[@Dinh AaronMk]

I'm not going to answer all of these counter arguments since I really should be studying for a midterm instead of being here, but I'll attempt to refute the important points in my eyes/ones worth debating. 

"Basically, like with America's second amendment the theory here would be the workers should be allowed to be armed and assemble into militias to defend themselves should a government attempt to reorganize labor and to centralize it. It's a threat of physical terror to keep the Vanguard in check."

And would there not be leaders in these militias? Again, there is still a clear power structure here, just under a different rebranding. If there is no leadership your militia is going to be ineffective because everyone would be off doing their own thing. It becomes indistinguishable from the military, except different leadership. 

It does spread out the "keys" of power, but it's still completely corruptible. 

"It gets very into the ego of small differences from here. But if violence was totally out of the question we wouldn't have had the liberal revolutions we had, either out of the notable use of violence to achieve it or the threat of violence."

And we've had very shitty revolutions. Not every revolution that permits violence is bad per se, but not every revolution that has permitted violence has been good.

I don't think your revolution is very good if you start killing off everyone who simply may not agree with you.

While you may scream french revolution at me, may I point you towards Pol Pot. Nazis. I can probably go look up other countless pointless "revolutions" where they scream we're promoting greater good when really they're just taking a chance to eliminate political opponents.
I think your system is gov. is flawed when you literally have to start killing EVERYONE who doesn't agree with you. I mean sure, there will always be people you will probably need to crush, but you cannot say everyone who disagrees with you should be killed.

Violence is a tool, not a means to an end. When you start killing anyone who disagrees with you, yes, I am going to seriously question the validity of the change you're proposing to bring about. 

In your example, the labor workers used violence to show they wanted to be heard after peaceful protest failed. However, this does not mean they went around lynching everyone who said no I don't agree with you. 

There's a difference between using violence to further your goals and support meaningful change, and using violence to suppress anyone you deem a threat to your form of gov., even if they are simply putting their opinions/views out there and not doing anything wrong other than not thinking like you.