How do you define a revolution?

[Dimentio]

http://www.newint.org/features/1999/01/01/309labour1.jpg

Yes, how do you define a revolution?

Is it a political event where the leadership of one class through force replaces the leadership of another class in one or several historical events which are easy to mark? Or is it a process which is happening during decades, marked by the growth of new social classes which eventually could lead into the breakthrough of these new classes?

Personally, I believe that it is sometimes necessary to generalise and reduce social development down into easily understandable trends in order to get a basic understanding and overview over what's happened.

But in the same time, I think it is dangerous to think that a revolution necessarily only comprise a political event in a system marked by class struggle.

When the French revolution brought the bourgeoisie state into being, that state was already partially finished through the absolutist, centralised monarchy of Richeliueu and Louis XIV. The bourgeoisie as a class already held vast economic power.

I think the problem with working class associations during the 20th century, and the reason why socialist revolutions - when successful - has mostly led to centralised states under the leadership of a vanguard party with control over the economic resources, is because a lack of a working class economic infrastructure.

Certainly, we have had the unions, but only a few unions have actually controlled means of production. There are also a few very significant worker's cooperatives, like for example Mondragon, but we need to see more initiatives like that.

For certainly, there are few laws against worker cooperatives, while there are many laws against a socialist revolution.

I am not saying that a revolution is wrong. I am just saying that in order for it to be successful, it must engage a large segment of the working class. And it must be perceived as legitimate.

The foundation of legitimacy for a state is how well it represents the class relations of that particular society and is able to make it appear as the class relations are in the interest of the (real or perceived) majority of the people.

From my studies of history, what I have seen, is that political change often is the last phase of revolutionary transition. Decades, or even centuries, of slow socio-economic change of class composition in a given society bring forth new classes to challenge the old hegemony.

I do not either believe that the working class automatically gets it materially worse under capitalism (as long as we are talking about the physical amount and not the comparable amount of resources visavi the capitalists). Certainly, workers in both developed and developing nations have it generally materially better today than they had in 1848 or 1917.

I don't think that's a hindrance to revolution - better living standards - but rather a precondition for a revolution. If workers have experienced how to get it better and then suddenly are losing it, they will more quicker turn militant against the system.

Ciao.

[New Tet]

For certainly, there are few laws against worker cooperatives, while there are many laws against a socialist revolution.

Ciao.

I am unaware of any law in the U.S. (where I live) prohibiting a socialist revolution. Can you please point one out to me?

[Dimentio]

I am unaware of any law in the U.S. (where I live) prohibiting a socialist revolution. Can you please point one out to me?

Rioting is illegal in most countries. Conspiracy to overthrow government is illegal. Conspiracy to commit rioting is illegal. At least in Sweden. I don't think its so vastly different in a US state.

It is not wrong to commit illegal actions just for the sake of their illegality. But it is more secure to build an infrastructure.

[New Tet]

There is no such thing as an unlawful revolution.

[New Tet]

Rioting is illegal in most countries. Conspiracy to overthrow government is illegal. Conspiracy to commit rioting is illegal. At least in Sweden. I don't think its so vastly different in a US state.

It is not wrong to commit illegal actions just for the sake of their illegality. But it is more secure to build an infrastructure.

But those laws you allude to are not laws against revolution per se. Conspiracy, rioting and inciting to do so are not, in and of themselves, revolutionary acts.

[Dimentio]

But those laws you allude to are not laws against revolution per se. Conspiracy, rioting and inciting to do so are not, in and of themselves, revolutionary acts.

No, I am in agreement there. They are only very convenient laws. But I am certain they would continue to exist in some form even under communism.

[Tower of Bebel]

I think the concept of dual power is in place here. To define revolts and revolutions the sociologist Charles Tilly wrote of revolutionary situations and revolutionary results. A rebellion can amount to a revolutionary situation while a genuine revolution is characterized by an undisputed revolutionary outcome. Tilly's terminology makes it easier for us to define a revolution because the so called revolutionary result, whatever form or character the outcome may take, is much easier to aknowledge than a certain definition simply based on ideals (like the ideal outcome or the perfect revolution).

In concreto Tilly's concepts are based on Trotsky's concept of dual power. Even though Tilly writes about opposing groups and not classes. In the case of Trotsky when two opposing classes fight for state power - it doesn't whether or not they want to preserve or destroy the current state -, they constitute a revolutionary situation. But not every such situation amounts to a revolution (i.e. a revolutionary result). When a revolutionary class does take state power however (or forms a new state power), a revolutionary result has been achieved. In such a situation a dual power has ended in favour of the revolutionists; a new class is in charge of the state.

The French and Russian revolutions were revolutions. The German revolution probably wasn't a genuine revolution. It was a revolt, and it was characterized by situations of dual power. But the outcome wasn't something like the victory of the opposing (working) class over the conservative classes.

[Dimentio]

I think the concept of dual power is in place here. To define revolts and revolutions the sociologist Charles Tilly wrote of revolutionary situations and revolutionary results. A rebellion can amount to a revolutionary situation while a genuine revolution is characterized by an undisputed revolutionary outcome. Tilly's terminology makes it easier for us to define a revolution because the so called revolutionary result, whatever form or character the outcome may take, is much easier to aknowledge than a certain definition simply based on ideals (like the ideal outcome or the perfect revolution).

In concreto Tilly's concepts are based on Trotsky's concept of dual power. Even though Tilly writes about opposing groups and not classes. In the case of Trotsky when two opposing classes fight for state power - it doesn't whether or not they want to preserve or destroy the current state -, they constitute a revolutionary situation. But not every such situation amounts to a revolution (i.e. a revolutionary result). When a revolutionary class does take state power however (or forms a new state power), a revolutionary result has been achieved. In such a situation a dual power has ended in favour of the revolutionists; a new class is in charge of the state.

The French and Russian revolutions were revolutions. The German revolution probably wasn't a genuine revolution. It was a revolt, and it was characterized by situations of dual power. But the outcome wasn't something the victory of the opposing (working) class over the conservative classes.

Interesting definition.

I was not discussing revolutions as a single political development, or comparing failed revolutions (revolts) with successful. A revolution which is very well-prepared could theoretically speaking fail, and a revolution which is very hasty and ill-prepared could succeed, given the situation.

But compare Britain and France regarding the transition between feudalism and capitalism during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

It is quite interesting that Britain managed to become the world leader of capitalism, despite the lack of a bourgeoisie revolution, while France sacked after despite three revolutions.

I do not claim to compare bourgeoisie with socialist revolutions, due to their different nature, but I will simply claim that capitalism was not entirely established as a revolution against feudalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But in the same time, I think it is dangerous to think that a revolution necessarily only comprise a political event in a system marked by class struggle.

That is why I prefer to use the phrase "class struggle and social revolution," wherein the "political revolution" (uprisings and what not) is part of the former.

Regarding dual power above, I don't think every revolutionary situation boils down to just two classes or even two "cross-class coalitions" duking it out. Class-strugglist democracy involves coordinators, the small-business petit-bourgeoisie, and also the "semi-workers" (lawyers, judges, police, self-employed, small family farmers, etc.) and the various underclasses (lumpenproles, lumpenbourgeoisie, and the lumpen-scum).

For example, the proletarian "coalition" in an advanced country might have coordinators (because they too are estranged from the MOP) and the proper lumpenproles (preferring legal work to illegal work).

Meanwhile, the petit-bourgeois "coalition" would have at least a segment or two of "semi-workers" (namely the self-employed and small family farmers) and perhaps also the lumpenbourgeoisie and the lumpen-scum, while the bourgeois "coalition" might have the remaining segment of "semi-workers" (lawyers, judges, police, etc.).

[Tower of Bebel]

That is why I prefer to use the phrase "class struggle and social revolution," wherein the "political revolution" (uprisings and what not) is part of the former.

Regarding dual power above, I don't think every revolutionary situation boils down to just two classes or even two "cross-class coalitions" duking it out.
I think it's more likely to have two groups opposing each other than three. Especially when it's a struggle for statepower. The ruling class and the revolutionary class will be present at all times. It's up to the others to decide which camp or coalition they wish to join.

[Dimentio]

I think it's more likely to have two groups opposing each other than three. Especially when it's a struggle for statepower. The ruling class and the revolutionary class will be present at all times. It's up to the others to decide which camp or coalition they wish to join.

In revolutions which we have seen, we have experienced challenged ruling classes which have a weak or weakened authority.

I would also say that in most cases, the groups which have led the revolutions have not been too representative of the working class. Rather, they have been composed of elements of the petite bourgeoisie (students of academic background, teachers, doctors, small businessmen, former bureaucrats, news reporters) which have had a lower position within the previous system, but not necessarily a position associated with the working class.

It is interesting that the leadership of proletarian parties often are not composed of proletarians to that extent which would be expected.

[Tower of Bebel]

Dimentio, your answer probably explained what's behind Richter's post. I agree that revolts were mostly led by people from other classes than just the toiling masses. But that does not mean they can adopt the character of the mass they are leading. On the other hand, Tilly spoke of social groups, not of classes (defined by their relations to the means of production), and this makes up for the cross-class aliances of the past. Seen from a point of class analysis it's no wonder that revolutions of the past were not pure bourgeois or proletarian revolutions.

[Dimentio]

Dimentio, your answer probably explained what's behind Richter's post. I agree that revolts were mostly led by people from other classes than just the toiling masses. But that does not mean they can adopt the character of the mass they are leading. On the other hand, Tilly spoke of social groups, not of classes (defined by their relations to the means of production), and this makes up for the cross-class aliances of the past. Seen from a point of class analysis it's no wonder that revolutions of the past were not pure bourgeois or proletarian revolutions.

There are always competing potential elites I think, as well as competing classes. The capitalists and the bureaucracy for example are generally involved in some sort of cold war between each-other, regarding how many privilegies the bureaucracy should be allowed to distribute out. A centralised radical political party (either fascist or socialist) is often led by an elite which is better off than the usual party member but of low social position within the ranks of the bourgeoisie. For example the right-wing populist New Democracy party in Sweden was led by a socially incompetent count and a rather isolated venture capitalist.

The established elite as well as the potential elites within the dominant class(es) could seek out the support of the workers, peasants or the lumpen-proletariat in order to gain power and thus increase their stature amongst the elite (or reshape the entire class system with themselves at the top).

[mikelepore]

My affiliation (De Leonism) uses the term "revolution" to mean conversion to a fundamentally different system of doing things, and the contrasting term, "reform", to mean continuation of the same fundamental system but with modifications. It is not part of either meaning to specify whether the changes are made by legal means or illegal means, by peaceful means or violent means, quickly or slowly, or anything else. The only determinant is how fundamental the resulting changes are to the structure. An example of the degree of fundamentality is the comment Marx made at the end of _Value, Price and Profit_: "Instead of the conservative motto, 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, 'abolition of the wages system!'"

[Random Precision]

But compare Britain and France regarding the transition between feudalism and capitalism during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

It is quite interesting that Britain managed to become the world leader of capitalism, despite the lack of a bourgeoisie revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War