What is "revolution"?

[Lokomotive293]

I've been wondering for quite some time what the exact definition of "revolution" is. It seems like there are many different possible ways of how to use the word, and this may cause confusion. So, is the revolution

- the act of one class taking over political power?
- the act of one class taking over control of the means of production?
- the whole process of the transformation of society from one mode of production to another?
- Something else entirely?

Or can all be true, and which one is used depends on the context?

Also, can a change in superstructure, but not in the mode of production, be called a revolution? I'm thinking e.g. of a successful revolt against a fascist regime.

It all started with a discussion in college about wether the October Revolution can be called a revolution or not, and me wanting to say "Well, it depends on how you define revolution, but if you define it in this and this way, then, yes", but then not knowing the exact definition myself.

[Let's Get Free]

I think the word "revolution" has been so loosely used, like so many other words from "love" to "democracy"- as almost to have lost its meaning. A word that should make us tremble in the very hidden depths and remotest recesses of the soul, a word that should call up images of a measureless sweeping flood of change, obliterating all landmarks and leaving us lost and bewildered, this word has been attached to everything from Ipads "a revolutionary change in technology"- to the defeat of the horse by the wheeled mustang- "the automotive revolution." It is applied to equally such petty events as the partial separation of the US from Great Britain- "the American Revolution" and large sweeps as are caught by indicators- "the Industrial Revolution" or "the Agricultural Revolution."

[Os Cangaceiros]

When people refer to the term here, they're usually refering to a political revolution (ie a seizure of power of some sort) that corresponds with a significant degree of socio-economic change.

[black magick hustla]

yah, the way marxists use the word revolution is different from "laymen". to marxists it generally means the violent convulsions that act as a transition from one mode of production to the other

[Rafiq]

yah, the way marxists use the word revolution is different from "laymen". to marxists it generally means the violent convulsions that act as a transition from one mode of production to the other

Indeed, though there are two types of revolutions (none the less they exist dynamically), social revolutions and political revolutions. For example, the bourgeoisie had already gained social hegomony long before the French revolution, yet they were not fully in control of the state, and thus were forced to assert their political hegemony by destroying the broken shell of feudalism. All hitherto existing revolutions (with the exception of october and the spartacus uprising) shared one characteristic: They were all preceded by a social revolution. The proletariat as a class has no objective interest other than to abolish itself as a class, therefore a social revolution will have to succeed a political revolution. But a new mode of production will not arise out of the proletarian dictatorship deciding how they wish to make society as they see fit, it is this process of attempting to abolish itself, and suppressing it's class enemy (the counter revolution) that the capitalist social relations will be destroyed. Hence political "anti capitalism" is absolutely pointless, as capitalism is a neutral process which operates in the background of the field of class struggle, a process which re-asserts the social hegemony of the bourgeois class. A mode of production, in the end, is composed of the interrelations of individuals, not individuals themselves or the supposed magical forces that are external from them. What the proletariat thus must strive for is the destruction of it's class enemy, not a conscious attempt to destroy the capitalist mode of production as a whole (the destruction of the bourgeois class and the emancipation from itself alone destroys what sustains the capitalist mode of production).

[Ostrinski]

The deterioration of one mode of social organization in its inabilities to reconcile its contradictory existence and the transformation into another social organizational form.

[BIXX]

When I say revolution, I mean a change from one system to the other. Basically, a switch from our current capitalist system to a communist, socialist, or anarchist system. I also use it to encompass complete social changes, due to my belief that they are intrinsically related and one can not occur (truly) without the other.
The dictionary refers to it as "a sudden, complete, or marked change in something" (Dictionary.com).
I believe that the only true revolution would be one that would destroy all oppression, and replace it with non-hierarchal system, lacking in oppression.

[ind_com]

I've been wondering for quite some time what the exact definition of "revolution" is. It seems like there are many different possible ways of how to use the word, and this may cause confusion. So, is the revolution

- the act of one class taking over political power?
- the act of one class taking over control of the means of production?
- the whole process of the transformation of society from one mode of production to another?
- Something else entirely?

Or can all be true, and which one is used depends on the context?

Also, can a change in superstructure, but not in the mode of production, be called a revolution? I'm thinking e.g. of a successful revolt against a fascist regime.

It all started with a discussion in college about wether the October Revolution can be called a revolution or not, and me wanting to say "Well, it depends on how you define revolution, but if you define it in this and this way, then, yes", but then not knowing the exact definition myself.

The first condition comes first, and then results in the second. Political power must be taken before economic power. Also, to distinguish between revolution and counter-revolution, we must add that the new society/ mode of production is more beneficial to the masses in general.

[ulysses]

A theory of a revolution is the ground and 'foundation' of each political perspective. Thus, anarchists, socialists, and communists of all tendencies have a theory of revolution and this is what is at stake, hopefully, within the discourses and debates between tendencies. Due to the nature of our historical situation, the question of revolution is an open question. There are other questions I would ask alongside yours: how will the revolution unfold? Who (which historical 'subject', even though I do not particularly like that concept) will push the revolution forward? Along with these kind of questions there resides the analysis of the current situation that supports a theory of the revolution, i.e. what are the historical and material conditions that make revolution possible? What is the nature of the current protracted crisis? etc. etc.

The exact definition of revolution is what is at stake, I believe, at this moment in time. More generally, I think that a revolution is the total transformation of one type of society to another, the totality of definite mode of life activity that we call the present and its transformation into another that negates the exploitative, oppressive and repressive aspects of the current order.

Again, I think its an open question, but a question that has to be grounded in historical conditions. For me, though, I believe a revolution cannot be political, because the political sphere is inherent monopolized by the state and parliamentary forms of administration that need to be contested. Which 'class' would need to take over political power, if that were the case? I'd go with the 'something else entirely.'

As for the change in the superstructure, I would call that moreso an insurrection than a revolution, in which an insurrection means the revolt against the governmental apparatus (authoritarian/totalitarian/etc.), which may leave the economic sphere intact. I think that the recent 'arab revolutions' are moreso insurrections than revolutions, since the same 'mode of production' has still been left intact, the same forms of life activity that regulate the reproduction of life, i.e. work.

The question about the October Revolution is pretty complex...but I will say that it was a revolution but one that changed the form of capitalist society (state-based modernization/industrialization, nationalization of industry by the state, etc.) yet with the same economic content (capitalist social relations).