One of the most important things for Socialists and Communists is revolutionary theory; how revolution begins and how it is carried out. Revolution is not just armed uprising but rather an entire period, a period that begins spontaneously, and is matured throughout time. Revolution usually begins as a series of uprisings related to economic conditions of society, a society with building contradictions related to the forces of production and how they relate to the social character of existing society and it’s failure to adapt to the changes. The armed rebellion of revolution is nothing but the revolution at its most matured state.

The American revolution didn’t begin with the war in 1775, or the declaration in 1776 but rather with 1754; the beginning of the 7 years war. 1764 was the beginning of the social upheavals that would eventually mature in the 70s and become an organized rebellion against the English crown. As we can see above Revolution is something that takes over a long period of time, and is related to how a proletarian revolution also develops and matures.

Armed uprisings happen the classes have matured and become highly organized; able arm their class begin to fight militarily but this stage of revolution is a stage that takes a long time to build. The earliest of uprisings that would resist the feudal order took place in the towns and cities, the peasant uprising of 1381 comes to mind. That uprising would be one that would be repeated until the 16th century, with the discovery of the Americas by the colonizers. The wars of plunder of the 16th and 17th centuries would fill the pockets of the developing propertied classes giving them a lot more power because of the explosion of trade and commerce. We can see that it took centuries for the bourgeoisie to mature enough as a class to be able to fight against monarchism and feudalism effectively. All centered on the development of the productive forces.

1848 represented the spark and uprisings that would spread throughout all of Europe; bourgeois, petty bourgeois, and proletariat all struggling against the old feudal structures and monarchies that failed to adapt to the changing forces of production. Marx and Engels had predicted that the revolution would begin in France, a country that represented the most revolutionary of the proletariat and spread out from there. An interesting examination of the productive forces of the time will show that England, France, and the US represented the most advanced industrial nations. Even though England represented the most advanced nation with the most advanced proletariat, it was France who held the most revolutionary potential. Now why is this?

The UK had the most numerous Proletariat yes yet it was France where revolution began why? One could see that although France had more proletariat in the cities it still had a backward population in the countryside, still very conservative and reactionary. The cities held the most advanced and cultured thinkers of Republicanism, Liberalism and Socialism. One can trace the level of productive forces to the level of revolutionary potential along a line that shows revolutions being inherited by increasingly backwards nations. All the events of 1848 in France led to the 1871 Paris Commune and after it was crushed it wasn’t the UK that inherited a more matured revolutionary population but by Germany, a more backward country than France. It’s industry during the 1870s was less developed; half industrialized and half peasant. The sparks of the Commune went to Germany and Marx took on the idea that it was Germany who represented the most matured revolutionaries and organized Proletariat.

The opportunism of the second international and the relative “peace” of the turn of the 20th century is what led to the collapse of the revolutionary potential of the Germans. The strong organization of the Germans allowed them to gain concessions after concessions leading the German leaders of the Proletariat to the arrogance that the bourgeoisie will continue to give ground and that a peaceful transition was possible. The events of the first world war would be the straw that broke the camel’s back, revealing absolutely what the “Socialist” leaders of the second international truly were. At the same time Lenin and the proletariat of Russia represented the most advanced revolutionaries. A largely backward country with low industrial development, a large peasant population and young proletarian population!

What we see now is how the Proletariat of each country matures as the revolutionary potential develops alongside the industrial productive forces of a country. The new proletariat of Germany inherited the knowledge and experience of the French proletariat and the new proletariat of Russia inherited the experience and knowledge of the German proletariat. We can see the newest industrial power maturing it’s revolution more than the last. We can follow how Russia became the hotbed of revolution. The bourgeoisie of Russia were fairly young and didn’t have as many assets and connections as the former countries, leaving them exposed to a proletariat who has the full knowledge and learned experiences of the UK, France, and Germany.

This idea of new proletariat being more revolutionary follows to China, a semi-colony at the time! With a massive peasant population! And a developing minority of Proletariat! And yet they led a successful revolution, fought throughout decades. This idea of countries with a young developing industry follows to Korea and to even Vietnam, a country that one could argue was entirely made up of peasants.

The idea of maturing revolution requires that the necessary historical conditions be in place. Marx was both right and wrong about the revolutions beginning and spreading from Europe. They in fact did spread from a developed France, but succeeded from the backward countries of Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea etc. I have talked about Venezuela in former posts and the reason that country excites me the most and not for example China is because to me it represents what I would say the most latest project in Socialism. They have the political party in place but have not crushed the bourgeois state machine and cannot go beyond social democracy. China has been here for a while now but their revolution happened long ago, I’m interested in 21st century revolutionary conditions how revolution cannot happen and develop under our current conditions. The workers themselves should organize themselves into power workers organs that would work alongside the party to crush local bourgeoisie.

Note: Seems the reason we don’t see similar Revolutionary potential in America or have much ever is because of a colonial mindset. We are a colony, whereas Europe, Asia, etc have been rooted and have a long history. Colonial mentality is highly individualistic, something Americans haven’t gotten rid of to this day. South America is different because it exists in the peripheries of capitalism on top of that they have a large exploited indigenous population, where we are at the core of capitalism and believe in our own “exceptional” colonial mentality.