@0x4d6165@wanderingwires.net i think that fragmentation is proof of the dogmatic, hyper authoritarian, nature of Leninism, and it's real class interests. It's class character is not the proletariat, but the intelligentsia ( ML's do not even admit the independent existence of such a class, a management or coordinator class, or literati etc. a class distinct from the working and ruling classes that has existed in every society civilization with a particular relation to the means of production ) And then you look at the history of Leninist revolutions and they always take place where there are a lot of temporarily embarrassed bureaucrats who have no hope of a career in the system they suffer under, so they switch their allegiance, which traditionally has been servants of the rulers to that of the proletariat... notice how they conceive the proletarian class dictatorship as basically a mirror reflection of the capitalist or monarchical one, one that must be desperately in need of loyal managers, only this time the proletariat needs managers to rule over itself!

not to say there was not bottom up working class initiative that made these revolutions happen, of course workers and peasants don't wait around for intellectuals to get their shit together, as was shown time and again like in 1917, but that the intelligentsia always set themselves the tasks of assuming the leadership of every such movement, making themselves the representatives of the proletariat, against the proletariat if necessary.

May also be why Leninism has historically failed in the core capitalist countries that are highly bureaucratic, because becoming a manager, an engineer, administrator or expert consultant is one of the only means of real class mobility. Might change tho, because these days with the war against the "Professional Managerial Class" there's a lot of disaffected managers and engineers turning to radical politics.