-Guerrilla war out in the streets-

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

How do the Anarchist comrades plan to overhaul the fascist system with the working class, they are of course, one and the same.

I suspect mass strikes and sabotage and takeover of factories will be carried out by the masses when consciousness is high enough, but, when the state resort to full out state terror to subdue the revolution, will guerrilla war be inevitable, or are mass urban uprisings on the agenda?

Solidarity with our Anarchist Bretheren, red salutes.

[28350]

We will destroy them with Gorillas.
http://www.roumazeilles.net/news/fr/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/gorilla.JPG

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

no red salutes for you, you trolling prick



:)

[Muzk]

Guerilla war in the first world? Impossible.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Define "guerilla war".

[Bonobo1917]

No guerrilla war has EVER succeeded in an urbanised, basically industrialised, country like Greece. It always ended either with a strengthened capitalist state, with democratic rights severely diminished (Germany, Italy in the '70), or in an outright military coup (Uruguay and Argentine in the seventies). There is no historic case in which a guerri8lla campaign led to a revolutionary take-over by such a guerrilla movement, nor did it help bring a revolutionary movement tot power. Not in an urban environment. No chance, in my opinion, throught that road.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that tactics largely attributed to guerilla groups in the Third World certainly have existed in industrialized countries, in certain periods. Were they "successful"? No, at least not in the sense that the guerillas overthrew the government, or even got the government to capitulate to demands, but I'd question how "successful" guerillas in any country have been...I'm sure that everyone on this site agrees that the idea of a small unit of individuals overthrowing state power and leading the sheep towards the light of communism has run it's course.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

Because fucking self proscribed "VANGUARDS" HAVE TOOK ANTI COMMUNIST ELETIST VIEWS, WHERE THEY FIGHT, SEPERATE FROM THE PEOPLE.

If like 60 percent of the people become class conscious, 10 percent non political, and 30 percent support the capitalist state, would the 60 percent be able to fight a peoples guerrilla war, where over half the populace rise up as one, without any high up leaders or authoritarian bosses.

Guerrilla war has never been carried out by the people, always by a self proclaimed "peoples army"

[the last donut of the night]

How do the Anarchist comrades plan to overhaul the fascist system with the working class, they are of course, one and the same.

Oh, the massive irony...

[the last donut of the night]

Because fucking self proscribed "VANGUARDS" HAVE TOOK ANTI COMMUNIST ELETIST VIEWS, WHERE THEY FIGHT, SEPERATE FROM THE PEOPLE.



How about WE ALL WRITE IN BIG LETTERS SO THAT EVERY STATE-CAPITALIST STALINIST ELITIST REVISIONISTS GETS THE MESSAGE THAT OUR REVOLUTIONARY CREDENTIALS ARE UBER-AUTHENTIC YAYAYAYAYYAYAYAYY!!!!!!!1

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

you write Amerikkka, and have the balls to tell me to spell correctly, stop trolling you ass

[AK]

There can be no such thing as a successful revolution in an urban environment that primarily uses the tactic of guerrilla warfare. The state always has the strongest voice as well as the most police there and guerrillas can be very easily boxed in in such an environment. Besides, warfare shouldn't be our primary tactic. I know some MLs and MLMs might get pissy at me for saying this (as I now present what is essentially just a common strawman argument), but if you plan to overthrow a class nearly exclusively by means of warfare, then it does, in fact, have the potential to open the path for a party dictatorship - because there haven't been workplace occupations forming workers' councils and the like.

[bailey_187]

There can be no such thing as a successful revolution in an urban environment that primarily uses the tactic of guerrilla warfare. The state always has the strongest voice as well as the most police there and guerrillas can be very easily boxed in in such an environment. Besides, warfare shouldn't be our primary tactic. I know some MLs and MLMs might get pissy at me for saying this (as I now present what is essentially just a common strawman argument), but if you plan to overthrow a class nearly exclusively by means of warfare, then it does, in fact, have the potential to open the path for a party dictatorship - because there haven't been workplace occupations forming workers' councils and the like.

Good.

[AK]

Good.
See, not everyone agrees with you on that matter.

Some might even say they want the working class to hold power... but that's just a utopian pipe dream.

[Marxist-Leftist]

Good.


Yeah well that shows your lack of worker solidarity right there. I mean whether a party dictatorship is the most adept and right way to conduct class war is a topic for debate.

But to say good that the workers aren't organising for their class interest. I doubt your communist credentials and wonder if you miss the days of revisionist russia.

[28350]

The fuck is a red salute?

[scarletghoul]

Guerilla war in the first world? Impossible.

No guerrilla war has EVER succeeded in an urbanised, basically industrialised, country like Greece. It always ended either with a strengthened capitalist state, with democratic rights severely diminished (Germany, Italy in the '70), or in an outright military coup (Uruguay and Argentine in the seventies). There is no historic case in which a guerri8lla campaign led to a revolutionary take-over by such a guerrilla movement, nor did it help bring a revolutionary movement tot power. Not in an urban environment. No chance, in my opinion, throught that road.
There can be no such thing as a successful revolution in an urban environment that primarily uses the tactic of guerrilla warfare. The state always has the strongest voice as well as the most police there and guerrillas can be very easily boxed in in such an environment. Besides, warfare shouldn't be our primary tactic. I know some MLs and MLMs might get pissy at me for saying this (as I now present what is essentially just a common strawman argument), but if you plan to overthrow a class nearly exclusively by means of warfare, then it does, in fact, have the potential to open the path for a party dictatorship - because there haven't been workplace occupations forming workers' councils and the like. Actually there are several examples of successful urban guerilla war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency controlled most provinces of Iraq a few years ago. Currently not as powerful, but guerilla war does not progress in a straight line, who knows what will be the final outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles
Result Military stalematehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah now has a lot of government power and controls areas of Lebanon

Dare to struggle, dare to win.

[bailey_187]

Yeah well that shows your lack of worker solidarity right there. I mean whether a party dictatorship is the most adept and right way to conduct class war is a topic for debate.

But to say good that the workers aren't organising for their class interest. I doubt your communist credentials and wonder if you miss the days of revisionist russia.

So apparently workers dont have political parties.

[Fietsketting]

So apparently workers dont have political parties.

They do.. and after the revolution they help the party leadership to power, become a nonfactor, the leaders spend a few years purging after wich a Glorious Leader emerges who keeps going for a while and then it turns into state capitalism till it implodes... ;)

[thälmann]

of course there were successful military struggles in urban areas, for example italy and albania in their liberation wars against fascism. i think without armed struggle, whatever form, strategie and distance it has , a revolution isnt possible. especially in europe and north america. those examples from the 70s made almost everything wrong, although the red brigades in italy caused serious problems to the state, because of their support in the working class.

to the dictatorship: a proletarian dictatorship is not just a dictatorship of a single party. it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by the party...it is an important difference.

[Fietsketting]

to the dictatorship: a proletarian dictatorship is not just a dictatorship of a single party. it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by the party...it is an important difference.

All this does is supplant one upper class with another. And their self-appointed role as “vanguard of the proletariat” gives them justification for self-righteous tyranny!
We do not admit, even as a revolutionary transition, either National Conventions, or Constituent Assemblies, or so-called revolutionary dictatorships; because we are convinced that the revolutionary is only sincere, honest and real in the masses, and that when it is concentrated in the hands of some governing individuals, it naturally and inevitably becomes reaction.

[Ravachol]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency controlled most provinces of Iraq a few years ago. Currently not as powerful, but guerilla war does not progress in a straight line, who knows what will be the final outcome.


First of all, the provinces in which the Iraqi insurgency is successfull (which is mainly composed of Theocratic Islamistis and Baathist nationalists) are not comparable to a country like Greece.

Secondly, what matters is not if a guerilla war can overthrow the governement in a 'first-world' country but whether it can lead to communism (anarchist or otherwise). Since communism relies mainly on the process of communization, the transformation of social relations amongst the working class and the way we percieve them this requires a broad, collective approach to struggle and not some blanquist adventure.

Thirdly, Capital cannot be overthrown by demolishing it's institutions alone, it has no 'head'. All the factory owners, politicians, bureaucrats, generals and police officers of the world do not constitute Capital. Capital is reproduced not by individuals or a single institutional 'head' but by the full social body. Thus insurrection is a social struggle.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles

First of all, the troubles is not a single military campaign but a series of military assaults, riots and insurgent warfare.

Secondly, the campaign waged by the PIRA wasn't successfull. While they have managed to make some slight gains they didn't achieve a sovereign 32-county republic, let alone a socialist 32-county republic (which was the stated PIRA goal). After the failure of the "Tet offensive" in the mid '80s due to intercepted arms shipments the possibility of a military victory was out of reach for the PIRA.

Thirdly, as mentioned above, even if the PIRA would have been successfull in establishing a 32-county sovereign republic through military means I doubt if this would have led to a socialist republic (which would have been a gain, my Anarchist criticism of such a thing aside) considering the state of the republican movement and it's tactics and the lack of industrial struggle and a clear class perspective.

[Marxist-Leftist]

So apparently workers dont have political parties.

Ah but my point is maybe the party can be a strength to the proletarian but your gleeful dismissal of worker self organisation and their movement for self hegemony is a sign to your lack of true communistic intent and the true state socialist stance that in the last fact. You are conservative and reactionary and opposed to the workers themselves!

[LebenIstKrieg]

Well first we have to destroy all opposition to a social revolutionary movement, for example crushing the Islamic forum of Europe, English defence league, Liberals, snitch movements such as the UAF. disrupt the main party's from working properly and terrorise the social and economic elite in the workplace and university's. be in physical opposition to fascist and nationalist movements by any means necessary, it does not matter if the fascists or nationalists are peaceful. Have a visible presence on the streets stencils, posters, flags and a possible no go area for police rapists and muggers. if enough political clout is assimilated we could start to influence the army through intellects in the army such as the officers and recruits.

Also start a militant atheist group that organise opposition to Christianity, Islam and Judaic nationalism. Create alternatives to racist and sectarian organisations such as the SWP/RESPECT/Stop the war coalition who seem to support Islamic sexist clerics over the white working class who have allowed the EDL to go unchallenged in ideological terms and group the EDL together with the BNP. It made be argued that they have connections to each other but in terms of ideology no matter how fucking ludicrous the shit they spout is it's not similar to the BNP's maniacal shit.

start with the basics before you start bombing banks and shoot up police stations.:rolleyes:

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

your an idiot.

How are the swp racist, and how does what you said have anything to do with reality.

Also, greece is having riots and the like, maybe you need to get your head out of your ass, rather than worrying about the "islamiphication of europe" and knobbing old winston eh.

[LebenIstKrieg]

your an idiot.

How are the swp racist, and how does what you said have anything to do with reality.

Also, greece is having riots and the like, maybe you need to get your head out of your ass, rather than worrying about the "islamiphication of europe" and knobbing old winston eh.
How the fuck am I talking about Islamification of Europe? the Islamic forum of Europe are A fundamentalist organisation who have nut job clerics talking about killing homosexuals. I was simply talking about these because this thread was talking about Guerilla warfare If you want power through the bullet over the ballot you need to build up political clout before you start an insurgency. I know I went off topic because were talking about guerilla warfare within Greece. If you want to know about guerilla warfare look at articles on fourth generation warfare and why would I support Churchill he organised attacks on workers? your just a provocative ****.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

please delete the word c**t, it is banned, you are a reactionary fool.

Also, i have read alot on warfare, i bet your one of the people on here who bang on about the art of war, even though its use as a contemperary template is shit, guerrilla warfare needs the support of the people and it can survive.

second, 4gen warfare is bullshit, apparently mass civilian killings will become the new warfare, no, that happens when you kick up a hornets nest full of millions of justifiably angry muslims, who are sick of economic rapingof their peoples.

Fuck you you prick, dont use the c word again, and don't talk shit again

[Fietsketting]

Now lets keep it friendly folks, shooting eachother down happens after the revolution, not in advance of it. :D

[LebenIstKrieg]

I know absolutely nothing about Sun Tzu I tried to read Art of war but I only got as far as the intro, so no I don't bang on about the art of war. mass killing of civilians has become the new warfare after world war 1 it went from 95% of all casualties were soldiers now it's civilians mainly because warfare has changed dramatically over the last hundred year's with the advancements in areas such as the air force for instance If you look at the Iraq war jet fighters took out sewage processing plants and power stations this caused Unbelievable amount of deaths on the civilian scale. I completely agree with you that Muslims have right to be pissed off, but I see all religion as a virus of the mind that needs eradicating same with Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism.

[AK]

Actually there are several examples of successful urban guerilla war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency controlled most provinces of Iraq a few years ago. Currently not as powerful, but guerilla war does not progress in a straight line, who knows what will be the final outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah now has a lot of government power and controls areas of Lebanon

Dare to struggle, dare to win.
What I mean is, in addition to the strong chance of military failure in an urban environment, guerrilla warfare is a tactic which doesn't focus on having the working class seize economic power by seizing the means of production - if this is not done by the working class, it is typically the party which seizes control of the state and the means of production after it's soldiers/militant workers have defeated only those holding political power.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

a guerrilla war by the people, not a party.

[AK]

a guerrilla war by the people, not a party.
No seizure of the means of production, old bean?

[Bonobo1917]

There are two debates here. As Ravachol says, there is the question of whete her guerrilla war can lead to any form of communism; he seems to be sceptical, and so am I. Guerrilla armies, when victorious, behave like armies, with all the hierarchies that go with it. The leadership of such an army will be the nucleaus of an new state hierarchy, part of the old ruling class or of a new w one in formation.

But that was not the point I was trying to make. I said: guerrilla warfar in urban countries cannot be succesful even in its OWN terms: taking power, or seriously contributing to that goal. The three examples Scarletgoal mentions don't convince me.

The Iraq Insurgency did not succeed; it was partly smashed, partly bought off by the US through the Awakening Councils, partly derailed in a sectarian direction, by which it became mostly communal Sunnu-Shiite-warfare, with ethnic cleansing and all that. Of course, the insurgency created troubles for the occupation, still does in a minor way. But that was not the issue.

The 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland: well, the IRA didn't win, did they? And the so-called Good Friday accords don't even come close to the stated goal: unification of the country, ending Britisch rule in any form in Northern Ireland.

Hezbollah in Lebanon is an interesting case. But here, we saw basically rural, not urban, warfare. Besides, the main thing Hezbollah did was: not capitulating while Israel bombed and bombed and bombed. No small feat, but not the same as taking power through a guerrilla war in an urbanised, industrialised country (which Lebanon hardly is).

[the last donut of the night]

See, not everyone agrees with you on that matter.

Some might even say they want the working class to hold power... but that's just a utopian pipe dream.

And guess who controls the vanguard party?

Read up a bit on Leninism before you make baseless attacks.

[this is an invasion]

And guess who controls the vanguard party?

Read up a bit on Leninism before you make baseless attacks.

In theory, yes, the working class controls the vanguard.


But reality says otherwise.

[Zanthorus]

I'm sure that everyone on this site agrees that the idea of a small unit of individuals overthrowing state power and leading the sheep towards the light of communism has run it's course.

I would question when that has ever happened. It was certainly not what happened during the Red October at any rate.


We do not admit, even as a revolutionary transition, either National Conventions, or Constituent Assemblies, or so-called revolutionary dictatorships; because we are convinced that the revolutionary is only sincere, honest and real in the masses, and that when it is concentrated in the hands of some governing individuals, it naturally and inevitably becomes reaction.

IIRC this quote is from Bakunin, in which case he was being a hypocrite because in numerous documents he himself affirms the necessity for revolutionary dictatorship.


In theory, yes, the working class controls the vanguard.

The vanguard is part of the working class. The word "vanguard" comes from the french "avant-garde" meaning "advance guard". The vanguard is the most advanced, class conscious section of the proletariat.

[Fietsketting]

IIRC this quote is from Bakunin, in which case he was being a hypocrite because in numerous documents he himself affirms the necessity for revolutionary dictatorship.

Do you have a source for that? I would like to have a look at it.





The vanguard is part of the working class. The word "vanguard" comes from the french "avant-garde" meaning "advance guard". The vanguard is the most advanced, class conscious section of the proletariat.

And selfproclaimed as well. Another point is that the party vanguard copy there party structure to rule and turns in the new aristocracy.

[AK]

And guess who controls the vanguard party?

Read up a bit on Leninism before you make baseless attacks.
Well, if the vast majority of communist parties today are anything to go by, it's a small few.


The vanguard is part of the working class. The word "vanguard" comes from the french "avant-garde" meaning "advance guard". The vanguard is the most advanced, class conscious section of the proletariat.
If a vanguard were just that, I'd support it. But the concept of a vanguard party with some central committee and whatnot says otherwise.

I've got no problem with an organisation/select-members-of-the-working-class-(apparently) agitating and supporting the wider working class. What I don't support is a vanguard party seizing state power. If I find a vanguard party that isn't reformist, or that doesn't seek to seize power post-revolution, or put everything into state ownership, I'd support it.

My support for an actual vanguard that seeks only to agitate, lead and support the working class remains the same, my support for the majority of parties that seek to inadvertently betray the working class is non-existent. I make sure to differentiate between the two.

-------------------

On a slightly related note, does a vanguard necessarily have to take the form of a party or organisation, or could you consider a slightly organised rabble of workers that is highly class conscious to be a vanguard?

It seems to me that that quote Zanthorus gave me was not referring to any old advanced mass of class conscious workers, but it was justifying the reason for a party by saying it's members were such.

[Zanthorus]

Do you have a source for that? I would like to have a look at it.


In Russia I wanted a republic, but what kind of republic? Not a parliamentary one!! I believe that in Russia, more than anywhere else, a strong dictatorial power will be indispensable,

And I'm aware that this quote comes long before the period when Bakunin became an anarchist. Funny though, how the "libertarian" Bakunin was advocating strong dictatorial powers and destruction for the sake of destruction while Marx, that dictatorial authoritarian menace, had already advocated the end of the state and it's replacement by a "an association in which the free development of each is the precondition for the free development of all."

Anyway here is Bakunin in April 1870:


Like invisible pilots in the middle of the popular storm, we must lead it, not by a conspicuous power, but by the collective dictatorship of all allies. Dictatorship without any presidential sashes, without any title, without any official rights. This dictatorship will be the most powerful since it will not have any of the appearances of power.

March 1870:


...and to save the revolution, to carry it off successfully, in the middle of this anarchy, the action of a collective, invisible dictatorship, which doesn't assume any kind of power and due to this it is more efficient and more powerful, the natural action of energetic and sincere socialist revolutionaries scattered on the surface of the country and of all countries, but greatly united by a common thought and a common will.

Both quotes taken from "About the free-state preached by social-democracy (http://gci-icg.org/english/freepopstate.htm)" from the Internationalist Communist Group (Who funnily enough turn the whole Marx/Bakunin thing on it's head by accusing Marx of being too "spontaneist" and Bakunin of being too "politicist").


Well, if the vast majority of communist parties today are anything to go by, it's a small few.

If the vast majority of communist parties are anything to go by it's possible to have a counter-revolution that spreads internationally via the fact that the counter-revolutionaries have state power in the first self-proclaimed "socialist" state (Whose founder quite explicitly said it was not socialist).


If a vanguard were just that, I'd support it. But the concept of a vanguard party with some central committee and whatnot says otherwise.

Lenin needs to be read in context. At the time he wrote What is to be Done? the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party basically existed in name only. There was no central organisation of any kind and Lenin was forced to "bend the bow" against various spontaneist and economist elements who wanted to lag behind the real level of working-class struggle in Russia:


To conclude. We all now know that the “economists” have gone to one extreme. To straighten matters out somebody had to pull in the other direction—and that is what I have done. I am convinced that Russian Social-Democracy will always vigorously straighten out whatever has been twisted by opportunism of any kind, and that therefore our line of action will always be the straightest and the fittest for action.

We can see quite clearly that this kind of intransigent centralism is not what Lenin actually meant in his reply to Rosa Luxemburg's polemics against him. Remember Luxemburg's famous piece so beloved of "anti-Leninists" where she argues against Lenin's capitulations to "Blanquism" and subordination of everything to the will of the central committee? Wanna Guess what Lenin's reply was?


Rosa Luxemburg’s Neue Zeit article does not acquaint the reader with my book, but with something else. This may be seen from the following instances. Comrade Luxemburg says, for example, that my book is a clear and detailed expression of the point of view of “intransigent centralism”. Comrade Luxemburg thus supposes that I defend one system of organisation against another. But actually that is not so. From the first to the last page of my book, I defend the elementary principles of any conceivable system of party organisation: My book is not concerned with the difference between one system of organisation and another, but with how any system is to be maintained, criticised, and rectified in a manner consistent with the party idea... Rosa Luxemburg further says that “according to his [Lenin’s] conception, the Central Committee has the right to organise all the local Party committees”. Actually that is not so... Comrade Luxemburg says that in my view “the Central Committee is the only active nucleus of the Party”. Actually that is not so. I have never advocated any such view... Comrade Rosa Luxemburg says that there are no two opinions among the Russian Social-Democrats as to the need for a united party, and that the whole controversy is over the degree of centralisation. Actually that is not so. If Comrade Luxemburg had taken the trouble to acquaint her self with the resolutions of the many local Party committees that constitute the majority, she would readily have seen (which incidentally is also clear from my book) that our controversy has principally been over whether the Central Committee and Central Organ should represent the trend of the majority of the Party Congress, or whether they should not... Comrade Luxemburg declares that I glorify the educational influence of the factory. That is not so. It was my opponent, not I, who said that I pictured the Party as a factory.

You might want to read the rest of the reply (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1904/sep/15a.htm#bkV07P474F01) actually. It goes on like that but the main point is that the argument Luxemburg had constructed (And by inference all the other arguments about Lenin's supposed commitment to ultra-centralisation and the banning of factions etc) was stuffed full of straw and she was reading into Lenin's piece what wasn't actually there. Luxemburg even later admitted that all Lenin's "Blanquist" tendencies had been squeezed out by the passage of time:


We would dispute comrade Plekhanov’s reproach to the Russian comrades of the current “majority” that they have committed Blanquist errors during the revolution. It is possible that there were hints of them in the organisational draft that comrade Lenin drew up in 1902, but that belongs to the past – a distant past, since today life is proceeding at a dizzying speed. These errors have been corrected by life itself and there is no danger they might recur. And we should not be afraid of the ghost of Blanquism, for it cannot be resuscitated at this time.

And ignoring the fact that Lenin never advocated the various ideas which have now become infamously attributed to him in terms of party structure, the Bolshevik party was never organised like that anyway. So it can't be used as an explanation of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution even if it was ever advocated by Lenin.


If I find a vanguard party that isn't reformist, or that doesn't seek to seize power post-revolution, or put everything into state ownership, I'd support it.

How about the millions of Internationalist Communist parties out there?


On a slightly related note, does a vanguard necessarily have to take the form of a party or organisation, or could you consider a slightly organised rabble of workers that is highly class conscious to be a vanguard?

I would personally seperate the concept of the vanguard from the concept of the vanguard party. The latter is a way of organising the vanguard. The main problem Lenin was dealing with in his writings on the party was the fact already noted by Kautsky that struggles are uneven and some workers reach class consciousness much sooner than others. So the question is how best to organise them to achieve socialism. Talking about the vanguard while ignoring the materialist basis for it gets us nowhere.

[AK]

Damn you Zanthy, you're far too smart (yes that is my new nickname for you. Get used to it).

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

LMAO

Zanthy

that motherfucker eithger has a great memory, or is the wikiquote king :)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I would question when that has ever happened. It was certainly not what happened during the Red October at any rate.

I was referring mostly to Focoism.

And of course it's never happened. That's my point.

[Wolf Larson]

i cant even comment on these things with the current lack of class awareness i see in society.


as orwell said:


If there was hope, it must lie in the proles because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. It's enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflection of the voice; at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet--!