People such as the Italian communists never claimed that its necessary to wait for revolutionary periods before educating and leading the class, there are however limited contexts where which communist intervention can be effective. Marx and Engels agree with the Italian left, as shown in the quote below:
<In Germany it looks more like revolution every day. In Berlin and Barmen menacing crowds of laid-off workers are roaming the streets. […..] I think that in a fortnight the storm will break in Prussia. If this opportunity passes without being used, and if the people allow that to happen, we can then calmly pack up our revolutionary paraphernalia and devote ourselves to pure theory.
— Engels to Marx. 11 June 1866
Of course its necessary for communists to stay in touch with each other, so is collectively working to overcome the challenges we face, but hitting the streets with pamphlets and slogans isn’t always the best option, and tailing bourgeois organizations is off the table altogether. Communists dont chase popularity with a disorganized mass of individuals, they move to lead and intensify the class struggles of workers organized as workers.
The subjective factor of the revolution isn’t floating in the void waiting to be summoned with the right mix of slogans or chants, either the requisite class organization really and concretely exists, or it does not. We either push to reinforce class autonomy beforehand, or nothing happens when tensions run high.
>In Berlin and Barmen menacing crowds of laid-off workers are roaming the streets.
woah woah woah
laid off workers
so… not proletarians? lumpen!
>>2692280proletarians can be layed off wtf
>>2692280The definition of 'proletarian' isn't 'got fired' but 'has nothing but their labour power for sale'.
>sexually arousing picture, time wasting comment
thanks o[p
>>2692357>'has nothing but their labour power for sale'.Impale all people who have more than 25 reál in their pocket.
All of you are getting proletanized by 2050
>>2692357and people who got just got laid off arent that?
>>2692372i know the reference but your post is still silly