Quick question for The Revolutionary Syndicalist Front

Revolutionary Syndicalism (as described in your name), is a traditional term for a form of political syndicalism which opposes the state. Since I have not come across your official opinion on the state, could someone elaborate the RSF position? Is the RSF an anti-statist group?

DISCLAIMER: This is just my opinion. I'm just a revolutionary syndicalist, not actually a member of the RSF.

As far as I know the only state opposed is the capitalist one. 'Revolutionary' refers to the commitment to overthrow capitalism instead of the 'utopian' strategy of trying to create socialism through the established system. If you read the posts of ECRSF members under 'Socialist Governance' you'll see the basic system for a highly democratic socialist state, and my reading on market syndicalism has shown me that a state will be necessary to coordinate the revolution and act as a source of capital.

In my experience, anti-statist syndicalism is referred to pretty much universally as anarcho-syndicalism.

First, revolutionary syndicalism Is often used as a synonym for anarcho-syndicalism. Secondly, So the RSF supports a democratic state? I am not sure that such a state will have the unity and cohesion to maintain the economic system. Too many dissenting views would poison the nation and lead only to corruption, treason, and the dilution of socialist values.
The problem is, i have found very few authoritarian syndicalists.

At the moment, I'm not in a position to elaborate on this subject from the official standpoint of the RSF. (All interested parties are encouraged to patiently standby until the Executive Committee publishes the relevant literature on such questions.) However, I would like to point out that 'RedSun' is absolutely correct in his point regarding the distinction between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism. Whether or not some may personally choose to employ the former term as a synonym for the latter is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that a discernible difference exists between the two.

With respect to 'Iron Vanguard's' criticisms regarding the democratic component of the post-revolutionary order that revolutionary syndicalism would establish, I feel that his points are entirely inapplicable. The 'chaotic' qualities he outlines are certainly characteristic of certain bourgeois democratic (and various libertarian) institutions, but would surely not exist in the sort of socialist system envisioned by rational democratic socialists.

To be clear, no one — surely no one in the RSF — has spoken of democracy in absolute terms. I personally agree with Lenin in the sense that absolute democracy cannot exist until the existence of the state itself is no longer necessary. (And we cannot even speak of such a social climate materializing at any near point proceeding the abolition of capitalism.)

That being said, there are clearly numerous ways in which to establish democratic institutions that avoid creating the sort of calamity that has been presented in this thread. For example, opposition parties (especially of the counterrevolutionary variety) could simply not be allowed to participate in the political arena. Furthermore, a socialist constitution could be established in order to ensure that certain fundamental principles would not be jeopardized. Ultimately, a reasonable democratic framework for political participation (at some point following the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois order) poses no more risk to the perpetuation of socialism than authoritarian systems do. Need I cite the plight of virtually every authoritarian socialist system that has hitherto existed to establish my point?

I truly have very little regard for the banal [false dichotomies] authoritarians employ against democratic principles. The bottom line is that the institutionalization of a socialized mode of production will invariably engender a collective desire to expand democratic principles to other pertinent areas of social life. The task of a revolutionary state should therefore be to guide this process in such a way as to safeguard the gains of the revolution itself and thus ensure the well being of the proletariat. Such an initiative will simply not require the superfluous measures often employed by authoritarian states. In fact, such paternalistic actions can easily lead to the establishment of a form of social stratification that can be just as discordant as feudal and bourgeois class divisions.

Iron Vanguard, can you supply examples of cases where revolutionary syndicalism is used as a synonym for anarcho-syndicalism?

RedSun wrote:Iron Vanguard, can you supply examples of cases where revolutionary syndicalism is used as a synonym for anarcho-syndicalism?

The only form of political syndicalism that has any level of popularity is the anarchist type, which often refers to itself as revolutionary syndicalism. Besides here, I have never heard of statist political syndicalism.