‘Revolution’ is one of the most misused and abused words in the English language, and probably other languages too. From vacuous and superficial advertising slogans to coups and individuals taking power, none of this compares to true revolutionary action where the masses take centre stage, are no longer spectators to their own history and create it themselves.
The events in the Middle East have revived this definition, made it relevant again to people other than revolutionaries. It’s no longer an old historical definition taken over by it’s use to sell you iPods or new shoes. It’s always bothered me when advertising used the word ‘revolutionary’ or ‘revolution’ to sell something. “A revolutionary new way of taking your money to sell you something that isn’t that different anyway” isn’t quite the same as “Millions of people in the Middle East rise up in a revolutionary upsurge to overthrow decades old dictators.” They don’t mean the same thing even if the dictionary says so.
It bothers me even more when the advertisements take on the whole image of mass revolution as if we can change the world as consumers by buying their commodity made on the backs of exploited labour. Though a lot of the imagery is quite reminiscent of Stalinist Russia, which makes it less of problem, except for the fact that revolutions are often associated with another misnomer: coups and minorities in power.
It seems like whenever some leader gets up and gives some passionate speech, when they’re a popular opposition in some election, the media attaches a colour or cute mascot and calls it a revolution; the orange revolution, cedar revolution. And it gets more ridiculous when people like Abbott and the Liberal party appropriate the term. I would cherish the moment I saw Abbott’s face when Australia was in the grips of a real revolution. The difference between the events in the Middle East and some of the political changes recently called ‘revolutions’ is that the masses aren’t passive now, they aren’t just clapping on the sidelines, but they’re the ones on the field, running things for themselves, and the working-class is playing a pivotal role in all of this, which is often overlooked. It is now the ruling classes trying to play catch up, slotting in their own leaders (mostly unsuccessfully) to take control and steer it in a more moderate direction.
Revolutions also aren’t led by minorities, like guerrilla fighters in Cuba, they’re not voted in, they’re not taken by force by military generals, and they’re certainly not sold to us. Revolutions are carried out by us, the workers and the masses and you only need to switch on the television now to see evidence of the real definition.
Update: As a point of clarification, I say that the use Stalinist imagery when using the word revolution in advertising is less of a problem because capitalism and Stalinism are very much similar things and both equally divorced from the true meaning of revolution. A revolution in capitalism is just as phoney as how Stalin used the language of Marxism to dupe workers into being exploited just like their brothers and sisters in capitalist states overseas.
