What is revolution in brief? Political Science: Dictionary-Reference Book

07Sep

What is Revolution

Revolution is a word that is used in many contexts, but is usually intended to describe the aggressive overthrow of a government structure or a massive sudden change in social values. The most striking sign of a revolution is the fact that in most cases there is a revolution in the usual foundations, and all supposedly familiar functions are performed in a diametrically opposite way.

A simple definition of the word revolution.

In simple words, revolution is a process in which a society dissatisfied with what is happening in their country removes the government by force, with the exception of so-called “peaceful” revolutions. In addition to revolutions related to political or social aspects, there are many other types of revolutions. It could be:

Cultural Revolution;
Economic revolution;
Sexual revolution;
Scientific revolution;
Industrial Revolution

Etymology of the word "Revolution".

The term comes from the Latin word “revolutio”, which translates as: revolution, transformation, change, conversion.

Causes of the revolution.

The most basic reason for any revolution is the dissatisfaction of the population with the existing state system. So society can be motivated to carry out a revolution by low wages, restrictions on freedoms and class inequality, the lack of a fair judicial system and similar infringements.

In some societies, oppression can last hundreds of years before the people decide to act against the government. As a rule, the impetus for the start of a revolution can be particularly striking events that finally overflow the cup of people's patience. An example of such striking and shocking events that served as the beginning of a revolution is the beating of students by Berkut officers in Kyiv, Ukraine.

The outcome and problems of the revolution.

If the revolution is successful, society begins to create a new political and social system taking into account the needs of the population. As a rule, this post-revolutionary process takes a long period of time and requires a lot of effort from the people themselves. This period is usually characterized by the presence of an abundance of painful new reforms that have a heavy impact on the usual structure of society. Nevertheless, as world practice shows, over time the standard of living of the population increases, and the country enters an era of rapid development.

Even when revolutionary attempts fail, they can potentially lead to significant social change. When a society shows a desire for significant social change, most often political elites make concessions to calm the situation.

The problems associated with the revolution include aspects associated with the coming to power of new, but not entirely honest politicians. Such individuals, taking advantage of instability in the state and the enormous credit of popular trust, use power for personal gain. They imitate the introduction of reforms and create the appearance of vigorous activity, but in reality they only delay the time necessary for personal enrichment.

The word “revolution” has undergone curious metamorphoses in Russia. Based on its use and attitude to the concept behind it, one can safely study the history of the country over the last hundred years. Over the course of more than seventy years of Soviet power, the revolution was not only surrounded by honor and respect: it was ascribed a truly sacred meaning. The Bolshevik Revolution was presented as the beginning of a new era of humanity. Something like the appearance into the world of a new Christ - Lenin - with the Bolshevik leaders as apostles and the Communist Party as the new church. Continuing this series, the “building of communism” was seen as the second coming of Christ - the reign of a communist utopia on earth.

To prove the fruitfulness and greatness of the revolution, the achievements of Soviet history were cited: the creation of a powerful industrial base and advanced science, the formation of the Soviet model of a mass consumer society and a social state, space flights and sports victories, foreign policy expansion and cultural influence, and most importantly, victory in the Great Patriotic War.

It was implied or directly stated that, if not for the machinations of an external enemy in the person of the United States, the communist kingdom of love and justice would have spread throughout the entire world. Just a little more effort, called for Soviet propaganda, and the “Western devil” will be put to shame, and the communist Christ “in a white crown of roses” will sweep over the entire planet like a cleansing storm.

However, the titanic struggle between Good and Evil was lost. Heresy and treason made their nest in the very heart of the Bolshevik Grail. Interests took precedence over ideals, the sparkling communist dream collapsed.

Since the second half of the 1980s. the idea of revolution was subjected to an ever-increasing wave of criticism, and the attitude towards it in official propaganda literally turned 180 degrees. Any revolution, and the Bolshevik one in particular, was covered as an exclusively negative process. The emphasis was on sacrifice and suffering, while the achievements and victories of the Soviet era were overhauled.

It was argued that everything that the Soviets achieved could have been achieved without mass casualties, monstrous losses and grandiose crimes, and the war with Nazi Germany (and Nazism itself) would not have happened at all if they had not come to power in Russia in the fall of 1917 Bolsheviks.

Literally, according to Alexander Galich, “our Father turned out to be not a father, but a bitch.” Instead of the path to the heavenly city, the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be a road paved with good intentions to hell on earth.

Two dimensions of revolution

The paradox is that both of these points of view are reasonable and have good reasons. Revolutions are a dialectical contradiction. Yes, they are the “locomotives of history,” and in this old Marx was absolutely right. But at the same time, any revolution is Moloch, and it devours not only its children (it is noteworthy that Danton dropped a phrase that later became a catchphrase before his own execution), but also the innocent and innocent.

Without the Great French Revolution, the ideas of democracy and republicanism, laicism and the political nation would hardly have prevailed in the world. Without the Great Russian Revolution of 1917, the practices of the social state and welfare society would have had much less chance of being realized. (It is characteristic that it was after the collapse of Soviet socialism, according to popular estimates, that the creeping dismantling of the welfare state began, including in the West.) Without the “red” Chinese revolution, this ancient Asian country might now have eked out a miserable existence, rather than aspiring for global economic leadership.

In general, without these and other, less well-known revolutions, the modern world simply would not exist. But the price demanded by revolutions for the creation of modernity turned out to be fabulously high. An ominous metaphor for the cost of revolutionary change were the pyramids of human skulls built by the Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea. Remember the famous painting by the painter Vasily Vereshchagin “The Apotheosis of War”. Now imagine not just one mountain of skulls, as in this picture, but many similar pyramids, ominously whitening through the green thickets of the jungle.

Could humanity's price for progress not be so high? Probably. But in order for things not to reach bloody revolutions, it is necessary that the ruling elites resolve the accumulating contradictions in a timely manner and in adequate forms, which, in fact, lead to revolutions. But this assumption, as the reader understands, is no longer realistic. At least on a world-historical scale.

People, even intelligent ones, learn from their own mistakes rather than from the experiences of others. The British ruling class is held up as an example for its ability to avoid social and political upheaval through compromise and social reformism. But it seems that this is not so much a matter of supposedly innate common sense Anglo-Saxons, how much in their ability to learn lessons from their own experience. In this case, from the English Revolution of the mid-17th century, when Oliver Cromwell’s “ironsides” showed themselves to be worthy forerunners of the Bolshevik commissars.

The Russian reader probably associates the word “revolution” with the Bolshevik coup of October 1917 and the bloody orgy of the Civil War and “socialist transformations” that followed. However, millions of victims and mass violence are not at all a necessary attribute of revolution. Many bloodless revolutions have happened and are happening in the world. Moreover, the revolutions of the last two or three decades are generally characterized by a minimization of violence.

“Disassembly” of the Soviet Union in August–December 1991, the Georgian “Rose Revolution” in 2003, two revolutionary coups (2005 and 2010) in Kyrgyzstan, which took place in two stages (2004 and the turn of 2013– 2014) national democratic revolution in Ukraine, in Russia usually called Maidan, “Arab Spring” 2011–2012. - all these are real revolutions. And although at times they were accompanied by unrest, violence and casualties, against the backdrop of “model” revolutions like the October or Great French revolutions, modern revolutions look vegetarian.

At the same time, I will immediately emphasize that the war in Donbass in 2014–2016. is not an inevitable consequence of the Maidan victory, and it certainly could not have gone so far without active external participation. (The question of why some revolutions turn out to be bloody and others bloodless will be discussed further.)

And yet, even non-violent and bloodless revolutions destroy the established order of things and lead to chaotization - more or less long-lasting - of society and economic life. Even the most liberal and democratic revolutions in their slogans and intentions inevitably entail serious economic crises, and even disasters.

Sometimes a loss of momentum can result in a gain in the quality of economic growth. But too often, post-revolutionary countries find themselves trapped in economic chaos and the weakness of new institutions, from which they have to climb out for decades.

And this observation naturally leads to a sacramental question: isn’t it better to do without revolutions altogether? Alas, the answer will be the same as a few paragraphs above: if the ruling elites could timely and successfully untie the ripening tangles of contradictions, then the revolutions would not have a chance to come true. According to the outstanding Russian reformer of the early 20th century. Sergei Witte, “all revolutions occur because governments do not satisfy the urgent needs of the people in a timely manner. They happen because governments remain deaf to people's needs."

But, before we begin to understand what the causes of revolutions are and what makes them inevitable in some situations, it is necessary to determine exactly what events and processes can be called a revolution.

Revolution: word and concept

Late Latin revolutio comes from the verb revolvere, meaning “to return”, “to transform”, “to roll back”. That is, the term revolutio originally meant cyclical movement, a return to the original point, back to square one. It was in this sense that it was used in the title of Nicolaus Copernicus' famous treatise De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) of 1543.

Similarly, to denote the cycle of political forms, the term “revolution” was used in socio-political life. Italians in a word rivoluzioni called the alternation of aristocratic groups in power. In particular, the Florentines so called the revolts of 1494, 1512 and 1527, which restored the previous political order in Florence.

In France, the word révolution was used to describe the return of King Henry IV to Catholicism on July 25, 1593. In England revolution was the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Royalists greeted the return of Charles II with the words “Long live the revolution!” While the previous twenty years, known to us as the “Great English Revolution” or “English bourgeois revolution,” were called by contemporaries a rebellion and civil war.

One way or another, until the 17th century. revolutions inclusive meant a change in the political system within the framework of a broadly traditions. As a rule, tradition implied monarchy, religion and customs (social order). It is characteristic that even the radical leader of the Puritan revolution, Oliver Cromwell, under whom the king was executed and a republic was proclaimed, spoke out in defense of the traditional social order - “the ranks and ranks for which England has been famous for centuries... Nobleman, gentleman, yeoman; their dignity, they are important for the nation, and to the greatest extent!

In other words, these were political, not social revolutions. They did not encroach on large-scale social changes, not to mention a radical break with the past and opposition to it. Moreover, in the understanding of the revolutionaries themselves, the goal of change was precisely a return to a certain original “correct” state of affairs. Although they shot arrows forward from their bows, their heads were turned back.

The understanding of revolution changed decisively in the 18th century, which was recorded by the ideology of the Great French Revolution. From now on, the revolutionaries did not feel bound by religion, monarchy, or customs. Moreover, in a militant manner they rejected these fundamental foundations of the old world, proclaiming a final and irrevocable break with it, and declared a radically new stage in human history.

The understanding of revolution as a social cataclysm was picked up by the Marxist tradition and was finally entrenched in it after the Great Russian Revolution of 1917. And it is alive to this day. And not only among the moribund Marxist professors, but also among the masses of “Russian people of the old generation,” that is, those who were socialized in the Soviet era. They just believe that a revolution is certainly a change in the political and socio-economic system, and is accompanied by streams of blood, violence and devastation. Everything else is not a revolution for them.

Paradoxically, this quasi-Marxist interpretation is actively supported and developed by modern Russian propaganda. And it’s clear why. If you present a revolution as a bloody bacchanalia with a total redistribution of property, then there is simply no better way to demonize the very idea of revolution as a way of change and to intimidate society with it.

However, the grandiose scale and depth of social changes are characteristic primarily of the so-called “great” revolutions, which ushered in the transition from one socio-economic system to another and caused worldwide dynamics. And there were only two such revolutions in the world: the Great French and the Great Russian of 1917 (Sometimes the Chinese Revolution of 1949 is also considered great). They really turned out to be bloody.

However, even in those distant times, not all revolutions were bloody. And in the modern world they are, as a rule, peaceful. Even the collapse of the Soviet Union and the country’s transition to a new political and socio-economic quality - and that was an unalloyed revolution of great social and political depth - was relatively bloodless. Although not painless. However, this transition in Russia has not been completed to this day.

Modern social science, when defining revolution, operates with concepts broad enough to include all types of revolutions, not just the great ones. At the same time, the semantic core of various academic definitions more or less coincides, and it is unlikely that it has changed at all over the past fifty years. It is enough to compare several definitions. Revolution is “a change of government and/or regime and/or change in society caused by the use of force.” “In the most general sense of the word, a revolution is an attempt to radically change the system of government. It often involves violation of existing constitutional provisions and the use of force.”

And finally, two conceptually close and chronologically the most recent definitions by the luminary of revolutionary studies, Jack Goldstone. 2001 formulation: “It is an attempt to transform political institutions and provide a new rationale for political power in society, accompanied by formal or informal mobilization of the masses and such non-institutionalized actions as undermine existing power.” And the wording of 2013: “ Revolution - it is the violent overthrow of power carried out through mass mobilization (military, civil or both) in the name of social justice and the creation of new political institutions.”

There is not a hint in the definitions of the cost of revolutions, the scale and depth of revolutionary transformations, or the results of revolutions. It only talks about the violent overthrow of power through mass mobilization. In this sense, the revolutions of the last twenty years are no less revolutionary than the great revolutionary transformations.

The violent overthrow of power indicates that revolution and legitimacy are antipodes. The revolution breaks away from all previous legitimacy and seeks to establish a new one. Therefore, lamentations about the illegitimate nature of the revolution are as pathetic and absurd as complaints about the coming of winter.

Why is the government being overthrown? All revolutions are carried out in the name of justice. But here What exactly what is meant by justice and the ability to achieve it remain open questions. Personally, my position in this case can be expressed by a phrase from “The Master and Margarita”: the kingdom of justice “will never come.”

However, historical experience and Voltairian skepticism periodically give way to the vague, but genuine, and therefore strong desire of people to break through into the kingdom of love and truth. In any revolutionary ideology, justice plays a leading role: this idea constitutes the mythological and moral core of any revolutionary doctrine.

Well, as for the new political institutions, which, according to the revolutionaries, should ensure justice, their formation and successful functioning is another big open question.

However - and this is very important to understand - regardless of whether the revolutionary goals are modest or grandiose, whether they are achieved or not, this does not in any way negate the right of the event/process to be called a revolution.

In what follows, when speaking about revolution, I will rely on Goldstone's definition. Its important advantage, in addition to clarity and laconicism, is also that it allows one to separate from the revolution events and processes that are often confused with revolution, but are not revolution in themselves. Although they can sometimes act as its components.

Not a revolution

In this case we are talking about social and reform movements, coups d'état and civil wars. Under certain conditions they can lead to revolutions, which, however, is not predetermined.

Social movements are mass mobilization in the interests of specific groups or specific goals. Movements for human rights, against racial discrimination, and for gay rights are classic examples. It is clear that such movements have scant chances of developing into a revolution.

But reform movements have incomparably greater potential in this regard. “Reform movements openly advocate changes to existing government institutions, the adoption of new laws aimed at combating corruption, expanding voting rights or greater autonomy for individual regions. However, they achieve their goals not by overthrowing the existing government, but by legal means, seeking their goals in the courts or through election campaigns, introducing new laws or amending the constitution.” Isn’t it true that one to one can be imposed on the aspirations and plans of the liberal-democratic opposition in Russia?

However, this is what Goldstone writes further: “Such movements become revolutionary only when the authorities resist reasonable changes or hesitate to make them and persecute reformers.” Here the following is noteworthy: it is not the actions of reform movements that lead to revolutions, but the stupid stubbornness and arrogance of the authorities.

More often than not, law-abiding reformers transform into fiery revolutionaries when the government tries to steal the election results from them, which causes mass outrage. And this is understandable: if the authorities leave no chance for a legal evolutionary change in the situation, then even law-abiding people begin to involuntarily become radicalized. And this theoretical calculation perfectly explains the emergence of mass protests in Russia at the turn of 2011 and 2012.

Unlike movements that provide mass mobilization, but are not aimed at overthrowing the government, coups d'état are aimed at overthrowing it, but are not accompanied by mass mobilization. At the same time, similar to movements, coups can lead to revolutions “if coup leaders or their supporters put forward ideas for transforming society on new principles of justice and social order, begin to mobilize the masses to ensure support for their ideas, and then implement their plan in new institutions."

Civil wars arising from internal conflicts can sometimes lead to revolutions. But some revolutions also caused civil wars.

And finally, the comic epigram of Samuil Marshak (translation from English) “A rebellion cannot end in success, - Otherwise, it is called differently” turns out to be an important point in the theory of revolutions. “Any attempt at revolution,” writes Goldstone, “is by definition a rebellion, so rebellions are often used to describe efforts aimed at overthrowing a regime but that do not succeed.” True, the opposite idea is incorrect: not every successful rebellion is revolutionary in nature: the overthrow of power does not automatically entail institutional breakdown.

So, revolution as a process must must include all four elements: violent overthrow of power, mass mobilization, the idea of social justice, the creation of new institutions. Events that do not have such completeness - movements, coups, civil wars - are not revolutions. However, some of them, under certain conditions, can develop into revolutions. They may also turn out to be integral parts of the revolutionary process.

Typology of revolutions

Revolutions are not the same in their goals, scale, depth, influence and consequences. Which necessarily entails the need to classify them.

The division into “great” and “ordinary” revolutions is clearly not enough in this case. The French and Russian revolutions, which shaped the Russian reader’s idea of revolution in general, rise up as two lonely peaks. However, judging revolutions by these peak manifestations is like judging a driver’s business by Formula 1 pilots.

And these two revolutions themselves fit into the general type of “social revolutions”, which involved a change in social hegemony and a massive redistribution of property and national wealth. Which, for obvious reasons, caused strong resistance and demanded consolidated, even dictatorial power. In addition to the French and Russian, the “social revolutions” also include the Mexican (1910–1917), Chinese communist (1949), Cuban (1959), Ethiopian (1974), Islamic Iranian (1979).

Another common type of revolution is “anti-colonial revolution.” Their content was an uprising against foreign states controlling a particular territory and the creation of a new independent state. These revolutions have radically changed the political map of the world since the mid-20th century.

However, few people think that the first anti-colonial revolution was actually the American War of Independence (1775–1783) - the struggle of the 13 North American colonies for their independence from Great Britain. By the way, in American historiography this event is called: “American Revolutionary War” or “American Revolution”. To this we can also add the American Civil War of 1861–1865, which, according to a number of scientists, had important features of the bourgeois revolution.

So the United States has considerable revolutionary experience. More importantly, the American Revolution and Civil War ultimately led to the formation of an effective government system, a vibrant economy, and a success-oriented society. However, when it comes to the consequences of the revolution, the United States is rather oblivious. And in any case, for every revolution with an overall positive outcome, there are a dozen revolutions with a negative outcome.

The third type of revolution is “democratizing”. In our case, he is the most important and deserves to give a full lengthy and meaningful description of Goldstone. These revolutions “aim to overthrow an authoritarian regime—corrupt, ineffective and illegitimate—and replace it with more responsible and representative government. They do not mobilize their supporters by appealing to class antagonisms (peasants against landowners, workers against capitalists), but enlist the support of the entire society. Democratizing revolutions can begin with an electoral campaign or with protests against voter fraud. They lack the ideological passion inherent in revolutions, the leaders of which consider themselves the creators of a new social system or a new state. Therefore, they are usually non-violent in nature and do not lead to civil war, a radical phase, or revolutionary terror. […] These revolutions usually go with the flow; leaders find themselves at the mercy of corruption and internecine strife, and the end result of such revolutions is pseudo-democracy, characterized either by frequently changing leadership or the return of authoritarian tendencies.”

From this definition it may seem that we are talking exclusively about revolutions that have unfolded over the past 25–30 years. However, in reality, the first “democratizing” revolutions took place almost two hundred years ago - the European revolutions of 1848! The Chinese Republican Revolution of 1911 was “democratizing”. Of course, the wave of anti-communist revolutions that demolished the Soviet bloc in Europe and its stronghold, the Soviet Union, at the turn of the 80-90s of the last century, completely fits into this series.

fr. revolution) - a radical revolution, a deep qualitative change in the development of natural phenomena, society or knowledge; social R. - transition from outdated social-economic. building towards a more progressive one; a radical revolution in social and economic the structure of society; Scientific and technological revolution is a radical transformation of the productive forces based on the transformation of science into a leading factor in the development of society.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

REVOLUTION

social - a radical revolution in the life of society, changing its structure and meaning a qualitative leap in its progressive development. The most common, deep-seated reason for the advent of the era of social revolution is the conflict between growing producers. forces and the existing system of social relations and institutions. The aggravation on this objective basis is economic, political. and other contradictions, especially class. the struggle between the exploiters and the exploited leads to R. The nature (social content) of R., the scope of the tasks they solve, their driving forces, forms and methods of struggle, results and meaning are very different. They are determined by the level of societies. development, on which R. occurs, and specific. the situation of a particular country. But R. always represents an active politician. action nar. the masses and has the first goal of transferring the leadership of society, the state. power into the hands of a new class (or a new class grouping). The depth of the transformations, the coverage of the main aspects of the life of society - economics, politics, ideology, culture - social revolution differs from narrower, private revolutions that affect only a separate sphere - from political. (state) coups that do not change the previous structure of society and the fundamentals of politics. course, as well as from industrial R., scientific and technical. R., etc. From the progressive transformations of society, taking place relatively slowly, without noticeable participation of the general public. masses, social R. is distinguished by its concentration in time and the immediacy of the actions of the “lower classes.” In this sense, revolutionaries are usually distinguished. and evolution. processes in the life of society, R. and reform. This division is legitimate, given its conventionality. For R. and evolution are not frozen polar opposites, but dialectically interconnected, complementary aspects of the progressive development of society. The antinomy “revolution - reform” is also very flexible. At critical moments in history, when the question of choosing a path is being decided, they directly oppose each other, just as a straight and fast path is opposed to a zigzag, slowed path. At the same time, R., as a deeper action, usually “absorbs” reform: action “from below” is complemented by action “from above,” including through reforms. Reform can not only distract the masses from the revolutionaries. shares, but also to clear the ground for R. or be a means of solving its problems. Social R. is not adequate to everything revolutionary. the process as a whole. He, being the most active, dynamic type of history. creativity, hostile to any routine, cannot but generate a wide variety of forms of its manifestation. Social revolution is the most important of them, a kind of culmination of the revolution. actions. But it is connected with a certain level of development of society - first of all, with the existence and struggle of classes, that is, ultimately with certain phases of the development of production. The problem of the genesis of social R. has been little developed in Marxist literature. It is obvious that social R. as a naturally conditioned link in history. progress, as the most effective way to resolve the most acute conflicts in the defining spheres of society and at the same time as one of the forms of manifestation of revolution. process matures only when society itself reaches a relatively high level of its social organization. The separation of man from the animal world entails enormous qualitative shifts. The sharp changes in people's lives were the formation of the clan system, the emergence of private property, and the formation of classes. society and state. But the social processes named and similar ones, very extended in time, are not associated with a change of class. domination and completely spontaneous, were not yet social R. In the depths of the class. societies of antiquity, especially in the ancient slaveholding. society, such contradictions already appear in the sphere of production and distribution, in politics. and ideological. relations, which give rise to various forms of struggle and methods of conflict resolution: more or less radical reforms, civil wars between groups of slave owners, political transformations. building, major slave uprisings, peasant movements, etc. Many of these social upheavals are not only externally similar to social revolutions, but actually carry within themselves certain elements of social revolutions. The nature of the revolution. process that ensured the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages. centuries, requires additional. research. The question is whether this process can be considered social, anti-slavery. R., seems debatable. Criticism widespread in the late 30s - early. 50s a simplified scheme about the general “R. of slaves”, which supposedly eliminated slave owners and abolished slave ownership. the form of exploitation, as well as the interpretation of various problems of revolution in ancient times, see the article: A. R. Korsunsky, Problem of revolution. transition from slave ownership building towards feudalism in the West. Europe, "VI", 1964, No. 5; S. L. Utchenko, Formation of Rome. empires and the problem of social R., ibid., No. 7; A. L. Kats, The problem of the fall of the Roman Empire in the Soviet Union. historiography, "VDI", 1967, No. 2. During the period of feudalism, with the accumulation of internal. contradictions, the class develops. struggle. Peasant movements often grow in duration. wars, uprisings of citizens occur, political. coups. Gradually, pockets of a new method of production are emerging, which requires the destruction of the feudal system for its development. production relationships. Disparate elements of social, class. struggles are increasingly concentrated around the main task - the radical transformation of entire societies. and state building. Popular movements take on the character of a struggle against the very foundations of feudalism, for the formation of new, more progressive relations. In the 16th century The era of the bourgeoisie begins. R. Shocked first Germany and the Netherlands, in the 17th century. England, and in the 18th century. North America and France, R. become turning points in the development of each of these countries and - more importantly - at the same time stages of the world process of replacing feudalism with capitalism. These early bourgeois revolutions, with all the originality and uniqueness of the interweaving in each of them of objective and subjective factors, spontaneous movements of the masses and political. calculations of leaders, etc. showed that they are characterized by certain common, typical features. In them (especially in the Great French Revolution) the totality of those components was already clearly revealed, which constitute the core of social revolution and make it possible and necessary. This is, firstly, a certain minimum socio-economic. prerequisites that make it possible to replace an outdated production method with a new, more progressive one. This, further, is a social force interested in the establishment of new economics. and political relations and capable of breaking the resistance of the forces striving to maintain the previous relationship. So revolutionary. society the force consists of the popular masses awakened to activity, determined to crush the old system, and the conscious vanguard of leaders who can give the spontaneous impulse of the masses a certain purposefulness. This is, finally, bringing the issue of politics to the center of the struggle. (state) power, about its transition to a new class or a new class. grouping. Only the seizure and retention of this power gives into the hands of revolutionary forces that “Archimedes lever”, with the help of which it is possible to carry out historically overdue economic, social, political, national, and cultural transformations. The first bourgeois. R. cleared the way for capitalist. relationships. They have irrefutably proven their ability to play the role of powerful accelerators of history. Awareness of the enormous potential of history. The creativity inherent in social R., its ability to solve increasingly fundamental problems put forward by the movement of society, did not come immediately. But when the role and meaning of R. were understood, when the idea of R. has become a weapon of those who are the only ones capable of using it - the masses, this idea itself has become a new important factor in societies. progress. The concept of R. for characterizing societies. phenomena began to be applied relatively late. The term "R" itself (French r?volution, from late Latin revolutio - revolution, revolution) was borrowed from astronomy, where it still means rotation, revolution, full revolution of a celestial body. In the literature, 2nd half. 17th century R. began to be called deep state. revolution, but the same word was also used to denote a natural disaster or the emergence of a new system of ideas. Voltaire also used this word in this sense. Only during and especially after the Great French. Revolution, the concept of R. was filled with a broader content, including the movement of the masses, state. revolution and ideological shift. The concepts of “counter-revolution”, “revolutionary”, “evolution” appeared. Thinkers from different countries made considerable efforts to clarify the essence of the phenomenon of R. In the 1st half. 19th century Saint-Simon, and later French. historians Thierry, Guizot, and Minier make an attempt to explain revolution as a class struggle; Hegel sees in R. the triumph of the idea of “absolute freedom”; in philosophical and political Literature begins to attach differentiating epithets to the word R. - political, social, philosophical, industrial. This distinction was an approach to revealing the content and character of R., but to deeply comprehend its essence bourgeois. the ideologists failed. The merit of a truly scientific disclosure of the concept of social revolution belongs to the ideologists of the proletariat K. Marx and F. Engels. And this is no coincidence. Just at the time when science came close to the problem of the natural conditioning of societies. development, the working class began to claim the role of demiurge R. In the formation and development of Marxism, the formation of the concept of R. occupied an important place. Initially, the work of Marx and Engels was dominated by the idea of politics. R. as a synonym for bourgeois. (in particular, the French revolution of the late 18th century), while social revolution was called the revolution of the future that was more in line with the interests of the masses, that is, socialist. R. Soon, however, Marx came to a deeper understanding of the internal relationship of politics. and social R.: “Every revolution destroys the old society, and to that extent it is social. Every revolution overthrows the old power, and to that extent it has a political character” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 1, p. 448). Marx and Engels then concluded that “...revolution is the driving force of history...” (ibid., vol. 3, p. 37), and it is necessary.” ..not only because it is impossible to overthrow the ruling class in any other way, but also because the overthrowing class can only throw off all the old abominations in a revolution and become capable of creating a new basis for society" (ibid., p. 70). In " The Manifesto of the Communist Party clearly subdivides two main types of social revolution: bourgeois and proletarian (communist), showing the inevitability of the latter. The experience of European revolution in the 19th century allowed Marx and Engels to expand their understanding of revolution. They increasingly reveal the creative character of revolution, the role of the masses in it, put forward the ideas of the hegemony of the proletariat, continuous revolution, formulate the fundamental position about the dictatorship of the proletariat and the destruction of the old state machine. Marx’s teaching on social revolution revealed its main springs, revealed the role in it of the advanced revolutionary class and its conscious vanguard The most important component of this teaching is the provision about “... the era of social revolution" (see ibid., vol. 13. p. 7). We are talking about a world-historical era, which naturally comes when material things are produced. forces at a certain stage of their development come into conflict with existing production. relations and the last form of development produces. forces turn into their fetters. Then a revolution in economics. production conditions becomes necessary and possible. But this possibility is not realized automatically; it forms only the objective basis, the material background of social R. R. itself does not arise directly from economics. contradictions, and as a result of its indirect influence: through conflicts in the field of political, social, ideological. relationships. Moreover, even the most acute conflict does not result in revolution until people (the revolutionary classes) realize it and begin to fight for its resolution. Therefore, the advent of the era of social revolution does not yet mean that all concrete history has already matured everywhere. preconditions for revolution. explosion and even more so for its victorious outcome. The founders of Marxism did not imagine the development of society in such a way that solving the entire complex of problems associated with changing its economic foundations and a revolution in the entire huge superstructure (in other words, the transition from one social formation to another - from feudalism to capitalism, from capitalism to socialism) can be carried out as a result of one general assault. The era of social R. is inevitably more or less long. It includes a wide range of diverse and contradictory processes of both global scale and local significance: entire bands of revolutionaries. fermentation and various forms of preparation for revolution, revolutionary. the breakthrough and struggle of revolution and counter-revolution, the decline in mass activity and partial restorations, reforms and counter-reforms, relative calm and the rise of new revolutionaries. waves The concept of the era of social revolution is complicated by the fact that in real history. In the process, the development of countries and regions occurs very unevenly and therefore the intertwining of R. of various types is inevitable. The era of the bourgeois. Revolution was far from over when the preconditions for a qualitatively new era—the era of socialist revolution—began to take shape in advanced countries. The industrial revolution, which spread in the 19th century. on continental Europe, turned the bourgeoisie into economic leaders. Class. At the same time, its antipode - the proletariat - became an increasingly serious society. by force. Development of the span. revolutionism was accompanied by the collapse of the bourgeoisie. revolutionism. Although the bourgeoisie did not renounce its hegemonic claims and sometimes acted as a supporter of reforms and “revolutions from above,” it increasingly showed its hostility to the people. R. The Paris Commune of 1871 clearly showed that in the conditions prevailing in the developed countries of capital, only the proletariat is capable of becoming the standard-bearer of a truly popular R. The development of “free” capitalism into monopoly capitalism accelerated the maturation of the material prerequisites for socialism in developed countries. R. and at the same time expanded the circle of peoples involved in the revolution. process. The stage of imperialism is associated with the aggravation of internal and international conflicts, a chain of colonial and inter-imperialist. wars, the tendency towards the development of state-monopoly. capitalism, to strengthen the influence of reaction on politics, ideology, culture. This is opposed by the development of the struggle of the working class and other progressive forces for democracy and socialism, the internationalization of the revolutionary movement, in particular. awakening of Asia. A significant change in the conditions of social R. required a deepening of the scientific analysis of the domestic and international situation, the development of certain aspects of the doctrine of R. This task, which turned out to be beyond the capabilities of prominent international leaders. social democracy (K. Kautsky in the books “Social Revolution” and “The Path to Power” failed to creatively comprehend the new situation), was decided by V.I. Lenin. The revolution of 1905-07 in Russia not only opened a new period of “world storms”, but also revealed the possibility of a new alignment of forces in Russia. Analysis of the positions of various classes and international. imperialist mechanism system allowed Lenin, especially during the World War, to develop Marx’s doctrine of R. , identify new revolutionaries. prospects. Lenin established that in a situation “...much more impetuous, spasmodic, catastrophic, conflicting...” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 27, p. 94 (vol. 22, p. 91)), the maturation of R. occurs with a more complex than before economic interweaving. and political factors, internal and ext. circumstances. Developing the concept of the era of social revolution, Lenin wrote about the cycle of the bourgeoisie. R. like chains of revolutionaries. “waves” (see ibid., vol. 19, p. 247 (vol. 16, p. 182)). Lenin foresaw that the coming era of social revolution would not only be a long period of history. process, but also a very complex interweaving of classes. battles of different social levels: not only the battles of the proletariat for socialism, but also “revolutionary explosions of part of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices,” movements of unconscious flights. and half span. the masses against the landowners, the church, the monarchy, the national. oppression, will free. movements of the colonies against imperialism. “Whoever waits for a “pure” social revolution,” he wrote, “will never wait for it. He is a revolutionary in words who does not understand the real revolution” (ibid., vol. 30, p. 54 (vol. 22, p. 340) ). The presence of objective prerequisites for revolution in the entire system as a whole requires the ability to find the weakest link, where the contradictions are sharpest and where the conditions for revolution are created. explosion. Developing the concept of a revolutionary situation, Lenin emphasized that it is a set of objective changes: the crisis of the “tops,” the aggravation of the misfortunes of the “bottoms,” a significant increase in the activity of the masses (see ibid., vol. 26, pp. 218-19 (vol. 21, pp. 189-90)). But revolution arises, Lenin added, only when these objective changes are joined by “... the ability of the revolutionary class for revolutionary mass actions strong enough to break (or break) the old government...” (ibid., p. 219 (vol. 21, p. 190)). Lenin often called this interaction of objective and subjective factors a revolutionary or national crisis (see ibid., vol. 41, pp. 69-70, 78-79, 228 (vol. 31, pp. 65-66, 73-74, 202 )). In these conditions, everything depends on the deep awareness of the revolutionaries. class of its tasks and the organization of its active combat operations. Only struggle can decide whether a revolutionary will outgrow it. crisis into a victorious revolution. Lenin characterized revolution as “... a period of people’s life when the anger accumulated over centuries... breaks out in actions, not words, and in the actions of millions of people, not individuals” (ibid. , vol. 12, p. 321 (vol. 10, p. 221)). He noted that “never has the mass of the people been able to act as such an active creator of new social orders as during the revolution” (ibid., vol. 11, p. 103 (vol. 9, p. 93)). In this regard, Lenin emphasized the importance of “... independence, independence, love of freedom and initiative of the “lower classes” ...” in the short periods of their hegemony in the early bourgeoisie. R. (ibid., vol. 20, p. 283 (vol. 17, p. 185)). Lenin attached all the more importance to the possibility of realizing in the revolutions of the period of imperialism the hegemony of the proletariat, the alliance of the working class with the working peasantry, and the mobilization of revolutionaries. potency of the latter. The idea of the hegemony of the proletariat not only expanded the scope of application of the Marxist theory of revolution, making it truly universal and worldwide, but also made it possible to identify internal unity in the diversity of the world revolution. process. Based on this idea, Lenin was able to deeply reveal the dialectic. the relationship between bourgeois and socialist R., to clarify the conditions for the development of the first into the second and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the possibility of the second “finishing” the unsolved problems of the first, etc. This idea also made it possible to abandon the dogmatized in the Social-Democratic. literary ideas about what to start a socialist. R. can only be the most developed in economics. regarding the country. Together with the conclusion that flowed from the uneven development of imperialism about the possibility of victory of the socialist. R. initially in a few or even in one, separately taken capitalist. country, the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat formed the basis of Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution. The Great October Socialist Revolution caused an immeasurably deeper shock to society than any of the bourgeoisie. R. State span. The dictatorship carried out a direct invasion into the sphere of production in the interests of the majority of the people, beginning the transformation of the entire society. structure from its foundation. It was necessary to solve many new problems: the ratio of international. and national interests, about the functions of the revolutionary. dictatorship, the forms of union of workers and peasants, the role of the state. apparatus and its connections with the masses, discipline and creative initiative, etc. Oct. The revolution opened a new era in the development of mankind: it ended the world-historical. bourgeois era R., the era of world socialist R. has begun. This does not mean that the bourgeois. Revolutions where they did not occur or did not end in victory became impossible. On the contrary, immediately following October, a wave of revolutions passed through Europe and Asia. movements, or which had bourgeois-democratic (often national liberation) character, or inhibited at this stage. However, all the progressive movements of the post-October era, whether we are talking about the struggle for the national. liberation, about anti-feudal protests or about the struggle for democracy. rights and freedoms, invariably have an anti-imperialist. direction. Unlike the classic bourgeois. Revolutions of previous centuries, these revolutions do not so much clear the ground for capitalism as they undermine the world system of imperialism. In the post-October years, Lenin's thought worked intensely on the problems of the further route of the world R. of the Working People's Council. Lenin oriented the country towards building the foundations of socialism; capitalist communist parties recommended countries to concentrate their efforts on “...finding a form of transition or approach to the proletarian revolution” (ibid., vol. 41, p. 77 (vol. 31, p. 73)). He welcomed involvement in the release. the struggle of the multi-million peoples of the colonies. The inevitability will end. Lenin associated the victories of socialism throughout the world with the unification of all forces involved in “... the general cycle of the world revolutionary movement” (ibid., vol. 45, p. 403 (vol. 33, p. 457)). During the 2nd World War, when the most aggressive imperialists. forces jeopardized the progress of humanity, powerful liberation., anti-fascist., anti-imperialist. movement in Europe and Asia created vast revolutionary zones. situations. Revolutions took place in a number of countries, in which, with a wide variety of local conditions and specific circumstances, many similarities emerged, which made it possible to characterize them as people's democratic revolutions. World revolutionary the process of modernity is characterized by the interaction of three main. forces - world socialist. system, capitalist labor movement. countries and national-liberates. movements. There was a rapprochement and interweaving of the national liberation, anti-imperialist, people's democratic, and socialist revolutionaries, since all of them, despite all the differences in their level, consistency and historical background. significance, directed against a common enemy - imperialism. Just like in the middle. 19th century conditions arose that made the creation of scientific research possible and necessary. theory of social R., and the beginning of the 20th century. required its development, so the events of Ser. 20th century put forward the task of generalizing new experience and further developing the revolutionary. theories. The Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties, the XX-XXIII Congresses and the Program of the CPSU, many congresses and documents of fraternal communists have already contributed to the solution of this task. parties. In recent years, Marxist thought has been working hard on the problems of world revolution. process, in particular on issues of the content and forms of social R. of our time. The main conclusion is that in the presence of general patterns of social R., the multivariate ways of its maturation, the variety of its forms, rates and methods are increasingly reflected. Absolutization of any of the options or methods can slow down the development of revolution. process, helping to revive either reformist-revisionist or “ultra-revolutionary”, petty-bourgeois adventurist. trends. When considering the premises of R., the connection between R. and war first of all attracted attention. Marxists emphasize that R. is by no means directly dependent on the war. Although in the past, both the 1st and 2nd World Wars really played the role of an accelerator of revolutions. process, it does not follow from this that revolutionaries should desire a new world war. The experience of many countries that have liberated in recent years shows that the revolution. the process is successfully developing in peace. A modern thermonuclear war can throw humanity far back. The question of revolution requires new approaches. situations. The study of the prerequisites of R. in developed capitalist systems. countries showed the need for comprehensive consideration of both changes in the system and practice of state-monopoly. capitalism, and the consequences of developing scientific and technological developments. revolution, including taking into account changes in the social structure of the population, studying the working and living conditions of different layers of workers, their relations with entrepreneurs and the government, etc. The experience of many countries indicates a change in the forms and methods of class. struggle, about a new level of demands of the masses, that one should not count on a sudden spontaneous aggravation of the revolution. struggle, but we need to focus on systematically. strengthening of the revolutionary pressure from the organized masses. This perspective is taken into account, for example, by the programs of structural social reforms and democratic renewal put forward by a number of communist parties. A broader problem is the problem of the relationship between peaceful and violent methods in revolution. process, use during the revolution. transformations of traditional forms of politics. democracy (in particular, parliamentary institutions) - has already found its fundamental solution in the program documents of the communist. movements. A significant place in Marxist discussions is occupied by the search for class forms. unions that best correspond to modern times. stages of history development and specific national conditions at different stages will be released. struggle, issues of unity of the labor movement and cooperation of various workers' organizations in the struggle against hostile forces, issues of attitude towards the middle strata, prospects for the development of a multi-party system, various methods of including non-proletarian sections of the population in the construction of socialism, etc. (See Art. International labor movement). National problems required close attention. -will release. movement that resulted in a powerful wave of anti-colonialist national liberation revolutions. The enormous variety of local conditions and the great difference in initial levels create special difficulties for generalizing the experience of these revolutions and identifying the role in them of various classes, social strata, groups, in particular revolutionaries. democracy. The most general pattern of the progressive movement is a gradual transition from the struggle for political conquest. independence to solve the most complex political problems. and social reconstruction, overcoming centuries-old backwardness. For many liberated countries, these tasks are inextricably linked with the question of choosing a path: capitalist. or non-capitalist. development. The discussions reflect the search for specific solutions to the question of how best to ensure that the masses are brought to the revolution. action, there is a danger of passive fatalism, on the one hand, and subjectivist voluntarism, on the other. The solution to this serious theoretical problem. and practical problem comes through a combination of three most important factors: critically comprehended historical research. experience, deep analysis of specific conditions of individual countries and regions, understanding the general state and development trends of modern times. world revolutionary process. Marxist thought pays great attention to issues of the impact of world socialism. systems for the development of the world revolutionary. process. Basic attention is concentrated thus. on development of theoretical problems of the world revolution. process of modernity. A fundamental solution to the question of the prospects of history. developments associated with a qualitatively new stage of history was given by Marx: “Only in such an order of things, when there are no more classes and class antagonism, will social evolutions cease to be political revolutions” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed. ., vol. 4, p. 185). In the bourgeoisie Literature, which in the era of imperialism is traditionally hostile to social R., under the influence of the events of recent years, there is a tendency to move away from positions of simple silence or unfounded denial of its role. It means it appears. number of works devoted to the problems of labor. In them, attempts are made, using more sophisticated methods, to refute the Marxist-Leninist theory of labor and, pervertedly interpreting the phenomena of modernity, to contrast it with new or updated concepts - the “industrial” revolution, the “revolution of managers,” etc. In American books sociologists S. Lens, K. Brinton, W. Rostow, French. sociologist R. Aron and others give various justifications for the “transformation of capitalism” (which is associated primarily with scientific -technical R.) and false conclusions are drawn that the revolutionary. overthrow of capitalism building became unnecessary. Criticism of these concepts is one of the important tasks of Marxist science. Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., Manifesto of the Communist Party, K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 4; Marx K., Bourgeoisie and counter-revolution, ibid., vol. 6; his, Class struggle in France from 1848 to 1850, ibid., vol. 7; his, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, ibid., vol. 8; Engels F., Revolution and counter-revolution in Germany, ibid.; his, Introduction to the English edition of “The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science,” ibid., vol. 22; his, Introduction to the work of K. Marx “The Class Struggle in France from 1848 to 1850”, ibid.; Lenin V.I., Two tactics of social democracy in the democratic revolution, Complete. collection cit., 5th ed., vol. 11 (vol. 9); his, State and Revolution, ibid., vol. 33 (vol. 25); his, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, ibid., vol. 37 (vol. 28); his, The childhood disease of “leftism” in communism, ibid., vol. 41 (vol. 31); Program of the CPSU, M., 1961; Program documents of the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism, M., 1961; Danilenko D.I., Social revolution, M., 1964; Krasin Yu. A., “Sociology of revolution” against revolution, M., 1966; his, Lenin, revolution, modernity, M., 1967; Levintov N.G., Some aspects of Lenin’s theory of revolution, “VF”, 1966, No. 4; International revolutionary movement of the working class, (3rd ed.), M., 1966; Construction of communism and the world revolutionary process, M., 1966; Africa: national and social revolution, "PM and S", 1967, No. 1, 2, 3; Dalton R., Miranda V., About modern times. revolutionary phase movements in Lat. America, ibid., 1967, No. 5; Where is modernity going? capitalism?, ibid., 1967, No. 12; 1968, No. 1; Historical significance Vel. Oct. socialist revolution. International theoretical materials. Conference, M., 1967; Griewank K., Der neuzeitliche Revolutionsbegriff, Weimar, 1955; Brinton S. S., The anatomy of revolution, N. Y., 1957; Engelberg E., Fragen der Revolution und Evolution in der Weltgeschichte, W., 1965. Ya. S. Drabkin. Moscow.

Revolutions, as a way to influence a radical change in the existing order, begin to excite progressive minds from the end of the 18th century. As a rule, the main revolutions, called great, marked the transition from a monarchical form of government to a republican one. This type of coup d'état involves numerous casualties. All known examples of revolution are a tragic part of the history of any country. Let's analyze the most popular coups and try to answer the question whether the deaths of people who gave their lives for the idea were in vain or not.

Revolution: definition of the concept

First, it is necessary to define the term “revolution”, because it is not just a transformation, but a radical change, characterized by transience. In general, this concept belongs not only to history. There are revolutions in science (some important discovery), in nature (a sharp change in some parameters, most often geological), in social development (industrial or cultural revolution).

This process should be distinguished from similar ones in terms of results, but different in methods and timing. Thus, the term “evolution” means gradual, very slow change. The reform process is a little faster, but it does not have the effect of lightning speed, and the changes are not so significant.

It is necessary to distinguish between the terms “revolution” and “coup d’etat”. Etymologically, they are related, because revolutio translated from Latin means “coup.” However, the concept of revolution is more extensive; it concerns changes in all aspects of social life, while a coup d'état, in essence, is just a change in power from one ruler to another.

Causes of revolutions

Why do revolutionary movements arise? What pushes people to get involved in such a tragic event that claims thousands of lives?

The reasons are dictated by many factors:

Dissatisfaction among the bureaucrats and the elite with the decline in economic flows. Occurs against the backdrop of economic decline.
Internal struggle between elites. It so happens that the upper strata of society are rather closed structures, sometimes sharing power. This struggle could result in a real rebellion if any of the elites gain the support of the people.
Revolutionary mobilization. Social unrest caused by discontent of all sectors of society - from the elite to the very bottom.
Ideology. Must support any revolution that has a claim to success. The center may be a civic position, religious teaching, or something else. The common cause will be the fight against injustice caused by the current government and government system.
Positive dynamics in foreign policy. Allied countries refuse to accept and support the existing government.

Thus, if these five points are present, the revolution can be considered successful. Examples of revolutions make it clear that not all five points are always observed, but most take place in such an unstable environment.

Specifics of Russian revolutions

Cardinal changes in the socio-economic order are characteristic of many states. Examples of revolution can be found in almost every European country, in the USA. However, nowhere did it bring such tragic consequences as in Russia. Here, every Russian revolution could abolish not only the country itself. What are the reasons?

Firstly, the special relationship between the steps of the hierarchical ladder. There was no “connection” between them; the authorities and the elite existed completely separately from the people. Hence the overly inflated economic demands of the authorities on the lower strata, most of whom were below the poverty line. The problem was not the excessive self-interest of the upper strata, but the inability to trace the life of the “lower classes” due to the imperfect management apparatus. All this led to the fact that the “top” of power had to subjugate the people by force.

Secondly, the advanced intelligentsia, who nurtured revolutionary ideas, imagined the subsequent structure as too utopian due to insufficient management experience.

You should also take into account the characteristics of a person who can endure oppression for a long time, and then suddenly “explode.”

All these features became the springboard for the emerging Bolshevism, which the Russian Revolution led to.

1905: first revolution

The first revolution in Russia happened in January 1905. It was not very fast, because it ended only in June 1907.

The prerequisites were a decline in the economy and industrial growth, crop failure, and public debt that had accumulated to enormous sizes (the war with Turkey was to blame for this). Reform was required everywhere: from local administration to changes in the government system. After the abolition of serfdom, the industrial management system required reworking. The labor of the peasants was poorly motivated, because communal lands remained and there was a constant reduction in allotments.

It should be noted that the revolution of 1905 received good funding from outside: during the war with Japan, sponsors of terrorist and revolutionary organizations appeared.

This rebellion covered all layers of Russian society - from the peasantry to the intelligentsia. The revolution was designed to cut off any remnants of the feudal-serf system and to strike a blow at the autocracy.

Results of the revolution of 1905-1907

Unfortunately, the revolution of 1905 was suppressed; it entered the annals of history as unfinished, but it led to important changes:

It gave impetus to Russian parliamentarism: this body of government was established.
The power of the emperor was limited by creating the State Duma.
According to the Manifesto of October 17, democratic freedoms were given to citizens.
The situation and working conditions of workers have changed for the better.
Peasants became less attached to their land.

February Revolution in 1917

The February Revolution of 1917 was a continuation of the events of 1905-1907. Not only the lower strata (workers, peasants), but also the bourgeoisie are disappointed in the autocracy. These sentiments were significantly aggravated by the imperialist war.

As a result of the revolution, significant changes are taking place in public administration. The revolution of 1917 was bourgeois-democratic in nature. However, it had a special originality. If we take examples of revolutions of the same direction in European countries, we will see that the driving force in them were the working people, and the monarchical system that preceded capitalist relations was overthrown (they began to develop immediately after the change in statehood). Moreover, the engine of the process was the working people, but power passed to the bourgeoisie.

In the Russian Empire, everything was not like that: along with the provisional government, headed by people from the upper class of the bourgeoisie, an alternative government emerged - the Soviets, formed from the class of workers and peasants. This dual power existed until the events of October.

The main result of the February 1917 revolution was the arrest of the royal family and the overthrow of the autocracy.

in 1917

Examples of revolution in Russia are undoubtedly led by the Great October Socialist Revolution. It radically changed the course of not only the history of Russia, but also the world. After all, one of its results is a way out of the imperialist war.

The essence of the revolution-coup boiled down to the following: it was displaced and power in the country passed to the Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. The coup was led by V.I. Lenin.

As a result, a redistribution of political forces occurred: the power of the proletariat became supreme, the lands were given to the peasants, and the factories were controlled by the workers. There was also a sad, tragic outcome of the revolution - a civil war that split society into two warring fronts.

Revolutionary movement in France

Just like in the Russian Empire, in France the movement to overthrow the autocracy consisted of several stages, the country went through its great revolutions. In total there were 4 of them in its history. The movement began in 1789 with the Great French Revolution.

During this coup, it was possible to overthrow the absolute monarchy and establish the First Republic. However, the resulting revolutionary terrorist movement could not last long. Her power ended with another coup in 1794.

The revolution of July 1830 is commonly called “Three Glorious Days.” It installed a liberal monarch, Louis Philippe I, a “citizen king,” who finally abolished the king’s immutable right to legislate.

The 1848 Revolution establishes the Second Republic. It happened because Louis Philippe I gradually began to move away from his original liberal beliefs. He abdicates the throne. The revolution of 1848 allowed the country to hold democratic elections, during which the people (including workers and other “lower” strata of society) elected Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, the nephew of the famous emperor.

The Third Republic, which put an end to the monarchical structure of society forever, took shape in France in September 1870. After a protracted crisis of power, Napoleon III decides to surrender (at that time there was a war with Prussia). The beheaded country holds urgent elections. Power passes alternately from monarchists to republicans, and only in 1871 does France legally become a presidential republic, where the ruler elected by the people is in power for 3 years. This country existed until 1940.