Episode 401 of RevolutionZ addresses our Trump Problem and, to finish out a sequence, our Marxism Leninism problem. Trump doesn’t need everyone to love him to become even more deadly dangerous. He only needs enough of us to look away, stay tired, or treat politics like a bad weather system that will pass on its own. What is we refuse that comfort story and ask the harder question: What can we each actually do to help stop authoritarian power before it hardens into something even worse?

If you’re a teacher, we talk about telling the truth in the classroom and turning schools into real community hubs after hours. If you’re a worker, we dig into the first steps of organizing with coworkers, raising demands, and using collective leverage instead of private despair. If you’re a soldier, a police officer, or close to someone who is, we wrestle with the ethics of “just following orders” and what it means to build solidarity that can collectively refuse unjust commands. We also look at how students, athletes, health workers, parents, and faith leaders can use the space they already occupy to raise the social cost of repression.

Then we pivot to a deeper, longer-term issue summarizing and topping off the past: three episodes again addressing what ideology should guide movements that want a new world? We close our series assessing Marxism Leninism, rejecting its narrowness, its fetish of hierarchy and discipline, and the historical failures of Bolshevik practice. If revolution needs hope, vision, and human growth, we ask, what concepts and strategies can actually get us there?

Then, to conclude, we ask contemporary Marxist Leninists some serious questions in hopes they will take some time to contest or to agree with what we have offered. Resurect Marxism Leninism--or Marxism Leninism RIP.

Support the show

Episode 400 of RevolutionZ assesses Classical Marxism are a conceptual framework for guiding political activism. A revolutionary theory can feel powerful precisely because it is big, elegant, and confident. The problem is, big and elegant or not, what does the theory help with or hinder when you try to use it on Monday morning. This episode takes a hard look at classical Marxism as a practical guide for organizers, and lays out why its standard “core toolbox” often misses, inadequately understands, or even denies many things that actually drive people: racism, sexism, authority, fear, dignity, identity, the everyday pressures that shape consciousness and behavior, and even the dynamics of class relations and class struggle.

The episode walks through nine specific weaknesses that many Sixties New Leftists felt as the Seventies unfoded, from abstractions that work better on decades than on daily movement decisions, to thin accounts of organizational dynamics, bureaucracy, violence, and severe discipline. We dig into how classical dialectics over-focuses on one dominant contradiction and trains attention away from smaller-scale relations and the stubborn persistence of stability. If you’ve ever watched a movement mechanically repeat worn out arguments, rhetorically polarize, and turn theory into a loyalty test, we seek the conceptual foundations that make or at the least permit that to happen.

The episode then turns to human nature and psychology and argues that you can’t build effective revolutionary strategy without a usable theory of consciousness formation, motivation, and subjectivity. Claims that “material interest automatically produces revolutionary consciousness” is a dangerous over-simplified shortcut that misses why that often doesn't happen much less why sometimes the reverse occurs so that, for example, workers become reactionary or blind to attacks on their own interests. We discuss as well modern reactionary politics, confirmation bias, and the question that won’t go away: What kind of updated left political theory can be both complex enough to be true and clear and concise enough to be usable by real people in real world time conflicted and crisis-moved situations?

Please, if you disagree with what this episode--and the past few--present, please leave a critical comment, or write a rebuttal, or at least send me an email. Am I mired in a flawed past, or is advocacy of Marxism Leninism mired in a flawed past? For that matter, what would you put in a modern organizing toolbox that classical Marxist's leave out of theirs? Would your inclusions prevent or propel familiar Leninist and Bolshevik tendencies?

Support the show

Episode 399 of RevolutionZ continues the "Ideology Sequence," this time criticizing Leninism based largely on last episode's presentation of Bolshevik practice. Why do revolutions that promise liberation so often end up with new bosses? Leninist strategy is a living set of assumptions about leadership, discipline, “efficiency,” compromise, and more and about how to think about and apply each. The question driving the whole sequence is simple to ask and hard to face: should the left still advocate Marxism Leninism, or do we need to collectively transcend it?

Marxism Leninism claims to provide a suitable and for some even an alone suitable framework for analysis, adopting a long term goal, and creating and utilizing a disciplined party to win. But will centralized decision making, information hoarded at the top, members directed instead of developed, and leaders who slowly confuse their own survival with the revolution’s future, deliver what it claims to seek? The episode leans on sharp critics like Rosa Luxembourg, plus insights from Bookchin and others, plus Lenin's own words to argue that freedom is not a luxury to add later. Creativity, learning, and real socialist democracy depend on movement relations now and not just proposed social relations later.

This episode also addresses tactics and their hidden internal costs, including the way reforms, parliamentary work, and practical compromises can reshape cadre and culture. And we tackle a big claim embedded in Lenin’s praise for factory discipline and Taylorism: Leninism's view that capitalist organization is neutral if the right people hold state power. The episode argues instead that capitalism and authoritarianism are contagious, and unless we change all significant everyday power and system preserving relations not only in the economy and at work, but also in daily life in homes, schools, health, and the polity, we risk rebuilding the very dynamics we say we oppose.

Does this approach raise your hackles or resonate positively for you? Either way, shouldn't you consider it? I hope you will do so and that you will comment your views of it. Mainly, does it affect your answer to the question: should the left still advocate Marxism Leninism, or do we need to collectively transcend it?

Support the show