There Will Be Blood: Revolutionary Communists in the U.S. Seek the Violent Overthrow of the Existing Order
June 2026
A violent revolutionary communist organization, as exemplified by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (Revcom), rejects the legitimacy of the United States’ constitutional order outright. It does not seek reform; it seeks rupture. Its aim is not persuasion or gradual change but the dismantling of existing institutions and their replacement through revolutionary upheaval. In this respect, Revcom follows the model of 20th‑century communist movements that seized power through force—only to follow with mass repression, purges, and suffering on a staggering scale.
As documented by InfluenceWatch, Revcom is a Maoist‑derived organization that has, since the 1970s, called for a comprehensive socialist revolution in the United States. It has expressed admiration for regimes associated with coercion and centralized control, and it engages in confrontational activism intended to delegitimize American institutions. Its founder, Bob Avakian, has a long record of militant protest activity, including incidents resulting in felony charges—illustrating a consistent preference for disruption over democratic participation.
There is no ambiguity here: this is a politics of open destruction, unconstrained by consequences and unmoored from constitutional limits.
By contrast, Fabian incrementalist movements claim to operate within the procedural framework of the existing social order. They participate in elections, push legislation, and work through institutions rather than openly against them.
But stopping the analysis there would be remiss.
Reformist Socialism: Different Tactics, Similar Ends
Organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) differ from Revcom in method but not necessarily in ultimate trajectory. The DSA campaigns, legislates, and organizes within the system; CPUSA, though rooted in revolutionary Marxism, has long functioned as a lawful and marginal political actor. Neither openly pursues insurrection.
Yet the absence of overt revolutionary tactics does not imply harmless outcomes. Incrementalist movements may accept existing institutions in the short term, but they often advance policies and frameworks that would, step by step, dismantle the very economic and political foundations that sustain those institutions.
The difference, in many cases, is one of tempo—not direction.
The United States and similar societies have produced unprecedented levels of prosperity, individual liberty, and political accountability. These systems rest on a fragile but effective architecture: markets that generate wealth, constitutional limits that restrain power, and cultural norms that sustain civil society. Incrementalist socialist movements routinely advocate expansions of centralized authority, constraints on market mechanisms, and redefinitions of institutional norms that would steadily erode that foundation.
Margaret Thatcher captured this critique with characteristic clarity: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” The warning is not merely fiscal. It reflects a broader reality: systems that undermine production, incentive, and individual initiative ultimately self-destruct.
Winston Churchill framed the historical record this way: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Behind the rhetoric lies a hard truth borne out repeatedly in practice: wherever socialist systems have been fully implemented, they have produced serfdom and equality in deprivation—often enforced by the state. A popular Russian proverb states that wherever one sees the “hammer and sickle,” one finds death and famine.
The Revolutionary Edge
Revcom strips away the gradualism—and the euphemisms. It does not disguise its aims behind procedural language. It rejects incremental reform as illegitimate and criticizes groups like DSA and CPUSA for participating in what it regards as a fundamentally corrupt system. Its position is explicit: the overthrow of American capitalism and constitutional governance, including through force.
In that sense, Revcom is less an outlier than an endpoint—a movement that states openly what others pursue more slowly and indirectly.
The Stakes
The line between reform and revolution still matters. A system that permits peaceful change retains the ability to correct itself; a system overturned by force loses that capacity entirely.
But legality is not the same as legitimacy, and participation is not the same as preservation. Movements can operate within a system even as they advance ideas that, if realized, would fundamentally dismantle the conditions that allow that system to function.
A Clearer Line
The real divide is not simply between those who work inside the existing order and those who seek to overthrow it. It is between those who aim to preserve and strengthen a system that has delivered unprecedented human flourishing, and those who—whether gradually or violently—seek to replace its core principles.
Revolution makes that ambition unmistakable. Incrementalism makes it politically palatable.
But the destination matters more than the tempo. A long march through institutions can be as consequential as their immediate destruction. And if history demonstrates anything, it is that the outcomes of such transformations are not theoretical—they are written in famine, repression, and human cost on a massive scale.
The response cannot be complacency. It demands clarity about both ends and means—and a willingness to confront, without euphemism, the historical record and the real‑world consequences of these ideas. It also requires rejecting the normalization of anti‑American narratives in the education of the young and reaffirming the principles that sustain a free society. Reagan’s warning remains as relevant as ever: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
- What does it mean to be a violent revolutionary communist party, as opposed to a Fabian incrementalist movement operating within the system?
June 2026
A violent revolutionary communist organization, as exemplified by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (Revcom), rejects the legitimacy of the United States’ constitutional order outright. It does not seek reform; it seeks rupture. Its aim is not persuasion or gradual change but the dismantling of existing institutions and their replacement through revolutionary upheaval. In this respect, Revcom follows the model of 20th‑century communist movements that seized power through force—only to follow with mass repression, purges, and suffering on a staggering scale.
As documented by InfluenceWatch, Revcom is a Maoist‑derived organization that has, since the 1970s, called for a comprehensive socialist revolution in the United States. It has expressed admiration for regimes associated with coercion and centralized control, and it engages in confrontational activism intended to delegitimize American institutions. Its founder, Bob Avakian, has a long record of militant protest activity, including incidents resulting in felony charges—illustrating a consistent preference for disruption over democratic participation.
There is no ambiguity here: this is a politics of open destruction, unconstrained by consequences and unmoored from constitutional limits.
By contrast, Fabian incrementalist movements claim to operate within the procedural framework of the existing social order. They participate in elections, push legislation, and work through institutions rather than openly against them.
But stopping the analysis there would be remiss.
Reformist Socialism: Different Tactics, Similar Ends
Organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) differ from Revcom in method but not necessarily in ultimate trajectory. The DSA campaigns, legislates, and organizes within the system; CPUSA, though rooted in revolutionary Marxism, has long functioned as a lawful and marginal political actor. Neither openly pursues insurrection.
Yet the absence of overt revolutionary tactics does not imply harmless outcomes. Incrementalist movements may accept existing institutions in the short term, but they often advance policies and frameworks that would, step by step, dismantle the very economic and political foundations that sustain those institutions.
The difference, in many cases, is one of tempo—not direction.
The United States and similar societies have produced unprecedented levels of prosperity, individual liberty, and political accountability. These systems rest on a fragile but effective architecture: markets that generate wealth, constitutional limits that restrain power, and cultural norms that sustain civil society. Incrementalist socialist movements routinely advocate expansions of centralized authority, constraints on market mechanisms, and redefinitions of institutional norms that would steadily erode that foundation.
Margaret Thatcher captured this critique with characteristic clarity: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” The warning is not merely fiscal. It reflects a broader reality: systems that undermine production, incentive, and individual initiative ultimately self-destruct.
Winston Churchill framed the historical record this way: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Behind the rhetoric lies a hard truth borne out repeatedly in practice: wherever socialist systems have been fully implemented, they have produced serfdom and equality in deprivation—often enforced by the state. A popular Russian proverb states that wherever one sees the “hammer and sickle,” one finds death and famine.
The Revolutionary Edge
Revcom strips away the gradualism—and the euphemisms. It does not disguise its aims behind procedural language. It rejects incremental reform as illegitimate and criticizes groups like DSA and CPUSA for participating in what it regards as a fundamentally corrupt system. Its position is explicit: the overthrow of American capitalism and constitutional governance, including through force.
In that sense, Revcom is less an outlier than an endpoint—a movement that states openly what others pursue more slowly and indirectly.
The Stakes
The line between reform and revolution still matters. A system that permits peaceful change retains the ability to correct itself; a system overturned by force loses that capacity entirely.
But legality is not the same as legitimacy, and participation is not the same as preservation. Movements can operate within a system even as they advance ideas that, if realized, would fundamentally dismantle the conditions that allow that system to function.
A Clearer Line
The real divide is not simply between those who work inside the existing order and those who seek to overthrow it. It is between those who aim to preserve and strengthen a system that has delivered unprecedented human flourishing, and those who—whether gradually or violently—seek to replace its core principles.
Revolution makes that ambition unmistakable. Incrementalism makes it politically palatable.
But the destination matters more than the tempo. A long march through institutions can be as consequential as their immediate destruction. And if history demonstrates anything, it is that the outcomes of such transformations are not theoretical—they are written in famine, repression, and human cost on a massive scale.
The response cannot be complacency. It demands clarity about both ends and means—and a willingness to confront, without euphemism, the historical record and the real‑world consequences of these ideas. It also requires rejecting the normalization of anti‑American narratives in the education of the young and reaffirming the principles that sustain a free society. Reagan’s warning remains as relevant as ever: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”