Changes, permanencies and choices. These are three words that are easy to hear when we are faced with historical situations in which the status quo can potentially be transformed through the action of its historical subjects. The possibility of change always prompts us to reflect on whether, by chance, a particular nation or society needs to intervene in their daily practices, institutions and habits.
To a certain extent, the vision of revolutions reveals a lot about the political position of those who focus on the past. Revolutionary transformation is often examined under the dictates of an ideological cohesion capable of promoting strong actions by the majority groups in a society. However, would it be possible to understand the revolutionary (in)success by the simple observation of certain behaviors of the historical agents involved in this process?
In the case of the French Revolution, the failure of the Jacobin Republic is usually attributed to the radicalism of its political agents and the absence of a mature political project. The "realm of justice and virtue", as historian Eric Hobsbawn has pointed out, of the Jacobins failed to balance the forces so that could recover the French economy while trying to win in the military comforts waged against the royalist armies of the Europe.
The situation of chaos experienced at that time allowed the bourgeoisie to reorganize the revolutionary process, promoting the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. The interests of the bourgeoisie were guaranteed by a national hero who, even as emperor, managed to to bring down the royalist forces, meet the needs of the bourgeoisie and end the economic crisis that afflicted the classes popular. After all, did these achievements guarantee the revolution or prevent the takeover of power by the popular?
Later, with the emergence of scientific socialism - mainly with the contribution of theorists such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – the revolutionary proposal gained new air with a clear and well-defined project. Socialism gained ground by promoting a proposal to mobilize the working classes armed with a political project favorable to the progressive extinction of social classes, private property and the State.
Since then, political trends have undergone a great process of ideological bipolarization. The workers, aware of their situation, would favor the revolution and the emergence of a communist society. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie and the large landowners, based on their individualistic behavior, represented conservatism and aversion to any type of transformative action.
With the political turmoil brought about by the Russian Revolution, this antagonistic understanding seemed to be materialized with the formation of the Red Army and the transformative role of the soviets. However, this other revolutionary experience was historically held back by the swelling of a totalitarian state in which equality was replaced by the demands of an omnipresent government.
The Soviet bureaucracy and the French bourgeoisie became great examples of counter-revolutionary action. With this, many come to the immediate conclusion that a proletarian government could not extrapolate an ephemeral experience incapable of subverting the order of those who instituted it. Is this an obvious conclusion or a sign that political ideologies have suffered a frank emptying incapable of promoting ideas capable of motivating action by majorities?
As we search for the answer to this question, revolutionary promises seem to occupy the obscure space of melancholic utopias. The dialectical-historical materialism would have vanished with the consolidation of the safeguards of the capitalist system. If such an assertion turns out to be true, we would have reached – as prophesied by Francis Fukuyama – the “end of history”.
By Rainer Sousa
Graduated in History
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/historiag/revolucao-contra-revolucao.htm
