Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.


The Anarcho-Syndicalists Facebook group defines itself as:
“a group is comprised of Anarcho-Syndicalists that view revolutionary unionism and self-managed struggle as the means to achieving libertarian communism. We maintain solidarity with all groups and tendencies that seek to change the world for the betterment of us all while upholding liberty, free association, and anarchistic principles. We maintain solidarity with the IWA, the IWW, Red and Black Coordination and otherwise (un)affiliated anarchists and syndicalists internationally.”

I don’t know a lot about syndicalists, but I know they distinguish themselves from anarcho-communists because they believe that vision would also lead to a hierarchical state. I also know that they distinguish themselves from anarcho-capitalist because they don’t like the idea of individuals owning more property than they need to physically interact with in their daily lives. I think their perspective is trying to make anarchy a reality by overthrowing the state, while still having doubts about ever being able to remove political power in its entirety. Thus, they choose to operate by consensus, and still rely on collectivism to meet the needs of the individual. I think they lean farther to left then they’d like to, so by whatever means they are trying to figure out how to have a democracy without it following too many Marxist ideologies. I think Chomsky says it best, and I don’t think I can label them as anarcho-socialist. Either way, they are probably too cynical to think capitalism can be successful, or even function without some form of coercion.

Original Post:
What is it?
How do we deal with them?

1) Original Poster: It seems as though money is not the main problem with ancap. The main problem would be Private Property, as opposed to personal property.

The right to use and abuse utility, and the right of increase. Both of which devour society.

So how do we deal with people that want to be a part of Anarchy but also want to keep the tools of hate.
(Questions end with question marks, and appearly capitalism is hateful.)

2) Syn #1: Ignore them. Thats your solution

3) Original Poster: Ignore cancer?
That stuff can kill the whole body, and it usually does.
(l like, anarcho-capitalism is cancer to a society or maybe just your beliefs.)

4) Syn #2: Don’t worry about anarcho-capitalists. Worry about actual capitalists.
(5 likes, I think we are all actual capitalists if we work for money and then spend it voluntarily.)

5) Original Poster: Actual capitalists are easy to deal with. We just need to organize the people and form communities.

The cure to capitalism is togetherness because the disease of capitalism is division.

After we are done with capitalism, then what do we do?
(1 like, starve and eat each other.)

6) Syn #3: Just explain how ridiculous they are any time the topic comes up. The most know ancap is arguably Stefan Molyneaux and he is a very narcissistic asshole. So just show people the truth about them.
(I guess **Stefan Molyneux isn’t credible here.)

7) Syn #4: there is a difference between money and capitalism.
(Wish he would elaborate.)

8) Syn #4: first corporations need to be abolished. that makes everyone peers.
(I think AnCaps feel the same way.)

9) Syn #5: It’s a contradiction in terms, the antithesis of anarchism
(Like Libertarian Communism?)

10) Original Poster: I’ve had Intense debates with ancaps and they stick to their guns and deny a lot of logic.

I agree that corporations need to go, but there Is a lot more left after that.
(1 like, no example of logic.)

11) Original Poster: I agree Syn #5, but they don’t see it that way. They see it as a religious fanatic sees their religion.

Main Syn is a person I felt like made an actual argument against Anarcho-Capitalism so let’s distinguish him from the rest of them with this name.
This is his Facebook’s cover photo.

12) Main Syn: Pick apart every single institution of their ‘how things should be’ story. My favorite is the ‘private, decentralized courts of arbitration’ whenever the topic of deriving the basis of authority upon which the private dominion over the Commons comes up.

And by all means, read their stuff, so you can tell them to fuck off when the conversation devolves into an article war.
(1 like, so read their stuff, reject and ignore it?)

13) Main Syn: Know their shit better than they do
(1 like, or make it impossible for their side to understand yours.)

14) Syn #5: the state and capitalism have to go, if either one remains we’re fucked
(3 likes, for the Syndicalist position?)

15) Original Poster: Exactly we need the state and capitalism to go. We need people run institution.

But right now I’m dealing with a tyrannical idiot on another board that considers himself an ancom, but he thinks the board is his property…

How do we deal with an idiot like this?

He doesn’t even want to talk about it, but he thinks he believes in democracy.

People like that will end up in our society, what do we do with them?
(Oh look leftists in-fighting over control, what else is new?)

16) Main Syn: You try consensus, and then shut them down if they keep derailing consensus. It’s slow, it’s frustrating, but that’s freedom. It’s messy.
(2 likes, so is forcing a majorities beliefs onto a minority.)

17) Syn #7: Word up Main Syn!
Read Benjamin Tuckers works he’s one of the main “anarchist capitalist” ideologues if anyone hasn’t that’s a good place to start to be able to know the basic theories so they can be quashed..
(Nice outdated reference, but it works.)

18) Syn #8: Ignore them. They’re irrelevant.
(Yeah, it’s not like they’re ignoring you also.)

19) Original Poster: This would imply that we would have to shut people up.

Btw I don’t care about the board, i am talking about an actual society.

We would have to silence some people, but wouldn’t that be tyranny?
(Democracy is the tyranny of the majority’s opinion.)

20) Main Syn: First, you call them minarchists. That’s what capitalism ‘unfettered’ really amounts to.
(So you call them Statist when they are the ones most successful at fighting the state without violence.)

21) Original Poster: Short of silencing them or kicking them out of the collective what do we do.

Even a vote of 90% is not a real democracy
(Good luck getting everyone to agree with each other.)

22) Syn #5: If there was no need for capitalism, surely it would become irrelevant?
(Just like if we could fly the roads would become irrelevant?)

23) Main Syn: Original Poster, you’ll find that you’re going to end up laboring over any meaningful discussion in a consensus, often revisiting stuff over and over. Eventually, you learn who is actually bringing real grievances, and who honestly just wants to disrupt things. I won’t suggest what you do about it, because I’m still trying to figure out how to even break the State and capitalism.
(I think AnCaps want to separate the state and capitalism by ending the state and letting the free-market work everything out)

24) Original Poster: We do what Syn #5 just pointed out.

We organize and remove the necessity of capitalism.
(2 likes, he never said how? What if people don’t want to organize with you and continue capitalism without your input?)

25) Main Syn: Consensus means you’re going to have to work things down to where you can get everyone happy. It’s not going to be perfect, so you don’t necessarily have to have it all hashed out just now.
(Yeah, it’s like everyone jumping off a cliff at once and hoping one of them has a parachute.)

26) Original Poster: Capitalism exists because people refuse to work together. Capitalism destroys community. Capitalism divides instead of unites.

We must encourage communicaion, freedom and equality.
(…fraternity, or death.)

27) Syn #5: I don’t know if you can always have consensus, there will always be struggle
(1 like for doubt, like syndicalist aren’t defined by doubt.)

28) Syn #5: But it’s the aspiration that matters…
(I have a dream in utopia too, but it doesn’t include voting.)

29) Original Poster: I know there must be diversity. But we must maintain unity and avoid division.

Take for example the Republicans in Spain.

The socialist/Marxists divided and attacked the anarchists and the movement collapsed.
(Yeah, can’t let the AnComs off the hook either.)

30) Original Poster: How do we avoid something like that?
(Well, I didn’t know you already established an anarcho-syndicalist community to attack.)

31) Syn #5: well there are hardly any authoritarian socialists left now
(Yep, they went full commie.)

32) Original Poster: ……………….ehhh……….
(Meh yourself)

33) Original Poster: Out organize them… ugh were screwed. Capitalism is a mammoth of a machine that has sheep and robots by the billions.
(So does the state, but you might need them to end capitalism.)

34) Main Syn: Some folks with a black-and-yellow flag gathered at Philadelphia City Hall for a photo. So there’s enough in my vicinity to be noticed.

But apart from the right-wing gun rallies and weed rallies, they don’t come out much. Unless you count the 9-11 truther crossovers.
(Wow, that’s kinda insightful)

35) Syn #9: IMO ancaps are laissez-faire capitalists who wanted to adhere to themselves the historical achievements of anarchists and thusly appropriated the name.
(How are they doing?)

36) Original Poster: I agree to everyone.

Anarchy has been appropriated.

We need to organize.

And ancaps are out there.

But capital is not the main issue, private property and the OVERaccumulation of capital is the problem.
(I think she said this in her first comment of the thread.)

37) Original Poster: Does anyone live in Los angeles?
(0 likes for the city of angels.)

38) Syn #5: Join the IWW or SolFed? They’re busy here
(Or not)

39) Syn #10: Internet AnCaps (anfaps for fun) are basically American libertarians who think an-cap sounds sexier, usually take macro and beleive themselves to be an expert on economics. Tend to visit the Mises institute website too often. Avoid them or have fun in a flame war. “Real an-caps” that you meet IRL are usually fairly reasonable and you will usually just have a good conversation. Once you explain syndacalism they usually are pretty receptive worst case. Good point to drive home is the overwhelming prevalence of mutual reciprocity.
(2 likes, that was pretty insightful too, and thanks for another solid slur to use against ancaps.)

40) Original Poster: are IWW really anarchists?
I thought they were marxist or socialists.
(Why wouldn’t they be?)

41) Syn #11: L.A. branch of IWW is named after Ricardo Flores Magon, a famous Mexican anarchist. there are plenty of anarchists there but IWW as Keith says is not defined by an ideological worldview, it’s intended to be a union, but one built in the libertarian syndicalist mold
(3 likes for not explaining that position, but I’ll say sure. Why not?)

42) Syn #12: Anarchism is usually considered a radical left wing and anti-capitalist ideology that promotes socialist economic theories such as communism, syndicalism and mutualism.
This anarchist believes capitalism is incompatible with social and economic equality and do not recognize ancap as an anarchist school of thought.
(2 likes, this anarchist thinks you are wrong and more prone to violence and communism.)

43) Syn #12: Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.
(3 likes, why bro?)

44) Original Poster: I agree they shouldn’t be called anarchists. They’re giving the rest of us a bad name.
(2 likes, unless I actively try, I never hear about Syndicalists, so y’all don’t have much of a name to ruin.)

45) Syn #11: they don’t really reject the state. they confuse democracy with the state. they propose to privatize the state, via private judicial arbitrators, private armies etc. This is really a return to feudalism where state functions are fused with private economic power.
(5 likes, heard that one before, but again how?)

46) Main Syn: One an-cap I have met in person has, as you say, been fairly reasonable. Obviously he doesn’t sit in a basement and fap to Molyneux videos. He’s even receptive to the idea of side-by-side communism/capitalism. He’s being a bit naive, there, but, he’s not one of those Mises dummies who treats Austrian economics like it’s Gospel, nor does he buy the McCarthyism that An-caps have marketed into kool-aid for one another.
(I would have never thought people masturbated to Molyneux until today.)

47) Syn #11: a system of private armies or security services & private judges, all controlled by the people with the most money, are still a state…they are still the last line of defense of employers, private wealth & are separate from mass democratic control. this makes these structures a state.
(Yet, you can compete against them within your own community of preferences.)

48) Original Poster: Why don’t I see all of you post more often?

This is the first time I’ve seen all of your knowledge on this page.

Jeez I just learned stuff.
(1 like, because all they know is what they don’t like.)

49) Original Poster: We shouldn’t keep it on topic. We should keep it lively.

Obviously we have to go on tangents since we are human beings.
(1 like for finding a sense of community, let’s see if it lasts.)

50) Syn #5: pretty sure all the IWW in the branch I’m in are anarchists
(Or are communists)

51) Syn #11: I’ll also point out that anarcho-syndicalism historically did NOT advocate “consensus decision making” but a form of direct democracy based on open discussion with the option to reach decisions through simple majority vote. In circumstances where there are fundamental differences of opinion it is unrealistic to expect unanimous agreement. In the course of worker struggles there are often disagreements, about what to demand, whether to strike, and so on. Requiring unanimity would mean the most timid would ensure there are never strikes.
(4 likes for direct democracy. Fuck anyone who might disagree.)

52) Original Poster: There must be am alternative to shoving the decision of 51% down the throats of others. Even if it is 90% it still seems wrong.

There must be a way to maintain unity but encourage diversity.

If we do the tyrannical mon unanimous business we will end up alienating people and causing division. The cancer of capitalism will come back.
(Or you could let individuals make their own choices like how to participate in capitalism.)

53) Syn #11: this is why the state legislature in Illionois passed a law requiring supermajority of 75 percent for teacher strikes. they thought it would be very difficult to get that high a majority. it’s an example of why “consensus decision making” wouldn’t work for the labor movement.
(Would you need a labor movement without the state?)

54) Main Syn: You’re right. As I said, it will never be perfect. But it’s the aspiration that counts, as another has stated.
(Now who sounds religious?)

55) Original Poster: Illinois did that because it is a capitalist state.

Basically this is marxism, saying that we have to have a dictatorship of the majority to ensure we develop into democracy.

But when has a dictatorship ever led to true democracy.
(When do you want to pick sides in the AnCom vs AnCap debate, instead of just playing the fence?)

56) Syn #11: that’s the idea of the discussion, to try to get ass much agreement as feasible. unity is strength. it’s just that it would be a mistake to put arbtirary requirements on the level of unity to initiate a struggle.
(That’s the fence your ass is perched on.)

57) Syn #11: requiring supermajority or unanimity to make decisions is tyranny of the minority. some people just want to be able to dictate to the mass.
(Yeah, that’s why they vote and that’s why voting is immoral.)

58) Original Poster: It seems like we are saying that we have to have some level of tyranny that everyone I’m the movement finds acceptable to reach our goal of communism/anarchy.
(1 like for going AnCom. Welcome to the darkside, you know how to throw a molotov?)

59) Syn #11: that’s a highly individualistic ideology you are assuming. anarchosyndicalism was never based on that kind of extreme individualism.
(Contradiction Alert!)

60) Original Poster: I see what you are saying.
(I don’t, but my views are irrelevant as an AnCap, right?)

61) Syn #11: anarcho-syndicalism is a strategy built on a libertarian form of socialist ideas & aims at the building of a libertarian form of socialism.
(So they are really statists in denial trying to mix and match political ideas together.)

62) Syn #11: as keith says, consensus is of more recent origin, dating back to the Quakers involvement in peace & anti nuke movements in ’70s & 80s.
(This guy is annoying.)

63) Original Poster: Is anarcho-syndicalism marxism in disguise?
(If you want it to be.)

64) Syn #11: marxism & anarchism both originated historically in the workers movement of the 1860s-70s. they share some common ideas.
(1 like, yes and no.)

65) Original Poster:What I mean is that does anarcho-syndicalism suggest that we have to operate under some kind of capitalism to reach the different society?
(If you want to be an Anarcho-Capitalist.)

66) Syn #11: differences are especially in regard to strategy as well as aspects of the vision. Marxism tends to be partyist, looking to put party leaders into control of the state to create socialism. anarcho-syndicalism is also based on mass working class movement but wants it to be more of a direct, democratic worker controlled movement, to gain control of industry & society through mass direct action.
(2 likes for being less political than marxists, while still advocating direct action which could lead to violence.)

67) Original Poster: Ok Keith answered it.
(There was no Kieth here, only 2 Kevins so I think she is saying that in the hopes of Syn #11 shutting up.)

68) Syn #11: any worker movement, whether more reformist & bureaucratic, or more grassroots, at present will work to achieve changes that are less than total. there doesn’t yet exist a movement of sufficient size & confidence & clarity etc to challenge the capitalists for control of society.
(Cause capitalism is working out for them in spite of state intervention, but commies can’t have that. It is not equal.)

69) Original Poster: And Syn #11 answered it even more. Ok.

So we are a more democratic form of marxism.

I agree that we live under capitalism, but the power of capitalism is an illusion that can be revealed by having people interact with each other and find out the truth.
(Or the market could be more easily accessible for people to trade and interact with.)

70) Original Poster: Ouch, we don’t even belive that we have enough power to over throw the system currently.
(Who does? Oh right, the terrorists.)

71) Syn #11: a more democratic form of socialism, marx didn’t invent socialism
(1 like, he used it as a stepping stone.)

72) Syn #12: You hit the nail Syn #11
(So somewhere between socialism and democracy lies Syndicalism.)

73) Original Poster: I clearly have a huge hole in my knowledge of political philosophy, can each of you give me a book to chip away at that hole?
(Well here come those references if you want to learn more about anarcho-syndicalism.)

74) Syn #5: Anarchy In Action by Colin Ward?
(1 like)

75) Original Poster: Which one do you think I should read first Keith?
(Still no Keith, unless someone has an alias.)

76) Syn #11: Rudolph Rocker Anarchosyndicalism
(1 like)

77) Syn #5: cheating cos I’ve already said a book, but also read Stuart Christie’s Granny Made Me An Anarchist

78) Original Poster: Lol that one sounds like it’s gonna be funny

79) Syn #5: It is in places, it’s autobiography…

80) Original Poster: I found all the book except Granny made me an anarchist.

82) Syn #13: We don’t deal with them. They only exist on the internet.
(2 likes, you only exist on the internet for me too dude, and this is the only thing you had to say.)

83) Syn #14: Anarcho Capitalists are nothing more than Libertarians.
(1 like, that’s still pretty statist bro. Ever heard of the free-market applied to currency, law, or education?)

So it turns out Keith was an admin I blocked from Facebook because he was about to call me out for being an AnCap based on me sharing my article about taxation. I don’t know at what rate the Syndicalists would tax, but I think it is another sore topic for someone with the fence post so far up their ass. Here is the website he was telling people to checkout, and I guess I learned something today. I wish an AnCap was on the thread to argue with them, but I doubt if they would be treated any better than anyone on the other threads I’ve documented. Sorry this wasn’t a full documentation, but fuck Keith and integrating him in would have taken me an extra hour or two. It must be weird for them to want to change the system, but be so divided in how to actually do it. Then again, I’m sure there are other, more niche, subcategories of anarchism I can find out there.


If you choose to subscribe to, please use discount code TYLERLL
to save yourself some money.