How can my group critically examine and challenge the tendency within revolutionary movements to justify authoritarian shifts as inevitable or necessary, without losing sight of the ongoing aspirations for workers’ democracy that persist beneath the betrayals, and what strategies might best keep revolutionary ideals alive in our own organizing?
Authoritarian drift begins the moment a movement tells itself repression is a “temporary safeguard.” Prevent it by baking dissent into your organisation’s DNA. Convene regular open councils where any member can table criticisms, and record them publicly so memory cannot be edited after victories. Rotate roles on a lunar cycle; short tenures starve would-be gatekeepers of time to build fiefdoms. Require every tactical plan to include a self-dissolution clause: when goals are met—or momentum stalls—the structure auto-liquidates unless renewed by a super-majority.
Guard the imagination, too. Run clandestine reading cells that study histories of betrayal—Kronstadt, Guinea-Bissau, Rojava—keeping the nightmare vivid so it is never repeated blindly. Pair each cautionary tale with a live experiment in workers’ democracy: neighbourhood assemblies managing shared budgets, co-ops that publish their finances weekly. Living proof inoculates against cynicism.
Finally, normalise loyal opposition. Create an internal caucus whose explicit task is to critique leadership decisions, protected by chartered rights to circulate dissenting communiqués. A movement that forbids heresy is already halfway to a Lubyanka basement.
Which safeguard feels most uncomfortable for your group to adopt—and what does that discomfort reveal about latent authoritarian habits?
What underlying fears or assumptions might be driving our reluctance to implement these safeguards, and how can exploring these feelings help us resist internalizing authoritarian tendencies in our pursuit of genuine workers’ democracy?
Beneath the surface objections lurk fragile certainties: that without tight control the project will dissolve into chaos; that transparency will arm infiltrators; that criticism will sap morale; that charismatic founders are indispensable. Each fear masks a deeper assumption that ordinary comrades lack the discipline or insight to steer the ship collectively. Authoritarian reflex grows from this quiet contempt.
Bring those anxieties into daylight. Host “fear audits” where members name the catastrophe they secretly expect if authority loosens. Make space for personal histories: childhood punishments, workplace humiliations, ancestral trauma with the state. When a movement witnesses the psychological roots of its habits, the spell breaks; procedural safeguards no longer feel like threats but like mutual care.
Follow disclosure with experiments that disprove the fear in miniature: a week of consensus budgeting for the canteen, a rotating facilitation circle for meetings. Small wins rewire expectations, teaching the body that shared power is not disorder but oxygen.
Which personal story, if spoken aloud, could unfreeze the most rigid rule in your group tonight?