32. How does syndicalism relate to parliamentary politics?
SAC is an extra-parliamentary organization. This means that SAC does not interfere in how members vote in parliamentary elections. The extra-parliamentary stance should be distinguished from an anti-parliamentary strategy. The latter means discouraging people from participating in elections. SAC neither advocates nor advises against voting.
SAC is an extra-parliamentary organization, but not indifferent to parliamentary politics. Politics affects all workers, which is why we should also influence politics through trade union organizing.
The parliaments can be described as large bargaining table, where politics is shaped by the extra-parliamentary means of power held by the capital-owning class. The capitalist class exercise great bargaining power rooted in ownership, investments and lending. All societies depend on their investments. Therefore, capitalists can largely dictate the economic, social and political conditions for starting and expanding production. They can also decide to shut down or relocate production if the profit expectations are not met.
The class that own and control the economy also has a dominant influence over the state. The classical liberal and educator John Dewey (1859–1952) put it this way: “politics is the shadow cast on society by big business.” Of course, not all governments are identical, but the framework for policy making is ultimately dictated by the capitalists. Therefore, the best way for the population to influence politics is to challenge capital directly where it is formed, that is, in the workplaces. Inside corporations and the public sector, employees can build a popular counterforce.
50. What happens to ownership in the syndicalist vision?
If all employees are to take over production, if everyone is to run the economy in democratic forms, then who should own the means of production? The answer of syndicalism is: all in common, primarily society as a whole. Why? The reason is simple. It is not only producers who have a legitimate interest in influencing production. The consumers or those who use the goods and services also should have a say. Likewise, other citizens (or members of society) should influence the framework for production.
In addition to companies owned by society, some companies can be owned collectively by those who work in them. This includes producer cooperatives and family companies where only family members work. Such groups own only the means of production with which they work themselves. They do not buy labour power that they exploit and control. The same applies to self-employed individuals who don’t employ others. Syndicalists support a combination of community-owned companies and worker-owned companies.
“In order to restore democracy, one thing and one thing only is essential. The people will rule when they have power, and they will have power in the degree they own and control the land, the banks, the producing and distributing agencies of the nation.”
John Dewey (1859–1952), classical liberal and educator
In all societies, wealth is a product of the labour of the population. The enormous wealth that a small capitalist class has now amassed is therefore to be regarded as stolen property. The combination of community-owned companies and worker-owned companies would mean that wealth is returned to its creators, the population. This must of course be done without compensation to the capital owners. You do not reward the thieves after the stolen goods have been returned.
What would it mean, in concrete terms, that society owns the means of production? The goal of syndicalism, as already stated, is not nationalization under a political dictatorship or under the current parliamentary state. To answer this question, one must raise the question what the syndicalist vision would mean for the future of the state.
The early labour movement (starting in the 19th century) often spoke of “sabotage” in a trade union sense. If the term direct action can be misunderstood, the word “sabotage” causes even worse misunderstandings. According to modern Swedish criminal law, sabotage is an act that endangers the health or safety of several persons. The early labour movement used the word in an essentially different way. The trade unionist “sabotage” was a general label for various alternatives and complements to strikes.
Some examples of such alternatives are slowdowns (i.e. to slow down the pace of work), so called work-to-rule (exceptional obedience to regulations at work, again to slow down the pace) or to inform consumers as whistle-blowers if for example the company’s products are of bad quality.
Another example of “sabotage” in the unionist sense is the method good service. This means that employees provide consumers with such a good service that the rest of the work is delayed. Another example is to take the tools out on solidarity strike. This method is a protection against strike breaking. This could mean, for example, that striking transport workers leave their vehicles standing and take the keys with them. In today’s digitalized society, this method can mean making it impossible for strike breakers to log in to office computers or to access factory robots.
The purpose of unionist “sabotage” is usually to defend the health and safety of workers, consumers or other members of society. However, the very word “sabotage” is far too vague and completely outdated. The alternative is to use more descriptive terms such as slowdowns, work-to-rule, take the tools out on solidarity strike, etc.
It sometimes happens that employers dig up old union writings about “sabotage” in order to tarnish the union’s reputation. Bosses then accuse the representatives of advocating “sabotage” and play on the term’s connotations to assassinations and even terrorism. The bosses recite words out of context and in bad faith. The union solution is again to be clear in the communication. Always let slander blow back on the slanderer.
At many workplaces, employees are not ready to exercise collective pressure for the simple reason that there is not a strong enough sense of community. The first step for syndicalists is then to build that community.
Arbetsplatsorganisering (APO) Workplace organizing. The process by which co-workers develop and use their collective strength in a systematic way.
Branschfederation Industrial federation. A nationwide association of all industrial branches within an industry. Corresponds to national trade unions within LO (in Swedish: fackförbund). However, syndicalist industrial entities (section, industrial branch and federation), are open to all occupations in an industry, both blue-collar and white-collar workers (except bosses).
Branschsyndikat Industrial branch. A local association of all sections in an industry. Corresponds to industrial branches of LO unions (in Swedish: avdelning).
Direkt aktion Direct action. Action without representatives carried out by the workers concerned themselves. Expressed in another way, the term encompasses collective pressure exerted by the staff.
Driftsektion (DS) Operating section. A local union in a workplace for all employees except the bosses. Corresponds to a local job branch of LO unions (in Swedish: fackklubb). Swedish syndicalists often use the shorter term section.
Facklig organisatör (FO) Union organizer. General term for organizers at all levels within SAC. Central organizers train and support LS organizers, who in turn support workplace organizers.
Lokal samorganisation (LS) Local. An association of all individual members in an area. Encompasses all sections and industrial branches. LS is a local class organization.
LS-organisatör LS organizer. A person elected at LS level who trains and supports workplace organizers. Can be a member of the LS board or a special organizing committee.
Organisationsplan Organization plan. SAC’s Organization plan provides a preliminary target image. It’s an image of what the organization might look like when SAC (once again) has achieved a strong position in one or more industries, based on many sections. The plan also contains guidelines for building such an organization. The plan is not intended to be mechanically implemented. Sections, industrial branches, federations, etc. are built when the need arises in workplaces. The plan should help all parts of SAC to cooperate in the struggle for both daily demands and a new society.
Registermetoden The register method. An alternative to strikes, collective agreements and the idea of general strike as a path to economic democracy. Practiced by Swedish syndicalists from the late 1910s to the early 1950s. Syndicalists kept records of available work and dictated the price and conditions for doing the work. The method included struggle inside the workplaces, union-run employment services and collective deals without industrial peace obligations. LO unions also used the register method.
Råd Council. A body for workers’ self-management. Workers’ councils are elected by general meetings at workplaces. The long-term vision of syndicalist sections is to establish councils. This can be achieved, for example, in such a way that the section’s member meeting becomes a general meeting for all workers and the section board becomes a workers’ council. Read more in Part 4 of the book.
Sveriges arbetares centralorganisation (SAC) Central Organization of Workers in Sweden. The sum of all Locals (LS) plus central bodies for cooperation and joint decisions. SAC is a nationwide class organization.
Tvärfacklig grupp Cross-union group. A group of co-workers who meet regularly, regardless of union affiliation, for the purpose of discussing and pursuing common interests. Can be supported by trade unions or function as independent cooperation between colleagues.
Far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation about the Vondelkerk fire are being widely shared on social media, NOS reports based on res
Far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation about the Vondelkerk fire are being widely shared on social media, NOS reports based on research by the Justice for Prosperity Foundation. These claim that the fire was caused by an attack by “jihadists,” “Muslim terrorists,” and even the “left-wing elite.” The police and fire brigade are still investigating the fire in the Amsterdam church.
According to Jelle Postma, a former officer at the intelligence service AIVD and the director of Justice for Prosperity, these posts are part of a deliberate disinformation campaign. On January 1 and 2, 20 percent of all posts on X about the Vondelkerk linked the fire to Muslims. Similar stories also started circulating on other social media platforms.
“Within minutes of news of the fire, we saw the first false claims appear. Initially, they were mainly suggestions. It was then presented more as a question: ‘Could it be Muslims?” Postma said. After just an hour, the question changed to claims that it was an attack, without any evidence.
That same night, far-right influencers like Eva Vlaardingerbroek and the British Tommy Robinson pick up the posts. From that moment on, the misinformation spread rapidly. “A snowball really turned into an avalanche here,” Postma said. The message was consistently that the church fire was an attack on Christians, and that Muslims and a “left-wing elite” were behind it.
According to Postma, this was one of the first times in the Netherlands that right-wing misinformation so explicitly linked jihadism and the political left.
We want everything we have chosen to mention here to have an impact on our ideology. Not just on how we talk about things, how radical we want to be or whether or not we want to present ourselves as “one union among other”, but on a profound level. It is not just a question of form, but content.
What do syndicalists want?
It is up to us as a movement and as workers to answer this question. But in order to do so we have to revisit our ideological standpoints — many of which are discussed in this book — and review them in the light of a society as it actually is, and our goal of a life beyond capitalism.
At the same time we have to organize. We must try things out on a practical level, create spaces for interaction with others and mobilize more of the people we say we want to build a future society with — ordinary workers like you and me. A vital ideology can only emerge from a vital movement.
We must do all of this in full awareness that in this time of crisis, the climate crisis is the worst that the working class and humanity in general have ever faced. If we don’t begin serious attempts to build a movement for a life beyond capitalism soon, there will probably be no opportunities to do so in the future.
Niklas Averstad Ryd & Jonas Hammarbäck
Commissioned by the member meeting of the Umeå Local, May 1 2021
The working class too has transformed. The tendency to move production overseas has started to give way to a situation where it is workers from these countries that migrate. The global division of labour that has been in place for a long time is now present locally in the West. Migrant workers work in similar conditions here as they did in their countries of origin. Ethnicity has become an increasingly important factor on the labour market and the conditions of individual workers in the same workplace can differ immensely.
This is not really something new, however. The working class has never been as homogenous as some would have it. But the present situation gives rise to certain questions concerning syndicalist organizing and how we think about the working class.
Another stratification of the labour market is the generational. Security and conditions that were taken for granted among older generations are today unachievable for younger workers. It might be true that the calm on the labour market of the West was not achieved only by submissive trade unions, but partly because workers could actually expect concrete material improvements in their lives. If that’s the case, then the present situation does not only pose a serious problem.
The lack of prospects for younger generations could lead to a general loss of loyalty to the system in general. This could of course become a double-edged sword, but it is not inconceivable that a movement such as syndicalism could channel this discontent.
Furthermore, we see significant changes in how work is organized, or in other words the division and directing of labour. The most conspicuous example is what is called the gig economy. The middle management and administrative levels have been done away with and replaced by digital platforms — left are the owners way over there, and the workers way down here. The workers perform low-paid and stressful work without job security and through an app that has the role of both middle management and a work tool. But this trend also has an impact on the rest of the labour market, and in particular low-security jobs.
Digital solutions, often adopted from the gig economy and staffing companies, are used to circumvent already weak labour laws. Younger and immigrant workers — particularly in traditional female-dominated sectors — are particularly vulnerable to these developments.
In later years we have seen successful examples of how gig workers in other countries have organized through syndicalist unions. Since the bureaucratic unions in Sweden have so far failed to face this situation with anything other than useless collective agreements that they always pull out when they want to give the go-ahead to things they are too weak or not particularly interested in doing something about, it is only a matter of time before workers choose to organize themselves in some other form. If we could make ourselves relevant in this, we could make a significant change.
What do different sections of the working class see as the benefit of being a member of a syndicalist union?
What does syndicalism offer — and what is the likelihood that syndicalism will take root — in different groups, occupations and industries?
Workers who know other nation’s traditions of working class organizing also provide the movement with a better repository of experiences and knowledge. How people think about what a union is, and how they think about the ideas of the Swedish labour movement, differs between groups.
How can we best relay the experiences of the Swedish union movement and its relevance to groups where union organizing means something different?
How can we make the movement benefit from, integrate and transform through the experience and knowledge that exist within the working class of today?
SAC aims to be a union for all workers. However, there are norms today that condition what people see as an “ordinary worker” and these norms do not match up with reality. The neutral is never really neutral.
Privileged groups set the standards of what is seen as normal, apolitical and non-radical, and this determines what people see as radical and political work. This can become a problem, not just for our ability to attract workers. There is a risk that SAC attracts a privileged section of the working class instead of groups who have a greater need for and interest in syndicalist methods and our long-term goals.
What ideas, behaviours and groups are seen as neutral and why?
How do we create a movement that mirrors who we actually are, where we are from and how we live and work?
How can we make ourselves available to more vulnerable groups of workers, who really have more in common with our methods and goals?
How should this affect the way we speak to people, our practical work, structures and how we use our
