Talk:National syndicalism

Good article?

This isn't a very good article at all--I don't know what syndicalism is yet, but I certainly didn't find out what it was by reading this page. I found out that it's different from anarcho-syndicalism, and that it was affiliated with Italian fascists (facts (I assume) which would go well later in a page about national syndicalism) but no actual information on what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.131.38 (talk) 23:14, August 2, 2005

No this is a great and important article

I will help you spruce this up. I mean its important for many to know the Syndicalist roots of Fascism and how the right wing labor unions opted to denounce BOTH capitalism and communism in favor of a one party union that would control the state. Its about time that the US knew exactly what was the motivating force behind Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.104.18 (talk) 21:01, December 22, 2005 (UTC)

2011 here, going on 2012, and this article still doesn't explain what national syndicalism is, just which three European powers had something to do with it. Someone who knows ought to include a quick summary of the beliefs and practices of national syndicalism. I came here from the Falange article, wanting to learn more about what Franco and his supporters believed, but I don't get much out of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.51.124 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have some knowledge about Italian and French national syndicalism, and would like to improve the article. I built a draft in my sandbox and started work on it.

P.S.

I'm happy to see that you are interested in this subject. If you want to learn more about Spanish national syndicalism, Franco and Falange, please read

Payne, Stanley G. (1999). Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press‏. ISBN 9780299165642.

I haven't read the book, but I know it is comprehensive.

Sapere aude22 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In Spain

"National syndicalism in the Iberian Peninsula is a political theory very different from the fascist idea of corporatism" and "National syndicalism was intended to win over the anarcho-syndicalist Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) to a corporatist nationalism" look inconsistent. --Rumping 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

National syndicalism is not corporatism.... Its more radical. I think I will add some to this article when I feel like it. Corporatism innvolves employers organications and experts, national syndicalism involves only labourunions. Within a national-syndicalist state structure (national-syndicalism has never been tested annywhere, unlice corporatism) does not innvolve a party, like fascism and corporatism does.

Even though Franco called his rightwing brand of corporatism national syndicalism doesnt make it true. Its more a misuse of the word in a atempt to fool the working classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.81.122 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that being atomistic 'individual' based and being group, composite "corporate person" entity based makes one or the other "more radical". That highly depends on the antecedent condition. the former is liberal and the later is statist, they are related because both try to reconcile one with the other. Just from a different starting point. 4.242.174.205 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Marxism

As far as I can tell, this is the latest twist in Marxist thought, and should be categorized as such or removed from the Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to discusee the variations of Marxism, but you should have the courage to be open about the subject. -- Brothernight (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Still from the left, right?

The following is from the article on Georges Sorel: In his most famous work, Reflections On Violence (1908), Sorel warned about the political trend that conservatives and parliamentary socialism could become allies in a common struggle against capitalism. Sorel's view is that the conservatives and parliamentary socialism had common goals, because they both want the nation to be a centrally controlled, organic unit where all the parts are working together as a whole. Also, the parliamentarian socialism of the left wants economic nationalism, and huge tariff-barriers in order to protect their interior capitalists and this works well together with the cultural nationalism of the conservatives. Sorel warned about the creation of corporatism, where the workers movements and the employers organizations would be forced to merge with each other, thus ending the class-struggle, and because he felt that parliamentary democracy was moving in that direction at the beginning of the last century, Sorel said that the workers had to stay away from the socialist parties, and use strikes and violence as their primary weapon against the middle and upper classes in parliament. That way, the workers would not only fight harder for their share of the values produced by capitalism, but also help to protect capitalism against the semi-feudal, corporative dystopia and oligarchy that the socialists and the conservatives are working towards.

Sorel was the son of a failure, and after he graduated from engineering school the French government hired him so that it could send him off to far away Corsica. Later, after he became old enough to retire he became, and here I am once again quoting from the article on him, Original in his thought, he was an intellectual eccentric and very nearly a crank.

Now, being a fairly well-read guy, I have never heard of this dude or his writings before I stumbled across him and the mention of his works in the Wikipedia. These mentions strike me as an overt attempt to push his philosophical views forward for consumption by the general public--which is entirely acceptible to me, provided that his champions should be more open about him, his ideas and where his ideas came from, the relative importance of his ideas during his time, and why they have become important enough today to affect several different articles on old tyrannies and long dead twentieth century tyrants. -- Brothernight (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the "Marxism" section

Just because you personally view ideologies that are not of your own to be one in the same category of "Marxism" doesn't mean you dictate the reality of the matter. And the reality is that National Syndicalism is not just some ideal made up in some coffee shop recently. It has a historical basis and practiced in a number of nations and the ideology differs greatly from the economic advocations of Karl Marx. I could make the same argument and state that "Christian Democracy," "Neoconservatism," and "Libertarianism" all belong in a collective "Conservative" category. But of course, I don't view political science as ignorantly as you clearly do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.214.222 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not syndicalism

National syndicalism differs altogether from syndicalism. It is to syndicalism what "National Socialism" is to socialism, National-Anarchism is to anarchism, and National Bolshevism is to Leninism - a nationalist attempt at adapting a strategy to their own ends. I've put multiple citations on this matter and they keep getting deleted for what appear to be mostly conjectural reasons, so to the talk page this matter goes. Docktuh (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You can keep on asserting that "National syndicalism differs altogether from syndicalism", but that is just an assertion that requires some sources to back it up. Your first attempt at this involved asserting (without any sources) that syndicalists oppose private property, you then took that unfounded assertion and combined it with a statement by José Antonio Primo de Rivera that showed an openness towards private property to support your preconceived conclusion. What you did in this scenario was a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Your second attempt reinstates your earlier WP:SYNTH, introduces a source of questionable reliability (libcom.org), and introduces more WP:SYNTH with the other two sources you added. You can't cobble together a narrative to support your own preconceived political beliefs, if you want to say that National Syndicalism is not related to syndicalism you have to have a reliable source that explicitly says that. If you don't, you're just engaging in original research and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. On a slightly different note, back in November I reminded you of the need to provide an edit summary for your edits, could you please do so going forwards? Alssa1 (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the supposedly unfounded claim of syndicalists opposing private property, syndicalism represents a form of revolutionary (specifically libertarian) socialism. The burden of proof is, by definition, not on me, as historically there is no form of revolutionary socialism that is particularly tolerant of private property. I brought forward an article that directly cited syndicalism as anti-private property, from a website which discusses libertarian socialism (Libcom). Furthermore, if we're going to talk about political biases in this matter, you are also a self-identified anti-Marxist. That is not to say you can't produce workable input, but accusing me of bias due to political beliefs is not a stable position for you either. I would say that a third party is best here. If I find a scholarly journal that explicitly states (what should frankly be obvious) I'll add it in a later edit. Docktuh (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. If you want to say "all syndicalists oppose private property" (or something vaguely along those lines), you have to have a reliable source that explicitly says that. Libcom does not meet the guidance requirements to be considered a reliable source, and therefore cannot have its claims taken as fact. Libcom is free to express their opinion(s) of what 'true syndicalism' is, but that doesn't mean we craft articles in 'Wikipedia's voice' taking their opinion as fact. I highly recommend that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's rules on partisan/biased sources (see WP:BIASED). The fact that you and I have declared our political beliefs on our respective user pages does not mean that we are arguing from the same standpoint. I believe that you have engaged in original research and synth (in breach of Wikipedia's specific guidance: WP:OR & WP:SYNTH) as well as inputting a source that doesn't meet either the bias or 'reliable source' requirements (see: WP:RS & WP:BIASED), in relation to your edits on Syndicalism. Now, if you think I've broken any of the rules, I'd be very happy for you to call me up on it. But while you do that, please review the guidance that I've inputted here (the links beginning with 'WP'). Alssa1 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have since found sources that make this claim (you and I had a separate discussion on your own talk page) and my last edit to this page removed elements that could be interpreted as WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. I think that mentioning the various differences between syndicalism and national syndicalism is important, so as to demonstrate how it has in practice been (to quote the article) "a far-right adaptation". Because without arbitration I don't think either of us will be satisfied on the matter of whether or not it is a syndicalist ideology proper, I want to propose an agreement to return of mentioning these differences without the use of language that can be interpreted as breaking the rules. (You can see these differences on my last edit, credible sources and all). Docktuh (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)