On the Essence of Revolution
By Yavor Tarinski
To guarantee revolution, it is not enough for the mob to be armed or for them to have expropriated the bourgeoisie: it is necessary for them to destroy the capitalist system entirely and to organise their own system. They must be able to combat the ideas put forward by Stalinist and reformist leaders with the same vigour with which they attack capitalist individuals and the leaders of the bourgeois parties.
~Camillo Berneri[1]
A complex of critical issues, ranging from rising income inequalities, climate crisis, growing militarization, etc., have led many to discuss the need of revolution. But what does this term signify? For far too long it has been used by demagogues and charlatans who try to push their own projects under a “revolutionary” banner. It suffices to remember that Donald Trump’s election was described by some as revolution, as was the case with Brexit. People, like billionaire tech moguls Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, have too been described as revolutionaries. We can assert with certainty, that there has been an effort by ruling elites and managerial classes to hijack the term revolution, along with other crucial terms, such as democracy.
In perspective, this concept has nothing to do with the emergence of a new technology or some upheaval within the current order. It goes deeper than that. Revolution signifies the radical reshaping of societal order, a new outset, or as Hannah Arendt puts it, revolutions are the only political events that confront us directly and inevitably with the problem of beginning.[2]
In this sense it is ridiculous to speak of the election of a new politician as a revolutionary event. It might be a very significant one, but it does not present society with a radical rupture with the old order — it is in no way a new beginning. Power continues its top-down flow, with governing institutions remaining intact. Thus, it is important to recognize that revolutions have their institutional dimension, in the sense that they signify the emergence of new set of institutions, that differs radically from the existing ones, allowing for the thorough alteration of the political architecture of society — the new beginning Arendt talks about.
Following this line of thought Cornelius Castoriadis suggests that revolution does not mean torrents of blood, the taking of the Winter Palace, and so on, but rather, it means a radical transformation of society’sinstitutions.[3] This approach asks us to examine every revolutionary effort from the way it attempts to restructure power relations, instead of limiting its scope to single individuals, groups, or even single social fields (like the economic one). From this it follows that replacing given ruling elite with another cannot in no way be considered a revolutionary event, since the institutional framework that sustains power inequalities (separating society into “rulers” and “ruled”) remains.
Revolutions and grassroots institutions of radical equality
The emergence of a new institutional framework for equal redistribution of power is a characteristic trait of revolutionary events, and can be detected in all major revolutions.
We observe it, for example, in the American Revolution. Even before it broke out, life in many colonies — most notably in New England — was shaped by town hall meetings that allowed to populations to deliberate and decide on public affairs in face-to-face assemblies.[4] With the beginning of the Revolution these and other remarkable revolutionary institutions became the backbone of the uprising. A network of revolutionary committees and assemblies emerged at every level of society. Historian Agnes Hunt notes that these county committees … were tenacious of their local supremacy and stood as a complete barrier against any attempt at centralization which must precede any practical exercise of independence in a central executive.[5] Unfortunately, after independence from England was gained, the local bourgeoisie class used its influence and wealth to depart from the decentralized network of popular institutions of self-governance, and instaurate instead a centralized polity under the guise of “confederation”, so that it could mask its counter-revolutionary move.
During the French Revolution it was the tens of sections that had dotted Paris — the city in which the more radical of the sans-culottes were located. These meeting spaces became participatory institutions that realized in practice the concept of popular sovereignty, which as Albert Soboul observes, was not an abstraction, but the concrete reality of the people united in sectional assemblies and exercising all of their rights.[6] Exemplary for the spirit of this popular strife towards direct democracy was the declaration issued by the section de la Cite in November 1792, according to which every man who assumes to have sovereignty [over others] will be regarded as a tyrant, usurper of public liberty and worthy of death.[7] But unfortunately, these institutions of popular sovereignty were suppressed by the counter-revolution of the emerging new ruling classes, which sought to cement their grip on power, and thus, reestablish an oligarchic institutional framework.
The Haitian Revolution — one of the most overlooked moments of revolutionary history, which however was of highest importance due to its definitive role in the abolition of slavery and the universalization of human rights — also saw the emergence of institutional expression of popular self-government. During the heyday of the uprising in many places were formed what has come to be known as organs of the people.[8] These indicated the development of an extensive set of democratic practices centered around popular assemblies, where former slaves deliberated on public affairs with sagacity and energy.[9] Although supportive of the rebel leader Toussaint and his forces, these grassroots organs were by no means controlled but him, remaining an independent force.[10] Nonetheless, the administrative class, which formed in parallel to the ‘organs of the people’, ultimately managed to take hold of power, thus stifling the deliberative institutions of the people and established instead an authoritarian central government.
In the process of the Russian Revolution too, an innovative form of self-rule emerged in the form of the soviet — or the popular council. Countless such institutions sprang amidst the uprising — workers’ councils, peasants’ councils, and soldiers’ councils — functioning as a grassroots alternative to top-down rule. These new democratic forms of self-organization arose spontaneously and quickly flourished independently from the existing political parties, managing public affairs on day-to-day basis, thus inspiring working people around the world for the potential of a more just society.[11] But like the cases examined above, this social effort at radically reorganizing power relations, too was prevented by a group — in this case the Bolshevik Party — replacing the old despotic monarchy with a new authoritarian state. Thus, the revolutionary spirit was once again lost.
But no other revolutionary event was as focused on the question of power as was the Spanish Revolution. It was there that a popular uprising against a fascist coup saw large swaths of Spain’s population organize its day-to-day functioning on the basis of direct democracy.[12] Ordinary people managed production, distribution, and other aspects of their life in common via dense network of assemblies and committees. Cities, towns, and villages formed democratic confederation, whose functioning was administered by revocable delegates of the people. This revolutionary moment was viewed as such a threat to hierarchy in general, that both fascists and Stalinists attacked it from both sides.[13] It was because of this that the revolutionary attempt at radical equality of the Spanish Revolution was crushed.
All these revolutionary events achieve incredible feats — the laboring masses managed to put an end to oppressive institutions such as absolutist monarchism and slavery, but were prevented to further empower the people by the forces of counter-revolution. Nevertheless, it is not the destiny of all revolutions to be overturned; there are cases of revolutionary efforts that survive throughout the years and deepen popular autonomy — these being the social revolutions initiated by the Zapatistas and the people of Rojava.[14] In both cases we have populations that have historically experienced the most raw and oppressive essence of the Nation-State — being repressed politically, economically, and culturally for centuries. Highly disillusioned with top-down power, both of these societies, separated by lands and oceans, embarked on building autonomous confederations of self-managed municipalities — systems that reassure and deepen the horizontal flow of power, thus spreading radical equality to all aspects of life.
The Essence of the Revolutionary Project
If the history of revolutions has anything to teach us, it is that when the opportunity appears, there will be those who will use it to elevate themselves into position of power. The danger of political centralization is always present. Because of this it is the duty of revolutionary movements to be on the lookout for authoritarian tendencies and always strive towards the greatest decentralization and participation.
If we agree that the essence of a genuinely revolutionary project is the radical redistribution of power through a new institutional framework, then it is a necessity that hierarchical modes of organizing are criticized, dismantled, and actively resisted. In this regard Castoriadis suggests that the revolutionary movement must organise a systematic struggle against the ideology of hierarchy in all its forms, since both the objective and the means of all revolutionary activity is the development of the conscious and autonomous action of the workers.[15]
Revolution is not about people being liberated by someone else, but to liberate themselves. The revolutionary moment is a rupture with the logic of top-down rule that is initiated by the autonomous action of the people en masse. In this sense revolutionary liberation, as Murray Bookchin implies, must be a self-liberation that reaches social dimensions, not “mass liberation” or “class liberation” behind which lurks the rule of an elite, a hierarchy and a state.[16] Not on behalf of the people, but by the people and for the people.
The essence of any meaningful revolutionary project is then twofold: it is directed against every form of hierarchy and domination, while also advancing its own set of institutions that allow for the broades possible self-empowerment of all members of society. One such definition of revolution gives us hints to what day-to-day activity can contribute to the mounting of revolutionary potential. A good definition of revolutionary activity is offered by David Graeber, when suggesting that:
revolutionary action is any collective action which rejects, and therefore confronts, some form of power or domination and in doing so, reconstitutes social relations — even within the collectivity — in that light. Revolutionary action does not necessarily have to aim to topple governments. Attempts to create autonomous communities in the face of power (using Castoriadis’ definition here: ones that constitute themselves, collectively make their own rules or principles of operation, and continually reexamine them), would, for instance, be almost by definition revolutionary acts. And history shows us that the continual accumulation of such acts can change (almost) everything.[17]
Faced with crises that bear dire consequences for humanity and nature, there is a need of a radical, revolutionary change, that will offer a new beginning. But such a drastic change can only be based on and initiated by the autonomous action of the grassroots. Furthermore, this activity must develop into specific institutional framework that will refute hierarchy and domination, while advancing mass participation and radical equality. Anything short of this is nothing more than continuing on the current suicidal trajectory.
[1] Camillo Berneri: Class War in Spain: The Writings of Camillo Berneri 1936–1937 (Sanday: The Cienfuegos Press) [available online at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/camillo-berneri-frank-mintz-class-war-in-spain]
[2] Hannah Arendt: On Revolution (New York: Penguin Books, 1965), p21.
[3] Cornelius Castoriadis: The Rising Tide of Insignificancy (anonymous translation, 2003), p113. [available online at https://www.notbored.org/RTI.html]
[4] Murray Bookchin: The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era, Vol I [available online at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-third-revolution]
[5] Agnes Hunt: The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution (originally published in 1904; reprinted by New York: Haskell House Publishers, 1968), p153.
[6] Albert Soboul: The Sans Culottes: The Popular Movement and Revolutionary Government, 1793–1794 (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1972),p95.
[7] ibid.,pp.95–6.
[8] Sudhir Hazareesingh: Black Spartacus: The Epic Life of Toussaint Louverture (London: Penguin Books, 2021), p147.
[9] ibid.,p223.
[10] ibid.,p155.
[11] Suzi Weissman: ‘The Russian Revolution and Workers Democracy‘ in Against the Current, №188, May/June 2017 [available online at https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/4975.html]
[12] Gaston Leval: Collectives in the Spanish revolution: Detailed account of worker-controlled agriculture, industry and public services in revolutionary Spain during the civil war. (London: Freedom Press, 1975). [available online at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution#toc22]
[13] Ronald Radosh, Mary Habeck, & G. N. Sevostianov (eds.): Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War (London: Yale University Press, 2001), pp171–207.
[14] Petar Stanchev: ‘From Chiapas to Rojava: seas divide us, autonomy binds us’ in ROARmag at https://roarmag.org/essays/chiapas-rojava-zapatista-kurds/
[15] Cornelius Castoriadis: ‘Redefining Revolution’ in Solidarity Pamphlet/44 [available online at https://libcom.org/article/redefining-revolution-cornelius-castoriadis]
[16] Murray Bookchin: ‘Spontaneity and Utopia (1967–1968)’ in Post-scarcity Anarchism (San Francisco: Rampart Press, 1971). [available online at https://www.panarchy.org/bookchin/spontaneity.html]
[17] David Graeber: Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (Chicago:Prickly Paradigm Press), p45.