The piece from Counterpunch today shows us why we need to not only study revolution, and its formats, e.g. communism, but the interior reflection going on in the covert world of the American system. Clearly a revolutionary movement has to confront those curious experts in ‘regime change’, the government itself. That this is by a foregone conclusion a rightist or corrupted ‘liberal’ faction dominated by elite capital should warn revolutionaries that the right is going to create a fake revolution of communism, when the crisis comes, and work to ensure background control. Apart from anything else there is the ‘flip’ option we have discussed here several times: the stage at which the elite sees the handwriting on the wall and moves to create postcapitalism itself. There are, by the way a lot of ways to do that and the great exemplar is the victory of the Bolshevik ‘bourgeoisie’ whose state capitalism was simply another variant of the kind of thing we are pointing to. The question has to be a clear and consistent hybrid democracy/communism that is fair, populist in potential, with a definable and policed replacement for the transitional ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ (NOT!) and a version of rights logic, global government logic, locality logic (i.e. the federation of ….? ‘soviet republics’…), etc…We can see how reactionaries feed off the failure of bolshevism: the Egyptian dictatorship and its type (Pinochet) spring in part from a kind of contempt: if the bolsheviks create a dictatorship from the left that is really the state controlled with a bolshevik bourgeoisie, we can do the same with mere ‘regime change’…. Tell me the difference? The possibilities here are horrific with a large number of the outcomes being a complete swindle of the hopes of communist, i.e. postcapitalist, transition.