Jump to content

Talk:Syndicalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.75.15.184 (talk) at 12:52, 17 September 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Syndicalism?

I can remember that it was not that long ago when someone said, "The Syndicate" they were talking about the Mafia or some equally vicious organization of banditti. -- Brothernight (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Socialism

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Read WP:ONUS and stop changing the subject. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Further reading section

Hi User:C.J. Griffin, why do you feel "New Forms of Worker Organization" needs to be included in the "Further reading"? It's not exactly a classic and most of it isn't about syndicalism.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a modern day text on the resurgence of syndicalist and autonomist labor unions and movements as older unions are dying off under the contemporary neoliberal assault on the labor movement. Most of what it listed there is decades old. It certainly seems relevant to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know the book. And it's obviously not entirely irrelevant, but there is a lot of material out there that's somewhat relevant and we can't list it all. That's why I feel it would be best to stick to the most prominent expositions of syndicalist ideas.
What's more, looking at the introduction that's supposed to sort of tie the book together, the argument seems rather uninformed. I have no idea what he means by autonomist Marxist unions. Autonomist Marxism is already a fairly vague term, it's supposed to be operaismo plus I don't know what. But operaismo mostly just celebrated workers' defying their unions. Very few of the remaining chapters actually deal with syndicalism (as far as I can tell, after a brief skim only the one about Sweden and the two about the IWW in the US and the UK), but they hardly evidence a resurgence of syndicalism.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syndicalism&oldid=859961925"