this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
85 points (70.1% liked)
Memes
56767 readers
564 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No power was gained by the working classes. We are not a step further in gaining socialism. The reason there was no follow-up is because it was an adventurist, disorganized act, and organization is fundamental to revolutionary change.
Sure, but that doesn't detract from the act itself.
How does it not? A random assassination isn't revolutionary, nor does it advance the worker struggle. Organizing does, it positions us in a better place for revolution.
I am not denying that organization is what allows revolutionary actions to be successful. But they don't have to be part of organized action to be revolutionary actions. Likewise, the organization itself, though necessary is not revolutionary in itself.
Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice. Random assassinations aren't revolutionary. Organizing in a revolutionary party is revolutionary because it advances the revolutionary position.
If a revolutionary party starts a series of actions designed to topple the system and a person with no theory knowledge and unorganized carries out the same type of action, then it is not a revolutionary action?
How can one person carry out revolutionary action? One person cannot create a revolution.
Let's put an extreme example. There is a regime that is very top heavy. The assassination of that person will destroy the regime and change it by something else. That would be a revolutionary act, since it would topple a whole political system and replace it by something else. Now let's assume a single person carried it out.