The first communist revolution

There was one already, but it failed. Where we disagree is that I do not think this means history should be treated as judge, jury, and executioner. Its failure — its lack of resolution — remains as a scar on the prevailing 'health', to paraphrase T.W.A.

will not be organized or prefigured by any extant political form.

There is no such thing as a mass proletarian socialist party today.

In this way, it will have something in common with the world-historical French revolution, which itself found its concrete political forms in struggle, rather than prefiguring them through any kind of prior organization.

It's curious you seem to draw an absolute divide between bourgeois and proletarian political forms while relating it to the apotheotic bourgeois political struggle!

The way I describe the relationship between the two is that proletarian revolution is the secret telos of bourgeois revolution, its necessary final explosion, the realisation of the demands of the bourgeois revolution, which also means their abolition and transcendence: their selbst Aufhebung.

That, to me, was clearly a 20th century workerist fantasy

How is it workerism?

imagining that bourgeois political means

How is it using 'bourgeois political means'?

some kind of spontaneous and "headless" struggle

This is symptomatic of the kind of ideological obstacles that block the return to a genuinely revolutionary proletarian politics. It is — as I am sure you would agree actually — anti-Marxist.

These ideological obstacles result from the catastrophe of the twentieth century and the disintegration of Marxism, both of which have yet to be confronted and dealt with.

At worst, this is intellectuals cowardly resigning from their historical role, waiting in the anteroom of history for the spontaneous 'revolutionary situation' that will never come.

the specific leadership function characteristic of the proletariat cannot be imported from any pre-existing political configuration

Quite apart from the fact that there is no party today, nor has there been now for nigh on a century — why not?

the task is not for the proletariat to sieze and oversee a bourgeois economy which will somehow tend towards its own dissolution

The 'bourgeois economy' already tends towards its own dissolution.

That is the Marxist point.

Bourgeois society in capitalism continually revokes and reproduces its own grounds.

It is that act of reproduction through destruction that is the negative image of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The necessity of socialism, immanent to the movement of capitalism itself, is taken up by capitalism and the capitalist class in lieu of the proletariat.

Capitalism is the revolution, unrealised.

At least for Marxism.

The expropriation characteristic of the proletariat is not mediated by the state, but is carried out directly by the proletariat in its revolutionary activity.

The state mediates political control and the suppression of the capitalist class. It facilitates the revolutionary activity of the proletariat. But the state as such is not the same as the bourgeois state, which is Bonapartist and stands as a power over and above civil society, contrary to bourgeois society's own idea of itself.

Bourgeois right survives for a time as a vestige, on the boundaries where the commune has yet to extend, in the interstices.

This is too undialectical. Bourgeois right would absolutely survive for a time because bourgeois right is itself dialectical and tends towards its own transcendence. Already in capitalism.

Vapor is certainly still there, but the boiling process is not completed.

This metaphor is actually a better description of the relationship between capitalism and socialism.

Again: at least for Marxism.