Practical Revolutionary Networking
Building connections through respectful dissent and cordial disagreement
Why it matters: As leftists, we need to be actively forging bonds with people from all walks of life, but especially within and between leftist circles. Let’s say we get our way, and the Imperial Core is dismantled and replaced with a leftist governing body of some sort. That’s not likely to be a clean transition, and collective, coordinated action will be necessary to deflect reactionary counter-revolutionaries and support at-risk community members mid-transition.
First and foremost, leftist organizing should be centered on genuine compassion and operationalized empathy—even fired-up black bloc counter-protesters are motivated primarily by compassion for vulnerable people and engaging in community defense against fascist harassment and assault as an operationalized form of empathy. Of equal import is sincerity and genuine engagement amongst peers in different organizations.
Developing connections between affinity groups and organizations to coordinate responses and developing message discipline for shared goals would benefit the Left greatly. That will require us to be willing to (respectfully and with permission, of course) enter spaces we’re not familiar with, commiserate with group members sincerely and without pretense. Be real. Make some friends while you’re at it. Don’t just robotically collect new comrades’ contact info. One durable, mutually supportive connection is worth multiple superficial or tenuous connections.
Dissenting Civilly: A Fast-Track To Mutual Respect
I personally do not cater to the perspectives of those with whom I disagree on specifics or particularities as a means of currying favor. I’ve found that being firm but respectful when finding where you align with new comrades and where you diverge ideologically does something very valuable: it demonstrates you’re able to have an adult conversation about serious topics without resorting to ad hominem attacks or caricaturizing your opponent.
Quick Tips:
Deploy pressure strategically- if you feel someone is overemphasizing a point of divergence, and get the feeling they’re verbally “sparring,” that’s usually a sign of respect and presents an opportunity to bond over respectful disagreement
Only engage if you’re confident you can respectfully and tactfully challenge some of their claims, refute their position entirely, or at least lay out your points effectively in good faith without getting catty or impolite
A fairly significant portion of the healthy, supportive relationships I’ve built and maintained consistently with the comrades I’m closest to and most trusting of grew out of an early point of staunch opposition that we debated tooth and nail exclusively in good faith. However, one must develop precision in one’s linguistic maneuvers, importantly so when engaging in any form of verbal play, if consistently positive results are the primary goal. Ideally, one will take care not to ruffle feathers unintentionally or fruitlessly, and to sincerely apologize when a misstep unsettles established members of the group to which you’re reaching out. At least that’s how I approach developing friendly, productive comradeships that are suited to collaboration, co-organizing, general support, and informal socialization.
Learn To Read The Room First
There’s a time for polemics and flamethrowing—can’t all be dry and humorless, right? It’s unrealistic to adopt a strategy which relies on tactically selected “rhetorical sparring” matches and expect it to succeed indefinitely without error. Some miscalculations can have negative consequences in the immediate term that feel far less than comfy, but this work isn’t meant to be cozy and soporific. My personal approach to discourse and debate is predicated on a two-pronged attack:
a) Clearly demonstrate the most unimpeachable argument in favor of your take when on the offensive.
b) Dig into their argument and bring to the surface as many inconsistencies and flaws that would serve to invalidate the assumptions, assertions, and claims that lay out their position on an issue.
Of course the utility of highlighting a flaw is contingent upon establishing a critique validated by empirical facts, substantial corroborating data, or a well-sourced analytical reframe.
Constructing Sound Arguments
Consider the construction of brick buildings: the process doesn’t start when the bricks are first laid, nor at the digging of the foundation. Building something brick by brick starts when the wet clay, freshly dug from the earth, is squared away and the bricks are fired in the intense, prolonged heat of a kiln—heat and pressure transform the newly-shaped, mushy rectangular prisms into resilient, dependable, robust bricks equally suited to building fortifications, hospitals, and libraries. My process for constructing sound, hard-to-reject arguments relies on its constituent claims built into one of the following:
a) “Fortifications” - coherent and reflective of reality,
b) ”Hospitals” - broadly actionable (for matters of praxis), or
c) “Libraries” - ideologically consistent (for matters of theory).
Outside formal and intentional debates with folks, be congenial and earnest. Provide supportive, helpful feedback when it’s solicited, get clarification of expectations while you’re establishing basic trust in newly-joined leftist spaces, either online or offline. Basically, just be a good comrade in general, and you’ll make progress if you keep at it and give your whole heart to the effort—most often, people get back what they put into things. Organizing is not an exception.
— Dee