National Syndicalism

I would like to talk with you about the roots of this political movement. I've written these lines to clear some positions and to remember some historical events or persons linked to revolutionary syndicalism in all its forms.

George Sorel can be described as the father of revolutionary syndicalism. Sorel believed in the fatal clash between proletarian and bourgeoise. His thought was focused around the myth of "general strike". He was the founder of the ambiguous "Cercle Proudhon" that united left-wing revolutionaries and right-wing monarchists. The meaning of this choice? Gather all the extremists against liberal democracy and parlamentary system.

People describe Sorel as a weird "bolshevik". But it's not true.

The differences between revolutionary syndicalists and the bolsheviks were these: the bolsheviks believed in the role of a proletarian party guided by cadres and vanguards. The revolutionary syndicalists rejected all form of political parties (reformists or not) and they assigned to the Syndicate the role of revolutionary instrument. The bolsheviks weren't attracted by a "moral" consideration of class struggle. The revolutionary syndicalists, conversely, believed in the "mission" of the syndicalized proletarians that would have created a new kind of man, far away from bourgeois mediocrity and cowardice.

At the same time the revolutionary syndicalists developed a strong form of nationalism that was not supported by communists, anarchists and internationalist marxists.


This kind of nationalism had generated a second wave called "National Syndicalism". For national syndicalists the struggle against capitalism was clearly a fixed point. But also the bolshevism had to be fought.


We can consider three kind of revolutionary/national syndicalists : the french, the italians and the spanish.

FRANCE

After George Sorel the most important revolutionary syndicalist was Georges Valois. He briefly abandoned the internationalism and he choosed a strongly nationalist line. After this change he stopped to talk about "class struggle" and althought his despise against capitalism he tried to support a fascist economical view based on social corporatism. In other words: proletarians and capitalists must be united for the glory of nation. He founded the "Fascieu" party but he leaved it soon and tried to promote a small political movement that mixed corporatism and old style socialism in the line of left-wing. He died during the resistance against Vichy nazi regime. Other revolutionary syndicalists approached themselves to extreme right wing movements like Action Francaise or Croix-de-Feu.

ITALY

In the first years of XXth century Sorel's thought became very popular in Italy. Three men , in this sense, must be remembered: Alceste De Ambris, Filippo Corridoni and Benito Mussolini (yes, the future dictator). At the start of First World War the majority of italian revolutionary syndicalists broke up with the official left and supported interventionist positions. After the end of the War the poet/solider Gabriele D'Annunzio decided to occupy Fiume city sited in the ex Jugoslavian territories. For D'Annunzio and for the nationalistic left , this city was part of Italy. In Fiume the general D'Annunzio and the syndicalist Alceste De Ambris wrote the famous "Charter of Quarnaro" a sort of constitution for a patriotic and syndicalist experience. The Italian Regency of Fiume was recognized only by the Soviet Union. But Fiume was not a communist state. The "Charter of Quarnaro" declared the existence of private property under the control of workers. It was the first incarnation of what we usually call "social corporatism". Very different and most democratic than the Mussolini's conception. The italian army decided to put end at this great experience and during christmas of the 1920 the Italian Regency of Fiume ended its brief life. Alceste De Ambris returned in Italy and joined the fascist movement (guided by Mussolini) but for a short time. After the right-wing change of the movement , in fact, De Ambris became anti-fascist and moved to France.

Filippo Corridoni was a young syndicalist from Macerata. He was close to De Ambris and Mussolini. Corridoni had theorized the birth of syndicalist nation based on the original type of social corporatism. He spoke in favour of a federal administration and for the creation of a popular army in defense of Italy from imperialistic enemies. He tragically died during the WWI.

Benito Mussolini was born in Dovia di Predappio. He became the director of "L'Avanti!" ( Italian Socialist Party organ) and he shouted against reformists and marxist-leninists. He was near Sorel's thought . But his strong nationalism caused his expulsion from the Italian Socialist Party. After this fact he founded the "Popolo d'Italia" paper, based on a national syndicalist view. Later he became the leader of the National Fascist Party and he took power, as you know, in 1922. He abolished trade unions and changed his program to obtain support from bourgeoise and from monarchy. Corporatism, under fascist regime, lost all of its revolutionary intents. Other revolutionary syndicalists that joined fascist regime were: Sergio Pannunzio, Edmondo Rossoni and Angelo Olivetti.


SPAIN

The spanish philosopher Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, pupil of Ortega Y Gasset, decided to leave his modest life and to choose political action. With the help of catholic militant Onésimo Redondo he founded the J.O.N.S. (Junta de Ofensiva Nacional Syndicalista) a movement that combined revolutionary syndicalism, nationalism and church social doctrine (althought Ledesma remain a layman and was not in favour of a confessional state). Ledesma Ramos was an admirer of Sorel and Mussolini and he fought against capitalism and communism. He described violence as a necessary revolutionary instrument. Ledesma Ramos founded the political press "La Conquista de l'Estado" and in 1934 the J.O.N.S was merged with La Falange, a national syndicalist front guided by José Antonio Primo De Rivera. It was the birth of FE de las JONS. José Antonio was the son of General Miguel Primo De Rivera, a military who was appointed as Prime Minister by the King for seven years. José Antonio and Ledesma Ramos decided to support the nationalists and the dissident military fronted by General Francisco Franco. Fe de Las JONS railed against Republican Spain not for conservative motivations but only to fought the possibility of a sovietic derive. Francisco Franco disliked the Falange's political program. Too much revolutionary for his tastes. Franco abandoned Ledesma Ramos and Primo De Rivera in a war theatre where they were captured and killed in 1936. After this move, Franco decided to create a single party by merging what was left of the Falange with the Carlist and Alfonsine right-wing. Manuel Hedilla, successor of Primo de Rivera, refused this option and with other Phalangists was imprisoned by Franco . Francoism NEVER applied the Falange's social program and led the country under a conformist and clerical regime. Today a good number of spanish Phalangists refuses Francoism and describes the Caudillo as a "traitor". Their only point of reference remain José Antonio and his "unfinished work".

CONCLUSIONS

The principles of revolutionary syndicalism never found concrete expression in Europe. Neither under left governments nor under the fascist regimes. Only argentian Justicialism led by Juan Domingo Perón has claimed a continuity with this type of ideals. For Perón , in fact, Argentina would have to evolve into a sort of " syndicalist republic". Many were the efforts of Peron in this regard. But the right-wing always tried to boycott this social and "third positionist" political agenda. Today the Justicialist Party is very different from the original one and tends to approach the social-democrat models.

unhortodox wrote:George Sorel can be described as the father of revolutionary syndicalism.

While certainly a preeminent syndicalist theorist, Sorel cannot truly be credited as the "father" of revolutionary syndicalism. Such a statement is as fallacious as asserting that Marx was the father of socialism. It presupposes an absence of action and identity that was only filled once his respective theories were developed. This was simply not so.

Sorel, much like Marx and Engels, distinguished himself (and solidified his relevance in the revolutionary syndicalist tradition) through the theoretical coherence and unique contributions he provided to the movement itself — which had arisen amongst the French proletariat on its own accord. In this respect, it cannot be argued that the revolutionary syndicalist movement owed its existence to Sorel.

I should also add that individuals such as Émile Pouget and Victor Griffuelhes were also instrumental in establishing a theoretical framework for revolutionary syndicalism.

The revolutionary syndicalist movement essentially emerged as a result of the incapacity of socialist parties to emancipate the working class, via their participation in bourgeois parliamentary systems. Socialists and anarchists decided to take matters into their own hands and engage the bourgeois system outside of its political arena. It was an organic movement that rejected compromise with the bourgeoisie — thus embodying the antithesis of the counterrevolutionary, corporativisit movements that would opportunistically expropriate the word 'syndicalism'.

His thought was focused around the myth of "general strike". He was the founder of the ambiguous "Cercle Proudhon" that united left-wing revolutionaries and right-wing monarchists. The meaning of this choice? Gather all the extremists against liberal democracy and parlamentary system.

The Cercle Proudhon was an irrelevant protofascist group, riddled with many of the sorts of contradictions that would come to characterize later fascistic enterprises. It attempted to build its base by exploiting the social discontent towards the emerging system of bourgeois hegemony in France. In so doing, it would reject the very enlightenment values that socialism itself grew out of and indirectly serve the interests of the national aristocracy, as well as other reactionary elements within French society. The fact that Charles Maurras was instrumental in establishing the group underscores this simple truth.

The Cercle Proudhon was one of the earliest examples of the far right attempting to expropriate superficial aspects of the left, in order to seduce revolutionaries.

As for the 'leftist' convictions of the supposed 'syndicalist' elements involved, that is highly disputable. George Valois, for example, was clearly a man of the right at the time in which the Cercle Proudhon was founded. Prior to his abandonment of syndicalist principles — exemplified by his decision to join Maurras' Action Française and participate in the Cercle Proudhon — he was indeed a leftist.

In fact, Valois drifted so far to the right during this point in his life that he would go on establish his own overtly fascist movement, Le Faisceau. (Like all fascist groups, Le Faisceau distinguished itself by its fervent opposition to communism, democratic values, and commitment to the institutionalization of a corporativist system.)

What's interesting about Valois, however, is that he would come to reject fascism and disband Le Faisceau. In its place, he would create the Republican Syndicalist Party (PRS). Valois used the party's organs to establish a relationship with the revolutionary left, as well as to emphatically denounce and combat fascism.

During this time, he established significant relationships with the communist writers, activists, and politicians. He also came to support dissenting faction within the French Section of the Workers' International, (the constructive revolution group) — led by revolutionary syndicalist, Georges Lefranc. However, despite his overtures to the left (communists, revolutionary syndicalists, et al.), it's difficult to determine where exactly Valois stood on the question of political-economy — outside of his lifelong opposition to liberal democracy.

The differences between revolutionary syndicalists and the bolsheviks were these: the bolsheviks believed in the role of a proletarian party guided by cadres and vanguards. The revolutionary syndicalists rejected all form of political parties (reformists or not) and they assigned to the Syndicate the role of revolutionary instrument. The bolsheviks weren't attracted by a "moral" consideration of class struggle.

You're only partially correct. Revolutionary syndicalists reject[ed] engagement in the bourgeois political arena — therefore rejecting parties as a revolutionary instrument. However, the question of the revolutionary vanguard is far more nuanced. The emergence of revolutionary syndicalism preceded the comprehensive theoretical development of vanguardism. Of course, the precise manner in which it (the vanguard) was utilized by the Bolsheviks was indeed opposed by a number a revolutionary syndicalists. (And on that point, one cannot help but find it ironic how many former syndicalists were quick to allow their supposed opposition to Bolshevik vanguardism to drive them to the embrace of fascism.) However, I don't think one could argue that the overall premise by which Bolshevik vanguardism was based was in any way dismissed by revolutionary syndicalists.

Not even the most naive anarchist believes that the proletariat is capable of emancipating itself from capitalism without any form of ideological guidance. This is precisely why elements of vanguardism are apparent in almost all socialist and anarchist enterprises (including revolutionary syndicalism). Without a body capable of offering proper ideological guidance to the working class, any action taken on their part will quickly lose its revolutionary potential.

The simple fact of the matter is that syndicalists and (rational) anarchists do not reject all forms of representation/authority; they merely insist upon its justification and accountability.

At the same time the revolutionary syndicalists developed a strong form of nationalism that was not supported by communists, anarchists and internationalist marxists.

This is a fundamental misrepresentation that cannot be emphasized enough. The primary cause of division amongst the revolutionary left at the time had very little to do with actual nationalism; it had to do with where each revolutionary came down on such questions as intervention in the First World War. A number of socialists, syndicalists, etc. came to favor their country's involvement in the war. This went against the non-interventionist principles of much of the left at the time and caused a great deal of internal conflict. (One of history's most popular examples of this was Mussolini's expulsion from the Italian Socialist Party.) Others still came to adopt other chauvinistic positions that undermined proletarian internationalism.

The bottom line is that differences regarding (leftist) nationalism had nothing to do with the division in the revolutionary syndicalist movement; chauvinism and political opportunism did.

This kind of nationalism had generated a second wave called "National Syndicalism". For national syndicalists the struggle against capitalism was clearly a fixed point. But also the bolshevism had to be fought.

If you define their "nationalism" as national chauvinism and their "anti-capitalism" as opportunistic petit-bourgeois populism, you are on the right track.

We can consider three kind of revolutionary/national syndicalists : the french, the italians and the spanish.

One simply cannot conflate revolutionary syndicalism — a radical expression of socialism — with nationalism syndicalism — an amalgamation of reactionary politics (e.g. national chauvinism, imperialism, corporativism, etc.) with revolutionary pretenses. This is why your thread has been moved to the opposing views section.

unhortodox wrote:FRANCE

After George Sorel the most important revolutionary syndicalist was Georges Valois. He briefly abandoned the internationalism and he choosed a strongly nationalist line. After this change he stopped to talk about "class struggle" and althought his despise against capitalism he tried to support a fascist economical view based on social corporatism. In other words: proletarians and capitalists must be united for the glory of nation. He founded the "Fascieu" party but he leaved it soon and tried to promote a small political movement that mixed corporatism and old style socialism in the line of left-wing. He died during the resistance against Vichy nazi regime. Other revolutionary syndicalists approached themselves to extreme right wing movements like Action Francaise or Croix-de-Feu.

Valois was hardly a revolutionary syndicalist at all, let alone a significant one. He was a former leftist that betrayed his principles and became a prominent figure in the French far right. (I've already acknowledged that he later came to oppose fascism and establish ties with the European left, whilst frivolously continuing to identify his ideological trajectory as "syndicalist".)

The simple fact that he and other syndicalists ended up gravitating towards far right movements does not somehow render the (right-wing) movements themselves or any of their solutions (e.g. corporativism) syndicalist in nature. You appear entirely confused on this simple point.

At the start of First World War the majority of italian revolutionary syndicalists broke up with the official left and supported interventionist positions.

A plurality? Perhaps. A majority? I doubt it. What appears to have happened to the revolutionary syndicalist movement is significant factionalism, which subsequently led to a political exodus into other movements, as well as the emergence of entirely new ones — both on the political left and right. On that point, I do not deny that positions regarding involvement in the First World War significantly divided the syndicalists (as it did virtually all other socialists). However, the emergence of Bolshevism in Russia and other political situations around Europe also played a part.

Furthermore, to argue that the majority of revolutionary syndicalists in Italy supported intervention in WWI strikes me as especially dubious.

You appear to be cherry picking certain syndicalists who came to abandon their commitment to socialist revolution (choosing instead to embrace varying expressions of corporativism, reactionary nationalism, etc.) and present those individuals, and their reactionary positions, as being representative of revolutionary syndicalism. Frankly, I find that to be very disingenuous.

Corridoni had theorized the birth of syndicalist nation based on the original type of social corporatism.

At which point he stopped being a syndicalist and began being a class collaborationist.

Corporatism, under fascist regime, lost all of its revolutionary intents.

Corporativism never had any "revolutionary intents". It has always been an expression of bourgeois reformism. It is a simple charade which deludes the proletariat into thinking that it possesses equal power to capital in economic affairs, when in fact that is materially impossible and continues to perpetuate every unjust aspect of capitalism. Accordingly, it should be opposed by all revolutionary socialists.

Having said that, I do not doubt that many benevolent individuals have been led to believe that corporativism represents a favorable solution to the contradictions of capitalism; just as many benevolent individuals have been led to believe that laissez-faire capitalism is the 'best' economic system to impose on a population. The simple fact is that they're wrong and I refuse to support them.

SPAIN

The spanish philosopher Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, pupil of Ortega Y Gasset, decided to leave his modest life and to choose political action. With the help of catholic militant Onésimo Redondo he founded the J.O.N.S. (Junta de Ofensiva Nacional Syndicalista) a movement that combined revolutionary syndicalism, nationalism and church social doctrine (althought Ledesma remain a layman and was not in favour of a confessional state). Ledesma Ramos was an admirer of Sorel and Mussolini and he fought against capitalism and communism. He described violence as a necessary revolutionary instrument. Ledesma Ramos founded the political press "La Conquista de l'Estado" and in 1934 the J.O.N.S was merged with La Falange, a national syndicalist front guided by José Antonio Primo De Rivera. It was the birth of FE de las JONS. José Antonio was the son of General Miguel Primo De Rivera, a military who was appointed as Prime Minister by the King for seven years. José Antonio and Ledesma Ramos decided to support the nationalists and the dissident military fronted by General Francisco Franco. Fe de Las JONS railed against Republican Spain not for conservative motivations but only to fought the possibility of a sovietic derive. Francisco Franco disliked the Falange's political program. Too much revolutionary for his tastes. Franco abandoned Ledesma Ramos and Primo De Rivera in a war theatre where they were captured and killed in 1936. After this move, Franco decided to create a single party by merging what was left of the Falange with the Carlist and Alfonsine right-wing. Manuel Hedilla, successor of Primo de Rivera, refused this option and with other Phalangists was imprisoned by Franco . Francoism NEVER applied the Falange's social program and led the country under a conformist and clerical regime. Today a good number of spanish Phalangists refuses Francoism and describes the Caudillo as a "traitor". Their only point of reference remain José Antonio and his "unfinished work".

Allow me to re-post an earlier analysis of Falangism that I wrote:

The Falange was a fascist party comprised of earlier kindred movements — Ledesma-Ramos' Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista (JONS) and Primo de Rivera's Falange Española. The ideology the party adopted was referred to as "national syndicalism" (syndicalism being a radical-sounding euphemism). It is critically important not to confuse this 'national syndicalism' with actual (socialist) syndicalism, as the former's economic basis was unambiguously bourgeois in essence. For example, the Falange supported private property and only insisted upon outright nationalizing the financial sector. Outside of that intervention, selected industries would be subject to corporativist planning, while the rest would continue to function independently, in a structured market capacity. Welfare measures and full employment schemes were ostensibly supported and disingenuously presented as the party's 'rejection' of capitalism. (Does any of that sound familiar?)

Now, the 'radical' faction of the Falange (influenced by Ledesma-Ramos' ideas) did support a land reform policy characterized by large-scale (uncompensated) expropriations and a corresponding redistribution to the peasantry, the properties of which would either be held by independent farmers or voluntarily collectivized. However, the more conservative faction of the party — what Primo de Rivera essentially represented — frequently clashed with the former faction on these sorts of issues. (Does any of that sound familiar?)

Eventually, Ledesma-Ramos left the party, citing its gradual rightward shift. (Does any of that sound familiar?) The Falange remained an irrelevant party until the outset of the Spanish Civil War. At that point, Primo de Rivera (now in custody), had the party formally align itself with the reactionary rebels — most likely under the naive assumption that this would somehow lead to the party's acquisition of state power.

What the Falange represented during the Civil War was a form of political propaganda, intended to solicit support from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and also demonstrate some sort of ideological coherency to the Spanish people. Franco exploited those qualities to the utmost before systematically destroying the Falange. (He accomplished that particular feat through a forced merger between the original Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista and their rivals, the Carlists — creating the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las JONS — as well as purging the party's prominent figures. The military division Franco supplied Nazi Germany with on the Eastern Front also killed off many original Falangists.)

Falangism's legacy, in Franco's Spain, was eventually reduced to a few inconsequential (corporatist) institutions, applied in certain industries — some historians assert that Franco only made this concession because of pressure that was applied by Mussolini — and a bit of its symbolism and rhetoric.

Overall, Falangism (in all of its relevant manifestations) is quintessentially fascist. It shares all of fascism's defining characteristics. Its economics were fundamentally bourgeois, it was highly religious (despite its occasional secular pretenses), its view of the state was authoritarian, and its conception of 'nationalism' was nothing more than a desire for imperialistic (Castilian) hegemony over the unique nations of Iberia and the nations that were once part of the Spanish Empire.

CONCLUSIONS

The principles of revolutionary syndicalism never found concrete expression in Europe. Neither under left governments nor under the fascist regimes. Only argentian Justicialism led by Juan Domingo Perón has claimed a continuity with this type of ideals. For Perón , in fact, Argentina would have to evolve into a sort of " syndicalist republic". Many were the efforts of Peron in this regard. But the right-wing always tried to boycott this social and "third positionist" political agenda. Today the Justicialist Party is very different from the original one and tends to approach the social-democrat models.

For someone who conflates revolutionary syndicalism with the corporativism, I suppose it makes sense for you to regard Justicialismo so favorably. Of course, those of us who are revolutionary syndicalists are eager to learn exactly how you came to arrive at such bizarre conclusions regarding virtually everything pertaining to syndicalism.

You see, we tend to view socialism (not corporativism) as a requisite component of a syndicalist society. Such things as private property, wage labor, bourgeois social stratification, etc. are not regarded as anything resembling a post-capitalist order structured upon revolutionary syndicalist principles.

Thanks for the deatiled answer.

You're right on many points. Probably I've forgotten to make some further clarifications. But there's one thing I cannot understand. You have cited Émile Pouget as G. Sorel's precursor. This opinion, IMHO, is in part true and in part not. Pougét was certainly an anarcho-syndicalist while Sorel didn't talk clearly about the abolition of state. Sorel , as I've written, didn't like to talk about "utopia" and he prefered the "myth" concept to awaken the proletarian mass. There were many points of contact between these two revolutionaries. But Sorel cannot be described as a simply "anarcho-syndicalist". As you know, there were revolutionary syndicalists that preached the abolition of state and , by the other side, other that never talked about the abolition of it. For exemple: Filippo Corridoni claimed that was very important to cut the statist burocracy BUT not to extinguish all form of state. Oddly many historians describe R. Syndicalism like a synonimous of Libertarian Syndicalism. But it's an incorrect habit. We can say, for example, that Ben Tucker was an anarcho-individualist...but we cannot say the same about a philosopher like Georges Palante (individualist but not anarchist).

unhortodox wrote:Thanks for the deatiled answer.

You're right on many points. Probably I've forgotten to make some further clarifications. But there's one thing I cannot understand. You have cited Émile Pouget as G. Sorel's precursor. This opinion, IMHO, is in part true and in part not. Pougét was certainly an anarcho-syndicalist while Sorel didn't talk clearly about the abolition of state. Sorel , as I've written, didn't like to talk about "utopia" and he prefered the "myth" concept to awaken the proletarian mass. There were many points of contact between these two revolutionaries. But Sorel cannot be described as a simply "anarcho-syndicalist".

As you know, there were revolutionary syndicalists that preached the abolition of state and , by the other side, other that never talked about the abolition of it. For exemple: Filippo Corridoni claimed that was very important to cut the statist burocracy BUT not to extinguish all form of state. Oddly many historians describe R. Syndicalism like a synonimous of Libertarian Syndicalism. But it's an incorrect habit. We can say, for example, that Ben Tucker was an anarcho-individualist...but we cannot say the same about a philosopher like Georges Palante (individualist but not anarchist).

To be clear, I was not suggesting that Sorel nor the totality of the revolutionary syndicalist movement was anarchistic. I am well aware of the heterogeneous character of said movement. My point was that it's erroneous to assert that Sorel's theories constituted the foundation from which revolutionary syndicalism was based. As I previously argued, the revolutionary syndicalist movement arose out of the actions and positions of a discontented plurality of socialists — e.g. Marxists, Proudhonists, Utopians, etc. Theoretical contributions that were to subsequently grow out of this tradition — which were themselves based upon the various ideological dispositions of the diverse socialist elements within it — should therefore be regarded as a derivative phenomena.

Furthermore, I readily acknowledge the fact that theorists like Sorel and others contributed to the movement's development in a significant capacity. I simply maintain that one needn't necessarily be an adherent of Sorel's theories in order to be regarded as a revolutionary syndicalist. (Having acknowledged the relatively diverse character of the revolutionary syndicalist movement, I'm sure you will agree.)

Finally, I feel that I must reiterate another point I made previously.

While it's certainly true that the revolutionary syndicalist movement lacked the level of uniformity necessary to establish a consensus on a number of pertinent questions, there was nevertheless enough ideological congruity inherent to it to maintain a general criterion from which one could determine whether or not certain theories or initiatives could objectively fall within its rubric. It's from this standpoint that one must reject the notion that such phenomena as 'national syndicalism' and other fascist/protofascist enterprises were/are genuine manifestations of revolutionary syndicalism.

National syndicalism was based on a set of principles entirely alien to those of revolutionary syndicalism. (I regard 'national syndicalism' as a simple misnomer applied to some of the most dangerous expressions of counterrevolution.) Its synthesis parallels that of yellow socialism, which also sought to exploit the revolutionary potential of the socialist movement in order to realize the fickle ambitions of its political leaders and preserve existing social relations. Its 'nationalism' was of the reactionary sort and functioned as a means of perpetuating a false consciousness amongst the working class.