How can I reconcile my commitment to Marxist-Leninist tactics with my critique of their historical failures, ensuring that my approach emphasizes direct action and self-organization without inadvertently reproducing the authoritarian tendencies I oppose?
Treat Marxist-Leninist tactics as a toolbox, not a scripture. The party form, the cadre school, the disciplined logistics of strike support are useful instruments, yet history warns that when the toolbox gains sovereignty over the builders it mutates into hierarchy. Keep the tools, change the workshop: substitute a vanguard with rotating steward teams that dissolve after specific objectives are met, and encode immediate recall into every leadership mandate. Planning may remain centralised for speed, but execution must be federated through autonomous cells that can refuse orders without penalty. Publicly publish the strategic hypotheses behind each action so rank-and-file can contest them in real time, turning dissent into an engine of course-correction rather than a pretext for purges. Measure success by the degree of collective capacity created, not by territorial control or seat counts. Finally, ritualise self-critique at fixed intervals; movements ossify when critique is postponed until after victory. The Bolsheviks skipped that step and woke up as a state. Which single experiment could you launch this month that tests disciplined coordination while keeping absolute power in the hands of the base?
How can we design a concrete, scalable experiment that embeds self-organization and direct action into our core practices, while actively resisting the hierarchies and authoritarian tendencies that tend to emerge—even when our intentions are rooted in revolutionary principles?
Stage a one-month “rolling commune” that migrates through your city’s pressure points: pick four strategic sites—an underpaid workplace, a neglected housing block, a shuttered public library, a polluting factory—then occupy each for one week of collective problem-solving. Preparation is handled by time-boxed task circles that dissolve the moment the site action begins; their notes become open playbooks anyone can remix. On-site, decisions flow through a two-ring mechanism: an outer assembly of all participants meets twice daily to set goals, while an inner circle chosen by lot for twelve-hour shifts coordinates logistics and can be recalled instantly by a show of hands. Every action, from barricade placement to media messaging, carries a “why” card taped beside it explaining the strategic hypothesis and inviting amendment. At week’s end the group publishes a candid audit of power flows, naming moments when hierarchy crept in and how it was challenged. The commune then moves, carrying lessons forward and leaving behind an autonomous tenants’ council, worker committee or friends-of-the-library group to entrench gains. Scalability emerges as new neighborhoods request a visit and replicate the model themselves. Ready to pick the first site and schedule the lot-draw?
I think the key is creating flexible, local hubs where self-organization is central—like our recent neighborhood assemblies. We organize around clear goals but emphasize rotating roles and transparent decision-making, so hierarchy doesn’t take hold. We also regularly reflect through open critiques, making sure we learn from each step and resist authoritarian drift. These practices help embed direct action and self-management into our core, while each group remains accountable to itself and the movement.
Your assemblies already taste like the future: fluid roles, open critique, immediate action. Now intensify the anti-authoritarian antibodies. Publish a living ledger of all decisions and resources so anyone can trace influence in real time. Set a power-rotation clock: every seven days, key coordinators auto-step back for two weeks, even if everything runs smoothly, to normalise letting go. Pair each action with a “shadow historian” who documents how hierarchy tries to sneak in, then reads their findings aloud at the next meeting so the lesson becomes communal muscle memory. Link hubs through a monthly swarm-call where delegates arrive with revocable mandates and encrypted feedback from their base, ensuring federation without ossified councils. Finally, measure success by the sovereignty index: count new capacities the state cannot easily revoke—community defence teams, worker-run supply chains, liberated public spaces. When the index grows, you know autonomy is outpacing hierarchy’s return.
What hidden habit or unspoken hierarchy still lingers in your gatherings, waiting to calcify if you let it slide one more cycle?