Что такое революция? // Роман Осин. Философский камень №15

Overview

The video argues that everyday—especially bourgeois—understandings of “revolution” are fundamentally distorted and weaponized by propaganda. According to the speaker, conservative media often equates revolution with either any coup or mass bloodshed, merging both into a single narrative: revolutions supposedly inevitably mean rivers of blood, economic ruin, state collapse, and outcomes like “a Maidan paid for by the West,” culminating in Russia’s collapse.

The lecturer contrasts this with a “scientific” (Marxist/Leninist) approach, insisting that revolution must be defined by qualitative socio-political changes, not by violence or media labels.

---

Main claims and analysis

1) Propaganda myths and concept-swapping

• The speaker claims bourgeois propaganda replaces scientific categories (e.g., social/political revolution, counterrevolution, restoration) with a simplistic idea: any upheaval is automatically “revolution” meaning chaos and disaster.
• The speaker also argues that opposite distortions occur:
  • Liberal or anti-government narratives may label events “revolutions” to legitimize them (e.g., “Euromaidan” as the “Revolution of Dignity,” or the 1991 USSR events as a “democratic revolution”).
  • Opponents allegedly label opposing actions as “coup d’état” or counterrevolution.
• The lecture frames the conflict as primarily about labels rather than real socio-historical criteria, arguing many people lack basic conceptual tools to distinguish these phenomena.

2) Dialectical framework: evolution vs revolutionary “leaps”

The lecture advances a dialectical definition:

• Quantity and quality: gradual quantitative accumulation can eventually produce qualitative change.
• Evolutionary development: mostly continuous, quantitative changes.
• Revolutionary development: a discontinuous “leap”—not just rapid events, but a qualitative transformation of the system.
• The speaker argues evolution and revolution are not mutually exclusive; both exist across history. Revolutionary “leaps” may occur over long periods (e.g., the emergence of life; capitalism’s formation through many political revolutions).

3) What counts as a “revolution” (and what doesn’t)

Revolution is defined with strict criteria:

• Revolution = radical, spasmodic qualitative change that is also progressive (replacing old qualities with a “more progressive” new one).
• If these elements are missing, it cannot be called a revolution “in the proper sense.”

4) Social revolution vs political revolution

A central part of the lecture is a taxonomy.

Social revolution

• Replaces a more reactionary socio-economic formation with a more progressive one.
• Includes:
  • change in the mode of production / economic basis,
  • the coming to power of a progressive revolutionary class,
  • establishment of new, more progressive production relations.
• If power changes but the underlying socio-economic formation does not, it remains a coup, not a social revolution.
• Social revolutions are described as historical necessities, driven by contradictions between developed productive forces and outdated production relations—something external actors (the speaker mentions the CIA and others) cannot simply “organize.”

Political revolution

• Changes the political system in a more progressive direction via democratization.
• The economic basis may or may not change:
  • If the class/formation changes too, it can become part of a broader social revolution.
  • Otherwise, it can remain “political” while still producing major social effects.

5) Color revolutions as (bourgeois) coups, not revolutions

The speaker argues “color revolutions” should be treated as coup d’états:

• They typically mobilize masses to solve problems within a faction/clan inside the bourgeois ruling class.
• In this view, masses act as objects of manipulation, not subjects of historical action.
• Because they do not produce qualitative change in the formation (and thus do not meet the lecture’s criteria for social revolution), they are not “real revolutions.”

6) Coup d’état definition

A coup d’état is described as:

• a power shift within the ruling class while keeping both the political and economic systems essentially intact.
• The lecture cites examples like “palace coups” and mentions modern analogies (including Prigozhin’s attempted rebellion as a failed coup).
• The key difference emphasized: coups do not transform the system’s qualitative basis the way revolutionary processes do.

7) Counterrevolution and restoration

• Counterrevolution: movement from a more progressive to a more reactionary socio-economic formation.
• Many revolutions are said to be followed by periods of restoration (the speaker claims the Great French Revolution experienced such a phase).
• The modern era (especially after 1991) is characterized as a time of capitalist restoration, beginning with counterrevolutionary coups in 1991.

8) Revolution vs violence; “the price” argument

The speaker rejects reducing revolution to violence:

• Violence is presented as one possible form, often caused by ruling classes refusing to relinquish power.
• The lecture contrasts revolution’s “price” with counterrevolution’s:
  • Revolutionary casualties can be “not in vain” because revolutions create long-term growth and social achievements.
  • Counterrevolution is framed as bringing ongoing large-scale suffering (the speaker mentions extinction figures after 1991 and links the defeat of the larger revolutionary wave after WWI to WWII outcomes).

Examples used to support “progress after revolution” include:

• Netherlands (after a bourgeois revolution),
• England (after a bourgeois revolution),
• France (Great French Revolution),
• and benefits attributed to early 20th-century socialist revolutionary transformations (e.g., limits on working days, pensions, etc.).

9) Political implications and programmatic calls

• The speaker argues leftists sometimes underestimate the importance of political revolutions and democratic freedoms even under capitalism.
• Democratic rights (e.g., freedom of speech/assembly, unions, elections) are described as means to build class power—not as final ends.
• Fighting for democratic freedoms is necessary but must not merge with liberals; it should be tied to developing proletarian struggle and organization.
• The lecture stresses the need for real labor movement and class-force building—not symbolic gestures or “demonstrations the regime should fear.”
• It concludes with an exhortation for practical involvement: the speaker promotes work in labor/communist organizations (e.g., “Russian labor front,” “revolutionary Komsomol,” political education clubs), emphasizing “theory and practice” together.

---

Summary of conclusions (explicitly listed in the video)

1. Revolution (unlike reforms) is a qualitative leap in development.
2. Social revolution changes the whole socio-economic formation to a more progressive one.
3. Political revolution changes the political system to a more progressive one while the formation may remain.
4. Moving toward a more reactionary formation = counterrevolution.
5. Changing one ruling clique for another without changing political-economic systems = coup d’état.
6. Revolutions require:
   • objective prerequisites (aggravation of social contradictions), and
   • subjective prerequisites (a revolutionary class and its organization).

---

Presenters / contributors

• Роман Осин — speaker/lecturer