Can we be frank about what a revolutionary organization would really look like nowadays?

Can we be frank about what a revolutionary organization would really look like nowadays?

Reading about Bolshevik history and passages like the one above, more and more I realise that a successful revolutionary socialist group would be a lot more like Hezbollah and a lot less like any socialist part of the west after WW1. Our idea of what a Socialist organization is supposed to be was tainted by the peaceful reformists and the shitty movements of college-age "radicals" who never went nowhere, so we forget that the original Communists were extremely well organized people who had efficient management, all of which required command structure, secrecy, professionalism, funding, etc. The socialists of the past had success because they worked like a business or a military organization, not because they sat in a room wondering how could they make their own decision-making process more progressive, horizontalist or leaderless. They wanted result, not symbolic signifiers.

We need to regain this attitude, a ready-for-war organization that is efficient and serious, and that requires us to let go of some of the illusions left to us by the 20s reformists and the 60s radicals. Many people are afraid of accepting this because they want to believe that revolutionary politics is consistent with the comfy academic job they aspire to, but it isn't.

Other urls found in this thread:

Like the Invisible Party

Yes. Read Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.
Of particular importance is Lenin's insistence that legal AND ILLEGAL revolutionary activities must be combined at all times, because the closer you get to revolution, the more the law will crack down on ALL communist activity and speech. So if you focus solely on organizing above-ground, participating in parliament, and saying things that aren't illegal to say, it will get you nowhere because it makes you extra susceptible to the inevitable state crackdown. The solution is to organize for the crisis of imperialism you want, not the stable imperialist state you have. Organize in strict secrecy from the very beginning. Include illegal speech (such as advocating desertion and mutiny from the military) and heavily-suppressed speech in your propaganda materials from the outset.

Dude, do you really think a bunch of pseudoradical, out-of-shape, illiterate 20-somethings have a fucking clue what kind of undertaking being a communist actually is. This board is for ideology-shopping and memes.

People should start learning somewhere.

What is happening in this thread my fellow leftists? Would anybody like to discuss illegal activities?

What would it look like? A bunch of hooded college students throwing molotovs at police officers, getting arrested, rinse and repeat ad infinitum

"dude FBI lmao" is just another way to achieve the same thing reformism did, force you into complacency because of fear of consequences.

How is this an FBI thread? If this is an FBI thread, all threads advocating organization and revolution are.

No, that's the opposite of how Hezbollah and the Bolsheviks have organized. That's just pathetic amateurish adventurism with a dash of terrorism. Something Lenin repeatedly BTFO in What Is To Be Done.

But peace and love maaan

Pretty much. They've laid the ground work for any kind of revolutionary political movement for the 21st century. It works very well for them and should be emulated

Thank you so much for writing this post. This has been my frustration with the left and leftypol for about a year now. Nobody seems to accept that material facts of what a revolution is.

Also the idea of developing cadres over time cannot be understated. A revolutionary organisation is something that develops through struggle.

(I think this struggle should centre around a co-operative network which funds this clandestine military wing)

you had me up until that

Sorry but this is bullshit. The Bolsheviks succeeded not because of their discipline, but because they were operating in a place in time in which capitalism had failed the vast majority of people and they had no other option than seize control of their own lives and redistribute Tsarist wealth.

I'm certain it would be a group of childless men who spend lots of time on the internet, at least when they aren't crossdressing with black lipstick and sucking dick.


I hope you aren't insulting seismography. What have YOU done to understand the inner workings of the Earth's core and help avoid natural disasters caused by plate tectonics.

We're not gonna chip away at the state with a guerilla war, to overcome the security and surveillance of things like the NSA, they'd have to storm the offices of all the institutions of government with human wave attacks that'd be impossible to resist on the basis that there isn't enough ammo to kill everyone, and no one will stop charging until all the bouj and their servants are torn apart by the sheer physical force of a million human beings crashing in on them.

So if it's just the place and time, then why didn't the Mensheviks win? Why didn't the anarchists or terrorists win? All you're saying is that a revolution depends on the conditions of a crisis, which the Bolsheviks completely understood. Bolshevik discipline and praxis is based around TAKING ADVANTAGE of the crisis.

Nobody said that.


If you want a professional, organized, efficient cadre organization, look into the International Marxist Tendency


Discipline only matters when political and economic conditions are already conducive to popular revolution.

The Bolsheviks existed 10 years prior to the revolution and they were pretty disciplined. However, material factors made them totally irrelevant.

That was 1905, during actual Revolution. But - yeah. Socialist parties after WW1 weren't revolutionary.

Yeah. And the first step would be discussing such things on a safe medium (which means, the very first step of modern Communist movement is to cooperate with crypto-anarchists and popularize secure access to information) or making such discussion a perpetual buzz of the internet.

Go away. Legally tracking down and attempting to prosecute even one user costs tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's 1,000 trash cans destroyed.

No. You need to have a chance - and then you need to be able to grab the chance.

Sitting and waiting for a chance would mean that you will not be able to use it when the time comes.

That's not how Revolution works, ffs.

Ok, and what's your point? The goal is revolution, and NOBODY will get revolution unless the conditions are conducive to it. You're talking in circles like an idiot.

No, actually, revolution doesn't happen all at once. The entire time the Bolsheviks were active, they were helping build the revolutionary potential of Russia.

The crypto nuts are all spies and snitches. We should be able to learn proper OPSEC without associating with such filth.

They can't all be. I mean, we do have pirates pirating stuff. So there clearly are groups of skilled people who are not being subservient to Liberal paradigm.

That's dumb. There'll be thousands of Liberal shills either way. Why not get some that could be useful? See example of Malinovsky.

Piracy groups don't get the full attention of intel agencies like modern-day Bolsheviks would. Also, piracy groups seem mainly focused on hedonism and idealism. Look at the TPB founders: half of them were nazis and ancaps, and one of them was some kind of vague socdem/anarchist.

What do you even have in mind? The info we need to practice modern OPSEC is freely available online, we just have to read it and then translate and condense it to a modern Leninist praxis. Why risk getting in a chatroom with the next Sabu or some other idiots for this purpose?

I'm the one who keeps posting this excerpt here, and my point is NOT that we should deliberately associate with liberals and potential snitches! We should do our absolute best to avoid getting compromised, anything else is a betrayal to Leninism. The point of that paragraph is that it shows that Bolshevik praxis is particularly guarded against infiltration because it has such strict rules of conduct. The standards of theoretical knowledge and practical reputation required by the communist party would necessarily mean we should not be organizing with a bunch of spy-ridden liberals regardless.
The only way we can learn from modern non-communist praxis is by way of ruthless criticism and investigation. The only way we make "alliances" and other temporary pacts with liberals and anarchists is with the full understanding of our differences, what we stand to gain (nothing, in the case of spook hackers), and with a maintenance of our own secrecy.

It's impossible to have absolute security. The task is to raise it sufficiently high to reduce attrition below recruitment rate. And pirates do have some level of competence to avoid detection - which most people do not have.

So what? They are in conflict with the very basis of Bourgeois system - private property. Capitalists would need to abolish intellectual property to pacify them - which is very unlikely to happen. Moreover, they are producing information for general public - and do it uncontrolled by the government.

Actual experience is very important. We'll get tons of people arrested before we will figure anything out.

What. Lenin literally argues that there is no reason not to associate - as long as it is beneficial. Did you even read the whole text?

We don't have secrecy, High Commander.

I have argued for that nowhere.

So what? What use are they?

Now you are actually talking like a fed. Our goal is to minimize this kind of danger as much as possible. Read What Is To Be Done, one of Lenin's main arguments is that a lack of security was getting communists arrested too much and they couldn't accomplish anything. The whole point of reading theory and studying OPSEC is that we don't HAVE TO "figure anything out," the work of figuring it out has already been done for us as long as we fucking study.

"In our case, on the other hand, the rapid alternation of legal and illegal work, which made it necessary to keep the general staff—the leaders—under cover and cloak them in the greatest secrecy, sometimes gave rise to extremely dangerous consequences. The worst of these was that in 1912 the agent provocateur Malinovsky got into the Bolshevik Central Committee. He betrayed scores and scores of the best and most loyal comrades, caused them to be sentenced to penal servitude, and hastened the death of many of them. That he did not cause still greater harm was due to the correct balance between legal and illegal work."
Doesn't sound like he's talking about something beneficial to me.
More Lenin (the thing you're misreading):
"Those German (and also British, American, French and Italian) comrades who are faced with the task of learning how to conduct revolutionary work within the reactionary trade unions would do well to give serious thought to this fact."
He's talking about the necessity of strict secrecy in PARTY ORGANIZATION in order to do the PARTY WORK in reactionary (hostile) territory. He's NOT SAYING to organize with reactionaries, he's saying that in order to agitate AGAINST reactionaries on their own turf, one must understand just how deep the advantages of secrecy and strict theory go.

What is this childish sarcasm? We don't have a party either.


what better way do you have to develop cadre?

It would be futile to try to arrange this over the internet. The NSA and FBI would take care of you like it were child's play - it's their entire job to infiltrate these organizations and take them right up to the point where they plan on committing a crime, then arrest everyone

TOR/PGP is only useful for buying drugs. Anything more serious would have to be done offline

Arranging anything like this online would be an exercise in futility. The NSA and FBI would take care of you like it were child's play. TOR/PGP are only useful for buying drugs; for everything else, they're just there to lull you into a false sense of security

Any thing of this nature must be undertaken offline

Oops, posting from mobile and had some errors, apologies for double post. Not trying to shill

Top reads

This is partially true. The bulk of communist organization can't happen online, or at very least there must be an equal mix of offline and online organization. However, communist agitation, propaganda, and publication of theory can and must be conducted online (as well as offline).

Entrapment schemes don't work nearly as well if you have strict party discipline and you have a mix of legal and illegal work to begin with. Anyone who advocates terrorism gets kicked out. But illegal work (such as agitating for US soldiers defect/mutiny or similar illegal speech) keeps everyone on their toes and vigilant for their own security, while simultaneously making infiltrating harder by forcing infiltrators to conduct propaganda against their own government.

At the present stage of extremely low development in revolutionary conditions, I think that a "lone wolf" style of organization where people must abide by a publicly-available code of conduct (coupled with an online news publication) in order to claim affiliation could be a viable form of loose organization. It would naturally compartmentalize things for a period of time, and then the central command could establish a network and issue more orders both openly and secretly.

This just looks like a bunch of Banksy-esque garbage.

you make some good points

One flaw with this is determining who dictates this policy. To be successful you must have this level of self-policing, but what is stopping the FBI/COINTELPRO/whatever from gaining critical mass within the organization and then to advocate for some sort of change of policy in support of terrorism? Or what stops them from forming a splinter group from those willing to do so? it's still a perilous endeavor

The lone wolf level of organization I agree upon, but I think it would need to be truly decentralized rather than run by some sort of shadow leadership which you allude to. A central shadow leadership has the same counter-intelligence perils that an online organization has

Infiltration always happened in those organizations, and I think a structured and hierarchical organization can function better with infiltrators inside than an open and horizontalist one.

This is why we don't "play at democracy," as Lenin described it. When you are organizing in such hostile conditions, real party democracy is impossible anyway, so there is no point muddling things with sham conventions and votes. Simply put, the organization, constitution, and party line all have to be correct from the very beginning. The way decisions should be made is through intense investigation, debate, and criticism. Splits are preferable (and less muddled) compared to the incessant activist obsession with "party reform." Radlib activists hop from one party to another (Democrat, Green, D.S.A., PSL….) each time dismissing criticisms with the idea that people "just need to join and change it from within." A real communist party will dispense with this nonsense.

The COINTEL operations already have dozens of "Socialist" parties, it doesn't make a difference if they try to start up a few more. They should simply be identified and exposed ASAP.

Of course it is.

This is certainly true, though we have some technology that could help with verification and things like that. (IE, official statements could be cryptographically signed, and thus wouldn't require a central website). I think that this is mitigated by two advantages of Bolshevik-style organization: 1. Because the theory, code of conduct, party line, etc. are so detailed and strict, it becomes readily apparent if the party is deviating from its own stances. 2. Because there is no "playing at democracy," there is no incentive to linger. People who suspect the leadership of being compromised can simply air their criticism publicly, and then split if the answers are insufficient.

bump for user's response

As an out-of-shape 20-something, I fully agree that I'm not revolutionary material as shameful as it is to admit.


My main concern with this style of organization is how to ensure the dominance of the political wing and internal party democracy, and not that it degenerates into a secretive oligarchic mess that transfers its corruptions and flaws onto the state if we actually win. The best example I can think of of this being done successfully is Sinn Fein and the IRA back in the 20s.

"We shall see in the next chapter how Rabocheye Dyelo combats Iskra’s “anti-democratic tendencies”. For the present, we shall examine more closely the “principle” that the Economists advance. Everyone will probably agree that “the broad democratic principle” presupposes the two following conditions: first, full publicity, and secondly, election to all offices. It would be absurd to speak of democracy without publicity, moreover, without a publicity that is not limited to the membership of the organisation. We call the German Socialist Party a democratic organisation because all its activities are carried out publicly; even its party congresses are held in public. But no one would call an organisation democratic that is hidden from every one but its members by a veil of secrecy. What is the use, then, of advancing “the broad democratic principle” when the fundamental condition for this principle cannot be fulfilled by a secret organisation? “The broad principle” proves itself simply to be a resounding but hollow phrase. Moreover, it reveals a total lack of understanding of the urgent tasks of the moment in regard to organisation. Everyone knows how great the lack of secrecy is among the “broad” masses of our revolutionaries. We have heard the bitter complaints of B-v on this score and his absolutely just demand for a “strict selection of members” (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 6, p. 42). Yet, persons who boast a keen “sense of realities” urge, in a situation like this, not the strictest secrecy and the strictest (consequently, more restricted) selection, of members, but “the broad democratic principle”! This is what you call being wide of the mark."
"Reflect somewhat over the real meaning of the high-sounding phrases to whichRabocheye Dyelo gives utterance, and you will realise that “broad democracy” in Party organisation, amidst the gloom of the autocracy and the domination of gendarmerie, is nothing more than a useless and harmful toy. It is a useless toy because, in point of fact, no revolutionary organisation has ever practiced, or could practice, broad democracy, however much it may have desired to do so. It is a harmful toy because any attempt to practise “the broad democratic principle” will simply facilitate the work of the police in carrying out large-scale raids, will perpetuate the prevailing primitiveness, and will divert the thoughts of the practical workers from the serious and pressing task of training themselves to become professional revolutionaries to that of drawing up detailed “paper” rules for election systems. Only abroad, where very often people with no opportunity for conducting really active work gather, could this “playing at democracy” develop here and there, especially in small groups. "
-t. Vladimir Lenin

lol no

get the fuck out of /liftypol/

At least for urban burgerstan in this stage in the game, the tactics of the BPP should be the standard. Hezbollah's tactics are also pretty good. The key is to emphasize arming, feeding, and educating your community. This is how you build a movement.

Trot parties are a perfect example of what NOT to do. Don't fetishize tactics just because they worked in the early 20th century. No one is going to read your newspaper. Pamphlets are good, as are internet resources. Don't waste time on sectarian infighting. Support unions, but don't expect them to be the catalyst of revolution. Going to protests and rallies can be somewhat useful for meeting like minded people, but don't delude yourself about it being real "organizing". Don't try terrorism either. At this stage in the game, it accomplishes nothing and alienates your movement. There is a time and a place for bombings and assassinations, and that is when dual power has already been built.

But then what prevents an autocratic party elite from maintaining their position once they are in power? There is absolutely no guarantee that they will cede power to the workers or establish proletarian democracy if they control the party and thus the state. I think that part of what made the Bolsheviks so successful was the very fact of their commitment to proletarian democracy through the Soviets. I think the solution is to begin building the political machinery of the socialist state now, before the old state falls. This is essentially what happened Russia, the soviets themselves were the mechanisms of a new state in the making. In my view the vanguard party must be built up as a microcosm of what the future socialist state will be. If a democratic proletarian state can manage its clandestine and military operations, then why can’t a democratic political organization do the same?

War does change.
Modern war is fought asymmetrically.

Islamic terrorism
Anyone can become a muslim, anywhere.
You dont know which muslims are the good one or the bad ones. They blend into the population.
They use suicide attacks.
They are funded by outside forces.

Osama bin laden attacked the world trade center. what is the world trade center but not a monument to capitalism and globalism?
Then bin laden goes to hide in the mountains of pakistan while america fights stupid wars in afghanistan and iraq.

What would happen if muslims stopped terrorizing proles and started attacking only the rich and elite?

This is the problem of muslims terroists. They attack normal people, they attack proles. If they attacked the rich and elite of the west they probably would have got more converts.

1. creating a manifesto and ideology anyone can convert to
2. being able to blend in
3. using terror towards the bourgeois only
4. escaping to foreign nations
5. being funded by the enemies of the nation
6. not giving a fuck about death or violence.
7. dis organized, no leaders
8. exploiting a nations faults, economically, socially, politically, culturally

Thats how you fight in modern times.

1. ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. are all CIA puppets.
2. Terrorism was BTFO by Lenin ages ago, all his criticism stands up.
3. You are a fed.

Not even a fed

Anonymous the hacker group is similar.

It has no leaders, anyone can become user, and they are global.
And they attack the elite electronically, the hack iphones, steal money, get nudie pics.

Its just how modern dissident groups work

is also run by feds.

Once your group becomes big enough you should start having your own protests and rallies.

wer de proofs billy?

proof of what?

anonymous was birthed on 4chan, an user image board.
There was no leader, no identity.
They are hive mind
they do not le forgive
they do not le forget

oh, I thought you were serious there for a second

Two wings, one party, one wing is armed and insurrectionist, the other is parliamentary, both work to win hearts and minds. It worked with the Bouj ANC, why wouldn't it work for a communist party?

Define "worked." They got rid of the legal institution of apartheid but not the material reality.

The ANC were limited in their success BECAUSE they were bouj. It's the same story with Michael Collins in Ireland and Sun Yat Sen in China. No matter how good you are at organizing, fighting, agitating, bouj revolutionaries just don't get the full job done.

bump, where OP at?

The spiritual successors to NZ fail guy.

I was with them until they starting ranting about that Sacred Mother Earth bullshit.

If you were with them at any point in reading that tripe, you need to seriously re-evaluate your political stances.

people need to read this thread and read Lenin.


lmao muh anonymuzzz hackerz are "trying to organize"

Anonymous started off as a bunch of NEETs coordinating attacks on 4chan, back in 2010. That's not organizing.

People in America distrust Leftists because we talk big talk about revolution and Bourgeoisie whatever but don't actually do anything. If you want a revolution, we're gonna have to build comradery with regular people first. Most people don't even know what it would mean to end capitalism, or what that would even look like. We must show them.
To do this, we must alleviate some of the regular people's suffering under capitalism. Some examples are unionizing for better labor conditions and forcing politicians to adopt universal healthcare and other soc dem measures while still maintaining an antagonistic relationship with power.
This will show people that the cause of their suffering is capitalism and get people to at least think well of us.
We can't sit back and wait for a violent revolution. We must sew the seeds first.

Read Trotsky.


OP was talking about Hezbollah which is a great example of this. They have built a textbook case of dual power. Hezbollah is basically its own parallel government in Lebanon. It has social welfare programs and everything.