Revolution is not when you exchange one group of landlords for a different set. It is a total upending of systems. That is the true meaning. Soc dems and reformists think we can just change the window dressing and call it systemic. "If the new lord is better than the old lord we can return to the happiness of feudalism." What a terrible thing to believe.

We must reclaim this term. These terms belong to the people not a bunch of centuries dead slaveholding jackasses in powdered wigs who didn't change a goddamn thing.

Just something I've been thinking about lately.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] betelgeuse@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wealthy capitalists saw Monarchies being overthrown by peasants and thought "Damn, that's just like me, fr" So they did a "revolution" as well. But yes, it was just so they could replace Monarchs and exchange the fief for a liberal state. Unfortunately, the science of revolution had not been invented at that point and there was no adequate framework to analyze and critique this. That didn't come until almost 100 years later. Ironically, the science of revolution was a product of this happening, the shift from monarchy to liberal industrial capitalism. People did eventually catch on that these revolutions were not by the exploited, but by the ruling class.

Really, if you think about it, it's like a defense mechanism for the ruling class. Peasants rise up and start toppling their rule, they co-opt the violence and shift to a new abstraction of the exploitation. This is something to watch out for in any worker's revolution. Make sure that the ruling class doesn't try to stand with us and just make a new deal to keep their heads.

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

you're mixing up the old ruling class and the one resultant from the bourgeois revolutions. the bourgeois were not the ruling class at the outset, and became it through the violent process of revolution.