Types of revolution?

[JohannGE]

My admitedly limited knowlage of history has led me to believe that there are more than one type of revolution. I understand that from the revolutionary left perspective the only true revolution is a social (proletarian?) revolution where state property and capital relations are destroyed.

I have noticed though that there is something of a consensus among marxists that political revolution is not revolution at all.

I can understand the view that the only revolution that will liberate the proletariat is a social revolution, I can't understand why this would mean we should so vehemently deny even the existence of political revolution.

Can anyone, (as simply as possible please) clarify my misunderstanding, if that is what it is?
-

[Luisrah]

Well, I suppose there are different types of revolutions.

There can be the authoritarian one, where the workers push the bourgeoisie from power and start ruling either directly themselves or through a party that represents them (vanguard isn't it?)

But I suppose that if a Communist/Socialist party is elected somewhere, and they (after a long time of hard work) put and end to exploration and to private property such as companies, and represent the people while controlling the means of production... Then I suppose the revolution happened right? Just no one had to scream some stuff, shoot some shots to the air and take over.

But I'm a learner too, so if I were you, I wouldn't take my post into much consideration.

[Spawn of Stalin]

People have differing opinions about what constitutes a proletarian revolution, some believe the working class should be led to victory with the assistance of a vanguard, others believe that one day revolution will just fall from the sky, and suddenly every worker will become class conscious. The latter dismiss electoral work almost universally but there are certainly many people who see some "bourgeois" politicians as revolutionaries. I personally do not believe that any one person is qualified to decide what is and isn't a revolution. Every revolution is different, a quick look at the history of Communism reveals that there is an infinite number of possibilities for different types of revolution, so it really depends on what you believe, a fascist revolution may not be viewed by Communists as a revolution at all, rather a reaction, but the average white power skinhead may think otherwise.

[Lymos]

You sort of alluded to it already.

There is only one type of revolution. That is a revolution that successfully liberates without leaving the aftermath a unplanned, destructive, social decaying chaotic world.

However, people have different theories and beliefs as to how to enact both the revolution and address the aftermath. Some would even go so far as to not think about the aftermath until the revolution is over with.

[BobKKKindle$]

To understand the Marxist definition of revolution, you need to grasp Marx's conception of history. For Marx, human history involves the continuous development of the forces of production, i.e. mankind's ability to control and benefit from the natural environment. This process of development continues until a point is reached where the way that society is organized, in terms of the distribution of property, and the nature of the relationship between the working population and their rulers, otherwise known as the relations of production, prevents further development from taking place. In this context, a revolution involves a change in the relations of production, hence removing the fetters on the forces of production. A revolution is carried out by a class that emerged under the previous mode of production, and allows this previously-subordinate class (e.g. the embryonic bourgeoisie under feudalism) to create conditions that will allow it to further develop its wealth and domination over the rest of society, i.e., to assume the position of the ruling class. A social revolution, so-called because it involves changes in social relationships, also manifests itself in changes in the superstructure, which means that part of society which is distinct from the production and distribution of goods, including ideology, culture, forms of political rule, and so on. These secondary changes occur because the superstructure serves as the means by which ruling classes legitimize their rule, and so a change in the way society is organized, termed the mode of production, necessitates new forms of legitimation, to suit the needs of the ruling class. The framework described above is rooted in the idea that class struggle is the driving force behind historical change. The Russian Revolution was a revolution in the Marxist sense of the word because it resulted in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of workers control over the means of production, and the abolition of wage-labour, hence the abolition of capitalist relations of production. This does not mean that Marxists discount events that do not involve changes in the relations of production, or that these events cannot be explained in terms of class struggle, but, in the case of these events, like the Portuguese Revolution of 1974, we acknowledge that there was no change in the ruling class, merely a change in the way that the bourgeoisie rules over the rest of society, and hence they are not social revolutions.

Marx's most famous definition of his historical method can be found in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm), especially the section beginning "In the social production of their existence...".

A revolution against capitalism, of course, can only assume the form of "self-emancipation", i.e. the proletariat changing from a class-in-itself into a class-for-itself, asserting itself as the conscious subject of history. This is why Marxists say that the changes that took place in eastern Europe after WW2 and other countries that have historically described themselves as socialists did not constitute revolutions and did not involve the abolition of capitalism, as, in all of these cases, the working class did not play a major role.

[Tower of Bebel]

The type of revolution (petty bourgeois, bouregois and socialist f.e.) and the course a revolution can take (e.g. from bourgeois to socialist) depend on the balance of class forces. These forces however depend on what Bobkindless explained as "the continuous development of the forces of production, i.e. mankind's ability to control and benefit from the natural environment".

The French revolution initially started as a bourgeois revolt, based on popular unrest in the cities and the country side; but the revolution changed over time (initially the bourgeoisie never intended to detrone and kill the monarch, but they were forced to by national and international events).
There existed near the end a radical petty bourgeois phase based on the Paris commune (urban proletariat). This stage of the revolution got smashed by bourgeois reaction, which ultimately led to the comming to power of an army general who based his popular support on the peasantry. In the end the revolution proved to be an antifeudal revolution favouring capitalism over proletarian and petty bourgeois plans to create a more agalitarian society.

The nature of the Russian revolution did also change (e.g. the "bourgeois" February Revolution, the "socialist" October Revolution and various forms of reaction that came afterwards).

[JohannGE]

Thanks for all your replies. Some of which have expanded my understanding of the Marxist view of revolution.

However my confusion relating to the adamant but unspecified refusal to accept any other revolution as a revolution remains. Saying that a proletarian revolution is the only revolution in the interests of the working class does not seem to cover it imo.


I can understand the view that the only revolution that will liberate the proletariat is a social revolution, I can't understand why this would mean we should so vehemently deny even the existence of political revolution.
-

[Kukulofori]

It's not so much that we should deny that it exists as much as we should deny that it's even really along the lines of what we're talking about. A complete restructuring of society is not on the same level as replacing a government with another, slightly different government.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is known to most leftists as "revolution" is but a mere phase in the class struggle: the political conquest of ruling-class power. Social revolution as a concept is the bigger concern, but by itself is interpreted as being an idiotic "change the world without taking power" scheme. That is why class struggle and social revolution should be paired together.