Zakaria’s polished, urbane, and superficially cosmopolitan
narrative hinges on a core belief: that capitalism, despite its “excesses,” is
the only sustainable social system, and that its occasional crises can be
managed by wise elites. The book epitomizes the liberal-imperialist perspective
that has long shaped the American establishment, even as the underlying
material basis of that worldview crumbles.
The Meaning of Revolution in the Epoch of Capitalist
Breakdown
The current political elite, exemplified by figures like
Fareed Zakaria, claims we are in an “age of revolutions' marked by
technological, cultural, and political upheavals. However, this recurring
narrative in media and academia is a conscious misrepresentation, aiming to
hide the true essence of the era: the collapse of capitalism and the return of
global socialist revolution as the central issue of the 21st century.
Zakaria’s 2024 book, Age of Revolutions, exemplifies this
approach. It simplifies revolution to a sequence of technological advances and
policy issues, dismissing large-scale opposition to capitalism as mere
irrational “backlash.” This isn’t genuine analysis but ideological distortion.
It reflects the perspective of a ruling class that feels the ground changing
beneath it and tries to numb public awareness before the next major social
upheaval.
Later, we will observe that a Marxist view starts from a
different premise: revolutions are not simply psychological responses to
“progress,” but are the result of contradictions within capitalism itself. They
occur when the advancement of productive forces clashes with existing property
relations and state power structures. Unlike other theories, they are propelled
not by elites but by the working class, which is the only social force capable
of restructuring society based on rationality, democracy, and internationalism.
The meaning of revolution in history lies in the bourgeois
revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries, especially the French Revolution of
1789. These revolutions weren't driven simply by “ideas” or enlightened elites;
rather, they were the inevitable result of a deep contradiction: the growth of
capitalist production emerging from the decline of feudal society. For the
bourgeoisie to expand the national market, establish modern law, or develop
industrial production, they had to dismantle the aristocratic order.
The French Revolution clearly reveals the limitations of
Zakaria’s framework. Events like the storming of the Bastille, the end of
feudal dues, the radical actions of the sans-culottes, the Jacobin
dictatorship, and Napoleon’s rise were not merely setbacks against progress.
Instead, they represented class struggle in a society transitioning between
modes of production. The Revolution was not carried out according to the wishes
of “moderate” elites; it was propelled by the masses, whose material interests
pushed them beyond bourgeois constitutional limits. The Terror was not an
irrational derailment but a desperate effort by the revolutionary class to
defend itself against internal counter-revolution and external invasion.
Zakaria’s narrative fails to explain these aspects because
it does not include a concept of class, overlooks the role of the state as a
tool of class domination, and ignores that revolutions stem from objective
contradictions rather than elite mismanagement.
Revolution Without Class: Zakaria’s Historical Method
Zakaria’s view on “revolution" reveals his core
ideological stance. Traditionally, in Marxism, revolution involves a
fundamental change in social relations, a transfer of political power between
classes, and the overthrow of outdated modes of production. However, Zakaria
redefines the term by stripping it of class significance. To him, revolutions
are mainly technological, commercial, or administrative changes—like the rise
of global trade, digital technology, and market expansion. By grouping events
such as the Dutch Revolt, the Glorious Revolution, the Industrial Revolution,
and the internet into a single category, he blurs the line between
revolutionary rupture and capitalist development.
This is not just an innocent analytical decision; it's a
political strategy. By framing revolution as ongoing innovations within
capitalism, Zakaria rules out any possibility of a true revolution against the
system. History then appears as a tale of constant progress, wisely guided by
elites, with only unlucky moments of 'backlash' disrupting it.
The “Progress and Backlash” Mythology
Zakaria’s core interpretive framework—that each phase of
progress ultimately provokes a backlash—serves as a liberal morality tale.
“Progress” is characterised by expanding markets, globalisation, and liberal
institutions. Conversely, 'backlash' encompasses resistance or disruption of
this process, such as working-class opposition to deindustrialisation, mass
protests against austerity, anti-imperialist movements, and even right-wing
populist responses.
This schema clearly serves an ideological purpose: it
dismisses all forms of mass opposition to capitalism as irrational resentment.
The working class protesting plant closures and social issues isn't defending
their material interests; they're simply reacting with a 'backlash.' Likewise,
populations resisting imperialist control aren't engaged in anti-colonial
struggles; they are emotionally responding to “progress.' What Zakaria fails to
recognise is that the ‘backlash’ he criticises is actually a consequence of the
‘progress’ he champions.
Zakaria’s framework conceals the basic truth that the social
crises over the past fifty years—such as inequality, war, and democratic
decline—are not just anomalies but inevitable results of global capitalism.
The Erasure of the Russian Revolution
No liberal perspective on “progress” can accept the Russian
Revolution, which remains the most significant challenge to capitalism ever.
Unsurprisingly, Zakaria minimises the October Revolution, seeing it as an
example of excess rather than a crucial historical milestone. The revolution
demonstrated that the working class could seize power, overthrow the
bourgeoisie, and establish a new social order, alarming ruling elites across
imperialist countries and shaping the entire 20th century. Yet, Zakaria
considers it merely a “backlash"—a mass political uprising that got out of
elite control. This reflects the Whig view of history in neoliberal guise:
history as the gradual improvement of liberal capitalism, with regrettable
deviations that must be managed.
The Real Contradiction Zakaria Cannot Resolve.
Zakaria recognises a real contradiction: the conflict
between a globalised economy and a political system based on nation-states.
However, he fails to see that this contradiction is an intrinsic aspect of
capitalism itself. The worldwide integration of production clashes with the
national structures of private property and sovereignty. This fundamental
contradiction has led to major conflicts such as World Wars I and II, as well
as to current trends such as trade wars, militarism, and geopolitical
fragmentation.
Zakaria’s suggestion—improving international coordination
and enhancing global governance—is unrealistic. The capitalist nation-state
system cannot be unified through elite diplomacy alone. It can only be replaced
by the international working class, which must act deliberately to reshape the
world economy based on socialist principles.
A Book for a Frightened Ruling Class
Ultimately, Age of Revolutions serves more as a political
tool for the ruling elite than an in-depth historical analysis. It aims to
preserve a faltering system, justify its associated suffering, and weaken the
rising efforts of workers. The document explicitly states: “It is an
ideological document – a defence of a social order that has lost its historical
raison d’être.” Currently, the global situation points to the beginning of a
new revolutionary period: the world economy is facing persistent crises marked
by stagnation, inflation, and the dominance of parasitic finance capital.
Additionally, the nation-state structure is eroding, resulting in trade
conflicts, shifting geopolitical alliances, and unprecedented military
conflicts since 1945.
Democratic institutions are weakening as ruling classes
resort to authoritarian tactics, censorship, and repression. Workers are
starting to push back through widespread strikes across Europe and the
Americas, as well as uprisings in the Global South. Technological advancements
have reached a point where the rational and strategic organisation of the
global economy is not only possible but essential to human survival. These are
not just minor disruptions to be managed by enlightened elites; they reflect
symptoms of a system that has fulfilled its historical role. The true “Age of
Revolutions" is upon us.
The ruling class fears the word “revolution” because it
senses that the conditions for a new revolutionary wave are maturing. It
therefore attempts to redefine the term to mean anything except the transfer of
power from one class to another. But the real age of revolutions lies not in
the past but in the future. The contradiction between the global character of
production and the national character of the capitalist state system cannot be
resolved through diplomacy, regulation, or technocratic management.
Zakaria’s book is a symptom of a ruling class that senses
its own fragility but cannot conceive of an alternative to its domination. It
offers no serious analysis of the crises engulfing the world, only a plea for
patience and trust in the very elites who have presided over decades of
disaster. Against this liberal fatalism stands the Marxist understanding of
history: that the contradictions of capitalism will give rise to revolutionary
movements of the working class, and that the future of humanity depends on the
conscious struggle for socialism.
