the Necessity of Armed Struggle and
Refutation of the Theory of "Survival"
Introduction
On this day the
fascist, oppressive and terrorist regime of Iran stained its hands once more
with the blood of our freedom fighters, fighters that have devoted all their
brilliant and creative ability, all their heroic courage, and all their pure
emotions to realizing the people's ideals and to the great historical tasks
facing them.
The martyred comrade Amir‑parviz Pouyan was one
such fighter. He was a determined fighter. His fervour
and willingness for struggle knew no bounds, and his faith in victory was
unshakable. He loved his people and had an unbounded hatred for the people's
enemy. Even the most difficult conditions would not make him forget the
interests of the group and, in a wider sense, the interests of the revolution.
The most critical situation was apt to steel his resolution and make him more
hopeful than before. While completely encircled by the enemy, Pouyan, together with another comrade, fought for many
hours. Having destroyed all the documents that might be of use to the enemy,
they took their own lives so as not to fall into enemy hands.
We, who know Pouyan well, feel sure that he died with the slogans,
"Long live communism!" and, "Victory to the revolution!" on
his lips and that even during those final moments he could see the future more
clearly than ever before. To realise this future, he
would consider any doubts impermissible. We salute his memory as we honour the memory of all other martyred comrades. Ever more
determined and with a greater certainty, we shall continue the fight to which
we have committed ourselves. We also ask all other groups to cast aside all
their doubts and rise in armed struggle against the vile military dictatorship
of
Comrade Pouyan has written numerous essays and translated many
works, which we shall publish in due course. The present pamphlet was written
by the comrade in the Spring of 1971. This article,
which comprehensively and accurately refutes the opportunistic theory which
believes that to avoid being annihilated by the regime, one must work within
such limits as to not provoke the military dictatorship to which the comrade
refers as "the theory of' 'survival' ". It is also one of the first
essays published by the group that puts forward the theory proving the
correctness of "armed practice". Our perception in relation to
"armed practice" has been heightened through the exchange of views
and even more through practice. That is why the comrade believed that the
present essay should be developed further and that even some necessary changes
should be made in some parts of the article. Our new perspective in relation to
"armed practice" is dealt with in another article entitled: "
Armed Struggle: both as a Strategy and a Tactic ". Therefore, here we
shall only deal with those points that call for comment and clarification:
1. That the absence of
vanguard proletarian circles ‑ that is to say, the kind that have come
into being through a relationship with an organized proletariat in the process
of spontaneous struggles has rendered contact with the proletariat impossible,
does not at all mean that we are unable to establish contact with politically
conscious individual workers. Indeed, we have had numerous examples of
combatant vanguard workers.
2. What is meant by
the effect of "the exercise of revolutionary power by vanguards'' is, in
fact, the general and strategic effect of such an exercise. The dictum
therefore does not extend to tactical cases.
Hence, always bearing in mind the general strategy, we do regard it
probable that some plans might fail. Furthermore, we do not let over‑optimism
blind us so that we fail to predict the impediments that we are bound to come
up against. We must emphasize that at the present moment "offensive"
"propaganda" and "exercise of revolutionary power" are the only correct tactics. But, at the same time, it is
possible that, with regard to this general strategy, a particular line that
might be adopted by such and such a group in a particular time will fail. By
pointing out an instance such as this, we merely intend to strengthen our
ideological stand against an assortment of opportunists, thereby denying them
any pretext to use our possible tactical setbacks as proof of our strategic
defeat; a ploy that has frequently been resorted to by opportunists throughout
history.
The
0rganization of the Iranian People’s Fadaee
Guerrillas
the Necessity of Armed Struggle and
Refutation of the Theory of "Survival"
Written by: comrade Amir-parviz Pouyan
The following article
was written in the Spring of 1970; since then I have
found no appropriate opportunity for its correction and development. Now this
article is being published without any modifications or alterations, so that it
can be corrected and developed in the future upon receiving the opinions of the
comrades. It should not be considered complete. In my own opinion, its
development is necessary.
In the three months
since this article was written, we have frequently examined the policy of armed
action and each time have naturally learned new things from our discussions.
Therefore, it appears necessary for me to reflect in my article what we have
learned, and to make alterations in my writing if it is so required.
The militant elements,
especially the Marxists, are not at all in secure conditions. The police have mobilised all their forces and are trying night and day to
discover the underground network of the struggle and to identify the militants.
The enemy does not hesitate in the least to use any suitable tactic or special
methods to suppress the militants.
Following the defeat
of the anti‑imperialist struggle in
Under the
circumstances where the revolutionary intellectuals lack any type of direct and
firm relationship with the masses, our situation is not like the example of
"fish living in the sea of the people's support". Rather, it is the
case of small and scattered fishes surrounded by crocodiles and herons. The
terror and suppression, the absence of any democratic conditions, has made the
establishment of contact with our own people extremely difficult. Even the most
indirect and consequently the least fruitful contact is
far from easy. All the enemy's efforts are directed towards preserving this
state of affairs. So long as we are without any relationship with our own
masses, it is easy to be discovered and suppressed. In order to be able to
withstand this situation, and at the same time grow and create the political organisation of the working class, we must break the spell
of our weakness and establish a direct and firm relationship with the masses.
Let us examine the
exact methods used by the enemy to keep us away from the people. It has brought
all the workers' and peasants' centers under its control. The military and non‑military
establishments control the movements of the urban residents to and from the
villages. It has obliged the peasantry of many areas to inform the authorities
of the entry of non‑authorized urban residents to the villages.
In small and large
factories there is an office of the National Security and Information
Organization (SAVAK) operating constantly. Employment of any worker or any
office personnel is preceded by a full investigation of his past activities and
connections. Even after employment the SAVAK, when possible, keeps the
employee's every movement under full surveillance. Therefore, difficult as it
is for militants to gain entry into the factories, it is still more difficult
for them to proceed with agitational and organizational
work.
The existing terror
and suppression even make the use of secondary gathering centres
of the workers and petty bourgeoisie, such as the teahouses, very difficult. In
the cities, penetration among the workers is practically limited to accidental acquaintances,
which are not always organizationally fruitful.
The process through
which a worker is educated to become a disciplined revolutionary is a complex,
arduous and lengthy one. Our experience shows that workers, even the younger
ones, despite all their discontentment with the
situation in which they live, do not exhibit much enthusiasm for political
education. The reasons for this state of affairs lies
in the total absence of any tangible political movement along with their lack
of consciousness which has resulted, partially, in their acceptance of the
dominant culture of the society. The young workers, especially, waste their
limited leisure time and scanty savings upon cheap petty bourgeois banalities.
Most of them are tainted with lumpen idiosyncrasies.
At work, if it is possible to utter a word, they try to make the working time
seem shorter by resorting to vulgar conversation. The book readers among them
are customers of the most decadent and filthy contemporary reactionary works.
By preventing any mass political movement and by facilitating access to cheap
entertainment, our enemy tries to accustom the workers to the acceptance of the
general characteristics of the petty bourgeoisie. Hence, by
doing so, to spread among them the antidote to political consciousness.
The police create a
state of fear and suppression in the factory more than anywhere else. All
methods are used to keep the workers in a constant state of fear and
apprehension. The large factories in particular have been turned into military
barracks, where the "productive soldiers" are put to work. An army
discipline is enforced so that there might be but the least waste of time or
chance of contact between the workers. Any tendency towards a strike or non‑violent
demonstration of grievances is met with the most brutal reactions: detainment,
long interrogations, expulsion, and at times, torture. Each of these can have
long‑term negative effects on the future subsistence of the worker and
would endanger their chance of being able to work or being employed at other
production establishments and often results in their being replaced by one of
the thousands in the reserve army of labour.
A worker who even
before having had any record, had to confront innumerable difficulties merely
to be able to sell their labour power, a worker who
must frequently find an influential sponsor, or resort to the middlemen, or
even pay a considerable amount of money to obtain a job, would find it almost
impossible to get employed after having a bad record. Thus, although
reluctantly, the worker prefers to become a manageable sheep and remains
indifferent to political problems in order to survive.
In factories, private
or state-owned, in any place which is a market for the sale of labour power; exploitation in its most shameless form is
the order of the day. Workers are practically deprived of all sorts of social
security; their labour power is bought only to the
extent to which it is needed to proceed to a desired volume of production. They
live in the eighteenth century, with the exception of having the questionable
privilege of the twentieth century police rule.
If we express the
oppression brought against them in words, they themselves feel this oppression
with their whole being. If we write about their sufferings, they themselves
constantly experience these sufferings. Nonetheless, they tolerate them, accept
them with patience and, by taking refuge in petty bourgeois entertainment, try
to ease the burden of this suffering. Why?
The various reasons
can be summed up into one. They presume the power of their enemy to be absolute
and their own inability to emancipate themselves as absolute. How can one think
of emancipation while confronting absolute power with absolute weakness? It is
precisely this assumption which is the reason, a negative reaction to their
ability ‑ for their indifference to political discussion, and even at
times, their ridicule of it.
A relationship with
the proletariat, with the aim of drawing this class into political struggle,
cannot be established except by changing this assumption, by destroying these
two absolutes in their minds. Thus, under existing circumstances, where there
exists no democratic possibility of making contact with, giving political
consciousness to, and organizing the proletariat, the proletarian intellectuals
must of necessity make contact with the masses of its class through
revolutionary power. The revolutionary power establishes a moral tie between
the proletariat and the proletarian intellectuals and the continued exercise of
this power will lead to organizational ties.
Here we should pause
for a moment and explain how this moral tie would come into being and how it
would lead to organizational ties in due course.
We have briefly
discussed earlier the main means by which the enemy has chosen to keep us away
from the proletariat, and the proletariat from us. We
can sum up once more. We have seen that one of the main means is through terror
and suppression, which the workers and all the popular strata feel under the
domination of the fascist police. The other means is the submission of the
proletariat to a culture, which the anti‑revolutionaries try to imprint
on their minds. There is, undoubtedly, a relation between these two factors:
fear from the police activities and submission to an anti‑revolutionary
culture. The proletariat submits to this culture because it is deprived of the
material conditions for resistance against it. Rejection of this culture is
possible only when the proletariat has begun the process of abolishing the
bourgeois relations of production. In fact, it is only in the course of
political struggle that the class-consciousness of the proletariat will find
its greatest possibility to manifest and develop itself. The working class, so
long as it considers itself devoid of all kinds of actual power to overthrow
the rule of its enemy, cannot make any attempt in the direction of rejecting
the dominant culture. It is after embarking on a plan to change the
infrastructure that is able to employ the super-structural factors to assure
its victory. It would establish its own special moral and cultural outlooks and
make them flourish, as the precursor of a new order, absolutely different from
the old.
The absolute
domination of the enemy, which finds its reflection in the minds of the workers
as their absolute inability to change the established order, has the indirect
effect of submission to the enemy's culture. Thus, terror and suppression,
which is the crystallization of the enemy's power, act as the cause for
submission of the worker to the dominant culture. What here is an effect,
immediately after its appearance, turns itself into a new cause for avoidance
by the proletariat of the revolutionary struggle.
Therefore, in order to
liberate the proletariat from the dominant culture, to cleanse its mind and
life of petty bourgeois poisonous thoughts, to terminate its alienation from
its special class outlook and equip it with ideological ammunition, it is
necessary again to shatter its illusion that it is powerless to destroy the
enemy.
The revolutionary
power is used to deal with this matter. The application of this power, which in
addition to its propaganda nature is accompanied by distinct political
agitation on a large scale, makes the proletariat conscious of' a source of
power which belongs to it. First, it will find out that the enemy is
vulnerable, and it will see that the swift breeze that has just begun would
leave no room for the absoluteness of' the enemy's dominance. If this
"absolute" is endangered in action, then the absolute can no longer
survive in his thought. Therefore, it will of the power which has started its
emancipation. Alienation from the vanguard will be replaced by the support,
which has materialized inside the proletariat toward it.
Now, this
revolutionary vanguard is merely distant from the proletariat but no longer
alienated from it. The proletariat will think of the vanguard with passion not only because it sees that, for its sake,
a small group has gone into battle with an enemy equipped with all extensive
arsenal, but all the more so because it sees its own future directly aligned
with the future of' this small group.
The revolutionary
power that is exercised by the proletarian vanguard is the reflection merely of
a fraction of the power of the working class. Yet, what is a swift breeze must
turn into a devastating storm in order to make it possible to overthrow the
established order. Thus, this incomplete reflection must be replaced with a
complete reflection of its power. Hence, the exercise of revolutionary power
plays a twofold role: on the one hand, it restores to the proletariat its class
consciousness as a progressive class, and, on the other hand, it persuades it to play an active role in securing the
victory of the struggle which has begun in order to secure its own future. This
course begins with passive support by the workers for the revolutionary
struggle and, as it continues, will lead to its active support. *
It is no longer
sufficient to speak about the vanguard with enthusiasm and to wish it success
wholeheartedly, but it is necessary to turn this "enthusiasm" into
"cognition" and this "wish" into assuming a direct role in
the struggle. Since the exertion of revolutionary power can, in its course,
reach such a turning point, then it can also render the enemy's weapons
ineffective. Neither terror nor suppression can hinder the march of the workers
towards the source of their vanguard's power. Nor can bourgeois culture hold
its previous dominance over their minds, serving as a super‑structure for
their flight from the struggle and submission to the established order. The
spell breaks and the enemy looks like a defeated magician. What makes his
defeat is precisely our victory in establishing a most intimate and direct
relationship with the proletariat for organizational ties and this attempt is
no longer confronted with the hindrances by the workers themselves.
The unity of the
proletarian vanguard, the Marxist‑Leninist groups and organizations,
could not but take such a road. Exertion of the revolutionary power would make
the police domination more brutal but wouldn't increase it. This domination
cannot possibly increase, for today our enemy has mobilized all its forces to
discover and suppress the militants. It only uncovers its real nature and would
completely unmask its face revealing to all the people its savagery which, so
far, in the absence of any vehement revolutionary movement, it has deceptively
disguised.
It is under these
circumstances that the revolutionary forces, and at their forefront, the
Marxist‑ Leninists, would come together in order to be able to withstand
the enemy's blows and survive. They would either have to join the enemy (i.e.
by following a defeatist line which in practice means supporting the enemy), or
they would have to join together. To remain isolated is tantamount to
annihilation. However, being drawn
closer together and even joining forces does not, as of yet, constitute unity.
The organizational
unity of' the organized Marxist‑Leninists, which creates the unitary
political organization of the proletariat, is realized during circumstances
where the exercise of revolutionary power has, in the course of time, reached
its climax. With each blow at the enemy, the absolute domination of' the enemy
in the minds of the revolutionary masses is demolished and this propels these
masses a step towards participation in the struggle.
Thereafter, it is the
enemy who has to expose its face more clearly at each step in order to survive
and suppress ever more swiftly and, consequently more brutally, its
revolutionary enemies. The enemy increases its pressure on all the classes and
strata under its domination by the exercise of counter‑revolutionary
violence against the militants. Thus, the enemy intensifies the contradictions
between these classes and itself, and by creating an atmosphere which it is
bound to create, it propels the political consciousness of the masses to leap
forward. It insanely attacks everything like a wounded beast. It is suspicious
of all but its allies who are its sources of power and sustenance. Every small
expression of dissatisfaction, every suspicious move, every word of discontent,
is met with the worst reactions. It imprisons,
tortures and shoots the people, yearning to restore the bygone security.
The methods it
inevitably employs, however, would just as inevitably work against itself. It wants to prevent the masses from participation in
a revolutionary movement, yet each moment pushes more of them toward that
course of struggle. Thus, it imposes the struggle on the people, seeing the
continuation of its domination harder than before, it makes the people's
tolerance of this domination more difficult than before. The masses join the
struggle, put their power at the disposal of their vanguard and vindicate the
specific strategy of the revolutionary struggle with their active
participation.
This strategy is the
conclusion of the assessment of the degree of revolutionary determination of
every dominated class. It necessitates the organizational unity of the Marxist‑Leninist
elements in order to confirm the leadership of the proletariat, which
undoubtedly is the most resistant and revolutionary class. The
proletariat having joined the struggle and in order to make this struggle
fruitful, needs its own specific political organization. The proletarian
vanguard is fed with the power of its class and the proletariat, in depending
on its political organization, secures the necessary assurance for the
fruitfulness of its power. Thus, the Worker's Party is born.
In constructing the
party of the working class, the correctness of each policy is assessed
according to the quality of the methods that it presents for the growing
survival of Marxist‑Leninist groups and organizations. The survival of
these groups and organizations is important due to the fact that these are the
actual components of a potential whole. Yet, if this "survival" lacks
the character of growth, it fails to develop into a cohesive whole. Thus, every line that would aim at mere survival of the Marxist‑Leninist
groups and organizations and pays no revolutionary attention to their growth,
is an opportunist and defeatist line. We should also demonstrate that
this line is, in turn and in the final analysis, a liquidationist
line as well. Furthermore, we must demonstrate that the theory of "let us
not take the offensive in order to survive", is in fact nothing else but
saying "we should allow the police to destroy us in embryo without meeting
any hindrance."
If defeatism is liquidationism, then there remains no room for asking,
"why should we survive"? All the same,
posing this question helps us recognize the opportunistic nature of the above-
mentioned theory. This theory of "refraining to take the offensive"
means negating all kinds of constructive attempts to increase the possibilities
of the revolutionary forces.
This theory wishes to
keep the struggle within the limits of the extremely meager possibilities not
controlled by the enemy such as simple gatherings of elements not remarkable in
quantity, in fact hardly exceeding the number of one's fingers, and then
occupying these elements with the study of Marxist and historical works along
with the observance of secrecy. The sphere of activity of these elements to the
furthermost point is limited to totally passive and dispersed contacts with
some people from each dominated class and strata. Every element in these
organizations continues his/her habitual life in this kind of activity and
naturally no effort appears necessary to change it.
Notwithstanding, there
is no doubt that this gathering has been formed on the basis of realizing the
same goals as those of the active revolutionary group, paving the way for the
formation of a communist party and mastering the revolutionary theory. Yet this
organizational gathering which tries to secure its survival through taking a
passive stand against the enemy necessarily has to have a mechanical conception
of the process of formation of a party and the mustering of revolutionary
theory. It predicts that the party of the working class will be formed at
"an appropriate moment" from the union between the Marxist‑Leninist
groups which have been able to save themselves from the enemy's blows. The
revolutionary theory, too, is the product of the studies which these groups
have been able to conduct on Marxism‑Leninism, on the revolutionary
experiences of other people, on the history of their country and on the passive
and dispersed contacts they may have had with the people as the complementary
condition. According to this theory, through a series of factors that are
inexplicable to us, the historical determinism is to realize the formation of a
party. Again the proletarian vanguard, which by now is united, is supposed to
draw the masses into the struggle during "favourable
conditions".
In this theory,
"appropriate moment" and "favourable
conditions" are metaphysical conceptions which, without explaining
anything, are used to temporarily cover its obvious weaknesses. They are put to
work in order to establish a link between the abstract interpretation and
analysis of this theory and reality.
If this link is
metaphysical, then undoubtedly this relationship will never be real and
organic. It is also quite natural that a theory, which is not derived from
objective reality, naturally cannot establish a proper link with the objective
reality. The thesis, which to show its correctness and objectivity absolutely
avoids going beyond its meager possibilities for existing, will in practice
fall into an obvious subjectivism. Thinking of the future but lacking any means
to reach it, it resorts to the metaphysics of "appropriate moment"
and uses it as a bridge that can only be built in a non‑dialectical mind.
This theory which by displaying itself in a formula desires to give itself all
appearance of mathematical precision, will diverge
more than ever, from reality and, from the dialectics of the revolution. It
claims: study plus a minimum of organization without any revolutionary striving
for its growth plus the "appropriate moment" equals the working class
party. And the party of the working class plus "favourable
conditions" equals the revolution.
Undoubtedly, this
formula cannot be correct as a solution for removing the present difficulties
facing the revolutionary forces in the course of organizing the proletariat and
the revolutionary masses. The "appropriate moment" and the "favourable conditions" will not materialize unless the
revolutionary elements in every moment of their struggle meet the historical
necessities properly. Then, what does this formula serve? It serves the
opportunism, which justifies its paralyzing fear of the enemy by presuming that
its disintegration is impossible and its domination indestructible. It limits its
revolutionary tasks to a point, which avoids any engagement with the police. It
devolves the development of the struggle to a metaphysical and consequently,
imaginary determinism. Thus, we see that the grouping which originally had the
aim of striving to construct the party of the working class, by taking an
opportunistic line, gets each moment closer to burying its goal, and becomes
interested in its own unfruitful survival more than ever. This thesis, which
aspires to serve the proletarian goals, sacrifices these goals in practice in
order to save itself. "Let us not take the offensive in order to
survive", reveals itself in practice as "let us dismiss all
revolutionary endeavors to construct the communist party in order to
survive".
Nevertheless, the dialectic
of the revolutionary struggle which finds its first great manifestation in the
process of the genesis of a proletarian party, not only will not furnish this
enthusiasm to survive but will give it the saddest of answers by imposing upon
it an untimely death. It is at this same point that we clearly find out what
was defeatist is liquidationist as well. It is no
longer a debate over the fact that the policy aimed at "survival"
has, because of its opportunistic attachment to this aim, lost the ability to
grow, rather, the discussion is about the fact that such a line, in practice,
would negate what it had devoutedly set its aim at.
This line, in the practice of struggle, will run into a dead‑end and will
have no way out except by choosing one of two exits: either to adopt an active
and revolutionary stand against the enemy and thus save itself; or to turn renegade and look for affection from the police to secure
its survival.
The enemy has specific
criteria for its behaviour. It says, "come to terms with me in order to survive, accept my rule in
order to save yourselves from my deadly blows". Any focus of activity
which does not accept this call for unconditional surrender, whatever its field
of activity, is considered a focal point of danger and, if it could not impose
its survival on the enemy, it has nothing to do other than await the
devastating attack of the enemy. There is nothing more rejoicing to the enemy
than to have us as harmless victims. It shoots anyone remaining at the
barricades. Either, one has to answer each blow with a blow in return or has to
come out of the barricade holding a white flag. There is no death more
precocious than dying at the barricades without shooting.
But it appears that
not all of the pillars of the theory of "survival" are yet demolished
because this theory assumes, as the condition for its soundness, the addition
of the principle of secrecy to the principle of "refraining from the
offensive". It argues that not only must we refrain from taking the offensive
but we must also conceal each of our moves from the enemy's eyes and,
naturally, the enemy not knowing us, thus cannot strike us.
If we asked what can
guarantee the success of secrecy perhaps we will hear the answer that happens
to be the most correct one ‑ fully knowing the elements called into co‑operation
and continually striving to give them organizational training. The acceptance
of this answer as a necessary condition for the preservation of an underground
network is irrefutable. What can be refuted is the sufficiency of this
condition; there is no need to refer to any historical experience to prove that
this condition is insufficient. It is only necessary to take a look at our own
present conditions. Our own short-term experiences demonstrate that any kind of
over-dependency upon the organizational efficiency of any one comrade is a
mistake. In fact, none of us, no matter how careful and sincere, can go on
without making mistakes in this area. What can guarantee one hundred percent
flawlessness is absolute inactivity. When we take action, study Marxism, try to
propagate it, and enjoy some sort of contact (no matter how limited) with
others, it is possible to make mistakes. Not only our own mistakes endanger us,
but also the mistakes of others open us to a perpetual front of vulnerability.
In the course of
action we inevitably come into contact with elements and circles that are
practically careless in guarding themselves and others. At the beginning it is
neither possible to recognize them nor is it possible to educate them. I find
it unnecessary to back up this reasoning with some tested examples, because I
am sure that each militant comrade can enumerate many examples concerning this
issue. In general it should be said that danger can always come from any one
individual and that putting trust in individuals and their training, no matter
how successful, cannot eliminate the dangers completely. However, the problem
is that the danger does not end at the level of the individual. It begins with
the individual and threatens the entire organization. We should think of how to
free the organization from this danger.
Thought should be
given as to what can open a defense umbrella over the entire organization, so
that mistakes by the individual (what one should always expect) would not
destroy the organization. One should find out what must be combined with the
principle of secrecy (that necessary but insufficient condition) so that
together they can provide the conditions for our growing survival. Secrecy is a
method of defense but, by itself, it is a passive method and remains that way
as long as it is not supplemented with firepower.
Thus, it is natural to
emphasize that secrecy, without being accompanied by revolutionary power, is a
non‑active and insecure defense. If secrecy and revolutionary power
together must be the condition for our survival, it is unavoidable to refute
the fundamental principle of the theory of "survival", i.e., the
principle of "refraining
to take the offensive". Hence, the thesis of "let us not take the
offensive in order to survive" will necessarily be replaced with the
policy of "we must take the offensive in order to survive".
* As soon as the revolutionary power through
its deed is turned into a living tangible reality, the masses, and especially
the young workers, intellectuals and students will demonstrate interesting
initiatives in the struggle. We cannot foresee the specific initiatives but we
call foresee a general picture by an analysis of the spirit which will prevail
in conditions where revolutionary power is exercised. People start with the
simplest initiatives to express their dissatisfaction, thereby adding the
"revolutionary power". Street walls will be covered with harsh
slogans against the existing conditions. Acts of petty sabotage in locations,
establishments or anything belonging to the bourgeois, bureaucratic and
comprador enemy, and in general, to the rich, will develop the extent of
initiatives. These acts of sabotage; as they continue, will especially
endanger the very things that the enemy is extremely afraid of losing. Young
workers, cleverly and without leaving any trace, begin
to sabotage production. They wreck the machines, intentionally work carelessly
or even steal the instruments of labour. These acts,
on the whole, demonstrate the tendency of the masses to participate in the
struggle and aid the revolutionary power. Each initiative is in itself an
experience that prepares them for a greater act. In fact, the masses in this
way increase their revolutionary capacity and experience, and go one step
forward in assuming a more essential role.