About Revlutionary Syndicalism

As Revolutionary Syndicalists what you think about the revolutionary process? It must be carry forward by a syndicalist structure or by a political party?

In a nutshell: the leninst theory or the sorelian thought?

I say we use both!

Mass political parties (it can be multiple parties) and revolutionary industrial unions are merely expressions of a mass movement derived from the people, and the best strategy is to use all these means to advance the movement. Poll and strike are both weapons to be used. This will vary from country to country of course. I guess my ideas when it comes to means of revolution somewhat resembles those of the De Leonists.

Uberak wrote:I say we use both!

Mass political parties (it can be multiple parties) and revolutionary industrial unions are merely expressions of a mass movement derived from the people, and the best strategy is to use all these means to advance the movement. Poll and strike are both weapons to be used. This will vary from country to country of course. I guess my ideas when it comes to means of revolution somewhat resembles those of the De Leonists.

I agree with you. We need both.

The revolutionary syndicate will carry forward the socialist struggle in the workplace

The political party, obviously, in the political and mediatic arena.


What do others think?

I used to be a proponent of the De Leonist dual strategy of a simultaneous political and industrial union revolution, but have recently reconsidered the concept.

In my opinion, there are two issues with parliamentarism which advocates of the tactic should seriously contemplate. The first concerns the ineffectiveness of socialist political parties. Those proficient in Marxist economics should be aware that policies beneficial to the working class cannot be implemented without seriously impeding the stability of capitalism—as a consequence of the systemic imperatives of capital accumulation. This is significant because, to the extent a socialist party succeeds in gaining mass support and influencing policy decisions, the public will renounce the party the moment its reforms produce unemployment. (The alternative would be for the party to intentionally refrain from doing anything while in office, in which case why even bother?) The other grave danger is that the people may begin to consider the party to be a part of the ever loathed 'political establishment' simply due to its presence in parliament, as has occurred with various communist parties in Europe.

Nevertheless, an organized body of committed, class conscious revolutionaries operating somewhat independently of the syndicates is advisable. Toward this end, I believe facets of the strategy Mikhail Bakunin outlines in his 1869 "Program of the International Brotherhood" are worth considering. For example, while acknowledging that revolutions, in a certain sense, "make themselves" due to material circumstances, he also emphasizes the need for a "revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals." The task of these individuals would be to serve as "intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people." By this I think it's clear Bakunin means that the organization's primary responsibility would be to extinguish false consciousness among the masses and assist in channeling their progressive instincts in a productive direction.

There is, to be sure, much to disagree with in Bakunin's program, but the quoted passages seem quite reasonable to me. I would be interested in reading the thoughts of other forum members on the topic.

At the present time industrial unionism is not an extant force in many Western countries, and syndicalists have a considerable amount of work to do before such entities can be established on an appreciable scale again. I intend on elaborating more on this particular subject in a future paper.

Celtiberian wrote:I used to be a proponent of the De Leonist dual strategy of a simultaneous political and industrial union revolution, but have recently reconsidered the concept.

In my opinion, there are two issues with parliamentarism which advocates of the tactic should seriously contemplate. The first concerns the ineffectiveness of socialist political parties. Those proficient in Marxist economics should be aware that policies beneficial to the working class cannot be implemented without seriously impeding the stability of capitalism—as a consequence of the systemic imperatives of capital accumulation. This is significant because, to the extent a socialist party succeeds in gaining mass support and influencing policy decisions, the public will renounce the party the moment its reforms produce unemployment. (The alternative would be for the party to intentionally refrain from doing anything while in office, in which case why even bother?) The other grave danger is that the people may begin to consider the party to be a part of the ever loathed 'political establishment' simply due to its presence in parliament, as has occurred with various communist parties in Europe.

Nevertheless, an organized body of committed, class conscious revolutionaries operating somewhat independently of the syndicates is advisable. Toward this end, I believe facets of the strategy Mikhail Bakunin outlines in his 1869 "Program of the International Brotherhood" are worth considering. For example, while acknowledging that revolutions, in a certain sense, "make themselves" due to material circumstances, he also emphasizes the need for a "revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals." The task of these individuals would be to serve as "intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people." By this I think it's clear Bakunin means that the organization's primary responsibility would be to extinguish false consciousness among the masses and assist in channeling their progressive instincts in a productive direction.

There is, to be sure, much to disagree with in Bakunin's program, but the quoted passages seem quite reasonable to me. I would be interested in reading the thoughts of other forum members on the topic.

At the present time industrial unionism is not an extant force in many Western countries, and syndicalists have a considerable amount of work to do before such entities can be established on an appreciable scale again. I intend on elaborating more on this particular subject in a future paper.

Thanx for your articoulated answer!

Celtiberian wrote:I used to be a proponent of the De Leonist dual strategy of a simultaneous political and industrial union revolution, but have recently reconsidered the concept.

In my opinion, there are two issues with parliamentarism which advocates of the tactic should seriously contemplate. The first concerns the ineffectiveness of socialist political parties. Those proficient in Marxist economics should be aware that policies beneficial to the working class cannot be implemented without seriously impeding the stability of capitalism—as a consequence of the systemic imperatives of capital accumulation. This is significant because, to the extent a socialist party succeeds in gaining mass support and influencing policy decisions, the public will renounce the party the moment its reforms produce unemployment. (The alternative would be for the party to intentionally refrain from doing anything while in office, in which case why even bother?) The other grave danger is that the people may begin to consider the party to be a part of the ever loathed 'political establishment' simply due to its presence in parliament, as has occurred with various communist parties in Europe.

Nevertheless, an organized body of committed, class conscious revolutionaries operating somewhat independently of the syndicates is advisable. Toward this end, I believe facets of the strategy Mikhail Bakunin outlines in his 1869 "Program of the International Brotherhood" are worth considering. For example, while acknowledging that revolutions, in a certain sense, "make themselves" due to material circumstances, he also emphasizes the need for a "revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals." The task of these individuals would be to serve as "intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people." By this I think it's clear Bakunin means that the organization's primary responsibility would be to extinguish false consciousness among the masses and assist in channeling their progressive instincts in a productive direction.

There is, to be sure, much to disagree with in Bakunin's program, but the quoted passages seem quite reasonable to me. I would be interested in reading the thoughts of other forum members on the topic.

At the present time industrial unionism is not an extant force in many Western countries, and syndicalists have a considerable amount of work to do before such entities can be established on an appreciable scale again. I intend on elaborating more on this particular subject in a future paper.

Except, I believe that the focus of the "reforms" is an important factor in the failures of parliamentarism among communists. Much of the focus of these "reforms" are on welfare policies designed more to temporarily save capitalism from worker unrest than actually promoting socialism. Instead, I was advocating for a revolutionary party or parties that is or are dedicated to promoting workers self-management and economic democracy wherever it is possible. If the municipal government has revolutionaries voted into office, the municipal government can be modified as much as possible according to a direct democratic government whilst economic reforms such as promoting cooperative efforts at urban development and cooperative housing. If we happen to be a minority, we can at least vote according to principle. After all, many "non-mainstream" parties actually have members in legislative bodies. Not to mention that "eurocommunists" often align themselves with social democrats and support their lackluster reforms. As for unemployment, we simply have to hammer the capitalists who try to do so through eminent domain or through

The difference is that parliamentarism is not the only tactic that we use. Forms of direct action by revolutionary unions and other organizations would be used. The strike will be used. Protests and rallies in the streets will be used. If things, on the unlikely chance, go as bad as the state outright repressing us and becomes blatantly authoritarian, then armed insurrection and underground tactics will be used. And, the best way to get the idea out there is through media and the sheer gall and publicity of our actions. The people should use every single tactic that they can use and is practical at the time to make their voice heard.