Promotion of National Syndicalism

National Syndicalism (or any sort of syndicalism) has obviously not yet reached a mass audience. While the right circles of intellectuals are familiar with the ideology, we are certainly far from the desired mass worker movement with the ability to launch General-Strike Armageddon upon the decadent trappings of the West. As a political soldier motivated in my ideology, I am interested in hearing ways to propagate national syndicalism, preferably in a realistic and attainable way.

I do not apprehend what you describe when you refer to "national syndicalism." National syndicalism has historically existed as a reactionary movement, espousing a corporatist economic system. We absolutely repudiate it.

Rev Scare wrote:I do not apprehend what you describe when you refer to "national syndicalism." National syndicalism has historically existed as a reactionary movement, espousing a corporatist economic system. We absolutely repudiate it.

When I say national syndicalism I use it out of lack for a better term to describe nationalistic revolutionary and statist syndicalism (which I espouse). I am by no means a "national Syndicalist" in the fascist and class collaborationist sense. I should have clarified.

Could you provide links to learn more about this ideology?

Iron Vanguard wrote:When I say national syndicalism I use it out of lack for a better term to describe nationalistic revolutionary and statist syndicalism (which I espouse). I am by no means a "national Syndicalist" in the fascist and class collaborationist sense. I should have clarified.

I'm pleased to see you reject fascism and class collaborationism. However, "statist syndicalism" is a contradiction in terms. I'm not suggesting that syndicalism is exclusively anarchistic—historically, revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism represented distinct tendencies—but the term "statism" usually denotes a system whereby a centralized government is the primary agent of economic activity. Syndicalism is inherently decentralized and radically democratic, so statism is incompatible with the ideology.

I do not imply state supremacy when I say "statist", only to clarify the existence of the state as a power structure along with the syndicates. Many Syndicalist support the unions as the only power structure in society as well as government

Iron Vanguard wrote:I do not imply state supremacy when I say "statist", only to clarify the existence of the state as a power structure along with the syndicates.

Syndicalism primarily asserts the social principle of workers' self-management, although it is by no means the sole socialist variant upholding such. It is therefore innately predisposed toward eschewing state ownership of means of livelihood.

Many Syndicalist support the unions as the only power structure in society as well as government

The workers' council, quite apart from any strict foundation of trades unions, is a widely accepted socialist vision of governance.

To address your earlier query pertaining to realistic revolutionary syndicalist practice, it is first necessary to distinguish between syndicalism as an economic system and as a revolutionary doctrine. Due to the fact that the latter theory acquired its historical inspiration largely from anarchist thought, it tends to lack the coherence necessary for genuine revolutionary action. The concept of a general strike via extensive workers' federations and confederations is indeed a principal vessel by which to attain revolution according to syndicalist theory, but this avenue has been rendered ineffectual by anarchist currents. As it typically rejects political organization in favor of "direct action" by workers through a system of allied yet autonomous unions, this model for revolution is incorporeal, and I believe that history has proven such a simplistic disposition to be theoretically unsound.

In my view, revolutionary action must take the form of political organization represented by a vanguard of working class consciousness, which would inculcate and disseminate a uniform proletarian consciousness—one stressing solidarity in all areas of interest. The general strike is a means by which a unified working class can paralyze the bourgeois state and achieve revolution, but it is imperative that a coherent political framework exist around this pursuit. Naturally, this implies the formation of a political party and its cultivation of a prevalent grassroots movement capable of forging progress by incorporating such means as a general strike into a system of political leverage.

Educate! Agitate! Organize!

Rev Scare wrote:The workers' council, quite apart from any strict foundation of trades unions, is a widely accepted socialist vision of governance.

To address your earlier query pertaining to realistic revolutionary syndicalist practice, it is first necessary to distinguish between syndicalism as an economic system and as a revolutionary doctrine. Due to the fact that the latter theory acquired its historical inspiration largely from anarchist thought, it tends to lack the coherence necessary for genuine revolutionary action. The concept of a general strike via extensive workers' federations and confederations is indeed a principal vessel by which to attain revolution according to syndicalist theory, but this avenue has been rendered ineffectual by anarchist currents. As it typically rejects political organization in favor of "direct action" by workers through a system of allied yet autonomous unions, this model for revolution is incorporeal, and I believe that history has proven such a simplistic disposition to be theoretically unsound.

In my view, revolutionary action must take the form of political organization represented by a vanguard of working class consciousness, which would inculcate and disseminate a uniform proletarian consciousness—one stressing solidarity in all areas of interest. The general strike is a means by which a unified working class can paralyze the bourgeois state and achieve revolution, but it is imperative that a coherent political framework exist around this pursuit. Naturally, this implies the formation of a political party and its cultivation of a prevalent grassroots movement capable of forging progress by incorporating such means as a general strike into a system of political leverage.

Educate! Agitate! Organize!

So... You support a sort of dual power system, then use a general strike to pave the way for a revolution lead by a united vanguard?
Sound good to me!
In response to earlier questions, I must reassert that the state would NOT interfere in the economy, I support worker self-management. The state's role would be to physically protect the nation, both internally and externally, and represent the nation/ferment revolution throughout the world.

Iron Vanguard wrote:So... You support a sort of dual power system, then use a general strike to pave the way for a revolution lead by a united vanguard? Sound good to me!

Well, more or less pertaining to the latter, but I fail to see the connection between a "dual power system" and what I have outlined above. I don't advocate on behalf of any dual power alignment. I suppose that there may exist some confusion with respect to the transitional (revolutionary) power structure and the post-revolutionary order, which I admit has yet to be fully resolved (viz., the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front is not yet a political body). My present vision, independent of the official stance of the RSF, is one of a vanguard of the oppressed, embodied by a political party and its expanding grassroots networks, upholding general assemblies as organized decision making councils.

Rev Scare wrote:Well, more or less pertaining to the latter, but I fail to see the connection between a "dual power system" and what I have outlined above. I don't advocate on behalf of any dual power alignment. I suppose that there may exist some confusion with respect to the transitional (revolutionary) power structure and the post-revolutionary order, which I admit has yet to be fully resolved (viz., the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front is not yet a political body). My present vision, independent of the official stance of the RSF, is one of a vanguard of the oppressed, embodied by a political party and its expanding grassroots networks, upholding general assemblies as organized decision making councils.

I agree with all of these ideas you've stated, but I'm curious, as a new member, could you give me a brief outline of RSF doctrine? I'm very interested in any sort of non-anarchist nationalist syndicalism.

Iron Vanguard wrote:
I agree with all of these ideas you've stated, but I'm curious, as a new member, could you give me a brief outline of RSF doctrine? I'm very interested in any sort of non-anarchist nationalist syndicalism.

The RSF adheres to two core principles: revolutionary syndicalism (as the organizational title implies) and left-wing nationalism. The latter may be summarized by the definition provided in the FAQ:

Left-wing nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — such as ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism.

As syndicalists, we uphold workers' self-management and revolutionary action on the part of the proletariat itself in order to supplant the capitalist order. Industrial sabotage is a standard syndicalist means of gaining political and economic traction, but what separates anarchist tendencies is their disregard for political organization. Anarcho-syndicalism is premised on the notion of spontaneous order arising out of economic emancipation without involvement in state politics (it is in line, of course, with anarchist theory), but I believe such an approach to be myopic and ultimately flawed.

As left-wing nationalists, we propound a theory of national self-determination. We seek to establish nationalism on firm progressive footing. We view reactionary nationalist currents and cosmopolitanism to be pernicious if not outright counterrevolutionary.