The inefficacy of Rovolutionary organizations - A sympathetic critique.

Changing the world has been the main goal of revolutionary communist or anarchist groups. There is a plethora of evidence in my lifetime that such groups are ineffective.


In order to show that, I will not look into the strategies that they take but simply on the results. There have been multiple social movements that wanted change and those groups failed to provide the necessary organization that would make those movements successful.

The first of the social movements I took part in, was the European Social Forum in 2002.

It happened one year after the start of the Afghanistan War, and as you can see, we were holding anti-war placards. But this movements started a few years earlier in 1999 in Seatle where people were protesting the role of the WTO, the effects of Globalization and capitalism. The protests continued in Genoa, Italy in 2001 and then Florence in 2002 . The ESF in Florence was a gathering of political movements across europe that discussed for multiple days on an alternative to capitalism. This was followed by a 1 million people demonstration in Florence. I remember walking for hours.
   The ESF continued for 2 more years, one in London and the next in Athens.
It was successful in a way since it inspired a lot of people that another world is possible. But I do not remember any decisions taken that would be helpful in transforming this world. There were two factions. The one promoted change through the elections, that we should build left parties that would take part in the elections and that would then perform change when they become the government. The other faction, the revolutionary one that I was part of, was interested in mass mobilization from below, that would force its view to any government that was in power.
    Even if the revolutionary proposal was correct, there were no innovative organizational changes that would make such a movement successful.
 Eventually that movement faded away, due to the fact that noone proposed something that would work and due to the fact that the EU used the police to suppress it.

 The next social movement I am aware of was the result of the economic crisis of 2008. This triggered the Occupy movement, from New York to Spain, Greece and many other Countries, notably many Arab Countries like Egypt.
 I didn't participate in this movement, so I can only say what i heard. In New York, and many other places In USA, the movement was about inequality, the fact that the 1% was holding a tremendous amount of wealth while the rest was simply trying to survive. The movement's main organization was the assembly. In Greece, the people that occupied the square organized a discussion in place in which the occupiers took decisions on what to do next.

This lead to a political crisis. The parliament was surrounded by demonstrators to the point that the MPs could not leave the building. In Greece , the steep reduction of GDP, the increase of unemployment to 25% led to a volatile political system. The people were angry and they were ready to follow anyone that was to propose a solution, either on the left or on the right.
  The protests were met with police brutality and eventually they faded away. But the old political system was in disarray. The solution that was the most eminent was that of electoral change through the support of the Syriza party. This led to the capitulation of Syriza since it was unable to respond to the economic pressure of the EU.
  But one should not forget about the inability of the revolutionary organizations of Greece to turn the movement into mass protests from below, into worker strikes and into the eventual electoral capture of the state as an intermediary step in the transformation of Society. The sad thing about all this is that even if they did all of the above, they wouldn't be able to mitigate the side effects of the economic isolation by the EU.

The third movement that has just started is that of the Black Lives Matter in 2020 in US and all over the world. Even though the movement focuses on Racism, the increased police brutality toward the protesters and the use of the military to suppress the protests has led people to question the role of the police and the military and to question the political system itself. People start to understand that they do not live in a democracy, and thus the movement has the potential to question Capitalism itself. Given that there is no way that this movement can be expressed in the elections, this could lead to a new era of political and social insubordination from below.

Given though that there is no organization that can provide an effective method that could lead to systemic change, this movement will fade away as well, even though its effect could linger for many years.


I think it is quite conclusive that the current revolutionary organizations are ineffective. This is very important to understand. Most organizations will blame either the people or the State and its mechanisms of suppression. But we should not forget that the role of a revolutionary organization is to mitigate those mechanisms.

The people are willing but the revolutionary organizations cannot. This can only lead to one outcome. Eventual social change will happen only after a complete social collapse, a collapse that would destroy all previous social, political and economic relations. This would lead into chaos and from chaos we may see a different society emerging.
  That could be due to an ecological crisis or an economic crisis.

The other alternative is to try to find effective methods of organizing. It is imperative that communists and anarchists understand that they need to change their tactics.

Ryaki network : Workers in favor of technological progress.

  In a previous blog post of mine, I had proposed a new rule that would give the right to those that consume an X amount of money, to work to regain the same amount of money. This , I proposed, would change the behavior of agents to consume as much as the infrastructure allows. We would have full utilization of infrastructure and thus a tremendous reduction in production costs and thus reduction of the cost of living. You can read about it here  , though the algorithm is a bit outdated.

  In this article, I want to point out that we will also have a secondary effect. Workers will stop having an aversion toward technological progress that endangers their jobs and their income. This is very important, because we want to avoid the need to create a structure / organization that forces technological progress in the production process . Instead workers / consumers will autonomously welcome progress.

I think that it is important to see how things work in Capitalism. In capitalism, workers or worker power is a commodity. Companies simply want to buy as few of it as they can, and for this reason, they adopt productivity increasing technologies. On the other hand, workers do not want to lose their jobs since they do not have the right to work, other than the one given by their employer.
It is for this reason that a secondary group in the company should take these decisions, whose interest aligns with the company itself. I think this is called the management team.

For worker cooperatives, member workers have the full benefits of capital investment. But if a non-member worker wanted to join the cooperative, those benefits would have to be split with him too. In other words, technological progress is welcomed by member workers but other workers are not.

Now, let me point to you what happens with the proposed ryaki network:
There are two rules that need to be taken into account :

A. You have the right to work the same amount that you consume. Thus you get priority with regards to others that haven't consumed as much on positions that you both qualify.

B. Each production unit has specific positions that need to be filled, but those positions do not belong to a single person. They belong to multiple people that take turns to work there. Workers are eligible to work in multiple posts.

Because workers can work in multiple positions and they have the right to work in any of those positions, their income remains stable when an organization adopts a new structure that reduces their hours of work , or makes their position obsolete.