Comments on: Still the Century of Syndicalism? http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:49:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steven http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-76245 Steven Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:34:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-76245 PS I just finished this book and it has a lot of overlap on this subject (Mussolini, his collation, and D'Annunzio are discussed along with other non fascist related individuals the author uses to make his case). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684809079/qid=1119935579/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-8904519-2749712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 The author's thesis is that romantic notions that violence would be able to lead to utopia (re: the calculated application of ideological violence) were the cause of most of our collective recent problems involving totalitarianism. PS
I just finished this book and it has a lot of overlap on this subject (Mussolini, his collation, and D’Annunzio are discussed along with other non fascist related individuals the author uses to make his case).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684809079/qid=1119935579/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-8904519-2749712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The author’s thesis is that romantic notions that violence would be able to lead to utopia (re: the calculated application of ideological violence) were the cause of most of our collective recent problems involving totalitarianism.

]]> By: Steven http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-76163 Steven Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:34:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-76163 I don't disagree with some of your points. Syndicalism and corporatism were different philosophies. In my defense, there was overlap in some of the thought and proponents.. Especially in fascism and its influences… For instance, the corporatist Constitution of Fiume was mostly written by a syndicalist.. Gentile advocated a “totalitarian state of Corporative Syndicalism”, not a specifically corporative state. Also, I arguably misused the word socialism in the modern American English way of associating it with any planned / controlled economic arrangement that tends to benefit workers, or the public, at the expense of private property rights and use of market mechanisms. We tend to call, what most of the rest of the world calls, socialism 'communism' and then use the word socialism in this way. Ergo, a country generally run by social democrats, like Sweden, is called 'socialist' in common conversation... It’s worth noting that (left wing) Sweden also has had varying degrees of corporatist policies.. So it's a valid point on your part. On the other hand, ‘socialism’ is older than Marx and Marxism is not the only school of socialist thought. I don’t think it is unfair (or an attempt to be dishonest) for me to associate syndicalism or corporatism as schools of socialistic thought when they are part of a wider utopian ideology. I think your wrong to imply that the proponents of corporatism (especially fascist) were essentially 'conservative' (especially in the American understanding of the word) based on the origins of the term while not examining its later proponents. I guess the important question and a quick way to get to the bottom line: You wouldn't agree that most proponents of inter war European corporatism considered themselves on the left or had solid ties to left wing thought? To fascists specifically, were men like Gentile or Mussolini identifiable as economic ‘conservatives’? To me, I see utopians that saw themselves as progressive intellectuals and revolutionaries who not only wanted a new economic system, they wanted to change everything and create a ‘new man’... Mussolini spent much of his life as a big S socialist and devout Marxist.. All together, doesn’t sound ‘conservative’ in any way… What about Syndicalism? Sorel, for instance, insisted he was a Marxist… When I go down the list of players, I’m not seeing people I would understand as ‘conservative’ in either camp… and this is no play on words… ideologically and philosophically I’m not seeing a pro free market pro business / capitalist type, I’m seeing business distrusting radicals who wanted to subdue business and to overturn the whole social order to remake it… Also, I think your still backing away from what I considered my point. A ‘corporate’ is not 'a business' and that the fascist council did work under a top down planned economic model. This was not how Leiter presented it and it is how that old Gentile / Mussolini quote is widely misused today to mean something it did not (namely government and business working in partnership… if not collusion). Rather, business was subservient to the state in an [totalitarian] atmosphere that did not encourage a free market. In some ways I can see business and workers both supporting this. Regulated industry protects existing businesses from failure, but it is not something a modern American 'conservative' would see as compatible with his philosophy (which is largely inspired by classical liberalism). Now progressives on the other hand… Post WWII Britain and the policies of the labor party come to mind.. Then, just the other day, what was the title of the NYTs editorial supporting the Kelo decision? I think it was “The Limits to Private Property”… Who voted for this decision? Whom against? Also, which US group still cannot get over [even non safety related] airline deregulation? Progressives or ‘Conservatives’? I don’t disagree with some of your points. Syndicalism and corporatism were different philosophies. In my defense, there was overlap in some of the thought and proponents.. Especially in fascism and its influences… For instance, the corporatist Constitution of Fiume was mostly written by a syndicalist.. Gentile advocated a “totalitarian state of Corporative Syndicalism”, not a specifically corporative state. Also, I arguably misused the word socialism in the modern American English way of associating it with any planned / controlled economic arrangement that tends to benefit workers, or the public, at the expense of private property rights and use of market mechanisms. We tend to call, what most of the rest of the world calls, socialism ‘communism’ and then use the word socialism in this way. Ergo, a country generally run by social democrats, like Sweden, is called ‘socialist’ in common conversation… It’s worth noting that (left wing) Sweden also has had varying degrees of corporatist policies.. So it’s a valid point on your part. On the other hand, ‘socialism’ is older than Marx and Marxism is not the only school of socialist thought. I don’t think it is unfair (or an attempt to be dishonest) for me to associate syndicalism or corporatism as schools of socialistic thought when they are part of a wider utopian ideology. I think your wrong to imply that the proponents of corporatism (especially fascist) were essentially ‘conservative’ (especially in the American understanding of the word) based on the origins of the term while not examining its later proponents. I guess the important question and a quick way to get to the bottom line: You wouldn’t agree that most proponents of inter war European corporatism considered themselves on the left or had solid ties to left wing thought? To fascists specifically, were men like Gentile or Mussolini identifiable as economic ‘conservatives’? To me, I see utopians that saw themselves as progressive intellectuals and revolutionaries who not only wanted a new economic system, they wanted to change everything and create a ‘new man’… Mussolini spent much of his life as a big S socialist and devout Marxist.. All together, doesn’t sound ‘conservative’ in any way… What about Syndicalism? Sorel, for instance, insisted he was a Marxist… When I go down the list of players, I’m not seeing people I would understand as ‘conservative’ in either camp… and this is no play on words… ideologically and philosophically I’m not seeing a pro free market pro business / capitalist type, I’m seeing business distrusting radicals who wanted to subdue business and to overturn the whole social order to remake it…

Also, I think your still backing away from what I considered my point. A ‘corporate’ is not ‘a business’ and that the fascist council did work under a top down planned economic model. This was not how Leiter presented it and it is how that old Gentile / Mussolini quote is widely misused today to mean something it did not (namely government and business working in partnership… if not collusion). Rather, business was subservient to the state in an [totalitarian] atmosphere that did not encourage a free market. In some ways I can see business and workers both supporting this. Regulated industry protects existing businesses from failure, but it is not something a modern American ‘conservative’ would see as compatible with his philosophy (which is largely inspired by classical liberalism). Now progressives on the other hand… Post WWII Britain and the policies of the labor party come to mind.. Then, just the other day, what was the title of the NYTs editorial supporting the Kelo decision? I think it was “The Limits to Private Property”… Who voted for this decision? Whom against? Also, which US group still cannot get over [even non safety related] airline deregulation? Progressives or ‘Conservatives’?

]]> By: ry http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75896 ry Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:04:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75896 Stop! This is gonna get ugly. Cease and desist the 'FDR is a fascist'(and by extension leftists) and evil line of reasoning. It goes nowhere. IT's the same trite stuff as ANSWER or someone released showing that the US is pursuing fascistic practices under the current admin(which B Leiter posted on his site I might add). Stop! This is gonna get ugly. Cease and desist the ‘FDR is a fascist’(and by extension leftists) and evil line of reasoning. It goes nowhere. IT’s the same trite stuff as ANSWER or someone released showing that the US is pursuing fascistic practices under the current admin(which B Leiter posted on his site I might add).

]]> By: pb http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75881 pb Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:01:14 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75881 "In fascist corporatism, the state reorganizes society from the top down, along sectoral lines, largely for its own purposes." Isn't that what FDR was trying to do with the NIRA and AAA? “In fascist corporatism, the state reorganizes society from the top down, along sectoral lines, largely for its own purposes.”

Isn’t that what FDR was trying to do with the NIRA and AAA?

]]> By: troll http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75860 troll Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:55:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75860 [aeiou] Thix s ju moe bulit frm facabouts wit no bets to diddlee. Ihi thedemy nes moe consves. A decoding ring is available at nominal cost. No boxtops accepted. Thx s j m blt frm fcbts wt n bts t dddl. h thdmy ns m cnsvs.

dcdng rng s vlbl t nmnl cst. N bxtps ccptd.

]]> By: Sandals http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75858 Sandals Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:44:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75858 Sooo...if we're talking short summaries... is syndicalism 'rule of the guilds'? Sooo…if we’re talking short summaries… is syndicalism ‘rule of the guilds’?

]]> By: ian http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75856 ian Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:47:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75856 Fascist corporatism is something like the evil twin of subsidiarity, the principle from Catholic philosophy alluded to by Henry. They have structurally similar notions of society as internally differentiated, but are based on principles that are utterly opposed. For Leo III (and moreso for Pius XI, whose encyclical Quadragesimo Anno was published when Mussolini was in power) social groups, including trade unions, form spontaneously and organically as a result of men's tendency (and natural right) to associate with one another. A robust civil society, organized from the bottom up, is a necessary counterweight to the power of the state. In fascist corporatism, the state reorganizes society from the top down, along sectoral lines, largely for its own purposes. From the perspective of Catholic philosophy, that is the essence of tyranny. Fascist corporatism is something like the evil twin of subsidiarity, the principle from Catholic philosophy alluded to by Henry. They have structurally similar notions of society as internally differentiated, but are based on principles that are utterly opposed. For Leo III (and moreso for Pius XI, whose encyclical Quadragesimo Anno was published when Mussolini was in power) social groups, including trade unions, form spontaneously and organically as a result of men’s tendency (and natural right) to associate with one another. A robust civil society, organized from the bottom up, is a necessary counterweight to the power of the state. In fascist corporatism, the state reorganizes society from the top down, along sectoral lines, largely for its own purposes. From the perspective of Catholic philosophy, that is the essence of tyranny.

]]> By: Anderson http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75854 Anderson Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:19:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75854 <i>It seems more plausible that Non-Volokh simply made a mistake when reading Leiter’s post. Non-Volok didn’t do it maliciously. Why can’t Leiter just leave it at that?</i> Prof. Leiter, whatever his virtues, does not appear to believe in non-malicious mistakes, as a perusal of his blog will support .... It seems more plausible that Non-Volokh simply made a mistake when reading Leiter’s post. Non-Volok didn’t do it maliciously. Why can’t Leiter just leave it at that?

Prof. Leiter, whatever his virtues, does not appear to believe in non-malicious mistakes, as a perusal of his blog will support ….

]]> By: Jim Harrison http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75842 Jim Harrison Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:40:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75842 Before Hitler spoiled everything by giving fascism a bad name, lots of intellectuals were attracted to many of its features. They still are, though we haven't quite arrived at the moment when some Natiional Review guy courageously begins the slow process of rehabilitation... Before Hitler spoiled everything by giving fascism a bad name, lots of intellectuals were attracted to many of its features. They still are, though we haven’t quite arrived at the moment when some Natiional Review guy courageously begins the slow process of rehabilitation…

]]> By: Ray http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75836 Ray Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:41:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75836 You could call them 'one section of the left, that the left of the rest repudiates', I suppose. You wouldn't call the Nazi party 'the right', would you? You could call them ‘one section of the left, that the left of the rest repudiates’, I suppose. You wouldn’t call the Nazi party ‘the right’, would you?

]]> By: Jaybird http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75833 Jaybird Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:30:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75833 "But you can’t really call the Soviet rulers and ideologists ‘the left’" Erm... you can't? What *CAN* you really call them? “But you can’t really call the Soviet rulers and ideologists ‘the left’”

Erm… you can’t?

What CAN you really call them?

]]> By: junius ponds http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75828 junius ponds Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:33:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75828 In answer to the titular question: The failure of state socialist systems to sustain themselves, let alone alleviate worker alientation from work-processes or bring about genuine participatory government, begs reexamination of the council communist, left-libertarian, anarchist, etc. traditions for anyone interested in post-capitalist alternatives. In answer to the titular question: The failure of state socialist systems to sustain themselves, let alone alleviate worker alientation from work-processes or bring about genuine participatory government, begs reexamination of the council communist, left-libertarian, anarchist, etc. traditions for anyone interested in post-capitalist alternatives.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75827 abb1 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:18:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75827 Come to think of it, the Soviet system did employ some corporatist mottoes: <i>unbreakable alliance of workers, peasants, and progressive intelligentsia</i>, for example. It does sound kinda fascistic. But you can't really call the Soviet rulers and ideologists 'the left', so, this only confirms the rule. Come to think of it, the Soviet system did employ some corporatist mottoes: unbreakable alliance of workers, peasants, and progressive intelligentsia, for example. It does sound kinda fascistic. But you can’t really call the Soviet rulers and ideologists ‘the left’, so, this only confirms the rule.

]]> By: Javier http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75822 Javier Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:40:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75822 To add a bit more to what I said: (1) Brian Leiter is a tenured professor and Juan Non-Volokh, it seems, is a non-tenured professor, hence the psydonym. In this context, it strikes me as wrong to try to strip Non-Volokh of his anonymity. (2) I can't find a single place where Non-Volokh insulted Leiter. (3) It seems more plausible that Non-Volokh simply made a mistake when reading Leiter's post. Non-Volok didn't do it maliciously. Why can't Leiter just leave it at that? To add a bit more to what I said:

(1) Brian Leiter is a tenured professor and Juan Non-Volokh, it seems, is a non-tenured professor, hence the psydonym. In this context, it strikes me as wrong to try to strip Non-Volokh of his anonymity.

(2) I can’t find a single place where Non-Volokh insulted Leiter.

(3) It seems more plausible that Non-Volokh simply made a mistake when reading Leiter’s post. Non-Volok didn’t do it maliciously. Why can’t Leiter just leave it at that?

]]> By: Javier http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/comment-page-1/#comment-75818 Javier Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:18:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/06/22/still-the-century-of-syndicalism/#comment-75818 Wow, I just read over the whole exchange and I think Brian Leiter is being a bit of a jerk, even if Juan Non-Volokh misinterpreted his argument. Wow, I just read over the whole exchange and I think Brian Leiter is being a bit of a jerk, even if Juan Non-Volokh misinterpreted his argument.

]]>