In the historical bourgeois revolutions, the English Civil War, as it is known – in reality the English Revolution of 1642–1651 – or the famous French Revolution of 1789, we see that the bourgeoisie in order to establish its rule resorted to violent revolution with much bloodshed and death involved. Although we may read articles about these events lamenting this “unfortunate” violence, we do not see the same condemnations that are heaped on the Russian Revolution.
Why is that? The answer is very simple. The English and French revolutions brought to power the bourgeoisie, the same class that rules today…
In 1989 in France - and internationally - there were lavish celebrations on the 200th anniversary of the French revolution… the event was celebrated, in spite of all the violence, death and bloodshed.
Not so when it comes to the Russian Revolution. And the reason is clear: the Russian Revolution put an end to capitalism and landlordism, it removed from power the hated Tsarist regime and began the process of building a workers’ state. That is the reason why they hate it so much – it gave an example to the workers of the world, an example they could look to and emulate, as mass Communist Parties emerged in many countries and revolution reverberated around the world, from the German Revolution of November 1918 right through to the Spanish Revolution of 1931-37.
It is precisely because Lenin and the Bolsheviks demonstrated that a workers’ revolution was possible, that the workers could come to power and begin the process of transforming society, that so much attention is dedicated to distorting historical truth. It has nothing to do with the use of violence. This is merely used to depict an image of a bloodthirsty, crazed Lenin, a picture that can be used as a scarecrow whenever the question of social revolution is raised as a necessary means of achieving real change in society. It is to frighten radicalised youth and workers away from the Communists, the Marxists.
Fred Weston, Capitalism: A History of Horror Without End
“It is precisely because Lenin and the Bolsheviks demonstrated that a workers’ revolution was possible, that the workers could come to power and begin the process of transforming society, that so much attention is dedicated to distorting historical truth.”
The American Revolution was arguably a bourgeois revolution as well and definitely different in many regards from the Russian revolution (1917-1922) , the Chinese revolution in the 1940s, or Cuban revolution in the 1950s to name a few
^^^ agreed. we’d go so far as to say the french revolution was far closer to a radical revolution than the american one, which is one reason why movies/pop culture in the us tends to fetishize the guillotine and other images, to make a clear dilineation between our civilized, intellectual “revolutionaries” and their bloodthirsty, out of control “revolutionaries”. just because the french experiment failed to get all the way there doesn’t mean they didn’t make an attempt– america didn’t even glance in that direction, imho
(however we strongly disagree with weston’s idea that the english civil war bore any kind of resemblence to a revolution, bourgeois or otherwise– in order to frame it as a “revolution” you’d have to agree that every single internal conflict in england prior had also been a “revolution”, or at least had revolutionary attributes. the english civil war has far more in common with the regular violent dynastic struggles england and the rest of europe engaged in than in any revolution.)
blakekathryn
germansingergirl
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
origamiaround
pixelskylines
theartofmadeline
