Talk:Syndicalism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Syndicalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Difference between syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism?

Is there a difference between syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism? -- Sam

In the Oxford English Dictionary (full version, 2nd edition), the word "anarcho-syndicalism" is actually defined as "syndicalism". That is the entirety of the definition, the single word "syndicalism"! Of course, dictionaries are not always right, and never as good on politics as encyclopaedias. Nonethelessness, the short answer would be that many people probably see no distinction between "syndicalism" and "anarcho-syndicalism" and if there is a distinction, it's not yet clear from these articles what it is. In French, the word "syndicaliste" means ANY trade union member (from "syndicat", meaning trade union) - but this doesn't tell us anything about the meanings of the English words. --86.134.55.239 11:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

There is, yeah :) It's a strategy, more than anything. The anarcho- prefix is simply a variation of the strategy and, in some ways, a declaration of a different aim (although communism is probably the ultimate aim of most syndicalists, anarcho- or not). -- Sam

I don't know what I've gotten it from, but I have seen syndicalism as a method more than anything else. Wasn't the syndicalist movement from the beginning trade unions which had the goal to have unions for the whole working class, independent of political parties? Anarcho-syndicalism is a combination of the anarchistic ideals with the syndicalistic strategy. Davidw 09:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica lumps all three together, regular syndicalism, anarcho- and revolutionary. I am following their lead.WHEELER 16:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

There is a seperate Anarcho-syndicalism article, and I think the distinction must be made here as well. In 19th century Europe the distinction was indeed important; French syndicalists (trade unionists) had much more mild ideas than Spanish anarcho-syndicalists. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the anarcho-syndicalist stuff from this page and moved it to Anarcho-syndicalism (without repeat information, of course). This page needs to be fleshed out, though. I think listing syndicalists here is inappropriate for some reason but I don't know whether to create List of syndicalists... --Tothebarricades.tk 21:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trough what I've heard, anarcho-syndicalism is used in France, for able them to differentiate it from ordinary unionism. Anyone else heard this? 23:06, 18 May 2005 UTC

The French word syndicat means "union." If I were writing in French, I suppose I'd use some term like revolutionary syndicalism or anarcho-syndicalism to mean what we usually call "syndicalism" in English-speaking countries. Tribune 09:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Syndicalism was/is an umbrella term for a number of movements inspired, but not similar, to each other. At one point there were 7 different (possibly more) varieties of syndicalism I've identified:

1) Classic syndicalism (pre-1920s) - a radical unionism as practiced by the pre-1920s CGT in France, [Tom Mann] his groups in the British Empire and [Wm Z. Foster]'s Syndicalist groups in Canada and the US. Almost all of these forces were absorbed into the Bolshevik 3rd International. Others went right and helped start the fascist (not nazi) movements in the Latin countries, egNational Syndicalists.

2) The Socialist Labor Party (Australia, Canada, NZ, South Africa, UK and US) under the theory of Daniel DeLeon, the american-carribian marxist. Sought syndicalist unions but under the watch of a political party.

3) The IWW (Argentina, Aus, Canada, Chile, Equador, Germany, Mexico, NZ, RSA, Scanda, UK, US) Which is international (rather than national like the classic syndicalists) and takes no stand regards to poltical/parlimentarian activity (as distinct from anarcho-syndicalists and SLP)

4) Revolutionary syndicalism is similiar to the IWW but is organized on national basis - eg. the SAC in Sweden.

5) Anarcho-syndicalism arose primarilly in Latin Countries especially when opposing bolshevikization of classic syndicalism and parlimentarian action. Organized on national basis.

6) The One Big Union (Aus, Canada and the US) Kind of a cross between the SLP syndicalism and the IWW. The OBU was international, and militant like the IWW but was loosely tied to a political party (Socialist Party of Canada) in Canada where the OBU originated. The OBU was libertarian socialist and opposed the bolshevization of the labor movement.

7) Red Feds in New Zealand, i don't have much info on them.

I'm sure there's also other variants, especially in the latin countries (eg Peronism in Argentina)

Tsiatko 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1936 is bad enough! What's this about 1956?

I am removing the boldfaced citation here, because it seems to be the product of wishful thinking: "Instances of syndicalism in power, during the Spanish Revolution or the 1956 Hungarian Revolution rapidly approach the economic organisation of communism, often within weeks of syndicalists seizing control of social production." The claim about Spain presupposes knowledge of the "economic organization of communism" which, if true, would belong in the relevant articles (and totally rewrite the 20th Century history of Spain). The CNT's entry into the bourgeois/Communist/Popular Front government put them in power alongside Stalin's "Communist" Party, and to the same effect; the contrary myth doesn't belong in wikipedia. The claim about 1956 Hungary is just plain weird. Tribune 09:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Syndicalism = Fascism

Mussolini was a syndicalist, and also a fascist. So isn't a syndicalist a fascist? See Socialism by Ludwig von Mises on this. (no, I'm not saying Hitler was a syndicalist or a fascist) - MSTCrow 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A dog is a canine, and also a pet. But a pet isn't the same as a canine. There is an article on national syndicalism, which is the Mussolini variant of syndicalism. -82.203.170.148 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is national syndicalism or "nationalized" syndicalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.3.191 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky

The article has Chomsky as a syndicalist. Is he? BobFromBrockley 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He has expressed sympathy for anarchosyndicalism many times, but I believe he usually shies away from actually calling himself anything in particular. I remember seeing some video where he said things like "for the most part..." "in many ways..." and "pretty much..." when asked whether he considered himself an anarchist. Most people lump him in to either the anarchist or syndicalist camp. Also, there's a little pamphlet book of his lectures called "Government in the Future," where Chomsky argues that there are four kinds of societies in the modern world: Classical Liberal, Libertarian Socialist (anarchist), State Socialist, and State Capitalist. Basically, he thinks the third and fourth stink, and the second is the natural continuation of the first, and for him, the best one.72.78.20.31 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Criminal syndicalism

There is now a crime called "criminal syndicalism." Criminal syndicalism makes it a crime to advocate sabotage, violence or terrorism to accomplish industrial or political reform...and is punishable by up to six years in prison. That might make preaching the Bible, vis a vis homosexuals, the killing of homosexuals a crime as in Leviticus. Let's see the government put this to the test on this issue.

What? Your grammar makes no sense and it just sounds like you might be saying something offensive. I can't even tell though.-Skyler 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms section

This sentence does not follow English grammar: "A common question is the relationship that will exist between unions."

Yes it does, it's talking about the question of how future labor unions will coexist.

What are "state-level decisions"? Jacob Haller 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. But then I'm the author! By "State-level decisions", I mean for example who decides in a Syndicalist society when the country goes to war, or when we invest 50 billion in a Channel Tunnel, or how much is paid for benefits, etc. Toby Douglass 06:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Political criticisms

Syndicalism encompasses, among other ideologies, anarcho-syndicalism, and in most discussions revolutionary industrial unionism, guild socialism, etc. Anarcho-syndicalism sometimes refers to only anarcho-communist unionism and sometimes to all anarchist unionism (e.g. Dyer Lum's or Joe Labadie's).

Suffice to say that the political problems of guild socialism are very different from the political problems of different forms of anarchism. In the latter, "state-level" may not be the best term. A related question concerns single-union and dual-union syndicalism. Jacob Haller 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic criticisms

I'm not sure where to go here. Much depends on political issues - who decides? how many unions are there? how do the unions cooperate? It's not uncommon to regard collectivist anarchism as market trade among communities, non-market within them, and you can probably find sources for similar interpretations of syndicalism (e.g. Jack London's essay on scabs, and his Iron Heel, Marxist criticisms, etc. Also Austrian criticisms, although Mises uses the word syndicalism to describe worker-ownership in general), as well as communist interpretations of syndicalism.

After doing that, you may be able to "fork" syndicalism into non-market versions and market (or equivalent conditional-reciprocal exchange) versions, and address one set of criticisms to each.

Another approach is to start with the concerns that may "fork" syndicalism at the top of the criticisms section; then discuss economic and political criticisms of non-market versions; then discuss economic and political criticisms of market versions. Jacob Haller 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputable|date since August 2007

I removed the disputed listing of Georges Sorel philosopher, please do not re-insert without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sindicato

Sindicato is simply the Italian word used for a labor union. I have not been in Italy for many years, and do not keep up with what is going on there, by this article seems to just describe the nature of the Italian union movement -- and the other European labor movements. If that is so, it should be made more clear in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved "prominent syndicalists" to a seperate sub article

The section with a list of prominent syndicalists took up far to much space, more then anything else, and cluttered the article to much, I've moved it all to a new article; Prominent Syndicalists and gave a link at the end of the last section on the this article. It really isn't that important, hoping to expand this article even more, most of it is from the far bigger anarcho syndicalism article.

Aeon135 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

National Syndicalism?

Why is there no mention of National Syndicalism as well? Especially regarding the Cercle Proudhon and the Juntas Ofensivas de los Nacionalsyndicalistos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Iloveredhair:If appropriate and you have sources please be bold. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Syndicalism in Fascist Italy

There ought to be a discussion on Mussolini's (ostensible) use of syndicates in Italy at his reign.

Artaxus 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

repetition

there's a bit of repetition in this article. usually a sign of insufficiently planning and outlining the article's contents before writing in prose form. Here's one example

Syndicalism also refers to the political movement (praxis) and tactics used to bring about this type of system

Syndicalism" is also used to refer to the tactic of bringing about this social arrangement, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Socialism

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove "a form of socialism," from the lead. Syndicalism is not a form of socialism and the source used does not say it is. TFD (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done due to lack of opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite page protection?

Hasn't it been long enough already? I just came across this page, and saw a 2 month old indefinite protection... Ethanbas ^(talk) 05:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Idem, some admins really like to play around with their tools. Bertdrunk (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Syndicalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Fascism link to Syndicalism

There needs to be a mention of Syndicalism's link to Fascist thought and Fascist Economics. It seems odd that we have an article called "National syndicalism" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism), yet make no mention of it on the main Syndicalism page. Brough87 (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Surely after edit-warring for so long you can provide a reliable source—not a link to a Wikipedia article—that makes the connection between syndicalism and fascism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So is that a suggestion to deleting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism? Brough87 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that what I wrote? It's a simple summary of the Wikipolicy that appears above the edit box: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." If you don't provide a reliable source to support your proposed addition to the article, it's not verifiable and it won't be added. Is that plain enough for you, or would you like me to type more slowly? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's called being consistent, I don't need to provide word for word sources to ensure consistency between various wiki articles. Unless of course you believe that consistency is only important so long as it doesn't interfere with your preconditioned political beliefs. Brough87 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in playing games with you. Let me lay this out for you, because you don't seem to understand. You wish to add something to an article. Specifically, you wish to add to this article that there is a link between syndicalism and fascism. That proposed addition has been challenged. That addition will not be made until you produce a reliable source that shows you're not pulling this alleged connection out of your ass. Do you understand? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not pulling the connection "out of my ass", there is literally a page called National syndicalism, which already has an established consensus about its link to Fascism. Your total lack of willingness to actually engage with the point at hand does not have any bearing on the necessity of being consistent. If you want I can get the people at arbitration to look over this 'issue' and perhaps they can explain how Wikipedia operates; because you're totally ignorant of it. Or perhaps you can swallow your pride (and your rudeness along with it), go over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism and explain why amendments shouldn't be made on the main syndicalism page to reflect the consensus established on this page? Brough87 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but (1) I understand how Wikipedia operates and (2) that's the reason why Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. Look, your edit-warring and obstinate refusal to provide a reliable source is what got this article protected, and I have no problem with it staying protected. You're the one who wants to change it, and all it would take is for you to get off your ass and find a reliable source. I would think you would understand that, but evidently not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you understand how Wikipedia operates, why are you finding it so difficult to actually demonstrate this knowledge? The link has been established with the agreed creation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism page. Or are you proposing the deletion of that page? You can't on the one hand want the continued existence of one page that establishes the link and then on the other that there is no mention of the established link. Brough87 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that all you're braying about?!? There is a link in this article to National syndicalism, in the navbox on the top right. Also, because you still don't seem to understand, when I propose the deletion of an article, I follow Wikipedia's Proposed deletion procedure; I don't make an insinuation in a discussion on the talk page of a different article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: What I'm "braying about" is your lack of willingness to accept the link between Fascism and Syndicalism, despite the wealth of sources and the fact that WP itself has other articles linking the two. You have just reverted one of my edits which cites WP:IRS/WP:BESTSOURCES, aka an academic in the field published by a world-renowned academic institution. What is your justification for removing an edit backed-up by references and is also in line with other articles on WP? Brough87 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations. After seven months of searching, you found a book review about the influence of syndicalism on Italian fascism. Sorry, but that doesn't make communism and fascism "related theories" to syndicalism, nor does it explain why this article should be in Category:Fascism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why should this article be in Category:Fascism? Because it is the ideology in which Fascist theorists like Primo de Rivera and Mussolini based their espoused economic position on. I ask again, do you deny the link between Fascism and syndicalism; and if you do what do you base such a denial on? Brough87 (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:Categorization. The burden is on you to establish—using reliable sources—that fascism and communism are "related theories" to syndicalism and that this article belongs in Category:Fascism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll be glad to know that the source provided fits in with WP:Verifiability and WP:Categorization. You clearly have a disagreement with the change, what is the issue with it? You're just reverting without offering any justification or explanation for the reversion. I've added one reliable source, I can add more if necessary. If you're going to repeatedly revert the amendments, ignore the references entirely, ignore the lack of consistency between the various WP articles, and generally not engage with the discussion at hand I suppose the only way we're going to deal with this is through arbitration. Brough87 (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Communism and fascism are theories related to syndicalism?

According to Brough87, "[r]elated theories [to syndicalism] include ... communism and Fascism." He cites three sources in support of that assertion:

"Syndicalism and the Origins of Italian Fascism", a 1982 book review of several books about the history of Italian fascism
The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism, one of the books reviewed favorably in the preceding source
Syndicalism, Fascism and Post-fascism in Italy, 1900-1950, a book that is not available online and

Brough87 has not provided any page numbers except the range of pages in The Historical Journal (pp. 247–258) in which the book review was published.

There is no indication in either the book review (available at JSTOR 2638817) or in The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism, which is accessible through both Google Books and Amazon.com, that either communism or fascism is a "related theory" to syndicalism. The book review asserts, and the book demonstrates, the influence of syndicalism on the development of fascism in Italy, but that doesn't make the two "related theories" (I seem to remember there being a second major fascist country in Europe with no syndicalist tradition, but I can't put mein finger on it), and neither source has much to say about the relationship between communism and syndicalism.

Finally, I would refer Brough87 to WP:Categorization#Articles: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. ... A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having...." (emphasis in original) There is no reason why this article belongs in Category:Fascism, even if fascism and syndicalism were related theories, no more than Fascism would belong in Category:Syndicalism. Two ideas may be related to one another without one being a defining characteristic of the other. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

For starters let us deal with a little bit of 'house-keeping'. If you look in the edit history, I never claimed that Communism was linked to syndicalism; I simply reverted your edits that removed Fascism and Communism from related theories. The purpose of this dispute should revolve entirely around the link between Fascism and Syndicalism. Now, your opposition seems to take two distinct forms: 1.) You oppose the inclusion of Fascism in the statement "Related theories include anarchism, socialism, national syndicalism, Marxism, Leninism and communism." You're comfortable with the inclusion of anarchism, socialism and Marxism in that sentence but not Fascism; what is your justification for this? 2.) You oppose the categorisation of syndicalism under Fascism yet are comfortable with it being categorised under socialism and anarchism etc; what is your justification for this? I am asserting, with sources, that the link between syndicalism and Fascism is based on the same grounds that makes you comfortable with the inclusion of anarchism and socialism (etc). Am I saying that all Fascist governments followed it? No. But not all Socialist governments, nor anarchist ideologues follow the principles of syndicalism either. But people like Mussolini and Primo de Rivera, were supporters of syndicalist principles and were praised by renowned syndicalists. Hell, one of the key marches and 'hymns' of the Spanish Falange has the lyrics: "¡Viva la Revolución! Viva Falange de las J.O.N.S.!Fuera el capital!Viva el Estado Sindical!". From your userboxes, you claim to be an anarchist, are you seeing the inclusion of Fascism as a related topic to syndicalism as a personal attack on your beliefs? Brough87 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS and stop changing the subject. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't changed the subject; are you denying that there is link between Fascism and syndicalism? It's perfectly ok to dispute the amendment, but it's difficult to see on what grounds you oppose it when you don't explain. I've given you some sources, I've added the link to Georges Sorel and referenced it, I've asked you why you dispute the link to Fascism but not to anarchism, socialism or Marxism. Brough87 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

My position takes account of WP:ONUS, but you are yet to fully explain your reasoning. Are you denying that there is link between Fascism and syndicalism? Brough87 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you're lying about having read WP:ONUS. If you had read it, you would understand that it is your responsibility to build consensus to add your disputed material to the article, not mine to repeatedly explain the problems with it. Second, you keep restoring material that in some places misrepresents what the source says and in others is copied and pasted from the source in violation of copyright law. Please stop or I will report you for edit-warring, copyright violation, and lying about what sources say. (You should know by now that Wikiquote is not a reliable source.) — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You haven't even given the grounds for the dispute; have you accepted the "influence of syndicalism on the development of fascism in Italy" or have you not? And if you have, can you explain why that would not constitute being a 'related theory' and thereby worth mentioning in the 'related theory' topic section. You're quite welcome to report me, as I am quite welcome to report you. I would love to get some arbitration on this matter so you will be required to actually explain your position and the nature of your dispute rather than this obstinate and nonchalant attitude that you have a history of. We're supposed to build a consensus, if I'm unable to understand on what grounds you accept the inclusion of socialism, Marxism, anarchism on this page, but not Fascism; how am I going to meet the demands placed upon the nature of our dispute? This is why I question whether you feel politically attacked when I make/made this amendment, because most people would clearly explain the nature of their dispute. Brough87 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We should not say that ideologies are related without explaining how and how they differ, particularly in the case of fascism which seems diametrically opposed to syndicalism. Brough87, what is the relationship between syndicalism and fascism? TFD (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Brough87, if you're confused about the basis of my complaint, please start reading at #Fascism link to Syndicalism above. More than a year ago, you added fascism to this article and refused to provide any sources when challenged, a violation of WP:Verifiability. After seven months of silence, you returned with a book review—a book review, for god's sake—of several books whose authors don't agree among themselves about the role of syndicalism in the development of fascism in Italy. That's a good start—for a paragraph like the one now in the article, about the part syndicalists played in Italian fascism. But there were/are fascists in other countries, such as Germany and Brazil, that had no tradition of syndicalism like Italy did. The source you cited doesn't say anything broadly about syndicalism and fascism, only something very specific about Italian fascism in the 1920s. I edited the paragraph in the article (to clear out some crappy prose, to eliminate some copy/paste from the source, and to align the quote with what the source says, as opposed to what Wikiquote says) because the sources you cited support (most of) the statements in it. I removed the nonsense claims you added to this article because the sources don't support them. With adequate sources, I might agree with you that there's a vital link between syndicalism and fascism—but to date, you haven't presented a single source that indicates any link between them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite, expansion, possible GA

Hi everyone, as you might have noticed I have re-written (and re-named) the first section of the article. I intend to continue adding to this article. I think a few parts can be kept, but others will have to be rewritten. I write this note for two reasons. First, I have decided not to do this in a sandbox. I hope you'll give me a little leeway to do this work and see how edits play out, since I might have to move things around a bit. Secondly, I hope to find collaborators. I'd like to get this to GA and, possibly, FA level. If anyone wants to contribute that would be great. I've compiled a list of sources that I intend to consult. Feel free to add to it. Because the term syndicalism is used somewhat differently in different contexts and because this is a bit of an umbrella topic that covers a lot of different countries, I think it's important to put a little thought into how we select sources:

I think it's important to employ academic sources. Obviously, syndicalists and anarchists have written a lot about this topic, but there are plenty of academic sources so there's no real need to employ those primary sources. There might be some gray areas. A lot of the academics who have published on this have varying degrees of sympathy for syndicalism. That shouldn't be a problem. There are, however, some sources (the Black Flag book comes to mind) written by scholars who have published academically on the topic, but are themselves really more than anything espousing syndicalism or making contributions to syndicalist theory. Wherever possible, I'd also like to avoid such sources. This might not be entirely possible when it comes to the post-WWII history.
There are numerous studies concerning the development of syndicalism in individual countries or of individual organizations. I'd also be in favor of staying away from those as much as possible. Using those kinds of sources risks the article devolving into a number of disparate histories of various countries or organizations. The last three decades have seen a number of sources being published that deal with syndicalism as an international or transnational phenomenon. I think we should use those kinds of sources as much as possible. This might also not be entirely possible. Most of those transnational histories deal primarily with Europe, so we might have to use more sources on particular countries when it comes to non-European syndicalism.

Finally, British English has been established as the dialect to be used in this article. I don't know if I'm really capable of writing in British English, so I might introduce a lot of 'Merican to this article. Please forgive this. Feel free to translate what I write into British or, if no one feels strongly about keeping the article in British English, we can switch this to American. I'd love to hear your thoughts.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carabinieri. I'm a member of Wikipedia's (largely dormant) Anarchist Task Force, and I'd be happy to help any way I can. Great work so far; thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Malik Shabazz and everyone else, I was hoping you might take another look. I think I have a rough idea now of how I feel the article should be structured and re-organized it accordingly. I've also added comments indicating what I feel is missing and plan to add, although my thinking on this may evolve a little as I read or re-read the sources. I was hoping to get some input on whether others feel this structure is appropriate.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Rewrite

Why the heck is syndicalism now listed in the past tense? And more specifically, why is it listed as a tendency in the labor movement? Modern syndicalists exist and syndicalism can be grouped both as a proposed economic system and as a form of praxis. Docktuh (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This reflects what reputable sources say on the topic. There are still syndicalists and syndicalist groups around, but they are either tiny (compared to what syndicalism used to be when syndicalist organizations had hundreds of thousands or millions of members) or made major concessions and abandoned certain syndicalist principles (like the SAC in Sweden or the Spanish CGT). So, for all intents and purposes syndicalism as a movement is dead despite the existence of a few syndicalists and sources generally treat it as a historical phenomenon. Syndicalism as a proposed economic system is hogwash (and the way that economic system was described previously in this article was embarrassing; syndicalism has nothing to do with syndicates). Syndicalists never really elaborated on what they envisioned a post-revolutionary society looking like beyond sometimes advocating unions controlling the economy. Most syndicalists were anarchists, Marxists or socialists of some other flavor and would have described an ideal society as anarchy, communism, or socialism, not as syndicalism. Syndicalism was a form of struggle or organizing, but it is history, just like the economic and political conditions from which it emerged.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Needs a better introduction

I've just read this article as it is, and I still don't know what syndicalism is, or how it's different from other labor/socialist movements. Telling me, as the intro paragraph does, that it was mainly in the early 1900s, doesn't tell me, y'know, what it is. Neither does a quote from an insider about it's "docrinal sobriety." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.15.184 (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Definition

I agree with the guy just above; you need a “punchy” definition.

This is from The Collins Dictionary… A revolutionary movement and theory advocating the seizure of the means of production and distribution by syndicates of workers through direct action, esp. a general strike.

Or, in my (probably inaccurate) words... A revolutionary movement advocating the operation of businesses by syndicates of workers.

MBG02 (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Isn't "Syndicalism was a radical current in the labor movement, mainly in the early 20th century" such a definition. Saying that syndicalists were in favor of "syndicates" is a misunderstanding. The term syndicalism derives from the French syndicat, which just means trade union (see the terminology section). As anarchists and socialists, syndicalists also opposed the existence of businesses and favored putting industry under workers' control.

The article is still in the process of being written. Once that's done I'll revisit how much information on syndicalist ideas to put in the lead. The biggest difficulty, though, is that syndicalists didn't put much emphasis on theory and their ideas weren't generally all that coherent. The movement was defined more by its practice than by its ideas.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope; “radical current in the labor movement” doesn’t define it; that could be anything! You can expand later; but how is it different to Communism; did they have proposals, or just “opposals”; is seizure (by force) important, or could it be a buy-out?

NB: “current” is an unusual word; (maybe) a bit too obscure for a high school level. Faction, movement, concept, idea.

NB2: All I know about syndicalism has come from this article… and Monty Python.

MBG02 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No description of syndicalism is going to be completely specific to syndicalism, since there was a lot of overlap between syndicalist ideas and anarchism, communism, socialism, etc. Current is the word that is most commonly used to describe parts of social movements. Syndicalism certainly wasn't an idea or a concept, as I explained before. Faction might be the most fitting of the terms you listed. I doubt it's more widely understood than current though. And it makes it sound more coherent and organized than it was in most places. The only really appropriate alternative I see is tendency, but I also don't it's more widely understood. You can find the answers to your other questions in the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant interlanguage link

In English the term "Syndicalism" seems to be synonymous with "Revolutionary syndicalism" (and the page "revolutionary syndicalism" does redirect to "syndicalism").

But in many other languages, this is different. The French "Syndicalisme révolutionnaire" is clearly different from "Syndicalisme". And same logic for Spanish "Sindicalismo revolucionario", Italian... In fact, this page should be linked with this set of pages (which has no English page), while the pages "Syndicalisme", "Sindicalismo"... should link to "Trade unionism" page.

The present confusion appears obviously in this wikidata page : while the English description says "proposed type of economic system, considered a replacement for capitalism", the French description is merely the description of a trade union.

--Varlin (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I changed the interwiki of "Syndicalism" to link with "sindicalismo revolucionário", etc.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

GA ready?

This is a very comprehensive and well-researched article, and has been for quite some time. Given that this is a level-5 vital article, I wondered if a good article nomination might be one the cards. Of course, the primary article contributor (@Carabinieri) hasn't been active since 2020, so I'm not sure if they would even be available to submit it. @Davide King has also done a lot of work copy-editing the article recently, but as they haven't authored at least 10% of the article's text, it may be considered a drive-by nomination if there's not prior discussion about it. Is there anything that anyone feels needs adding to this article or changing before a GA nomination? What do we think needs doing in order to get it there? --Grnrchst (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)