Can syndicalism as a strategy work? or rather is it probaple that it would work?

That's 'specifically 'anarcho-syndicalism'', user.
Malatesta critiqued orthodox syndicalism for the fact that traditional trade-unions with their centralized and bureaucratic organization can at worst be reactionary, if not under the direct control of a socialist-minded leadership or if influenced by the machinery of the bourgeois state, since even on on syndicalist terms unions are somewhat reformist.
And that is where he brought in an-syn. The former issues can be averted by making unions inherently revolutionary and prepared for armed struggle, rather than having them and co-ops and 'Bourse du Travail' try to outgrow and overshadow capitalism.

Of course traditional syndicalism, which had a particularly strong footing in France, withered away in the 20's due to the growing influence of communist movements inspired by Soviet Russia. Nowadays people barely think of its orthodox form when you mention the name of the ideology, but often think of Catalonia and the IWW, even though they share very little with the original form of it.

/know-nothing-but-talk-much post, treat accordingly

The strength of marxist leninism isnt in its longevity, its in its ability to actually establish itself in the first place.

Eyy my dude I'm reading this rn and its really good.
What should I read next?

Attached: Screenshot_20190607-092352_Amazon Kindle.jpg (1080x2220, 1.14M)

The syndicate system seems to often alienate portions of the proletariat, whilst over-prioritizing the industrial proletariat. This was the critique leveled against the syndicalists in Spain by pro-Soviet (as in council) groups like the P.O.U.M.
As for it's relevance today can't say I'm too sure. It always felt like a form of praxis that was too tied to it's historic moment.
Here's some reading from Spain
marxists.org/archive/weisbord/Collective.htm

Shamefully I've got no idea what to suggest, I've only been on a lecture about him and his thinking.
But I suppose I could pick that one up, too. He's a bit of a forgotten name as a theorist, and deserves more attention.

Literally every revolution ever has been helped along by democratic trade unions. Every one. Ever.

IT WORKED? Oh shit man, Imma go move to anarchist Iberia, I'm so fucking glad it worked! I could have sworn it was barely anarchistic and only lasted a few months but now that I know it worked I'll leave right now.

Like Falangism right?

The IWW isn't syndicalist in any way iww.org/history/library/iww/responsetoRILU/4
They follow a non sectarian line that acknowledges the usefulness of democratic centralism, while seeing anarkiddies as utopians that can still join because they're largely harmless.

Attached: strike-prisons1-justseeds-amanda-796x800.jpg (796x800, 69.86K)

The IWW itself acts as a party in the Leninist sense. The unions in the USSR are more comparable to the organizing committees, while the IWW has the Leninist party bottom up model as a base like pic related.

Attached: fast.gif (351x360, 113.72K)

But how can we keep the revolution established? What are some effective ways to combat revisionism and keep the system evolving and progressing?

Well, keeping the Cultural revolution in the PRC going for some more years might have worked, but some of those Red Guards were absolutely insane and maybe even Dengism is preferable to making all of China non-revisionist and maybe a giant anprim Posadist squat as well. I prefer the latter, personally.

I suppose global revolution might had worked too, but that moment was available only to the USSR and lost at 1922 at the latest. With socialism in one state, imperialist encirclement forces the hand of consolidation and I can't see a way to avoid revisionism after that, nor eventual collapse, unfortunately.

So until we find a better one the answer is smash shit, bully bureaucrats and fight the Four Olds.

Attached: China-CulturalRev1.jpg (315x433, 88.49K)

The Soviet Union’s main problem was that the means it used to defend itself also became a tool of the state elite to entrench themselves and rule beyond the reach of the proletariat. The question of whether or not they consitituted a class is up for debate (I would argue that they did). What’s clear is that the inability of the proletariat to actually govern themselves and hold their leaders accountable is what in the long term led to disaster by allowing corruption and revisionism to emerge and flourish, but allowing the system to limp on through its period of stagnation instead of undertaking the bold reforms that were needed (cybernetics, automation, etc). Eventually the stagnation and corruption were so severe that Gorbachev had to turn to hairbrained and idiotic reforms in a last ditch effort to save the country (which he was genuinely trying to do imo), and the final nail was when these unaccountable party bosses and bureaucrats realized that they could make more money under capitalism than socialism, and tore the whole thing down. How can we prevent this? Well I would say that the central lesson of the Soviet experiment was that socialism absolutely cannot survive without democracy, and that any measure that curbs the integrity of proletarian democracy should be opposed unless absolutely necessary.

Good post, you explained what I meant by 'forcing the hand of consolidation' better than I could. It's not that Stalin or Lenin or whoever were bad people who secretly wanted capitalism to come back, just that a state of global imperialist siege and the resultant pressure and paranoia led to opportunists and 'neutral' technocrats from the old regime slithering their way up the bureaucracy, to use their skills to defend the Union of course. As the bureaucracy grew stronger, so did they, their ideology too, then finally we got to a bunch of geriatric fucks dying in tandem in the early 80s and I really don't want to repeat what came after that.

i mean the strategy of general strike, catalonia didn't use those because of wartime.

They did. A day after the coup began, the CNT and UGT asked the Republican Government for weapons but they refused. So the unions called a general strike in order to mobilize their militias, this is why the anarchist were able to take control of Barcelona. If the government had given them guns, it is likely the revolution would've never happened.

thank you, i actually didn't know that, o just thought they took over catalonia.

with you right up to the point you claim cybernetics and automation were possible before revisionism had already set in irreparably