In the 21st century, anarcho-syndicalism is viewed with great hostility by many on the left. The aim of this blog post is to answer the most common criticisms found.

1) Anarcho-Syndicalism is based on bureaucratic trade unions!

This is the most common argument I find from fellow anarchists, and it demonstrates that many have never done the most basic of reading. It is true that mainstream trade unions are top-down, bureaucratic institutions that have more often that not tried co-existence with the boss rather than principled class warfare. However, syndicalist unions do not engage in such activity. Syndicalist unions are member run, bottom-up organizations, with a historic purpose of destroying the boss and taking control of our workplaces.

2) Syndicalism excludes the consumer from the decision making process!

This is more or less an extension of argument 1, but deserves it’s own recognition. This is a silly point to make, and is patently untrue in any economic arrangement to one degree or another. No one will produce what is never going to be consumed. If you make a shoddy, unwanted, or unsafe product, especially in a communal environment, people will let you know. We do not exclude feedback. Arguably no economy does, it just depends how much you listen.

3) Anarcho-Syndicalism is a petit bourgeois ideology that ignores political struggle! (Alternatively: It is a narrow economistic ideology)

This is the most common argument I get from Marxist-Leninists. It’s a telling one to be sure, because it shows that they too have not done the most basic of reading. It’s a mistake to confuse “state power” and “political power”. We know, for example, that political power is not solely invested in Congress. It’s also invested in Wall Street and the churches. We know from history that political power can be produced outside the existing and legitimized channels (if not, then revolution would be a fantasy). We do not ignore political struggle, rather we view taking the sword of class society into our possession is counter to what we are trying to do. We will build the industrial syndicates, not the Glorious People’s Vanguard Party of Labour for The Motherland.

4) Anarcho-Syndicalism is counter to it’s own goal. The trade unions should not exist post-capitalism, it presupposes class conflict has continued.

If we generously ignore that class society is not wiped away completely following the initial revolution – a process which is years long – this is on the surface a sound criticism. Trade unions are a result of class struggle, and would not exist without it. Even directly democratic syndicalist unions are subject to this truth. Ironically enough, the trade unions (if properly structured), unlike the state, are capable of fading away. This is because historically, trade unions exist only because of the class struggle, not for it, unlike the state. Syndicalism will ebb away into communism, because the workers will realize there is no boss to battle, and so the syndicates will eventually wither into ordinary worker’s councils.

5) Anarcho-Syndicalism is out of date. With the onset of automation, fewer and fewer people will be in the workforce, and the unions will be weaker than ever.

On the surface, this also appears to be a sound criticism. There is a problem however. Capitalism can never reach full automation, or anything close to it. As we know from it’s history, capitalism inhibits the growth of productive forces in society if they are counter to the immediate gain of capital. For instance, we’ve all had at least one workplace or been in one shop where the owner is too much of a tightwad to invest in better tools, even when they’d benefit immensely from it. It is true that automation is happening and there will be less people in the workforce. This only means, however, that class stratification will grow, and syndicalist unions, which also take in the unemployed, will be all the more vital. Automation invalidates the union no less than it invalidates the party.

6) Anarcho-Syndicalism is dead. After World War II, the syndicalists faded away and have been on the backburner.

It is a true statement that syndicalism saw an immense decline following World War II. Between the anti-communist and anti-anarchist activities of governments the world over, the failed but damaging attempt of co-optation by fascism, the repression of trade unions more generally, the tragedy of Catalonia, and a variety of domestic issues here and there, the anarcho-syndicalist movement plummeted. However, it’s silly to argue that this means we are gone. Never mind that anarcho-syndicalism is alive and well in parts of the world (most recently as we have seen, in Bangladesh), this is the equivalent of saying “Marxism-Leninism is dead. The Soviet Union is gone” or “Maoism is dead. China is revisionist”. We are bruised, but not beaten.

7) Anarcho-Syndicalism excludes non-industrial workers like stay-at-home mothers and self-employed artisans.

This is probably the soundest criticism found, but not without it’s counter-argument. What meaningful general union excludes, or does not consider, the labor of parents and the self-employed valid? And what revolutionary does not bother to think of the toiling women, whose withheld labor alone could create a political moment? The IWW did not produce propaganda like this…

…for nothing.



Furthermore, of the self-employed: The self-employed tend to have clients, do they not? They serve a purpose in the capitalist system. The withholding of their labor damages this wretched machine like any other worker if properly organized.

8) Anarcho-Syndicalism is meaningless in the face of globalization.

The global capitalist system is now more capable of surviving a general strike, this is true. One detachment of the bourgeoisie could aid or seize the assets of it’s defeated allies in this or that country, but that does not mean our methods do not still work as economic and political warfare. Effectively, globalization has further socialized production and made the capitalist system that much more susceptible to larger strike activity or it’s own volatility. Say a successful national strike happened and succeeded in destroying the domestic bourgeoisie. Would this not have an economic ripple effect? (Especially if it happened in a large country?) Would this not have a political ripple effect? The sheer demonstration of the possibility of revolution itself has massive proletarian consequences.

9) Anarcho-Syndicalism can never yield a post-commodity society. The tradesfolk would never vote to phase themselves out of existence.

This is a flat-out ridiculous statement on the surface, but upon examination it’s probably the most damning. We of course think “Well I’d definitely vote to have a robot do my job if it meant I was still secure personally”. But then the difficulty sets in that we tend to define ourselves by our work. This isn’t even necessarily an exclusive psychological feature of capitalism, humans have historically prided themselves in work that they enjoy. But this is why syndicalist unions – like all revolutionary organizations – take the time for political education. Yes we would have to vote ourselves out of a workplace that we might’ve called our home away from home, but that doesn’t mean we suddenly stop mattering, or stop having purpose to society. What it does mean is that we have the freedom to pursue other endeavors. We could still see our old co-workers, it’s not as if their existence is dependent on the workplace being there. The average worker would not vote this away tomorrow, this is true. But revolution doesn’t happen tomorrow, and between then, we’ll come to see the new world in our minds. Give up my old workplace? Gladly!

10) Anarcho-Syndicalist democracy is ridiculous. Why should a plumber vote on matters of an electrician?

For the same reason that the guy at the edge of town has the same ability to vote as the lady living in the suburbs. Economics do not exist in isolation, neither can socialism. The industrial councils, and the federated counterparts, co-manage each other because no industry can exist unto itself exclusively. For instance, an electrician cannot work without food. The chef cannot work without power. The two are mutually dependent, and so carry many common concerns. Society is to be managed cooperatively, and in doing so, democracy must expand more generally.

11) Anarcho-Syndicalism is a utopian fantasy, as it claims to predict exactly how the world will fall into place after the revolution

We have a program, not a map. The syndicalist unions make no more claims to clairvoyance than the communist parties. We propose a new method of organizing society, and obviously we are willing to step back and process this transformation as the world around us sets parameters. The syndicalists in Catalonia could not, for example, set up a national confederation of syndicated industry with the Spanish Civil War in progress. Whatever gains they made were in the context of, shaped by, and inhibited by the war.

12) Anarcho-Syndicalism is workerist

This criticism, it must be said, is probably the most realistic. Trade unions, American ones especially, have a habit of looking down on certain forms of labor while idealizing others. There are only really two things that can be said to it. Firstly, we are by no means unique in this aspect. Marxist-Leninists are as guilty, if not more so, of doing this kind of idealizing (the entirety of “socialist realism” accounts for this). Secondly, amongst syndicalists workerism is more a viewpoint of the individual rather than the organization. Could general unions even function if they decided to exclude the white collar worker? The tired, overworked programmer, who at the moment is struggling to get a piece of their pie? The accountant who has burned the candle at both ends while working on a spreadsheet? Are they not also exploited? Are they not also capable of revolutionary activity? Of course they are. Syndicalists and trade unionists more broadly, should attack this old, crusty, viewpoint whenever it rears it’s head.