Lai Qingli: A Historical Debate over the Concept of "Revolution" and Its Practical Enlightenment
Correspondingly to the 1917 October Revolution in the Eastern country of Russia, a revolution also broke out in Germany in the West at the end of 1918—namely, the "November Revolution." Historically, academic circles have paid relatively little attention to this revolution, focusing primarily on regret over its failure and critiques of the betrayal of the revolution by the right wing of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). There has been even less research into how various factions understood the concept of "revolution" during the revolutionary process. Viewed as a whole, the German Revolution triggered a major historical debate surrounding the concept of "revolution" within the German socialist camp. The ultimate failure of the revolution also yielded many experiences and lessons, providing ideological inspiration for continuing to advance self-revolution and social revolution in the development of socialism a century later.
I. The Basic Process and Main Factions of the German "November Revolution"
The German "November Revolution" spanned a relatively long period and can be roughly divided into three stages.
First was the revolutionary fermentation period (October–December 1918). On October 3, 1918, the German wartime government collapsed, and Prince Max of Baden became the new Chancellor. In October, German sailors in Kiel began to mutiny; in November, the revolution broke out, and Emperor Wilhelm II abdicated. Subsequently, Friedrich Ebert, leader of the Majority Social Democratic Party, became Chancellor and formed a government. During this period, there was great debate among various parties regarding the means and goals of the revolution. For instance, the right-wing Ebert sought to maintain a constitutional monarchy, while Philipp Scheidemann proclaimed the establishment of a republic; meanwhile, left-wing figures such as Karl Liebknecht strongly advocated for the "Council" (Rat) system [1].
Second was the period of intensifying contradictions (December 1918–January 1919). This period saw the phenomenon of "socialists" slaughtering socialists. The Majority faction, including Ebert, believed the revolution had ended. The Spartacus League and the left wing of the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) believed the revolution was not yet over, emphasizing the thorough clearing away of the remnants of feudalism to establish a "Socialist Republic." The Spartacus League formed the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and demanded that the proletariat seize political power. The centrist faction, meanwhile, continually preached an abstract peace. In January 1919, workers launched an armed uprising demanding the overthrow of the Ebert government. The Majority Social Democrats joined forces with the old army and reactionary landlords to form Gustav Noske’s "Freikorps" (volunteer corps) [2], massacring revolutionaries, workers, and the masses. On the 13th, the fighting ended; on the 15th, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and others were martyred.
Third was the period of mass uprisings (January–May 1919). This period was also characterized by the Social Democratic Party’s collaboration with reactionary military forces to suppress workers' movements across Germany. Industrial regions such as the Ruhr, Rhine-Westphalia, and Saxony sequentially launched strikes and even general strikes, establishing "Councils" and putting forward demands for socialization, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a socialist republic. Noske and the Social Democratic Party used various armed means to strike at and shoot workers. Under the suppression of reactionary forces, the German working-class movement gradually ebbed. In April, the working class in the Bavaria region launched a final climax, establishing the Bavarian Soviet Republic led by the Communist Party, arming workers and forming a Red Army. In response, the Social Democratic Party allied with reactionary troops to form government forces for suppression. The Red Army was outnumbered and defeated on May 1, marking the end of the German "November Revolution."
Looking at the revolutionary process, it is not difficult to see that many issues in socialist theory and practice were highlighted in various ways, leading to differentiation among the right, center, and left, as well as within each faction. More importantly, why the phenomenon of "socialists" suppressing or even massacring socialists and the working class occurred within the German Social Democratic Party; what the goal of a socialist revolution was and why it had to be carried out; and what the relationship between revolution and social development was—all these questions deserve further clarification and exploration.
II. How to "Revolve": The Dispute over Means between "Democracy" and "Violence"
Before the outbreak of World War I, the German socialist camp had already fractured into left, right, and centrist factions. Consequently, when the revolution broke out, the attitudes held by each party were distinct, and their views on the means of "revolution" showed obvious differences. From this, we see that the right wing betrayed the revolution, while the left wing continually pushed the revolution forward.
(1) The Right Wing's View of "Passively Utilizing Democracy"
After the outbreak of World War I, the Social Democratic Party of Germany split over the issue of the war. The right wing, represented by Ebert and Scheidemann, supported the war, while centrists and leftists like Hugo Haase, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, and Karl Liebknecht opposed it, breaking away from the SPD to establish the Independent Social Democratic Party. As Germany faced defeat and Wilhelm II's rule tottered, the broad masses of soldiers and the working class sought to overthrow the reactionary regime. However, the right wing wanted nothing to do with violent revolution. Under left-wing leadership, the revolutionary enthusiasm of soldiers and the working class ran high, pushing the right wing to support revolutionary actions. After the establishment of the Weimar Republic and the SPD’s rise to power, the right wing became even more averse to any violent revolution, believing instead that "democracy" had been established and that normal order should be gradually restored through peaceful means to maintain social stability. Eduard Bernstein, as a representative figure of revisionism and reformism, provided the theoretical elaboration for this, maintaining his basic attitude of deconstructing and opposing Marxism and scientific socialism.
Based on revisionist philosophical viewpoints, Bernstein continually defended the right wing. He argued that changes in the political organism do not depend on a single instance of "violence" or "external interference"; every "progress" must take as its premise the fact that human society is a complex organism and its laws of development. His basic logic was: the "German Revolution" was the consequence of a dual logic of reality and history. On the historical level, the "Republic" was an important link in the linear development of history, and socialists should "build the Republic." On the level of reality, the "revolution" was the result of Wilhelm II’s domestic delay of electoral reform and his external refusal to reach a peace treaty; it was not socialist in nature. At the same time, Germany already possessed the foundation for establishing and developing a "Republic": internal political unity had formed, and industry and trade had developed greatly, making it a wealthy and powerful nation. Therefore, socialists could not violently overthrow the Republic but should instead promote the development of "constructive politics"—that is, peaceful reform. In this way, "revolution" could only take the form of "democratic parliamentarism" and "gradual development." In Bernstein’s context, only the "Republic" could guarantee "democracy," and only "democracy" could ensure the influence of the working class and continually raise its cultural level.
(2) The Centrist View of "Actively Transforming Democracy"
On the view of the means of "revolution," the center differed significantly from the right. However, the gap between their theory and practice, combined with their vacillating attitude, meant that their opposition to the right wing’s actions remained merely "verbal," and they eventually drifted toward the right. Karl Kautsky was a representative of this. Amidst the full-blown revolution, he argued on one hand that the working class should establish its own "Socialist Republic," while on the other hand, he opposed the worker-soldier "Councils" established throughout Germany and opposed the proletariat seizing power through these vehicles. To this end, Kautsky further deepened his idea of "democratic methods of proletarian struggle."
In Kautsky’s context, the working class should construct a more equal new society through "democracy"; "democracy" was the primary, or even the sole, tool for social change. Theoretically, the biggest difference between Kautsky and Bernstein was that the latter believed that once the Republic was established, it possessed democratic tools in a general sense and did not require major or fundamental transformation; the former believed that democratic tools could not be used by the proletariat without being transformed. The premise of Kautsky’s method was that without actively transforming modern political systems, such as the parliamentary system, it would be impossible to give democratic tools a socialist character, let alone construct new social relations. Therefore, compared to Bernstein, Kautsky’s discourse still employed class analysis, but his "transformation of democracy" always remained at the level of words and abstractions. When the proletariat initiated revolution and demanded the establishment of its own political institutions, he sided with the right wing on the grounds that such institutions did not conform to "democracy."
(3) The Left Wing's View of "Smashing Democracy with Violence"
Refusing to enter the government or join the cabinet and instead promoting violent proletarian revolution to overthrow the existing political system remained the principle and policy consistently upheld by the left wing. In her article "What Does the Spartacus League Want?", Rosa Luxemburg explicitly pointed out: capitalists will not submit to a National Assembly or a so-called "socialist parliament"; the left must thoroughly transform the state and change society, using violence to smash the resistance of capitalists, meeting the counter-revolutionary violence of the bourgeoisie with the violent revolution of the proletariat, and arming the united working people. However, one should not conclude from this that the left wing's opposition to existing democratic tools or forms was an opposition to democracy itself. In reality, Luxemburg and others emphasized the class characteristics of democracy, believing that only by overthrowing bourgeois rule could there be true people's democracy. They argued that democracy was indispensable for the dictatorship of the proletariat and advocated for the election of worker-soldier "Councils" based on universal suffrage.
Luxemburg and others praised the worker-soldier "Councils" produced in the Russian October Revolution, yet they held an understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat that differed from the Russian model. In their discourse, the dictatorship of the proletariat meant the transfer of political power; in this process, the working class should use democracy to advance toward socialism, opposing and replacing the bourgeoisie's use of "democracy" to preserve capitalism. On this basis, Luxemburg regarded Bernstein as a trumpeter for bourgeois democracy and believed that Kautsky, though different from Bernstein, also effectively upheld bourgeois political rule on the issue of "democracy." Taking the overthrow of bourgeois "democracy" as a starting point, Luxemburg defined the connotation of "violent revolution," primarily through the application of "revolutionary dialectics": first, she identified with the slogan of the Russian Revolution—"All power to the workers and peasants"—to ensure the revolution moved forward and to solve the problem of "winning the majority." Second, she opposed the so-called "wisdom of parliamentary struggle," arguing that one does not adopt revolutionary strategies only after winning a parliamentary majority; rather, one wins the majority within the revolutionary struggle. This was a "reversal" of the right and centrist claim that "one can only conduct revolution after winning a majority." In the eyes of Luxemburg and other left-wingers, the rule of the working class could only be truly realized by seizing power through revolutionary struggle.
III. What is "Revolution" For: The Dispute over Goals between "Republic" and "Council"
The reason for the divergence in means lay primarily in differing understandings of "socialism." Taking "democracy" as the standard, the right and center tended to "realize" and "materialize" socialism, believing that the revolution must first establish a "Republic" and gradually grow into socialism. The left, however, believed that socialism meant establishing entirely new social relations and social forms; thus, the revolution must first establish a new "political form."
(1) The Right Wing's Goal Was to Establish and Maintain a "Democratic Republic"
Right-wing figures like Ebert and Scheidemann believed that socialism meant "expanding public administration to achieve universal happiness." Based on this traditional German-style socialism, the right wing placed great emphasis on order and stability and shared similar understandings with classes such as the Junkers [3], capitalists, and the old officer corps, viewing the left wing as their greatest enemy. They especially feared the left wing's imitation of the Russian Bolsheviks, opposed the possession of armed forces belonging to the Republic, and opposed the left's arming and military actions, emphasizing only social reform within a constitutional democratic framework. Consequently, establishing and maintaining a "Democratic Republic" became synonymous with the revolution itself and the goal of the broad right wing. To this end, the "theorist" Bernstein provided the elaboration.
In Bernstein’s context, the reasons for establishing and protecting a "democratic republic" were primarily threefold. First was his understanding of Marxism and socialism. Bernstein believed that the Left had detached itself from German national conditions and were thus not true Marxists. At the same time, he insisted that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was equivalent to a "coup d'état and the usurpation of power," or the "rule of selective class representatives," and that "violent revolution" was "uncivilized political violence." This distorted Marxist political principles and revolutionary practice into an "illegal revolution." On this basis, Bernstein argued that socialism meant improving the material living conditions of the working class, promoting continuous social progress, and building a society of equality and solidarity. To achieve this goal, one could only defend and develop the "Republic," rather than follow the Left’s so-called "faith in and promotion of world revolution to build a new society." Second was his understanding of "socialist political revolution." Bernstein believed that, subjectively, "revolution" depended on politicians with a democratic outlook and a strong capacity for responsibility; objectively, it required democratic systems such as a representative system that had been tested in practice and functioned well. To this end, he viewed the nascent republic as a hybrid of a "bourgeois republic" and a "workers' republic"—a fragile "civic republic." Socialists, he argued, should first be republicans who protect and develop existing democratic institutions. Third was his perception of left-wing revolutionaries. Bernstein continually deconstructed the Left's revolutionary narrative, dismissing their claims as myths and fantasies. He explicitly pointed out an ideological rupture in the "orthodox Marxist" view of revolution within the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), arguing that a contradiction existed between Marxism and reality. Consequently, he chose to reconstruct Marxist ideology and vigorously promoted reformism.
(2) The Center’s goal: A "Socialist Republic" remaining within discourse
Kautsky aligned with Bernstein on fundamental issues such as the understanding of "councils," whether to approve of the Russian October Revolution, and whether to abolish or transform the state. However, they differed significantly on the question of the Republic. While Bernstein emphasized parliamentary democracy, Kautsky consistently defended the "socialist republic," emphasizing the "centrality of the working class in democratic politics" rather than simply promoting the development of the Weimar Republic. Consequently, Kautsky proposed more ideas and propositions regarding the "Republic," which were more systematic and theoretical than those of Bernstein.
First, the guiding principle was "socialist republicanism." Its connotation involved two points: first, an autonomous "republic" where members of the political community adhere to the principle of self-governance to shape both community and individual interests; second, "socialism," where community members are freed from the domination of others, as well as from social relations of exploitation, dependence, and subordination. Kautsky envisioned defending a mature system embodying "socialist democracy," thereby developing "democracy" on the foundation of republicanism and the Western Enlightenment [4] to stimulate the possibilities of socialist democratic politics.
Second, the core was "establishing a just social order under the socialist system." Like Bernstein, Kautsky was first and foremost a republican. The core of his theory was the fundamental idea of "republicanism": humanity is a communal and collective species whose shared life constitutes shared interests. The "Republic" is an apparatus for organizing social relations according to the needs of public affairs, and political tools and institutional mechanisms must be constructed based on this.
Third, the agenda was the establishment of a "socialist republic." In Kautsky’s context, social transformation involved two basic issues: first, establishing socialist democratic legitimacy on a cross-class basis; second, socialization. The former leads to "democratic control," dissolving the state based on private property; the latter leads to the production of commodities and the creation of wealth according to the common goals and needs of society. This reflects the difference in goals between Kautsky and Bernstein. He argued: "The German Republic must be a democratic republic. But it must go further: a socialist republic, where a collective of people exploiting people will no longer possess any civil rights." That is to say, Kautsky's goal was not a "democratic republic," but rather the continuous advancement toward a "socialist republic"—transforming, through "democracy," a state that protects capital, exploitation, and inequality into one that protects the community.
(3) The Left’s goal: Replacing the "Republic" with "Dictatorship" or "Councils" through mass revolution
At the goal-oriented level, the Left held two representative positions.
The first was Rosa Luxemburg’s "socialist democracy." In her "democratic" practice, Luxemburg committed to promoting revolution through a popular democratic movement supported by the majority. In her eyes, the rule of the broad masses of people was unthinkable without democratic rights. She viewed the "democratic republic" as a bourgeois political apparatus and opposed "representative systems." In this discourse, Luxemburg was closer to the radicalism of Rousseau, believing that a great revolution should be designed, implemented, and accounted for by the majority of citizens. "Democracy" was not merely the "rule of law" and "competitive elections," but necessitated the further revolutionizing of democracy itself. In Luxemburg’s concept of "dictatorship," the Party could not merely be a "vanguard"; it must ensure the people have the right to participate directly in political life. She championed proletarian democratic politics and was dedicated to involving the masses in the revolutionary process. Thus, in her context, "democracy and dictatorship" were not a dichotomy; "dictatorship is a way of implementing democracy." The revolutionary goal was primarily to provide the masses, especially the proletariat, with sufficient space to implement their own strategies.
The second was the "council" advocacy represented by figures like Richard Müller, who can be seen as early practitioners of "Council Communism." They believed that since workers and soldiers had performed prominently in the German Revolution, the revolution could bypass Party leadership and vehicles like the parliamentary system and trade unions. Instead, through the conscious class awareness of the working class, it could construct a "dictatorship" belonging to the proletariat itself, with "councils" [5] serving as the vital intermediary. They attempted to seek a middle path between anarchism and "centralization," believing that the working class possessed the ability to change its own circumstances and should be liberated from all forms of oppression. For the proletariat, the priority was not "seizing power" but breaking all existing power. To this end, Richard Müller and Ernst Däumig believed the goal of the revolution was to establish a "Council Republic."
IV. Why "Revolution": The Essential Dispute over "Conceptions of Civilization"
Behind the divergence in means and goals lay the different understandings each faction held regarding the essence of "revolution"—specifically, the understanding of "why revolution is necessary"—which manifested directly in their different interpretations and elaborations of "civilization." The Right believed Germany could only establish a "democratic republic," a view underpinned by a conception of civilization that de-ideologized and neutralized capitalism. The Center believed in establishing a "socialist republic" because Germany did not yet possess a sufficient civilizational basis and should move toward a "higher civilization." The Left believed in establishing a "proletatorship of the proletariat" as the foundation for building a newer and higher "civilization."
(1) The Right's "superior" conception of civilization
Whether it was Ebert, Scheidemann, or Bernstein, all more or less held notions of "civilizational superiority," particularly reflected in claims of "linear civilizational development" and "eurocentrism." The Right, including Ebert and Scheidemann, supported the government’s entry into World War I for three main reasons: First, opposition to the "barbaric Russians." They believed Germany was fighting a "defensive war" that did not deviate from the resolutions of the Second International’s Stuttgart Congress [6]. Second, the belief in the superiority of German civilization. They argued that German expansionism, rather than British liberalism, was the "progressive" cause. German culture would enable it to lead Europe toward socialism; therefore, opposing the German war effort was detrimental to socialism. A German victory would destroy the imperialism of the Entente and allow the SPD to lead the European proletariat toward democracy and socialism. Third, the insistence on the superiority of the SPD. The Right had always viewed itself as the leader and pioneer of European socialism—the guide and philosopher of the Second International—whom socialist parties of other nations could only "imitate and catch up with in an attitude of unattainable respect." A military-diplomatic threat to Germany was, in effect, a threat to the SPD's dominant position in the international socialist movement. Consequently, they found it difficult to accept the Left's emulation of the Russian October Revolution or the idea of taking orders from "barbaric Russians."
After the war, Bernstein developed the "hierarchal view of civilization" and "civilizational centrism," using a neutral concept of civilization to measure socialist theory and revolutionary practice. Bernstein explicitly pointed out that socialists should consider the complexity of society and the deep-seated differences between countries, recognizing a "hierarchical difference in civilization": countries with lower levels of civilization should learn theory and revolutionary strategy from those with higher levels. He also explicitly stated that following the model of the Russian dictatorship—an agrarian nation—would likely bring disaster to Germany, an industrial nation. In this regard, Bernstein betrayed the empirical method he advocated, fundamentally exposing his "civilizational centrist" stance. Without understanding Russia's national conditions, he believed Bolshevism violated the general laws of socio-economic development. He opposed any Western European country or socialist party learning from Russia, arguing it was an error for an advanced country to learn from a backward one instead of vice-versa. To a large extent, a form of civilizational dogmatism existed in Bernstein's thought—the belief that countries not yet industrialized or modernized must unconditionally learn all theory and practice from advanced nations.
(2) The Center's "Enlightenment" conception of civilization
The Center and the Right eventually merged precisely because their essence was to preserve the "civilizational" achievements of the Western Enlightenment. However, a major difference between the Center (represented by Kautsky) and the Right lay in their understanding of war and the government. The Center opposed both the violent overthrow of the government and supported a peace that neither the Right nor the Left had secured, thereby discrediting the militarist and imperialist government and allowing "democracy" to triumph. Thus, "peace," "reason," and "democracy" remained the primary concepts of the Center.
In Kautsky's thought, "advanced socialist civilization" required two basic elements: first, an objective foundation, namely a parliamentary system based on an advanced industrial society; second, a subjective foundation, namely that the realization of socialism requires promoting the organization and political maturity of the working class through democratization. Therefore, on the objective level, Kautsky believed modern industrial production was the material basis for constructing a "new civilization," particularly as industrial society shaped forms of cooperation. On the subjective level, Kautsky adhered to Enlightenment principles and modern forms of democracy, which were the core of his thought: "democracy" could only develop by including the working class, thereby becoming a tool for shaping a new society centered on common interests, solidarity, and equality, and continuously driving the democratization of the whole society through the democratization of laborers. Conceptually, Kautsky proposed the notion of "social freedom." He believed the development of industrial capitalism laid the foundation for a higher-level concept of "freedom"—not individualistic liberalism, but a social freedom adapted to the modern socio-economy: one that opposed hierarchical and dominant social relations while emphasizing rich individuality. Therefore, Kautsky tended to cling to ideals and principles. In his context, "revolution" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" were built upon the achievements of modern Western European civilization, with "democracy" as the core and the "socialist republic" as the vehicle.
(3) The Left's "New Conception of Civilization"
One of the fundamental positions of the Left was the establishment of friendly relations and comradely friendship with Soviet Russia. Behind this position was a reflection on, and even a critique of, the development of modern Western civilization: they believed the First World War had proven the imperialist nature of all national governments, and thus they opposed any "capitalist democratic system." Fundamentally, the Left sought to build a new system, new relations, a new society—in short, a new civilization. Luxemburg elaborated on this.
On one hand, Luxemburg believed that the socialist revolution was not just a struggle for institutional power, but also about establishing a new way of life and new social and cultural relations. To create a new society, one had to effect a fundamental transformation in people's thinking and way of life, thereby ensuring the spirit of freedom. Revolution was not a single coup d'état, but a long-term, permanent process of transformation involving the fundamental overhaul of social relations. During the German Revolution, Luxemburg remained committed to creating the foundation for a new society through a mass democratic movement supported by the majority, employing powerful socialist measures.
On the other hand, the "new civilization" Luxemburg sought to construct was a new form of democracy capable of stimulating the momentum of "everyone." She repeatedly emphasized democracy and the theoretical construction of a method allowing "everyone" to participate in politics, attempting to tap into and enhance the capacity of the proletarian masses to build a path toward a new society and non-exploitative relations of production. On this basis, Luxemburg believed that the proletarian revolution "bears the historical mission of transforming historical necessity into the actual, broad action of millions of the masses." To this end, she proposed a relevant agenda, emphasizing the importance of building a "socialist democracy": "distinction must be made between the class dictatorship and the party dictatorship"; "socialist democracy must be created to replace bourgeois democracy"; and dictatorship should "apply democratic methods," encouraging the masses to actively participate in the cause of socialist construction, subjecting leaders to the supervision of the entire public, and continuously advancing the political education of the masses. Thus, in Luxemburg’s context, "revolution" is equivalent to a long process of realizing democracy: the construction of a new "class dictatorship practiced with the maximum publicity, the most active and unhindered participation of the masses of the people, and unrestricted democracy." This can similarly be understood as the process of establishing a new "democratic civilization."
V. Conclusion: Understanding "Revolution" from a Holistic Perspective
The aforementioned debates demonstrate that different factions—and even those within the same faction—held vastly different understandings of the concept of revolution. To a certain extent, a partial and narrow understanding of the concept was a major cause of the failure of their respective practices. In the current historical process of promoting socialist development and advancing self-revolution and social revolution, it is necessary to draw on historical experiences and lessons, understanding the concept of "revolution" and advancing revolutionary practice from a holistic perspective.
(1) Drawing lessons from the structural imbalance in the understanding of "revolution"
The structural imbalance in the understanding of the concept of "revolution" was a primary cause of the split and antagonism between various parties, and ultimately, the failure of the revolution.
For the Right and even the Center, although they retained "socialism" in their discourse, they had moved far away from it in practice. They essentially replaced the essence and goals of revolution with a linear, neutral view of civilization and a "republic" based on the Enlightenment, transforming the concept of "revolution" into a synonym for "democracy." Consequently, in the eyes of the Right and the Center, the "democracy" developed in Western Europe since the early modern era was the greatest achievement of "civilized" progress; socialist revolution was merely a replication and promotion of this logic of progress. This logic is largely equivalent to "indiscriminately copying" the historical development of capitalism and promoting its continuous maturation. They effectively took the side of capitalism, transforming socialists into fellow travelers of the capitalist system, and turning the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) from an "anti-establishment" party into a participant in the capitalist system. Ultimately, they viewed capitalism as the absolute civilizational foundation of socialism, adopting a passive attitude of "waiting and asking" [7] toward capitalism rather than actively shaping a new modern civilization. Although Bernstein and others clearly recognized that many feudal elements remained in Germany and needed to be eliminated to transition gradually to "socialism," in practice, their logic of social development fell into a utopia due to an insistence on abstract "democratic" means. The theoretical logic of eliminating feudal elements to promote social progress was transformed in reality into a practical logic of compromising with feudal elements, making the "democratic republic" a tool of rule for the old forces. After the sacrifice of Liebknecht and others, Bernstein even went so far as to condemn them, believing they had led the working class "astray." Therefore, among the Right and the Center, the "means" and the "goal-essence" of the revolutionary concept became imbalanced; "democracy," instead of becoming a pillar for the progress of the "Republic" and "civilization," became an abstracted revolutionary standard, and socialism in practice became gradually de-ideologized and de-realized.
For the Left, although they understood the essence of revolution as shaping a new civilization and did not lower the level of revolutionary liberation, there were greater disagreements at the "means-goal" level, and a lack of unity in theory, organization, and action. They largely believed that the spontaneity of the working class and the masses could form unified means and goals. In practice, however, "spontaneity" generated many fragmented "means-goals," where different groups used a "means-goal" they advocated to represent the "essence." in the subsequent revolutionary practice in Germany, various subjects extended their advocated "means" infinitely, equating them with the new society and civilization the revolution aimed to shape. By infinitely elevating their own revolutionary character, they produced conflicts between various target goals and motivational principles, obscuring the realistic means and many staged goals required to truly realize the "essence." Therefore, among the Left, the "essence" and the "means-goal" of the revolutionary concept became imbalanced. The unity that a new society and civilization should have possessed disappeared, and instead became a symbol for different factions to demonstrate their own propositions, becoming an abstracted revolutionary standard. Socialism in practice became gradually fragmented and decentralized.
(2) Comprehenisvely understanding the concept of "revolution" from a holistic perspective
Historical experience shows that the structural imbalance in the understanding of the concept of "revolution" is highly detrimental to the socialist movement. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid both the Right and Center's abstraction of revolutionary means and the Left's abstraction of revolutionary essence. This requires understanding the concept of revolution from a holistic perspective. Returning to Marx and Engels, the concept of "revolution" is holistic; its internal multiple elements are interconnected and mutually supportive.
Regarding the "means" of revolution, this involves the dimension of the subject. In the view of Marx and Engels, the proletariat, as the revolutionary subject, should possess a twofold advanced nature. First is subjective advancement, reflected in the proletariat's mastery of "advanced philosophy," the formation of class consciousness, and an understanding of the laws of historical development and its own tasks, thereby constructing new social relations distinct from the personal dependency found in feudal landownership and the "reified dependency" [8] found in capitalist modes of production. Second is objective advancement, reflected in the fact that the working class within the new industrial organizational forms is not simply equivalent to any group that has lost the means of production, but specifically refers to laborers integrated with the industrial revolution. Historically, maintaining this twofold advancement undoubtedly requires the leadership of a proletarian party. On the basis of uniting the broad proletariat, one must avoid both the abstraction of means—using so-called "democracy" as a "mediational edification" to enhance the advancement of the proletariat—and the fragmentation of means—overemphasizing proletarian autonomy. The former easily leads to the de-ideologization of the proletariat itself, while the latter is detrimental to forming solidarity among the proletariat.
Regarding the "goal" of revolution, this involves the dimension of the object. In the context of Marx and Engels, the object of socialist revolution is not specific individuals, but the capitalist mode of production and the various "relations" it shapes; this is what Marx and Engels repeatedly elucidated as "social revolution." Revolution involves multiple fields—political, economic, cultural, and social—and its time span does not terminate with a "single event." Historically, when the revolutionary goal is lowered, the object of revolution changes; when the revolutionary goal is torn apart, the object of revolution easily becomes detached from reality. Therefore, for socialist practice, one can neither be detached from reality—splitting the maximum goal and the minimum program—nor dissolve one's own determinacy [9] by replacing the maximum goal with the minimum program. Especially for the socialist revolution, before the goal is fully realized, the revolution cannot be considered over.
Regarding the "essence" of revolution, this involves the dimension of motivation. The "ultimate" motivation of revolution should be to construct a new subject, a new goal, and a "new civilization." As the Communist Manifesto points out, the proletariat and its party have no interests separate from the whole; the liberation they demand is not only a process of "moving from the self to the non-self" at the level of "interests," but also a struggle to realize the free and comprehensive development of human beings through the establishment of a new mode of production and a new society that conforms to the laws of social development. Historically, when the essence of revolution is dissolved, the motivations of the proletariat and its party easily degenerate into "bourgeois or liberal generalities," becoming narrow factions and groups competing for self-interest within civil society. When the essence of revolution is abstracted, the motivations of the proletariat and its party easily become utopian, ignoring the combination of the proletariat’s realistic interests with its subjective advancement. Ignoring objective advancement itself makes it difficult to shape a new socialist modern civilization in reality and to continuously lay the foundation for a communist society.
(3) Promoting social development by maintaining a holistic balance in the understanding of "revolution"
Based on the above, we should understand the concept of "revolution" holistically and maintain the balance among the internal elements of the concept.
On one hand, we must maintain the balance between "means" and "goal-essence," so that the revolutionary subject can always confirm its own objects of revolution and adhere to its own revolutionary motivations. We cannot, like the Right and the Center, dissolve the revolutionary "essence" in the name of "democracy" as a means, and subsequently abandon the revolutionary subject. Therefore, we cannot replace socialist revolutionary means with means of developing capitalism, nor can we transform the revolutionary subject into a subject that promotes and maintains capitalist development. We cannot allow revolutionary motivation to degenerate into a dogmatic laissez-faire promotion of the "maturation" of capitalism, neutralizing capitalism itself as "civilization" or modern social development, nor equate the development of capitalism with socialism itself. The relationship between socialism and capitalism is not a sequential relationship of "civilization," but a relationship of negation of the negation, as well as an interactive relationship. The proletariat and its party can and should, before capitalism has perished and based on the existing landscape of industrialization and modernization, construct a path of modern social development that better reflects the free and comprehensive development of human beings and better serves the interests of the broad masses of laborers who do not own the means of production.
On the other hand, we must maintain the balance between "essence" and "means-goal," maintaining the unity of the revolutionary object and the revolutionary subject at the motivational level. We must learn from the historical lesson of the split in the revolutionary subject caused by the Left: practicing "chaos" in the name of the revolutionary "essence." In the revolution, the Left largely ignored the role of a new type of proletarian party, and different factions of the Left each believed the "means-goal" they advocated represented the "essence." Therefore, the socialist revolution should be led by a unified, advanced, new type of proletarian party. The proletariat and its party should stand on "subjective and objective advancement." On the basis of objective advancement, they should grasp the realistic logic of social development, master the general laws of industrialization and modernization, and construct unified and effective strategic tactics and paths of social development combined with reality. On the basis of subjective advancement, they should be able to "take themselves as the priority" [10], always remembering their "ultimate" motivation and revolutionary object, uniting and leading the broad proletariat and other masses to continuously promote social development and progress, and continuously construct new social relations.
Today, looking back at the historical lessons of the German "November Revolution" undoubtedly makes us better understand that the socialist revolution is always on the road. We cannot change the "essence" of the revolution or abandon the "goal" of the revolution in the name of "means"; nor can we misinterpret the "means" of the revolution or abstract the "goal" of the revolution in the name of its "essence." The understanding and cognition of the concept of "revolution" should always proceed from a holistic perspective. Narrowly adhering to any one element will dissolve the socialist revolution itself. Only in this way can we meet the requirements of the socialist revolution and unify the revolutionary "means" with the "goal-essence." In this sense, self-revolution and social revolution are always the eternal themes of a proletarian party.