In other words, are anarcho-syndicalists straight edge? [1] The short answer is, not as a rule, although there would not be many who would not share the opposition of straight-edgers to animal cruelty. The issue of whether or not to drink and smoke is also of interest and relevant to the anarcho-syndicalist movement.

The question of animal cruelty inspires very different responses in the anarcho-syndicalist movement, some unfortunately more dogmatic and intolerant than others. Whatever their differences, they all tend to share the horror of animal cruelty, as stated above, and demostrate a desire to find a solution to the problem. Where anarcho-syndicalists probably differ from straight-edgers the most is in their feeling that merely ceasing to consume animal products is not enough. There are more than a few who are either vegetarian or vegan (even your humble writer is the former)

The forms animal cruelty tends to take -- testing makeup on monkeys, cooping up chickens to the point where they can't move for their entire lives, cutting off their beaks, etc. -- are, one might argue, closely tied to the profit system; that is to say, that animal testing exists because there's money in it. It seems fairly reasonable to argue that the straight edge movement views animal cruelty as a particular evil of society, rather than as a natural end result of the system of production for profit, as an anarcho-syndicalist might. It also seems fairly reasonable to assume that the straight-edge movement fails to connect this particular form of oppression to others, including those that straight-edgers might experience themselves (wage-slavery, to take an obvious example). If anarcho-syndicalists happened to be sceptical about the straight-edge movement, it could possibly very well be for this reason. The fact that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, and that one of the first laws the Nazis passed when they got into power was to outlaw vivisection, illustrates rather clearly how limiting the failure to make this causal connection can be (if we are opposed to murder of people as well as animals, of course).

The other reason why anarcho-syndicalists might be sceptical about the straight-edge movement is its apparent preoccupation with indvidual self-purification, or with the idea that one can somehow opt out of the system that causes animal cruelty -- or even, more to the point, that one can absolve oneself of responsibility for animal cruelty by refusing to participate in the consumption of animal products. From an anarcho-syndicalist point of view, this is simply not enough. The many members of the anarcho-syndicalist movement who refuse to consume meat and/or animal products also recognise very clearly the need to take steps to remove the economic conditions which allow such abuses to occur -- which is, more or less, the capitalist system itself.

Criticisms of the some of the individualist aspects of the straight-edge scene by anarcho-syndicalists are contrasted by others made at the opposite end of the spectrum: those which view such actions as becoming vegan or vegetarian as "lifestylist" and "sub-cultural" (believe it or not, these are some of the actual words used) and completely irrelevant in every way to the cause of social progress. Clearly, there are several problems with this point of view. The first is that individual actions are limited to the extent that they do not deal with the causes of the problems at hand, not completely useless, and there is no reason why individual actions can't cohabit with collective activity anyway. The second is that the working class (the intended audience, obviously, for anarcho-syndicalist ideas) is not a homogenous blob of stereotypical white western workers; the workforce is not composed of beer-drinking, hamburger-eating, white men in overalls carrying a spanner, not by a long shot (more than half the workforce isn't male, to make a particuarly obvious point). Perhaps some workers might come from non-western cultures where the non-consumption of certain food or animal products is a fundamental part of their culture. To dismiss such activity as "lifestylist" is simply racist. The third and most obvious is that workers are still people, and have lives outside of work (or, perhaps more pertinently, outside of the anarcho-syndicalist movement). That this needs to be pointed out says more about the people who make those sorts of arguments than it does about the issue at hand.

As noted above, non-drinking and non-smoking is not exactly a central tenet of anarcho-syndicalism, although the practise raises interesting questions for the anarcho-syndicalist movement. One is tempted to argue on the one hand that avoiding alcohol and cigarettes (or at least cutting back on their usage) is advisable for anyone entering or participating the anarcho-syndicalist movement. Alcohol companies ply us with poison and profit from the destruction of our health and the social problems that their products cause. Tobacco companies, similarly, are unmentionable in that respect. Just as anarcho-syndicalists worth their salt wouldn't patronise such an anti-union, anti-environment, anti-culinary-good-taste establishment such as McDonalds, it seems a bit hypocritical to talk about opposing wage-slavery and at the same time being a slave to an addiction. Given the generally chronic state of poverty that anarcho-syndicalist organisations operate within and the possibility of putting whatever small amounts of money we have to better uses, reducing our drug intake would appear to make a certain amount of sense.

Of course, to drink or not to drink is the choice of each individual. Whether "lifestylist" or self-poisoning for the benefit of billionaire owners of large breweries, social activities involving the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and other substances often prove to be beneficial to the anarcho-syndicalist movement. Such activities provide a relaxing alternative to the often fairly structured and formal atmosphere of branch meetings, and give people a chance to interact in one which is less so. The whole point of the anarcho-syndicalist movement is to bring people together to talk and act on a properly human basis -- one which, instead of stifling their personalities and particular individual thoughts, is supposed to provide them to interact on a basis which gives them the opportunity to give full expression to their own thoughts and ideas. If this is so, then maybe it could be argued that informal socialising is an important part of this process, and that a few rounds of drinks and a proferred cigarette or shared joint here or there merely helps to grease the cogs, so to speak.

1. If this particular FAQ seems a bit strange, it is intended for people influenced by hardcore band Minor Threat, who wrote a song called "Straight Edge" in the early eighties, inspiring a cultural movement within the punk scene which promoted an ideal of individual self-improvement through the disuse of drugs and alcohol and avoiding casual sex.

faq

main