I've recently changed my ideas on violent revolution, any thoughts?

[fashbasher 5000]

I used to be fully in favour of violent revolution in the Bolshevik style, though for the record I consider myself an anarchist, but after some thought-provoking discussion I've come to the conclusion that concentration of power, even if it's just in a small, dedicated core forming the heart of the revolution, carries too much risk of turning authoritarian. You only have to look as far as the betrayal of the Russian revolution to see an example.

I'm only beginning to think it through, but from my new perspective the preferable method would seem to be insurrectionism, not necessarily nonviolent but not to the point of revolution, combined with grassroots educational measures until we reach the point that so much of the population is on our side that such concentration is unnecessary. This could take a while, but I think it's worth it in the long run.

Anyone have defenses of violent revolution, critiques of my alternative, or any other comments? I'm not claiming that these other ideas are new, by any means, to preempt that comment. This could well be a consensus already reached by much of the community, I'm only starting to verse myself in actual leftist theory rather than just critiquing capitalism with only a vague idea of an alternative.

[Winter]

I'm only beginning to think it through, but from my new perspective the preferable method would seem to be insurrectionism, not necessarily nonviolent but not to the point of revolution, combined with grassroots educational measures until we reach the point that so much of the population is on our side that such concentration is unnecessary. This could take a while, but I think it's worth it in the long run.

I don't think you realize this, but that is one of the essential roles of a vanguard party. It's role is to educate and organize, so as soon as the people are ready for social progress, the vanguard party will be ready. The point is not to force the masses to do something against their will.



I don't think you realize this, but that is one of the essential roles of a vanguard party. It's role is to educate and organize, so as soon as the people see any straying from socialist ideas occur, they could potentially keep the party in check. Mao put much emphasis on the concept of the mass lineI believe Mao perfected this method during the Cultural Revolution, where Chinese citizens pointed out potential revisionist.

and

To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail.... There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.


Mao put much emphasis on the concept of the mass line. I believe Mao perfected this method during the Cultural Revolution, where Chinese citizens pointed out potential revisionist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The choice whether or not violence will be required is not ours, but that of the ruling-class. They are not going to give up their power and wealth happily. You only have to see what they have done in Iraq to see to what lenghts they will go to secure both.

An old joke brings this out quite well.

Young comrade A (to older comrade B): "Will the revolution be violent or can we expect a miracle?"

B: "If Christ returns to judge the rich and powerful we can expect violence, but if the ruling-class give up their power without a fight, that will be a miracle!"

[mikelepore]

A socialist revolution cannot occur until: (1) the majority of the working class has been persuaded to agree with socialist principles, no matter how long that might take, even if it takes centuries; (2) the majority of the working class has organized the industrial administrative network that will replace capitalist management, and it is ready to install immediately as a functioning management system; (3) socialist representative have taken control of government offices by means of the political process, and have issued a political mandate that transfers control of the industries to the workers' organizations.

In any case, regardless of the unwillingness of the capitalists to lose their privileges, the capitalist class cannot resist effectively the inauguration of socialism, because the capitalist class is now an absentee class whose only involvement in industry to receive dividends in the mail and to mail in cards to vote for the directors. They don't physically possess anything that the working class requires. They possess only stock certificates which will become meaningless.

However, there may be resistance by a working class minority that has voted against the socialist representatives in the political process and found itself outvoted. Enforcement of the socialist mandate will be easy because the use of the political process has given the socialist administration control of the legislature, the police and the courts. No such crime as "counterrevolutionary" action needs to be defined because people who offer resistance to socialism can be prosecuted for their actual behaviors during that resistance, that is, someone who as committed assault or vandalism can be prosecuted for assault or vandalism. In addition, public tranquillity will be served by the considerable rise in the material standard of living and the shortening of the length of the workweek that socialism will establish.

[Black Sheep]

It's role is to educate and organize, so as soon as the people see any straying from socialist ideas occur, they could potentially keep the party in check.
And let's say, when enough people have been educated to make the socialist revolution capable of happening, why do we need the party after the revolution?
If the majority of the people are concious of the objective need for the overthrow of capitalism, and participate in te decision making process and in the carrying out of the decisions, the ruling (proletarian) party seems obsolete to me.

[trivas7]

And let's say, when enough people have been educated to make the socialist revolution capable of happening, why do we need the party after the revolution?
If the majority of the people are concious of the objective need for the overthrow of capitalism, and participate in te decision making process and in the carrying out of the decisions, the ruling (proletarian) party seems obsolete to me.
Because after the revolution comes the real work of educating the masses who aren't political by inclination. Capitalist values and practice would need to be excised.

[marxiavelli]

I used to be fully in favour of violent revolution in the Bolshevik style, though for the record I consider myself an anarchist, but after some thought-provoking discussion I've come to the conclusion that concentration of power, even if it's just in a small, dedicated core forming the heart of the revolution, carries too much risk of turning authoritarian. You only have to look as far as the betrayal of the Russian revolution to see an example.

I believe that the seizure of state power -- violent or not -- in the absence of complementary institutions can be problematic. The problem is that violence is practically guaranteed even if power is seized democratically, for wealth speaks with a voice that is independent of the people. So long as class struggle is understood to take on various forms or fronts, it will also be understood that concentrating activity in any one front in the expense of all others generates the risk of either failure or authoritarian success.

[JimmyJazz]

I used to be fully in favour of violent revolution in the Bolshevik style, though for the record I consider myself an anarchist, but after some thought-provoking discussion I've come to the conclusion that concentration of power, even if it's just in a small, dedicated core forming the heart of the revolution, carries too much risk of turning authoritarian. You only have to look as far as the betrayal of the Russian revolution to see an example.

I'm only beginning to think it through, but from my new perspective the preferable method would seem to be insurrectionism, not necessarily nonviolent but not to the point of revolution, combined with grassroots educational measures until we reach the point that so much of the population is on our side that such concentration is unnecessary. This could take a while, but I think it's worth it in the long run.

Anyone have defenses of violent revolution, critiques of my alternative, or any other comments? I'm not claiming that these other ideas are new, by any means, to preempt that comment. This could well be a consensus already reached by much of the community, I'm only starting to verse myself in actual leftist theory rather than just critiquing capitalism with only a vague idea of an alternative.

I don't think you can form a general position on violent revolution. It is dependent on historical and national circumstances. At the same time, there are good reasons to be skeptical about the potential for non-revolutionary change.

I've been a socialist for a long time, but only a few months ago did I become convinced that a revolution is necessary to bring about sufficient progressive change in the United States. This was through a combination of reading John Hasnas' Myth of the Rule of Law (http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/gtwebsite/MythFinalDraft.pdf), which drove home for me the general Marxist argument against bourgeois legality, and thinking about the limitations of the U.S. constitution in specific (500 men "representing" 300 million people is inherently corruptible and antidemocratic, and can never be a substitute for direct and/or soviet democracy).

Just watching politics has convinced me as well. I'm positive at this point that no third party, not even the Greens, will ever be able to win power under the current constitution--not in ten million election cycles. And watching how much resistance the Venezuelan bourgeoisie has been able to throw up against a government which no longer represents it, mainly through its monopoly on the media, has also shown me the limits of reformism.

[Black Dagger]

I used to be fully in favour of violent revolution in the Bolshevik style, though for the record I consider myself an anarchist, but after some thought-provoking discussion I've come to the conclusion that concentration of power, even if it's just in a small, dedicated core forming the heart of the revolution, carries too much risk of turning authoritarian. You only have to look as far as the betrayal of the Russian revolution to see an example.

This is very confusing.

You're an anarchist correct? Well then i don't understand how anything you've said there would change your mind in terms of supporting armed struggle.

Anarchists do not advocate or practice revolutionary organisation that fits the description you provide, in fact they abhor it:


concentration of power, even if it's just in a small, dedicated core forming the heart of the revolution

For anarchists the 'heart' of the revolution is the working people, without organisation from shop-floor to community and everything in-between we can't hope to be victorious. Through workers and community associations large sections of the class can be coordinated, without recourse to monolithic political parties. Where 'power' (not sure what you mean by this) is constituted by associations themselves and in alliance with other workers through regional and national federations.

Organising for armed struggle or class war, is a necessary responsibility of the above.

So i don't see how being an anarchist precludes you from supporting 'violent revolution'? There is not only one 'formula' (written by the bolsheviks) for class war.



I'm only beginning to think it through, but from my new perspective the preferable method would seem to be insurrectionism, not necessarily nonviolent but not to the point of revolution, combined with grassroots educational measures until we reach the point that so much of the population is on our side that such concentration is unnecessary. This could take a while, but I think it's worth it in the long run.

Insurrection and education are not enough.

Without concrete workers and community organisation behind insurrectionary acts the only result will be demoralising defeat:



Insurrections cannot destroy capitalism. I don’t even think the ruling class is frightened of them anymore. You can rampage through the streets all you want, burn down your neighborhoods, and loot all the local stores to your heart’s content. They know this will not go any-where. They know that blind rage will burn itself out. When it’s all over, these insurrectionists will be showing up for work like always standing again in the dole line. Nothing has changed. Nothing has been organized. No new associations have been created. What do capitalists care if they lose a whole city? They can afford it. All they have to do is cordon off the area of conflagration, wait for the fires burn down, go in and arrest thousands of people at random, and then leave, letting the "rioters" cope with their ruined neighborhoods best they can. Maybe we should think of something a little more damaging to capitalists than burning down our own neighborhoods.


As anarchists we support a revolution made by the working class themselves, this necessitates an organised class. 'Education' or propaganda is important, it's important to promote critical thinking and to let people know what alternative exists, but this must grow into conscious workers organising themselves to defend their interests, capable of taking the offensive against capital and the state. If the working class is not organised no amount of insurrectionay violence can deliver a real lasting victory:


To become an convinced anarchist, and not in name only, [working people] must begin to feel the solidarity that joins them to their comrades, and to learn to cooperate with others in defense of common interests and that, by struggling against the bosses and against the government that supports them, should realize that bosses and governments are useless parasites and that the workers could manage the domestic economy by their own efforts. And when the worker has understood this, he or she is an anarchist even if they do not refer to themselves as such.


...

We have undertaken the task of struggling against existing social organization, and of overcoming the obstacles to the advent of a new society in which freedom and well being would be assured to everybody. To achieve this objective we organize ourselves and seek to become as numerous and as strong as possible. But if it were only our anarchist groupings that were organized; if the workers were to remain isolated like so many units unconcerned about each other and only linked by the common chain; if we ourselves besides being organized as anarchists in a federation, were not as workers organized with other workers, we could achieve nothing at all, or at most, we might be able to impose ourselves... and then it would not be the triumph of anarchism, but our triumph. We could then go on calling ourselves anarchists, but in reality we should simply be rulers, and as impotent as all rulers are where the general good is concerned.


Education and insurrection without organisation is not capable of creating anarchism. Because it does not create or appeal to people who appreciate their own power of self-liberation, and the power of the class in solidarity (which comes through collective struggle). If people have no experience in organising themselves they will be followers, creating fertile ground for authority and incapable of taking control over their own lives, and thus creating anarchy.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Because after the revolution comes the real work of educating the masses who aren't political by inclination.

If the "masses" remain politically apathetic, there can be not talk of revolution, let alone their subsequent "education".


Capitalist values and practice would need to be excised.

Can this function can not be performed without the dictatorship of the party?

[Sendo]

The choice whether or not violence will be required is not ours, but that of the ruling-class. They are not going to give up their power and wealth happily. You only have to see what they have done in Iraq to see to what lenghts they will go to secure both.

An old joke brings this out quite well.

Young comrade A (to older comrade B): "Will the revolution be violent or can we expect a miracle?"

B: "If Christ returns to judge the rich and powerful we can expect violence, but if the ruling-class give up their power without a fight, that will be a miracle!"

The choice has already been made. I'm all in favor of doing some serious organizing when I'm back in the Americas (I plan to go East Coast or Canada) to connect with people for mass strikes, protests, and self-defense. I really think self-defense is essential to stress at this point. Just watch the Denver DNC unfold and you'll see what I mean. Cops everywhere are allowed to log license plates but beat journalists. Chomsky used to be right when he said the US uses propaganda in place of violent coercion, but now that's wrong. I thought Korea was bad with its "illegal" strikes and assemblies, but now the US is moving closely to a middle ground with the PRC. I've always disagreed with Chomsky that propaganda is better than a dictatorship. In a dictatorship you know the enemy and can fight, and propaganda takes time to develop. In a propagandist society all the govt has to do is re-implement coercion, and that process becomes quite easy. How many people even KNOW about privatized prisons? the content of the Patriot Act? The self-asserted rights to search and seizure of ANYONE crossing ANY border of ANY nationality.

Yeah, we've seen more (peaceful) protests in throughout the past decade, but all that's happened is LESS govt accountability and more abuses of power. It's like a tiny Latin American fiefdom. You hear about some progressive group rearing its head in a legal way and it gets wiped out. We have two options: a slow death through slaver, or fighting back by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. I'd rather kill a hundred cops than see a hundred families go hungry. Then you add how despicable most cops are, and I'd have no problem beating any of them and throwing them in a "people's jail" by the thousands. Though I do reserve killing for only necessity. Pre-emptive violence is one hting, but pre-emptive murder is quite another...and I don't think any real revolutionaries argue for violence for its own sake or for revenge or anything like that.

It's more than just foco armies, but a vibrant network of all sorts of people (excepting bourgeoisie and managers, of course). Lockouts will be as important as traditional armed struggle, but if you look at USA labor history, the strikes became very violent. We need to blur the lines between protests and lockouts and strikes. Protesters need to be prepared to defend themselves as should strikers. I don't advocate some privileged, rich army of people wielding expensive rifles simply out of practicality. We need people to learn self-defense and how to use simple objects for defense, and how to make those paint bombs that some people have used to blind the cops, etc. Look at the IWW. Great organization and idea, but they need to combine that grassroots, local chapter autonomy with the skills of a vanguard.

We can't possibly educate the propagandized masses by word of mouth faster than the media outlets can. Simple little info sessions wil increasingly be broken up by cops. We need to prepare for war and not limit ourselves to idealist methods.

[trivas7]

If the "masses" remain politically apathetic, there can be not talk of revolution, let alone their subsequent "education".

Socialist revolution will not come again in the bolshevik form where a passive government just lies down waiting to exit from history IMO. How many people understood the political situation, let alone supported the specific change of government from dual power (the Kerensky caretaker gov.) to Bolshevik takeover? Certainly not the majority of people, not the peasants. They only knew they were ready for a change. My cynicism informs me this generally true of most societies.

Having said that, we don't know at this point how a world-wide revolution will come about. My guess is that some form of technology or environmental disaster will massively disrupt capitalist distribution mechanisms, but who knows?


Can this function can not be performed without the dictatorship of the party?No, the transitional period of socialism will be long and protracted. The habits of centuries don't die overnight.

[Niccolò Rossi]

How many people understood the political situation, let alone supported the specific change of government from dual power (the Kerensky caretaker gov.) to Bolshevik takeover? Certainly not the majority of people, not the peasants. They only knew they were ready for a change. My cynicism informs me this generally true of most societies.

If you accept this to be the case you have rejected Marx's fundamental formula that " The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself".



Can this function can not be performed without the dictatorship of the party? No, the transitional period of socialism will be long and protracted. The habits of centuries don't die overnight.

Yes I understand that and would agree with the general gist of what you are saying. However, you have not answered my question and thus I will restate it: Can this function [the abolition of capitalist values and practices] not be performed without the dictatorship of the party?

[trivas7]

If you accept this to be the case you have rejected Marx's fundamental formula that " The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself".

I'm making an historical point not a theoretical one.


Yes I understand that and would agree with the general gist of what you are saying. However, you have not answered my question and thus I will restate it: Can this function [the abolition of capitalist values and practices] not be performed without the dictatorship of the party?
The abolition of capitalist values and practices is the ongoing cultural revolution/transformation of society, not something that is imposed on it. How this works out historically we'll have to see, but IMO it will not follow the Soviet model.

[Yehuda Stern]

A socialist revolution cannot occur until: (1) the majority of the working class has been persuaded to agree with socialist principles, no matter how long that might take, even if it takes centuries; (2) the majority of the working class has organized the industrial administrative network that will replace capitalist management, and it is ready to install immediately as a functioning management system; (3) socialist representative have taken control of government offices by means of the political process, and have issued a political mandate that transfers control of the industries to the workers' organizations.

None of that is true, actually. What you describe is not a socialist revolution but the setting up of a reformist government. The revolution does not wait for the approval of the majority - it proves itself in practice by taking power wherever it can. The Bolshevik revolution started in St. Petersburg and didn't wait for every Russian worker to support it to do that. And the persecuted Bolsheviks were certainly not part of the government at the time.

What you're describing is very much the American action movie (or Pabloite) version of a socialist revolution: a soft-talking socialist 'representative' is elected to parliament on the basis of some populist program, snaps his fingers, and there you go - revolution!


Originally Posted by trivas7 http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1223923#post1223923)
Because after the revolution comes the real work of educating the masses who aren't political by inclination.
If the "masses" remain politically apathetic, there can be not talk of revolution, let alone their subsequent "education".

Exactly what I was going to say. It's amazing that people who call themselves Marxists imagine themselves educating the masses to become 'political' after the revolution.

On the question of a violent revolution, I think most comrades are avoiding the question. None of us would be for decapitating those capitalists who surrender to us, but is it not a historical fact that the revolution will always be met with violence, that violence is the only thing that can bring the birth of a new society, that we must prepare the workers for this or else we are deceiving them and leading them blind into the slaughter?

[SamiBTX]

A violent revolution is the same old thing over & over again.
There have been violent revolutions for centuries, I think a non-violent
revolution would hail different & better results in the long run.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't get riled up about views towards a "revolution." To me the phrase now sounds juvenile, as exemplified by the Ron Paul movement. Changes don't occur within a day, or a year, or sometimes even in a lifetime. There is a constant build up of resentment towards historic institutions. Let historians call it a revolution.

Apparently change is in season. :laugh:

[Die Neue Zeit]

None of that is true, actually. What you describe is not a socialist revolution but the setting up of a reformist government. The revolution does not wait for the approval of the majority - it proves itself in practice by taking power wherever it can. The Bolshevik revolution started in St. Petersburg and didn't wait for every Russian worker to support it to do that. And the persecuted Bolsheviks were certainly not part of the government at the time.

Once more, Yehuda propagates "vulgar vanguardism":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32



Down to 1914, Russian Bolshevism was a tendency within the centre, not a tendency opposed to it [...] Without the centre tendency’s international unity policy there would have been no RSDLP; without the lessons the Bolsheviks learned from the international centre tendency, there could have been no mass opening of the Bolshevik membership in 1905, no recovery of the party’s strength through trade union, electoral and other forms of low-level mass work in 1911-14, and no Bolshevik political struggle to win a majority between April and October 1917.

[...]

It is important to be clear that the movement that the centre tendency sought to build was not the gutted form of the modern social-democracy/Labourism, which is dependent on the support of the state and the capitalist media for its mass character. The idea was of a party which stood explicitly for the power of the working class and socialism. It was one which was built up on the basis of its own resources, its own organisation with local and national press, as well as its own welfare and educational institutions, etc.

[...]

The centre’s strategy of patience was more successful than the other strategies in actually building a mass party. Its insistence on the revolution as the act of the majority, and refusal of coalitionism, was equally relevant to conditions of revolutionary crisis: the Bolsheviks proved this positively in April-October 1917, and it has been proved negatively over and over again between the 1890s and the 2000s. However, because it addressed neither the state form, nor the international character of the capitalist state system and the tasks of the workers’ movement, the centre’s strategy proved to collapse into the policy of the right when matters came to the crunch.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I'm making an historical point not a theoretical one.

It seemed to me that you were being more than historical when in you endorsed the experiences of October as being a necessary model of sorts. Either way we'll leave the point there.


Exactly what I was going to say. It's amazing that people who call themselves Marxists imagine themselves educating the masses to become 'political' after the revolution.

Interesting to see you make such remarks especially considering that only a few lines above you wrote: "The revolution does not wait for the approval of the majority - it proves itself in practice by taking power wherever it can. The Bolshevik revolution started in St. Petersburg and didn't wait for every Russian worker to support it to do that."

[Yehuda Stern]

Once more, Yehuda does not care about Jacob's snotty one-liners.


Interesting to see you make such remarks especially considering that only a few lines above you wrote: "The revolution does not wait for the approval of the majority - it proves itself in practice by taking power wherever it can. The Bolshevik revolution started in St. Petersburg and didn't wait for every Russian worker to support it to do that."I don't see the contradiction. The masses become politically aware, but the revolutionary workers prove themselves to the rest of the class and the other classes by their actions, by taking their revolution as far as possible, not by waiting idly by to convince the others with words.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Re-reading over the quotes now I'm finding harder to determine whether they are contradictory after all. What I am particularly concerned with is the following:


It's amazing that people who call themselves Marxists imagine themselves educating the masses to become 'political' after the revolution.


The revolution does not wait for the approval of the majority - it proves itself in practice by taking power wherever it can. The Bolshevik revolution started in St. Petersburg and didn't wait for every Russian worker to support it to do that.

Do you think these are contradictory? If not would you care to clarify.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'll explain. The masses become politically conscious during a revolution. All the snotty middle-class apathy towards becomes shattered when they advance politically in days a political distance of years. But this is not enough. This advance is welcome and is good, but given their lack of experience in politics, most workers, and especially the petty-bourgeois, find it hard to tell the exact difference between all the different brands of Marxism and socialism - admittedly, even most leftists can't justify or explain these differences too effectively. The only way to convince these people that the revolutionary party is their home is to show them that it is the only party that can defend the revolution, that can take it forward. Therefore the party does whatever it can with its forces, up to taking power in some of the land, but it does so relying on the political consciousness and maturity of the masses, not because it disrespects them and views them as mindless drones incapable of acting on their own.

Hope that clears it up.

[trivas7]

I'll The masses become politically conscious during a revolution. [...] This advance is welcome and is good, but given their lack of experience in politics, most workers, and especially the petty-bourgeois, find it hard to tell the exact difference between all the different brands of Marxism and socialism - admittedly, even most leftists can't justify or explain these differences too effectively. The only way to convince these people that the revolutionary party is their home is to show them that it is the only party that can defend the revolution, that can take it forward.
How do the masses judge which party can do this? Who can judge this?


Therefore the party does whatever it can with its forces, up to taking power in some of the land, but it does so relying on the political consciousness and maturity of the masses, not because it disrespects them and views them as mindless drones incapable of acting on their own.
IInteresting, but how does "political consciousness and maturity of the masses" differ from confusion and uncertainty re this? How mature were the workers and peasants during the Great October Revolution? I'm asking sincerely, I confess my ignorance; my sense is that what they knew for certain was that political change was coming.

[Yehuda Stern]

How do the masses judge which party can do this? Who can judge this?

A good philosophical question. How do we decide what to believe in? Our beliefs, the ideology that we adopt, we adopt these things and believe in them because they fit our experience in life, what we have learned is beneficial for us. It is a question of class more than anything else, but also of status within the class. That's why some parts of the working class are more militant than others, for example. Therefore, the only way in which a party can show the politically involved masses that it represents their interests is to do just that - to take care of their interest. It must forge ahead with whatever power it has, without respecting bourgeois democratic prejudices. If the party can take power in a city, it shouldn't wait until it can take power all over the country, because then no one will believe it intends to. The party must show its willingness to fight and lead by using their control of one city to spread the revolution all over the country and onwards.


Interesting, but how does "political consciousness and maturity of the masses" differ from confusion and uncertainty re this?

The masses awake to political life and advance quickly, but this does not mean that they can differentiate between all the different socialist and Marxist groups. Even to a very politically aware and experienced person, differences between Marxist groups can seem to be very trivial (even when they aren't, which isn't always the case). Writing books and pamphlets isn't enough for the revolutionary party to show that it is unique - it must prove this in actions, for that is the measure by which it will be judged.