User talk:Bring-me-llamas

On national syndicalism
So, some of your arguments don't really hold water, and I didn't want to edit war so I came straight to your talk page to hash it out. Firstly, Sorelianism holds all the same distinctions as national syndicalism re: it's relation to syndicalism itself (opposition to class conflict, anti-communism, support for the nation-state), save for maybe a lighter attitude in regards to nationalism, as well as not so much class collaborationism so much as class segregation (which functionally just means the maintenance of the existing bourgeois/proletarian distinction). Sorel himself was a proto-fascist whose ideas became more and more far-right as he went on, going on to become acquainted with Action Francaise and Charles Maurass. The differences are to the point of total contrast. Regarding it being in the sidebar and template, this is more or less a result of a clerical error on my part (editing late at night'll do that to ya), but all the same it's presence there is not a static thing that forever means it's syndicalist. The same can be said of the fact that National Bolshevism is in the sidebar for Marxism-Leninism, it doesn't mean that National Bolshevism is Marxist-Leninist. Docktuh (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude by your decision to discuss this more in-depth instead of resorting to less adequate behavior; if I myself came across as hostile, then I would like to apologize. Second, I would like to clarify that I do not adhere to national syndicalism, but I am indeed very interested in it due to its connections to other ideologies as well as how few information seems to be readily available regarding it; if you could point me towards more sources dealing with it, I'd appreciate it.

Now, regarding the points you've raised here: despite the huge influence that Sorelianism had on national syndicalism, it would be a mistake to equate them; Sorelianism does indeed support class struggle, and this is precisely where its intransigence towards democracy, parliamentarianism and reformism comes from; the grand myth of the general strike wouldn't be realized through class collaboration, would it? It is precisely Sorel's disillusionment with the proletariat that refused to carry out said revolutionary class struggle which pushed him towards national syndicalism, which substitutes the class struggle of the proletariat with its integration into the nation. In order to be clear: Sorelianism is the doctrine expressed by Sorel's writings before he turned to integral nationalism, before he lost faith in proletarian class struggle. I am also well aware of Sorel's status as a proto-fascist, this being the reason why he's so significant regarding national syndicalism in the first place.

As for the sidebar, I did not mean to imply that the validity of national syndicalism's categorization as syndicalist depends on it being located at a wiki sidebar or not. But I think that we can both agree that it's best to leave it and the template in this page for the sake of completion; even if we were to concede that it's not truly syndicalist, it's still heavily tied to the wider syndicalist current from its inception and deserves a mention there due to its historical significance. I am not negating that it is drastically different from syndicalism proper either, and for this reason I disputed nothing regarding the section that you added which explained some of the differences (a helpful addition to the page since it highlights national syndicalism's ideological aspects, something that still is lacking in my view but was a lot more evident before).Bring-me-llamas (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh you didn't come off hostile at all! And national syndicalism interests me as well (in fact if anything I will admit to some potentially unconscious bias, as it says on my own page I'm an anarcho-syndicalist). Sorel himself (borrowing from the Sorelianism article) "...believed that it was the proletariat's task to awaken the bourgeoisie from intellectual stupor to recover its morality, "productive energy", and "feeling of its own dignity" that Sorel claimed had been lost because of democratic ideals. Hence, Sorel believed that class conflict would in the end result in the rejuvenation of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat." So as I said, this isn't so much class struggle or class war as it is an odd class segregation that ultimately maintains the bourgeois/proletarian distinction. He makes similar breaks from syndicalism generally that do manifest in national syndicalism proper, such as his contempt of democracy, his endorsement of integral nationalism, his (later) contempt of Marxism, his on-again-off-again relationship with monarchism (again breaking with the general syndicalist trend of libertarian socialism), as well as the odd syncreticism of the whole thing (for instance, Sorel's membership in the distinctively nationalist and far-right Cercle Proudhon, weirdly enough named after an anarchist thinker).


 * This all said, I would like to say I very much agree with your position on the sidebar, it is useful for it to be there, funnily enough (given my prior mention of the two) for the same reason that National Bolshevism pops up in the Marxist-Leninist sidebar. Though I might make the case for it being not so much a variant as a related concept. Docktuh (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)