Ok so for the length of this reply I'll treat the question as 'whats your opinion on anarcho-syndicalism.' As I have said a few times, I came to anarchism through the syndicalist movement, and for a very long time I identified strongly with the Pure Syndicalist position. I am still a member of one (anarcho?)-Syndicalist union, the IWW, and a close follower and sympathiser of another, the SAC.
The reasons why I left anarcho-syndiclism is for a few reasons -
a) elevating a tactic, even a useful one such as the formation of radical trade unions, to strategy risks universalising it and attempting to apply it in situations which are not applicable.
B) unions, by their very structure and place in the economy, act as intermediates between bosses and workers and thus have a tendency towards accepting this position, by adapting to it as well as possible and gearing their organising towards the winning of short-term goals, making workers lives more tolerable in the here-and-now (a positive goal, to be clear) but loosing its capacity to achieve its long-term goal, the abolition of class society. Unions, in other words, have a conservative drift enforced by their position in capitalist society, much like radical political parties.
C) using a structure designed specifically for the organisation of workers, as workers, as the nucleus of the new society risks ossifying these positions and placing a power far too great on the workforce of a specific area. I much prefer a councilist vision (I know that forms of syndicalism account for this). I also worry that it risks enforcing the position of workers when the whole point is to abolish it both in reality and in our imaginations. Basically it gives capitalism, which structures the worker, an in in organising its replacement through the worker.
Finally, and most importantly to start from, the idea that a general strike in some way automatically wins a revolution is naïve - quite simply, the capitalist economy is how the vast majority, however badly, fulfills their needs, and shutting it down indefinable would starve the workers back to work long before it starves the boss into giving up. The thing that's actually revolutionary about them is the way that they force the formation of alternative ways of filling needs, of worker's councils, and of actions to defend themselves from police. This is good but not enough, and needs to be pushed - seizing necessary workplaces and running them, not for the boss but for the strikers, defending those gains, attacking the ruling class directly, etc. This is basically the point made by Malatesta in the article Armed Strike!, which I have mentioned before as influencing my turn away from syndicalism.
To conclude, my view on syndicalism is largely that the economic struggle and the daily struggle are extremely important, and are arenas in which revolutionaries ought to make interventions. This can be done both through revolutionary unions and dual-carding in reformist ones. However, that struggle on its own and I. The forms that it takes on the workplace is not deserving of priority over other struggles and means of struggle, and just like those, is not on its own sufficient for actually reaching anything which resembles Anarchy.
