Even if the party does nothing ever but discuss theory?

Similar things have happened, although I don’t know if any by a single person but it is not unthinkable that they might, so the hypothetical remains valid.

Which actions?

Let’s put an extreme example. There is a regime that is very top heavy. The assassination of that person will destroy the regime and change it by something else. That would be a revolutionary act, since it would topple a whole political system and replace it by something else. Now let’s assume a single person carried it out.

If a revolutionary party starts a series of actions designed to topple the system and a person with no theory knowledge and unorganized carries out the same type of action, then it is not a revolutionary action?

Let’s say the party dissolves today and the members stop being politically active. Could any action of the party up until today be considered revolutionary?

Remember, I am not saying organization is wrong or unnecessary, just that organizing at a time where is completely legal is not revolutionary in itself.

Not praising, describing.

I am not denying that organization is what allows revolutionary actions to be successful. But they don’t have to be part of organized action to be revolutionary actions. Likewise, the organization itself, though necessary is not revolutionary in itself.

A political party is organizing too. The organization is a great step, but is not revolutionary in itself. Not nowadays, it was in the past, though.

Never said anything different.

Sure, but that doesn’t detract from the act itself.

I agree with you and believe that it is a great action. It is not revolutionary, that’s the whole point. It might lead to a revolution down the line, still.

Striking is a magnificent tool.

When I mentioned risking something, what I meant is that when the system notices an existential risk - a revolution - it reacts and goes for the people acting on it, prosecuting or killing them. If the system does not react, it doesn’t recognize the actions as dangerous. Now the system might be slow to react and fail to catch the initial revolutionary steps, that’s also true.

So, if the anti-ICE protests in Minnesota had brought a general strike, even limited to the state, I would have considered that definitely as a significant step. I do think the government would have gone against the organizers, which is what I meant.

All in all, there are many types of protests and actions outside the system that are fantastic and do a lot of good. But a revolution goes much further than that.

Well then, show me about the revolution you are carrying out right now.

No idea.

And if the only thing it does is inconvenience, it will never change stuff meaningfully.

Your vision on revolution is focused on one specific kind. I get why, but I was pointing at all directions, I even pointed out how the stupid nazis are not actually doing anything.

I get the dismissal of single-man action, but that single act changed instantly the approach of that company towards thousands of sick people. Also put other companies on notice. And the whole establishment, for a fraction of a second blinked. The lack of follow-up made it moot.

Sure, they are. But not the ones happening currently. And practice is not the act itself, which is my point. Never said that nothing being done is useful, just that it is not revolutionary. And we shouldn’t think that it is, lest we grow complacent by the level of action.