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

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

Other urls found in this thread:


Are you trying to make me blind user?

importance; they teach that the ballot-box has replaced the gun, but the means of acquiring power might have changed without there
being a change of mental attitude.

Sorel was SocDem gang?

He hated democracy because he saw it as getting in the way of a syndicalist revolution (i.e. general strike). Basically it's a statement against socdems.

thank you
that font really is cancer


Sorel believed the general strike would bring about his particular brand of socialism (syndicalism). He also incorporated a lot of metaphysics into his work with his ideas about what he called "myth" has a form of propaganda.

They will put pressure on the parliament to push reforms, which will appease the normies, and will derail the socialist movement. It's better than parliamentary socialism at getting reforms, not achieving socialism.

See: The New Deal

red biennial in italy had the potential to do so much more. it basically toppled parliamentary authority for two years but the fascists filled the power vacuum and the worker movement sort of stagnated and lacked focus though they made great progress in organizing rural proletariat (which is what really sparked the fascist counter-coup by petit bourgeois who had ironically seized small plots of land for themselves in the post-war confusion caused by socialist agitation.

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.

sorel was repeatedly btfo'd by bordiga, read fam