I’ve recently had the pleasure of reading Rudolf Rocker’s “masterpiece”, outlining the theory and contextually specific practical application of Anarcho-Syndicalism. Having an avid interest in anarchist theory, this text has long-awaited my attention. And while I generally enjoyed it, reading Rocker’s dated text, I noticed some sharp division between his thought and my own.

First, Rocker employs functionalist language and thought quite consciously and overtly, even going so far as to expound a sustained version of the classic human body analogy. My own perspective would prevent my assuming essentialized functions for social institutions in favor of the dynamic and endless possibilities of political ‘negotiation’. Thus, while Rocker asserts that the state can never have a role in alleviating non-state induced forms of domination and oppression - owing to the fact that this would overstep its naturalized function - I would contend that the state can challenge forms of societal domination and act in the interests of broader cross-section of citizens, even if its history has shown fairly clearly that it is rare that it does. Thus, the Keynesian welfare state, even while it primarily favored white male workers, could conceivably have worked to smooth the sharply unequal power relations structuring people’s material living conditions and ideal identities, just as the “dictatorship of the proletariat” might have made the transition from ‘actually existing socialism’ to a more idealized, and hitherto unrealized, form.

Still, one must concede that the impetus for Rocker’s rhetorical strategy is undoubtedly the pervasion of Darwinism in public discourse in the 20s and 30s, when he was forming his arguments. Thus, that Anarcho-Syndicalism as Rocker portrays it is in direct opposition to Social Darwinism, even while it relies on Darwinistic ideas, must be qualified with the recognition that this is actually a clever rhetorical strategy aimed at appealing to a broad public readership.

Where I disagree with Rocker secondly is on his contradictory rejection of ’society’ as a relevant, important - and power-laden - unifying force in the human experience. I say contradictory, for Rocker explicitly rejects social power alongside the political and economic, even while he champions the cooperative social relations of syndicalist organization. Rocker’s use of ‘libertarian’, at times with an ambiguous meaning, but especially prevalent in the epilogue available in the second edition, appears to stress the individual in contrast to the social setting, rather than in relation to it. Just as an idea does not exist out of context, individuals do not exist outside their social setting, and it would be futile and dangerous to hope for the ultimate “individualization” of humanity (our generation has the advantage of hindsight and the experience of neoliberalism to elucidate this!). Still, this reader does sense in the general feeling of the text a different understanding of the social, and perhaps the confusion rests in careless writing, rather than consciously determined implied meaning. What I take from Rocker’s overall message is that the social relations of our current statist/capitalist order, influenced by and interacting with the associated political and economic relations must be altered, and not social relations and social power inherently. As an example, Rocker devotes ample time to portraying the experience of the Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalists in Catalonia who he claims had developed genuinely distinct (if not necessarily new) forms of social organization, and cultural practices that he deeply approves of.

Lastly, Rocker problematically declares that all power is inherently and only repressive. This more than anything leaves him open to the criticism of being Utopian that he so sorely rejects. Still, one can forgive this slippage as being heavily influenced by Nietzsche and Weber, and not having the privilege of the insights of Foucault who would come some 40 years later. Again, this statement must be closely considered alongside his treatment of the Spanish case to see that there are minor contradictions within his theorizing.

Overall, Anarcho-Syndicalism is a good read for those interested in the basics of the theory, even though the practical aspects could be (and probably have been) updated by contemporary authors to reflect the current political economic conditions of our context (say, e.g.: late capitalism). This is something that is aptly noted in the introduction to the most recent edition by AK Press. So long as capitalism persists along with its symbiote the nation-state, Rocker’s analysis will remain relevant for those interested in critically engaging with their surroundings.

0 Recommend this Post
      view other notable posts

Matthew Lymburner is an MA student at the Institute of Political Economy, Carleton University. He is interested in Brazilian history and political economy, and progressive politics worldwide.
Email this author | Profile and posts by Matthew Lymburner

Email this Post
Citation Styles
Print this Post
Save as PDF
Share & Bookmark