RCP & Bob Avakian

[alpharowe3]

I was wondering what the opinions of Revolutionary Communist Party, USA and of Bob Avakian are here on this forum.

[Charles Xavier]

I think the question should be raised. what is the opinion of the Communist Movement in the United States.

While, I cannot find myself in agreement with Bob Avakian, what is the alternative, in my opinion the CPUSA shows a revisionist side. Which is where the RCP can fill a gap with revolutionary theory, albeit having an incorrect analysis.

And I am furthermore weirded out by the cultist love of Avakian.

In my opinion, the CPUSA needs to be saved by Marxist-Leninists and toss out the revisionists and that is no easy effort, but it is nessicary, rather than turning to groups which is just a little more correct on different positions.

The choice is given, Ultra-Leftism or Right-Opportunism. This needs to change.

[ZeroNowhere]

I was wondering what the opinions of Revolutionary Communist Party, USA and of Bob Avakian are here on this forum.
Hail Avakian, for he is our Lord.

[zimmerwald1915]

I was wondering what the opinions of Revolutionary Communist Party, USA and of Bob Avakian are here on this forum.
It involves several minutes of continuous, derisive, insulting laughter.

[RedScare]

I have no practical experience with them, all I've heard is that they worship Avakian.

[Lenin's Law]

Ridiculous personality cult, reformist tendencies ("Drive out the Bush regime" and not the two-party system, bourgeois political parties, etc),and perhaps most disturbingly increasingly ignores workers struggles in favor of liberal-moralism and guilt trips.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There are dozens of threads on Bob and the RCP here. Do a search.

[Wanted Man]

It's basically a doomsday cult. Some interesting (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/open-letter-on-expulsions-from-world-cant-wait/) stuff (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/mike-ely-my-last-day/), and this is just within the last week...

[chegitz guevara]

The RCP has long been a cult of Bob Avakian, but until Bob's "return from exile" it was more hero worship than full blown cult. Today, there is no pretense that the RCP isn't going down the road followed by the Democratic Workers Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Sparticist Leage, the Workers Leage/Socialist Equality Party, and others. It is hemoraging members like crazy, but because of the tight internal control, there's no possibility of an organized resistence, fight and split.

[Revy]

Noone actually knows where Bob Avakian is, he's kinda like Bigfoot or the Chupacabra. He hides himself away from the people. You have members like Carl Dix and Sunsara Taylor (especially her) that are more active. So I don't see how they hold Avakian up on this pedestal when he isn't leading!

In the Socialist Party USA, this would likely never happen. There are no guarantees, but our structure is not built for the emergence of a party dictatorship/personality cult. We have two Co-Chairs, one male, one female, elected at every convention. Of course, in these parties, there's never any chance for a woman or a person of color to assume to the leadership! Just look at all the personality cults.

[fredbergen]

Thank god there is a party like the SP-USA that allows an immigrant-bashing police state enabler to be its spokesman and presidential candidate! Hooray for "democracy"!

[RedSabine]

Bob Avakian is a little scary.... I don't think that Maoism has any place in the moder people's movement...

The RCP's insistence of Avakian's demi-god status is very upsetting... their demand for absolute centralism is also worrysome.

They suck, basically.

[Revy]

Thank god there is a party like the SP-USA that allows an immigrant-bashing police state enabler to be its spokesman and presidential candidate! Hooray for "democracy"!

Brian Moore opposes xenophobia and supports full and equal rights for all undocumented immigrants. He supports open borders as does the SPUSA.

What is with you, you obsessive mofo?:mad:

[redguard2009]

Bob Avakian is a little scary.... I don't think that Maoism has any place in the moder people's movement...

The RCP's insistence of Avakian's demi-god status is very upsetting... their demand for absolute centralism is also worrysome.

They suck, basically.

Please do not confuse Avakianism with Maoism. Also, you think political ideals thought up in 1917 are more in-line with our "modern age" than ideals thought up 30 years ago?

[zimmerwald1915]

Please do not confuse Avakianism with Maoism. Also, you think political ideals thought up in 1917 are more in-line with our "modern age" than ideals thought up 30 years ago?
Truth is timeless (assuming a relatively unchanged mode of production)

[RedSabine]

Please do not confuse Avakianism with Maoism. Also, you think political ideals thought up in 1917 are more in-line with our "modern age" than ideals thought up 30 years ago?

Comrade, I could agree with this, except that Maoism (as far as I understand it) is based on the peasantry, switching from feudalism to socialism (an impossibility), and basically historic onditions that are now more or less eliminated from the overall capitalist world. Also, its need of a military background and a vangaurd party stck in my craw. And the "Great Leap Forward" and "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" diddn't really work out... I don't know, to me it seems like the overall theory doesn't apply to the modern world at all, and the theory is flawed.

[chegitz guevara]

Thank god there is a party like the SP-USA that allows an immigrant-bashing police state enabler to be its spokesman and presidential candidate! Hooray for "democracy"!

Don't you have ambulances to go chase?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Bob Avakin isn't great, but he has a fairly accessible writing style. He's not bad for giving people some maoist marxism lite, but I've never read anything serious from him. As for the RCP, isn't it basically a book store and two guys with the internet?

[chegitz guevara]

Are you serious? He's one of the worst authors I've ever read. His prose is turgid. His understanding of Marxism, sub par. I have never understood the hold he has over others. Jack Barnes is another great mediocrity that I don't get.

[ZeroNowhere]

Are you serious? He's one of the worst authors I've ever read. His prose is turgid. His understanding of Marxism, sub par. I have never understood the hold he has over others.
It involves hypnosis, last I heard.

[redguard2009]

Comrade, I could agree with this, except that Maoism (as far as I understand it) is based on the peasantry, switching from feudalism to socialism (an impossibility), and basically historic onditions that are now more or less eliminated from the overall capitalist world. Also, its need of a military background and a vangaurd party stck in my craw. And the "Great Leap Forward" and "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" diddn't really work out... I don't know, to me it seems like the overall theory doesn't apply to the modern world at all, and the theory is flawed.

*Rolls up sleeves*


Maoism (as far as I understand it) is based on the peasantry, switching from feudalism to socialism (an impossibility),

Maoism is not "based" on peasantry. Mao's contribution to Marxism-Leninism included theorization on the role peasants play in revolutionary movements in pre-industrial societies, but that was not his only contribution nor his main one. Also, there is no "switch" from fuedalism to socialism involved; in the most simplistic form, MLM's "peasant revolution" involves an alliance of workers and peasants in pre-industrialized and industrializing nations and societies working together to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois (industrial) revolution in situations where national bourgeois elements are either unable or unwilling to do so due to submissiveness or domination by foreign capitalism (for instance in the case of Nepal, the majority of the Nepali economy is controlled by foreign capital interests, mainly from India and Britain, which has become a force preventing native Nepali economic growth).


and basically historic onditions that are now more or less eliminated from the overall capitalist world.

Untrue. The majority of the earth's people still live in pre-industrialized or semi-industrialized states. The majority of South America and Asia, and all of Africa -- territories which encompass 3/4 of the planet's population -- could be classified as pre-industrial with the majority of their populations living in conditions similar to fuedalistic peasantry and serfdom. This is one of the reasons why Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is so "popular" throughout the world; MLM movements, or movements bearing a strong similarity to the ideology of MLM, have existed in most if not all of these territories in one form or anther over the past 50 years.


Also, its need of a military background and a vangaurd party stck in my craw.

You mean the importance given to developing a physical way in which the revolutionary movement can defend itself and carry out revolutionary tasks which necessitate some form of violence or another?


And the "Great Leap Forward" and "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" diddn't really work out...

History lesson in 30 seconds: The "Great Leap Forward" was nothing more than an industrialization program launched in the early 50s. The GLF acheived many positive results, dramatically increasing the quality of life for most Chinese. In many areas, however, it was also a calamity. One of its most important results was the collectivization of agriculture and industry under joint council-government control, freeing millions of former peasants and serfs and redistributing land out of the hands of wealthy landowners and into the hands of the people.

The "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" was a necessary endeavour. After the GLF and the collectivization procedures there developed within the government and Communist party a movement of reactionary elements opposed to socialist development. In essence, the GPCR was a move by communist revolutionaries from both the masses and the party struggling against this resurgence of reactionary development. One of Mao's most important moves during this time was to urge the masses to rise up against the Communist Party and the reactionary government. The GPCR did fail; the revolutionaries were defeated, the movement's leaders arrested and imprisoned or executed (some remain in prison to this day) including Mao's closest advisors (and his wife). Mao was deposed, and the anti-socialist reforms which have made China the state capitalist nation it is today were enforced. In short, the GPCR was in response to a coup d'etat.


I don't know, to me it seems like the overall theory doesn't apply to the modern world at all, and the theory is flawed.

MLM is 2/3rd Marxism-Leninism, mind you. Although important contributions were made towards the development of revolutionary potential in pre-industrialized societies it does harbour "modern", "pertinent" contributions. Namely, the ideal that parliamentarism is not the only course of political action a developing revolutionary movement must conform to, the belief that violent insurrection is as important a propaganda and political tool as "peaceful" tactics, and a wholesale rejection of modern bourgeois imperialism and democracy.

As for the original topic (Avakian), I'm not quite sure what people "see" in him either. I find the writing style of the RCP to be somewhat annoying, Bob's inparticular, and nothing he has said is very groundbreaking or "revolutionary" (no pun intended). From everything I've seen, the hype about him seems completely artificial, and not based in actual popular support.

[BobKKKindle$]

And the "Great Leap Forward" and "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" diddn't really work out... Just to expand on what the previous poster argued, the death toll resulting from the GLF is not as large as many people have been led to believe, based on what they have read in books such as "Mao: The Unknown Story", and even in the case of those who did die it is unfair to hold Mao or the CCP solely responsible for every single death. The statistics which are commonly used to demonstrate that the GLF was a disaster based on an inherently flawed policy which was not appropriate for China's stage of development in the 1950s are deceptive because, in addition to including the people who died as a result of the famine, based on the increased nation-wide death rate during the famine period, they also include the people who were not born as a result of the lower birth rate. This is absurd, because people who were not born are obviously not in a position to die because they never existed in the first place, and this shows that the debates surrounding the death toll of the GLF are often driven not by academic considerations of factual accuracy, but by the need to undermine and discredit the revolutionary experiment in China. In fact, the earliest available government statistics concerning the death toll of the GLF were released after Deng Xiao-Ping had taken power in the middle of a prolonged ideological campaign against the radical achievements of the Mao era, to pave the way for the removal of the structures which had been set up and maintained by the CCP under Mao's guidance. Deng Xiao-Ping claimed that 15 million had died during the famine, but even this twisted figure has been increased by bourgeois "scholars" such as Jung Chang. A further factor which has led to the death rate being artificially inflated is the fact that during the famine period many peasants chose to migrate to other provinces where food was available in greater quantities, or to the urban areas within their own province where they would be able to gain work in industry and receive a higher wage, but they migrated without informing the local authorities, which made it seem as if a large section of the population in many areas had simply vanished, leading observers to conclude that they must have died of starvation, when in reality they were alive, and working to develop the industrial sector. After the famine period had ended, many of the migrants returned to their homes, resulting in what appeared to be a sudden increase in the population.

Moreover, we should also be aware that the GLF was initiated just before China suffered a major drought which reduced the size of the harvest despite the best efforts of the CCP to remedy the situation and prevent starvation, and throughout the revolutionary period China was subject to economic sanctions from the imperialist bloc which prevented the government from importing food supplies to compensate for domestic shortages. This shows that it is wrong to assume that the famine occurred solely due to mistakes committed by the CCP. In addition, even within the party itself, there was not uniformity of opinion with regard to how the policy should have been implemented, and Mao was always careful to warn his party comrades that the policy should be implemented gradually, and the peasantry should not be forced to group together in large communes, when their worldview made them more suited to small-scale cooperatives.

If you want to get some more information on these issues, then I recommend Mobo Gao's book entitled 'The Battle for China's Past" and this book is also the source for all the arguments I presented above. Before I read this book and other texts I accepted the bourgeois account of modern Chinese history, which is unfortunately shared by many Trotskyists, but now I have a very favorable outlook on the struggles and achivements which took place. You may also find this essay of interest: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

[Charles Xavier]

Please do not confuse Avakianism with Maoism. Also, you think political ideals thought up in 1917 are more in-line with our "modern age" than ideals thought up 30 years ago?

Care to explain how the modern age is fundamentally different than the age of Imperialism?

[BobKKKindle$]

Care to explain how the modern age is fundamentally different than the age of Imperialism?The contemporary world (if that's what you mean by the "modern age") is still based on the imperialist stage of capitalism - but that does not mean that no theoretical advances have been made since Lenin first outlined the origins and dynamics of imperialism in 1916. Mao made major contributions to the strategy of revolutionary struggle in the developing world by introducing the concept of a protracted people's war, as explained in 'On Protracted War (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_09.htm)' and further developed by Lin Biao in 'Long Live the Victory of People’s War! (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1965/09/peoples_war/index.htm)'. One of the main principles behind this concept is the need to implement limited social reforms in areas which are already under the control of the forces leading the liberation struggle before the conquest of power has been completed, to win the support of the working masses by showing that they will benefit from the overthrow of capitalism and have no interest in supporting the power of the gentry. This is exactly what the CCP did when they were fighting against the forces of Chiang Kai-Shek, who, despite receiving extensive help from the most powerful military giant in the entire world, against an army which was often armed with poor weapons without any external assistance whatsoever, still suffered a crushing military defeat. The victory of the CCP against Chiang Kai-Shek and the Japanese invader vindicates the validity of this strategy.

[Charles Xavier]

Listen I don't think that there hasn't been many contributions made to marxist theories over the years. Mariategui, Dimitrov, Stalin all come to mind post-Lenin. What I'm saying Is I hardly think you can cast aside Leninist theory because its old. Its not old, Marxism-Leninism is a science and with all sciences new discoveries always come to light.

[BobKKKindle$]

What I'm saying Is I hardly think you can cast aside Leninist theory because its old.No one has ever suggested that we should "cast aside" or in any way undermine Lenin's theoretical contributions, but we should still try to develop Lenin's ideas, and adapt them to suit local conditions and changes in the structure of global capitalism. This is exactly what both Mao and Trotsky did, by closely examining how imperialism impacts the relationships between classes both on an international scale and within developing countries, and ultimately the analysis that both of these theorists put forwards is based on Lenin's ideas, just as Lenin based his theory on Marx's analysis of how capitalism inevitably leads to the transformation of market competition into monopoly, and how a falling rate of profit drives firms to search for investment opportunities beyond the domestic market.


Mariategui, Dimitrov, Stalin all come to mind post-Lenin

What theoretical contributions did any of these individuals make?

[redguard2009]

Lenin. What I'm saying Is I hardly think you can cast aside Leninist theory because its old. Its not old, Marxism-Leninism is a science and with all sciences new discoveries always come to light.

Nobody here (to my knowledge) is preaching that we should cast aside Leninist theory. It is a science and like you said yourself, new discoveries always come to "light" -- when the airplane first started off it could barely coast a couple dozen meters before crashing to the ground. Today, aircraft can travel at thousands of kilometers per hour in the highest reaches of the atmosphere, powered by turbine jet engines capable of powering small towns. The basic theory of aerodynamics is still utilized, but has been progressively improved by further research and technological development -- just as the basic theory of Marxism and Leninism have been improved by further analysis and ideological development. Yet here you are, still coasting the airways on a wood-framed, fabric-covered biplane.

[Charles Xavier]

Nobody here (to my knowledge) is preaching that we should cast aside Leninist theory. It is a science and like you said yourself, new discoveries always come to "light" -- when the airplane first started off it could barely coast a couple dozen meters before crashing to the ground. Today, aircraft can travel at thousands of kilometers per hour in the highest reaches of the atmosphere, powered by turbine jet engines capable of powering small towns. The basic theory of aerodynamics is still utilized, but has been progressively improved by further research and technological development -- just as the basic theory of Marxism and Leninism have been improved by further analysis and ideological development. Yet here you are, still coasting the airways on a wood-framed, fabric-covered biplane.
Nice an analogy without answer any questions put forward and then personal attacks.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Are you serious? He's one of the worst authors I've ever read. His prose is turgid. His understanding of Marxism, sub par. I have never understood the hold he has over others. Jack Barnes is another great mediocrity that I don't get.
I didn't say he was great. I recommend Bullets. It's basically a compilation of his various sayings. He strikes me as a 60's bay area maoist, which he is, but he has some good turn a phrases there. As for the rest of the stuff, especially essays on the website, it's mostly unreadable I agree.

[redguard2009]

Nice an analogy without answer any questions put forward and then personal attacks.

There was no personal attack meant, it was simply an analogy. And yes, there was an answer; the fact that, while base Marxism-Leninism contains important theoretical infastructure, there has since been enormous development both in the field of revolutionary theory, ideology, tactics and strategy, but also a development of capitalism and class-relations which necessitated furthering Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism circa 1918 simply can not apply fully to the situation we face today, 90 years later. The dynamics of capitalism and class relations, of the global market economy and perhaps most importantly imperialism and propaganda, are all developments which Lenin did not and could not foresee. Lenin based his socialist development on the conditions prevailing in Europe and particularly Russia during that time period and depending solely on that development is akin to flying a cloth-covered wood-framed biplane in the jet age.

[chegitz guevara]

I didn't say he was great. I recommend Bullets. It's basically a compilation of his various sayings. He strikes me as a 60's bay area maoist, which he is, but he has some good turn a phrases there. As for the rest of the stuff, especially essays on the website, it's mostly unreadable I agree.

I've got two of his books, A Harvest of Dragons, and, Mao's Immortal Contributions. Honestly, the former seemed to me to be better than the latter, but I've never finished reading either. MIC, however, I was going to use in a class on what's wrong with the "main stream" interpretation of Lenin, it was so bad.

[Charles Xavier]

There was no personal attack meant, it was simply an analogy. And yes, there was an answer; the fact that, while base Marxism-Leninism contains important theoretical infastructure, there has since been enormous development both in the field of revolutionary theory, ideology, tactics and strategy, but also a development of capitalism and class-relations which necessitated furthering Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism circa 1918 simply can not apply fully to the situation we face today, 90 years later. The dynamics of capitalism and class relations, of the global market economy and perhaps most importantly imperialism and propaganda, are all developments which Lenin did not and could not foresee. Lenin based his socialist development on the conditions prevailing in Europe and particularly Russia during that time period and depending solely on that development is akin to flying a cloth-covered wood-framed biplane in the jet age.


What is different that makes Lenin outdated? What has changed economically or politically to make this era completely different?

[chegitz guevara]

What is different that makes Lenin outdated? What has changed economically or politically to make this era completely different?

One of the most important differences is that we do not live in an underdeveloped capitalist state under a ruthless, repressive dictatorship.

[Charles Xavier]

One of the most important differences is that we do not live in an underdeveloped capitalist state under a ruthless, repressive dictatorship.
Sure but this existed in Lenin's time too. He lived a lot time in Switzerland to boot.

[KC]

One of the most important differences is that we do not live in an underdeveloped capitalist state under a ruthless, repressive dictatorship.

These are forms of government, not fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

[redguard2009]

These are forms of government, not fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

Governmental management and authority is a fundamental characteristic of bourgeois capitalism. "Democracy for the rich", et al.

The most fundamental difference concerning purely economic matters is the intensity of growth witnessed by global market capitalism, global productive forces and monetary exchanges. Commodities are able to be produced far more efficiently and in larger numbers, and shipped to consumers across the globe in fractions of the time. The capitalist has extended his reach and his authority a thousand times over.

The development of imperialist "military industrial complex", forms of symbiotic relationship between corporations (specifically but not exclusively weapons and military hardware manufacturers) and bourgeois national governments is of a type unseen before. Compared to 1917, the militaries of all imperialist countries are on a much higher state of alert and readiness; in 1917 it took months to mobilize even small military forces to deal with internal or external threats and situations -- today, it takes days at most.

In terms of information technology, the development of telephones, networked and electronic communications have greatly improved capitalists' ability to manipulate market forces, maximize productivity, and generate enormous amounts of profit via shuffling sums of money around. And while in 1917 governments had only two methods of communication -- by telegram or by land-carried messages -- governments today are able to send information across the planet in fractions of a second. Lenin did not have to deal with government security agencies listening in on his conversations or reading his mail (without irrepairably harming the package); today, this post I'm writing will probably have been ready by half a dozen government agencies of one sort of another by the time you yourself are done reading it.

Militarily, in 1917 scarcely any existing armed forces had the destructive capability to flatten a small town. Today, imperialist countries are capable of flattening entire continents in short order, and the US and Russia are probably capable of exterminating all life on the planet several times over. Of, if a more careful approach is needed, they are able to send 1,000lb warheads through your front window. Advances in aircraft, trains, ships and land transportation make deploying security forces much quicker and more effectively than in 1917, where militaries relied on trains and horse-drawn carriages.

Lastly, politically, bourgeois press agencies are able to print billions of copies of newspaper, pamphlets and other physical propaganda material and distribute it across the globe to the eyes of nearly every single living human being capable of reading. Television, film, and radio are completely dominated by corporations, that domination enforced by rule of law, and form the most important aspect of bourgeois propaganda. The internet, while technically available to any and all, is much more passive a propaganda tool, relying on individual members of the public to take the initiative to seek us out rather than in Lenin's time where a relatively segregated population could be approached and talked to for extended periods of time (which, today, would result in immediate police or national security reaction).

Things are much different today than they were 90 years ago.

[KC]

Governmental management and authority is a fundamental characteristic of bourgeois capitalism. "Democracy for the rich", et al.

You completely missed what I was saying. Capitalism doesn't require a specific form of government; it works under a bourgeois dictatorship as well as a bourgeois democracy. It's quite obvious to say that "Governmental management and authority is a fundamental characteristic of bourgeois capitalism." I don't even know why you'd say something so obvious.

[Charles Xavier]

Governmental management and authority is a fundamental characteristic of bourgeois capitalism. "Democracy for the rich", et al.

The most fundamental difference concerning purely economic matters is the intensity of growth witnessed by global market capitalism, global productive forces and monetary exchanges. Commodities are able to be produced far more efficiently and in larger numbers, and shipped to consumers across the globe in fractions of the time. The capitalist has extended his reach and his authority a thousand times over.

The development of imperialist "military industrial complex", forms of symbiotic relationship between corporations (specifically but not exclusively weapons and military hardware manufacturers) and bourgeois national governments is of a type unseen before. Compared to 1917, the militaries of all imperialist countries are on a much higher state of alert and readiness; in 1917 it took months to mobilize even small military forces to deal with internal or external threats and situations -- today, it takes days at most.

In terms of information technology, the development of telephones, networked and electronic communications have greatly improved capitalists' ability to manipulate market forces, maximize productivity, and generate enormous amounts of profit via shuffling sums of money around. And while in 1917 governments had only two methods of communication -- by telegram or by land-carried messages -- governments today are able to send information across the planet in fractions of a second. Lenin did not have to deal with government security agencies listening in on his conversations or reading his mail (without irrepairably harming the package); today, this post I'm writing will probably have been ready by half a dozen government agencies of one sort of another by the time you yourself are done reading it.

Militarily, in 1917 scarcely any existing armed forces had the destructive capability to flatten a small town. Today, imperialist countries are capable of flattening entire continents in short order, and the US and Russia are probably capable of exterminating all life on the planet several times over. Of, if a more careful approach is needed, they are able to send 1,000lb warheads through your front window. Advances in aircraft, trains, ships and land transportation make deploying security forces much quicker and more effectively than in 1917, where militaries relied on trains and horse-drawn carriages.

Lastly, politically, bourgeois press agencies are able to print billions of copies of newspaper, pamphlets and other physical propaganda material and distribute it across the globe to the eyes of nearly every single living human being capable of reading. Television, film, and radio are completely dominated by corporations, that domination enforced by rule of law, and form the most important aspect of bourgeois propaganda. The internet, while technically available to any and all, is much more passive a propaganda tool, relying on individual members of the public to take the initiative to seek us out rather than in Lenin's time where a relatively segregated population could be approached and talked to for extended periods of time (which, today, would result in immediate police or national security reaction).

Things are much different today than they were 90 years ago.

There was film and telephone which were in fact used in the revolution in 1917. and Lenin did have the security services read his mail. Obviously there has been huge improvements in communications.

But regardless of all this, which of the following makes Marxism-Leninism not true today?

[chegitz guevara]

These are forms of government, not fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

If you're talking about imperialism, yes. If you're talking about how to organize a revolution, it's not relevant. I'd also argue that imperialism has changed as well. Less and less are super profits used to slightly dampen exploitation in the first world. Now it is used to increase exploitation in the First world.