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