Chapotraphouse

Devil's advocate is a perfectly applicable term for what you're doing. You're saying you're not an adventurist but that you understand them and see where they're coming from, then argue with people who disregard adventurism as a valid tactic. What else should I call it?

Here's some actual theory you might benefit from reading:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/09.htm

"When Marxists say that certain groups, are adventurist, they have in mind the very definite and specific social and historical features of a phenomenon, one that every class-conscious worker should be familiar with."

The history of Russian Social-Democracy teems with tiny groups, which sprang up for an hour, for several months, with no roots whatever among the masses (and politics without the masses are adventurist politics), and with no serious and stable principles. In a petty-bourgeois country, which is passing through a historical period of bourgeois reconstruction, it is inevitable that a motley assortment of intellectuals should join the workers, and that these intellectuals should attempt to form all kinds of groups, adventurist in character in the sense referred to above.

"Workers who do not wish to be fooled should subject every group to the closest scrutiny and ascertain how serious its principles are, and what roots it has in the masses. Put no faith in words; subject everything to the closest scrutiny—such is the motto of the Marxist workers."

The term has a real historical meaning. This is like calling the distinction between communists and dem socs petty semantics. Lenin goes on to speak about the historical context. I encourage you to read it.

you people fail to understand people who feel the need to strike out and try to make a change

I'm a communist so, no, I don't fail to understand the need to strike out and make a change. It's why I'm a communist. Adventurism is not synonymous with communism. The thread you posted has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You saw the word "organized" in my post and assumed I'm being vague. Nope, I have posted specific texts explaining what I'm talking about. Just because you refuse to read them doesn't mean I'm being vague or evasive.

I'll post from this once again as it precisely explains this whole thread and attitude.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htm

There is no need, of course, to engage in a serious analysis of this theory of deviation from socialism (in the event of disputes proper). In our opinion, the crisis of socialism makes it incumbent upon any in the least serious socialists to devote redoubled attention to theory—to adopt more resolutely a strictly definite stand, to draw a sharper line of demarcation between themselves and wavering and unreliable elements. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, if such things as confusion and splits are possible “even among Germans,” then it is God’s will that we, Russians, should pride ourselves on our ignorance of whither we are drifting. In our opinion, the absence of theory deprives a revolutionary trend of the right to existence and inevitably condemns it, sooner or later, to political bankruptcy. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, the absence of theory is a most excellent thing, most favourable “for unity.”

If your goal is to reach and bring people who feel the "need to strike out and make a change" into the fold, then dropping theoretical rigor won't help you do that. It makes you weaker as a revolutionary. Even though Lenin is talking about a split between adventurists and communists, this applies to any crises. Revisit theory, use it to sharpen your analysis and place a nice thick divide between you and the elements that aren't dependable. In our case it's adventurism.

In their defence of terrorism, which the experience of the Russian revolutionary movement has so clearly proved to be ineffective, the Socialist-Revolutionaries are talking themselves blue in the face in asseverating that they recognise terrorism only in conjunction with work among the masses, and that therefore the arguments used by the Russian Social-Democrats to refute the efficacy of this method of struggle (and which have indeed been refuted for a long time to come) do not apply to them. Here something very similar to their attitude towards “criticism” is repeating itself. We are not opportunists, cry the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and at the same time they are shelving the dogma of proletarian socialism, for reason of sheer opportunist criticism and no other. We are not repeating the terrorists’ mistakes and are not diverting attention from work among the masses, the Socialist-Revolutionaries assure us, and at the same time enthusiastically recommend to the Party acts such as Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin, although everyone knows and sees perfectly well that this act was in no way connected with the masses and, moreover, could not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out—that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor hoped for any definite action or support on the part of the masses.

We are going through something similar. Adventurists claiming that they are working as communists do, and in conjunction with mass organization. Meanwhile they want to disregard the dogma of communism as being too stuffy, too rigorous, too theoretical. They view adventurism as the more practical approach, which is exactly what people here are entertaining. This is not because the people here are bad or evil, they just lack understanding and rigor. That's why I'm posting these works from Lenin. Let's revisit the theory and reestablish our understanding of adventurism and why it doesn't work. Let's not disregard theory in favor of focusing on anger as if communists are not angry or focusing on pragmatic change as if communist are not pragmatic.

Lenin points to how the adventurists use an example of an assassination to prove they're helping the working class. But it's specious upon investigation and act itself was carried out in a way that could never be considered as working with the masses. This is people who bring up Luigi as proof that adventurism works.

In their naïveté, the Socialist-Revolutionaries do not realise that their predilection for terrorism is causally most intimately linked with the fact that, from the very outset, they have always kept, and still keep, aloof from the working-class movement, without even attempting to become a party of the revolutionary class which is waging its class struggle. Over-ardent protestations very often lead one to doubt and suspect the worth of whatever it is that requires such strong seasoning. Do not these protestations weary them?—I often think of these words, when I read assurances by the Socialist-Revolutionaries: “by terrorism we are not relegating work among the masses into the background."After all, these assurances come from the very people who have already drifted away from the Social-Democratic labour movement, which really rouses the masses; they come from people who are continuing to drift away from this movement, clutching at fragments of any kind of theory.

Adventurists claim they are not sidelining the main work of communism yet they stray further and further away from the cause. Why does this happen? Once again, they lack rigor and are ready to disregard theory in favor of their supposed pragmatic work. You can again see flavors of this in praise of Luigi. Disregard that Luigi himself has no communist principles and that he acted completely alone and isolated from other victims of the healthcare industry let alone its workers or workers of any kind. Don't focus on that. Just focus on the headlines that came after, use vibes to show that it changed something. No rigor, no investigation, no critical support. This becomes the norm among adventurists and they become decoupled from communism. Only a movement grounded in rigor and discipline can push the needle.

Just listen to what follows: “Every terrorist blow, as it were, takes away part of the strength of the autocracy and transfers [!] all this strength [!] to the side of the fighters for freedom.” “And if terrorism is practised systematically [!], it is obvious that the scales of the balance will finally weigh down on our side.” Yes, indeed, it is obvious to all that we have here in its grossest form one of the greatest prejudices of the terrorists: political assassination of itself “transfers strength”! Thus, on the one hand you have the theory of the transference of strength, and on the other— “not in place of, but together with”.... Do not these protestations weary them?

This is in reply to pamphlet from an adventurist party. He's quoting what is printed. The party is advocating for more assassinations. Lenin notes a problem with their logic. They claim to be working in tandem with, not in place of, mass organization by communists. Yet they then describe their assassinations as the means by which power is transferred. This means that they don't actually believe in communism. They don't view change as something of the masses or democratic. This is why words have meaning. Communism is something specific, that describes a science or revolution. The science relies on certain ideas from which all others follow. If you fundamentally contradict or disagree with those ideas, then you're not talking about communism. The adventurist, unwittingly or otherwise, do not take the fundamentals of communism to be true. They don't see a value to mass organization because one person with a gun can just as easily, if not more easily, affect change. All the social engagement stuff goes out the window.