this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2026
65 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14230 readers
952 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Someone told me today that acts of terror achieve nothing. I had to remind him that the whole reason we were having this conversation was because of a country that was built on acts of terror.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thefunkycomitatus@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How well we know this Language of people who are free of the constraint of firm socialist convictions, of the burdensome experience of each and every kind of popular movement! They confuse immediately tangible and sensational results with practicalness. To them the demand to adhere steadfastly to the class standpoint and to maintain the mass nature of the movement is “vague” “theorising.” In their eyes definitiveness is slavish compliance with every turn of sentiment and ... and, by reason of this compliance, inevitable helplessness at each turn. Demonstrations begin— and blood thirsty words, talk about the beginning of the end, flow from the lips of such people. The demonstrations halt— their hands drop helplessly, and before they have had time to wear out a pair of boots they are already shouting: “The people, alas, are still a long way off....” Some new outrage is perpetrated by the tsar’s henchmen—and they demand to be shown a “definite” measure that would serve as an exhaustive reply to that particular outrage, a measure that would bring about an immediate “transference of strength,” and they proudly promise this transference! These people do not understand that this very promise to “transfer” strength constitutes political adventurism, and that their adventurism stems from their lack of principle.

Amazing how some guy wrote about people freaking out over big events and calling for adventurism only for it to pass and they get bored until the next big event and call to adventure. How those people think adherence to a mass movement is some kind of weakness in initiative.

[–] videogame@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Lenin had a population who weren't Yakubian devils that love pedophile billionaires and only care about their own comfort

[–] thefunkycomitatus@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

He was dealing with an almost uniquely backwards and brutal absolute monarchy.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

There's really no substantial way in which the differences in conditions between the US today and Russia in the 1910s make it more suitable for adventurism as a strategy.

In fact, the present conditions mean adventurism has higher costs and less benefit. Any propaganda value of adventurist acts is more easily neutralized because the media has complete control over the narrative (sometimes slips a bit but is recuperated or memoryholed). Higher surveillance makes an adventurist operation less likely to be successful. The government has more legitimacy than Nicholas II's.

If I'm being as balanced as possible, I could possibly see the value of adventurism being that all other options are poor anyway, so why not gamble? But I'd still argue having more comrades alive and free where they can be ready to act should better opportunities arise is always better than contradicting the lessons past revolutionaries have learned out of desperation.

You can participate in creating some kind of safety mechanism for your community, keep tabs on which people aren't joining orgs yet but are sympathetic, agitate people you talk with. None of these things are revolutionary, but they'll be useful once revolutionary organization is more viable.