In his General Strike (1933 version) he dismisses political action - discussing both reformism and armed insurrection - as ineffective. "The advocacy of armed insurrection is misleading also because most of its protagonists, being politically minded and politically-trained, are more determined to capture State power than to capture the industries. The politician is utterly incapable of thinking in terms of industry. He is incompetent either to control or direct industrial processes. In a country like the U.S.A. with 48 state and hundreds of municipal and county capitals in addition to the federal capital in Washington all adequately guarded the problem is almost hopelessly complicated. At the worst an attempt at armed uprising would result in a series of unprecedented massacres, at best in an overtowering and very stupid bureaucracy or an equally stupid and far more cruel dictatorship of politicians." He distinguishes "industrial unionism" from narrowly-defined "anarcho-syndicalism" (does he mean Platformist conceptions of syndicalism, as with the CNT-FAI? I'm not sure). He also states "And, unless they wish to give up the principle of 
democracy for the principle of dictatorship, they should refuse to give over the control of their organization to politicians or non-proletarian leaders of any stripe or color."
Don't confuse the 1933 and 1946 versions of the work. I got these mixed up in an earlier post on Talk:List of anarchist poets. Both versions are strongly - even startlingly - collectivist by today's standards.
I find that kinda ironic given the IWW's dual unionism.