Talk:Free Association of German Trade Unions

Copyediting of the first three sections

This is a superb article! I did do a little copyediting, however. I copyedited the first three sections (Localist roots, Founding, and Early years). I replaced the used of the term "Stewards' Centralization" with "Representatives' Centralization" for consistency purposes. I hope that is OK. If there was a name change from Stewards' to Representatives', that should be noted and the changes I made undone. I also changed the term "central committee" to "Business Committee." A Business Committee was the only one mentioned in the article. I assumed "central committee" meant Business Committee, so I changed the terminology throughout the first three sections in order to be consistent and avoid confusion. If that change is not correct, please feel free to undo my changes. (If there was a central committee in addition to a Business Committee, that fact should be noted in the article.) I deleted the reference to the founding of the masons' and carpenters' union because they occurred before the founding of the FVdG. If their founding is important, then their creation should be added to the narrative on localist movement. As written, the two unions' founding made no sense (they came before the founding of the FVdG, but were used to prove that the FVdG was widespread). Finally, it was not clear why the first system of strike support (paid in part by the SPD) created problems. The article implied these were political problems, so I clarified that. If this is incorrect, please undo and clarify the point. I hope to do a little more editing tomorrow. - Tim1965 02:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your edits. Your interpretations were generally correct except for the first paragraph of the "Localist roots" section. The way I phrased it was ambiguous, I've changed it now and hope I've made it clearer.--Carabinieri 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting of final four sections

I copyedited the final four sections of this article (Radicalization and expulsion from the SPD; Pre-war period; World War I; and November Revolution and re-founding as FAUD). Most of the changes are, I think, not controversial. Translating from German often leads to run-on sentences in English, so I tried to clear that up. I hope the original author can review the changes I made; I had to interpret the meaning from what was written, and I am not much of an expert in German trade union or socialist politics. Some points to consider:

• In the sixth paragraph of the section "Radicalization and expulsion from the SPD," the term referendum is used. My understanding is that a referendum is usually and up-or-down/yes-or-no vote on an issue. Voters are not usually asked to choose one among many options. The way the sentence was worded, the sentence implied that there was a choice. I reworded this. However, if this is incorrect, please change it back.

I guess survey might be more exact.--Carabinieri 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• A reference was made in the final paragraph of the section "Radicalization and expulsion from the SPD" to FVdG lose two-thirds of its membership. That seemed out of place at the top of this paragraph, so I moved this to the sixth paragraph. Additionally, the lead sentence of the final paragraph opened with the word "Despite..." This word indicates that membership loss was a factor in causing less radicalization even though other factors (changes in the economic milieu, industries, and regions the organization drew its members from) was causing more radicalization. I don't think that was what was meant. Membership loss probably had nothing to do with further radicalization.

I really meant "in addition to" and not "despite". I'll rephrase it to make it clearer.--Carabinieri 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The final paragraph of the section "Radicalization and expulsion from the SPD" had a major run-on sentence.
• I have a question about the final paragraph of the section "Radicalization and expulsion from the SPD": Did the Ruhr only have 450 miners in total??? That's astonishing. Perhaps sentence should read "450,000 miners". Or maybe "450 miners' unions". But only 450 individuals in the whole Ruhr region doesn't seem right to me.
  • I guess the way I phrased it was about as unclear as it gets. What I meant was that there were 450 miners from the Ruhr region in the FVdG. This isn't in itself notable, but indicative of what would happen after WWI.
• I have a question about the second paragraph in the section "Pre-war period": I'm unclear as to what role Kater played. Was he co-president with Wills (and later Tanner)? Or was Kater president while Wills (and later Tanner) were vice president? It is not clear if Kater and Wills were co-equals or if Wills was merely his running mate.
  • He was co-president with Wills, until Wills was replaced by Tanner.
  • I added the title "co-president" in that paragraph to make it clear. - Tim1965 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph of the section "World War I," there is a setnece about support for the concept of "the national". I want to be clear: Is the article referring to nationalism? Or to war-time patriotism? The way the article reads, it is referring to the concept of nationhood -- in other words to the concept of "a nation" (which had only developed over the past 100 years).
  • I guess the FVdG really rejected all of those things. The paper by Wayne Thorpe I used as source reads like this: "While millions of men stood ready to sacrifice themselves for their nations, "nation" and "nationality" were not sacrosanct ideas, the syndicalists argued, but emotive notions open to manipulation. The various foundations alleged as the basis of a nation - common language, common origin, common culture - failed to hold up under scrutiny. In Germany the mother tongue of millions of subjects was not German, but Dutch, Danish, Polish, or French. The population of the Reich, an intermixture of German, Polish, Latin, and Jewish elements, could scarcely claim a common racial stock. Similarly culture is best understood, the Mitteilungsblatt argued, as the product of the cooperation of differnet language groups and peoples, each with its own cultural strengths and shortcomings. No people could claim that they alone were 'divinely gifted,' nor was there 'a certain standard for the cultural achievements of a people.'"--Carabinieri 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph of the section "World War I," there is this sentence, which begins: "After Fritz Kater and Max Winkler reaffirmed syndicalist antimilitarism in the August 5, 1904, Der Pionier edition..." I believe the date (1904) is wrong. According to the article, Der Pionier was founded in 1911, not 1904. I assume the author meant 1914, since that is the year World War I broke out. But this should be verified.
  • Yeah, my bad.--Carabinieri 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph of the section "November Revolution and re-founding as FAUD," there is this sentence: "Its Ruhr region miners' unions left the craft unionist..." I believe the intent was to say "craft unions." But this paragraph contained a lengthy run-on sentence, and I am unsure if I got the interpretation correct.
  • The FVdG was traditionally organized on a craft unionist basis. The miners who joined after WWI, however, decided to keep to a form of organizing, which is more similar to the industrialist concept. I forgot the word concept after "craft unionist".--Carabinieri 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• In the third paragraph of the section "November Revolution and re-founding as FAUD," there was an extremely long run-on sentence. It was difficult understanding when Rocker returned from London, and when Souchy joined the trade union. I chopped this into several smaller sentences, and believe I got the sense correct. Please change it if it is not correct.
  • You got it right.--Carabinieri 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• In the final paragraph of the section "November Revolution and re-founding as FAUD," there was an extremely long run-on sentence. I chopped this into several smaller sentences. I hope I got the sense correct.
  • You did.--Carabinieri 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Whew! - Tim1965 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help.--Carabinieri 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! The changes you made greatly clarified the meaning, and addressed all the questions and concerns I had. It's an excellent piece! - Tim1965 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

Overall, I felt that this was an excellent article. At times it was quite detailed and I had to click quite often to other pages to gain background information, because my knowledge of German labor history is, ahem, weak, but I think that this page's average reader will probably be a little more informed than myself, so I don't see that as a problem.

I wouldn't mind addng more background information. Could you point to specific parts of the article, where you think this would be appropriate?--Carabinieri 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here were my reactions, but please remember these are from a very ignorant reader.

• I felt like I was sort of swimming in the deep end right away when I started the article, since I don't know anything about the German labor movement. I don't know what you think about adding a "Background to the German labor movement" section or paragraph, but such information would have helped me contextualize everything better.
• In the "Pre-war period" I felt that I was missing a lot since I didn't know much about the groups and people and movements being referred to.
• In the "Early years" I thought perhaps I was missing the point. There was a lot of detail about dues, but it was not entirely clear to me why this was so important. I think it was because the dues paid for the strikes, but there wasn't much discussion of the strikes, so it was difficult to see why the issue was so important. Again, though, this could just be my utter ignorance.

• In the first paragraph of "Localist roots", it was not clear to me whether or not Vogel and Rocker were scholars commenting on the movement or part of it. "Other scholars" seems to indicate they are academics but the title "later anarcho-syndicalists" suggests perhaps not.
  • Vogel is a scholar, while the anarcho-syndicalists the article is referring to mostly were not. I have rephrased this. Hopefully, it's clearer now.--Carabinieri 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid not. The phrase "other scholars" makes it seem like Hillman is a scholar - it is the word "other" - who is being compared? Awadewit | talk 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, Vogel and Rübner are scholars who do believe Hillmann influenced the FVdG, while "other scholars" such as Hans Manfred Bock disagree. I can't think of a better way of phrasing this.--Carabinieri 20:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
        • It is just that grammatically "other" seems to compare Hillman to someone - that is why it is confusing to someone who doesn't already know all of this. Using "other" is fine - it just has to be arranged correctly. :) Awadewit | talk 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of red links - some people care about such things. If you decide to go for FAC, you might create some stubs. (I once had three red links and someone complained.)

Unfortunately, there is hardly any coverage of the German labor movement before WWII on the English Wikipedia. I'll try to add some stubs or remove some of the red links.--Carabinieri 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked. :) Like I said, it is not a problem for me. I just thought I would mention it, since I have seen it mentioned by others. An issue to be aware of. Awadewit | talk 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Third, loss of membership (for example, the Berlin metal workers rejoined the DMV in 1897) convinced any localists of the need for action. - "convinced many"?
  • Yeah, that's what I meant, but I changed it to "the localists" now, since that seems more accurate.--Carabinieri 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• The issue was how local unions could retain their autonomy if they financial assistance. - missing word
  • The missing word would be "receive".--Carabinieri 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• This practice was replaced in 1900 by a far more complex system of assessments and donations designed to raise the money to support strikes was introduced. - something is amiss

was introduced has been removed.--Carabinieri 14:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Should not Marx be mentioned in the "Radicalization and expulsion from the SPD" section?
  • You're right. The FVdG's radicalization was to a certain extent also a departure from Marxism. I'll look up some information on how the FVdG commented Marx's theory and add it.--Carabinieri 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That departure became clearer to me in the "WWI" and "November Revolution" sections. Maybe a brief mention there, too? Awadewit | talk 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • After rereading my sources on this period, I was actually surprised by how little Marxism was directly criticized by the FVdG during this period. They primarily concerned themselves with the question of mass strikes and the SPD's vertical structure, topics Marx never wrote much about as far as I know. I have added a short reference to Friedeberg's preference for Kropotkin over Marx nevertheless.--Carabinieri 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Odd. Awadewit | talk 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I assume there are very few English sources that you could point the reader towards?
  • I'm afraid the four or five listed in the bibliography are all the English sources on this topic there are. Hans Manfred Bock's contribution to the book Revolutionary Syndicalism gives a pretty good overview of the history of syndicalism in Germany icluding four pages on the FVdG. Dirk H. Müller's contribution to The Development of Trade Unionism in Great Britain and Germany, 1880-1914 also has around four pages on the FVdG, but mostly focuses on the localists before 1897. Wayne Thorpe's "Keeping the Faith: The German Syndicalists in the First World War" is the best source in any language on the FVdG during WWI, but it hardly covers the rest of the union's history. I'll look for more, but I doubt I'll find anything.--Carabinieri 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That's fine - don't put yourself through too much. I just wanted to make sure that we had some good things, if at all possible. Awadewit | talk 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure to read - I learned a lot. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review.--Carabinieri 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am passing this, as I don't feel the expansions are necessary for GA. They would just be helpful for people like me and would probably be necessary for FA, if you go for that, which I feel you should. :) Awadewit | talk 00:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

References, p. versus pg.

Is it better write p. or pp. for page or pages, in the references instead of pg.?Coronellian (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Landauer-esque anarchist

Can someone explain what is a "Landauer-esque anarchist"? I am translating this page into catalan, and I want to know what is esque in english language. Please help me! Coronellian (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That just means that Augustin Souchy's views on anarchism are rather close to Gustav Landauer's. Essentially Landauer espoused more of a "cultural anarchism", which in some points contradicts the working-class ideology prevalent in the FVdG. Thanks for a lot for translating this article. :)--Carabinieri (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Rudolf Rocker.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)