simply that of an association of workers, joining together for some common purpose". This association can be horizontal, where workers relate directly to each other. It generates strength in numbers and facilitates direct action and liberation. Of course, the representative function has dominated most trade unions while the associational function is diminished and thus these trade unions have become declawed and deradicalized. How does this happen? SolFed explains: when a union acts as a representative, it enters a legal and contractual framework with the employer. To maintain its position as a negotiator, it must discipline its own membership, ensuring they adhere to contracts and labor laws. Thus, the representative union becomes a manager of labor discontent rather than an instrument of liberation. Instead, SolFed aims to build unions that embody the "associational function... stripped of any representative functions". This will include a refusal of paid officials, permanent bargaining rights that restrict striking, and the bureaucratic apparatus that separates leadership from the base.
Anarcho-syndicalism is defined as a "fusion of the anarchist and syndicalist currents". It represents a dialectical synthesis where anarchism provides the "ideas and goals" (a stateless, classless society based on solidarity and freedom) and syndicalism provides the "organised labour strategy" (the revolutionary union and direct action). I particularly appreciate how this is presented as a "practice of trial and error around a political-economic core". This definition moves away from dogmatic adherence to a rigid blueprint, but as an "adaptable weapon for the working class". Critically, it also separates SolFed from "neutral" syndicalism, which seeks to unite all workers regardless of political ideology solely on economic grounds. Instead, SolFed advocates for an organization that is explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-state, rejecting the separation of political and economic struggles.
Revolutionary Worker’s Party is the term used by SolFed to describe organizations originating in the Marxist-Leninist tradition. These parties are characterized by "inherent statism". The text argues that their strategy revolves around capturing state power, whether through the ballot box or insurrection, to impose socialism "from above". SolFed rejects this approach, positing that the emancipation of the working class must be the task of the workers themselves. The party form inevitably substitutes the agency of the party leadership for that of the class, replicating the hierarchy of the state it seeks to capture.
Council Communism is defined as a "dissident Marxist tradition," it is presented as a sibling to anarcho-syndicalism in its critique of party politics and mainstream unions. It is a current that emerged in the early 20th century (particularly in Germany and the Netherlands) that emphasized workers' councils (soviets) over trade unions and political parties. SolFed uses council communism as a "point of reference" for those breaking with party politics. However, they critique the council communist tendency to reject all permanent economic organizations in favor of spontaneous councils formed only during revolution. SolFed argues this leaves the working class without infrastructure during non-revolutionary times (most would agree we need prefigurative politics), necessitating a permanent "revolutionary union" that avoids the pitfalls of reformist trade unions.
Finally, the insurrectionary general strike is defined as the mechanism for the "overthrow of capital and state", unlike symbolic protests or limited industrial disputes that aim for reforms or policy change. It serves a destructive function (halting production to paralyze the state) and a constructive function (workers seizing factories and land to restart production under self-management). The general strike links the immediate tactics of the union to the ultimate goal of liberation.
SolFed "nails its colours, red and black, to the mast" of the International Workers' Association (IWA-AIT). This affiliation is both symbolic and strategic. It asserts that capitalism is global, and therefore the resistance must be coordinated internationally. The IWA statutes provide the definition of the union's role of fighting in the here and now, while preparing the structure for the future society.
The Lessons of Defeat
The text argues that the "mainstream" history of the labor movement, dominated by Social Democracy and Marxism-Leninism, eclipses a "forgotten side" of international class struggle. By analyzing specific historical organizations, SolFed constructs a lineage that justifies its current strategy, specifically the "Revolutionary Union Initiative."
Firstly, the Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) in Spain (1936) is cited as both the "high and low point" for anarcho-syndicalism. It is a classic example that many readers here will of course, be aware of already. The CNT demonstrated the immense capacity of the working class to self-manage industry and agriculture on a mass scale, validating the syndicalist premise that unions could serve as the infrastructure of the new society. The text reflects on "what went wrong," particularly the collaboration of CNT leaders with the Republican government during the Civil War. SolFed argues this betrayal was not a failure of anarcho-syndicalism, but a failure to apply it fully. Specifically, the failure to destroy the state when the opportunity arose. Of course, many other works and analyses elaborate even further and indicate the influence and pressure applied by the USSR not to mention the military and economic support that the fascists were provided by Mussolini and Hitler, but I digress. This history informs SolFed's rejection of the "representative function." They argue that the CNT’s leadership layer became detached from the base, acting as representatives rather than delegates, which allowed them to be coopted by the state (aaaah vanguardism strikes again). This reinforces the need for a structure that prevents the emergence of a bureaucracy and refuses integration into state apparatuses.
Secondly, SolFed mentions the Federacion Obrera Regional Argentina (FORA), specifically the "FORA V Congress, as a counter-model to the neutral syndicalism" that plagued other movements. I knew very little about this movement, other than the few pages written about it in Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible, and look forward to learning more (if anyone can recommend a book about it). Unlike the IWW or the French CGT, which sought to include all workers regardless of politics (neutral syndicalism), the FORA explicitly adopted "anarchist communism" as its goal. SolFed argues that "neutral" unions inevitably drift toward reformism because the majority of members in non-revolutionary times are reformist. By adopting an explicit revolutionary goal ("ideological unionism"), the FORA maintained its revolutionary coherence even as a mass organization. This directly informs SolFed’s current strategy. They reject the idea of building a broad, neutral union from scratch. Instead, they advocate for a "Revolutionary Union Initiative" that begins with a political-economic core of committed anarcho-syndicalists and grows through struggle, rather than diluting its politics to attract numbers.
Finally, the Freie Arbeiter-Union Deutschlands (FAUD) represents another critical lineage, particularly regarding the integration of political and economic struggle. Operating in the turbulence of post-WWI Germany, the FAUD rejected the separation of the political (party) and economic (union) spheres. The FAUD is cited for its ability to act as a cultural hub, organizing the broader lives of workers. Thus, the FAUD model supports SolFed's assertion that "doing and thinking" are moments of the same process. The organization is a space for political education and cultural transformation, which is essential for prefiguring the new society.
Anarcho-Syndicalism and Other Anarchist Trends:
A central theoretical tension addressed in the text is the relationship between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism (often referred to as libertarian communism in the text). SolFed does not approach this as a conflict between rival sects, but as a relationship between method and goal. Basically, Anarcho-Syndicalism is seen as the method, as a strategy or "weapon". It is the organizational form (the revolutionary union) and the practice (direct action, trial and error) used to engage in class struggle. While, Libertarian Communism is seen as the goal, the destination, a "stateless society based on the principle 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'". It is the socio-economic arrangement with which we hope to replace capitalism. The text references the historical debate between Errico Malatesta and Pierre Monatte (syndicalist) at the 1907 Amsterdam Congress. Monatte argued syndicalism was self-sufficient; Malatesta argued it was merely a means and could become reformist if not guided by anarchist goals. SolFed sides with the need for anarchist goals within the union structure (the FORA model). By embedding the "ideas and goals of anarchism" into the "organised labour strategy," they argue that the daily struggle for better conditions becomes inextricably linked to the revolutionary goal. This creates a "political-economic core" that prevents the separation of economic struggle (unions) and political struggle (parties).
Now we must consider the critiques that different anarchists traditionally level against the positions outlined in Fighting for Ourselves. These critiques often center on the inherent risks of permanent organizations and the potential for "workerism." Malatesta, as mentioned earlier, argued that syndicalism serves a vital function but cannot be an end in itself. He warned that unions, by their nature, are reformist because they must include as many workers as possible to be effective bargaining units. If a union is open to all workers (as the IWW or "neutral" syndicalists advocated), it will inevitably reflect the conservative or reformist views of the majority, diluting revolutionary politics. Furthermore, if a union becomes permanent and manages funds (strike funds, benefits), it requires paid officials, leading to the emergence of a bureaucracy that seeks to preserve the institution rather than risk it in revolution. Malatesta famously stated, "any anarchist who has agreed to become a permanent and salaried official of a trade union is lost to anarchism". SolFed attempts to answer this by rejecting "neutral" syndicalism in favor of "ideological" unionism (the FORA model), and by rejecting the "representative" function (paid officials/bureaucracy) in favor of the "associational" function. However, critics might argue that any permanent mass organization is susceptible to these pressures regardless of its ideological constitution.
A more modern critique comes from the "communization" theory (e.g., Gilles Dauvé), which argues that anarcho-syndicalism suffers from "workerism", an affirmation of the working class as the working class. By organizing as workers to manage production, syndicalists may perpetuate the categories of capital (wage labor, the enterprise, the economy) rather than abolishing them. The critique suggests that a revolution must abolish the worker as a category, not elevate it to the manager of society. SolFed’s focus on the worker "in their capacity as producer" makes them vulnerable to this critique. However, SolFed attempts to mitigate this by emphasizing that they organize "class conflicts" that extend beyond the workplace into the community, aiming for a society of "from each according to ability, to each according to need,". Still one is left wondering if the worker label is useful at all, syndicalism sometimes focuses too heavily on the point of production (the workplace), ignoring the reproduction of daily life (housing, gender, race) and the struggles of the unemployed. However, SolFed explicitly argues that their definition of "worker" includes the unemployed and those doing unpaid domestic labor. Their strategy involves "community unionism", organizing tenants and claimants with the same direct action methods used in the workplace. Furthermore, SolFed includes students in their historical analysis and thus recognizes them as another revolutionary force and ally in the struggle (even though they don't explicitly say so, but one can assume). By applying the "associational" model to community struggles, they attempt to bridge the gap between workplace and community that traditional syndicalism is often accused of widening.
Another critique that has been pushed sometimes against the text, is that it is too Eurocentric and even UK-centric in its analysis and theory. But to be very fair, I find this critique lacking because it is not the job of every pamphlet or revolutionary manual to address the world at large. SolFed is UK based and I would rather they give specific advice and analyze locally derived insights rather than try and speak for all anarcho-syndicalists worldwide. Plus, the trends of austerity economics, trade union depoliticization, neoliberalism, etc. are all universal topics, anyway, that are of interest to most radicals.
The book is really lacking in fluff and useless filler, thus, I risk rewriting the whole book here if I continue my analysis. I also barely mentioned their discussion of neoliberalism as a historical force, but this is because it has already become foundational knowledge for most of my readers (you can check out my analysis/review of the Shock Doctrine or the Jakarta Method, if interested). Also, SolFed goes further than most liberal critiques, positing that the state cannot be recaptured, only replaced. SolFed distinguish the associational power of workers from the representative trap of bureaucracy. Furthermore, by retrieving the histories of the CNT, FORA, and FAUD, they provide a lineage of resistance that bypasses the failures of both state socialism and neutral syndicalism. Whether their theory can hold in practice remains a challenge. Yet, in emphasizing the unity of means and ends, Fighting for Ourselves asserts a timeless anarchist truth: that the seeds of the future must be sown in the struggles of the present. "It is while going forward that we overtake. Don't hold them back, even to teach them the most beautiful theories".
April 5, 2013
Decent, but not riveting. Helped fill in some gaps, without much jargon. A bit Euro-centric.
November 5, 2017
So why I came to read this book is a long story, revolving around the "peasant sketch" from Monty Python's "Holy Grail." I had my reasons for trying to better understand Anarchy. I have a lot of friends who would describe themselves as Anarchists, and I've never really grokked what they actually thought.
Short. Readable. Now I understand better. Written for a UK-centric context whilst making reference to Anarcho-syndicalism abroad. It's one sided, but that's sort of what it's for. It's certainly helped me clarify why I wouldn't describe myself as an anarchist, whilst giving me a deeper understanding of some of the ideology and a more critical perspective on certain political positions. It doesn't quite lay down what the actual anarcho-syndicalists fundamentally believe, but it helps paint the way.
Short. Readable. Now I understand better. Written for a UK-centric context whilst making reference to Anarcho-syndicalism abroad. It's one sided, but that's sort of what it's for. It's certainly helped me clarify why I wouldn't describe myself as an anarchist, whilst giving me a deeper understanding of some of the ideology and a more critical perspective on certain political positions. It doesn't quite lay down what the actual anarcho-syndicalists fundamentally believe, but it helps paint the way.
April 16, 2021
A fine updating of Anarchosyndicalism for the 21st century. Rebuts many of the old arguments whilst acknowledging and developing genuine criticisms. Looks at many different views and examples of syndicalist organising and is a good primer for further investigation into many other more specialised subjects like the Argentine FORA and the hot Autumn of Italy.
January 27, 2013
Decent book if you're interested in a closer look at SolFed's aim's and goals. Only skimmed through half the book - read from the chapter on the Neo-Liberal counter-offensive until the end. Wasn't particularly impressed with their analysis of the 1970's restructuring, but the book is a worthwhile read if only for the last few chapters, which cover some interesting new ideas on the role of the revolutionary union - particularly on the strategy of mass assemblies. Will probably write more when I return to the book later.
February 21, 2013
Akımları uzaktan ele alması çok verimli bir metot olmuş. "İyiler"e yaptığı eleştirilerse tamamen klişe. Kendilerini savunamamışlar.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews