revolution and revolutionary

[red cat]

can someone define the terms "revolution" and "revolutionary" ?

[scarletghoul]

A revolution is an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. A revolutionary is someone who contributes to the revolution

[Kamerat]

Revolution = big change
Revolutionary = a person who wants big change

[Jonnydraft]

Revolution is not the antipode of reform. A revolution signifies a sudden paradigm shift in a social structure or institution, and can be achieved, in theory, through a manner of actions. A revolutionary is one that seeks such paradigm shifts.

A reformer seeks gradual change from within the existing social structure.

[New Tet]

In political philosophy 'revolution' means the complete overthrow of an outdated economic, political and social order and its institutions in favor of better, more civilized and just system of governance.

A revolutionary is an advocate of revolution.

In these times, the only people worthy of being called revolutionaries are those advocating the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with a saner economic and social system. Present company excepted.

[red cat]

so what is the act of the bourgeoisie overthrowing the proletariat called? revolution or counter-revolution?

[Jonnydraft]

so what is the act of the bourgeoisie overthrowing the proletariat called? revolution or counter-revolution?

Despite the array of definitions provided, a common thread among all existed: absolute change to an existing structure.

Within this context, ask yourself what the hypothetical seeks to accomplish.

[SubcomandanteJames]

so what is the act of the bourgeoisie overthrowing the proletariat called? revolution or counter-revolution?

The bourgeoisie can't "overthrow" the proletariat. If the proletariat is in power (socialism/communism/left-anarchy), then the bourgeoisie don't exist (because the workers own the means of production), thus they can't overthrow. And if the bourgeoisie is in power (as they are currently in capitalism) they're not in a position to "overthrow".

Counter-revolution merely defines anything that delays or hinders revolution from occurring. Reformism (compromise), conservatism, and neo-liberalism are often noted as "counter-revolutionary".

[red cat]

my previous reply contradicts scarletghoul, kamerat and jonnydraft. as for the revolutionary part, scarletghoul, what if a person contributes more towards counter revolution than towards revolution?

[red cat]

when the proletariat is in power, the bourgeoisie does exist and resist. that is why a "state" under the dictatorship of the proletariat is required... to completely defeat thye bourgeoisie.

[Jonnydraft]

The bourgeoisie can't "overthrow" the proletariat. If the proletariat is in power (socialism/communism/left-anarchy), then the bourgeoisie don't exist (because the workers own the means of production), thus they can't overthrow. And if the bourgeoisie is in power (as they are currently in capitalism) they're not in a position to "overthrow".

Counter-revolution merely defines anything that delays or hinders revolution from occurring. Reformism (compromise), conservatism, and neo-liberalism are often noted as "counter-revolutionary".

Well, strictly speaking, opposing elements will always exist regardless of governing structure. Given this, it would be possible.

[New Tet]

so what is the act of the bourgeoisie overthrowing the proletariat called? revolution or counter-revolution?

It's called Fascism.

[Jonnydraft]

my previous reply contradicts scarletghoul, kamerat and jonnydraft. as for the revolutionary part, scarletghoul, what if a person contributes more towards counter revolution than towards revolution?

Your post doesn't contradict what I said - but now it seems like you're making sh!t up as you go along.

[red cat]

Your post doesn't contradict what I said - but now it seems like you're making sh!t up as you go along.

the term "existing structure" is vague when identifying an act to overthrow a system as "revolution". New Tet correctly characterizes the system to be overthrown by a revolution. A more compact definition would characterize the class(es) being overthrown and the class(es) leading the revolution... for example, the class which leads a revolution always has greater production powers than the classes being overthrown.

[Jonnydraft]

the term "existing structure" is vague when identifying an act to overthrow a system as "revolution". New Tet correctly characterizes the system to be overthrown by a revolution. A more compact definition would characterize the class(es) being overthrown and the class(es) leading the revolution... for example, the class which leads a revolution always has greater production powers than the classes being overthrown.

I defined it as a social structure or institution. It is not vague at all, but merely depends on the scale of anaylsis one wants to employ.

[red cat]

I defined it as a social structure or institution. It is not vague at all, but merely depends on the scale of anaylsis one wants to employ.
your definition collapses when the existing structure IS revolutionary. however, given the present social perspective, you could characterize most revolutions as some quick movements that overthrow the structure that exist NOW.
but then again, without stating the changes in living conditions, production etc. your definition would collapse in cases like the US occupation of iraq.

[Jonnydraft]

your definition collapses when the existing structure IS revolutionary. however, given the present social perspective, you could characterize most revolutions as some quick movements that overthrow the structure that exist NOW.
but then again, without stating the changes in living conditions, production etc. your definition would collapse in cases like the US occupation of iraq.

Simply put, my definition does not collapse when an existing social structure or institution is revolutionary because, by its very definition, this is not possible.

[Jonnydraft]

your definition would collapse in cases like the US occupation of iraq.

To ellaborate further: Seemingly, as you have attempted to argue, the overthrowing of Hussein was revolutionary. However, when a scale of analysis is employed, it becomes very clear that it was far from revolutionary. Instead, state level institutions were changed so that they could be nested into existing international institutions (the WTO for instance).

[red cat]

Simply put, my definition does not collapse when an existing social structure or institution is revolutionary because, by its very definition, this is not possible.
by 1953, the existing structure in USSR could be called revolutionary, so that its overthrow was a counter-revolution.

[red cat]

To ellaborate further: Seemingly, as you have attempted to argue, the overthrowing of Hussein was revolutionary. However, when a scale of analysis is employed, it becomes very clear that it was far from revolutionary. Instead, state level institutions were changed so that they could be nested into existing international institutions (the WTO for instance).
no, i mean to say that your definition would wrongly classify the US occupation of iraq as a revolution.

[BIG BROTHER]

REVOLUTION: Change of Social Order.

REVOLUTIONARY: Someone who engages in a Revolution.

[New Tet]

REVOLUTIONARY: Someone who engages in a Revolution.

One of the problems with Newspeak is that it doesn't allows for shades of grey.

Mere engagement does not a revolutionary make. There are people who can objectively engage in revolutionary activity without the slightest inkling of what is happening in and to the larger social and political scale of things.

History is rife with examples. Here's one: During the industrial revolution many capitalist and most workers were unaware of the social and economic revolution taking place under their very noses. They just knew that 'things were changing'.

[BIG BROTHER]

One of the problems with Newspeak is that it doesn't allows for shades of grey.
I can't tell. Do you really think I am speaking Newspeak? :blink:



Mere engagement does not a revolutionary make. There are people who can objectively engage in revolutionary activity without the slightest inkling of what is happening in and to the larger social and political scale of things.

History is rife with examples. Here's one: During the industrial revolution many capitalist and most workers were unaware of the social and economic revolution taking place under their very noses. They just knew that 'things were changing'.

Revolutionaries can be conscious and unconscious. Remember that's why Karl Marx marks the difference that the proletariat is the only Revolutionary class conscious of its historic Role. The capitalist who went against the feudal orders were Revolutionaries even if they weren't aware of their historic role in changing social relations.

[Q]

I can't tell. Do you really think I am speaking Newspeak? :blink:
Well, you are Big Brother after all.

[New Tet]

I can't tell. Do you really think I am speaking Newspeak? :blink:

I was trying to be funny. I see now that I wasn't.


Revolutionaries can be conscious and unconscious. Remember that's why Karl Marx marks the difference that the proletariat is the only Revolutionary class conscious of its historic Role.

So how would Marx explain the deplorable level of working class consciousness among the proletariat, especially in the U.S.?


The capitalist who went against the feudal orders were Revolutionaries even if they weren't aware of their historic role in changing social relations.

But it was the most conscious among them who gave their revolution a name and a definite direction. Think Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell).

Read 'The Prince' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince) by Machiavelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli)!

[Jonnydraft]

no, i mean to say that your definition would wrongly classify the US occupation of iraq as a revolution.

Yes, I was aware; I was offering a rebuttal...

[Jonnydraft]

by 1953, the existing structure in USSR could be called revolutionary, so that its overthrow was a counter-revolution.

Sigh. By 1953 the existing structure was just that - the existing structure, hence not revolutionary.

[red cat]

Sigh. By 1953 the existing structure was just that - the existing structure, hence not revolutionary.
1). in socialism the proletariat continues the revolution towards communism... just because the revolutionary class has come to power does not mean that the revolution is over.

2). even if the existing structure is not revolutionary, its overthrowal might result in something worse. eg. colonization. clearly, in this case the action is not a revolution.

[BIG BROTHER]

I was trying to be funny. I see now that I wasn't.

nah it was funny lol. Except for a seccond I was scared you were serious about it.




So how would Marx explain the deplorable level of working class consciousness among the proletariat, especially in the U.S.?


He didn't refer to it in a dogmatic way. But even in the U.S. there are/were workers organizations (SWP, IWW) that are conscious about their historic role.




But it was the most conscious among them who gave their revolution a name and a definite direction. Think Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell).

Read 'The Prince' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince) by Machiavelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli)!

And you are probably right. I was just arguing that no all revolutionaries are conscious of the change they're doing on the social relations.

[Jonnydraft]

1). in socialism the proletariat continues the revolution towards communism... just because the revolutionary class has come to power does not mean that the revolution is over.

2). even if the existing structure is not revolutionary, its overthrowal might result in something worse. eg. colonization. clearly, in this case the action is not a revolution.

1. Then the term revolution becomes so ambiguous that it becomes meaningless.

2. "Progress" is not inherent to revolution.

[red cat]

1. Then the term revolution becomes so ambiguous that it becomes meaningless.

2. "Progress" is not inherent to revolution.

i disagree. every revolution leads to progress