What happens to the working class after they take control? History says they don't stay the working class. They become the new rich or the new military leaders.

First of all class in the Marxist sense refers to your relation to the means of production. Getting a higher paying jobs doesn't change your class.

And sure some do become military leaders, because they literally lead a revolution. They proved they were capable military leaders, why wouldn't they stay a military leader?

And no, they don't become the new rich. You can look up how much people in government positions in communist governments were paid. They didn't all become overnight billionaires. And working for the government is a job.

Their revolutions mean nothing because they just use violence as a response to violence rather than taking a holistic proactive approach to the advancement of mankind.

Communism has been successful everywhere they've been tried. They all improved the material conditions of their people, improved literacy, and health outcomes. There's a reason polls show most people who experienced communism preferred it to capitalism.

What happens after the working class takes control, is that the working class begins to transform society into its own direction. Administration is a job, not a class, nor is class a level of wealth. Classes are relations to ownership of the means of production. Here's a snapshot from the early USSR, taken from This Soviet World:

A leading Russian Communist said to me a year ago “The mind of our people is changing so fast under the conditions of socialism that it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to speak to the rest of the world. We find it harder to understand them, and they us.”

We who go back and forth between the Soviet world and the world of capitalism—not only in space from New York to Moscow but also in spirit from intimate life with Soviet people to intimate life in America—feel keenly this difficulty. Important words like freedom, democracy, dictatorship have different meanings on different sides of the border. The Soviet world is sharply conscious of planning its future; the capitalist world is always arriving where it hadn’t intended. And Soviet officials are not always helpful in making their acts intelligible; they often assume that only deliberate malice can doubt them and that the only needed explanation is the appropriate citation from Marx.

To explain the swiftly growing Soviet world to that other world out of which it was born is a task that becomes steadily more complex. For if its outer achievements are every year more able to speak for themselves, its inner life more and diverges from that of capitalism in a hundred subtle ways.

In the Berlin station a giant sign greets me with three-foot letters: “Think of your hair!” My mind flashes back to the world I have left. What are Soviet people thinking of? The Stakhanov drive, the Moscow city plan, Marie and her sugar beets, the conquest of the north. And hair and perfume, O yes, of course. Everyone knows of the rising standard of living and firmly believes in a cultural life—more bath-tubs, radios, books and dramatic clubs and doubtless more hair. But their individuality is expressed not by possessions and polish but by the various ways in which men create. Dynamic is the word; their civilization is dynamic.

The regimentation of life by property is my next shock in the capitalist world. The obscene phrases “damages for alienation of affections” or “a $50,000 man” or the remark: “I do it only for the money that is in it”—what degradation they imply of human life and work! I see able engineers spending creative power on little models in a government relief job just to keep alive. I see a journal of high standard, the life-work of an able editor submerged by a new owner’s wish for quick profit. Lives are conditioned in the Soviet world also, by trends and sages of organization, but not by the profits of a boss.

The difference appears in the use of pronouns. People under capitalism are contrasting “I” and “they.” “Too bad it couldn’t have been on my land,” a man remarks of a California oil-strike. Soviet folk would be hailing “our new oil-wells”; to them the idea of a private oil-well is already as quaint as a private postal system. I note a remark about American unemployment: “If it gets any worse, they’ll have to do something.” Who is this ultimate, uncontrollable “they”? The term betrays the class society of which the speakers are unconscious; they are waiting for some boss to act. To hear a debate: “Is America going fascist?” and think how much less passively Soviet folk would word it. “Shall we go fascist? No. Then exactly how shall we prevent it?” Soviet folk say “we” of one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Uzbek cotton-pickers, toiling under the sun of Central Asia, say: “We are conquering the Arctic; we rescued the Chelyuskinites.” Ukrainian farmers who never went up in an airplane talk of “our stratosphere records” and “the loss of our Maxim Gorky airplane” as they take up collections to build ten new ones. But even Mrs. Roosevelt asks me: “Are Russian peasants getting more reconciled to accepting direction?” I feel the hopelessness of language as I answer: “No, they are learning better to organize and direct themselves.”

Americans often ask me whether Russians are not naturally more altruistic than Americans, more fit for communism, they imply. No, it is something quite different. Russians at the time of Revolution were more medieval than Americans, which means “naturally” more petty, unreliable, inefficient, given to bargaining and cheating. Traits of the Asiatic market-place were widespread and occasionally still annoy the visitor. But these traits are disappearing under the fact of joint ownership, which brings identity of individual with community good.

Joint possession of the country’s resources and productive mechanism is the economic reality which unifies Soviet life and makes it dynamic. It is this that washes out the antagonism between personal and public good, that makes men say “we.” It is this that makes men conscious planners of the future; for owners plan but non-owners can only fight or drift. The chief quality of Soviet civilization is the sense that the world is “ours,” to seize, understand and make over.

This Soviet world is my theme; I give scant space to those fast disintegrating forces that fought it. I tell not the “whole truth,” for truth is never “whole”; there are always at least two truths in conflict: the truth that is dying and the truth that is coming into existence. American Tories who intrigued for King George had their truth also, but it remains only as piquant sauce to romance; the truth of the Continental armies remained to build the modern republic. They themselves recalled the frozen feet of Valley Forge less as suffering than as heroism; their raids on hungry farms passed into memory not as banditry but as necessity and daring. History’s greatest gift to victors is that not only they, but their truth survives.

Yet I do no injustice to those many lives which in greater or less degree were wrenched or broken by the coming of the new Soviet order. Even for them the new years obliterate the past. They also change to seek their new future in the new system; Lives broken in terms of property are being remade in terms of work. Saboteurs reform and win posts of honor; kulaks come back from exile to factories and farms; children have an equal start now regardless of fathers. For this war differs from other battles in that all men, even the conquered foes, are absorbed into the ranks of the conquerors—joint heirs to all the fruits of victory.

Anna Louise Strong was a Statesian radical and journalist that traveled back and forth between the USSR and the US, and later the PRC as well.

Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin, but Stalin himself did not add much of anything to Marx, Engels, or Lenin, aside form sharpening Lenin's analysis of the national question, which is particularly important for indigenous struggles (and also partially why a group of indigenous American tribes named Stalin an honorary chief in 1942, presenting him with a headdress).

Marxism-Leninism is not "pro-dictatorship." This is a simplistic framing of unitary forms of democracy that focus on policy changes as the primary issue of political engagement, rather than party changes. States like Cuba, that are guided by Marxism-Leninism, have complex systems of delegate-based democracy.

I don't bring anyone to brigade threads, lmao. Believe it or not, I have nowhere near the influence you claim I do.

Nah, I directly state that organizing is more important than voting, and treating them like it's the opposite is dangerous. I don't argue against voting, I argue for organizing, and stress it as more important than voting.

No? I study theory and history, it's pointless to only study one aspect. I'm 100% genuine, and making a dozen comments complaining about me in a row without actually adding anything is a bit ridiculous.

So you don't have any actual examples, got it.

Maybe don't spend time implying I should be assassinated then?

Can you give some examples?

I don't do that, though. Seems people would rather discredit me than directly respond.