RevolutionZ

Michael Albert
  • 4.8 (40)
  • News
  • Updated Weekly

RevolutionZ: Life After Capitalism highlights social vision and strategy. You can join our community and help us grow and diversify via our Patreon Site Page

  1. 2d ago

    Ep 399 - Listen Leninist

    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

  2. Jul 20

    Ep 398 Assessing The Bolshevik Revolution

    Episode 398 of RevolutionZ discusses how a revolution that topples a targeted regime can nonetheless fail to meet its grass roots aims even while celebrating victory. It continues a sequence of episodes aimed to assess Marxism Leninism as an ideology that might or might not usefully guide contemporary revolutionary practice. Having presented Classical Marxism and Leninism in the prior two episodes, this time we look hard at Bolshevik practice in Russia not as an academic exercise, but as a stress test for Marxism-Leninist revolutionary strategy, and for what working-class power is supposed to mean in real workplaces and communities. We start with a simple problem: if the goal is liberation, what counts as “winning”? Using voices from Volin, Bakunin, Luxemburg, Goldman, Castoriadis, and of course Lenin and Trotsky among others, we track how the 1917 upheaval surged from below and how the Bolsheviks, in the words of their own chroniclers, scrambled to catch up. Then we see how the trajectory  intentionally, self consciously bent until Soviets and factory committees that expressed mass initiative became subordinated, workers’ control was absorbed into centralized state machinery, and even leftist dissent was treated as sabotage rather than feedback. From militarization of labor and one-man management to the destruction of internal factions, and again in the words of Lenin and Trotsky, the pattern became steadily clearer: discipline replaced solidarity, bureaucracy replaced self-management, and “party dictatorship” was justified as the only path to socialism. The episode finally culminates with the Makhnovist challenge and the Kronstadt rebellion of 1921, where demands for free Soviets, free speech for left currents, and an end to party privilege were met with force and a tightening of repression. At the close of the Sixties many who participated cared about the Russian Revolution, socialism, anarchism, worker self-management, and particularly the recurring problem of revolutions reproducing hierarchy. Responding to those concerns I wrote What Is To Be Undone, the book which this episode's chapter was excepted from. Some will hear this episode and feel it is too critical. Some others will feel it is too gentle. Is it one, the other, or neither? I hope it will appear as an article shortly to facilitate in depth reactions. People will also feel such emotions, perhaps even more so, about the next two episodes that will assess Leninism and then Classical Marxism in light of this episode's account of Marxist Leninist practice. I hope advocates of the Marxist Leninist ideology will engage with the material, leave comments, and perhaps even write articles in reply.  Support the show

  3. Jul 12

    Ep 397 Leninism for Activists or Activists' Leninism

    Episode 397 of RevoluionZ takes a careful walk through classical Leninist strategy, presenting it as sympathetically as we can so that the real strengths and real weaknesses show themselves without caricature. The context is Marxism-Leninism as an ideology--Classical ideologies as a way to read social conditions, determine goals, choose strategy, and treat organization as a complex revolutionary weapon rather than a neutral container.  We start with Lenin the strategist: theory guides him, but he fits his tactics to concrete conditions. That means as Lenin urges, learning to retreat when needed, combining legal and illegal work, and being willing to maneuver, compromise, and even participate in reactionary parliaments when it helps reach workers and expose the system’s limits. We ask the uncomfortable question hidden inside his famous “zigzags” offense: who decides on what basis which compromises are smart and which ones corrode the project from the inside?  From there we track how the vanguard party, democratic centralism, and “iron discipline” emerged, then moved through 1905, imperialism and World War I, and the 1917 crisis of peace, bread, land, and liberty. We look at what was advocated for after power is taken, consider the turn toward state capitalism as a transitional tactic, consider the tightening of centralized rule, the resolution of debates around worker democracy, and the export of the Bolshevik model through the Third International. All of this is considered using the actual words and choices of Lenin, Trotsky, and a few supporters and critics. If these questions feel relevant right now, that’s the point. After resisting authoritarianism, what ideology and organizing methods can help us build something better than a return to business as usual?  Last episode presented Classical Marxist theory. This episode presents Leninist strategy. Next episode will assess Bolshevik practice and then we will go back to strategy and finally to its roots in theory and finally consider a couple of alternatives. It is a long sequence and each episode is itself long but also accessible. Each is also offered a bit later as an article for further consideration. Then again choosing one's tools for a profound task is not a trivial task. These episodes are not tweets. I hope you will have time for them and thus for carefully thinking through the tasks we now face.  Support the show

  4. Jul 5

    Ep 396 WITBU: Marxism for Activists or Activist's Marxism

    Episode 396 of RevolutionZ presents Classical Marxism as Marxist Leninists typically utilize it. It is part of a sequence of episodes aimed at  helping to assess classical ideologies to determine whether activists should opt for one or reject them all and move on to something better.  Marxism can feel like a master key: one theory that explains why society is stuck, who holds power, and how history finally breaks open. We put that promise on the table as we read classical Marxist theory including long eloquent and revealing quotations from Marx and Engels all at an intentionally modestly academic pace, because the details matter if we want an ideology that can guide effective day to day, month to month, and year to year strategy rather than only inspire slogans. We walk through the classic building blocks: scarcity and the 19th-century context that shaped Marx’s project, dialectics as change driven by internal contradictions, and historical materialism’s insistence that social life rests on production and reproduction. From there we trace how classical Marxism connects human nature to social relations, treats consciousness as rooted in practice, and argues that knowledge proves itself in action. We also name a tension between the narrower “classical” picture and the richer humanist strain in Marx that centers alienation and human potential. Then we apply the classical Marxist conceptual framework to capitalism: exploitation and surplus, the corporation and the state working in tandem, imperial expansion, and recurring crises of overproduction. Classical Marxism claims these pressures forge the working class into a revolutionary force, culminating in a transition through proletarian rule toward a classless communist society where freedom expands and alienation ends. That Marxist storyline is attractive, but we end this presentation where the real work starts: are Classical Marxism's concepts and claims accurate and complete enough to guide us through changing the world around us. What strategy and practice does this theory actually produce? How do we assess it all? What comes after Trump-era politics? After we erase the stain of his imprint, what follows? Do we continue on to  not only stop fascism but also fundamentally change current societies and history? If we should, and I hope we agree on that, do we have concepts, methods, and aims sufficient to guide that journey without imposing new failures and without allowing our baggage from having been twisted and fed for all our lives by living under capitalist, misogynist, racist. and authoritarian, conditions? Do we have at hand an ideology sufficient to that admittedly immense task?  Next up will be to present Leninist strategy as propounded by, well, Lenin and Trotsky, and used by Leninist parties over and over and over, as yet another episode precursor to evaluating and resolving where to look for viable and worthy theory, strategy, tactics, and aims for current movements that seek to win a fundamentally better future. The label WITBU in this episode's title, refers to the book the content was excerpted from, What Is To Be Undone? This episode and those to follow in this "WITBU sequence" seek to discover whether what we need to undo is past deviations from Marxism Leninism, as some claim, or redoubled advocacy for for Marxism Leninism as some urge. Support the show

  5. Jun 28

    Ep 395 Ideology: What Is It? Why Have It?

    Episode 395 of RevolutionZ continues our What Is To Be Undone sequence of excerpts to this time discuss ideology in general, not yet specific ones. Ideology decides what we pay attention to and what we miss. It tells us what we should call realistic and what we should instead consider impossible. It guides us concerning what and how to win. And that means that whether consciously or not ideology steers every plan we make. I (Michael Albert) step back from our frequent immediate concrete context to ask an abstract but nonetheless important question: what is ideology, what is it for, and when does it start producing the very failures it claims to prevent?  To get started, I borrow Thomas Kuhn’s famous idea of paradigms in science and their long stretches of “normal” puzzle-solving inside a shared framework, followed by times of crisis when anomalies pile up and the framework can’t handle them. Then I apply that model to revolutionary politics, where paradigm becomes revolutionary ideology which is theory, strategy, and practice working together to understand society to change it. The shift from natural science to social change matters because the end goal of the latter is not just knowledge but transformation, so the loop between understanding and action has to be always self-correcting instead of sometimes self-protecting.  The episode discusses how theory is built through abstraction, why narrow theories can look complete due to hiding what they leave out, and how that type blindness can distort left organizing just as easily as it distorts capitalist “common sense.” We also walk through how strategy should be judged, how strategy, tactics, and practice should inform each other, and why movements need built-in ways to learn from reality rather than defend a fixed line. We then close with a sharp set of questions for our current moment and a pointed song lyric that skewers vanguard certainty and sectarian habits.  If you care about revolutionary strategy, political ideology, and building effective movements, I hope you will listen through to the end and let me know your reaction. Next week we will present Classical Marxism in what I hope is a fair and even an inspiring manner.  Support the show

  6. Jun 20

    Ep 394 The New Left Evaluated From Within Part 2

    Episode 394 of RevolutionZ continues the evaluation of the New Left from within begun last episode. This time the focus is the Anti war movement, Weatherman, the Yippees, the Black movement, and the womens movement. The fastest way to break a movement is to let “being technically right” replace getting stronger. Starting with the Vietnam War antiwar movement we ask a painful question: how did a cause with massive public support still end up with thin commitment, divisive splits, and a core that felt unreachable? We talk about the double-bind that shows up in so many protest movements that make opposition easy enough to attract crowds, but make real participation depend on an expanding list of correct positions. That “credentials” culture can turn organizing into a status system that leaves most people peripheral between demonstrations and sets everyone up for demoralization when the standard becomes “did we win now?” We also dig into why the "raise domestic-costs" strategy made sense, and how drama, manipulation, and weak political education kept it from building durable power. From there, we move through Weatherman and the lure of extremist identity, to the Yippies’ early creativity and later hardening, the Black Panthers’ extraordinary early contributions and how authoritarianism and macho militarism hurt their further development, and the women’s movement’s historic breakthroughs alongside the reappearance of hierarchy under pressure. The through-line is practical: if we want lasting effective organizations, we need empathy, realistic metrics of progress, a culture of participation, and especially a shared ideology that helps people deal with their baggage and current conditions and that propels learning instead of burning out. Support the show

  7. Jun 15

    Ep 393 - WITBU: The New Left Evaluated From Within, Part One

    Episode 393 of RevolutionZ is Part One of a two part critical discussion of the Sixties New Left. It doesn't remember in order to praise what was done. It remembers to find flaws to correct. The content arrives like a time capsule a young me sent from 1974.  The sixties didn’t just “happen” and then fade into nostalgia. The story of the New Left gets fought over because the stakes are still here: who gets credit, who gets blamed, and what lessons today’s movements are allowed to learn. So this episode takes a hard look at a piece of history that’s often flattened into either a liberal fairytale or a cynical cautionary tale, and argues that both those versions mislead. A useful look, instead, ought to present past history to better create future history. To do that,  this episode presents and responds to an excerpt from the 1974 book What Is To Be Undone, which was proposed from inside the aftermath of the 1960s New Left. What did the New Left actually accomplish? The excerpt says it helped shatter U.S. political complacency, it spread concepts for understanding imperialism, racism, sexism, hierarchy, alienation, and exploitation, and it demonstrated that even an inexperienced movement can disrupt the establishment. But then the episode addresses a harder question: if so much was achieved, why did so much also fall apart?  From consciousness raising and participatory decision-making to the student movement’s arc from Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement into escalation and fragmentation, this episode discusses how urgency slid into macho posturing, how sectarian infighting turned politics into spectacle, and how weak strategic thinking produced action without durable organization. Along with so much good came debilitating bad. The core takeaway is simple but demanding: honest self-critique is how a movement builds better theory, better vision, better strategy, and real staying power.  Okay, but what then? Did and do people now just need to do things that we did then better and longer? Or did we then and do we now need different goals, strategy, methods, and even feelings? And if we do need different practice, does that mean we need to re-elevate classical ideologies as some now claim, or that we need to leave them further behind to find really new ideology?  That last question guides not only this episode but a new sequence of episodes rooted in reactions to old ways and thoughts, but also driven by the need to do better today and tomorrow. Support the show

  8. Jun 7

    Ep 392 My Back Pages: What Is To Be Undone

    Episode 392 of RevolutionZ  uncovers and visits a half-century-old file on my computer to address a surprisingly urgent question: are we building new revolutionary ideas, or just renting space in inherited ones. I recently rediscovered the text of my 1974 book What Is To Be Undone? written when the arguments between Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, anarchism, and other currents were not academic history but living fuel for organizing. Reading my own early investigations as the Sixties slipped into the Seventies feels like opening a time capsule and realizing the contents still impact what people believe is possible. On the same day, a friend pointed me toward Gabriel Rockhill’s Who Paid The Piper Of Western Marxism? and the storms around his claim that contemporary revolutionary theory drifted into a “respectable” left alignment with capitalism and imperialism. I share a long excerpt from Rockhill laying out his case: a purge of dialectical and historical materialism, class analysis pushed aside by culturalism, and a call to rebuild a disciplined, organized left that can actually win. We agree on the need to rejuvenate anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist struggle, but we very seriously diverge on whether the path forward is a return to classical Marxism-Leninism and democratic centralism or a break from their limits.  From there, I grapple with a personal and political test: was my younger and then on-going self part of the problem Rockhill describes, or was I trying to learn from past failures to strengthen future movements. Along the way I revisit blurbs from Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Herb Gintis, reflect on the dangers of sectarian dismissal, and end with Bob Dylan’s “My Back Pages” as a reminder that clarity sometimes comes from letting go of certainty.  This episode begins another sequence of episodes whose number of entries depends on what seems the case. Me then and now: a deluded, deceived, sell out CIA symp rejector of Marxism Leninism, or me then and now a sincere whipper snapper  trying to overcome past ideological problems on the way to a better society?  Is our ideological problem anti anti imperialism, as Rockhill asserts, or is it that  in going forward from the Sixties we actually retained too much from dead men's minds? This episode is a scene setting opening shot on the way to aggressively and hopefully definitively determining which way we need to orient our thinking Back to classical Marxism Leninism, or forward to a participatory self managing future. Support the show

See All (405)

Trailer

4.8
out of 5
40 Ratings

About

RevolutionZ: Life After Capitalism highlights social vision and strategy. You can join our community and help us grow and diversify via our Patreon Site Page

Information

  • Creator
    Michael Albert
  • Years Active
    2019 - 2026
  • Episodes
    405
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © 2026 RevolutionZ
  • Show Website
    RevolutionZ

You Might Also Like