Hey Holla Forums, Holla Forums here, I would like your opinion on this quote and on Georges Sorel in general

Sorel is an interesting character, went from socialism to monarchism, the precursor to turd positionist and fascist thought. I still need to finish his book, I'm on page 257. It's a challenging read but it definitely has some interesting material on the French socialist scene in the early 20th century. Attaching the book to anyone curious

Decentralization strikes again!

I mean it's true. Reformism will never work, maybe reformism that has armed support, like what Venezuela or MLK did, but at that point, why even attempt reformism then?

Does it actually talk about violence in a political and philosophical sense and offer redpilled insights?

Yes, most of the book is about violence.
It talks about how the general strike is the ultimate and most effective form of violence against the bourgeoisie. It mostly mentions obscure historical acts of violence from Sorel's time which have been effective in one way or another and how the only path to socialism or syndicalism is through violent revolution as opposed to democratic reform which Sorel hated. I haven't read the book in a while but this is what I remember of it.

I enjoyed reflections on violence and Sorel in general. He was pretty based in turning on the syndicalists once they went into government with the bourgeois parties.

...

I think a clear-eyed reading of history demonstrates that large scale social changes only happen in the context of intense upheaval and instability. Normally this is triggered by a war going badly (aborted German Revolution, Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917, Paris Commune) or an especially acute economic crisis, often including hyper-inflation and food shortages (Islamic Revolution, rise of Hitler, French Revolution). We don't live in a revolutionary time because capitalism is relatively stable, the state is well funded and firmly under the control of the bourgeoisie, and the class enemy himself is confident and united.

Parliamentarianism is an important way to organize our forces and disseminate propaganda in the meantime, but it needs to be paired with other types of social struggle like strikes, demonstrations, anti-eviction squatting, community self-defense, and serve the people initiatives. Entirely avoiding electoral politics is a mistake as it is an unparalleled way to communicate your message to the masses and a pre-requisite to being taken seriously by most people. The issue is when parties begin to look at electoral politics as an end in themselves rather than one tool of many to agitate for a social revolution.

It's also important to never loose sight of the revolutionary horizon, socialist political parties should always be militarized and prepared to launch insurrections. If the time comes than we need to be ready and perhaps we can see the writing on the wall that such a time approaches.

-Karl Marx

...

...

The general strike as Sorel described it is unlike all other strikes. The general strike encompasses the complete overthrow of the bourgeoisie as opposed to simply asking for reforms like most modern unions do when they occasionally go on strike. As a former manager myself I can tell you that unions in the modern context are heavily tied into the managerial class.

Which is what they inevitably do, and is why bourgeoisie elections should be rejected in the first place.

international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/57Fundam.htm
sorel was repeatedly btfo'd by bordiga, read fam