Continuous Revolution

In large part, a revolutionary is someone who revolutionizes social relations above all else. Lenin, Mao, Gandhi, Khomeini, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and some others were revolutionaries in the sense that by disavowing themselves of Western capitalist social relations, they were able to revolutionize the basic social relations of the whole of their societies. Kissinger characterized a revolutionary personality in the following manner: “Revolutionaries are, by their nature, powerful and single-minded personalities. Almost invariably they start from a position of weakness vis-à-vis the political environment and rely for their success on charisma and on an ability to mobilize resentment and to capitalize on the psychological weakness of adversaries in decline.”

Over the course of time, revolutionaries gain the psychological advantage over their adversaries as a result of the decline which stems from the very basic character and nature of Western capitalist social relations. In a sense, much of China’s rise in recent decades and the relative decline of the United States vis-à-vis China is psychological in nature, given that the balance of power itself is mostly psychological. Moreover, revolutionaries do not necessarily have concrete political goals. In a sense, the goal of revolution is revolution, given that revolution is something which is “continuous.” In a sense, continuous revolution is a purification process. We infer this from Mao and the Chinese experience. To borrow from Kissinger: 

“Mao’s ultimate objectives could not be expressed in a single organizational structure or be fulfilled by realizing a specific set of political objectives. His goal was to sustain the process of revolution itself, which he felt it was his special mission to carry on through ever greater upheavals, never permitting a resting point until his people emerged from the ordeal purified and transformed.”

It is this continuous flow and the ability to harness the energy behind not having to stop at a particular point or goal which gave revolutionary figures like Mao the psychological advantage over the West, despite the fact that there was an economic and material asymmetry between China and the West during Mao’s reign. Not only does the process of continuous revolution transform the revolutionaries themselves, but the process also transforms the adversary as well. This process of continuous revolution is transformative because it is transformative as a whole, not just in part. It takes the world by storm, as we saw with Marx and some others. Mao characterized this process of “continuous revolution” in the following manner:

“Our revolutions are like battles. After a victory, we must at once put forward a new task. In this way, cadres and the masses will forever be filled with revolutionary fervor, instead of conceit. Indeed, they will have no time for conceit, even if they like to feel conceited. With new tasks on their shoulders, they are totally preoccupied with the problems for their fulfillment.” 

The whole process is a process of continuous flow, not of stagnation. Western capitalist social relations first and foremost generate a kind of stagnation which then translates into a systemic crisis. Continuous revolution, on the other hand, does not permit stagnation. Mao also explained why revolution must be continuous and endless: 

“The cycle, which is endless, evolves from disequilibrium to equilibrium and then to disequilibrium again. Each cycle, however, brings us to a higher level of development. Disequilibrium is normal and absolute whereas equilibrium is temporary and relative.”

Hence, the contention that socialism and the socialist model, even if it cannot be utopian, is nevertheless scientific in character and nature. But there is also a dilemma which is immanent in continuous revolution, in the sense that an openness to others will disrupt the process of continuous revolution. There is a clash between continuous revolution on one hand and openness to others on the other hand, which in turn leads to conflict and war. It was this dilemma which Mao was never able to fully resolve during his lifetime. As Kissinger wrote: 

“But how can a state in permanent upheaval participate in the international system? If it applies the doctrine of continuous revolution literally, it will be involved in constant turmoil and, likely, in war. The states that prize stability will unite against it. But if it tries to shape an international order open to others, a clash with the votaries of continuous revolution is inevitable. This dilemma beset Mao all his life and was never finally resolved.” 

Nor has the dilemma really been resolved after Mao, as is evinced by current affairs and the apparent course of action which China is taking in response to American foreign policy. While seeking to maintain a balance between openness to others and the continuous revolution which Mao put into place, eventually, China will perhaps have to choose one or the other in response to American foreign policy and the Western capitalist social relations which in turn shape American foreign policy.