On a Revolutionary Syndicate
The following excerpts are from a series of notes I made following the break with the Revolutionary Workers Movement and the KC Maoist milieu at large. After reading that I’d “pressed foolish and reckless ideas” to the Maoist cadre in Incendiary, I’m encouraged to provide the substance and context of these ideas. For my part I only ever presented these ideas to the collective in one melodramatic parting statement, immediately before dipping out on them for good. In every other case, while I encouraged the study of the old armed struggle movement and the local repressive apparatus (insofar as they are “reckless” and “adventurist” topics in themselves), I strove to be a kind of centrist in relation to my former comrades, with a particular focus on extensive development in social investigation and mass work.
For what it’s worth, their immediate response to my impassioned little statement wasn’t so much of a denunciation but a rather clunky attempt to salvage what little hope I had left in the Maoist milieu, primarily indicating the pace at which “the movement” was developing in the direction of my thoughts. While I acknowledged their encouraging growth and stability in their brief history, I flatly disagreed with this in the middle or long term. After elaborating my thoughts in our debate, I was accused of thinking to organize an “anarchist warband,” which by its design would fall into a directly antagonistic struggle with the as-yet established — only imagined — People’s Army of the future, reconstituted CPUSA.
My defection from the Maoists, in fact, also had just about everything to do with the KCDSA action. The decision to remove myself from their milieu consisted in the very real impression I got after our official debrief that they honestly had better chances of blowing their fingers off or shooting themselves on accident than really organizing a “New Power” or initiating any kind of combat. That’s still where I stand. Though, the fact that they even received my criticisms at all — in their typical, schizophrenic fashion — gives me hope that there might just be a few comrades around with some common sense after all. Who knows!
In any case, these notes were immediate attempts to flesh out such “dangerous and anarchistic ideas,” consisting of approaches and concepts I wanted to develop as I moved forward.
FIFTEEN POINTS OF ATTENTION
- Never assume anything about anyone or any given situation.
Political work entails a delicate process of adapting to new perceptions of individuals, collectives, and the objective situation as a whole, as well as processes through which they really change. Comrades can never be truly certain of any aspect of their activities, the only certainty over which they can exercise control is their own criticism and skepticism. These should be maintained as far as possible in order to limit presumption in their political work, to avoid future mistakes.
2. Observe and study all manner of behaviors, dynamics, trends, etc., on the personal and political levels.
Just as individuals, collectives, and situations change, our ability to apprehend/assess them will have to change too. Comrades must give special attention to the interrelation of the personal and political realms. The political organization isn’t some special place where all the problems of the “real world” simply disappear but rather become all the more acute and intense. This also holds for the positive and negative qualities of an individual, of personhood. The immediate object of the political worker is to elevate the former and limit the latter, collectively and within themselves.
3. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
Many comrades who come into the movement with a critical and skeptical outlook towards its inner workings will tend to surrender this perspective the more they become embedded within an organization and its activities. There are many reasons why this happens. For example, more experienced organizers aren’t above browbeating or bullying doubt out of newer comrades; even in spite of themselves, they may severely damage these new comrades’ own self-confidence and self-esteem if they so much as question the prevailing orthodoxy, and contribute to the development of a culture of fear. In another instance, a newer comrade might simply substitute their doubts with the convenient and comforting assurances of the dominant groupthink.
What’s notable is that this perspective and sense of doubt will never actually vanish but grow and intensify insofar as they go unrecognized or dismissed. Comrades must never submit to this dogma nor be placated by it, they should commit every passion to exposing and destroying it. They should also distrust and question any inward-facing propaganda or any self-valorization on the part of the collective: there is nothing more dangerous than getting high on your own supply.
4. Fight against the emergence of personalities, cliques, and milieus.
Comrades ought to remain vigilant of any personalities — that is, individuals — who by personal charm, force of will, and desire for fame, status, or celebrity (just to name a few) will inevitably attempt to stand above the interests and accountability of the collective. These personalities may also preside over a clique, an in-group with no political substance of its own, which in its inactivity will divert the development of the political organization away from its practical tasks. The milieu, however, will manifest on a much broader scale in the form of subcultures and abstract allegiances, rivalries, alliances, etc., which prove illusory or simply rhetorical in relation to the practical movement. All three serve the same purpose: to liquidate the practical tasks of the political movement and convert the political movement into an expansive social club.
Just as this movement develops, it will become all the more necessary for comrades to identify and eliminate such personalities and phenomena by any means necessary.
5. Confide any and all serious concerns or thoughts to one comrade or, at most, two.
These comrades should be in close physical proximity to you and easily reachable for a one on one meeting. They must have your full trust and confidence as well as a sensitivity towards your personal strengths and weaknesses. They don’t have to be closely familiar with your political work but they should be generally informed of the political situation. They should be a clear source of encouragement, criticism, and support in your efforts and thoughts. The object in confiding your thoughts, in any case, is to better equip yourself to present them to the collective with confidence. Inside or outside of the political organization, it’s always preferable to have at least one person in your corner than to go at it alone.
6. Set aside time to reflect on every encounter in political work and try to use each experience, no matter how minor, as an opportunity to learn something new.
Commit to making your own notes, from your own perspective, regarding both the minutes and general reflections of every experience in political work that you have. Comrades should train their minds to glean as much as they can, as quickly as they can, from any given situation or exchange with or among the collective, and to relate this to various social problems in daily life. This way, there is also a record of your own development which you’ll be able to trace backwards, to better apprehend the political development of the collective and devise practical steps accordingly.
7. Have faith in your own criticisms, even at the risk of rejection or total isolation.
There will never be a “perfect time” to present your criticisms to an organization or your comrades. There will never be an instance in which criticizing or confronting a practical problem won’t carry the risk of loss, no matter its significance. Criticism and transformation is an inherently sacrificial process and, in many cases, time sensitive. The accuracy of your aim and the timing of your blow both matter to varying degrees but what’s decisive is the courage to strike at all.
8. If an organization, especially its leadership, is generating a culture of fear, endangering comrades unnecessarily, or is totally resistant to criticism, abandon it.
Comrades often find themselves up against numerous obstacles in the course of criticizing, and changing, aspects of their organizations and their comrades. These comrades will usually find themselves chastised, isolated, or marginalized for questioning or criticizing directives, plans, and perspectives, even if they ultimately follow the decisions of the majority in line with democratic-centralism. When this attitude, typically from the minority in leadership, takes on a distinctly punitive character, or even resembles it, this process may preside over a culture of fear that will leave many other comrades reluctant to assert their own concerns to the organization and stifle their will to exert collective control over their political work, its orientation, and its particular focus.
The generation of this “artificial majority” and its combination with practical tasks, some of which may entail serious risks, will always lead to disaster. Comrades owe no explanation for their abandonment of such organizations, just as the leadership of these organizations deserve none.
9. Always have an exit plan, for your sake and the sake of the organization.
If at any point, for any reason, comrades anticipate leaving the movement for their own protection, for the safeguarding of their organizations, and the security and safety of their comrades, they should be prepared to do so on the logistical, physical, and psychological levels. Comrades should foster a small and trusted circle of movement contacts, friends, or distant relatives who might house and care for them, for sometime, in the worst case scenario. Comrades also shouldn’t hesitate to limit their involvement in political work as needed for short periods of time, in order to prevent burnout and demoralization or to overcome problems in their personal lives.
10. No one should be at risk for arrest outside of public actions — make sure it stays that way.
In public work, many risks are unavoidable; in any other case risk can be managed and limited far more easily. Comrades should develop a keen sense of evaluating and managing risk in political work; devise and practice measures that serve to strengthen the security culture of the collective; and learn to take inventory of the means, resources, and level of development at the disposal of the organization.
In all political work, especially with regard to actions, comrades should preside over a clearheaded calculation of its aims, its potential risks, and its possible political effects to precede its implementation, as well as critical reflections and analyses to follow. In illegal work, especially in its planning, comrades should typically privilege evading capture and suspicion over the technical/logistical aspects of the job. In general, retreat should command the conditions of victory in order to avoid losses of any kind.
11. Stay healthy, strive to be sober, and aspire to the level of a professional in all political work.
Comrades should, of course, stay healthy and commit to some regimen of physical exercise. For comrades working physically intensive jobs, regular stretching is a basic necessity for relieving pain and stress. Limiting drug use as far as possible has a proportional effect on cultivating self-control, primarily. The physical benefits of all this notwithstanding, the key is that comrades build and organize discipline within themselves and in relation to the collective as a whole.
12. Don’t trust ideological leaders or rank-and-file ideologues for sound practical advice or political leadership.
In any political organization there is usually a simple division between propagandists and organizers. The propagandists, or ideologists, will typically focus on studying theoretical works and issues, then imparting those ideas to the collective or to the public. On the other hand, the organizers, or activists, will typically take the lead in all practical tasks, their planning, and their implementation; their basic line of work requires near constant contact or engagement with the unorganized and in public. In ideal circumstances, this distinction would be marginal but such as it is, there’s still a clear distinction to be drawn between them. Comrades should never confuse them. They should never make the mistake of confusing ideology with politics, or vice versa, ever. While the ideologists may be able to teach and articulate abstract problems on the theoretical plane, the activist is the only comrade who can illuminate them in practice or substantiate ideas in any way.
Never trust an ideologist to provide a clearheaded view of the objective situation or make sound practical decisions. An ideologist, or several, leading a political organization is also, of course, a disaster waiting to happen.
13. If any comrade must go to prison, favor the capture of ideologists over the practically inclined and the older over the younger.
Ideologists can continue their basic line of work in prison, activists more or less cannot. Older comrades can impart key practical and theoretical knowledge from a jail cell, younger comrades can’t grow and develop in the same place.
14. When trying to locate the source of political problems or mistakes, the best explanation is usually the simplest.
Locating problems from a class perspective may be useful in the long term but they only tend to muddle comrades’ grasp of immediate problems. Comrades should typically privilege solving problems by calculating from basic human stupidity, ignorance, and incompetence before attributing them to “bourgeois” backgrounds or characters, which leaves them more easily at a loss to solve those problems.
15. Never fully wed yourself to political work.
Comrades should take care to ensure the entirety of their free time and the extent of their social lives isn’t commanded by political work nor the social aspects of their political organizations. They should compartmentalize to a large extent, and seek out many avenues to meet new people with diverse perspectives, from any class, strata, origin, etc..
The aim of this is two-fold: to limit the drift of personalities, cliques, and milieus as much as possible and to enrich comrades’ understanding and engagement with all of society, not simply its fragments.
REVOLUTIONARY COMMON-SENSE
In political work, one’s primary practical activities in and for organizations more closely mold their ideological development than study or anything else. Politics, one’s principal relationship to the revolutionary classes, dictates the terms and limits of this ideological development in fact. On the other hand, ideological development can only advance, or assume dominance, over political development insofar as the ideas concerned assume immediate or approximate practical relevance in the real world. In order to meet this quality, they must always be acted on in reality. Ideological development will always warp one’s politics so long as it assumes zero practical relevance on anything material and in motion. This expresses the primary contradiction between the political and the ideological in the practical movement.
The contradiction between politics and ideology is basically totally unmediated in reality, for the most part, leading to the collapse and degeneration of many revolutionary organizations. Revolutionary common-sense is a political-philosophical orientation that seeks to prefigure the dynamics and relations of a given organization and imbue itself in a mediary operating both over and among the ideological and political. This mediary, in the form of the individual or the collective, consciously organizes and reinforces a fundamental self-awareness, applicability to real conditions, and multi-sided approach to political and intellectual work, the most important of which is perceiving and analyzing the organization’s activities from the outside-in and grounding it in real-world problems and conditions.
In reality, these “common-sense revolutionaries” will generally, organically, manifest in the form of one or two people in the entire organization who try to keep it grounded, maintained, and, when it becomes necessary, try to innovate it. Without them, the organization degenerates, wildly and uncontrollably.
THE REVOLUTIONARY WORKING-CIRCLE
Patience is the greatest asset of the revolutionary. In the history of class struggles, time comprises the most significant aspect, after that of history’s actors — its classes, cultures, civilizations, etc.. From the first bourgeois revolution — Cromwell — to the consecration of bourgeois hegemony in global governance — the UN, EU, IMF, WTO, etc. — there stands nearly half a millennium of tumultuous developments. For the proletariat, there’s only 150 years separating us from the Paris Commune. Time holds every possibility and potential, patience is the means by which its potential is really harnessed.
After more than half a century of bloody revolts, strikes, bombings and assassinations in Russia, the Bolsheviks emerged out of the internal struggles of the RSDLP. Less than twenty years later, they had secured a majority in every workers’ Soviet and propelled themselves to the head of the socialist movement and the state in Russia. What equipped them to lead was a little more than fifteen years of tireless development and (self-)education among the people, against the Okhrana, and all for nothing but the emergence of social revolution in their country.
The Bolsheviks spared no opportunity to learn from every possible source before they could lead; they considered no tactic as unworkable and no strategy as sacrosanct; they worked night and day, legally and illegally, publicly and in absolute secrecy — all to obtain the trust and confidence of the working class movement and to urge it to develop into maturity. This was the method promoted by Lenin and employed by hundreds of Bolsheviks as well as thousands of sympathizers. All theoretical and practical advances of the period owe everything to this particular method of work.
Contemporary communists claim more fidelity to the image than to this method. The image is plainly more comforting to them, the hollow nostalgia of dead victories more pleasing than the dangerous work of trying to produce living ones. Their stagnant mode of activity is complacent, arrogant, and contemplative. No communist group has truly progressed in the past 30 or 40 years because people are more content with propaganda circles and social clubs than political organizations.
“Political advances” take the form of PR stunts, rather than the greater organization of the proletariat and the consolidation of political power. “Political development” manifests more in fidelity to organizational leadership and wholesale circlejerking over their own propaganda than the acquisition of useful skills or expertise and the integration of the working class with the revolutionary organization. No form of state repression, resource scarcity, or whatever really constrains the development of even the smallest legal communist group: the only real impediment they have is themselves.
State repression is so marginal in our work that its casual invocation in the communist milieus is more a way to cover up their own incompetence and stupidity and flatter themselves at the same time.
Above all, the main obstacle these people face is their inability and, in many cases, unwillingness to learn from anything. On the expressly political level, you might say that a lot of this comes from the presumption that they’ve already got everything figured out, therefore why try or learn from anything else. This is kinda why Marxist parties exist, just on the barest level, and every member of these parties will have to justify its existence, and their presence in it, as “The Vanguard” over and over again — to themselves and everyone else. The actual process by which a class is politically organized, the conditions in which its vanguard emerges, and the juncture that lays bare the necessity for a revolutionary party, et al., are in flat contradiction with the usual line of thought employed by the partyists. If they were truly “ahead of the curve,” if the complex historical and political developments really weren’t necessary, these parties wouldn’t have to justify themselves as such in the first place. Ultimately they end up relegating the broader work of building the revolutionary party to narrow, insular propaganda circles at best. This is basically just lazy arrogance.
Any constructive effort has to stem from the fundamental truth that nobody really knows what the fuck they’re doing or what the fuck’s really going on. We are operating from a place of deep uncertainty with a skeptical and critical outlook. The political world and the real one (though the distinction is more one of perspective than anything else) are worlds full of unknowns and ambiguities that the revolutionary political worker must make known and confirm through study, investigation, and experimentation. That’s the “scientific” part of scientific socialism.
Revolutionary political work is as much about discovering as creating a basis, foundation, and terrain for the proletariat to apprehend, use, and act within, in order to liberate themselves. Armed and unarmed; legal and illegal; cell and party; centralized and democratic; “authoritarian” and “anti-authoritarian.” Revolutionary political work passes through all of these without discrimination, for nothing but the sole aim of organizing and developing the forces for total social revolution.
The main problem is the organization and training of revolutionary political workers. There’s no “one group” to accomplish all the tasks needed to turn comrades into capable “professional revolutionaries,” but there may be a form with the potential to facilitate that process: the working circle.
The working circle would be comprised of either 3 or 5 (at most) comrades who know each other closely and trust each other a great deal politically and personally. The circle’s numbers would be ideal for either a consensus or democratic-centralist model and small enough to dramatically limit the possibility of a serious schism. The smallness would also benefit the pooling and sharing of intelligence and collective study. The working circle must be tight, mobile, and have a geographically limited area of work.
Every comrade should learn a particular trade, subject, and contribute to the funds of the circle using only creative means. They should support, encourage, and criticize each other in every facet of study and work. They must ultimately be able to impart this knowledge casually and effectively to their comrades and build the “general intellect” of the circle.
Every comrade should have experience with and knowledge of the public and legal movements, whether “non-political” (NGOs) or political organizations. They should be organizers with deliberate and reciprocal, social and political, relationships with various contacts in all social classes but particularly among the working classes. They should be able to think and act politically, to have a developed political consciousness.
The working circle should operate in total secrecy, in active disregard for the many superstitions, allegiances, and milieus of the organized left, and build the necessary infrastructure for underground formations (contacts, safehouses, code, info/opsec, etc.) so they can guard each other from exposure, harm, infiltration, and surveillance. Comrades should learn to experiment with new tactics and provide practical and theoretical material for a future revolutionary strategy.
In the end, the working circle is a means for developing the method of producing revolutionary political workers, not simply the “one method” for producing them once and for all. The working circle is simply a kind of laboratory in which the necessary ingredients and components to make a revolutionary might be discovered and demonstrated to work.
