Revolution is not when you exchange one group of landlords for a different set. It is a total upending of systems. That is the true meaning. Soc dems and reformists think we can just change the window dressing and call it systemic. "If the new lord is better than the old lord we can return to the happiness of feudalism." What a terrible thing to believe.

We must reclaim this term. These terms belong to the people not a bunch of centuries dead slaveholding jackasses in powdered wigs who didn't change a goddamn thing.

Just something I've been thinking about lately.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HexBroke@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The issue with applying it in the British context is that this:

In the USA the gentry took power from the monarch

isn't really true. Rather it was the USA gentry taking power from the British gentry (which is very much interwoven with the monarchy but not an absolute monarchy like other European states).

You can compare the American revolution to the (lack of) an Australian revolution, where the actual demarcation between subject and independent state isn't really clear.

But despite that it's of a different character to many other revolutions, I'm not fussed about using revolution to describe it. I don't think 'regime change' or whatever alternative is going to build much critical consciousness in the US masses.