What are some common criticisms of Syndicalism?

My point was that it was hard to make any criticisms against something so vague. On one side we have AnCaps wet dream of "no-state", on other we have "non-state state" which is really hard to distinguish from proper state.

Is he uniformly recognized as the "true" AnSyn?

Well he literally wrote the book on it.

The unions were "killed" with the Toyotist "revolution" in most part of the industrialized countries. (Yes, even in 3rd world ones). The change from the Fordist/Taylorist organization mode gutted the bargain power of most of the unions; the leverage of power pends towards the porkies thanks to Neoliberalism. (flexibilization, decentralization, no more career building, and so on.)

What do "an" caps have anything to do with this?
I wish Marxists would stop associating them with anarchists.

So what? Wolff also wrote a book on Class Theory. Except it's bullshit and any Marxist knows it.

Is it universally accepted as a the Syndicalist Book? No? Well, see above: no unified doctrine. You can call anything Syndicalism and get away with it.

Of course.

It's Marxists fault that Anarchists never made a unified doctrine.
It's Marxists fault that Capitalists did the inevitable and created an abomination that raped Anarchism into it's opposite.
It's Marxists fault that Anarchists couldn't combat it and surrendered to the propaganda.
It's Marxists fault that ideologically illiterate new generation of Anarchists are all essentially AnCap in denial.
It's Marxists fault that you can't accept the reality of AnCap being modern Anarchists.

This is true for all of Stalin's written works. Oh but let's not get into that: is this picture a revision of Marx's theory?

Okay first of all, those things only hold true in the U.S. where the libertarian movement was weak. I'm not blaming Marxists, but you're the one falling for the propaganda.

Is it the Anarchists fault that Bolsheviks did the inevitable and created an abomination that raped Marxism into it's opposite?

Unironically posting that and claiming that it's a revision of Marxism is hilarious. Ever hear of the Junkers in Germany? Do you know that Marx was a German? Marxist theory, even classical Marxist theory, doesn't deny that there are other classes besides proles and the capitalists.

I did not claim it was a revision. I asked the stalin shitposter if it is.

It uses Marxist class analysis and applies to the modern era, therefore not revisionism. Marxism is a theory, not dogma. Stalin poster is not a shitposter, it's you literal drooling anti-Stalinist morons who don't read who are the shitposters.

The same thing is done by Wolff. But for the Stalin shitposter, that is "bullshit".

"Chapter 52: Classes" is from the Volume III of Capital. I've read enough to despise the Stalinists who hold themselves as the "true holders of revolutionary theory".

No we fetishize full automation and public ownership.

What propaganda? Most self-proclaimed Anarchists can't even explain their "Socialism" beyond the "there is no state to oppress me" - which is literally AnCap. And it's not endemic to US, no.

Frankly, I have yet to see a reason not to classify the rest of Anarchists (i.e. all non-AnCap) as "(uneducated) Marxists in denial".

Are you even sane?

Wolff literally throws the whole "ownership of the MoP" under the bus, and admits that he didn't even use proper Marxism, but a castrated Marxian economics instead. Which he then put on its head. And double revisionism doesn't make things right.

He also creates his own classes. Just because he named them just as Marx did, cannot make him Marxist.

So you meme that we have no doctrine, we present one and you flat out dismiss it?

No unified doctrine. You have a doctrine. Several, in fact.

I'm even comparing situation to ML - which is one specific doctrine - to get my point across.

What is an unified doctrine and why do we need it?

You don't need it.

I'm saying you don't have one:

...

Uhm hmm so you need to have an exact fucking theoretical protocol to not be vague…

Is this a request or you understanding why revisionism is bad?

I think that you fit right in with a Marxist Leninist party.

Given current state of the Party, I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Uh, yeah? Is that controversial?
OP asks for criticism against "Syndicalism", stalinposter asks 'What is syndicalism?' and the thread spergs the fuck out.
Stalinposter's point is that "Syndicalism" in and of itself is not enough of a descriptor for there to be raised any strong concrete arguments against.
This isn't that hard to understand, Stalinposter is not being unreasonable here.

I made this thread looking for simple criticisms of Syndicalist thought, but I see I interrupted your sectarian warfare. I'll politely wait for you all to finish

Well, if you'd read the thread, you'd notice that this isn't really sectarianism. It boils down to Stalinposter telling you to say what you mean by syndicalism.
Whose syndicalism/what syndicalist thought do you want critiqued?

my criticism of syndicalism is that I'm a syndicalist and I want to die

The fact that it encourages workism and bourgeois work-ethics, and that it has no place for those who are unemployed.

It's the same if you ask critiques of ML. Syndicalism is even more specific than ML. Syndicalism isn't even a school of anarchist though. It's a strategy.

Okay, then don't associate anarchism with anti-state liberalism/capitalism.

I think we're wrong i assuming bourgeoisie proletariat is the final clas struggle, i the end of capitalism will be the abolition of private property, then the end of socialism will be the abolition of Labor itself, and that will be solved trough the struggle employed/underemployed. Or maybe i'm just shit at Diamat.

Kaiser's coming to kick you down

What.

How does employed/unemployed form a class struggle?

Labor is abolished through the use of machines.

The IWW has an unemployed union and actively advocates for unemployed people to join, and the IWW fought hard for a 4 hour day, there's a work ethic to it but it is far from a bourgeois one.

In the US at least generally anarchists admitted everyone and advocated for shorter work days, while Marxists limited themselves to old stock Americans and MAYBE the Irish, Germans, Scandinavians and prefered better compensation to shorter hours.

Also the Marxist Unions like the AFL and CIO limited themselves to skilled laborers, Dagos who dug holes for a living were shit out of luck. Unsuprisingly those organizations turned liberal the second the US cracked down on Socialism.

I'm associating it with the ethics of Socialist state.

On a same level, as I do Feminism. "Stuff to be desired and to be worked towards to". It is the end, not the means. It's when people try to apply it as a means (the basis of Anarcho-Marxism debate) - that's when I start having trouble with it.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that all non-synsyndicalists are so spooked they are on par with class enemies.

But everyone is a Syndicalist.