Leftist Internet organizations

[UnknownPerson]

I'm looking for leftist organizations which promote the cause of leftism on the Internet, and do so actively, with an intention to join them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

most all of them have websites.

[UnknownPerson]

most all of them have websites.

I'm looking for organizations which are largely focused on the Internet space.

[The Douche]

I'm looking for organizations which are largely focused on the Internet space.

Doing what?


I can't think of any organizations based on the internet, it doesn't make sense. Obviously nobody is really advertising "we are communist hackers trying to shut down the NYSE".

[UnknownPerson]

Doing what?


I can't think of any organizations based on the internet, it doesn't make sense. Obviously nobody is really advertising "we are communist hackers trying to shut down the NYSE".

One or two people could simply go and post leftist information on top 200 most popular forums, which would take a few days. This is very effective. This could get tens of thousands of people to view the message in a few days.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i havent heard of one, really.

Closest you can get to internet activism from a left perspective is Anonymous and LulzSec (And now Anti-sec)

[UnknownPerson]

i havent heard of one, really.

Closest you can get to internet activism from a left perspective is Anonymous and LulzSec (And now Anti-sec)

Very sad, Internet offers huge opportunities for promoting the cause of leftism very fast. About 5 to 10 people who are online from time to time is enough to influence a medium sized forum.

[Gorra Negra]

Psl.

[AnonymousOne]

irc.anonops.li #antisec Or go find some other project, I'm working on OP Paypal and OP India. There's a wide range of things you can do to get involved.

Plus there's that Anonymous Anarchist Action group, but I haven't heard/seen much from them. http://aaa.status.net/

[UnknownPerson]

irc.anonops.li #anti-sec

Plus there's that Anonymous Anarchist Action group, but I haven't heard/seen much from them. http://aaa.status.net/

But are there any organizations which focus more on fighting capitalism instead of focusing on a particular ideology?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Psl.
is that a jab at us for having a few PSL members on revleft? or what?

[AnonymousOne]

But are there any organizations which focus more on fighting capitalism instead of focusing on a particular ideology?

Anonymous is primarily fighting Capitalism and the current state. Anonymous also has no formal ideology, it's really just a common goal of hatred of corporations and government.

For example, recently Anonymous caused Ebay to lose over a billion dollars in a single day. We've also uncovered lots of information about shady things that U.S contractors are doing, we're constantly attacking the apparatus of the state.

We don't do ideology, we do direct action.

[Q]

irc.anonops.li #anti-sec
Doesn't exist.

[The Douche]

Promoting the cause of leftism online (by promoting leftism on various forums, influencing forums and Internet communities, starting Internet campaigns etc).

There is no "cause of leftism" and the reason no organization seeks to have people post on the internet as its strategy is because that is not engaging in real struggle.

If you get active with a real organization you will find that they have an on-line component for promoting their news/analysis.

[AnonymousOne]

Doesn't exist.

Eh, I'm in it right now, along with another 513 people.

Edit: woops, you're right. It's #antisec.

[Q]

Eh, I'm in it right now, along with another 513 people.

Edit: woops, you're right. It's #antisec.

Ah, right. A big difference ;)

[UnknownPerson]

There is no "cause of leftism" and the reason no organization seeks to have people post on the internet as its strategy is because that is not engaging in real struggle.

If you get active with a real organization you will find that they have an on-line component for promoting their news/analysis.

I should've said "united cause of leftism", which is anti-capitalism (close-center-left being an exception).

[ellipsis]

I can't think of any organizations based on the internet, it doesn't make sense. Obviously nobody is really advertising "we are communist hackers trying to shut down the NYSE".

Really you can't think of any? How about RAAN?

[thesadmafioso]

Yeah, this is a rather useless concept. What are we suppose to build, a vanguard party of the hacker?

It is certainly important for leftist causes have active web sites for the dissemination of information and for the more basic functions of a party, but that is not to say that actual internet activism is worth much. The internet is undeniably a potent tool in politics, but it is far from a substitute for actual agitation. Measures like going to other forums to spread leftism are just going to be absolutely futile and more importantly than that, if they are undertaken on the sort of level you seem to be seeking, they would just get in the way of the physical operations of this party.

[chegitz guevara]

How about nearly every single organization?

[AnonymousOne]

Yeah, this is a rather useless concept. What are we suppose to build, a vanguard party of the hacker?

It is certainly important for leftist causes have active web sites for the dissemination of information and for the more basic functions of a party, but that is not to say that actual internet activism is worth much. The internet is undeniably a potent tool in politics, but it is far from a substitute for actual agitation. Measures like going to other forums to spread leftism are just going to be absolutely futile and more importantly than that, if they are undertaken on the sort of level you seem to be seeking, they would just get in the way of the physical operations of this party.

Sigh.

No one is saying that internet agitation should be a replacement of physical agitation. However, the patronizing and condescending attitude of many revolutionary leftists towards hacktivism is quite sad and mistaken.

First, if you think causing a corporation to lose a billion dollars in one day doesn't send a message, I don't know what will. What's the alternative go smash the windows at Starbucks? Have a Marxist reading circle? Go to a rally and get beaten up? Does any of that really hurt the bourgeoise?

Second, the internet is increasingly becoming *the* most important infrastructure in the entire world. Billions of dollars pass through it, priceless amounts of informationg flow through copper wire. Internet activism is increasingly proving itself to be a better form of direct action, than traditional alternatives.

For example, Anonymous has hacked into the emails of U.S "defense" contractors. We've found plots between banks, the U.S federal government, and security firms.

Be a little bit more open-minded when it comes to strategy and tactics, this isn't 1918.

[pluckedflowers]

I would disagree that the idea is useless. Certainly organizing in real life is the top priority, but the Internet provides an important venue to challenge capitalist mythology at the subjective level. On livejournal, for instance, there is one political discussion community that is absolutely mired in center-right ideology. A leftist posting in there would be met with nothing but mockery and probably just end up leaving. But if a number of leftists began joining the discussion there, they could quite conceivably shift the balance in the community and open up a space for further discussion. I've seen similar things happen in other communities. I don't think such an effort would be useless at all, so long as it isn't taken as a replacement for more objective organization.

Israel has actually set up government programs to send trolls into internet discussions to obfuscate and deflect criticism of the state. I believe the US has also set up computer programs that enable individual agents to maintain a presence on multiple internet forums. States like these do such things because the battle of ideas is an important one. I don't see any reason we shouldn't fight back.

[ellipsis]

Yeah, this is a rather useless concept. What are we suppose to build, a vanguard party of the hacker?


No dude, we need to build a revolutionary Skynet! Haven't you read "The moon is the harsh mistress (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Moo n_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress&rct=j&q=the%20moon%20is%20a%20harsh%20mistress&ei=iR84Ts24C7DTiAK32pzsDg&usg=AFQjCNGgBGRD1cVp-f8C1EMeLj0dmnZIqQ&sig2=QuvjkyUmzGa0EKz7nMeJ_g&cad=rja)"?

Self aware super computers, what could go wrong?

Out of the streets and into the interwebs!

Edit: No disrespect towards the OP implied.

[The Douche]

Really you can't think of any? How about RAAN?

Well, they used to have a real life presence. Now I don't think they even have an internet presence.

[thesadmafioso]

Sigh.

No one is saying that internet agitation should be a replacement of physical agitation. However, the patronizing and condescending attitude of many revolutionary leftists towards hacktivism is quite sad and mistaken.

First, if you think causing a corporation to lose a billion dollars in one day doesn't send a message, I don't know what will. What's the alternative go smash the windows at Starbucks? Have a Marxist reading circle? Go to a rally and get beaten up? Does any of that really hurt the bourgeoise?

Second, the internet is increasingly becoming *the* most important infrastructure in the entire world. Billions of dollars pass through it, priceless amounts of informationg flow through copper wire. Internet activism is increasingly proving itself to be a better form of direct action, than traditional alternatives.

For example, Anonymous has hacked into the emails of U.S "defense" contractors. We've found plots between banks, the U.S federal government, and security firms.

Be a little bit more open-minded when it comes to strategy and tactics, this isn't 1918.

You seem to have a faulty image of what needs to be done in order to lay the foundation of a proletarian revolution. This task will not be dependent upon the ability of a hackers vanguard to cost a corporation relatively small losses in capital or upon their ability to break into some email accounts, it will be achieved through the establishment of a party capable of seizing upon the momentum of the masses and guiding them to their attainment of power. The efforts of which you speak of do not even provide any revolutionary organization with financial resources, they merely serve to disrupt the day to day activities of corporate powers. I am not opposed to such actions, I merely contest the value of the effect behind such. The proletariat does not need activist hackers to tell them of the corruption which is prevalent in the capitalist class, it demands the realization of its dialectical aims.

It should also be noted that you have a rather common and bourgeois image of leftist political agitation. Yes, misguided anarchists will occasionally break the window of a starbucks, but that does not afford you the mandate needed to associate all mass political action of the left with such ineffectual tactics.

The goal of demonstrations and other assorted methods of activism is not one designed to cause financial damage to the bourgeois, it is one which holds the intent of arming the proletariat with the level of political consciousness needed to compel them to the cause of revolution. We are without the means to engage in such a crude and feckless war of attrition, and the aims of communism are beyond such petty and largely irrelevant conflict. Once the working masses are armed with the revolutionary theory of Marxism, it will not matter how much capital the bourgeoisie have on hand to combat this historical inevitability.

Once the class of the capitalist has been expropriated, it will of been the result of the efforts undertaken by the vanguard party and by the class of the proletariat which it represented. It will not of been the result of some defeated security measures and hacked email accounts.

[thesadmafioso]

I would disagree that the idea is useless. Certainly organizing in real life is the top priority, but the Internet provides an important venue to challenge capitalist mythology at the subjective level. On livejournal, for instance, there is one political discussion community that is absolutely mired in center-right ideology. A leftist posting in there would be met with nothing but mockery and probably just end up leaving. But if a number of leftists began joining the discussion there, they could quite conceivably shift the balance in the community and open up a space for further discussion. I've seen similar things happen in other communities. I don't think such an effort would be useless at all, so long as it isn't taken as a replacement for more objective organization.

Israel has actually set up government programs to send trolls into internet discussions to obfuscate and deflect criticism of the state. I believe the US has also set up computer programs that enable individual agents to maintain a presence on multiple internet forums. States like these do such things because the battle of ideas is an important one. I don't see any reason we shouldn't fight back.

The battle of ideas is certainly an important one, but it is not one which will be one over the internet. It is far too unstable of a basis for such efforts, it is a field of battle where our endeavors and progress can be crushed by a careless moderator or by an influx of members of a more right leaning tendency. Ideas are born out of material circumstance, a factor which is not as prevalent in the context of internet debate. The manifestations of this environment are often times artificial and not worthy of countermeasures, making it a tenuous location to engage in this fight of consciousness.

[AnonymousOne]

You seem to have a faulty image of what needs to be done in order to lay the foundation of a proletarian revolution. This task will not be dependent upon the ability of a hackers vanguard to cost a corporation relatively small losses in capital or upon their ability to break into some email accounts, it will be achieved through the establishment of a party capable of seizing upon the momentum of the masses and guiding them to their attainment of power.

Hey, cool! We both agree. I never said anything approxamating the idea that hackers will lead us to socialist revolution, in fact I made it very clear that traditional forms of agitation will be needed but that doesn't mean we should discredit new and contemporary forms of agitation and organization.


The proletariat does not need activist hackers to tell them of the corruption which is prevalent in the capitalist class, it demands the realization of its dialectical aims.

I think it's obvious that the average worker doesn't have the same mindset that you have. In general they trust their government and at the most believe in some level of reform.

By exposing corruption and showing people that their government isn't that trustworthy, that the state is an oppressive entity we begin to radicalize the proleteriat. It results in a paradigm shift in the mind of the worker, they no longer see the government as a neutral or benevolent entity, but rather as the oppressor it is.

Providing such information can only strengthen the revolutionary leftist movement, I see no reason why these tactics should be criticized.




It should also be noted that you have a rather common and bourgeois image of leftist political agitation. Yes, misguided anarchists will occasionally break the window of a starbucks, but that does not afford you the mandate needed to associate all mass political action of the left with such ineffectual tactics.


I never did, I mentioned two other forms of activism commonly used by the revolutionary left. But I guess mentioning that wouldn't allow you to call my views common and bourgeois. :rolleyes:



The goal of demonstrations and other assorted methods of activism is not one designed to cause financial damage to the bourgeois, it is one which holds the intent of arming the proletariat with the level of political consciousness needed to compel them to the cause of revolution. We are without the means to engage in such a crude and feckless war of attrition, and the aims of communism are beyond such petty and largely irrelevant conflict. Once the working masses are armed with the revolutionary theory of Marxism, it will not matter how much capital the bourgeoisie have on hand to combat this historical inevitability.

I never said that was the goal, but it's also an empowering thing to do some damage to the bourgeoise and the state. It's an amazing thing to watch a group of people cause that much damage, it works to fight cynicism and increase confidence.

As I noted earlier exposing corruption in the state and bourgeoise is a radicalizing thing as it shifts the narrative of government and corporate actions in the mind of the individual. It turns a reformist into a radical.

Revolutions don't happen because enough people bought Socialist Worker newspaper, or read Marx. They happen when the people realize that their rulers are not benevolent but are malevolent, they happen when the people begin to realize they can take power back from their rulers. Not because they came to the conclusion through dialectical materialist reasoning, or even through an understanding of Marxism.




Once the class of the capitalist has been expropriated, it will of been the result of the efforts undertaken by the vanguard party and by the class of the proletariat which it represented. It will not of been the result of some defeated security measures and hacked email accounts.

As I said above I agree, I don't think we should shun either form of direct action. Both are incredibly useful, for different reasons. My only point, was that you should be more open minded when it comes to tactics. If you approach 2011 like it's 1918 and ignore the fact that we are in a truly globalized society, you will fail.

This is a new day for the revolutionary left, and we need to go with what works.

[pluckedflowers]

The battle of ideas is certainly an important one, but it is not one which will be one over the internet. It is far too unstable of a basis for such efforts, it is a field of battle where our endeavors and progress can be crushed by a careless moderator or by an influx of members of a more right leaning tendency. Ideas are born out of material circumstance, a factor which is not as prevalent in the context of internet debate. The manifestations of this environment are often times artificial and not worthy of countermeasures, making it a tenuous location to engage in this fight of consciousness.

These are valid points, but I don't think the question is whether or not the battle of ideas will be won over the Internet. Obviously it won't. But that doesn't mean Internet activity, especially organized activity, can't be of use.

Part of the power of ideology comes from seeing the same "common sense" repeated day after day, even by people who are widely believed to be ideological opponents (say, conservatives and liberals). There are so many places on the Internet where such trivial bickering is all that happens. I believe it is productive to challenge such environments. This doesn't require mass action. Five people who decide to spend some time on such a forum could start to change the terms of debate. This would, in turn, have at least some subjective effect on everyone in that forum. Obviously few if any are suddenly going to run out and join their nearest union or leftist party. But the way they think about political debate will have been changed to some extent.

Just anecdotally, I can say I've seen a community with more than 1,000 subscribers not only see a major shift in the terms of debate (it wasn't a political community, but it illustrates my point), but also a complete replacement of the moderation team. I don't see why a similar project in the hands of leftists wouldn't be worth the effort, especially when, no matter how much we might not like it, there are indeed leftists who can't be bothered to do much beyond their keyboards.

[thesadmafioso]

Hey, cool! We both agree. I never said anything approxamating the idea that hackers will lead us to socialist revolution, in fact I made it very clear that traditional forms of agitation will be needed but that doesn't mean we should discredit new and contemporary forms of agitation and organization.

I hardly consider this a form of agitation or organization, it has no unifying ideology or unifying political objective beyond an aimless desire to inflict minuscule amounts of financial damage on the ruling class. Modern political movements of the left obviously need to have a presence on the internet, but this variation of such is without much of a role in the revolutionary process.



I think it's obvious that the average worker doesn't have the same mindset that you have. In general they trust their government and at the most believe in some level of reform.

By exposing corruption and showing people that their government isn't that trustworthy, that the state is an oppressive entity we begin to radicalize the proleteriat. It results in a paradigm shift in the mind of the worker, they no longer see the government as a neutral or benevolent entity, but rather as the oppressor it is.

Providing such information can only strengthen the revolutionary leftist movement, I see no reason why these tactics should be criticized.

“A party is the vanguard of a class, and its duty is to lead the masses and not merely to reflect the average political level of the masses.”- V.I. Lenin

The radicalization of the proletariat will be created upon the destruction of the capitalistic cultural hegemony which leads to widespread false consciousness, it will not come after some hackers expose the government for scandalous activity. So long as the ruling class of the capitalist maintains its strict control over the direction of political discourse through its institutions of culture, it will not matter what you expose their government for. Sure, there will be an effect on some, but it is hardly worth noting in the grander scope of class conflict and revolution.


I never did, I mentioned two other forms of activism commonly used by the revolutionary left. But I guess mentioning that wouldn't allow you to call my views common and bourgeois. :rolleyes:

The other two were not really of enough substance to warrant a point, as they still embodied a mischaracterization of my initial point.


I never said that was the goal, but it's also an empowering thing to do some damage to the bourgeoise and the state. It's an amazing thing to watch a group of people cause that much damage, it works to fight cynicism and increase confidence.

As I noted earlier exposing corruption in the state and bourgeoise is a radicalizing thing as it shifts the narrative of government and corporate actions in the mind of the individual. It turns a reformist into a radical.

Revolutions don't happen because enough people bought Socialist Worker newspaper, or read Marx. They happen when the people realize that their rulers are not benevolent but are malevolent, they happen when the people begin to realize they can take power back from their rulers. Not because they came to the conclusion through dialectical materialist reasoning, or even through an understanding of Marxism.

The class struggle of the proletariat is not one of the morale and cynicism of a handful of internet 'activists'.

You also seem to have forsaken materialist analysis in these remarks, as revolution is not the result of some sort of mass awakening within the working class. It is the culmination of decades of dialectical progression and of the fostering of class consciousness, a process hardly impacted by the efforts which you describe in this topic as they are devoid of any class based analysis or proper Marxist content. The moment of revolution is one which shall be seized by the vanguard party, not a spontaneous mass of citizens.

This is an image of revolution fraught with the trappings of bourgeois idealism; it is a false depiction of the act which levies insult towards the aims of the proletariat.


As I said above I agree, I don't think we should shun either form of direct action. Both are incredibly useful, for different reasons. My only point, was that you should be more open minded when it comes to tactics. If you approach 2011 like it's 1918 and ignore the fact that we are in a truly globalized society, you will fail.

This is a new day for the revolutionary left, and we need to go with what works.

I agree with the sentiment of going with what works, hence my adherence to the Leninist model of the vanguard party and my rejection of these infantile efforts.

[UnknownPerson]

No dude, we need to build a revolutionary Skynet! Haven't you read "The moon is the harsh mistress (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Moo n_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress&rct=j&q=the%20moon%20is%20a%20harsh%20mistress&ei=iR84Ts24C7DTiAK32pzsDg&usg=AFQjCNGgBGRD1cVp-f8C1EMeLj0dmnZIqQ&sig2=QuvjkyUmzGa0EKz7nMeJ_g&cad=rja)"?

Self aware super computers, what could go wrong?

Out of the streets and into the interwebs!

Edit: No disrespect towards the OP implied.

This was a total distortion of my post and had no relation to it whatsoever.

[thesadmafioso]

These are valid points, but I don't think the question is whether or not the battle of ideas will be won over the Internet. Obviously it won't. But that doesn't mean Internet activity, especially organized activity, can't be of use.

Part of the power of ideology comes from seeing the same "common sense" repeated day after day, even by people who are widely believed to be ideological opponents (say, conservatives and liberals). There are so many places on the Internet where such trivial bickering is all that happens. I believe it is productive to challenge such environments. This doesn't require mass action. Five people who decide to spend some time on such a forum could start to change the terms of debate. This would, in turn, have at least some subjective effect on everyone in that forum. Obviously few if any are suddenly going to run out and join their nearest union or leftist party. But the way they think about political debate will have been changed to some extent.

Just anecdotally, I can say I've seen a community with more than 1,000 subscribers not only see a major shift in the terms of debate (it wasn't a political community, but it illustrates my point), but also a complete replacement of the moderation team. I don't see why a similar project in the hands of leftists wouldn't be worth the effort, especially when, no matter how much we might not like it, there are indeed leftists who can't be bothered to do much beyond their keyboards.

Entryist tactics on internet forums, what has the left come to?

As I have previously stated, the gains to be made through these approaches are nearly non existent and impossible to consolidate. Advances on the front of political consciousness will not be made through such feeble efforts.

[Susurrus]

I hardly consider this a form of agitation or organization, it has no unifying ideology or unifying political objective beyond an aimless desire to inflict minuscule amounts of financial damage on the ruling class. Modern political movements of the left obviously need to have a presence on the internet, but this variation of such is without much of a role in the revolutionary process.

It does have a unifying political objective, the down fall of capitalism. Its not a political movement so much as an activist movement with a political agenda.





“A party is the vanguard of a class, and its duty is to lead the masses and not merely to reflect the average political level of the masses.”- V.I. Lenin

The radicalization of the proletariat will be created upon the destruction of the capitalistic cultural hegemony which leads to widespread false consciousness, it will not come after some hackers expose the government for scandalous activity. So long as the ruling class of the capitalist maintains its strict control over the direction of political discourse through its institutions of culture, it will not matter what you expose their government for. Sure, there will be an effect on some, but it is hardly worth noting in the grander scope of class conflict and revolution.


Oh boy, lenin. :rolleyes:

You are contradicting yourself here, or you do not understand what you are saying. Exposing the true nature of the government and the capitalists is destroying the capitalist cultural hegemony. Obviously not entirely, but it's a step. The internet is a new medium which the capitalists have less control over, giving us a chance to use it for revolutionary means.





The class struggle of the proletariat is not one of the morale and cynicism of a handful of internet 'activists'.

And now you're just namecalling.


You also seem to have forsaken materialist analysis in these remarks, as revolution is not the result of some sort of mass awakening within the working class. It is the culmination of decades of dialectical progression and of the fostering of class consciousness, a process hardly impacted by the efforts which you describe in this topic as they are devoid of any class based analysis or proper Marxist content. The moment of revolution is one which shall be seized by the vanguard party, not a spontaneous mass of citizens.

You seem to be blurting out political slogans without checking to see if they have anything to do with the situation. The hactivism would constitute an attack on the capitalist societal superstructure as described by Marx. Revealing the actions of governments and corporations will put a crack in the false mentality of a just system. This will not be enough to fully convince the person, which is why we shall still need to have propaganda, to spread communist ideas, and to organize in the real world, but being able to point to something and say "See what we mean?" will hasten to the process. This is a battle for hearts and minds, and the truth is the best point.


This is an image of revolution fraught with the trappings of bourgeois idealism; it is a false depiction of the act which levies insult towards the aims of the proletariat.

God, it's eerie how much you sound like Trotsky right now.



I agree with the sentiment of going with what works, hence my adherence to the Leninist model of the vanguard party and my rejection of these infantile efforts.

I loled. Yes, because the vanguard party has such a record of success.:laugh:

[UnknownPerson]

I agree with the sentiment of going with what works, hence my adherence to the Leninist model of the vanguard party and my rejection of these infantile efforts.

Vanguard parties result in massive accumulation of power in the hands of that party and then it's representatives, who then can freely perform mass-murder as they have enough power not to let enough people know about this. Power should be less centralized (as in the case of a vanguard party), and the information on all of the central government's actions must be fully released and known to all the sectors of the society.

I think Marx has mentioned that the advances in the communication technology worldwide is a huge advantage to the workers to carry out their effort globally.



Entryist tactics on internet forums, what has the left come to?

As I have previously stated, the gains to be made through these approaches are nearly non existent and impossible to consolidate. Advances on the front of political consciousness will not be made through such feeble efforts.

One or two people could simply go and post leftist information on top 200 most popular forums (and then top 300,... 400,... 500,... and so on), which would take a few days. This is very effective. This could get tens of thousands of people to view the message in a few days.

[Tjis]

One or two people could simply go and post leftist information on top 200 most popular forums (and then top 300,... 400,... 500,... and so on), which would take a few days. This is very effective. This could get tens of thousands of people to view the message in a few days.

And then what? Revolutions aren't brought about by ideas, but by actions. Even if you could somehow convince many people through forum spamming of the glory that is communism and the need for revolution (which I doubt), it wouldn't change anything. The working class would still lack the means to fight, and more importantly lack the level of organization required in order to fight efficiently.

People aren't simply an audience waiting to be convinced of this or that before acting in a certain way. Certain conditions have to be met before certain events can occur. Before the ideal of anarchism/communism can really live among workers and shape their actions, there first has to be a broad workers movement in place already. And at the moment that is not the case.
So far more important than convincing workers of 'communism' is organizing them to act collectively in their class interest. Internet is not the place for that.

[UnknownPerson]

And then what? Revolutions aren't brought about by ideas, but by actions. Even if you could somehow convince many people through forum spamming of the glory that is communism and the need for revolution (which I doubt), it wouldn't change anything. The working class would still lack the means to fight, and more importantly lack the level of organization required in order to fight efficiently.

People aren't simply an audience waiting to be convinced of this or that before acting in a certain way. Certain conditions have to be met before certain events can occur. Before the ideal of anarchism/communism can really live among workers and shape their actions, there first has to be a broad workers movement in place already. And at the moment that is not the case.
So far more important than convincing workers of 'communism' is organizing them to act collectively in their class interest. Internet is not the place for that.

This could be done in order for the leftist ideals to get more public support, to educate people on the leftism. Not only that, but an Internet organization could be made which would use hacktivism in it's fight against capitalism or it's related abuse when needed.