How Communist Revolutions are created

It is evident from the current top-level comments that more education is needed.
- To be fair, these kinds of posts normally don't attract people agreeing with the post to write about why they agree, but people disagreeing and then people countering. This is a very repeatable experience.

The only communist revolution I see where most of this elements were undoubtedly true is the Spanish one. Unfortunately, it was betrayed by the stalinists.
- Most to all of these elements were in place in every major Communist revolution, from Russia to China to Cuba to Korea to Vietnam to Laos. The Spanish Anarchists only recieved aid from the USSR, when sectarian fighting broke out among the Spanish Revolutionaries, the Soviets backed the Marxist sections, it wasn't a betrayal.
  
  The class conscientiousness where not that high in Russia. And the vanguard party (the bolchevik) were severely weakened before the revolution. I don't for others countries, but if "helping" consist in "stealing all the gold reserves, force self organized milicia to obey to officer coming from nowhere, and even attacking and killing selforganized workers", yeah they definitely help.
  For information, their where not once mass organization on those vanguard and hierarchical line before the intervention of the USSR. Using materialism dialectic would have make USSR to back the revolutionary force, not trying to lead them at all costs.

Again, the support of the women in the russian revolution is simply ignored to simp for some sacred vanguard.
- Women such as Alexandra Kollontai played key roles in the Bolshevik Party, ie the Vanguard.
- It's in all the 5 of the ingredients, unless you think there were no women anywhere there.

This is severely moronic.
- In what way?

Communist revolutions were always done by uneducated peasants
- And after their revolutions their literacy rate rose pretty well.
  Those peasants may have been uneducted, but they were smart.
- The peasantry historically plays a significant role, but the Proletariat typically is the most organized, and the Vanguard party is usually quite educated and linked to the masses. The Vanguard the spearhead, the people the mass behind it, only supporting the Vanguard as long as they trust and remain integrated and connected to it.
  The fact that the peasantry plays a major part in its own liberation is in no way a bad thing.
- So?

Vanguardist?
Cringe
- All revolutions will have an advanced, middle, and backwards selection of the population. Whether this advanced section is formalized into a party and thus democratized and organized, or left to form naturally, opaquely, and without accountability, the advanced segment will exist regardless. We can see throughout history that it is far more effective to formalize this segment to make it accountable than to let power structures form based on friendships and cliques.
  I recommend reading The Tyranny of Structurelessness. The Vanguard model has consistently been proven to be the most effective means to wage revolution.
- Unlike all the communist revolutions which succeeded without vanguard party? The grand total of zero of those suggest that not having vanguard party is way worse than just cringe.
  
  This is like defending early flying machines with flapping wings.
  
  Just because something is initially successful doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, and I'm saying that as a proponent of a vanguard party or similar form of centralized organization, given how it's a necessity post-revolution.
  USSR's revolution was successful thanks to the Bolshevik Party, but after a while it was clear that the party had replaced the proletariat as the ruling class and instead had started to direct/rule over the workers (in order words, the party became Substitutionist). Later on, the party had fully succumbed to revisionism and eventual collapse. Similar thing happened to China, and even though the party didn't disappear, it's without a question a bourgeoisie party and you'd need insane amount of misinterpretation of Marxist theory to claim otherwise.
  For other revolutions like in Cuba or Vietnam, even though the same thing applies right from the get-go (given how Stalin is a revisionist), one could argue that they weren't Marxist revolutions, but rather part of anti-colonial wave of the 20th century that's more in the ballpark of "bourgeois-nationalist revolution". Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh was particularly explicit about this.
  And to go back to the first point I made, a fun example that would push this kind of logic would be what's happening to US right now - Trump has successfully gone into power twice now, it doesn't automatically mean that his success means that he and his policies are correct.