What is a revolutionary situation?
in which we read a whole bunch of Lenin and Mao quotes
Many vocal socialists argue that reformism is dead and socialism's only future runs through revolution. In this series, I critique that claim from a reformist perspective.
To reject the revolutionary position, we must first define it. One key revolutionary concept is the "revolutionary situation". This post first contextualizes and reviews several quotes from Mao and Lenin on the topic. The post ends by summarizing their views into a simple four-part model.
Revolution is only possible in a revolutionary situation
The vast majority of revolutionary socialists (correctly) believe that armed socialist revolution is not plausible at all times and all places. Instead, they hold that a set of social conditions creates a "revolutionary situation" which makes revolution possible (but not certain).
A brief quote from Lenin's Collapse of the 2nd International (1915) makes this position very clear:
To the Marxist it is indisputable that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, it is not every revolutionary situation that leads to revolution.
That's why the "revolutionary situation" concept has great importance to the reform-revolution debate:
If a revolutionary situation exists or can plausibly exist in our society today, then revolution is a plausible option, and we must argue whether to prefer reform or revolution.
If a revolutionary situation doesn't and can't exist, then revolution is an impossible option, no matter how much we might prefer it.
That leads us to an obvious question:
What conditions lead to a revolutionary situation?
This question has no comprehensive, concise Marxist answer. Revolutionary socialist writers often discuss the factors which enable revolution in their country, but provide no robust model for socialist revolutions in general. This yields a loose sense of revolution, which is fun to invoke rhetorically but harder to define meaningfully. (Hell, Andy Blunden's Marxists.org glossary doesn't even define "revolution" or "revolutionary situation".)
To fill that gap, this post will:
Review and summarize quotes on revolutionary situations from several prominent revolutionary socialist writer-leaders Lenin, Mao, and Engels
Synthesize those quotes into a concise model to evaluate revolutionary conditions
Why? First, to prove that revolutionary socialist writers have long recognized that socialist revolution is difficult and succeeds only in certain economic & social conditions. Second, to use that model to provide a strong answer on whether socialist revolution is feasible in rich countries, today.
Terminology notes
It's useful to divide revolutionary conditions into several types, described below.
Objective and subjective:
Objective conditions are primarily "material" and describe economic structures and social relations, such as poverty, inequality, and unfreedom
Subjective conditions are primarily "social" and describe the cultural-political-military power of an ideology-movement, such as popularity and institutional control
Absolute and relative:
Absolute conditions describe the absolute strength or weakness of a condition, such as starvation-level poverty or the physical equipment of a military
Relative conditions describe the comparative strength of a conditions, such as changes in poverty rates or one military's power against that of another
How does Lenin define a revolutionary situation?
If you're not interested in exegesis from long leftist quotes, skip to the "summarizing" section below.
This section provides and summarizes five long quotes from Lenin on the conditions that create a revolutionary situation. The next section synthesizes those conditions into one list.
First quote: Lenin first used the term "revolutionary situation" in his 1913 pamphlet "May Day Action by the Revolutionary Proletariat", written eight years after the 1905 revolution, where he asserts that Russia is in a unique revolutionary situation because of its unique conditions. Here, Lenin focuses on both economic and ideological causes of revolution.
The colossal superiority of the Russian strikes over those in the European countries, the most advanced countries, demonstrates, not the special qualities or special abilities of Russia’s workers, but the special conditions in present-day Russia, the existence of a revolutionary situation, the growth of a directly revolutionary crisis.
[....]
Russia is experiencing a revolutionary situation because the oppression of the vast majority of the population—not only of the proletariat but of nine-tenths of the small producers, particularly the peasants—has intensified to the maximum, and this intensified oppression, starvation, poverty, lack of rights, humiliation of the people is, further more, glaringly inconsistent with the state of Russia’s productive forces, inconsistent with the level of the class consciousness and the demands of the masses roused by the year 1905, and inconsistent with the state of affairs in all neighbouring not only European but Asian—countries. But that is not all. Oppression alone, no matter how great, does not always give rise to a revolutionary situation in a country. In most cases it is not enough for revolution that the lower classes should not want to live in the old way. It is also necessary that the upper classes should be unable to rule and govern in the old way. This is what we see in Russia today.
In short: Lenin asserts that Russia is in a uniquely revolutionary situation, unlike most European countries, because of four revolutionary conditions:
Objective:
Lack of rights and oppression have "increased to the maximum" (Relative)
High poverty causes starvation and poverty "glaringly inconsistent" with Russia's rising productivity (Absolute)
Subjective:
Workers have a much higher "level of class consciousness" since the 1905 revolution (Relative)
The upper classes cannot "rule and govern in the old way", because peaceful development cannot be assured (Absolute)
Second quote: Lenin again offered a straightforward definition of "revolutionary situation" in his 1915 article series The Collapse of the Second International, written while the Second International was splitting apart due to World War 1. Here, Lenin focuses more on objective causes of revolution:
What, generally speaking, are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? We shall certainly not be mistaken if we indicate the following three major symptoms:
(1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes”, a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way;
(2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual;
(3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in “peace time”, but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the “upper classes” themselves into independent historical action.
Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible. The totality of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation.
[....]
[N]ot every revolutionary situation [...] gives rise to a revolution; revolution arises only out of a situation in which the above-mentioned objective changes are accompanied by a subjective change, namely, the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, “falls”, if it is not toppled over.
In short: Lenin reaffirms that revolution requires a revolutionary situation, which requires the following conditions:
Objective:
The oppressed classes endure greater suffering than usual (Relative)
The lower classes do not want "to live in the old way", the masses "are drawn" into "independent historical action" (Absolute)
Subjective:
The upper classes cannot rule in the old way, because of internal disagreement or policy crisis (Absolute)
The revolutionary class is "strong enough to break" the old government (Absolute)
Note: Lenin labels the first three of these conditions "objective changes", independent of the will of organizations or classes. Lenin labels the 3rd condition "objective", while I label it "subejctive". Although ruling class disunity can result from the objective changes outlined here, disunity is not an inevitable result of those objective changes. Economic crisis and mass socialist activity can also spur the ruling class to unify around a strong anti-socialist leader. Examples include Mussolini and Hitler. Thus, it should be considered a subjective condition that depends on the behavior of the ruling class.
Third quote: Lenin's 1917 article series "Letters From Afar" was written after "the first stage" of the 1917 Russian revolution, the February Revolution, which established a liberal/bourgeois parliamentary democracy. (The second stage, the October Revolution, began the Bolshevik-White Russian Civil War.) In his first letter, Lenin overviews the causes of this liberal revolution (and why it allows a further socialist revolution) at great length. Here, as in 1915, Lenin again focuses more on ideological causes of revolution, but notes they are "accelerated" by economic causes:
This first revolution, and the succeeding period of counter-revolution (1907–14), laid bare the very essence of the tsarist monarchy, brought it to the “utmost limit”, exposed all the rottenness and infamy, the cynicism and corruption of the tsar’s clique, dominated by that monster, Rasputin. It exposed all the bestiality of the Romanov family—those pogrom-mongers who drenched Russia in the blood of Jews, workers and revolutionaries, those landlords, “first among peers”, who own millions of dessiatines of land and are prepared to stoop to any brutality, to any crime, to ruin and strangle any number of citizens in order to preserve the “sacred right of property” for themselves and their class. Without the Revolution of 1905–07 and the counter-revolution of 1907–14, there could not have been that clear “self determination” of all classes of the Russian people and of the nations inhabiting Russia, that determination of the relation of these classes to each other and to the tsarist monarchy, which manifested itself during the eight days of the February-March Revolution of 1917.
[....]
[T]his required a great, mighty and all-powerful “stage manager”, capable, on the one hand, of vastly accelerating the course of world history, and, on the other, of engendering world-wide crises of unparalleled intensity—economic, political, national and international. [....] [T]his mighty accelerator was the imperialist world war.
[....]
That crisis is growing with irresistible force in all countries, beginning with Germany, which, according to an observer who recently visited that country, is suffering “brilliantly organised famine”, and ending with England and France, where famine is also looming, but where organisation is far less “brilliant”.
It was natural that the revolutionary crisis should have broken out first of all in tsarist Russia, where the disorganisation was most appalling and the proletariat most revolutionary (not by virtue of any special qualities, but because of the living traditions of 1905).
This crisis was precipitated by the series of extremely severe defeats sustained by Russia and her allies. They shook up the old machinery of government and the old order and roused the anger of all classes of the population against them; they embittered the army, wiped out a very large part of the old commanding personnel, composed of die-hard aristocrats and exceptionally corrupt bureaucratic elements, and replaced it by a young, fresh, mainly bourgeois, commoner, petty-bourgeois personnel.
In short: Lenin argues that revolutionary crisis broke out in Russia first because it has the strongest revolutionary tradition and the most disorganized gov't. The strongest among these are:
Objective:
WW1 caused economic crises across the world "of unparalleled intensity" (Relative)
The Russian gov't response to economic crises including famine was disorganized and ineffective (Absolute)
Subjective:
The Russian revolution of 1905 exposed the corruption and blood-thirst of the Romanov monarchy, which led all non-ruling classes fight against it (Relative)
Russian military defeats replaced its old officer-soldier corps of reactionary monarchists with new proletarian and bourgeois recruits (Relative)
Fourth quote: Lenin's 1918 speech "Political Report Of The Central Committee", delivered to the 1918 Russian Communist Party's extraordinary congress held immediately after they seized power in the October Revolution, further highlights the differences in revolutionary conditions in Russia (strong) and most of Europe (weak):
Here and there the revolutionary movement was growing, but in all the imperialist countries without exception it was still mainly in the initial stage. Its rate of development was entirely different from ours. Anyone who has given careful thought to the economic prerequisites of the socialist revolution in Europe must be clear on the point that in Europe it will be immeasurably more difficult to start, whereas it was immeasurably more easy for us to start; but it will be more difficult for us to continue the revolution than it will be over there.
[....]
The revolution will not come as quickly as we expected. History has proved this, and we must be able to take this as a fact, to reckon with the fact that the world socialist revolution cannot begin so easily in the advanced countries as the revolution began in Russia—in the land of Nicholas and Rasputin, the land in which an enormous part of the population was absolutely indifferent as to what peoples were living in the outlying regions, or what was happening there. In such a country it was quite easy to start a revolution, as easy as lifting a feather.
But to start without preparation a revolution in a country in which capitalism is developed and has given democratic culture and organisation to everybody, down to the last man—to do so would be wrong, absurd. There we are only just approaching the painful period of the beginning of socialist revolutions.
In short: Compared to the other quotes, Lenin's writing here is very short on details, but suggests that two factors made it easier to start revolution in Russia than Europe:
Objective:
European capitalism is "developed" or "advanced"; this makes European revolution "immeasurably more difficult to start" (Absolute)
Subjective:
European capitalist states have given "democratic culture" to everybody, which makes revolution "without preparation" "absurd" (Absolute)
Fifth quote: Lenin's 1920 book, "Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder, written as the Bolsheviks were soon to win the civil war, repeats what he said in 1913 and then makes clear exactly how committed workers must be. Here, Lenin focuses more on subjective causes of revolution. In Chapter 9, Lenin writes:
The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows:
For a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes;
For a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way.
It is only when the “lower classes” do not want to live in the old way and the “upper classes” cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters).
It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.
In short: Compared to the other quotes, Lenin's writing here is far stronger in the attitude it demands of workers ("prepared to die" for a revolution they "fully realise is necessary"). Lenin suggests three factors that enable revolution, each of which confirmed by the three revolutions in Russia (1905, 1917, and 1917 again):
Objective:
A nation-wide crisis affecting both "the exploited and exploiters" is occuring (Absolute)
Subjective:
Most workers, or at least most politically active workers, should "fully realise that revolution is necessary" and "be prepared to die for it" (Absolute)
The ruling class is going through a "governmental crisis" that enables easy takeover (Absolute)
Across Lenin's writing, we see a range of beliefs about exactly which conditions enable revolution. In his later writing, he is the most demanding: The working class must be diehard revolutionaries, the government must be in crisis, and the ruling class must be unable to rule in the old way.
In short: Across his writing, Lenin suggests that revolutionary situations require that: [1] Objective conditions for revolution (such as economic depression and poverty) are both absolutely and relatively strong; and that: [2] subjective conditions for revolution (such as class consciousness and worker organization) are both absolutely and relatively strong.
How does Mao define a revolutionary situation?
If you're not interested in exegesis from long leftist quotes, skip to the "summarizing" section below.
This section provides and summarizes three quotes from Mao on the conditions that create a revolutionary situation. The next section synthesizes those conditions into one list.
First quote: In 1928, Mao rhetorically asked "Why is it that Red Political Power can Exist in China?" three years after the first Chinese communist revolution began. He answered: Weak reactionary forces beset by infighting and very poor living conditions among the poor and middle classes:
The present regime of the new warlords of the Kuomintang remains a regime of the comprador class in the cities and the landlord class in the countryside; it is a regime which has capitulated to imperialism in its foreign relations and which at home has replaced the old warlords with new ones, subjecting the working class and the peasantry to an even more ruthless economic exploitation and political oppression.
The bourgeois-democratic revolution which started in Kwangtung Province had gone only halfway when the comprador and landlord classes usurped the leadership and immediately shifted it on to the road of counter-revolution; throughout the country the workers, the peasants, the other sections of the common people, and even the bourgeoisie, have remained under counter-revolutionary rule and obtained not the slightest particle of political or economic emancipation.
[....]
The contradictions and struggles among the cliques of warlords in China reflect the contradictions and struggles among the imperialist powers. Hence, as long as China is divided among the imperialist powers, the various cliques of warlords cannot under any circumstances come to terms, and whatever compromises they may reach will only be temporary. A temporary compromise today engenders a bigger war tomorrow.
The long-term survival inside a country of one or more small areas under Red political power completely encircled by a White regime is a phenomenon that has never occurred anywhere else in the world. There are special reasons for this unusual phenomenon. It can exist and develop only under certain conditions.
In short: Mao gives three major reasons why communist political power has endured in China:
Objective:
Ruthless economic exploitation and political oppression of workers and peasants (Absolute)
Subjective:
China is divided among the imperialist powers (Absolute)
Prolonged splits and wars within the White regime (Absolute)
Second quote: Mao wrote his famous letter "A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire" in 1930, when the KMT was preparing the first of five encirclement campaigns CPC-held pockets of territory. Despite the revolution's failure to secure power, Mao urged revolutionary optimism. He argues that, in China, both the subjective forces of reaction and of revolution are weak, but the objective conditions of revolution are strong:
Although the subjective forces of the revolution in China are now weak, so also are all organizations (organs of political power, armed forces, political parties, etc.) of the reactionary ruling classes, resting as they do on the backward and fragile social and economic structure of China. This helps to explain why revolution cannot break out at once in the countries of Western Europe where, although the subjective forces of revolution are now perhaps somewhat stronger than in China, the forces of the reactionary ruling classes are many times stronger. In China the revolution will undoubtedly move towards a high tide more rapidly, for although the subjective forces of the revolution at present are weak, the forces of the counter-revolution are relatively weak too.
The subjective forces of the revolution have indeed been greatly weakened since the defeat of the revolution in 1927. The remaining forces are very small and those comrades who judge by appearances alone naturally feel pessimistic. But if we judge by essentials, it is quite another story. Here we can apply the old Chinese saying, "A single spark can start a prairie fire." In other words, our forces, although small at present, will grow very rapidly. In the conditions prevailing in China, their growth is not only possible but indeed inevitable, as the May 30th Movement and the Great Revolution which followed have fully proved.
[....]
In the wake of imperialist commercial aggression, Chinese merchant-capitalist extortions, heavier government taxation, etc., comes the deepening of the contradiction between the landlord class and the peasantry, that is, exploitation through rent and usury is aggravated and the hatred of the peasants for the landlords grows.
Because of the pressure of foreign goods, the exhaustion of the purchasing power of the worker and peasant masses, and the increase in government taxation, more and more dealers in Chinese-made goods and independent producers are being driven into bankruptcy.
Because the reactionary government, though short of provisions and funds, endlessly expands its armies and thus constantly extends the warfare, the masses of soldiers are in a constant state of privation.
Because of the growth in government taxation, the rise in rent and interest demanded by the landlords and the daily spread of the disasters of war, there are famine and banditry everywhere and the peasant masses and the urban poor can hardly keep alive.
Because the schools have no money, many students fear that their education may be interrupted; because production is backward, many graduates have no hope of employment.
Once we understand all these contradictions, we shall see in what a desperate situation, in what a chaotic state, China finds herself. We shall also see that the high tide of revolution against the imperialists, the warlords and the landlords is inevitable, and will come very soon.
All China is littered with dry faggots ["bundles of sticks", "kindling"] which will soon be aflame. The saying, "A single spark can start a prairie fire", is an apt description of how the current situation will develop. We need only look at the strikes by the workers, the uprisings by the peasants, the mutinies of soldiers and the strikes of students which are developing in many places to see that it cannot be long before a "spark" kindles "a prairie fire"."""
In short: Mao claims the subjective forces of revolution are weak in China but the objective conditions are strong:
Objective:
Soldiers are impoverished, high taxes cause famine and banditry, education is insecure, and unemployment is high (Absolute)
Rising capitalist exploitation rates, rising product costs (Relative)
Subjective:
The objective conditions above already yield peasant uprisings, soldier mutinies, and student strikes (Absolute)
The subjective forces of reaction are weak, though currently stronger than the subjective forces of revolution (Relative)
The subjective forces of revolution can become strong by further exploiting the above (Relative)
Aside: Another quote on revolutionary situations is often attributed to Mao, who allegedly states:
A potential revolutionary situation exists in any country where the government consistently fails in its obligation to ensure at least a minimally decent standard of life for the great majority of its citizens.
This quote might sound socialist, but it was actually written by an American Brigadier General.
In short: Like Lenin, Mao also suggests that a revolutionary situation results from four conditions: Strong objective conditions for revolution (absolutely and relatively) and strong subjective conditions for revolution (absolutely and relatively).
Summarizing Lenin's and Mao's definitions of revolutionary conditions
We can summarize the key points of Lenin’s and Mao's views on revolution into a simplified four-part model:
Objective Absolute: Economic conditions & political repression of lower classes are so bad that most politically aware workers are "prepared to die for" socialist revolution
Objective Relative: Living conditions of lower classes are far worse than before, as in depression or war
Subjective Absolute: Lower classes are revolutionary, organized, and "strong enough to break" the old government and hold state power
Subjective Relative: Upper classes are "unable to rule and govern in the old way"; they are weaker, less organized, and not reactionary enough to beat down the lower classes
We can further simplify these into four questions:
OA: Are workers so fucked that most would die for socialist revolution?
OR: Are workers way more fucked now than a decade ago?
SA: If they tried, could the workers seize and wield state power?
SR: If they tried, could the rulers halt their infighting and crush the workers?
A revolutionary situation occurs when answers 1-3 are true and 4 is false. In addition, we apply two caveats:
A revolutionary situation does NOT imply an actual revolution, just the possibility of one, because "not every revolutionary situation [...] leads to revolution".
Revolutionaries can NOT force a revolutionary situation: These objective conditions are "independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties, but even of individual classes".
I provide examples of each condition, taken from Lenin and Mao, in the list below:
Objective:
Absolutely bad living conditions of lower classes:
Political unfreedom: High oppression, weak civil rights
Economic unfreedom: High poverty, literal starvation
Relatively worse living conditions of lower classes:
Productivity gap: Economic productivity could allow better economic well-being than actually allowed
Crisis: Worse economic suffering than usual
Uncertainty: Economic well-being less certain than usual
Subjective:
Absolutely strong organization of pro-revolution forces:
High class consciousness: Enables workers to identify cause of poor living conditions, "prepared to die for" revolution
Recent revolutionary attempts: Masses have a revolutionary tradition (such as Russia 1905-1907, then 1917)
United: Russian mass unrest exposed the Romanov monarchy as corrupt and bloodthirsty, which led all non-ruling classes to oppose them
Relatively weak organization of anti-revolution forces:
Recent revolutionary misses: Upper classes cannot be certain of "peaceful development" due to recurring near-revolutions
Fractured: Upper classes internally disagree about policy
Infiltrated: Russian military defeats replaced its old officer-soldier corps of reactionary monarchists with new proletarian recruits, who were amenable to socialist revolution
Why does this four-part model matter?
In short, a lot of socialist writing on revolutions is longwinded, unproductive garbage. This model forces clearer writing.
Revolutionary socialist theorists argue that socialist revolution is both desirable and feasible. Revolutionary socialist organizing rests on the key claim that capitalism's internal contradictions will yield a revolutionary situation, at which socialists must be organized enough to seize power.
Theory is not dogma. Theory must reflect reality. "Marx said it" does not make it true. But most socialist writing on revolutionary situations involves a lot of exegesis of Marx and Lenin. And nobody should need to read Lenin's State and Revolution to know what this key claim actually means!
Fundamentally, Lenin and Mao are making assertions about how society works. Like all sociological claims, these should make testable claims about the world. And to test something, you need to model it. (And if you can't model it or explain it simply, you probably don't understand it.)
This encourages cleaner thinking.
For example: Many revolutionary socialists like to blame the lack of revolutions in the rich democratic West on leadership failures of Western Communist Parties. Rephrased: These revsocs claim that revolution in the West did not occur primarily because Western communist subjective forces were disorganized or unrevolutionary.
But this claim ignores the fact that the objective conditions of revolution -- which our model also requires for a revolutionary situation! -- did not exist. For example, see Maoist theorist Appel's 1969 rebuke to Swedish Marxist-Leninists who claimed time was ripe for revolution in Sweden (1969):
Marxist Forum is having sweet dreams concerning what might have happened in Sweden, if the Swedish working class, at an earlier time, had been led by a communist party armed with Marxism-Leninism[.] [...] That kind of dreaming is worse than useless – [they] would do better seeking an explanation to the fact that the Swedish working class was not lead by such a party, and it would be a good idea for them to start by studying, whether at any time, in capitalist Sweden, we have had a situation which made it possible for a communist party to grow big and strong through leading the working class in a revolutionary struggle.
When did capitalist Sweden witness a revolutionary situation? When has a revolutionary high tide existed in capitalist Sweden, which would rise inevitably, and which a communist party might have hastened? To tell the truth, such a situation never existed in capitalist Sweden, no more than in capitalist Denmark!
In a callback to Mao's "single spark can start a prairie fire", Appel quips:
Today, the objective changes necessary for a revolutionary situation have not taken place anywhere in the imperialist world, and they are not imminent. The spark is not there, the percussion cap has been lost, and the prairie is dripping wet.
Revolutionary socialists would do well to make a similar analysis:
Are rich democratic Western societies "dry prairies" -- with strong objective conditions for revolution, where one well-organized communist spark might alight a fire?
Or are they "wet prairies", where socialism must face the "shoals of roast beef and apple pie"?
Secondly, it is obligatory for a Marxist to count on a European revolution if a revolutionary situation exists. It is the ABC of Marxism that the tactics of the socialist proletariat cannot be the same both when there is a revolutionary situation and when there is no revolutionary situation.
Conclusions and shilling
In short, this blogpost makes three arguments:
Most revolutionary socialists believe that revolution is conditionally possible: If revolutionary conditions occur, they cause a revolutionary situation, which allows successful revolution.
Lenin's and Mao's writing clearly suggests that a revolutionary situation requires strong objective conditions for revolution (both absolute and relative) and strong subjective conditions for revolution (both absolute and relative).
Formalizing that into a four-part model lets us critically examine whether a country is in (or will be in) a revolutionary situation.
I write blogs on socialist and progressive topics. To support my work:
Subscribe on Substack:
