King Juan Carlos of Spain abdicates, left parties urge demonstrations for republic

[Revy]

The Rajoy government is beginning the process of succession of the throne to the prince, Felipe.

Left parties United Left and Podemos have urged for demonstrations to protest the succession, and advocate for the creation of a new Spanish republic with a referendum.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27662301

[M-L-C-F]

I really hope a new Third Spanish Republic comes from this. I hope they would change the flag back to the flag of the Second Spanish Republic, or create a whole new one. Removing one of the last bigger remnants of Francoist Fascism, as well as a symbol of the bullshit Monarchy. Hopefully something actually comes from this though.

I like how the BBC doesn't call out Franco's Fascism, and merely calls him a "right-wing" dictator. That's the western media for you. Which goes back to the western support of him against the Communists and the left. Same goes with the Estado Novo in Portugal for that matter. Letting them into NATO and the UN, despite defeating their allies in a war a decade earlier.

[RedWorker]

Offtopic, related to above post: Probably a good time to remember Franco killed 500,000 (OUTSIDE THE WAR). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_%28Spain%29

[Tim Cornelis]

The reason that Portugal and Spain are often not called fascist is because they were not fascist proper. Historian Griffin has coined the term para-fascism to describe such regimes; but this is a relatively 'academic' term, and it's understandable that many, including the media, are not familiar with the nuances of fascist categorisation.

Also, will a third spanish republic cause unemployment to go down, will it mean Spanish workers can suddenly pay their rent?

[RedWorker]

[LIVE NOW] Demonstration for the 3rd Republic: http://www.publico.es/publico-tv


The reason that Portugal and Spain are often not called fascist is because they were not fascist proper.

Yeah, right. Ask the hundreds of thousands of people mass murderered by that authoritarian, racist, sexist, nationalist, class collaborative, reactionary, neoliberal, and autocratic regime which came as a reaction to ongoing workers' revolution. If that isn't fascism then I don't know what is.

[Tim Cornelis]

[LIVE NOW] Demonstration for the 3rd Republic: http://www.publico.es/publico-tv



Yeah right. Ask the hundreds of thousands of mass murdered people along with that authoritarian, racist, sexist, nationalist, class collaborative, neoliberal regime.

Right... And that appeal to emotion proves what?

[RedWorker]

Right... And that appeal to emotion proves what?

The fact that there was very little difference between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain 1939-1975. Concentration camps (more than 190) and every characteristic of the ideology except maybe extreme racism.

[Tim Cornelis]

The fact that there was very little difference between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain 1939-1975. Concentration camps and every characteristic of the ideology except maybe extreme racism.

Racism is not required for fascism. Italian fascism had no state racism.



First, though Nazism is to be conceived as unquestionably a manifestation of generic fascism, it is no longer to be seen as paradigmatic or its quintessential manifestation. Second, at bottom fascism is neither a regime, nor a movement, but first and foremost an ideology, a critique of the present state of society and a vision of what is to replace it. Third, when this vision is dissected it reveals fascism to be a revolutionary form of nationalism... Fourth, its ideology expresses itself primarily not through theory and doctrines, but through a bizarre synthesis of ideas whose precise content will vary significantly from nation to nation but whose appeal will always be essentially mythic rather than rational. Equally importantly, it is an ideology which expresses itself through a liturgical, ritualized form of mass political spectacle.[35]

(...)

Griffin's definition of fascism can be boiled down to three words: "palingenetic populist ultra-nationalism."[38] Each of these terms needs explanation:

Palingenetic -- from the Greek palin (again or anew) + genesis (creation or birth) --refers to a myth or vision of collective rebirth after a period of crisis or decline.
Populist, in Griffin's usage, means a form of politics that draws its claims of legitimacy from "the people" (as opposed, for example, to a monarchical dynasty or divine appointment) and uses mass mobilization to win power and transform society.
Ultra-nationalism treats the nation as a higher, organic unity to which all other loyalites must be subordinated. Ultra-nationalism rejects "anything compatible with liberal institutions or with the tradition of Enlightenment humanism which underpins them."[39]

As a form of populist ultra-nationalism, fascism fundamentally rejects the liberal principles of pluralism and individual rights, as well as the socialist principles of class-based solidarity and internationalism, all of which threaten the nation's organic unity. At the same time, fascism rejects traditional bases for authority, such as the monarchy or nobility, in favor of charismatic politics and a new, self-appointed political elite that claims to embody the people's will. Fascism seeks to build a mass movement of everyone considered part of the national community, actively engaged but controlled from above, to seize political power and remake the social order. This movement is driven by a vision "of the national community rising phoenix-like after a period of encroaching decadence which all but destroyed it."[40] Such rebirth involves systematic, top-down transformation of all social spheres by an authoritarian state, and suppression or purging of all forces, ideologies, and social groups the fascists define as alien.

By demanding a sweeping cultural and political transformation and break with the established order, the vision of renewal sets fascism apart from conservative forms of ultra-nationalism as a revolutionary ideology. The fascist revolution, Griffin argues, is above all a cultural one. "The dominant world-view...was for the fascist mindset the primary reality, the principal locus of the nation's rebirth, and the foremost object of its regeneration and metamorphosis. Indeed, the Marxist stress on socio-economics as the motor of historical change was for fascists a symptom of its essential materialism, its 'atheism,' and hence of its decadence." "In the new order 'culture' would cease to be an individualized, privatized, marginalized sphere of modern life... Instead it would once more be what Lewis Mumford calls the 'megamachine,' the matrix for all the mythopoiea, rituals, institutions, values, and artistic creativity of an entire society..."[41]

(...) "While neither the Fascist nor Nazi state wanted to abolish capitalist economics and private property, they had no scruples about involving themselves with the economy on a scale unprecedented in any liberal state except in wartime," including vast public works programs, a drive for economic self-sufficiency (autarky) and, in the Nazi case, creating a vast empire and enslaving millions of workers. "Both regimes also indulged in a massive programme of social engineering which involved creating mass organizations for every social grouping, retooling the educational system, symbolically appropriating all aspects of leisure, sport, culture, and technology..."[42]

(...)

Unlike many definitions of fascism, Griffin's model is also specific enough to map fine-grained distinctions and relationships between fascism and other branches of the right. Griffin delineates fascism from formations that share a related ideology but make no effort to build a mass base or to overthrow a liberal political system. He recognizes that there can be borderline cases. Griffin argues, notably, that Italy's National Alliance, successor to the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement, represents a contradictory but genuine hybrid between fascist ideology and an acceptance of the liberal democratic rules of the game. Griffin's name for this hybrid, "democratic fascism," is unfortunate, but the basic point holds true that some formations straddle the line between revolutionary and reformist branches of the right.[45]

Griffin's definition of fascism also excludes most of the dictatorships that have often been labeled fascist. He has suggested the term para-fascist to describe many of these.[46] A para-fascist regime is imposed from above (often by the military) and represents traditional elites trying to preserve the old order, but surrounds its conservative core with fascist trappings. These trappings may include an official state party, paramilitary organizations, a leader cult, mass political ritual, corporatism, and the rhetoric of ultranationalist regeneration. Para-fascist regimes may be just as ruthless as genuine fascist ones in their use of state terrorism. Unlike true fascism, para-fascism does not represent a genuine populist mobilization and does not substantively challenge established institutions. During the 1920s and 1930s, Griffin argues, para-fascist regimes arose in several European countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Romania, and Austria, joined by the Vichy government after France surrendered to Germany in 1940. Para-fascist regimes regarded genuine fascist movements as a threat and used various strategies to contain, coopt, or crush them. In Spain during the Civil War, for example, General Franco "imposed a shot-gun marriage between Falangists and the traditional (that is non-fascist) radical right" as part of his strategy to establish a para-fascist dictatorship.[47]

http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~lyonsm/TwoWays.html

So that explains (the bolded part) why your reasons for why Spain was fascist are insufficient.

[RedWorker]

Publico newspaper estimates that the Spanish Royal Family wasted 59 million euros in 2011 alone: http://www.publico.es/espana/413939/cuanto-nos-cuesta-la-familia-real
Though the Royal Family claims it only makes use of like 6 million euros a year, this is a lie.
There has recently been a pro-monarchy propaganda campaign.
Surveys say that more than 50% of Spanish people favor a Republic now.

[Geiseric]

Permanent revolution applies to this situation. The third Spanish republic is a pipe dream without proletarian revolution.

[Revy]

Here's some video of the protests in Madrid:

http://www.publico.es/publico-tv/video/195020/decenas-de-miles-de-personas-piden-en--sol-la-tercera-republica

Tens of thousands estimated:

http://i.imgur.com/kkgxl7T.png

http://i.imgur.com/ccgo1a1.png

[bricolage]

Yeah, right. Ask the hundreds of thousands of people mass murderered by that authoritarian, racist, sexist, nationalist, class collaborative, reactionary, neoliberal, and autocratic regime which came as a reaction to ongoing workers' revolution. If that isn't fascism then I don't know what is.
Since when was fascism neoliberal?

I'm happy to call Franco fascism but I can see in certain terms why it's not and why it differed to the states of Hitler and Mussolini - not that any of this denies or marginalises the mass murders of the Spanish state.

But I also think in terms of understanding it as a class reaction against workers insurrection it's useful to understand it as fascist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Racism is not required for fascism. Italian fascism had no state racism.

Bollocks, you're just repeating talking points by bourgeois scholars. Ask the Libyans about the lack of Italian racism.


I like how the BBC doesn't call out Franco's Fascism, and merely calls him a "right-wing" dictator. That's the western media for you. Which goes back to the western support of him against the Communists and the left. Same goes with the Estado Novo in Portugal for that matter. Letting them into NATO and the UN, despite defeating their allies in a war a decade earlier.

Portugal was an ally of the Western imperialists, as was fascist Brazil.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it would be a laugh if the monarchy in Spain was abolished, but that's all it would be. A bourgeois republic would be just as reactionary as a bourgeois monarchy.

[Anti-Traditional]

Permanent revolution applies to this situation. The third Spanish republic is a pipe dream without proletarian revolution.

Why's that?

[piet11111]

Well all the official institutes reek of corruption so they wanted a new face to hide behind that has appeal to the public something they could get all nationalistic about.

And the best they could come up with was Felipe :laugh:


To me this is just another chapter in the Spanish governments crisis.

[M-L-C-F]

Well, I never said that a new Spanish Republic would solve any of the issues of capitalism. I was merely stating my hatred for the Monarchy, and the remnants of Fascism in Spain. Why I would support a new Spanish Republic, is because of that. With that, I'm very happy that there are republican protests in Spain.


Bollocks, you're just repeating talking points by bourgeois scholars. Ask the Libyans about the lack of Italian racism.

Portugal was an ally of the Western imperialists, as was fascist Brazil.

Italian racism was rampant during Fascism. I also didn't mention Brazil or even Peronist Argentina, because I was focusing on Europe. But yeah, them too. I used to talk to my Latino co-workers at my last job, about how the idea of "Left Peronism" is ironic. We used to joke about the Aryan Argentinians, and the elitist attitude that Argentina was/is known for. :lol:

[Geiseric]

Why's that?

Because the Spanish bourgeois are incapable of completing the democratic revolution. They have been since the civil war. The task of the democratic revolution and the goal of socialist revolution, as we've seen all through Europe, are on the shoulders of the working class.

[Scheveningen]

Bollocks, you're just repeating talking points by bourgeois scholars. Ask the Libyans about the lack of Italian racism.

All major powers of the time were racist, but in qualitatively different ways.
Before 1938, Italian fascism didn't have the same exaltation of racial purity or the plans for the systematic destruction of a racial 'enemy' as Nazi Germany ("extreme racism"), and the biological concept of "race" didn't play a significant role in its ideology. Its brand of racism was closer to the other colonial powers like the United Kingdom or France than to the attitudes associated with fascist movements in Germany.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yeah, right. Ask the hundreds of thousands of people mass murderered by that ... neoliberal, and ... regime ... . If that isn't fascism then I don't know what is.
...

I don't think you know what this word means or its history.


Bollocks, you're just repeating talking points by bourgeois scholars. Ask the Libyans about the lack of Italian racism.
.

I think Tim means that racism was not a central organizing principle of the state ideology the way it was for, say, the Nazis. It just had a more extreme variant of everyday racism.

[Durruti's friend]

Because the Spanish bourgeois are incapable of completing the democratic revolution. They have been since the civil war. The task of the democratic revolution and the goal of socialist revolution, as we've seen all through Europe, are on the shoulders of the working class.
Now, take a deep breath, and tell us what "democratic revolution" is there to complete in the constitutional monarchy of Spain and why would the working class have to fight for it?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Racism is not required for fascism. Italian fascism had no state racism.

While I agree that fascism doesn't require racism to say that there was no Italian state racism is to deny the persecution of gypsies under Mussolini and the Fascists. Under Franco as well, gypsies faces persecution, harassment, assimilationism and being relegated to the ghettoes. Per usual.

Also, under Mussolini, with pressure from the Germans, weren't Italian Jews persecuted as well?

[DDR]

Because the Spanish bourgeois are incapable of completing the democratic revolution. They have been since the civil war. The task of the democratic revolution and the goal of socialist revolution, as we've seen all through Europe, are on the shoulders of the working class.

The spanish state is probably the only western country where the burgeise democratic revolution has never been achieved. Spanish burgeoise has been incapable of a succesful revolution since 1521. Also one must notice that because that the Old Regime structures remains, and that the biggest owners of means of production are the nobility, from land (1/3 of Andalusia is owned by the Duchess of Alba) to factories to other services. Hell, even the administration is full of people with very "Goth" family names. The spanish state is a country of serfs not citizents.


While I agree that fascism doesn't require racism to say that there was no Italian state racism is to deny the persecution of gypsies under Mussolini and the Fascists. Under Franco as well, gypsies faces persecution, harassment, assimilationism and being relegated to the ghettoes. Per usual.

Of course calé people had very rought times, but fancoist racism was very light in comparison. For example the race issue was more spiritual than anything, there wasn't a spanish race but we were "un crisol de razas" (melting pot) and the "Spaniardship" was more like a "unidad de destino en lo universal" (universal unity of fate) where Latinoamerica was lot of closer to us than France for example, which led to one of the most confusing issues of the francoist involvement in WW2, they support the germans while they tried to save lot of Sefardí Jews, while at the same time denouncing the jew-mason conspiracy. Really crazy stuff.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

If there was was no mass desire or push for a republic after Franco, see no reason why they'd want one now. Like the idea, but doubt it will come to anything.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Of course calé people had very rought times, but fancoist racism was very light in comparison. For example the race issue was more spiritual than anything, there wasn't a spanish race but we were "un crisol de razas" (melting pot) and the "Spaniardship" was more like a "unidad de destino en lo universal" (universal unity of fate) where Latinoamerica was lot of closer to us than France for example, which led to one of the most confusing issues of the francoist involvement in WW2, they support the germans while they tried to save lot of Sefardí Jews, while at the same time denouncing the jew-mason conspiracy. Really crazy stuff.

I don't necessarily disagree however "melting pot," politics have been fought by us, in every country, ever. It usually means the forced assimilation of Romani, the destruction of our way of life, of our language, culture and customs and being forced into ghettoes and poverty and so on.

[DDR]

I don't necessarily disagree however "melting pot," politics have been fought by us, in every country, ever. It usually means the forced assimilation of Romani, the destruction of our way of life, of our language, culture and customs and being forced into ghettoes and poverty and so on.

Don't get me wrong, calé people had to suffer a lot in the regime. Their seminomadic lifestyle and their traditional ways of earning a living clashed with the main political motto of the time "más vale la injusticia al desorden" (injustice is preferable to disorder) so they needed to be cracked and beaten into submission in order to become part of the stablishment. It was a really awful cultural genocide, while at the same time introduccing tipical calé culture as a sing of "Spaniardships" (flamenco music, clothing, etc.).

There's a film, El Lute, camina o revienta (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093458/) (El Lute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleuterio_S%C3%A1nchez), forge on or die) which explains very well the situation of the outsiders of society (gipsies and kinkis, mainly)in spain during the 60s-70s.

[Scheveningen]

to say that there was no Italian state racism is to deny the persecution of gypsies under Mussolini and the Fascists. The point is more that they weren't persecuted as part of a racial worldview of the Italian state.
Much like in other European states - Germany implemented similar repressive policies before Nazism, to mention one - they were persecuted because their traditional lifestyle was considered 'anti-social' (ie, outside mainstream social norms; something unacceptable for a State which sought social cohesion above everything).

The result is the same, but the reasoning behind it is different.

[Tower of Bebel]

Now, take a deep breath, and tell us what "democratic revolution" is there to complete in the constitutional monarchy of Spain and why would the working class have to fight for it?
Though the working class forms te majority, the institutions and principles of the constitutional monarchy prevent the class from acting fully in its own interest. Bourgeois constitutionalism, with or without a monarchy, is profoundly undemocratic. No?

[Brutus]

Though the working class forms te majority, the institutions and principles of the constitutional monarchy prevent the class from acting fully in its own interest. Bourgeois constitutionalism, with or without a monarchy, is profoundly undemocratic. No?

Wouldn't the institutions and principles of a bourgeois republic still prevent the working class from acting fully in its own own interest?

[BigJohnTheRed]

I was pleased to see the protest rallies in Madrid and Bilbao and I would love to see this here in Britain but alas to many people here love inbred, unelected heads of state to give a shit. :mad:

[RedWorker]

which led to one of the most confusing issues of the francoist involvement in WW2, they support the germans while they tried to save lot of Sefardí Jews, while at the same time denouncing the jew-mason conspiracy. Really crazy stuff.

I doubt Francoism ever tried to save any kind of Jews. That was just a myth from a propaganda campaign. In fact they handed out Jews (or lists of Jews) to the Nazis.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud%C3%ADos_durante_el_franquismo

[Remus Bleys]

Because the Spanish bourgeois are incapable of completing the democratic revolution. They have been since the civil war. The task of the democratic revolution and the goal of socialist revolution, as we've seen all through Europe, are on the shoulders of the working class.

HEY GEIS IS THE BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION COMPLETED IN ENGLAND YET?
gimme a break. The situation of spain today is not at all like that of 1917 Russia.

[Slavic]

Now, take a deep breath, and tell us what "democratic revolution" is there to complete in the constitutional monarchy of Spain and why would the working class have to fight for it?

Why the revolutionary changing of the flag of course! The Republican flag will ease the woes of the working class and usher in a golden age. Kingdom flags are so 20th century.

[Geiseric]

HEY GEIS IS THE BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION COMPLETED IN ENGLAND YET?
gimme a break. The situation of spain today is not at all like that of 1917 Russia.

Yeah you're right, the Spanish monarchy which was, unlike England's, overthrown by a workers revolution, can completely co exist with basic democratic rights. Especially when they own most of the country. ESPECIALLY when it was restored by the fascists.

[Remus Bleys]

What does that have to do with the development of capitalism?

[Evil Stalinist Overlord]

Regardless of whether Francoism was racist or Spain has remnants of the Old Regime, I support the PCPE's position: no to a second transition, no to a bourgeois referendum, they're both cop-outs for a system in crisis.

[Bala Perdida]

Was Franco's repression of the Basque people talked about yet?

[DDR]

I doubt Francoism ever tried to save any kind of Jews. That was just a myth from a propaganda campaign. In fact they handed out Jews (or lists of Jews) to the Nazis.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud%C3%ADos_durante_el_franquismo

Mate, we had our own Oskar Schindler http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Sanz_Briz


Yeah you're right, the Spanish monarchy which was, unlike England's, overthrown by a workers revolution, can completely co exist with basic democratic rights. Especially when they own most of the country. ESPECIALLY when it was restored by the fascists.

Did the class struggle intensified during the republic? Yes of course. Was it won by a workers revolution? No, it wasn't. The Second Republic was won after a municipal election where the republican parties, both left and right winged ones, won in the biggest cities so the king fled the country. Just like that. Romantic views of historical facts must be destroyed.

[Geiseric]

Mate, we had our own Oskar Schindler http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Sanz_Briz



Did the class struggle intensified during the republic? Yes of course. Was it won by a workers revolution? No, it wasn't. The Second Republic was won after a municipal election where the republican parties, both left and right winged ones, won in the biggest cities so the king fled the country. Just like that. Romantic views of historical facts must be destroyed.

You're the delusional one, the republic only existed due to the workers army and trade unions which took over the entire country. They, as in the CNT FAI, didn't go far enough and nationalize the financial industry. They also made no stance on Spain's colonies.

[Revy]

Was Franco's repression of the Basque people talked about yet?

Catalan and Galician too, all languages other than the Spanish language were banned by Franco.

[Bala Perdida]

Basque culture was also heavily restricted, although I'm not to sure what that is. I just know that the state reacted violently to anyone who expressed it. Where Basque people placed in ghettos too? It sounds like they were, but I'm not much of an expert on this.

[DDR]

You're the delusional one, the republic only existed due to the workers army and trade unions which took over the entire country. They, as in the CNT FAI, didn't go far enough and nationalize the financial industry. They also made no stance on Spain's colonies.

Da foq? Dude, what are you talking about?

The Republic came to be because after king's endorsement of the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, the "Alucemas Dissaster" and the "Picasso's Record" the popular support for the monarchy crumbled. The two parties who were the support of the system for 40 years crumbled into nothing in the cities, where practices of bossism and rigged elections were more dificult to do. So the king fled the country the day after the elections. The center-left won the mayority in the house, which was going to be in 1933 responsible for a massacre of workers in Andalusia, the Casas Viejas Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casas_Viejas_incident)

Do not confuse the Second Republic with the SCW.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Trotsky assumed that there was an unfinished bourgeois revolution, which he posited could only be brought to completion by the proletariat, in countries of delayed capitalist development, principally the colonies and semi-colonies. And the unfinished tasks of the bourgeois revolution were principally the destruction of the remnants of feudal society, not whether the figurehead chief executive of the bourgeois state is elected or born into their role.

[Tower of Bebel]

The bourgeois democracy, i.e. a political current that once stood for a radical democratic programme against the state, is practically non-existent.

First of all, it suffered severe defeats in the hands of 19th-century bonapartism (Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon, Otto von Bismarck, etc.). When bourgeois democracy feared it would be overrun by the working class during the revolution, the capitalists asked the state for protection against the working class. Hence the creation of stable bonapartist regimes and the unwillingness of large parts of the Russian bourgeoisie to topple the Tsar. Instead of bourgeois democracy, it became social democracy which upheld the radical democratic programme.

Secondly, bourgeois democracy as a political current has probably died altogether with the advent of imperialism at the end of that century. The politics of imperialism are basically a reaction to the growth of the working class and the workers' organisations worldwide. Big capital now is not against the state; it needs active state intervention. Though sections of the bourgeoisie claim they are against state intervention, such as the conservative reaction to the nanny state, it goes nowhere near the programmatic ideas of what was once called bourgeois democracy.

I don't know why Spain would need another "bourgeois revolution", because the bourgeoisie rules Spain. It does through its presence in parliament, its ownership of big business and through international loans. But parts of the original bourgeois democratic programme definitily remain unfinished. One of which is the abolition of the monarchy.

As I wrote above, this is mostly due to the imperialist compromise aimed against the development of politically independent working class. A politically and organisationally independent working class would, under genuinely democratic circumstances, use its democratic majority to oust the bourgeoisie from power. The integration of social democracy, the development of a vast state bureaucracy, the use of such old state institutions as the monarchy form several means to frustrate such a frightning development.

The adjective "bourgeois" in "bourgeois democratic revolution" does not refer to the idea that the bourgeoisie would come to lead the next revolution. Or that it would install capitalism. It refers to the outer limits of the democratic programme, i.e. the fact that the old democratic demands are compatible with the existence of capital. But if there's one force capable of completing the democratic revolution, then it is the working class. The working class, once it uses old bourgeois democratic demands as a weapon for its own interests, would push on those outer limits and, as a ruling class, would strive for genuine socialist meansures.

I think that, now that capital rules globally, a bourgeois economic revolution (i.e. a social transformation that would free capital from feudalism) is not on the agenda anywhere. It wasn't even really on the agenda in Russia of 1917 because capitalism was already concidered the dominant mode of production in Russia at the beginning of that century. The Russian Revolution was mainly a democratic revolution of workers and peasants to topple the tsar. But I'm bending the stick there. Some parts of the bourgeois economic revolution were still unfulfilled in the Russian countryside (such as the dividing-up of large estates).