We don’t yet need a functioning party or central structure to learn (or re-learn) the techniques of organizing, of applying the science of revolution to modern conditions. In fact, we can’t have a functional Communist party, a vanguard, until we learn the lessons of how to organize ourselves. Those lessons must first be learned at the local level and regional level, and mostly through mistakes. It is only once we learn or re-learn these lessons that we can have a functioning party. They are its prerequisite.

There are some places we can look for answers. Many of us in the movement have been trying to organize for years and failing in various ways. We have to stop and take stock of what’s going on: the how, the why, and what can be done to change the direction of the movement and funnel it back toward confrontation with the enemy state and victory over the enemy classes.

Figuring out how to organize is the basic problem of preparing a revolutionary movement. It’s all well and good to have discourse online about the correct theoretical position on this or that, but, in the end, it’s meaningless if you aren’t also engaged in preparing the revolutionary masses for the act of revolution. That sounds self-evident, right? The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.

It’s not clear exactly why organizing principles decayed when previous revolutionary movements failed or were crushed — maybe because they constitute a transmitted skill, a craft-skill. Maybe it’s because they’re the cladding, the meat, the stuff of revolution in a way that pure theory isn’t.

Because we’ve lost this traditional skill, and because we don’t have a functional vanguard party leading the efforts, you’ll notice that we seem to relitigate things a lot. In fact, we often find ourselves arguing about questions that were already argued about and solved 100 years ago. Why? Because without institutions we have no consistent historical memory. This isn’t just an inefficiency — having to re-solve problems that have already been solved is a real material setback in our ability to organize, to plan for and execute revolution.

The first question is: What is organizing? If you can’t answer that, you can’t even begin to organize.

Organizing is not a march, it’s not setting up signal chats, it’s not blasting your events on Facebook. Organizing isn’t having rallies, or showing up to city council meetings, nor is it giving speeches or occupying intersections, banks, or government offices. None of those things in and of themselves constitute organizing.

On the highest level, organizing is the creation of relationships between individuals and groups. When people become organized, they establish procedures and routines that allow for swift, concentrated, decisive action. We’re talking here about revolutionary organizing, that is, the establishment of relationships with the intention of allowing the working class to self-emancipate through a revolutionary party, a vanguard party. It is the creation of permanent, durable, structures among the people that can be called on reliably, time and again, that allow the people to funnel information and channel their needs, and then do something about it.

Specifically, organizing is creating rules and norms of conduct, scheduling standing meetings, delegating power, and otherwise establishing ways to exercise collective power. How do we make decisions? How do we collectively determine what must be done? How do we inform every part of our group what to do? How do we challenge the group consensus? How do we coordinate mass action? These are all questions of organization.

Those aren’t the only questions of organization, though – one of the big ones, the ones that gets ignored by lots of US and Western “Communists” is — what kind of revolutionary organizing are you doing? What are you building? There are two broad answers: mass organizations, and party organizations.

So if organizing is bringing structure, stabilizing relationships, and formalizing decision-making to the people, what are agitation, mobilization, and planning? How are they related to revolutionary organizing?

Agitation

Agitation is a kind of communication that focuses on one event, one contradiction. When you agitate, you are attempting to make a single idea powerfully clear to broad numbers of people. “By agitation, in the strictest sense of the word, we would understand the call upon the masses to undertake definite, concrete actions and the promotion of the direct revolutionary intervention of the proletariat in social life,” as Lenin says in What is to be Done.

“The agitator will take as an illustration a fact that is most glaring and most widely known to his audience, say, the death of an unemployed worker’s family from starvation… will direct his efforts to presenting a single idea to the “masses,” e.g., the senselessness of the contradiction between the increase of wealth and the increase of poverty; he will strive to rouse discontent and indignation among the masses against this crying injustice, leaving a more complete explanation of this contradiction to the propagandist.”

Agitation is the act of taking a single event as an illustration and using it to propel the masses (or some sub-group thereof) forward into action. Haranguing workers at a bus stop or at the unemployment line is agitation. The goal of agitation is to convince workers to get angry. They must get so angry that they are willing to act.

Mobilization

Mobilization is the next step after agitation. Agitation prepares the masses for mobilization. Mobilization is turning the working people out to perform a single, discrete action. A march, a sit-in, a blockade: these are all examples of mobilizing the masses.

Obviously, agitation plays a huge role in mobilizing people. There are other logistical challenges to overcome, though. When you plan a march, there’s a lot of work that feels like it’s organizing, like it’s building durable structures. For instance, forming a committee to make signs and posters, forming a committee to pick a route, etc. The problem is that, when the mobilization is over, all those committees dissolve back into the ether.

You have built nothing.

You can see that this is true when you start to prepare another mobilization. It may be easier to get in touch with certain important figures in the community because you met them at the last march, sit-in, or protest, but you will have to form new committees from scratch, re-do most of the work that went into the prior mobilization, and so on.

This does not heighten the organizational level of the masses, or if it does it does so only in a very very minor and limited fashion. It would take an eternity of marches to “organize” the proletariat.

Planning

Planning is how you get from meeting to meeting. If you’ve agitated the people, mobilized them, and then at the end of that mobilization, planned to bring together the “organizers” who helped you, this will seem, for the moment, very much like you are increasing the organization of the masses. You have a group that will meet again!

But nothing the group does will last. You’re building sandcastles at high tide. Why? Because in each of these scenarios, there is no self-conscious effort to construct an organization. The difference between organizing and merely acting isn’t necessarily the stages of actions you undertake but rather the reason you are undertaking them and how you do it.

That is, any of the above-listed tactics can be useful in organizing — but unless you make self-aware attempts to connect the masses together with organizing, with establishing durable revolutionary institutions, they will never lead to that on their own. In that sense, it’s very similar to the idea of “heightening the struggle.” Organizing the proletariat is literally the first step, the first plateau, in heightening the struggle.

Don’t just agitate, mobilize, or plan; when you take these steps you should be using your opportunity to grow the size of your organization and to provide organizational examples to the local working class people. You can and should try to convince them to organize on their own with the ultimate goal of, at some point, integrating into your formation.

Ok, so what about the difference between mass and vanguard organizations? You’ll often see this distinction in Marxist-Leninist writings, and it usually is not defined for you.

Before we get too deep into the topic, we need to digress to talk about the vanguard. This can be a confusing subject, so it’s worth covering in detail, and correctly. 

What is the vanguard?

In 1983, Ernest Mandel wrote Vanguard Parties. He said “You cannot have a spontaneous socialist revolution. You cannot make a socialist revolution without really trying. And you cannot have a socialist revolution commandeered from the top, ordered around by some omniscient leader or group of leaders.” He goes on, “If the workers would be at the highest point of militancy and consciousness all the time, you would not need a vanguard organization. But, unfortunately, they are not and cannot be there under capitalism. So you need a group of people who embody a permanently high level of militancy and activity, a permanently high level of class-consciousness. After each wave of rising class struggle and rising class consciousness, when a turning point arrives and the actual activity of the masses declines, consciousness falls to a lower level and activity falls to nearly zero… It serves as the permanent memory of the class and of the labor movement, memory which is codified, in one way or another, in a program in which you can educate the new generation which then does not need to start from scratch in its concrete way of intervention in the class struggle.”

Right now, there are many fragmented organizations aspiring to vanguardism: small groups and grouplets, smaller by far than a party — and, after all, the revolutionary masses in any given location can only have one vanguard party. Because there is no party that is recognized by the laborers as its vanguard, because there is no party that has a large, even substantial, base in the working class, the vanguard is currently unfocused and unformed. It does not matter whether the group considers itself the vanguard. The question is the majority of the advanced working class.

That is to say, the elements that will eventually comprise the vanguard party all exist, but they haven’t condensed or been brought together yet. They are coalescing, but rather than coalescing evenly into a single organization, they’re joining together and making many little organizations, little beads of water on the side of the glass, that will eventually run together and pour down into a mighty stream that overturns the glass, the table, and everything else in the room.

But, as Cde. Mandel said, this process is not automatic.

Here’s what Stalin says in The Proletarian Class and The Proletarian Party, 1905 :

Up till now our Party has resembled a hospitable family, ready to take in all who sympathise. But now that our Party has become a centralised organisation, it has thrown off its patriarchal aspect and has become in all respects like a fortress, the gates of which are opened only to those who are worthy. And that is of great importance to us. At a time when the autocracy is trying to corrupt the class consciousness of the proletariat with “trade unionism,” nationalism, clericalism, and the like, and when, on the other hand, the liberal intelligentsia is persistently striving to kill the political independence of the proletariat and to impose its tutelage upon it — at such a time we must be extremely vigilant and never forget that our Party is a fortress, the gates of which are opened only to those who have been tested.

The Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (the future Communist Party of the Soviet Union) instituted the following requirements for its membership: one who accepts the program of the Party, renders the Party financial support, and works in one of the Party organizations.

In 1926, Stalin explained, “The levers or transmission belts [of the dictatorship of the proletariat] are those very mass organizations of the proletariat without the aid of which the dictatorship cannot be realized. The directing force is of the advanced detachment of the proletariat, its vanguard, which is the main guiding force of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

“The proletariat needs these transmission belts, these levers, and this directing force, because without them, in its struggle for victory, it would be a weaponless army in the face of organized and armed capital. The proletariat needs these organizations because without them it would suffer inevitable defeat in its fight for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, in its fight for the consolidation of its rule, in its fight for the building of socialism. The systematic help of these organizations and the directing force of the vanguard are needed because in the absence of these conditions it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be at all durable and firm.”

A vanguard organization is a formation of and for Communists which helps to embody the conscious, directed efforts of self-emancipation of the revolutionary masses. It is the “nerve center” of the Communist movement. Vanguard organizations are composed of the most class-conscious and advanced members of the working classes, and their membership is restricted; only those who agree with (and by definition, understand) the program (meaning a political program must also exist, there must be political positions staked out by the organization for it to be considered properly a “vanguard” organization), work in a formation organization, and support the formation with labor and/or money, are offered membership in a vanguard formation.

The task of the aspiring vanguard organizations right now is to engage in the “two line struggle” against revisionism in the Communist movement and toward unity in the spontaneous movement. Eventually, the vanguard organizations must work to unify the miscellaneous other organizations and mass formations of the spontaneous movement.

What is a mass formation? A mass formation is any organization that does not require its membership to submit to ideological authority or an ideological program. In Stalin’s example these include the soviet councils, the trade unions, etc.

For the purpose of our current moment, mass organizations are those groups that are formed or joined by Communists for a specific purpose or to mobilize and agitate among other workers on progressive issues; For instance, PSL’s ANSWER Coalition or its rent caravans, CPUSA’s organizing to get unions certified, etc. These are examples of mass organizations.

The tasks of mass organizations and vanguard organizations could not be more different. The task of the vanguard organizations right now should be to link up and consolidate all forms of struggle into one movement, one great army of struggle, against the capitalist state; to train and educate new Communists (“reproduce” the revolutionary movement), to struggle to find the correct lines; to work to unify all conscious and Marxist-Leninist streams into a single anti-revisionist party. 

The task of the mass organizations is to act as the “belts” and “levers” of the proletariat and to convey direction to the vanguard organizations — and to allow the vanguard organizations to interpenetrate and unify with the masses, to drive the masses onward from height to height, to intensify the struggle, and to draw ever-wider sections of the population into the fight.

Confusing these two types of organization has led to all kinds of problems.

These definitions rely on separating out types of tasks (vanguard, mass) and types of membership (vanguard, mass). So we have the tasks of the vanguard and the structure of a vanguard formation; we have the tasks of the mass orgs, and the structure of a mass formation. We can break down the problems into two categories.

Vanguard tasks, mass membership. If a group attempts to undertake vanguard tasks — unification of the independent struggles, preparation for war with the enemy state, training of new Communists, etc. — it will rapidly degrade in capacity, admit undeveloped members into positions of power, produce deviations in theory, and disintegrate into self-serving opportunist formations that exist purely to replicate themselves. They’ll admit federal agents into their ranks and those secret police will purposefully accelerate these problems.

Mass tasks, vanguard membership. If a vanguard organization attempts to accomplish mass tasks, it will remain isolated from the masses where it must instead connect with them — by denying general membership, it will be isolated and unable to engage constructively in the chosen areas of struggle. A pro-union formation agitating to get cards signed that is composed of only vetted Communists, for example, will remain too small, too narrow a proportion of the workers at the workplace, to effectively reach the other workers. Membership in this kind of organization will be overworked, understaffed, and isolated from the masses.

Mass organizing

When you’re doing mass organizing, the goal is to create durable mass organizations that help agitate, educate, and mobilize the masses toward a concrete end. Mass organizations draw the masses into the struggle by giving them work to do in self-emancipation.

For example: if you decide to run a feed-the-people group (or a “Red Aid” stand, as we in our organization called ours), and you determine that it will be a mass organization, your first goal should be to recruit non-Communists to help you run it. A mass organization should be:

• Not-explicitly Communist
• Designed to address a specific community or mass need (food insecurity, housing, unemployment, transport of pregnant people seeking abortions, etc.)
• Run or strongly influenced by vanguardist elements who are already organized outside of the mass organization
• Approachable, should draw in outside elements and widen the circle of those engaged in the struggle
• Possess an internal logic or organization that protects the organization from being paralyzed by “consensus forming” procedures, lead astray by continuous diversions, and so on

The chief goal of a mass organization is to involve the masses in the struggle of emancipation. This means mass organizations should directly confront the enemy state in largely non-violent ways.

This is a way to draw funding and labor from petit-bourgeois and bourgeois liberals who are interested in the struggle but who would never start organizing with explicitly Communist organizations. If possible, the more well-to-do membership of mass organizations should be maneuvered into confrontation with the state or, when it is safe, they should be encouraged to take illegal actions to address the issue the mass org is fighting for in order to harden them against liberalism.

We should remember that even petit- and haute-bourgeois individuals can become valuable members of the struggle if they are pulled into it. Social oppressions, such as gender and sexuality oppression, or national oppression, are generated by the economic relations of the proletarian class, but they continue to affect even petit-bourgeois and bourgeois people.

For instance, the wave of repression of abortion rights that’s currently sweeping the U.S. is opposed by many petit- and haute-bourgeois liberals; this particular social oppression is felt keenly by them.

If you were able to organize these people into groups that could safely break the law and know they were breaking the law (by, for example, driving abortion-seekers across state lines), these liberals will become steadily more hardened to opposing the state, steadily more accustomed to the idea that they should discard the useless electoral channels, steadily more prepared to engage in other areas of the struggle.

During this whole time, of course, you should be propagandizing to them. In a mass organization, Communists can integrate directly with the most advanced elements of the class that are not yet Communist and instill them with consciousness through active propaganda. As you do this, you will identify potential Communists who are ready to come over and do more intense work: the mass organization will thus double as your recruiting ground.

Vanguard organizing

When organizing vanguard formations, the first thing to keep in mind is the very uneven development of individual Communists in the United States. That likely holds true throughout the entire West, at least in the imperial core.

The first and most necessary thing a revolutionary organization needs to be able to do is reproduce its membership — to reliably take non-Communists and turn them into fully developed cadre. That means before you can do any kind of vanguard organizing successfully, you’ve got to secure a way to replace yourself and any other founding members. Believe us, from tried and failed practice, there is no way to learn to train people while you are actively engaged in vanguardist organizing. This is running a marathon while you’re trying to tie your shoes.

What’s the best way to train new Communists? Honestly, probably Workers’ and Communists’ Schools, but we don’t have any of those that aren’t 100% revisionist and trying to start your own requires so much infrastructure and labor that you’d already need a vanguardist organization in order to try. Essentially, it’s putting the cart before the horse to try to organize a school for Communists because there aren’t enough trained Communists to run it.

There are probably other ways. The time-tested way to train new Communists and even out development, though, is through the reading group. Reading groups are neither mass organizations nor vanguardist organizations — they’re educational tools used by vanguardists to engage in collective struggle with people who are not yet Communists or who are underdeveloped Communists, and through that struggle to reach a higher degree of development themselves, to develop the people they are reading with, etc.

So, if this is a priority, how do we gauge when people are developed? We’ve found the following scale to be helpful:

• Associate or friend of the movement, sympathizer. Anyone with a revolutionary (or pro-Communist) consciousness and outlook who believes in a revolutionary ideology that is compatible with the organization, its overall revolutionary vision, methods, strategy, and who wants to support the organization either directly through labor etc., or indirectly but who can’t make the commitments necessary to join as a full member.

• New or learning communist. Recently radicalized people. They may or may not already possess a basic working knowledge of theory, but their development is still early or inconsistent and substantially lacking in relevant areas. They may already possess basic practical organizing skills, but are inexperienced with essential Communist work such as interacting with the masses, performing analysis, practicing democratic centralism, criticizing and self-criticizing, combating chauvinism or liberalism, etc.

• Basic rank-and-file. These are Communists who are at least a few months into activity, who are intentionally developing their revolutionary understanding, possess a well-rounded (if basic) grasp of theory, have a fair amount of practical experience, and have a bank of useful skills. They can usually be relied upon to fulfill org duties, but they may be half-hearted, undermotivated, or inconsistent in their attendance or work.

• Motivated rank-and-file. Similar to or marginally higher in development than “basic rank-and-file” comrades, the motivated rank-and-file consistently, reliably, and whole-heartedly fulfill their obligations to the best of their ability, communicate continuously and proactively with comrades, take revolutionary work seriously and with a militant outlook, and reorganize their personal lives to work for the org.

• Developed rank-and-file. As distinct from the basic rank-and-file members, developed rank-and-file have a high level of ideological development, but are unwilling, under motivated, or unable to free up the time and energy/labor necessary to fulfill their duties to the org reliably, consistently, whole-heartedly, and militantly; they often fail to put the needs of the org first.

• Cadre. The cadre is the backbone of any Communist organization, and will comprise around 10-30% of any given formation. They are comrades who have devoted years to the revolutionary movement, have reached the highest levels of ideological development, have a wealth of practical experience and skills, are unwaveringly militant and committed to building the revolution, are willing to make sacrifices and self-criticize for the betterment of the movement, and are willing and able to lead. Cadre provide the stiff iron spine of the org, motivating rank-and-file, showing up to events, and making sure things get done.

In order to have a functional vanguardist formation, you want to aim for at least 10 cadre-level members who can carry forward organizing work, train new members, identify potential cadre, etc. Without at least a good number of cadre, your membership will fall off and burn out.

BUT WHAT IS ORGANIZING?

We still haven’t answered the question in practice. Sure, it’s building formal relationships. What does that mean?

Organizing is, to put it simply, the construction of organizations. If you’re organizing as a vanguardist formation, you need to lay out rules for building consensus and holding meetings, rules for discipline, etc. 

We’ve found that Robert’s Rules, which has been the basis for most meetings in the Anglosphere since they were published in the 1880s works really well. You can pirate the full pdf, but you could also just get the reduced copies that are out there.

We don’t like the Occupy-created rules of order (stack, raising hands, etc.) because we feel like they trend toward formless meetings. Lack of formality (formally choosing a chair, formal rules for when you’re allowed to do what) means that arbitrariness — the whims of the most popular or the loudest people — generally rule. Yeah, you do you feel like a dork using Robert’s Rules of Order, almost like you’re putting on airs — but practicing with the rules gets you used to them, and their formality means that everyone feels like they’re getting a fair shake.

So, you get your people together and teach them how to hold meetings, how to form discussion groups, write reports, and how to keep this up over a long period. This is organizing. Creating these relationships in a way that they last.

Bring people together, not just once, but many times, to talk about things that are problems. Discuss ways to address them. Assign tasks to individuals. Between meetings, take concrete action to complete assignments. At the next meeting, gently chastise people who haven’t completed assignments and ask them why. Reassign things that aren’t getting done. That’s organizing.

We must organize.