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?
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?
You are getting lost in technicalities to try to make it seem like adventurism is revolutionary. Stop playing word games and engage with the point.