You say that the landlord class overthrew the slave-owning class, and the bourgeoisie overthrew the landlord class, but I think this should be understood as one set of production relations overthrowing another. Lenin said that the revolutionary situation is when the lower classes are no longer willing to live as before and the upper classes are no longer able to rule as before. To achieve such a situation, only the lower classes uniting can make it happen. When the feudal landlord class overthrew the slave-owning class, it was not accomplished by the landlords alone; it also depended on the strength of the peasants. These two classes represented feudal landownership and represented the new production relations in struggle against the old ones. The two classes united under the same production relations.
The bourgeois revolution was the same. Take the French Revolution, for example: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, and the proletariat united together, and they jointly demanded more equal capitalist production relations in struggle against the feudal classes. Robespierre and the Jacobins represented the petty bourgeoisie, and were better able to unite an entire alliance, so they became the leading force of the revolution. After the revolution was completed, the Girondins, who more represented the interests of the bourgeoisie, seized power. After this alliance won under a given set of production relations, the class that occupied the dominant position within those relations sat on the throne of the former ruling class and at the same time consolidated the new production relations. This also intensified class contradictions and caused the alliance to break apart. But in any case, a more advanced set of production relations was established, and history moved forward.
And when socialism arrives, the alliance between the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie will once again defeat the bourgeoisie and establish new production relations. At that point, the petty bourgeoisie will, under the new production relations, transform into the proletariat, while the proletariat will exercise dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, thereby consolidating the new production relations.
I don’t know whether anyone has ever put forward this view. It may also have some problems, so I hope to discuss it with comrades.
What you’re saying here is completely muddled. I think instead of rushing to study some supposed new discovery, you should first read more books on historical materialism.
First of all, historical materialism clearly defines the exploiting class and the exploited class in class society as the basic classes, because without the basic classes, the mode of production of that society does not exist. In class society, the contradiction between the basic classes is always the contradiction that plays the decisive role. You are right to emphasize the role the exploiting class plays in overthrowing the old class society, but to treat that as some new discovery of your own is not right.
Moreover, what you said is far from sufficient. The replacement of the old class society by the new one, and the continued development of class society, can be said to have been driven entirely by the class struggle of the revolutionary class. Yet you think that “when the feudal landlord class overthrew the slave owners, it was not only the landlords acting independently, but also the strength of the peasants” — this is clearly a case of confusing the primary and the secondary.
There is also another issue here. In the overthrow of slave society, the decisive role was played by the slave class, not the peasant class. In slave society, the peasant class had not yet emerged, or rather, it had not yet become the basic class that formed the foundation of the mode of production at that time.
Going further, during the French Revolution there was not yet a proletariat in the true sense; there were only the proletariat’s forerunners — the sans-culottes. There was also no such thing as “uniting together”; the French Revolution was driven by the struggle of the people, while the bourgeoisie was always trying to compromise with the feudal nobility.
And furthermore, the order of those who held power during the French Revolution was Royalists - Constitutionalists - Girondins - Jacobins. It was not what you said, that “Robespierre and the Jacobins represented the petty bourgeoisie, could unite a broader alliance, and therefore became the leading force of the revolution; after the revolution was completed, the Girondins, who more strongly represented bourgeois interests, seized power.”
There are many other problems as well, but I won’t go into them for now. Treating knowledge as capital rather than respecting Marxism as a science, and rushing to parade it for show, is only going to make you a laughingstock. Marxism is a rigorous science and a guide to revolution, not garbage that can be casually desecrated and used to flaunt oneself. I think you should seriously correct your attitude toward this science.
When I wrote this back then, I was worried there might be something wrong with it. But I felt that only by posting it could other people point out my problems; if I just sat there overthinking, that would be like pulling the cart backward in a closed room, and I’d never make progress. I also said myself that this way of putting it might be problematic, so I hoped to discuss it with everyone. I don’t think that counts as showing off. And I didn’t say this was some new discovery of mine either — I even made a point of saying that I didn’t know whether anyone had raised this idea before. Because I feel that what I proposed doesn’t really amount to any innovation at its core. When I was writing this, I knew there would definitely be criticism, and I was writing it precisely on the belief that criticism could help me improve. So if it ends up becoming a joke, that’s actually in line with what I wanted. I think some of my ideas shouldn’t just be posted — they should be posted more often. I believe this way of putting my thoughts out there and letting others point out the problems is not only good for me, but also good for other comrades. Only by exchanging ideas with each other can we make greater progress.
I feel like you didn’t take Fenghuo’s words in, because the main contradiction right now is Xiaoxing’s attitude of not seriously studying Marxism, not asking too few questions. I don’t know what mindset Xiaoxing had when posting this.
Watch The Civil War in France, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte? Anything else to add?
It might be better to start learning Marxism with the popular books written in socialist China, since they’re easier to understand than the original works. I’d recommend reading Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, compiled in 1974 by the Department of Philosophy at Wuhan University.
Modern History Section of A Concise World History Compiled by the Department of History, Peking University
Thanks.
Thank you very much
Marxism is science, not material for cobbling together “new theories” on the fly — GPT’s criticism of the asteroid post
Comrade Asteroid’s post puts forward a set of views explaining social revolution. You argue that revolutions in history are not accomplished by a single class acting alone, but by several classes representing new relations of production forming an alliance to overthrow the old relations of production together; after victory, the dominant class in the alliance takes power.
On the surface, this view seems complete, but in fact it is seriously confused from basic concepts to historical facts. What deserves even more criticism is that, without mastering the basic knowledge or verifying the historical material, you hastily organized these scattered ideas into a general theory, and even said, “I don’t know whether anyone has proposed this before.” This reflects a lack of the seriousness that Marxism deserves.
1. Relations of production cannot overthrow relations of production by themselves
You say that the landlord class overthrew the slave-owning class, and the bourgeoisie overthrew the landlord class, and that this should be understood as “one relation of production overthrowing another relation of production.”
This turns the issue upside down.
Relations of production are social relations formed among people in the process of production; they cannot organize themselves, struggle by themselves, or seize political power by themselves. It is real classes living within a certain set of relations of production that wage struggle.
Why do slaves, peasants, and workers struggle? Because they are oppressed by specific exploiting classes. Why do rising classes oppose the old ruling classes? Because the old system obstructs their economic development and political rule.
The contradiction between productive forces and relations of production forms the material condition for social revolution, but this contradiction must be expressed and resolved through class struggle. Rewriting class struggle as the abstract “relations of production overthrowing relations of production” is to remove the living struggle of the masses from history.
2. Landlords and peasants cannot be said to jointly represent feudal relations of production
You say that feudal landlords and peasants both represent feudal landownership and new relations of production, and therefore unite to oppose the slave owners.
Landlords and peasants in feudal society are not two classes with the same interests, but two basic classes of exploitation and oppression.
Feudal landlords own the land and, through rent and other forms, appropriate the results of the peasants’ labor; peasants, in turn, are oppressed by the landlord class. Feudal relations of production are precisely built on the exploitation of peasants by landlords.
Peasants’ participation in the struggle against the old system does not mean that peasants and landlords together represent feudal landownership. Oppressed masses may, under certain historical conditions, be used by a rising exploiting class, and may even form a temporary alliance with it, but this cannot eliminate the class contradiction between the two sides, much less make them common representatives of one relation of production.
By placing exploiters and the exploited into the same “relations-of-production alliance,” you are in fact blurring the fundamental class contradictions in society.
3. Mass participation in revolution does not mean the equal formation of an alliance among classes
You observe that every revolution requires the participation of broad masses of people, and that in itself is not wrong.
However, the fact that multiple classes participate in a revolution does not mean that these classes have the same position, the same purpose, or that they equally represent a new system.
In bourgeois revolutions, peasants, urban poor, and artisans often show far more resolute revolutionary spirit than the bourgeoisie. They bear the struggle, bloodshed, and sacrifice, pushing the revolution forward. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, often fears the masses and is always prepared to compromise with the old ruling class.
Therefore, you cannot flatten their contradictions by saying that “several classes jointly demand capitalist relations of production.”
You must analyze concretely:
Which class is oppressed, and by what?
Which class puts forward what demands?
Which class leads the revolution?
Which class bears the main burden of struggle?
Which class wavers and compromises during the revolution?
Ultimately, for which class does the victorious revolution establish rule?
Without these concrete questions, talking only about an abstract “alliance” is no longer class analysis.
4. Your account of the French Revolution contains basic historical errors
You say that the Jacobins became the leading force of the revolution because they could unite a broader alliance; after the revolution was completed, the more bourgeois-representative Girondins seized power.
This sequence is simply wrong.
The Girondins were in power before the Jacobin dictatorship. It was precisely under pressure from the people that the Jacobins replaced the Girondins, who were unable to mount a resolute counterattack against the feudal counterrevolution. Later, it was the Thermidorians who overthrew the Jacobins, not the Girondins retaking power after the revolution had been completed.
If you do not even get the basic order in which the various political factions held power correct, then you cannot use the French Revolution as the basis for building a historical theory.
In addition, your simple description of the various masses in the French Revolution as an orderly alliance of the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and proletariat is also not rigorous. At that time, the modern industrial proletariat had not yet matured; among the urban laboring masses there were large numbers of artisans, shop assistants, journeymen, and other sans-culottes. You cannot casually apply the class structure of later, mature capitalist society.
5. You have incorrectly used Lenin’s discussion of the revolutionary situation
Lenin’s statement that “those below do not want to live in the old way, and those above cannot rule in the old way” refers to the objective conditions for a revolutionary situation.
But Lenin never said that as long as several lower classes unite, they can complete a revolution according to the relations of production they support.
A revolutionary situation is not the same as revolutionary victory. The crisis of the old ruling group and the increasing suffering and action of the masses do not mean that the old regime will collapse by itself. There must also be a revolutionary class and its revolutionary forces capable of organizing the masses, leading the masses, and overthrowing the old regime.
You quoted one sentence from Lenin but did not understand the content of Lenin’s entire argument, and instead forced it into a framework you had already preconceived. This is not applying Marxism; it is using Marxist phrases to dress up personal speculation.
6. The petty bourgeoisie will not automatically become the proletariat once socialism is established
You say that after the socialist revolution, the petty bourgeoisie will become the proletariat under the new relations of production.
This view is likewise too hasty.
The petty bourgeoisie is not a label that automatically disappears just because the name of the system changes. Small-scale production, private-property thinking, the desire for individual enrichment, looseness and spontaneity, and hierarchical thinking all have their own material and ideological roots. Socialist transformation must change ownership and social relations, and it must also carry out long-term class struggle and ideological remolding.
Nor can the socialist revolution simply be described as the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie jointly establishing a relation of production, after which the petty bourgeoisie naturally transforms.
The proletariat can unite petty-bourgeois masses, but it must insist on proletarian leadership and restrict and remold the petty bourgeoisie’s spontaneous tendencies. Otherwise, the petty bourgeoisie may also follow the bourgeoisie and oppose socialist transformation.
Here too, class struggle is still required, rather than an automatic transformation of relations of production.
7. What most needs correction is your attitude toward studying Marxism
Raising questions is not wrong, and trying to think things through is not wrong either. Marxism does not oppose discussion, nor does it require learners to mechanically memorize conclusions.
However, discussion must be based on serious study and investigation of the material.
The problem with your article is that:
basic concepts are not clear;
the fundamental classes of society are not distinguished;
the relationship between exploiting and exploited classes is confused;
basic historical facts about the French Revolution are wrong;
Lenin’s discussion is selectively quoted and used at will;
and before any of these issues are resolved, you rush to propose a new theory explaining all of history.
Finally, you say, “I don’t know whether anyone has proposed this before.” This statement especially reveals a mentality that treats theoretical study as personal performance. What seems to concern you first is not whether this understanding conforms to historical facts or helps revolutionary practice, but whether it is your own new discovery.
This is treating knowledge as personal capital.
Marxism is not material for playing with concepts, showing off cleverness, or competing for originality. It is the science by which the proletariat understands society, organizes the masses, and transforms the world.
Without respect for facts, Marxism will be reduced to empty talk; without serious reading, class analysis will become personal speculation; and without accepting the scientific achievements already formed by predecessors, rushing to announce one’s own discovery will only create new confusion.
8. How you should correct this now
First, stop constructing a theory that tries to cover all of history at once.
Second, seriously study the basic concepts of historical materialism and clarify the relations among productive forces, relations of production, the economic base, the superstructure, the basic classes, and class struggle.
Third, study slave society, feudal society, and capitalist society separately; do not apply a single simple formula everywhere.
Fourth, study the specific history of the French Revolution and first clarify the classes, factions, stages, and sequence of changes in power.
Fifth, when quoting Marx, Engels, and Lenin, you must read the complete argument and explain what issue the original text is addressing; you cannot just extract one sentence to prove your point.
Sixth, treat the criticism of your forum comrades as an opportunity to correct your understanding, and do not rush to protect your “theoretical achievement.”
Conclusion
This article of yours is not a new discovery of historical materialism, but rather the product of a mishmash of undigested Marxist terms, incorrect historical material, and personal speculation.
Its greatest harm is that it uses a “relations-of-production alliance” to obscure the opposition between exploiting and exploited classes, replaces concrete class struggle with abstract alliance, and portrays historical development as one relation of production naturally replacing another.
Even more seriously, you have been far too casual about this view, which has not yet undergone even the most basic testing, and you have even begun to imagine that you have personally discovered a new theory.
Marxism is science, and it must respect facts, respect history, and respect the basic principles verified by revolutionary practice.
You may think boldly, but you must not speak carelessly.
You may raise questions, but you must not package ignorance as innovation.
First study honestly, then make your own judgment. Only by correcting this attitude can your discussion truly help us understand history, rather than adding new confusion to historical materialism.
This passage’s analysis of class is too muddled; you can take a look at the forum’s articles on the French Revolution.
This is entirely a matter of judging things by their external characteristics. Relations of production are not simply composed of two classes. To say that whichever two classes represent a single set of relations of production erases the relationship of exploitation and being exploited between those two classes. Moreover, the final sentence seems to suggest that the peasant class voluntarily helped the landlord class in order to place itself in a new exploitative relationship. This completely contradicts the historical facts. Even a relatively progressive exploiting class, when using the power of the working people to overthrow an exploiting class that has become reactionary, will never reveal its true face. Instead, it will make false promises to the working people through various forms of deception and even repression; otherwise, the working people would not follow it. The various ideas of equality promoted by peasant uprisings in feudal society prove that working people were unwilling to place themselves in exploitative relations. The situation of the Jacobins during the French Revolution, which you mentioned later, also refutes your argument: the Jacobins’ suppression of the left wing within their own movement, which maintained close ties with the working people, demonstrates that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were by no means united under capitalist relations of production. Therefore, in revolutions that overthrow an old exploiting class, the aims of the exploiting and exploited classes that temporarily unite are fundamentally different. How, then, can one say that they joined forces to represent the same relations of production? What you perceive as the outward unity of the exploiting and exploited classes is actually the following situation: during a particular historical period, a relatively progressive exploiting class has not yet seized power and lacks the ability to confront the reactionary exploiting class in power. It can therefore only use the strength of the working people to oppose those exploiting classes that have become thoroughly reactionary. From beginning to end, this is a matter of the exploiting class using the exploited class, not of the two uniting in pursuit of another form of exploitative relations.