There is a very persistent myth, deeply ingrained in our subconscious, that a change in the social order occurs solely through revolutionary means. Moreover, the transition is often imagined like this: “some masses” decided to move to a different social structure, while other “some masses” opposed them, and after a bloody conflict, a new order was established, which was sought by the “more progressive” masses.
As the English say, “bullshit.” How could people possibly know, before the theoretical framework of social development emerged, what the structure should be after a revolution? How can something entirely new, that never existed before, form in the collective consciousness? Where did the leaders of the masses draw their inspiration from? We rarely ask ourselves these questions. We simply classify a particular upheaval as a “revolution,” which leads to a sudden (like diarrhea) change in the social order.
Let’s start with the fact that no one observed any revolutions when the slave system was replaced by feudalism. Similarly, no one witnessed any revolutions when the “old capitalism” was replaced by the “new,” which, in essence, is no longer capitalism, as capital has long ceased to be a resource owned by the ruling class, which uses it for exploitation.
Instead, we are told about bourgeois revolutions, with examples from the Netherlands, France, and England (not to mention the other countries, by the way), and then they go on to discuss socialist revolutions.
What really happened during the bourgeois revolutions? For example, in France, there was everything but a change of regime. Most historians agree with this (Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System III. The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840s. San Diego, 1989, pp. 40-49; Palmer R. The World of the French Revolution. New York, 1971, p. 265), pointing out that:
- Feudalism in France disappeared several centuries before the revolution (see The old order );.
- The French aristocracy actually included not only large landowners but also major capitalists (See, for example: Goubert P. L’Ancien Regime. Paris, Vol. 1, 1969, p. 235);
- It was the French aristocracy that instilled capitalist (market) relations during the 25-30 years leading up to 1789. The establishment of market relations began between 1763 and 1771 under Louis XV and continued in the following years, up until 1789. The old order The leading role in this was played by liberal economists (physiocrats), most of whom were representatives of the aristocracy (including the head of the physiocrat government, Turgot), while Kings Louis XV and Louis XVI were active supporters of these ideas. See Kaplan S. Bread, Politics and Political Economy in the Reign of Louis XV. Hague, 1976);
- The revolution began with mass uprisings of peasants and townspeople that had an anti-capitalist character, and these continued throughout its course, with the bourgeoisie, representing the French middle class, actively participating in them. The old order One such example is the uprising of October 1795 (suppressed by cannon fire from Napoleon), in which 24,000 armed bourgeois—residents of central Paris—participated. World History: In 24 Volumes. A. Badak, I. Voynich, N. Volchek, et al., Minsk, 1997–1999, vol. 16, pp. 86-90. Another example is the insurrection of the sans-culottes on August 10, 1792, who were primarily composed of the petty bourgeoisie (small businesses, artisans, etc.) opposing the large businesses of the aristocracy. Palmer R. The World of the French Revolution. New York, 1971, p. 109.
- Those who came to power after the first stage of the revolution, especially in the provinces, were mostly not from the bourgeoisie but were nobles who had been in control of power even before the revolution—collecting taxes, rents from the population, etc. (Goubert P. L’Ancien Regime. Paris, T. 2, 1973, p. 247).
In fact, the events in France can be characterized as a hunger revolt against the gluttonous aristocrats. In any case, it was a separate affair from the “class wars,” whether related to the struggle against the Spanish crown, the mix of religious disputes over who was more important—the king or parliament—or yet another hunger revolt. The most important thing is that all these “bourgeois” revolutions did not last a day or even a year. It was simply a time of turmoil that lasted five years or more. And the new order that replaced the old one was not exactly very new—it was aThe text for translation: e.Evolution, not revolution. For us, the description of any revolution is just a couple of pages in a textbook. But in reality, it is a long and seemingly hopeless process.
In all cases, we are told that the system changed from absolute monarchy to parliamentary governance and that this was very progressive. However, it’s all the same bull. All the institutions that were introduced—constitution, republican governance, parliament, etc.—either already existed before, or were present in neighboring countries, or, interestingly enough, were pulled from the dusty shelves of history and held up as examples. Republican governance was a step backward, not forward, in those times. It was a return to the classics, to Rome, to Greece. Moreover, even before the revolutions, there were production relations that undermined the power of the feudal lords and made them not an exceptional class.
When it comes to “socialist” revolutions, things are also quite slippery. Yes, there was a coup in Russia in 1917. It was called a revolution, and to lend it “historical legitimacy” or continuity, references were made to bourgeois revolutions. They developed a theory (which is quite far from Marxism) about the change of social systems, which required cramming two revolutions (bourgeois and socialist) into the year 1917 to make everything seem like a “bundle.” However, what do we see in the rest of the world? Most socialist countries were formed not as a result of revolutions, but through the occupation of their territories by the USSR. In China, it’s the same long mess as we had. Cuba is really just a farce, in fact. Africa and Southeast Asia—don’t make me laugh.
Revolution is not an obligatory attribute of a change in regime. Sometimes, a conflict escalates globally, and afterward, a new form of government is established, while at other times, the old one is just slightly modified. In history, with the exception of the October Revolution, there is no example of such a rapid process. Even the rise to power of the Communist Party of China was essentially a change of one group of people for another within an already established republic.
What happened in October 1917? The same thing that happens in any living organism that encounters an unknown infection — a rapid surrender without resistance. What was the infection? — mass propaganda. This was a weapon to which people had no immunity at the time, and they “opened up” and became easily manipulated. This is the weapon that… is currently in use the bureaucratic elite in any of the developed countries. It was then, in October 1917, that the bureaucratic elite came to power, and they did so with the help of their new weapon.
However, it is even more interesting to understand that both the organizers and the executors of this “revolution” had no idea what they were doing. Yes, they believed they were building “communism” according to Marx’s teachings. But they were not building communism, nor even socialism. In essence, they did not change the system. Capital remained a tool of exploitation. Workers were paid wages. Material gain was the main motivator. The bureaucracy, ridiculed by Gogol and Chekhov, managed the resources. However, this was the first experience of a revolutionary movement being directed towards what seemed to be a conscious goal. It was guided by propaganda, something that had never existed before and would continue to exist from that time onward.