Morning Comrades.
This dispatch is brought to you in co-authorship with Alex Herbert on the subject of Revolutionary Discipline, what it means today and why it is, as always, vital in our struggle for liberation.
At some point, usually after our teenage anarchist phase, the majority of us will come to the understanding that we, alone, cannot shoulder let alone effectively achieve revolutionary work. At this point we ideally begin to understand the constant call for organization and decide to seek out and possibly even join existing structures that align with our ideas. It’s an important step, yet the reality of many such organizations is often sobering. Speaking solely from personal experiences we have often come to the realization that irrespective of the self-proclaimed revolutionary intentions of many existing organizations, much of the self-destructive hierarchical male dominated systems that said organization proclaim to be fighting against, exist in these as well. The indoctrination of power within our capitalist existence is often mirrored in said groups and bad faith actors often are attracted to positions of power, irrespective of context and goals. This has been the case ever since the working classes have banded together and it has led many of our revolutionary intellectuals to spend time thinking about how to create a situation in which these realities can be countered, leading to the ideas of revolutionary discipline. This history is deep and remains utterly vital for our work today. To truly serve the revolution, disciple, criticism and self-reflection all the while retaining a unified front in the face of capitalist structures remains some of the most ardent work to us.
With that, both Alex and I, offer our perspective on revolutionary discipline, criticism and self-reflection within the context of our work. We are both keeping this from the paywall section of our newsletters as we want you to have access to this. If anyone wants to buy us a coffee or sign up for our substacks here, great, but more importantly, get into this and share this far and wide.
On Revolutionary Discipline
“The revolution demands concentration, increase of forces. From the masses, from individuals. It cannot tolerate orgiastic conditions… The proletariat is a rising class. It doesn’t need intoxication as a narcotic or a stimulus. Intoxication as little by sexual exaggeration as by alcohol. It must not and shall not forget, forget the shame, the filth, the savagery of capitalism. It receives the strongest urge to fight from a class situation, from the communist ideal. It needs clarity, clarity and again clarity.” -V.I. Lenin
The system that we oppose is a highly organized machine that maintains hegemony over media, culture, society, and politics. It is willing to exercise violence to maintain that hegemony, but so long as the people remain uneducated and unaware, struggling within the competitive framework of capitalist individualism, there really is no viable threat to the existing order, and thus no need to display the full potential of State power. The protests over genocide in Gaza are displaying that more vividly than ever. It seems like no matter how many people take to the streets, the ruling class remains unwavering and committed to their narrative so uniformly and steadfast as to make us think they actually believe what they’re saying. It may make minor concessions here and there to save face, but our leaders never compromise their ruthless commitment to capital accumulation, imperialism, and the existing world order. This is beyond manufacturing consent, because they do not have consent—this is about enforcing consent through layers of liberal propaganda disguised as “democracy” and “civil rights.”
Whether we want to admit it or not, the people in power are ten times more disciplined and organized than most leftists, or at least they seem to be. In reality, whatever image they project to the world is more important than how they might actually be off camera because it preserves and legitimates their position as exemplary “American” or “French” or “British” citizens. It is fundamental to the construction of the nation-state that the leader exemplifies the ideal middle class citizen. What I mean is that those who have power do not need to live and breathe discipline, they only need to present it.
That political culture of respectability is a difficult fortress to penetrate. Reflexively we understand this because violations of respectability still define popular political criticism—this is why Hunter Biden’s habits are still plastered all over Fox News. Yet even the occasional slip is not enough to challenge power, and one only needs to look at the fate of Brett Kavanaugh, the last ten years of the entire Tory Party in the UK, or the rest of the legacy parties in charge in Brussels, for an example.
Realistically the only way to confront the discipline of the bourgeoise in any meaningful way is through our own discipline—a revolutionary discipline.
But what is ‘Revolutionary Discipline”? The famous Ukrainian Anarchist Nestor Makhno defined it as “the self-discipline of the individual, set in the context of a strictly-prescribed collective activity equally incumbent upon all, the responsible policy line of the members of that collective, leading to strict congruence between their practice and their theory.” Makhno relates that discipline is the application of theory to practice, but he does not provide us with a sense of what ‘theory’ we are to apply to practice, or how we do it.
Lenin’s quote at the top of this page gives a bit more nuance in that it emphasizes a clarity of mind that is unencumbered by intoxicants, broadly conceived as distractions, coupled with an iron cognizance of what is at stake. Revolutionary discipline at its core implies a strict commitment to achieving socialism in one’s lifetime. As a revolutionary party, the Bolsheviks maintained discipline through “check ups'' and mutual responsibility–each member was responsible for the other, which meant that lapses of discipline led to party reprimand. This system reached a fever pitch in the Stalin era as personal diaries and self-reporting became institutionalized and reflexive acts of self-criticism.
Lenin’s quote also reminds us that because capitalism is a barbaric system that subjects people to wage slavery, poverty, and the embarrassment of non-consensual lapsed morals, a revolutionary must work to overcome these conditions. As the British communist Albert Hawkins wrote, “It is therefore the duty of every Communist to work towards that ideal discipline regardless of personal feeling or opinion on the matter.” Hawkins’ quote conforms not only to Lenin’s sense of purpose and conviction, but proposes the idea of the ideal form, implying that discipline is malleable, capable of changing according to time and place. What was expected of a Bolshevik revolutionary will inevitably look different than what is expected of an American revolutionary in 2023. The common factor is a resistance to the trappings of bourgeois culture, and an unwavering belief in the socialist goal.
For instance, take the Black Panther Party co-founder Huey P. Newton’s explanation of discipline. He wrote that “we stress discipline, we stress organization, we do not stress psychedelic drugs, and all the other things that have to do with just the individual expansion of the mind.” Newton was responding to subculture’s turn toward psychedelics as an escape from the alienation and destitute conditions of Vietnam Era America in the late 1960s. For Newton, the use of drugs constituted an individualist escape from collective responsibility, and although Mark Fisher might have disagreed, the history of the hippie movement seems to confirm its underlying individualist pathology.
So far, what we have described here is a clear description of the universal significance of revolutionary discipline. Regardless of time of place, what all these revolutionaries understood was that discipline is vital to longevity for a number of reasons. First and foremost, discipline exuded a type of confidence that set an example for witnesses who lacked purpose or understanding. The world has always been a complex place, and conviction of ideas and a strong sense of purpose seemed to portray the revolutionary as confident and determined. The commitment to discipline within a collective (or party) structure also reinforced comradely bonds between members of the group—to be disciplined meant to avoid making mistakes that could in any way bounce back to the collective. Revolutionaries had to subject their interpretation of the world to material analysis, and to do so required tact and the important act of self-criticism.
So the question remains–what does revolutionary discipline entail today? What practices can we realistically inherit from the past, and how can we enforce them collectively? What is expected of a revolutionary nowadays? I’ve broken the answer down into two categories: things we should strive for, and things to avoid.
Strive for
Clarity of Mind and Purpose. This often requires sobriety, although not for all comrades. The idea here is that if alcohol or any intoxicant tends to cause a lapse of judgment, then it should be avoided. Gaining trust in party work cannot be sabotaged by momentary lapses. Confronting this is not easy. In our culture today, intoxicants are pushed as culturally necessary for full integration, yet everyone admits that drugs are a social crutch. It is the revolutionary’s purpose to present themself free from outside influence.
In addition to sobriety, clarity of mind also entails a level of fluency that demonstrates comfortability and purpose. To engage in polemics without a clearly defined position is to risk undermining the entire revolutionary project. Revolutionaries need to have a clear understanding of materialist analysis so that it forms the backbone of all of our engagements with non-Marxists. This can even necessitate rehearsing sharp and understandable responses to everyday challenges and questions: “What is socialism?” “What about pol pot?”; “But my family fled Cuba''; “Capitalism is the only system”; “Socialism is utopian.” It is important to have ready-made responses that exude conviction through clarity.
Exude Conviction. A revolutionary must stand confidently behind historical materialism. Discipline in ideological application is accompanied by discipline in presentation of self. We live in a world where presentation forms the basis of judgment, so it is not enough to speak and think clearly–one must present confidence in ideas and in person. This is not the image of the head-down contemplative intelligentsia, but rather the image of a triumphant ‘upright man.’ Indeed, Thomas Sankara understood the importance of image and how it reinforced purpose and conviction, and although we can’t be expected to don a red beret, we can still present respectably. Leave the patches and torn up clothes for the punk anarchists.
Punctuality, Thoroughness, and Honesty. A communist doesn’t have to lie to win, the truth is itself a sword. Punctuality is a component of mutual respect– it is fine to waste one’s own time, but it is important to respect the time and patience of others. Patience and empathy go a long way to recruiting comrades, and they are not practices that are in any way natural to the human condition. One must learn to be empathetic or patient, and that takes discipline.
Self-Criticism
In regards to the question of self-criticism and reflection within these constructs I would like to point to both the philosopher Louis Althusser and the Red Army Faction to provide a synthesis of disciple & criticism within the framework of Leninist & Moaist thought.
Louis Althusser, a French Marxist philosopher, contributed to the discourse on self-criticism with his work "Essays in Self-Criticism." Althusser's exploration goes beyond the organizational aspects emphasized by Lenin and Mao, delving into the realm of ideology and theoretical frameworks. In this collection, Althusser engages in a profound self-reflection, examining his own theoretical positions and acknowledging the necessity for constant reevaluation.
Althusser's emphasis on theoretical self-critique aligns with Lenin and Mao's insistence on the inseparable connection between theory and practice.
The dialectical relationship between theory and its application is a central tenet of Althusser's work, emphasizing that theoretical frameworks must be subject to continuous scrutiny and refinement. This perspective adds an intellectual dimension to the ongoing discourse on self-criticism within the broader context of modern movements.
The Red Army Faction (RAF), utilized this synthesis and presented their ideology in the "Urban Guerrilla Concept." This document outlined their strategy for armed struggle against the perceived oppressive forces of capitalism and imperialism. While the RAF's methods and actions often diverged from the strategies advocated by Lenin and Mao, their emphasis on adaptation and pragmatism aligns with the core principles of criticism and self-criticism. Self-criticism is a process of learning and unlearning, sometimes trial and error.
The Urban Guerrilla Concept underscores the importance of remaining flexible in the face of evolving political landscapes and adapting strategies to the specific conditions of urban environments. This resonates with Lenin's call for tactical flexibility and Mao's emphasis on adapting revolutionary strategies to the concrete realities of each revolutionary situation. While the RAF's methods may be controversial to some, their document reflects an engagement with the dialectical relationship between theory and practice, echoing the broader Marxist tradition.
Why This Matters to Us.
The synthesis of Althusser's intellectual self-critique and the RAF's pragmatic adaptation to urban guerrilla warfare provides a comprehensive perspective on the relevance of criticism and self-criticism for modern movements. In an era where ideological diversity and complex geopolitical realities shape the landscape of our activism, the integration of theoretical self-reflection and practical adaptation becomes paramount.
Althusser's emphasis on theoretical rigor calls attention to the importance of a well-defined and internally coherent ideological framework. This resonates with Lenin and Mao's insistence on a disciplined and unified theoretical basis for effective revolutionary action. By engaging in continuous theoretical self-critique, modern leftist organizations can ensure the relevance and coherence of their ideological positions in the face of evolving challenges.
Simultaneously, the lessons drawn from the RAF's "Urban Guerrilla Concept" underscore the necessity for practical adaptability. The ability to reassess strategies in response to changing political, social, and technological landscapes is crucial for the survival and effectiveness of contemporary leftist movements. The synthesis of these perspectives advocates for a holistic approach to criticism and self-criticism, encompassing both theoretical refinement and pragmatic adaptation.
In conclusion, the synthesis of Althusser's intellectual self-critique and the RAF's practical adaptation, within the broader context of Leninist and Maoist thought, in addition to the framework of discipline offer a comprehensive framework for our movement. The ability to navigate the complexities of theory and practice, while maintaining ideological coherence and pragmatic adaptability, remains essential for the success and longevity of revolutionary endeavours in the 21st century.
Thank you for your attention and interest,
Yours, warmly,
Alex & Steven