p A social revolution is an upheaval in the course of whicfy fl< transition is effected from one historically outdated socio-economic formation to  ahother,(jmore progressive)one.

p A social revolution is not something accidental in social development; it is an inevitable consequence of the aggravation of the contradictions that developed within the dominant mode of production. A conflict between the new productive forces and obsolete production relations is resolved in the course of a revolution.^ Progressive forces seek to change the obsolete production relations, but the latter are the backbone of the domination of the reactionary class, which opposes any changes in these relations, relying, primarily, on the state power which has the means of suppression at its disposal. In order, therefore, to alter the obsolete production relations, power has to be wrested from the class related to these production relations, i.e. a revolution has to be carried out.

p The passing of state power horn one class to anotherjgjhc prinripnl the. h^tfc sign of a revolution.  [411•1  This is the feature by which a social 412 revolution differs from a putsch or coup d’etat which, without affecting the foundations of the domination of a particular class, just lead to a change in the government of the ruling class.

p This is how Lenin defined the political aspect of a revolution: “The revolution itself is nothing but the break-up of old superstructures and the independent action of the various classes, each striving to erect the new superstructure in its own way.”  [412•1 

p The revolutionary transformation does not, however, end with the take-over of power by the progressive class. A social revolution presupposes radical changes not only in politics, but also in all other realms of social life, in particular, in the economy, ideology, social psychology and so forth. The whole social organism and the entire system of social relations and institutions change and are renewed during a social revolution.

While emphasising the decisive role of a revolution in the transition from one socio-economic formation to another, historical materialism does not deny the existence of evolutionary processes in the social development, resulting in definite progressive changes within the same socio- economic formation. In contrast to the reformists, however, who consider evolution to be the basic form of social progress and the way of transition from one socio-economic formation to a more advanced one, historical materialism views the evolutionary form as a secondary one, capable of 413 bringing about certain qualitative changes within the same substance but unable to ensure transition to a new social system. It is a revolution that is required for a change-over from a historically outdated social system to another, more advanced one, since only revolution can effect a radical break-up of existing social forms and a transformation of the life of society. It is not by chance that Communists advocate revolution as a way of passing from capitalism to socialism. This, of course, does not mean that Communists are against evolutionary forms, in particular, reforms. They deny neither reforms nor the necessity of fighting for them.