I will be frank my understanding of theory is not great as I am still less than a year into learning marxism-leninism. Regardless, I see a lot of discontent among liberals which has unfortunately been managed very well by Biden stepping down and Harris now being on the table. However, seeing as nothing will fundamentally change and the source of their discontent will still affect them, eventually they will want superficial change again. Perhaps next time on a larger scale? Could there be a few real changes of the guard in our future or has the state apparatus been so perfected that this is no longer an option? Is fascism really the only way for the USian dominos to fall?
If so can someone explain why to me? I am currently reading state & revolution so I feel like I should know this and it is possible I answered myself but I dont have people to talk to about this irl so I am looking for people to bounce my thoughts on.
The bourgeoisie is already in the position of a ruling class in that country.
A bourgeois revolution is one in which the bourgeoisie (traders with wealth) overthrow the ruling class and become power. Usually this means when the ruling class before the bourgeois revolution is hereditary aristocrats who have customary (non-transferable) rights to landownership.
We don’t use the word ‘liberal’ in the same sense. Trump is a liberal.
Sure but there were multiple bourgeois revolutions in france no? What made it possible there but not here?
Also fortunately I do know the actual meaning of the word liberal and I meant it to refer to republicans as well as democrats but I can clearly see how that is not obvious
I suppose what I mean is not a true revolution but more like a serious demand of change from the people severe enough to warrant genuine concession by the ruling class. I am curious if this concession could manifest as a modification if standing liberal instutions, constitution reform, and/or changing the figureheads of power to someone “more agreeable” yk what I mean? I have certainly seen it happen elsewhere
after the first bourgeois revolution in France, the concert of europe imposed a replacement of the ancien regime on France again. the subsequent 2 successful revolutions were simply getting back to the bourgeois government from the first one. the Empires were bourgeois, but they curtailed the bourgeois democracy processes for a more direct rule in crisis (first empire, for the exigency of the military conflict–2nd empire to put down socialists)
a state like the US cannot have a ‘revolution’ to shift which class is at the helm except the proletariat replacing the bourgeoisie—but they can certainly have fractious and bloody conflict within factions of the bourgeoisie. this could definitely lead to modifications to the government & state, any insurgent faction will want to remove the practically ancient political inefficiencies of the US government, but even if the US had a civil war with a winning side coming out with a more rationally organized bourgeois democracy, it wouldn’t really be a revolution so long as bourgeois replaced bourgeois
Ahhh gotcha, thank you
the US is particularly calcified and host to one of the oldest bourgeois governments in the world, the initial revolution was not the prototypical type from europe, it was more defined by its status as a settler colony (to a semi-feudal nation) than a society that had a nobility to be usurped. pretty easy to get the notion that the US still ‘needs’ to go through the liberal stage properly. read “Uncommon Dominion” by Sally Mckee to receive a more complete definition and distinction of settler independence revolts from classic revolution, i also hear “The Counterrevolution of 1776” by Gerald Horne dwells on these questions particularly to the US but i’ve not read it