The concept of revolution, at least in modern times, is broad and elastic, even contradictory. Coming up with a comprehensive and precise definition for revolution is surplus to requirements. Even among the interpretations offered by Marxism, which have presented the broadest and most influential theories of revolution, one can find conflicting definitions that stem from the nature of the country in question and its economic composition, with others tied to the characteristics of the revolutionary elites themselves.
In Tsarist, peasant Russia, Lenin and the Bolsheviks expanded the Marxist concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which the revolution should establish, becoming “the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.” In China, which had been even more a country of peasants, Mao Zedong, especially after the 1927 massacre of the communists, prioritized the peasantry ahead of the proletariat, in practice, if not in theory.
Later on, in his discussion of advanced capitalist societies, the German-American philosopher Herbert Marcuse argued that the proletariat had lost its revolutionary potential because consumerism had integrated it into the capitalist system. This prelude refers to the ideas of the founders of the Frankfurt School, among whom was Marcuse himself. Building on this notion, he developed a notion of a revolution driven by intellectuals, university students, and socially and ethnically marginalized groups.
As for the French writer Regis Debray, as a result of his engagement with the Cuban revolution, he puts forward the “foco” (center/ base) in guerrilla warfare as a substitute for the Leninist vanguard party. This theory of Debray’s was presented as a “revolution in the revolution,” as the title of his most famous book put it. In turn, the Martinique writer and physician Franz Fanon saw, in his reading of the Algerian revolution, that revolution is the final outcome of the violent efforts of the peasantry, urban laborers, and the unemployed- the national bourgeoisie could potentially join them as well, though it remains likely to regress and attack the revolution after ascending to power.
From another, different position, German American political scientist Hannah Arendt preferred political revolution, as embodied by the American revolution, over social revolution as it had been in France in 1789 and then Russia in 1917. Arendt also favored the framework of popular elected councils, on the condition that they not be subjugated by a centralized party and a categorical, holistic ideology.
In the late eighties, Central and Eastern Europe presented a model of revolution very different from those undergone in France, Russia, China and others like them: here, peaceful means replaced violence, there was no ideological party, and class struggle was rejected as the driving force of the revolution…
In their first year, the Arab revolutions, to a large extent, mirrored the experiences of Central Europe. However, the repression that they faced and the militarization of the struggle that it led to left violent civil war prevailing over peaceful and civil dynamics.
In the meantime, and in between these dates, Iran saw its revolution in 1979. Under Ayatollah Khomeini’s leadership, the revolution of religious clerics seized power and established a tyrannical regime with a grim vision for everything from politics to culture and values, both domestically and in foreign policy. This new revolutionary regime was inaugurated with the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, launching a “cultural revolution” to root out Western influences in education and culture, and unleashing violence that threatens the region with disintegration under the pretext of revolutionizing and Islamizing it.
This happened with the help of the senseless violence unleashed by Saddam Hussein’s war on Iran. In this anti-imperialist revolution, women and freedom were put in many cages, and later on, the impulse for imperial expansion went beyond all reason and came with a narcissistically inflated ego spoken to by the regime’s nuclear project.
Days ago in the same country, Iran, another revolution that put forward the complete opposite model of that seen in 1979 broke out: women and freedom were at the forefront. The ghosts of imperialism and fighting it were thrown out to locusts along with the figures- in their images and slogans- of the reign that emerged in 1979.
This revolution certainly could be defeated; nonetheless, that does not negate its success in shortening the lifespan of the regime and announcing that its revolution had aged. It challenged the ideological and organizational fundamentals upon which the 1979 revolution and its regime had been built. It also announced that the concept of revolution can carry opposing connotations in the same country, including the entrenchment of slavery and the demand for freedom.
Only 43 years separate the two revolutions. During this time, the first has been tried enough and ended up with the broad failure it is languishing under today. These 43 years saw the global order collapse, the economy globalize, access to information about what is happening around the world improve, and demands for freedom and equality increase. However, on the other hand, and partly because of this revolution, all kinds of identities sprouted, wars were fought, and sufferings exacerbated.
However, the chronological difference, much of the effects of which Iran has tried to shield itself from, remains feeble when compared to the differences in meanings and objectives, which are equivalent to hundreds of years and maybe more.
