The particular myth which is central to revolutionary syndicalism is the myth of the proletarian general strike, construed both as a possible actual event in the future and more importantly as a myth which mobilises people to action. Sorel observes that ‘men who are participating in a great social movement always picture their coming action as a battle in which their cause is certain to triumph’; it is to these images that he applies the term myth. The function of any such myth is to facilitate action and it must therefore be judged in these terms, not in terms of its empirical accuracy, so that it should not be taken seriously as a prediction. It operates intuitively rather than intellectually, and thus is fundamentally different from a utopia. The myth of the general strike is ‘a body of images capable of evoking instinctively all the sentiments which correspond to the different manifestations of the war undertaken by Socialism against modern society’. Revolutionary myths are thus expressions of will rather than descriptions of the future and as such ‘lead men to prepare themselves for a combat which will destroy the existing state of things’. Levitas, The Concept of Utopia, p.75

A myth cannot be separated into its constituent parts and judged against reality, for it only operates as a whole, and it is not susceptible to refutation by empirical evidence: “A myth cannot be refuted since it is, at bottom, identical with the convictions of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalysable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions.” [Sorel, Reflections on Violence, p. 133] Levitas, The Concept of Utopia, p.75-76

The myth of the general strike is thus virtually unadulterated by utopia. It operates in terms of feeling, intuition and instinct rather than intellect, and promotes action rather than contemplation or reflection. The function of utopia is criticism, but an impotent criticism; the function of myth is transformation and change. The superiority of myth over utopia is not just that it is more effective at changing the world. Myth is morally superior because of the state of mind which it induces and the action which it gives rise to. Sorel’s ethical standard is the heroic individual – a distinctly male individual modelled on soldiers fighting for noble causes. The image of virility is epitomised in Sorel’s extolling action over thought in the phrase ‘words are female and only acts are male’. And it is in action – specifically in revolutionary action – that the individual possesses the greatest freedom and thus most completely himself. […] Myths are necessary because without them, revolts will not provoke revolution. Whether they bear any relation to future history is irrelevant to their power and their value. At the centre of the myth lies the experi- ence of grasping the inner self, of becoming and possessing oneself more intensely than is possible in normal life. Utopias, on the other hand, are cognitive constructs, products of the intellect, of reason. As such they are divorced from the soul of the proletariat, have no real connection with anything, are at best impotent and at worst diversionary and reactionary. Myths emphasise process, utopias portray ends. Thus ‘syndicalism is free of all utopianism in the sense that it subordinates prospects for its triumph to the complex of conditions, and while waiting it performs the role of a cleansing agent in the world’. Levitas, The Concept of Utopia, p.76-78