Desperate Revolutions vs. Ambitious Revolutions?

[Hermes]

What do you guys think about both? To clarify a little, I see desperate revolutions being carried out by the majority of the lower class, with no real tactical leader or strategy save for a better situation. They are usually spur of the moment and unplanned, and more likely to be effected by momentum than an ambitious revolution might. Ambitious revolutions are, as I see them, led mostly be the upper-middle class or the upper lower class (not trying to divide the lower class, but it would be the difference in education availability, I suppose), which have clear leaders, and usually involve the lower classes for the grunt work. I can't really think of a successful example of the first, but my history isn't that great. As for the second, an example would be the actual rise of the Bourgeoisie in feudal society and their struggle for the realization of that status (i.e., the move to cities, etc). I suppose this is a little like the vanguard question.

Do you believe that an uneducated, desperate, lower class can effect meaningful change in the system by themselves? Do you believe that feeding them and educating them is worthwhile in the hope that they will become more able to help themselves?

Or do you believe that someone of a higher strata has to organize and plan, while leading the lower strata? Do you think this often results in the realization of personal goals rather than 'community' goals of a more egalitarian nature?

Which do you think would be better, assuming that both had a chance of being successful? (Also, I'm not saying that all 'ambitious' revolutions are self-centered and against the working class, I just couldn't think of a better word)

[Ostrinski]

I think a true revolution, i.e. one that revolutionizes the fabric of all social and institutional structures of society, is both desperate and ambitious. The desperation of means, the ambition of class power.

A a coup led by some elite group or w.e. really isn't a revolution at all.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You cannot divide the 'lower' class by education. A revolution only happens when the working class has reached a certain level of class consciousness, and then political consciousness. Their ability to differentiate a lagrangean function doesn't really factor into this consciousness, so any pretensions of a labour aristocracy that is the 'brains of the operation', so to speak, is elitist crap. Besides, all the previous revolutions that have had middle class leadership from above have failed to translate into Socialism, spectacularly.

But yes, as Brospierre says, every revolution is both ambitious (for it smashes not only current political orthodoxy, but the political system itself) and desperate (for revolution is an absolute last-resort measure; it's not a fucking day out at the beach, we only strive for revolution because we believe it's the only way for full emancipation of the oppressed class).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, the rise of Capitalism, whilst certainly a class action in terms of its effects (the rise of a bourgeoisie and the decline of landed artistocracy), was not a peoples' action in the same way that many working class uprisings in history have been.

Capitalism came about through industrialisation, which is a whole 'nother debate. Indeed, there has been some evidence (cannot for the life of me remember whose research this was, sorry!) that the new bourgeoisie was actually made up largely of members of the old landed aristocracy, who simply moved their operations to the free market, so to speak, to maintain their control of the Means of Production (i.e. focused on industry, rather than land, as a source to extract surplus).

[NoPasaran1936]

With all due respect, fuck off am I listening to some upper-class toff lead me in a revolution against a system that has benefitted them more than my family, myself and my comrades in class struggle. I apologise if that's misunderstanding what you're putting across. It sounds like class collaboration and we all know how that ends up.