Editing Syndicalism (section)

== Emergence ==
=== Rise ===
[[File:Bakunin.png|thumb|upright|[[Mikhail Bakunin]], an anarchist whom syndicalists viewed as an intellectual forerunner]]
Revolutionary industrial unionism, part of syndicalism in the broader sense, originated with the IWW in the United States and then caught on in other countries.{{Sfn|Cole|Struthers|Zimmer|2017|pp=2–3}} In a number of countries, certain syndicalist practices and ideas predate the coining of the term in France or the founding of the IWW. In Bert Altena's view, a number of movements in Europe can be called syndicalist, even before 1900. According to the English social historian [[E. P. Thompson]] and the anarcho-syndicalist theorist [[Rudolf Rocker]], there were syndicalist tendencies in Britain's labor movement as early as the 1830s.{{Sfnm|1a1=Altena|1y=2010|1p=197|2a1=Zimmer|2y=2018|2p=353}} Syndicalism's direct roots were in [[Pierre Joseph Proudhon]]'s [[Mutualism (economic theory)|mutualism]], a form of [[socialism]] that focused on cooperation among the community of man. He coined ''[[capitalist]]'' to describe the political class granting itself monopolies on the use of capital, and wanted workers to oppose this state control through peaceful means, only using force defensively. Proudhon's ideas were popular in the [[anti-authoritarian]] wing of the early [[International Workingmen's Association]] (IWA), the first international socialist organization, formed in 1864. Its most successful early leader, Russian anarchist [[Mikhail Bakunin]], came to believe that worker organizations should consider using force to advance their cause, when necessary. He and his followers advocated the general strike, rejected electoral politics, and anticipated workers' organizations replacing rule by the state, central syndicalist themes.{{Sfnm|1a1=Thorpe|1y=1989|1pp=1–2, 5–6|2a1=Zimmer|2y=2018|2pp=353–354}}

According to [[Lucien van der Walt]], the [[Spanish Regional Federation of the IWA]], which was formed in 1870, was in fact syndicalist.{{Sfn|van der Walt|2018|pp=253}} Kenyon Zimmer sees a "proto-syndicalism" in the influence the [[anarchist]]-led [[International Working People's Association]] (IWPA) and [[Central Labor Union]], which originated in the American section of the First International, had in the Chicago labor movement of the 1880s. They were involved in the nationwide struggle for an [[eight-hour day]]. On 3 May 1886, the police killed three striking workers at a demonstration in Chicago. Seven policemen and four workers were killed the following day when someone, possibly a police member, threw a bomb into the crowd. Four anarchists were eventually executed for allegedly conspiring to the events. The [[Haymarket Affair]], as these events became known, led anarchists and labor organizers, including syndicalists, in both the United States and Europe to re-evaluate the revolutionary meaning of the general strike.{{Sfn|Zimmer|2018|pp=354–358}}

<!-- Anarchist dominance in Latin American labor movements. -->
According to [[Émile Pouget]], a French anarchist and CGT leader, from "the United States, the idea of the general strike{{spaced ndash}} fertilized by the blood of anarchists hanged in Chicago ...{{spaced ndash}} was imported to France".{{Sfn|Zimmer|2018|pp=357–358}} In the 1890s, French anarchists, conceding that individual action such as assassinations had failed, turned their focus to the labor movement. They were able to gain influence, particularly in the {{lang|fr|[[bourses du travail]]}}, which served as [[labor exchange]]s, meeting places for unions, and [[trades council]]s and organized in a national federation in 1893.{{Sfnm|1a1=Ridley|1y=1970|1pp=43–44, 65–66|2a1=Mitchell|2y=1990|2pp=27–28}} In 1895, the CGT was formed as a rival to the {{lang|fr|bourses}} but was at first much weaker. From the start, it advocated the general strike and aimed to unite all workers. Pouget, who was active in the CGT, supported the use of sabotage and direct action. In 1902, the {{lang|fr|bourses}} merged into the CGT.{{Sfnm|1a1=Ridley|1y=1970|1pp=67–70|2a1=Mitchell|2y=1990|2pp=28–29}} In 1906, the federation adopted the [[Charter of Amiens]], which reaffirmed the CGT's independence from party politics and fixed the goal of uniting all French workers.{{Sfnm|1a1=Mitchell|1y=1990|1pp=33–34|2a1=Ridley|2y=1970|2pp=88–92}}

In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World were formed in the United States by the [[Western Federation of Miners]], the [[American Labor Union]], and a broad coalition of socialists, anarchists, and labor unionists. Its base was mostly in the Western United States, where labor conflicts were most violent and workers therefore radicalized.{{Sfnm|1a1=Dubofsky|1y=1969|1pp=36–37, 81–82|2a1=Zimmer|2y=2018|2p=359}} Although the Wobblies insisted their union was a distinctly American form of labor organization and not an import of European syndicalism, the IWW was syndicalist in the broader sense of the word. According to [[Melvyn Dubofsky]] and most other IWW historians, the IWW's industrial unionism was the specifically American form of syndicalism.{{Sfnm|1a1=Dubofsky|1y=1969|1pp=147–148, 169–170|2a1=Peterson|2y=1981|2p=53}} Nevertheless, the IWW also had a presence in Canada and Mexico nearly from its inception, as the United States economy and labor force was intertwined with those countries.{{Sfn|Cole|Struthers|Zimmer|2017|p=8}}

[[File:Pouget. Émile, Jean, Joseph. 31 ans, né le 12-10-60 à Rodez (Aveyron). Publiciste. Anarchiste. 26-4-92. MET DP290755.jpg|thumb|upright|French syndicalist leader [[Émile Pouget]]]]
French syndicalism and American industrial unionism influenced the rise of syndicalism elsewhere.{{Sfn|Zimmer|2018|p=359}} Syndicalist movements and organizations in a number of countries were established by activists who had spent time in France. [[Ervin Szabó]] visited Paris in 1904 and then established a Syndicalist Propaganda Group in his native Hungary in 1910. Several of the founders of the Spanish CNT had visited France. [[Alceste de Ambris]] and {{ill|Armando Borghi|it|Armando Borghi}}, both leaders in Italy's USI, were in Paris for a few months from 1910 to 1911. French influence also spread through publications. Pouget's pamphlets could be read in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, English, German, and Swedish translations. Journals and newspapers in a number of countries advocated syndicalism. For example, {{lang|fr|L'Action directe}}, a journal mainly for miners in [[Charleroi]], Belgium, urged its readers to follow "the example of our confederated friends of France".{{Sfn|Thorpe|2010b|pp=20–23}} The IWW's newspapers published articles on French syndicalism, particularly the tactic of sabotage and the CGT's {{lang|fr|[[La Vie Ouvrière]]}} carried articles about Britain's labor movement by the British syndicalist [[Tom Mann]].{{Sfn|Darlington|2008|pp=90–91}} Migration played a key role in spreading syndicalist ideas. The [[Argentine Regional Workers' Federation]] ({{lang|es|Federación Obrera Regional Argentina}}, FORA), openly anarchist by 1905, was formed by Italian and Spanish immigrants in 1901.{{Sfnm|1a1=Zimmer|1y=2013|1p=2|2a1=Thompson|2y=1990|2p=169}} Many IWW leaders were European immigrants, including [[Edmondo Rossoni]] who moved between the United States and Italy and was active in both the IWW and USI.{{Sfn|Darlington|2008|p=90}} International work processes also contributed to the diffusion of syndicalism. For example, sailors helped establish IWW presences in port cities around the world.{{Sfn|Darlington|2008|p=89}}

Syndicalists formed different kinds of organizations. Some like the French radicals worked within existing unions to infuse them with their revolutionary spirit. Some found existing unions entirely unsuitable and built federations of their own, a strategy known as ''dual unionism''. American syndicalists formed the IWW, although [[William Z. Foster]] later abandoned the IWW after a trip to France and set up the [[Syndicalist League of North America]] (SLNA), which sought to radicalize the established [[American Federation of Labor]] (AFL). In Ireland, the ITGWU broke away from a more moderate, and British-based, union. In Italy and [[Labor movement in Spain|Spain]], syndicalists initially worked within the established union confederations before breaking away and forming USI and the CNT respectively.{{Sfn|Darlington|2008|pp=31–32}} In Norway, there were both the Norwegian Trade Union Opposition ({{lang|no|Norske Fagopposition}}, NFO), syndicalists working within the mainstream [[Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions]] ({{lang|no|Landsorganisasjonen i Norge}} in Norwegian, LO), and the Norwegian Syndicalist Federation ({{lang|no|Norsk Syndikalistik Federation}} in Norwegian, NSF), an independent syndicalist organization set up by the Swedish SAC.{{Sfn|Persson|1990|pp=94–95}} There was a similar conflict between the [[Industrial Syndicalist Education League]] and the [[Industrial Workers of Great Britain]].{{Sfnm|1a1=Challinor|1y=1977|1p=xxx|2a1=Darlington|2y=2008|2p=133}}

[[File:James Larkin, circa 1910 (cropped).png|thumb|upright|[[James Larkin]], on whom Larkinism was centred]]
By 1914, there were syndicalist national labor confederations in Peru,{{Sfn|Hirsch|2010|p=231}} Brazil,{{Sfn|Toledo|Biondi|2010|p=367}} Argentina,{{Sfnm|1a1=Thompson|1y=1990|1p=169|2a1=van der Linden|2a2=Thorpe|2y=1990|2p=5}} Mexico,{{Sfn|Hart|1990|p=185}} the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Italy, and France, while Belgian syndicalists were in the process of forming one.{{Sfn|Thorpe|2010b|p=24}} There were also groups advocating syndicalism in Russia,{{Sfn|Avrich|1967|pp=78–79}} Japan,{{Sfn|Crump|1993|p=32}} the United States,{{Sfn|Darlington|2008|p=211}} Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Hungary, and Great Britain.{{Sfn|Thorpe|2010b|p=24}} Outside of North America, the IWW also had organizations in Australia,{{Sfn|Burgmann|1995|p=xxx}} New Zealand, where it was part of the [[New Zealand Federation of Labour (1909)|Federation of Labour]] (FOL),{{Sfn|Olssen|1988|p=xxx}} Great Britain even though its membership had imploded by 1913,{{Sfnm|1a1=Challinor|1y=1977|1p=xxx|2a1=Darlington|2y=2008|2p=133}} and South Africa.{{Sfn|van der Walt|2010|pp=58–59}} In Ireland, syndicalism took the form of the [[Irish Transport and General Workers' Union]] (ITGWU), which espoused a mix of industrial unionism and socialist [[Irish republicanism]], and was labeled Larkinism.{{Sfnm|1a1=O'Connor|1y=2010|1pp=194–196, 199, 202–204, 213|2a1=Darlington|2y=2008|2p=76}}

=== Reasons ===
[[File:Mayday celebration in Stockholm.jpg|left|thumb|250x250px|Syndicalist mayday in Stockholm, 2010]]
There was a significant uptick in workers' radicalism in most developed [[capitalist state]]s from 1911 to 1922, although it relented during World War I. Strikes increased in frequency, numbers of workers involved, and duration. According to van der Linden and Thorpe, syndicalism was only one way this radicalization expressed itself.{{Sfnm|1a1=Screpanti|1y=1984|1pp=512–513|2a1=van der Linden|2a2=Thorpe|2y=1990|2p=6}} In the United Kingdom, the period from 1910 to 1914 became known as the [[Great Labour Unrest]]. While many historians see syndicalism as a consequence of this unrest, [[Elie Halévy]] and the politician [[Lord Robert Cecil]] argue it was its cause. Employers in France likewise blamed an upsurge in workers' militancy in the same period on syndicalist leaders.{{Sfn|Darlington|2013|pp=38–39}} Syndicalism was further encouraged by employers' hostility to workers' actions.{{Sfn|Darlington|2008|pp=55–56}} The economist [[Ernesto Screpanti]] hypothesized that strike waves like the one from 1911 to 1922 generally occur during the upper turning-points of the periodic global long [[cycles of boom and bust]] known as [[Kondratieff waves]]. He argued that such waves of proletarian insurgency were global in reach, saw workers breaking free of the dynamics of the capitalist system, and aimed to overthrow that system.{{Sfn|Screpanti|1984|pp=516–519, 544–545}}

According to van der Linden and Thorpe, workers' radicalization manifested itself in their rejection of the dominant strategies in the labor movement, which was led by reformist trade unions and socialist parties. [[Vladimir Lenin]] posited that "revolutionary syndicalism in many countries was a direct and inevitable result of opportunism, reformism and parliamentary cretinism." A feeling that ideological disputes were draining workers' power led Dutch, French, and American syndicalist organizations to declare themselves independent of any political groups. In countries like Italy, Spain, and Ireland, which was still under British rule, parliamentary politics were not seen as a serious means for workers to express their grievances. Most workers were disenfranchised, yet even in France or Britain, where most male workers had the right to vote, many workers did not trust party politics. The enormous numerical growth of well-organized socialist parties, such as in Germany and Italy, did not correlate with any real advance in the [[class struggle]] in the minds of many workers, as these parties were thought to be overly concerned with building the parties themselves and with electoral politics than with the class struggle, and had therefore lost their original revolutionary edge. The socialists preached the inevitability of socialism but were in practice bureaucratic and reformist. Similarly, the trade unions frequently allied with those parties, equally growing in numbers, were denounced for their expanding bureaucracies, their centralization, and for failing to represent workers' interests. Between 1902 and 1913, the German [[Free Trade Unions (Germany)|Free Trade Unions]]' membership grew by 350% but its bureaucracy by more than 1900%.{{Sfnm|1a1=Darlington|1y=2008|1pp=57–61|2a1=van der Linden|2a2=Thorpe|2y=1990|2p=12–14}}

Another common explanation for the rise of syndicalism is that it was a result of the economic backwardness of the countries in which it emerged, particularly France. Newer studies have questioned this account.{{Sfn|Darlington|2008|pp=50–52}} According to van der Linden and Thorpe, changes in labor processes contributed to the radicalization of workers and thereby to the rise of syndicalism. This rise took place during the [[Second Industrial Revolution]]. Two groups of workers were most attracted to syndicalism: casual or seasonal laborers who frequently changed jobs, and workers whose occupations were becoming obsolete as a result of technological advances. The first group included landless agricultural workers, construction workers, and dockers, all of whom were disproportionately represented in several countries' syndicalist movements. Because they frequently changed jobs, such workers did not have close relationships with their employers and the risk of losing one's job as a result of a strike was reduced. Moreover, because of the time constraints of their jobs they were forced to act immediately in order to achieve anything and could not plan for the long term by building up strike funds or powerful labor organizations or by engaging in mediation. Their working conditions gave them an inclination to engage in direct confrontation with employers and apply direct action. The second group included miners, railway employees, and certain factory workers. Their occupations were [[deskilled]] by technological and organizational changes. These changes made workers from the second group similar in some respects to the first group. They did not entirely result from the introduction of new technology but were also caused by changes in management methods. This included increased supervision of workers, [[piecework]], internal promotions, all designed make workers docile and loyal and to transfer knowledge and control over the process of production from workers to employers. Frustration with this loss of power led to formal and informal resistance by workers.{{Sfn|van der Linden|Thorpe|1990|pp=4, 7–11}} Altena disagrees with this explanation. According to him, it was workers with significant autonomy in their jobs and pride in their skills who were most attracted to syndicalism. Moreover, he argues that explanations based on workers' occupations cannot explain why only a minority of workers in those jobs became syndicalists or why in some professions workers in different locations had vastly different patterns of organization. The small size of many syndicalist unions also makes observations about which workers joined statistically irrelevant.{{Sfn|Altena|2010|pp=205–207}}

[[File:Hornsbergshage 1909.jpg|thumb|Meeting during the [[1909 general strike in Sweden]]]]
Syndicalism came to be seen as a viable strategy because the general strike became a practical possibility. Although it had been advocated before, there were not sufficient numbers of wage workers to bring society to a standstill and they had not achieved a sufficient degree of organization and solidarity until the 1890s, according van der Linden and Thorpe. Several general or political strikes then took place before World War I: [[Belgian general strike of 1893|in 1893]] and [[Belgian general strike of 1902|in 1902]] in Belgium, [[Swedish general strike of 1902|in 1902]] and [[Swedish general strike|in 1909]] in Sweden, [[Railroad strikes of 1903 in the Netherlands|in 1903]] in the Netherlands, and [[1904 Italian general strike|in 1904]] in Italy, in addition to significant work stoppages during the [[Russian Revolution of 1905]].{{Sfn|van der Linden|Thorpe|1990|p=15}}

Darlington cites the significance of the conscious intervention by syndicalist militants. The industrial unrest of the period created conditions which made workers receptive to syndicalist leaders' agitation. They spread their ideas through pamphlets and newspapers and had considerable influence in a number of labor disputes.{{Sfn|Darlington|2008|pp=82–85}} Finally, van der Linden and Thorpe point to spatial and geographical factors that shaped the rise of syndicalism. Workers who would otherwise not have had an inclination to syndicalism joined because syndicalism was dominant in their locales. For example, workers in the Canadian and American West were generally more radical and drawn to the IWW and One Big Union than their counterparts in the East. Similarly, southern workers were more drawn to syndicalism in Italy.{{Sfn|van der Linden|Thorpe|1990|pp=15–16}} According to Altena, the emergence of syndicalism must be analyzed at the level of local communities. Only differences in local social and economic structures explain why some towns had a strong syndicalist presence, while others did not.{{Sfn|Altena|2010|pp=209–214}}
<!-- Check: Mommsen: Arbeiterbewegung und nationale Frage. -->