But if it builds the structure and doesn’t carry out anything, you have the prerequisites, but not the action. So without tangible action outside of the group that actively opposes the existing regime, it is no more revolutionary than a sanctioned university course.
If you steer a group towards nothing actually visible but the outside world, then you should not be able to say that you carried out revolutionary action. The preparation might be necessary, the coordination, too. It might even be indispensable to profit from the action, but without it, it is nothing but wishing.
There have been many times in history where gathering or talking have been revolutionary actions by themselves, as they were expressly forbidden and acted upon, but nowadays it is, as a general rule, not in the western countries.
I didn’t say bad, I said not carry out any revolutionary act. For the second point I said that a specific assassination by a random person can be a revolutionary act.
If there’s opportunity for a revolutionary org to advance the revolutionary struggle and they miss it, this is a mistake. It doesn’t mean that random adventurism is revolutionary.
There are many reasons why a group might fail to act and fizzle out. I am just saying that without that action, the existence of the group and the discussions are not revolutionary.
The creation of an org that can and will act when needed is revolutionary. An org that does not live up to those standards is not revolutionary, nor is random assassination, nor is building up such a failure of an org.
So you can only define the organization as revolutionary after something else has happened? The creation and organization of two identical groups can be revolutionary or not depending on if they down the line act on something?
But if it builds the structure and doesn’t carry out anything, you have the prerequisites, but not the action. So without tangible action outside of the group that actively opposes the existing regime, it is no more revolutionary than a sanctioned university course.
This is why you need to study theory. You don’t trigger a revolution, you steer one. Otherwise you separate yourself from the masses.
If you steer a group towards nothing actually visible but the outside world, then you should not be able to say that you carried out revolutionary action. The preparation might be necessary, the coordination, too. It might even be indispensable to profit from the action, but without it, it is nothing but wishing.
There have been many times in history where gathering or talking have been revolutionary actions by themselves, as they were expressly forbidden and acted upon, but nowadays it is, as a general rule, not in the western countries.
You’re talking about how a revolutionary org can be bad. This is not the same as saying random assassination is revolutionary.
I didn’t say bad, I said not carry out any revolutionary act. For the second point I said that a specific assassination by a random person can be a revolutionary act.
If there’s opportunity for a revolutionary org to advance the revolutionary struggle and they miss it, this is a mistake. It doesn’t mean that random adventurism is revolutionary.
There are many reasons why a group might fail to act and fizzle out. I am just saying that without that action, the existence of the group and the discussions are not revolutionary.
The creation of an org that can and will act when needed is revolutionary. An org that does not live up to those standards is not revolutionary, nor is random assassination, nor is building up such a failure of an org.
So you can only define the organization as revolutionary after something else has happened? The creation and organization of two identical groups can be revolutionary or not depending on if they down the line act on something?