Anyone who attempts to solve the enigma of successful activism might consider carefully the history here, both in general and with respect to the model of WHEE (World History and the Eonic Effect) at history-and-evolution.com.
The reason efforts fall apart is clearly indicated in this model: most of the successful revolutions lie in the dynamical zone of the ‘eonic’ or ‘macro’ effect (ca. 1500 to 1800+). That’s unnerving: we can see the dilemma in excruciating form in the boundary revolutions of 1848: there we see suddenly a set of failed revolutions. Careful study of the macro effect gives a hint here, about something we need to be aware of. Revolutions in the wake of the early modern become uncertain, or scrambled. The Russian revolution up to a point solves the issues that confounded the 1848 era: the core of revolution was shifting from democratic/capitalist to anti-capitalist democratic/communism. The brains of all parties got scrambled here and we are at odds with a basic contradiction, and the failure to define communism as a democratic realization. But of course, it is not quite that because it requires a gamble with the ‘big state’ beyond the libertarian axioms that have degenerated into idiocy in our time. In the final analysis, the early communist thought, soon taken up by Marx/Engels, was pervaded by a basic obscurity and ceased to be intuitive. You can see this effect in the use of such terms as ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ which degenerated into a cover for dictatorship of the elite party of communists. Marxists denounce the american revolutionaries as bourgeois, but they never showed the chutzpah of the Bolsheviks. A parallel sign was the onset of ‘theories’, and bad theories at that. This is partly Marx’s fault in the way, with his and his generation’s brains scrambled by Hegel mixed with positivism, he produced a very obscure set of theories that are easy to refute, despite the obvious value in the abstract gist of what he was driving at. Why the need of theory? The american revolutionaries couldn’t tell a theory from a racoon, and thought in simple terms that thrived on the concrete. But after Marx theory turned the left into a series of muddled crackpots, with the dialectic as a final coup de grace.
However, the Leninists did succeed in creating a post early modern revolution, but its success shows its actual failure in practice. However, we can argue that this revolution was wrecked in its execution, while it was successful in its actual creation of a revolutionary possibility: that means that via self-criticism and movement self-criticism a future cadre could do better than the muddled Bolsheviks who seemed to have had the minds of robot automatons. It is tragic to be stuck with such morons at a world historical moment. So the issue is up in the air.
There is every possibility of doing better in the priceless moment, probably destined to recur, of actual revolutionary success. The problem is that the early communists were really a faction of the bourgeoisie, and created their own despotism. There are many issues here, but we should consider that marxism is too flawed for a second chance. But even minor changes here could make a big difference. The successes of the early modern won’t repeat themselves (and they were often failures anyway), but there is no reason why a careful and structured set of strategies considered in detail can’t do the trick, and even do it better.
Such a revolution must increase human freedom, not create a totalitarian idol. It needs a clear plan for post-capitalist economy, a robust set of economic rights, a clear and detailed program for the expropriation of big Capital, and, of course, a transnational framework of states and their unity as a federation. The issues are multiply complex, but the basic format has long been in existence as the resolution of the contradictions of capitalist globalization. Time to stop getting yankee doodle tunes in the brain on the issues here: the great prophecy of the early modern is the communist succession to the era of capitalism.