...and Russia's anti-Czarist Reds, revolutionary groups spend more time fighting each other than they do fighting against the States they oppose. Their goal is not only to seize power, but to not share it with anyone else afterwards. Even within each revolutionary organization, there is a constant struggle between leading personalities and the factions that coalesce around them.

Everyone knows how the Nazis fought pitched battles with leftists, but they also fought against other conservative gangs and private armies that were presumably on their side. Even within the Nazi movement, there was conflict, often with murderous resolution, as during the Night of the Long Knives when the SA was purged and its leaders liquidated. They had outlived their usefulness and were starting to get too independent. Lenin and Stalin also presided over similar cleansing movements in order to establish the official Marxist ideology.

In our own hemisphere, Fidel Castro did not (as he likes to brag) defeat the right-wing dictator Batista all by himself. He led only one of many loosely allied groups on both Left and Right that fought against the tyrant. After the Revolution, Fidel safely outmaneuvered, neutralized, and eventually, crushed all his opponents--including the Anarchists and the original Cuban Communist Party. Those achieving too much popularity or power within his own organization, such as Guevara, Cienfuegos and Morgan were either exiled, died in "accidents", or were executed. Its instructive to see how many of the men who fought alongside Castro in the Sierra Maestra met their fate in front of a Revolutionary firing squad with Che Guevara's signature on their death warrant. You can always tell the difference between Communist and Fascist dictatorships. The Reds do it legally and officially, all "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed so the blame is shared. With the Rightists you just disappear and are never heard from again, so there is no blame at all.

The fact that a Revolutionary movement has internal divisions, even those leading to violent conflict, is not necessarily evidence of its democratic and tolerant ideology. It only demonstrates its ruthlessness and internal instability. Today, the American Right has multiple fault lines: social vs economic, Religious vs Libertarian, Establishment vs Tea Party, Business vs Populist, Cultural vs Ideological, and even within each tectonic plate new fissures constantly develop (Trump vs Cruz). Its a patchwork of shifting alliances, treachery and sudden betrayals. Those who survive this shifting minefield and make it to the top have all the right psycopathy and instincts to make good movement leaders.

Surely you've noticed what's going on in the American Right? After all, you did allude to it in your post. To a certain extent its happening on the Left, too, but there it is still being carried out under a veneer of genteel restraint and civility. On the Right its much more obvious, and much deadlier. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there wasn't an assassination attempt sometime between now and the convention in Cleveland.

God forgive me for so enjoying it all play out so predictably, right on schedule. After all, in the end, I will also suffer from the consequences.